comment
stringlengths 1
8.79k
| context
listlengths 0
817
|
|---|---|
>
Doesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries."
] |
>
No sadly, it's just obstructionist
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure."
] |
>
I know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist"
] |
>
"Limit to a single subject" is super difficult to make work in practice.
How do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure?
All are related, but could be argued to be distinct.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be"
] |
>
Yeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice.
Your example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?
Then I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct."
] |
>
Limit bills to a single subject
Incredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be "governing the United States". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say "Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.
Also, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman.
Tom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.
But if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip "No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell".
Taking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas."
] |
>
Limit bills to a single subject;
Kills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.
Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate
It's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.
Eliminate proxy voting
This is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is."
] |
>
Well, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall.
My take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year."
] |
>
I agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore.
Limit bills to a single subject;
I'm not sure I 100% agree with this.
Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;
I don't like this one.
Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;
This I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors.
Eliminate proxy voting;
Meh
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit)."
] |
>
Limit bills to a single subject
They already are -- the subject is "politics" and it encompasses literally everything.
Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments
See above
Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate
Lemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously
Eliminate proxy voting
To what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously "close" to)?
If those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh"
] |
>
They already are -- the subject is "politics" and it encompasses literally everything.
This, exactly. Even defining what "a single subject" means is a pathway to madness.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners."
] |
>
People love talking about "common sense" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness."
] |
>
I've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes.
Or both white dudes.
Or both white, presumably Christian dudes.
I had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means."
] |
>
I like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well."
] |
>
Or, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job."
] |
>
Is that not what the August recess is for? Also its too easily abused because it can be used as excuse to not attend the congress at all. I still think personal relationships matter and your not gonna get that by voting by proxy. You should have to have face to face interactions with your fellow moc to get legislation done.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.",
">\n\nOr, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due."
] |
>
Proxy Voting is not about good governance, its about holding lawmakers hostage to the dangers GOP members want to put everyone else at risk for: Shootings, member abuse in committees, another Coup Attempt and COVID.
I agree mostly with some of the items like term limits, which should absolutely be considered, but disallowing Proxy Voting is Republicans wanting to abuse power.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.",
">\n\nOr, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due.",
">\n\nIs that not what the August recess is for? Also its too easily abused because it can be used as excuse to not attend the congress at all. I still think personal relationships matter and your not gonna get that by voting by proxy. You should have to have face to face interactions with your fellow moc to get legislation done."
] |
>
The hang up is not allowing an insurrectionist as the speaker of the house. McCarthy should not hold speaker position. If the majority seats change for the house, each party tweaks or changes the rules. However, a republican house majority is not about better governance, look at this circus going on. I haven't been this entertained in ages , when it comes to DC politicking.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.",
">\n\nOr, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due.",
">\n\nIs that not what the August recess is for? Also its too easily abused because it can be used as excuse to not attend the congress at all. I still think personal relationships matter and your not gonna get that by voting by proxy. You should have to have face to face interactions with your fellow moc to get legislation done.",
">\n\nProxy Voting is not about good governance, its about holding lawmakers hostage to the dangers GOP members want to put everyone else at risk for: Shootings, member abuse in committees, another Coup Attempt and COVID.\nI agree mostly with some of the items like term limits, which should absolutely be considered, but disallowing Proxy Voting is Republicans wanting to abuse power."
] |
>
I didn’t say McCarthy should be speaker, or that I want a GOP majority in the House. I don’t want either, I was just curious what people thought the effect of the new rules would be.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.",
">\n\nOr, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due.",
">\n\nIs that not what the August recess is for? Also its too easily abused because it can be used as excuse to not attend the congress at all. I still think personal relationships matter and your not gonna get that by voting by proxy. You should have to have face to face interactions with your fellow moc to get legislation done.",
">\n\nProxy Voting is not about good governance, its about holding lawmakers hostage to the dangers GOP members want to put everyone else at risk for: Shootings, member abuse in committees, another Coup Attempt and COVID.\nI agree mostly with some of the items like term limits, which should absolutely be considered, but disallowing Proxy Voting is Republicans wanting to abuse power.",
">\n\nThe hang up is not allowing an insurrectionist as the speaker of the house. McCarthy should not hold speaker position. If the majority seats change for the house, each party tweaks or changes the rules. However, a republican house majority is not about better governance, look at this circus going on. I haven't been this entertained in ages , when it comes to DC politicking."
