Which of these are good ideas for reducing pork spending?

[jamesrage]

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.

other idea










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.

 

[nerv14]

One subject per bill is the only practical choices. However, even that has problems if congress has to take large actions that have many ramifications.

For instance, right now (even if I disagree with large parts of the stimulus package) it required large actions to be taken quickly. That would have been impossible with a single item per bill.


Ideally, I would simply hope that people would vote politicians out of office if they throw in some amendments to Bills.

If Phil Gramm was attacked for getting rid of Glass-steagel on Clinton's omnibus spending plan with no one noticing, (even though that wasn't pork) then that would be great. Since there wasn't any emergency, there was no reason to put all of these bills together.


But since voters don't pay attention to their politicians, the Supreme Court should just be able to throw away bills that have many items all together.

This power of SCOTUS would just need to be spelled out very percisely though, or else the Supreme Court would have a de-facto vetoe on legislation by congress, even if the bill was Constitutional every other way.

The best way is just voter common sense...

 

[Tucker Case]

Some of those are impractical. Making it one subject at a time per bill law would prevent the need for the rest. Line-item might help, but it would probably only cut down the pork from one party and increase it from the other.

Also, another way to cut down on pork spending is to buy your bacon in bulk. :2razz:

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Line Item Veto, of course.

If I was going to write "other", I would say require each line spending item be accompanied by a citing of the relevant clause of the Constitution permitting the spending, and noting that "general welfare" doesn't authorize any spending, rather, the specific items in Article 1 Section 8 are how the Congress is permitted to enhance the general welfare.

 

[Dav]

I'm for all of these (except maybe the explanation on TV, that just seems unnecessary).

It's outrageous that the representatives of the people are voting on things that affect the people without even reading them.

One subject at a time is a definite yes. Without it, you can have enough people voting for one thing and opposing the others that you don't actually have any majority for any of the subjects being voted on. Not to mention the corrupt vote-getting amendments put in practically every bill.

Line item veto yes... but I'm not sure how necessary it would be if there really were only one subject at a time.

 

[rudedog]

I think that any public politician should sign a waver,stating the government or the public has access to their bank accounts in any bank in the world,and also their families.Especially Swiss and other no-tell banks.

 

[Kandahar]

"One subject at a time" is too vague. What qualifies as a "subject"?

A line-item veto seems too easy to abuse, and I'm not particularly comfortable with expanding executive power. Congress is supposed to write the laws, not the president.

The other options...I don't really see how they would help reduce pork barrel spending.

 

[akyron]

Other.

Make the majority of them read their resignations aloud.

 

[obvious Child]

As others said, most of that list is impractical. Furthermore, the sheer boredom that would ensue would allow much of the pork to get through anyways.

Single subject voting is more likely to work. When you cannot hide riders things become far more transparent.

And a line item veto is unconstitutional. The executive branch was never meant to be able to influence individual sections of a bill, only reject or accept it as a whole. Furthermore, do we WANT to have more powers go to our already bad Imperial Presidency?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

As others said, most of that list is impractical. Furthermore, the sheer boredom that would ensue would allow much of the pork to get through anyways.

Single subject voting is more likely to work. When you cannot hide riders things become far more transparent.

And a line item veto is unconstitutional. The executive branch was never meant to be able to influence individual sections of a bill, only reject or accept it as a whole. Furthermore, do we WANT to have more powers go to our already bad Imperial Presidency?

What a wonderful argument against the LIV. That it's unconstitutional. Then again, there's at least as much chance of getting Congress to pass out an amendment to create a LIV as there is for it to do any other option on the list.

That particular power? Sure. Vetoed items can be overridden. Check...then....(gasp!) balance.

As compared to today's permanent scenario of "Blank Check" - "Overdrawn Ballance".

 

[obvious Child]

That particular power? Sure. Vetoed items can be overridden. Check...then....(gasp!) balance.

can you point me to the section where COTUS gives the Executive branch the right to produce legislation? LIV essentially allows the Executive branch to supersede the rights of the Legislative by crafting its own bill.

For someone who complains about lack of constitutional adherence, you sure don't seem to have a problem with ignoring COTUS here.

 

[celticlord]

Every bill/project dedicating dollars to a specific state/district needs to explain why that state or district needs federal tax funds for that project.

(If states shipped fewer tax dollars off to Washington, they'd have more tax dollars to spend on such projects.)

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Line Item Veto, of course.

If I was going to write "other", I would say require each line spending item be accompanied by a citing of the relevant clause of the Constitution permitting the spending, and noting that "general welfare" doesn't authorize any spending, rather, the specific items in Article 1 Section 8 are how the Congress is permitted to enhance the general welfare.

Line Item Veto would be one of the worst things to ever happen.

