So, it passed.

[unixronin]

The "emergency" military spending bill, that is, by a unanimous 100-0 vote of the Senate.  Naturally, some of the senators present wrung their hands and lamented the unwiseness, danger, etc. of the Real ID Act attached to it as a rider, but voted for it anyway.

Not like they ever had any other intention, huh?  This practice of appending unpopular bills, or those deemed likely to be ill-received by the public, as riders to bills that "must be passed" will continue until our Congressmen stop voting for any bill which has such a parasitic rider attached to it, REGARDLESS of how "vital" and "necessary" it is.  But really, what reason do they have to do so?  The current practice of riders is good for them.  It allows them to whine and wring their hands and decry a bill that they know the public will not like, then go back to their offices to gloat over having gotten it passed while publicly looking as though they had opposed it.

What's needed here is very simple.  What's needed is an act that unconditionally bars the attachment of riders to bills, period.  Germane or not, supporting or opposed, popular or unpopular -- it doesn't matter.  Ban them all.  If we try to ban only non-germane riders, there will only be endless argument about the definitions of "germane", "rider", "attach", and "is".  Let everything stand or fall on its own merit.  Allow ONLY amendments that alter the existing language of a bill, and then only with the agreement of the bill's author(s).  If you don't think your bill can pass on its own merit, then maybe you shouldn't be trying to pass it in the first place.

And while we're at it, no more of this "Insert the words 'not in any regard' into line three of paragraph fourteen of page ninety-seven of chapter four of the Intentionally Obfuscated Mumbling Act of 2004, after the word 'shall'" crap.  Spell out what you're doing and cite the entire sentence you're changing -- if you're changing "The Transport Security Agency shall be answerable to Congress..." to "The Transport Security Agency shall not in any regard be answerable to Congress....", you should be required to admit what you're doing and not hide it behind little fragmentary changes.

This would be a crucial step to getting our Congress back under control and putting an end to bullshit like trying to sneak the Real ID Act in under the radar.  And that, of course, is exactly why Congress always has, and always will fight any such legislative reform tooth and nail.

"This reform would serve the public good .... well, FUCK the public good."

(And yes, you can take those last five words either way.)

Comments

[elegantelbow.livejournal.com]

public fuck the good well.

[sierra-nevada.livejournal.com]

I'd love this.

Unfortunately, various states have tried it in their legislatures, and it's too easy to get around. It's like six degrees of Kevin Bacon: how tenuously does something have to be related to be "germane"?

In the end, this has to be fixed the hard way, over time: educate the electorate, convince them of your argument on its merits, and then have them vote the bastards that behave this way out of office.

It's depressing, I know, but ...

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

That's exactly why allowing only "germane" attachments won't work: because the bastards will try everything they can think of to stretch and exploit the definition of "germane". This is why I said, no attachments whatsoever -- only amendments to correct or clarify the wording of the original bill, correct omissions, etc. If you want to add something that was not covered in the original bill, even if it's germane, tough; submit it as a separate bill after the bill passes, or to be considered with the original bill but not tied to passage of the original bill, but you are not permitted to actually attach anything to the bill -- all you can do is amend its wording, and only with the consent of the author(s).

[sierra-nevada.livejournal.com]

Heh. "consent of the author(s)"?

That's a loophole that you can drive a tank through. Ever heard of Logrolling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logrolling)?

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

It's not much of a loophole if even the author is allowed only to amend , correct or clarify wording, and is not allowed to add anything substantive that is not contained in the original bill. Even the original author, if he decides that he should have made his Regulation of Horse-Drawn Carriages Act of 2045 apply to ox-carts as well, should bloody well have to submit a separate bill to make it so.

If they're going to be sneaking, lying bastards about it, I have no compunction whatsoever about throwing obstacles and hurdles in their way until they can't get anything done at all, if that's what it takes to keep them from finding ways to violate their oath of office in spirit while posing for the press and lamenting that they didn't really have any choice other than to declare everyone with annual income under $50,000 a non-person because it was tied to the essential, vital Re-Upholstering of Congressperson's Office Chairs Act of 2022.

[olafthunderfoot.livejournal.com]

i told you we were fucked!

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Well, there was always the chance they'd pay attention to over 10,000 faxes.

A slim chance, but a chance.

[olafthunderfoot.livejournal.com]

not with a repungnican majority they won't. hiel dictator bush!