Line-item veto would take care of a lot of this too.
I may be wrong, but I believe that the line item veto as it pertains to bills passed by Congress was already ruled unconstitutional. Clinton actually tried it and it went to the Supreme Court and they ruled against it. It would require an Amendment. While legal and frequently used in many states, not at the federal level.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Sep 14, 2010 - 2:41pm
ScottFromWyoming wrote:
Sure but they do it this way because adding something distasteful to a bigger bill is easier and they aren't as likely to get held accountable for it. Then when the actual bill comes up for a yea/nay vote, they can say they "had" to vote for it because of the larger issues in the bill.
Yes, but if the public better understands how it works — the way I explained in the previous post — that excuse would not hold water. A voter can just call BS on it.
It is true that totally different subjects can be addressed within a single piece of legislation. However, if something is being added to a bill, it must be done by amendment. And the Congressmen get to vote on that amendment. A vote against the amendment means the nongermane provision is not added to the bill. Conversely, if a nongermane provision is already in a bill, it can be removed by amendment, which requires a vote. So, it is not quite true that the provisions pertaining to 2 different topics but contained in the same bill cannot be separated. They can be.
I
Sure but they do it this way because adding something distasteful to a bigger bill is easier and they aren't as likely to get held accountable for it. Then when the actual bill comes up for a yea/nay vote, they can say they "had" to vote for it because of the larger issues in the bill.
Congress routinely passes unpopular laws by combining them with completely unrelated bills that have majority support. For example . . .
The REAL ID Act, which was designed to create a national ID card, had so little support in the Senate that it couldn't even be brought to a vote. A national ID card was opposed by a majority of the Senate, and historically, by the vast majority of the American people, but now it is the law of the land.
How did this happen?
It happened because House and Senate leaders attached the REAL ID Act to legislation the Senate was afraid to oppose, the "Emergency, Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief." (May, 2005)
Senators didn't want to vote against a defense appropriation, or Tsunami relief, so the REAL ID Act became the law of the land.
Sadly, this is far from the only example. Here's another one . . .
When a few moral busy bodies in Congress wanted to stop online gambling, but lacked the votes to get their way, they attached their unwanted legislation to a bill on Port Security. Few in Congress were likely to vote against a measure to strengthen security at our nation's ports, and so the completely unrelated online gambling law was passed too.
DownsizeDC.org's "One Subject at a Time Act" (OSTA) is designed to prevent outrages such as these by requiring that each bill that comes to a vote be about one subject, and one subject only. Any legislation passed in violation of this requirement will be considered null-and-void before the nation's courts. But that's not all . . .
The summary here is not quite accurate.
It is true that totally different subjects can be addressed within a single piece of legislation. However, if something is being added to a bill, it must be done by amendment. And the Congressmen get to vote on that amendment. A vote against the amendment means the nongermane provision is not added to the bill. Conversely, if a nongermane provision is already in a bill, it can be removed by amendment, which requires a vote. So, it is not quite true that the provisions pertaining to 2 different topics but contained in the same bill cannot be separated. They can be.
DownsizeDC.org's "One Subject at a Time Act" (OSTA) is designed to prevent outrages such as these by requiring that each bill that comes to a vote be about one subject, and one subject only. Any legislation passed in violation of this requirement will be considered null-and-void before the nation's courts. But that's not all . . .
Line-item veto would take care of a lot of this too.
"I will fight every day as your U.S. senator for limited government, to end the cradle-to-grave entitlement mentality, for a balanced budget, to protect our flag, our borders and our national security and for bills that can be read before they receive a final vote in congress," attorney Mike Lee said in his convention speech.
The bold part I like, even though my radar is pegging hard since he is an attorney. (I mean, can an attorney actually draft a bill that isn't written in legalese?) Unfortunately, he's a member of a political party. Can't have everything.
Congress routinely passes unpopular laws by combining them with completely unrelated bills that have majority support. For example . . .
The REAL ID Act, which was designed to create a national ID card, had so little support in the Senate that it couldn't even be brought to a vote. A national ID card was opposed by a majority of the Senate, and historically, by the vast majority of the American people, but now it is the law of the land.
How did this happen?
