|
|
Post by Bodhi on Jun 25, 2006 17:14:44 GMT -5
One issue I've been thinking about lately that I've yet to hear any politicians or commentators address is changing the horrible rules of the United States Congress. Why does it take months on end for a bill to get a vote? Why do we have committees that kill bills all the time and have so much control? Why do we allow riders on bills that have nothing to do with the original bill?
If some of these absurd rules were to be changed imagine how more efficiently the Congress would operate. Its so bogged down now that nothing much gets accomplished, or if it does it takes years and years. Simple changes to some of these rules would make a huge difference and yet no one seems to care about changing them at all.
Would you support changes to some of these rules in Congress?
|
|
|
|
Post by zaab on Jun 25, 2006 18:25:49 GMT -5
Yeah, it does seem horribly inefficient. But then again, under the current administration, maybe that's our one saving grace. Depending on how you feel on, arguably, one of the worst administrations in our history, can you imagine if Bush had the ability to change things quickly? And I'm thinking that's part of the brilliance behind the system. If a leader ever wanted to rule with an iron fist, he'd have a very tough time doing so since things can't be changed overnight. Thank God for that!
|
|
|
|
Post by sushiboat on Jun 25, 2006 18:51:47 GMT -5
Why does it take months on end for a bill to get a vote? Why do we have committees that kill bills all the time and have so much control? These two things have opposite effects. Powerful committees killing bills lightens the load for the full Congress. If you weaken the committees, then nothing would ever be accomplished. It's bad, but then who is going to say that something is irrelevant? It's hard to cook with 535 chefs in the kitchen. Everything is based on deals; give me this concession, and I'll vote for your bill. I'm content to let the people who are closest to the process make their own rules about things like committees and the content of bills. If you have ever had someone who has no idea of what your job entails making the rules, you know how incredibly stupid the result is. After all, the only alternative to Congress making its own procedural rules is a Constitutional amendment. If anything goes awry with one of those, you can't just change it with a simple vote. I would change the legalized bribery that passes for campaign funding in the US. As it is now, you can't get to Congress without becoming a whore. |
|
|
|
Post by Tal on Jun 25, 2006 19:13:37 GMT -5
Quantity of legislation isn't the issue in any system, its the quality. A slow process should (in theory) be good. It allows good, popular policy decisions to be made and voted on without there being loads of loopholes, errors, right's violations etc in the bill's text. If the bill is thorough and forward looking, it'll cover policy for the next few years. Probably not the case often, but the ideal should be for a slow process with good legislation rather than a hasty process of medicore legislation.
Unrelated clauses riding on other bills is a repulsive practice when its used to deceive. It almost makes a joke of the legislature to be able to attach clauses like leeches to otherwise healthy legislation. Doesn't tend to happen over here for some reason...although there's plenty of crap legislation to make up for it. lol
|
|
|
|
Post by wagnerr on Jun 25, 2006 19:16:47 GMT -5
Yeah, it does seem horribly inefficient. But then again, under the current administration, maybe that's our one saving grace. Depending on how you feel on, arguably, one of the worst administrations in our history, can you imagine if Bush had the ability to change things quickly? And I'm thinking that's part of the brilliance behind the system. If a leader ever wanted to rule with an iron fist, he'd have a very tough time doing so since things can't be changed overnight. Thank God for that! I agree; the bureaucratic inefficiency is a blessing in disguise, especially at the Congressional level, because it prevents radicals from seizing too much power and authority for situations. I'm not too well versed on all the aspects of Congressional committees, but i do think it's stupid to have politicians doing the jobs of bureaucrats. If you ask me, some of the specialized committees of Congress and at the federal level should be discarded entirely, saving some time in the process. In all things government, time is money.  |
|
