That "one issue at a time" was a part of the GOP's 2010 "Pledge
To America""Advance Legislative Issues One at a Time
"We will end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with
“must-pass” legislation to circumvent the will of the American
people. Instead, we will advance major legislation one issue at a time."Strangely , they have done the exact opposite ever since.
Oh now Mia you aren't being a get-along go-along congressional player when
you start suggesting these common sense changes. Watch out for Orin Hatch
because he will call for your "re-education" like he did Mike Lee.
yes, we need to stop piggy backing the bills... which is why obamacare was
diluted, and messed up in order to not give it any power originally designed to
work better for the people and stop corporate abuse of the health industry which
doesn't care about the people's health as much as they do profits.Now, we just need Term Limits on all political seats including branches of
govt , and no incumbents, and no conditional appointees , and vote on
everything. stop donations, gifts from lobbyists, and unlimited funding to
win elections. and anything changing the voter process from being unfair.
that would be a start.
My question is how would this be enforced as a law? Would the courts be forced
to strike down a law that did not comply with this? Would there be legal
penalties?Seems much better suited as a rule that the House could
implement, and not need to involve the President and courts
I'm guessing this will make things easier for her to digest.
Good for Mia Love. I didn't vote for her (and probably won't in the
future) but I completely support her effort on this one.
I agree with this principle. There are actually many bills that get passed one
subject at a time, typically with resounding bipartisan support. Unfortunately,
it is the contentious ones that end up getting omnibussed and stuffed with pork
of all varieties.There isn't much a congressman or
congresswoman could do about it (unless they automatically vote "no" on
all mishmashed bills in protest). However, this is the one area where I think a
willing president could actually use their veto power to encourage
bipartisanship.I always cringe when I hear the term "Presidents
legislative agenda." You all remember civics in school - the president is
part of the executive branch, not the legislative branch. Sure, a president can
introduce bills (as can any American), but I would much rather see the President
focus on administering the executive branch.However, the
constitution does grant the President veto power. What would impress me is a
candidate who agreed to sign all bills with bipartisan support, regardless of
his/her personal support, while simultaneously pledging to veto anything without
bipartisan support. Now that would start to change things.
Put a little Love in our congressional practices. Heaven knows this would make
it harder for candidates seeking office because they could not promise lobbying
groups things that could not be done in the open.
Uncle Gadianton posted:Better yet, make the "Single Subject
Requirement" an amendment to the Constitution. Anyone up for Constitutional
Convention?==========NO! Not unless this very bill has a
grandfather/retroactive clause that effects that very convention. If you have a
Constitutional Convention (CC), it opens up other things for which the
convention wasn't convened for to be added. In other words, if there
is a Constitutional convention, it should be restricted to the subject for which
it was convened for. Just as Love desires for Bills. We have a cart
before the horse issue in getting it done via CC.And then if we did
go the CC route, what if it fails to pass? Then there is no retroactive clause
to dump the rest of the garbage brought up during that CC.
Long over due.Mega bills are unpassable bills.And those that do
pass, are a disaster, see Obamacare!
Hey MSL Man -"This bundling is a fairly new type of legislation
that the House and Senate approved for this very reason . . ."Really? What makes you think it's "fairly new." Do you have any
evidence to back that up?As far as I know, it is not "fairly
new." It's common for riders to be added to bills in the
U.S. Senate. The rules allow for it. House rules, though, already make it much
more difficult to attach unrelated riders in that lower chamber of Congress.
If Mia Love gets her way, the ability of legislators to compromise will be
damaged. And that will just add to the gridlock that already exists.You might not think of it as a compromise when someone attaches an unrelated
rider to a bill, but compromise is EXACTLY what it is.And compromise
is the only way Congress can function WITHOUT gridlock.Leave it to
Mia Love, the junior REPUBLICAN legislator from Utah, to invent ways to IMPEDE
good governance.Are we surprised?I'm not.
Well, the best of luck convincing the greedy politicians within the big
government spending crowd.
Our Utah Legislature should do the same.
@mcclark "Actually, how its done in the Utah legislature is for
the Republicans to have a private caucus without any pesky reporters around to
note who voted for or against a bill."Have you had any
experience with this, or are you just regurgitating what some other uninformed
person has told you? I'm speaking from personal knowledge, having served
several terms. Bills don't get passed in caucus, they get passed on the
floors of the House and the Senate where everyone can see who voted for and who
How will Senator Hatch get his bonus bills for supporters after obstructing
Get bill! Should of been done decades ago.
