You're creating a straw man (perhaps accidentally) which makes your argument seem such stronger than it is against the actual proposals.

Neither the comment you replied to, nor the proposed law, suggest the limit should be solely government bonds, which is what you're arguing against in your comment, they both say government bonds OR publicly traded diverse stock funds, for example ETFs.

Maybe you still believe that's restrictive enough to be a problem, but considering many people, even the likes of Warren Buffet, consider the best investment advice to be either "just invest in ETF/funds that track the whole market" or "just invest in a mix of ETFs/funds and also some bonds", while nobody considers "just invest in government bonds" to be good advice, your argument would be a hell if a lot weaker if actually applied to what IS being proposed rather than pretending that the proposal only allows investing in government bonds.