It happened because House and Senate leaders attached the REAL ID Act to legislation the Senate was afraid to oppose, the "Emergency, Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief." (May, 2005)
Senators didn't want to vote against a defense appropriation, or Tsunami relief, so the REAL ID Act became the law of the land.
Sadly, this is far from the only example. Here's another one . . .
When a few moral busy bodies in Congress wanted to stop online gambling, but lacked the votes to get their way, they attached their unwanted legislation to a bill on Port Security. Few in Congress were likely to vote against a measure to strengthen security at our nation's ports, and so the completely unrelated online gambling law was passed too.
DownsizeDC.org's "One Subject at a Time Act" (OSTA) is designed to prevent outrages such as these by requiring that each bill that comes to a vote be about one subject, and one subject only. Any legislation passed in violation of this requirement will be considered null-and-void before the nation's courts. But that's not all . . .
"I will fight every day as your U.S. senator for limited government, to end the cradle-to-grave entitlement mentality, for a balanced budget, to protect our flag, our borders and our national security and for bills that can be read before they receive a final vote in congress," attorney Mike Lee said in his convention speech.
The bold part I like, even though my radar is pegging hard since he is an attorney. (I mean, can an attorney actually draft a bill that isn't written in legalese?) Unfortunately, he's a member of a political party. Can't have everything.
I understood that. I probably should have used a instead of a .
From what I read, Waxman not only tried, but succeeded in leeching off of the Wall St. bill or am I mistaken?. This is exactly the type of thing we should demand they put an end to. It's a strategy that members of both major parties have employed. Further proving, as far as I'm concerned, that they cannot help themselves. No matter how "pure" they may have been when initially elected, it seems the norm that they incorporate these unethical techniques at some point or another. I'm sure they believe it is "how you play the game". These sorts of things are hurting our country in terms of actual policy and adding to the ever-increasing polarization we see here at RP and elsewhere in our country.
I'm not sure if it is in or out. If I remember tomorrow, I will look for it.
to everything else. Unfortunately, they write their own rules for their own game.
My purpose was to illustrate your point about reading bills and holding politicians accountable for what they put in them. Waxman tried to pull a fast one. His amendment had nothing to do with Wall St and should not be permitted in the bill. It would seem that someone read the bill, as you suggest, and called him out on it. And yes, the Natural News is dripping with bias.
I understood that. I probably should have used a instead of a .
From what I read, Waxman not only tried, but succeeded in leeching off of the Wall St. bill or am I mistaken?. This is exactly the type of thing we should demand they put an end to. It's a strategy that members of both major parties have employed. Further proving, as far as I'm concerned, that they cannot help themselves. No matter how "pure" they may have been when initially elected, it seems the norm that they incorporate these unethical techniques at some point or another. I'm sure they believe it is "how you play the game". These sorts of things are hurting our country in terms of actual policy and adding to the ever-increasing polarization we see here at RP and elsewhere in our country.
No. Completely the opposite of that. Thanks for asking.
As bad as Waxman's tactics were, I must admit some bias...Natural News' and mine. Let's just say my radar went off when I read the line "routinely targets nutritional supplement companies that are merely telling the truth about their products" and saw all the ads for nutritional supplements, etc. to the right. Hard to imagine they would have an open mind about the topic. Further, I personally know the family behind a company marketing some other natural remedyish-type products in a MLM fashion and am, on a first-hand basis, aware of their psuedo-quasi-truthsfalsifications. I can't imagine they are alone in the use of strategies involving creative interpretation of info in the MLM world.
My purpose was to illustrate your point about reading bills and holding politicians accountable for what they put in them. Waxman tried to pull a fast one. His amendment had nothing to do with Wall St and should not be permitted in the bill. It would seem that someone read the bill, as you suggest, and called him out on it. And yes, the Natural News is dripping with bias.
No. Completely the opposite of that. Thanks for asking.
As bad as Waxman's tactics were, I must admit some bias...Natural News' and mine. Let's just say my radar went off when I read the line "routinely targets nutritional supplement companies that are merely telling the truth about their products" and saw all the ads for nutritional supplements, etc. to the right. Hard to imagine they would have an open mind about the topic. Further, I personally know the family behind a company marketing some other natural remedyish-type products in a MLM fashion and am, on a first-hand basis, aware of their psuedo-quasi-truthsfalsifications. I can't imagine they are alone in the use of strategies involving creative interpretation of info in the MLM world.
