Which of these are good ideas for reducing pork spending? I couldn't word the poll options as I wanted to so I added "....." to indicate that there was more to the poll option.
Make politicians read out loud the whole entire bill that they author in front of tv cameras and explain in layman's terms why we need it.
Make politicians read out loud the amendments they add to bills in front of tv cameras and explain in layman's terms what it means and why we need it.
Make politicians read out loud the amendments the remove from bills in front of tv cameras and explain in layman's terms why we do not need this amendment.
Require politicians by law to read the bills before they sign them.
Require all politicians to explain on tv why the are for or against a bill or why they refuse to not show up to sign it.
One subject at a time per bill law.
Letting the president have Line item veto.
I say all the above except for the bottom two. As of now I do not have any other suggestions for "other" and the only thing a line item veto would do is give the president the authority to sign for things he wants which doesn't equate to cutting out pork spending. If politicians had to read everything they author whether it is a bill or an amendment or remove an amendment in front of tv cameras and also explain in layman's terms what it is and why we need it then they would most likely not add any pork seeing how what they do or say can be pulled up on a youtube video. This would also cut down on the bills the size of dictionaries and encyclopedias. If politicians were required by law to read the bills first before they vote on them then they would not be able to use the excuse "I didn't read it" or "I didn't read all of it".If they were required by law to explain on tv why they voted for or against or were too chicken **** to make a decision this would also hold politicians more accountable for what they sign. One subject at a time would also make it hard for them sneak in any unrelated spending.