] |
>
I'm sorry , I just don't see those changes happening. Proposed and actual are two different things. The house majority, now republican, first order of business was removing the metal detectors. Metal detectors because terrorists stormed our capital building. These next two years are going to be painful. Better governance, like the talks to cut all that IRS funding that was so crucially needed to re-coop, we the people's money from tax evaders and corporations.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.",
">\n\nOr, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due.",
">\n\nIs that not what the August recess is for? Also its too easily abused because it can be used as excuse to not attend the congress at all. I still think personal relationships matter and your not gonna get that by voting by proxy. You should have to have face to face interactions with your fellow moc to get legislation done.",
">\n\nProxy Voting is not about good governance, its about holding lawmakers hostage to the dangers GOP members want to put everyone else at risk for: Shootings, member abuse in committees, another Coup Attempt and COVID.\nI agree mostly with some of the items like term limits, which should absolutely be considered, but disallowing Proxy Voting is Republicans wanting to abuse power.",
">\n\nThe hang up is not allowing an insurrectionist as the speaker of the house. McCarthy should not hold speaker position. If the majority seats change for the house, each party tweaks or changes the rules. However, a republican house majority is not about better governance, look at this circus going on. I haven't been this entertained in ages , when it comes to DC politicking.",
">\n\nI didn’t say McCarthy should be speaker, or that I want a GOP majority in the House. I don’t want either, I was just curious what people thought the effect of the new rules would be."
] |
>
Sounds like proposals from people who have no experience or knowledge of how legislation is passed.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.",
">\n\nOr, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due.",
">\n\nIs that not what the August recess is for? Also its too easily abused because it can be used as excuse to not attend the congress at all. I still think personal relationships matter and your not gonna get that by voting by proxy. You should have to have face to face interactions with your fellow moc to get legislation done.",
">\n\nProxy Voting is not about good governance, its about holding lawmakers hostage to the dangers GOP members want to put everyone else at risk for: Shootings, member abuse in committees, another Coup Attempt and COVID.\nI agree mostly with some of the items like term limits, which should absolutely be considered, but disallowing Proxy Voting is Republicans wanting to abuse power.",
">\n\nThe hang up is not allowing an insurrectionist as the speaker of the house. McCarthy should not hold speaker position. If the majority seats change for the house, each party tweaks or changes the rules. However, a republican house majority is not about better governance, look at this circus going on. I haven't been this entertained in ages , when it comes to DC politicking.",
">\n\nI didn’t say McCarthy should be speaker, or that I want a GOP majority in the House. I don’t want either, I was just curious what people thought the effect of the new rules would be.",
">\n\nI'm sorry , I just don't see those changes happening. Proposed and actual are two different things. The house majority, now republican, first order of business was removing the metal detectors. Metal detectors because terrorists stormed our capital building. These next two years are going to be painful. Better governance, like the talks to cut all that IRS funding that was so crucially needed to re-coop, we the people's money from tax evaders and corporations."
