h a l f b a k e r y
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
Sneaky politicians will try to further their agenda by attaching
unlikely to get passed to issues that are highly likely to get
on the same bill. 2 things usually happen as a result of this. The
highly popular and responsible issue is rejected because of the
to it, and as a result something important
doesn't get done, or the whole bill is passed because the big
item is so important we just take the bad thing that's attached to
in a compromise. Either way, Americans lose out on the deal.
Well how's about we make a little change to the bill submission
policy. EVERY ISSUE SUBMITTED MUST BE SUBMITTED
SINGULARLY, IN ITS OWN BILL WITH NOTHING ELSE
Now, some things will seem like separate issues but really aren't.
For instance, say the bill is intended to mandate a language
program at all public schools. This programs needs to be paid for,
so the bill may also propose a new tax to pay for it. As long as it
clearly stated what the tax is for and that the tax will be used
to finance THAT ISSUE, it may be submitted jointly.
What will NOT be allowed is a law changing the government
employee dress code to allow 'casual Friday', and attaching a tax
break for the wealthy. They are completely unrelated, thus they
be submitted separately.
I should have known somebody would already have addressed this...
At least I searced the 'bakery first - this was the first result. [normzone, Sep 16 2011]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
||It's most often called 'earmarking', and, now that we're rid
of the Unpresident and his cronies, the legislative
bodies are actually trying to do something about it (it was
an Obama plank). Like
pretty much every attempt to change something in the
legislative process, these efforts are progressing slowly and
meeting many roadblocks. Check back in ten or twenty
years and we'll have seen the end of earmarking, because
it will have been replaced with some other form of sneaky,
||Isn't Bill Relevancy the anchor on NBC evening news?
||Your best idea yet, and that's saying something!
||I believe several states already have this in their legislative process. The major effect has been the addition of a page of very convoluted reasoning explaining why the two items are related.
||// the addition of a page of very convoluted reasoning
explaining why the two items are related. //
|| // some other form of sneaky, underhanded bullshit. //
||It would be nice - almost nothing would get done.
|| Now tack on a mandatory periodic expiration period for all legislature. If it was serious they'd reestablish it, if not then bye-bye.
||Just like The Good Fairy Jenny's restrictions upon [The
Alterother]'s junk collection.
||// The Good Fairy Jenny's restrictions ... on ...junk collection //
|| This is clearly some new, different and ironical use of the word "Good" that we were not previously aware of ...
||The Good Fairy Jenny is [The Alterother]'s wife, sirs, and
for that insult, I once again find myself forced to challenge
you to a duel.
|| <sound of glove smacking collective cheeks/>
||//mandatory expiration period for all legislature.// I assume you meant "legislation".
But I'm actually hoping you meant exactly what you said.
||Well, now that you mention it, my enthusiasm does exceed my grammar on occasion. Although your idea does have merit.
|| The [Alterother] / [8th of 7] duel would be a great pay-per-view event. But my experience with such matters is that geographic proximity limitations tends to cool tempers after the initial responses are exchanged.
|| I though there might be an idea in there, but it's been done before (link).
||TGFJ and I fully intend to visit the UK again. We can only
hope the Borg will rise to the occasion. Until then, our
little spats must be limted to the pages of this forum. As
an upside, this means they're free to watch and seating is