This needs to stop

[Mythsaje]

Lately it's become common knowledge that the Republican Congress has been attaching a LOT of riders to unrelated bills (particularly budgetary bills) that have nothing to do with the item in question, and slip totally inappropriate measures into law with very little debate.

This needs to stop. Somehow a provision needs to be set up to make this sort of thing illegal, or at least not permissable. If a measure isn't good enough to stand on its own merits--particularly when ran up the flag by the majority party--it shouldn't be attached to an appropriations bill in order to make certain it passes.

One way or another we need to attack this practice and make anyone who uses it as uncomfortable about it as we possibly can.

Anyone with me on this?

[Pryderi]

1. Like the RealID Act that was attached to the Iraq War Spending bill?

[Mythsaje]

3. Great example

of exactly what I'm talking about. It's ludicrous that they keep getting away with this crap.

[silverweb]

2. I agree.

Each bill should be limited in its scope and should exclude anything that's unrelated. Easier said than done, I'm sure.

[Mythsaje]

4. The only people

with the authority to make this happen are the ones who are doing it.

Sad as THAT is.

[SouthernDem2004]

5. It is called the Line Item Veto. Presidents have wanted it for a while.

[ebayfool]

16. Didn't the Supreme Court rule against the line item veto w/Clinton?

It was intro'd by repubs & fought by dems. Congress needs to act to curb these 'riders' by changing their rules (not likely in today's atmosphere, I know!). I'm not too sure @ the line item veto - I sure wouldn't want to see what *ush would cut w/that power ... just think of the damage he would do to environmental, health, low-income, etc funding programs! There has to be a better way.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/1997-98/lineitem.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/wp062698.htm

snip/

In a 6 to 3 decision, the court held that the line-item veto law violates a constitutional requirement that legislation be passed by both houses of Congress and presented in its entirety to the president for signature or veto.

[punpirate]

6. It's been this way for eons...

... but, what's made it a particularly pernicious practice is that Republicans are inserting amendments in conference upon which no one has debated or voted and expecting a vote the next day. That's new.

But, I have to ask--Republicans have control of both houses of Congress--so, how does one change this? You can complain all you want, but you'll be ignored by the people in power.

The only way to change it is to change the balance of power through the next election. Any other demands for change will fall on deaf ears.

Edit for syntax.

[Mythsaje]

7. Oh, I agree

Come the revolution (or, at least, the evolution of this maniacal administration into a more reasonable centrist or Democratic administration) we need to push them into changing the rules to make this more difficult. Maybe it's the Line item veto, or maybe it's just forbidding a unconnected rider from being attached to a specific type of bill.

[punpirate]

12. It has nothing to do with the line-item veto...

... that's an executive function, and it's already been struck down by the Supreme Court.

But, it's been going on for a long time, and it's worth looking at it from the other point of view, at least traditionally. When Democrats were in the minority in the Senate, for example, they could add riders for essential legislation that met the requirements of at least some Republicans, and those were relatively protected in conference because there was some Republican majority support.

What's different now is that many of the amendments are being added in the dark of night, without review, and generally are for the benefit of corporations (which garners enough Democratic support in conference to prevent interference).

As now practiced, it's pernicious. But, it still comes back to voting out the assholes who've made it commonplace, Republicans and Democrats alike.

Admittedly, I've always expressed some reticence for the practice, but it's a political tool--a way of getting something of what one wants as opposed to getting nothing. Today, however, the practice is being subverted into a wholesale giveaway to corporations and the right wing--without any accountability--something that simply would not have flown two or three decades ago.

But, killing it only works, to you, if your party is in power--much the same situation with the so-called "nuclear option." If your party never expects to lose power, fine. But, that happens (or, at least, it did until recently).

Cheers.

[Mythsaje]

13. Being struck down by the Supreme Court

convinces me of nothing. They've made too many questionable rulings in the past several years for me to have any faith in their alleged wisdom.

But I agree with your comments. If they didn't expect to stay in power forever (which they obviously do, considering their over-bearing arrogance) they should consider the precedence of what they do.

I think they believe their own hype a little too much.

[SnoopDog]

8. Agreed. I too have been thinking about this...

I would say that each and every bill be finite and related to but one subject. It is asinine to have a bill that deals with 'appropriations' and attached something like the 'real id' act. Totally asinine.

Also, each and every bill must have 7 business days for review by each member of Congress. No 'here is the bill - now vote'. Every Congress person must have time to fully read and understand the contents of a bill.

[Mythsaje]

9. Yes!

They need to be given time to study the bill before being expected to sign off on it. These ambush tactics are yet another way of sneaking things through unnoticed.

Maybe, assuming we can get a real democratic administration and congress into place, we can sponsor legislation that would change the rules as far as this sort of things goes.

[WhollyHeretic]

10. They wouldn't be able to get away with this crap

if we had anything resembling competent media in this country. The entire MSM is a shameful lot and are responsible for many of the problems of our country.

[Mythsaje]

14. Agreed

if the media was doing its job, it would be a LOT harder for them to sneak this stuff through without debate.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mythsaje]

15. I hadn't really paid attention to that

There's a lot of that sort of thing going on in here, be it vs. Clarke, Hilary, Dean, or anyone else. I personally like Clarke, but I'm disturbed by his new job with Fox News. Hard to be to tough and hard-hitting when you're "owned" by the propaganda arm of the Republican Party.