That should never ever be a part of a presidents already inflated powers.

 

[jamesrage]

As others said, most of that list is impractical. Furthermore, the sheer boredom that would ensue would allow much of the pork to get through anyways.

How would it be impossible for a politician to read out the bills or amendments he or she has authored in front of tv cameras? Surely this would keep them from writing lengthy bills if they have to physically stand there and read the bill out loud in front of a tv and explain in layman's terms what he bill is and why we need it. I know that if I had to stand up in front of everyone and read something that I wrote as well as explain in layman's terms what it means and why we need I would keep it short as possible.

 

[jamesrage]

Line Item Veto would be one of the worst things to ever happen.

That should never ever be a part of a presidents already inflated powers.

I agree. A line item veto would be a horrible idea. For example they come up with another immigration reform compromise a pro-illegals president like Bush or Obama would simply veto all the enforcement and penalty provisions and keep all the amnesty parts of the bill and the anti-illegal immigration side got suckered into basically sending the president the biggest amnesty package ever..

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I agree. A line item veto would be a horrible idea. For example they come up with another immigration reform compromise a pro-illegals president like Bush or Obama would simply veto all the enforcement and penalty provisions and keep all the amnesty parts of the bill and the anti-illegal immigration side got suckered into basically sending the president the biggest amnesty package ever..

Seriously, the worst idea ever. It could basically make a king out of the president.

The best idea is single issue/item bills.

 

[Kandahar]

How would it be impossible for a politician to read out the bills or amendments he or she has authored in front of tv cameras? Surely this would keep them from writing lengthy bills if they have to physically stand there and read the bill out loud in front of a tv and explain in layman's terms what he bill is and why we need it. I know that if I had to stand up in front of everyone and read something that I wrote as well as explain in layman's terms what it means and why we need I would keep it short as possible.

It wouldn't be impossible, just impractical. Congressmen would do it if they had to, but no one would care. It's not as though the average person would be attentively tuned into C-SPAN and jump out of their chair in rage when the congressman said "Section 42, B, ii) Allocates $20 million for the walnut festival in Peoria, Illinois." Besides, all of that information is already available online to anyone who wants it.

 

[mikhail]

Some of those are impractical. Making it one subject at a time per bill law would prevent the need for the rest. Line-item might help, but it would probably only cut down the pork from one party and increase it from the other.

Also, another way to cut down on pork spending is to buy your bacon in bulk. :2razz:

I think your under some delusion of how important government is.

 

[Inferno]

One subject at a time per bill. It would be the only way to get this to work. A line item veto would only stop pork from one side at a time. One item per bill would take forever. It is hard to say what would or would not work.

 

[Redress]

I think the only really effective, practical solution is a president who is willing to veto any bill with pork, and keep vetoing it until all the pork is gone, and willing to do that for every bill that crosses his desk with pork. Won't happen, but the rest just won't work, are impractical, and line item veto is downright dangerous.

 

[jamesrage]

It wouldn't be impossible, just impractical. Congressmen would do it if they had to, but no one would care. It's not as though the average person would be attentively tuned into C-SPAN and jump out of their chair in rage when the congressman said "Section 42, B, ii) Allocates $20 million for the walnut festival in Peoria, Illinois." Besides, all of that information is already available online to anyone who wants it.

A printed document doesn't have the same effect as a video of someone physically standing there and saying they want $20 million allocated for a walnut festival.Such things would make better ammo for political opponents and talk show host.A politician is less likely to try to sneak in some pork if he has to read it out loud in front of everyone and their mom and explain what this pork is and what it is in layman's terms and why they need it,especially if someone can just pull it up on a you tube video. A lot of people behave better if there is a camera watching them.

 

[Tucker Case]

I think your under some delusion of how important government is.

Put who in the what now?

 

[tlmorg02]

I think that many of the options would help, but perhaps the best would be a combo of once ammendments are added or taken away, those responsible should explain themselves on television.

The main problem is that even when an explaination is given, most pork benefits the constituency of the representative and these people are the ones who re-elect them. So ultimately the only way to limit pork spending is to legally limit federal funds for state usage.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

can you point me to the section where COTUS gives the Executive branch the right to produce legislation? LIV essentially allows the Executive branch to supersede the rights of the Legislative by crafting its own bill.


For someone who complains about lack of constitutional adherence, you sure don't seem to have a problem with ignoring COTUS here.

Can you explain to the class your understanding of the function of a Constitutional Amendment?

Hmmmm?

Also, cite my post where I authorized the President to write a bill that he can sign into law.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Line Item Veto would be one of the worst things to ever happen.

Obviously. It would put a stop to pork barrel spending.

Other than that, it wouldn't do much.