I've been arguing for transparency and accountability for over 20 years now as an Independent voter, even when I've lived in states that had closed primaries. Collectively, all citizens need to demand the ability to conveniently read all bills & amendments for content and be able to see who (politician, lobby, PAC, etc.) was responsible for each idea/paragraph. Then we need to actually read them. If & when we see issues we disagree on, we need to act, either through the press/media, non-violent demonstrations, voting, or running for office ourselves. The politicians' job security is probably their only motivation we, as individuals, can influence, but we need to be educated on what is really in the bills and amendments to make that happen effectively.
I know it can be frustrating to have a question answered with a question or questions, but here goes anyway... Given that the net result of mass refusal to pay taxes would likely result in a slow shutdown of gov't agencies, possibly lead to some level of armed conflict within our borders, and possible increases in both property & civil crimes, do you know of a peaceful way to essentially overthrow our current evolution of gov't? Could one maybe argue that the President could use executive orders for the sake of national security (from threats within) to tackle various inconsistencies and preferential treatments in the tax code, for example?
Now that's what I'm talking about! Thank you for the opportunity to take some real action. I joined, wrote my letter, & sent it off to the CA powers that be.
I've been arguing for transparency and accountability for over 20 years now as an Independent voter, even when I've lived in states that had closed primaries. Collectively, all citizens need to demand the ability to conveniently read all bills & amendments for content and be able to see who (politician, lobby, PAC, etc.) was responsible for each idea/paragraph. Then we need to actually read them. If & when we see issues we disagree on, we need to act, either through the press/media, non-violent demonstrations, voting, or running for office ourselves. The politicians' job security is probably their only motivation we, as individuals, can influence, but we need to be educated on what is really in the bills and amendments to make that happen effectively.
I know it can be frustrating to have a question answered with a question or questions, but here goes anyway... Given that the net result of mass refusal to pay taxes would likely result in a slow shutdown of gov't agencies, possibly lead to some level of armed conflict within our borders, and possible increases in both property & civil crimes, do you know of a peaceful way to essentially overthrow our current evolution of gov't? Could one maybe argue that the President could use executive orders for the sake of national security (from threats within) to tackle various inconsistencies and preferential treatments in the tax code, for example?
I've been arguing for transparency and accountability for over 20 years now as an Independent voter, even when I've lived in states that had closed primaries. Collectively, all citizens need to demand the ability to conveniently read all bills & amendments for content and be able to see who (politician, lobby, PAC, etc.) was responsible for each idea/paragraph. Then we need to actually read them. If & when we see issues we disagree on, we need to act, either through the press/media, non-violent demonstrations, voting, or running for office ourselves. The politicians' job security is probably their only motivation we, as individuals, can influence, but we need to be educated on what is really in the bills and amendments to make that happen effectively.
I know it can be frustrating to have a question answered with a question or questions, but here goes anyway... Given that the net result of mass refusal to pay taxes would likely result in a slow shutdown of gov't agencies, possibly lead to some level of armed conflict within our borders, and possible increases in both property & civil crimes, do you know of a peaceful way to essentially overthrow our current evolution of gov't? Could one maybe argue that the President could use executive orders for the sake of national security (from threats within) to tackle various inconsistencies and preferential treatments in the tax code, for example?
I actually think the answer to that question is best expressed through a song lyric. The Pixies will be handling this one from This Monkey's Gone to Heaven:
the creature in the sky got sucked in ahole now there's a hole in the sky and the ground's not cold and if the ground's not cold everything is gonna burn we'll all take turns i'll get mine, too
In other words, to cite a Ben Lee song; We are all in this together. The pressure has to come out somewhere, if we simply stop paying taxes then the countries infrastructure and support system crumbles, then you will see a mass uprising by the underclasses. If taxes keep rising, then we will see the grumbling discontent and pushback from the privlidged and middle classes as we are seeing in the Tea Party movement. Of course, it is better for the privlidged to suck it up and pay their taxes because the only other option is government grounding to a halt and the poor having absolutely nothing to lose and that revolt will be much more painful and messy than a bunch of old relatively wealthy white people carrying Obammy is a socialists signs I assure you!