] |
>
Or perhaps they know how legislation is currently passed, and as a result know it's a broken system. Passing unpopular provisions by adding enough bribes to them isn't a functional legislative process.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.",
">\n\nOr, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due.",
">\n\nIs that not what the August recess is for? Also its too easily abused because it can be used as excuse to not attend the congress at all. I still think personal relationships matter and your not gonna get that by voting by proxy. You should have to have face to face interactions with your fellow moc to get legislation done.",
">\n\nProxy Voting is not about good governance, its about holding lawmakers hostage to the dangers GOP members want to put everyone else at risk for: Shootings, member abuse in committees, another Coup Attempt and COVID.\nI agree mostly with some of the items like term limits, which should absolutely be considered, but disallowing Proxy Voting is Republicans wanting to abuse power.",
">\n\nThe hang up is not allowing an insurrectionist as the speaker of the house. McCarthy should not hold speaker position. If the majority seats change for the house, each party tweaks or changes the rules. However, a republican house majority is not about better governance, look at this circus going on. I haven't been this entertained in ages , when it comes to DC politicking.",
">\n\nI didn’t say McCarthy should be speaker, or that I want a GOP majority in the House. I don’t want either, I was just curious what people thought the effect of the new rules would be.",
">\n\nI'm sorry , I just don't see those changes happening. Proposed and actual are two different things. The house majority, now republican, first order of business was removing the metal detectors. Metal detectors because terrorists stormed our capital building. These next two years are going to be painful. Better governance, like the talks to cut all that IRS funding that was so crucially needed to re-coop, we the people's money from tax evaders and corporations.",
">\n\nSounds like proposals from people who have no experience or knowledge of how legislation is passed."
] |
>
They know enough to know that this will fully gridlock all legislation. The ones proposing it don't want a functional government. They're the same ones preventing the legislature from being sworn in. They were the ones involved in the coup attempt two years ago.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.",
">\n\nOr, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due.",
">\n\nIs that not what the August recess is for? Also its too easily abused because it can be used as excuse to not attend the congress at all. I still think personal relationships matter and your not gonna get that by voting by proxy. You should have to have face to face interactions with your fellow moc to get legislation done.",
">\n\nProxy Voting is not about good governance, its about holding lawmakers hostage to the dangers GOP members want to put everyone else at risk for: Shootings, member abuse in committees, another Coup Attempt and COVID.\nI agree mostly with some of the items like term limits, which should absolutely be considered, but disallowing Proxy Voting is Republicans wanting to abuse power.",
">\n\nThe hang up is not allowing an insurrectionist as the speaker of the house. McCarthy should not hold speaker position. If the majority seats change for the house, each party tweaks or changes the rules. However, a republican house majority is not about better governance, look at this circus going on. I haven't been this entertained in ages , when it comes to DC politicking.",
">\n\nI didn’t say McCarthy should be speaker, or that I want a GOP majority in the House. I don’t want either, I was just curious what people thought the effect of the new rules would be.",
">\n\nI'm sorry , I just don't see those changes happening. Proposed and actual are two different things. The house majority, now republican, first order of business was removing the metal detectors. Metal detectors because terrorists stormed our capital building. These next two years are going to be painful. Better governance, like the talks to cut all that IRS funding that was so crucially needed to re-coop, we the people's money from tax evaders and corporations.",
">\n\nSounds like proposals from people who have no experience or knowledge of how legislation is passed.",
">\n\nOr perhaps they know how legislation is currently passed, and as a result know it's a broken system. Passing unpopular provisions by adding enough bribes to them isn't a functional legislative process."
] |
>
Lol presenting your tribal fact opposed narrative rather than actually addressing the concept.
Which party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right?
