[dragonwriter]

> I’m tired of politicians earning headlines simply by expressing what they “want” to do.

“Want” here is not an accurate description of the article’s content, the original article doesn’t use it in the headline (which says “are trying to”) and the content addresses concrete measures, mostly that are already in place though one is still moving through the legislative process.

EDIT: replaced “an invention of the HN submitter” with “not an accurate description of the article’s content”, as another comment points out it came from the URL.

[anonymouskimmer]

It's not an invention of the submitter, it's the article title in the HTML header, which differs from the article title visible on the webpage.

[scotuswroteus]

Point taken.

And yet, proposing concrete measures still shouldn't generate press. The question is what is the bill's sponsor doing to generate a majority to pass it.

[dragonwriter]

Again, there is only one active proposal discussed, most of the government actions in the article are recently adopted and already in place. (Or in one case, that represents a leading edge model, adopted in 1999 and already in place.)