Yeah, there are going to be some in every crowd trying to scam any system.
My question is "when do we think that we should and ask our trusted officials to be accountable and stop scamming the system?"
What is their (the politicians) incentive to do the right thing?
peace
I've been arguing for transparency and accountability for over 20 years now as an Independent voter, even when I've lived in states that had closed primaries. Collectively, all citizens need to demand the ability to conveniently read all bills & amendments for content and be able to see who (politician, lobby, PAC, etc.) was responsible for each idea/paragraph. Then we need to actually read them. If & when we see issues we disagree on, we need to act, either through the press/media, non-violent demonstrations, voting, or running for office ourselves. The politicians' job security is probably their only motivation we, as individuals, can influence, but we need to be educated on what is really in the bills and amendments to make that happen effectively.
I know it can be frustrating to have a question answered with a question or questions, but here goes anyway... Given that the net result of mass refusal to pay taxes would likely result in a slow shutdown of gov't agencies, possibly lead to some level of armed conflict within our borders, and possible increases in both property & civil crimes, do you know of a peaceful way to essentially overthrow our current evolution of gov't? Could one maybe argue that the President could use executive orders for the sake of national security (from threats within) to tackle various inconsistencies and preferential treatments in the tax code, for example?
You are correct that Tom and the rest of us deserve a fair, effective, & efficient gov't, however, we all have to play by the rules as they currently stand until such time as we can get them re-written. Unfortunately, when the rubber hits the pavement, the Tom's of this world only use gov't inefficiencies as an excuse. You could cut taxes 30% and they would still find a reason why they just couldn't make the tax payment. Ultimately, they feel they are above paying their fair share and, driven by a greedy "me first" attitude will do everything in their power to avoid coughing up their portion. Frankly, they think and act similar to deadbeat dads.
(Apologies for the broad brush. I think you understand that this is me expressing an opinion.)
Yeah, there are going to be some in every crowd trying to scam any system.
My question is "when do we think that we should and ask our trusted officials to be accountable and stop scamming the system?"
What is their (the politicians) incentive to do the right thing?
Tom, just doesn't understand why he should pay for government corporatism, waste, plunder, murder and aggression.
He has some nerve to expect real leadership and accountability.
I mean it's only his money.
He needs to get with the program.
You are correct that Tom and the rest of us deserve a fair, effective, & efficient gov't, however, we all have to play by the rules as they currently stand until such time as we can get them re-written. Unfortunately, when the rubber hits the pavement, the Tom's of this world only use gov't inefficiencies as an excuse. You could cut taxes 30% and they would still find a reason why they just couldn't make the tax payment. Ultimately, they feel they are above paying their fair share and, driven by a greedy "me first" attitude will do everything in their power to avoid coughing up their portion. Frankly, they think and act similar to deadbeat dads.
(Apologies for the broad brush. I think you understand that this is me expressing an opinion.)
Tom, are you being "harassed" by the IRS? "Victimized" by the PA revenue collectors? Maybe Tom from PA can call a tax lawyer and only pay 30% of what he rightfully owes in taxes! Don't worry, the rest of us suckers can carry the load.
I don't care if Orwell has coffin sores and needs to roll over. "Tom" and every other deadbeat needs to step up and honor their debts. If the "Toms" out there won't be responsible on their own, bring on Big Brother. So be it.
Tom, just doesn't understand why he should pay for government corporatism, waste, plunder, murder and aggression.
He has some nerve to expect real leadership and accountability.
Interesting bit in the paper this weekend, about the widespread tax evasion in Greece. BILLIONS of dollars (euros, sheckels, whatever) uncollected due to tax cheats. Corruption is ingrained in the society, and it's one reason (among many) Greece is in such financial straits.
I tend to think Mexico suffers from similar issues: as long as corruption is allowed, there's not much hope of real financial reform. Everybody accepts bribes, from government officials to your car mechanic (one price without a receipt, much much more with a receipt). It starves the government of money to provide services, and it undermines the authority of the government.
And I should not hold these two up as the only examples. Heck, we have plenty of corruption right here in the U.S. But it is on a different scale than it is here.
instead of a 
.
to everything else. Unfortunately, they write their own rules for their own game. 
