Niteshift

(It might not sound as radical, until you really think about the depth of the change and how the practice is common on in federal and state legislatures.)


During this campaign, I've listened to the candidates talk about how the other one voted for/against something. BOTH sides have done it a bunch of times.

You know what I'm talking about......"Kerry voted against the F-14" etc.

Technically, these claims are true. The particular person voted against a particular bill on a particular day.

But what neither side tells you is that they voted FOR it another time in many cases.

This isn't about "flip flopping" or anything else in many cases, it's about the damned amendments and riders attached to so many bills.

A bill starts out as a measure to fund the F-18 Hornet, but by the time it is finished, voting for the bill also included passing highway funds, an education measure and a subsidy for some special interest group. That leaves a legislator who WANTS to fund the F-18 in the position of having to vote against it if he disagrees with the subsidy or the other programs attached to it.

My proposal is simple: NO MORE RIDERS. NO amendments that don't SPECIFICALLY pertain to the topic.

These amendments and riders are how things get passed that wouldn't normally get passed.

Likewise, they are used to stop legislation that the majority of legislators WANT to pass, but that a minority attach something unrelated to in order to stop it.

A perfect example is a tactic used to stop bills by attaching gun control legislation onto highway funding or funding for judicial measures.

Why is this bad? It slows progress and it creates deception.

Let me give you an example: Say there was a Senate bill to pass child pornography legislation. Of course most people support laws against child pornography. Now what happens is that a small group decides that they want to use a bill that is a "no-brainer" to get their pet cause passed as well. So they add on an amendment (let's make something up here) making the Senators put a multi-million dollar research facility to study skin cancer in Detroit.

Now that wouldn;t make as much sense, since skin cancer is much more prevelant in states with sunny days year around.

That leaves the Senator in a quandry. Does he vote for the law he supports, knowing that it funds a facility going into a place that makes no sense (and is there as a "pork barrel" project to help pump money and votes into an area that gets the considereable govt. money)? Or does he vote against the measure because it mis-spends millions of dollars?

If he votes against it, then someone campaigning against him can (technically) truthfully say "Senator X voted against child porn laws". Well, that IS true. But that doesn't mean that he is sagainst kiddie porn laws or supports kiddie porn in any way. It means he was trying to be fiscally responsible.

If he votes for it, someone campaigning against him can claim that he helped mis-spend millions of dollars placing a govt. facility in an illogical place.


Some will vote for the law, deciding that the law is a greater good than the misspent money is an evil.

But is that how we want to do business? And is that the best way to do business?

I say NO! It's not the best way and it's not the way we should be doing business.

The congress (House and Senate) can eliminate this practice. I think, as voters, we should pressure them to do so. Not as Republicans, Democrats or whatever, but as Americans.

This happens on the state level as well. I talked with a state legislator that has voted against HIS OWN BILL because of all the amednments and riders attached to it by the end.

This practice slows progress, forces things that most people don't want into happening and creates the basis for confusing claims later on in campaigns.

I think it's something that needs changed.

__________________
A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. -Thomas Sowell

Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is muzzle flash.

CrazyHair

I think this is one of those things we'll all agree on but can't do anything about like abolishing the two party system.

Good idea but things have progressed too much for the system itself to make these changes and people don't care enough to do what's necesarry to circumvent the system.

__________________
Freedom is free, war costs 165 billion dollars... at last count.

Hiz Highness

I agree with the proposal. In fact, wasn't that exactly why the president was granted a line-item veto?

Adding unacceptable riders to bills is just an underhanded way of killing legislation, or grabbing up funds for pork-barrel projects. I have never understood why we let riders be added to legislation and I would certainly vote to end the practice.

-HH

Plainsman1963

Has anyone after Clinton used the line item veto? I really thought that was going to make a difference.

Yeah, at times I can be romantic.

I agree that riders and amendments are used to fund pork barrel projects and should be abolished.

CheebaMonkey

I thought the line item veto was ruled unconstitutional because it gave the president too much power?

Anyways, like CH said, I think we could all agree that it's a good idea.

BTW Niteshift, where have you been? I was wondering why the boards were more peaceful lately.

__________________

Niteshift

"It's a nice idea, but it'll never happen".

Really? Do you suppose those words were ever uttered about women's voting rights? School desegregation? The abolition of slavery? The Independence of the US?

Or the legalization of marijuana?


My how easily we give up.

Higher Logic

Where have YOU been Cheebs?! Nice post, NS

__________________
Crucial Web Hosting · Garden's Cure · Marijuana Recipes · Drug Testing Facts

Dilution · Substitution · Urine Testing · Hair Testing · Drug Testing FAQ