PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Jaybird180 on March 10, 2016, 09:04:00 AM
-
I've always wondered why legislation is written in a way that forces lawmakers to choose to accept good and bad in the same bills. Why can't laws be written that address one issue and only one issue? Can we get rid of the quid pro quo? I think it would be good for the country.
This is an example of the conflict that it forces upon lawmakers
https://www.facebook.com/mark.montana.94/videos/10209088078148566/
No opinion stated about Mr Sanders' position on the issues
-
Several states have a "single issue" rule codified in their constitutions.
Under such rules, bills that combine multiple subjects are not valid laws.
-
Since this has been thought of before I must conclude (in the absence of other rationale) that lawmakers want to obfuscate the laws
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/how-about-a-federal-single-subject-rule/article/2555099
-
Since this has been thought of before I must conclude (in the absence of other rationale) that lawmakers want to obfuscate the laws
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/how-about-a-federal-single-subject-rule/article/2555099
well, yeah, how else can they accomplish compromise? ;-)
Would you trust a fellow congresscritter to vote your way on a separate bill if you gave his bill support? Nooooooo.
-
Compromise. It is the bedrock of most Democracies. Used to be a way to compromise was to give someone some Federal money in their district in return for their support. That went by the wayside, and Congress has been irretrievably broken ever since.
-
Since this has been thought of before I must conclude (in the absence of other rationale) that lawmakers want to obfuscate the laws
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/how-about-a-federal-single-subject-rule/article/2555099 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/how-about-a-federal-single-subject-rule/article/2555099)
Is this conclusion (that lawmakers want to obfuscate the laws) is some way in dispute or controversial? I thought it was pretty much a given.
-
well, yeah, how else can they accomplish compromise? ;-)
Would you trust a fellow congresscritter to vote your way on a separate bill if you gave his bill support? Nooooooo.
This is what needs to be done away with. Voting the merits of a bill should be the point not some later favor.
-
The PBOR and FAA funding are prime examples of this.
-
The PBOR and FAA funding are prime examples of this.
better example: that steaming pile of manure called obamacare
-
Any bill using the words "Omnibus" means "So ladened with pork that we are utterly embarrassed to even show you the crap that's in here."
-
Any bill using the words "Omnibus" means "So ladened with pork that we are utterly embarrassed to even show you the crap that's in here."
The first major change they need on that front is to move to a 2 year appropriation cycle.
Congress spends so much time every year on appropriations, that at the end they're not done and they just cram everything together into one Omnibus to fund the government. Then they do it again the next year.
Do a 2 year cycle, then you still have accountability each election for the House, but you also spend approximately the same effort for twice the benefit. Programs don't change that much year to year that the 1 year appropriations give any meaningful additional control.