Aww, that's cute. Freshman representative wants to get re-elected so she
starts just before election season proposing populist ideas that she knows she
can't deliver on. But she can say she tried.
they bundle because the president doesn't have a line item veto. They know
that if the bill is 80% good, most will hold their nose at the 20% bad stuff and
vote for it anyway because of the good. The last budget bill that
passed a few weeks ago is proof of that.Go Mia!
So Mia is actually trying to look like she's doing something for once, and
finally. I guess she's running for election again and wants to make it
look like she's doing something. Oh yeah -- that's right -- she is
running again. Figures.
Good luck. This bundling is a fairly new type of legislation that the House and
Senate approved for this very reason. Bundle so many things together overwhelms
the representatives to have to rely on lobbyist who represent each and every
bill that is bundled together. Its been the law for 25 years bundling law was
passed so every state can hide it to access the federal treasury with little to
no effort.Another excuse was it was taking too long to get bills
passed one at a time for states and federal agency's who need immediate
funding. Bundling will be a hard process to remove from the house and senate.
They don't want to slow down the bills to be read, and lobbyist are
effective mouth pieces to convince legislators of what the law says or
doesn't say. Fire the lobbyist first and she should get some action. We
ahve the elected Representative to read and argue the bills, the lobbyist are
used to misrepresent the bills as surrogate private legislators.
This is interesting and something I can agree with. Pork stuffing has a long
history with both Democrats and Republicans. It will be interesting to see how
the leaders in both political parties react to this suggestion. It certainly
will make this much clearer for the process and may help the low energy Congress
move forward. Just think. High value legislation promoted by either
party doesn't get blindsided by poison pill amendments. You get what you
see and nothing hidden away in the shadows. Also, it will be a good way to keep
people from circumventing an issue by saying "I didn't vote for this
because this other thing was there." They will have to stand on their own
and explain their position directly with no excuse.Personally, I
don't think this will be acceptable. Love may be thinking of the ways
Democrats sabotage Republican-sponsored legislation by slipping stuff in, but
what goes around comes around. This would mean that Republicans could not longer
sabotage Democrat-sponsored legislation. And, a not so good part for any
legislator who can't attach their own pork-spending bill to please the
voters back home.
Go get em Mia. What a concept. The way it should be.Get the AZ
guys to work with you. Salmon I think would agree. He is against all the
bureaucracy that goes on there. Don't give up.
Love is too naive to understand that there's no way this ever happens.
There are reasons things have evolved the way they have and now Congress is so
far down the rabbit hole they'll never come back out. Good try by Love to
change the way things work but it's just not going to change. Makes me
wonder if she's doing this solely as a political stunt to win her
constituents' hearts, in which case it makes me like her even less. If
she's really this naive to think she can change the way bills are passed
then she's not the person we need in Washington. Either way things
don't look good. I also haven't looked at bills produced from her
office, does she practice what she's preaching? If she is, how many of
those bills have passed?
As much as I would like to see it, this won't ever happen. The reasons are
that many senators / congressman hides something in them in order to get it
passed. They are hoping that if they add it into hundreds of pages of legaleze
it will be overlooked. This would be a great thing in that it would help trim a
lot of un-necessary pork barrel items but would help curb the huge amount of
corruption in Washington.Mia is fighting an uphill battle with this and I
doubt it will ever happen but I respect her for it and fully support her.
Better yet, make the "Single Subject Requirement" an amendment to the
Constitution. Anyone up for Constitutional Convention?
@dave31 Actually, how its done in the Utah legislature is for the Republicans to
have a private caucus without any pesky reporters around to note who voted for
or against a bill.
Great idea! Too bad pork-lovers will probably kill it before it ever gets a fair
We already discussed this with Mia's letter to the editor.School
Boards and Town Councils have had consent agendas for years. All the day-to-day
bills are voted on as a group. If any member for any reason wants to pull
something out, discuss it, and vote on it separately all they do is say so.But the congress is too cool (or too corrupt) for that.How
do you expect them to bury their pork?Actually, Mike Lee wrote a
book about it. We now know Mia knows how to read, I guess.
amen. Next problem and solution?
Besides, it's easier to read.
This proposal is the way it is done in the Utah Legislature. Perhaps that is why
Utah is solvent and the Federal Government is not!
I never thought I'd agree with Mia Love on anything. This actually makes