How about bills that cover more than one topic? Riders are often used to either advance an unpopular bill, or kill a popular one. This happens all the time; the recent shutdown was one obvious example. Regardless of which side you may deride more for what went on, the simple fact is that a bill that couldn't otherwise pass both houses was attached to an important but unrelated spending bill. Bills should pass or fail on their own merits; we should remove this constantly abused avenue for political games. Bills should be limited to a single subject, as they are in 43 states already. I'll just borrow language from one of those constitutions.
1) Each bill, except general appropriation bills and bills for the codification and general revision of the laws, shall contain only one subject, clearly expressed in its title. If any subject is embraced in any act and is not expressed in the title, only so much of the act not so expressed is void.
Still looking at the shutdown, let's look at how Congress spends money. Right now there's a two-step process: first Congress orders money to be spent (the budget resolution), then Congress allows money to be borrowed to pay for that spending (raising the debt ceiling). The system is essentially letting Congress spend money, and then asking them again later if they really meant it. Having two separate steps is absurd; it creates no good, and just asks for more brinksmanship
2) If Congress passes a law authorizing spending, that law shall also be construed to authorize any borrowing necessary to execute such spending.
The fact that a government shutdown can result in so much damage, and yet the Congress responsible is not in any way penalized, is unacceptable. Some have suggested cutting their pay, but that only hurts the poorer members. If you want a real disincentive, it needs to be applied across the board, and it needs to be something no member of Congress can ignore: in the event of government shutdown, we should hold new elections, immediately. I guarantee you, we won't see a shutdown again for a long, long time.
3) In the event of a failure of the Congress to pass a bill funding ongoing government operations, all congresspersons shall be immediately subject to election, to be held within three weeks of the end of the previous spending law. If the Congress passes a bill funding government operations, and the President fails to sign said bill, the President shall also be subject to election. If the Congress overrides a Presidential veto of such a bill, only the President shall be subject to election.
In any interim between laws authorizing spending, the funding levels from the previous spending law shall continue to apply.
Finally, we see cases where a bill would clearly pass if brought to a vote, but procedural games prevent that vote from occurring. Congress presently has the power to set its own rules of order, but those rules are being used to prevent important work from occurring. I proposed that there should be a means of ratifying amendments bypassing Congress and convention; I now suggest something similar for Congress.
4) Any other rules of order notwithstanding, in the event that a majority the members of either chamber of Congress officially declares their approval of a bill, by sponsorship or other means, that bill shall be deemed to have been passed by that chamber.
I have one additional point, which has bothered me for some years now. The Palm Sunday Compromise (I here refrain from comment on its contents or effects) was passed by the US Senate on a vote of 3-0, 97 not present. This is simply an undemocratic way to do business.
5) Neither chamber of Congress shall conduct business without a majority of its members participating.
No comments:
Post a Comment