Should Legislative Issues Be Subjected To A Simple Up or Down Vote?

[Patranus]

Simple question.

Should legislative issues in front of Congress be subject to an up or down vote?

If you want a bridge to nowhere, give it an up or down vote, don't jam it in some other legislation that isn't related to it.
You want to set tax rates? Give them an up or down vote. Unemployment has nothing to do with them.
Think 40 million should be spent on cheetah research? Don't jam it in some other legislation.

I believe legislation should be able to stand on its own legs. I think that if Congress was forced to vote on each issue, a lot less shenanigans would go on in both parties and the country would be better off.

 

[darkewaffle]

Better option is to make a facebook page for it and decide based on likes/dislikes.

 

[dullard]

How do you expect to ever get a compromise if a bill can only have one side in it?

 

[theeedude]

We would have had a public option with up and down vote (no 60 vote filibsuters).

 

[fskimospy]

Simple question.

Should legislative issues in front of Congress be subject to an up or down vote?

If you want a bridge to nowhere, give it an up or down vote, don't jam it in some other legislation that isn't related to it.
You want to set tax rates? Give them an up or down vote. Unemployment has nothing to do with them.
Think 40 million should be spent on cheetah research? Don't jam it in some other legislation.

I believe legislation should be able to stand on its own legs. I think that if Congress was forced to vote on each issue, a lot less shenanigans would go on in both parties and the country would be better off.

This would be a horrible idea. Say you want to pass some new law along with the taxes to pay for it. What happens if the new law gets passed but the new tax fails? It only makes sense to bundle them together.

Now of course you might say that things which are related to one another can be bundled, but not random other things. Who would make that call though? Whoever that was, you would be vesting an enormous amount of power in one person, exactly what the legislature is designed to prevent. On top of that, it would remove the ability to link issues and destroy important avenues of deal making.

 

[piasabird]

Yes we need no more of these practice votes. Either it passes the first time or it can not be reintroduced for at least 1 year.

Then the president should have line-item-veto also.

The funny thing is that sometimes it is the people voting for the bill that are promised items that are added onto the legislation. Lately some people just say they will not vote for something hoping they can get some added on funding for their pet project. This has gotten rediculous. It is just bribery.

 

[chucky2]

Simple question.

Should legislative issues in front of Congress be subject to an up or down vote?

If you want a bridge to nowhere, give it an up or down vote, don't jam it in some other legislation that isn't related to it.
You want to set tax rates? Give them an up or down vote. Unemployment has nothing to do with them.
Think 40 million should be spent on cheetah research? Don't jam it in some other legislation.

I believe legislation should be able to stand on its own legs. I think that if Congress was forced to vote on each issue, a lot less shenanigans would go on in both parties and the country would be better off.

Yes. However, they just can't request a bridge to no where, they need to request where that funding will come from. Then before going for vote, whatever body/group slots funding should need to verify where the money out of the federal budget will come from, reserve it if it's not already reserved, or, report that there is no more money.

That should be listed right at the top of the Bill: Funded (and where), Unfunded (why).

Then they can all vote on it: It's all being funded by the Federal government, so, all the representatives of the Federal government can vote on it. That way, all their names are on it, no weaseling out, no doublespeak, etc.

If a bill is for school funding, there should be no bridges to no where attached to it, it should be about school funding.

It's unreal how the governement works. Imagine how an IT project would be done:

Issue: We need to spend money to enhance this Websphere service to bring back more fields from the backend, else new features in upcoming product cannot be enabled on customers billing account.

Proposing Group: Enhance Websphere service, or, determine another way for features to be enabled on customers billing account. High level estimate (+- 100%) has been attached.

Funding Group: Have checked, there are dollars in IT budget for this effort based on the attached estimate.

Congress: We approve. Also, under this same Propsal, we're going to decide to fund a new building that has nothing to do with IT, this service, the product in question, or the customer. Oh, also, we're going to fund a a few road projects...but they're not really needed, have nothing to do with the new building, the Websphere service, the product, the customer, or the billing system. It will help us get votes and kickbacks from the Union's and the companies involved with it though...whoops, did we say that out loud?!

Proposal Group: WTF?! None of that has to do with this Issue, in any way! Cannot you just make another bill(s) for that? Why are you c*cking up this Proposal with all that other stuff?

Congress: We won't vote for your issue unless you approve our stuff.

Proposal Group: WTFBBQ??!! My sh1t needs to be done! I made a succint bill, got it estimated by all the groups, got the Funding Group to validate we've got the budget...how can you be F'ing this up this badly?!?!

Congess: We're "super smart political guys", don't you dare question us you Real 'Murrican! (I couldn't resist!!!!)

Funding Group: I have to agree with the Proposal Group, since we've seen no solid high level estimates for your kickbacks, er, earmarks, er, "important projects", there is no clear view of how those would be funded - if they could be funded. Why don't you submit your own seperate proposals, with high level estimates, for review, and we'll check them out one at a time so as to have a clear order to things.

Congress: Hey, Funding Group, STFU. If you want to enjoy your job, and don't want the additional funding to come from cuts from your group, you better take a "non-partisan stance".

Funding Group: You're going to fund this by not funding it, running a deficit, and/or borrowing, aren't you?

Congress: Votes are in! Yay! Everyone meet at the "Super Smart Inn" for drinkies!

Proposal Group: Well, at least I got my Issue funded so it can be resolved. To not resolve it would have cost the company an estimated $10M. Our Proposal, with all the earmarks, netted out at $100M. I'm not "super smart", but I guess it was worth it, Congress wouldn't do something dumb.

50 years later, same exact Congress, just different "super smart" people making it up: How could the deficit be so large?!?!? We need to reign this in!!!! Irresponsible!!! The other...what? There's a bill for a service upgrade in Websphere for our new product to be enabled on a customers billing account? Thanks for telling me Political Assistant who'll do anything however unethical so as to further his/her own career, you got some proposed kickb, er, earmarks we can attach that our Maste, er, Constituency would "approve" of? <Mr. Burns voice>Excellent......</Mr. Burns voice>

Oh the ironing......

Chuck

 

[fskimospy]

Yes we need no more of these practice votes. Either it passes the first time or it can not be reintroduced for at least 1 year.

Then the president should have line-item-veto also.

The funny thing is that sometimes it is the people voting for the bill that are promised items that are added onto the legislation. Lately some people just say they will not vote for something hoping they can get some added on funding for their pet project. This has gotten rediculous. It is just bribery.

Yet again, the line item veto eviscerates the power of Congress and basically allows the president to require a supermajority for parts of legislation he dislikes, while allowing for a simple majority on parts he does like. This would give him an absolutely huge amount of extra power.

Anyways it's already been ruled unconstitutional.