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.",
">\n\nOr, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due.",
">\n\nIs that not what the August recess is for? Also its too easily abused because it can be used as excuse to not attend the congress at all. I still think personal relationships matter and your not gonna get that by voting by proxy. You should have to have face to face interactions with your fellow moc to get legislation done.",
">\n\nProxy Voting is not about good governance, its about holding lawmakers hostage to the dangers GOP members want to put everyone else at risk for: Shootings, member abuse in committees, another Coup Attempt and COVID.\nI agree mostly with some of the items like term limits, which should absolutely be considered, but disallowing Proxy Voting is Republicans wanting to abuse power.",
">\n\nThe hang up is not allowing an insurrectionist as the speaker of the house. McCarthy should not hold speaker position. If the majority seats change for the house, each party tweaks or changes the rules. However, a republican house majority is not about better governance, look at this circus going on. I haven't been this entertained in ages , when it comes to DC politicking.",
">\n\nI didn’t say McCarthy should be speaker, or that I want a GOP majority in the House. I don’t want either, I was just curious what people thought the effect of the new rules would be.",
">\n\nI'm sorry , I just don't see those changes happening. Proposed and actual are two different things. The house majority, now republican, first order of business was removing the metal detectors. Metal detectors because terrorists stormed our capital building. These next two years are going to be painful. Better governance, like the talks to cut all that IRS funding that was so crucially needed to re-coop, we the people's money from tax evaders and corporations.",
">\n\nSounds like proposals from people who have no experience or knowledge of how legislation is passed.",
">\n\nOr perhaps they know how legislation is currently passed, and as a result know it's a broken system. Passing unpopular provisions by adding enough bribes to them isn't a functional legislative process.",
">\n\nThey know enough to know that this will fully gridlock all legislation. The ones proposing it don't want a functional government. They're the same ones preventing the legislature from being sworn in. They were the ones involved in the coup attempt two years ago."
] |
>
Which party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right?
The Republicans, obviously. Specifically the treason caucus politicians who have pushed for these exact concessions from McCarthy.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.",
">\n\nOr, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due.",
">\n\nIs that not what the August recess is for? Also its too easily abused because it can be used as excuse to not attend the congress at all. I still think personal relationships matter and your not gonna get that by voting by proxy. You should have to have face to face interactions with your fellow moc to get legislation done.",
">\n\nProxy Voting is not about good governance, its about holding lawmakers hostage to the dangers GOP members want to put everyone else at risk for: Shootings, member abuse in committees, another Coup Attempt and COVID.\nI agree mostly with some of the items like term limits, which should absolutely be considered, but disallowing Proxy Voting is Republicans wanting to abuse power.",
">\n\nThe hang up is not allowing an insurrectionist as the speaker of the house. McCarthy should not hold speaker position. If the majority seats change for the house, each party tweaks or changes the rules. However, a republican house majority is not about better governance, look at this circus going on. I haven't been this entertained in ages , when it comes to DC politicking.",
">\n\nI didn’t say McCarthy should be speaker, or that I want a GOP majority in the House. I don’t want either, I was just curious what people thought the effect of the new rules would be.",
">\n\nI'm sorry , I just don't see those changes happening. Proposed and actual are two different things. The house majority, now republican, first order of business was removing the metal detectors. Metal detectors because terrorists stormed our capital building. These next two years are going to be painful. Better governance, like the talks to cut all that IRS funding that was so crucially needed to re-coop, we the people's money from tax evaders and corporations.",
">\n\nSounds like proposals from people who have no experience or knowledge of how legislation is passed.",
">\n\nOr perhaps they know how legislation is currently passed, and as a result know it's a broken system. Passing unpopular provisions by adding enough bribes to them isn't a functional legislative process.",
">\n\nThey know enough to know that this will fully gridlock all legislation. The ones proposing it don't want a functional government. They're the same ones preventing the legislature from being sworn in. They were the ones involved in the coup attempt two years ago.",
">\n\nLol presenting your tribal fact opposed narrative rather than actually addressing the concept.\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right?"
] |
>
There is good and bad. TBH the idea of term limits is also quite appealing but officials especially the careerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.",
">\n\nOr, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due.",
">\n\nIs that not what the August recess is for? Also its too easily abused because it can be used as excuse to not attend the congress at all. I still think personal relationships matter and your not gonna get that by voting by proxy. You should have to have face to face interactions with your fellow moc to get legislation done.",
">\n\nProxy Voting is not about good governance, its about holding lawmakers hostage to the dangers GOP members want to put everyone else at risk for: Shootings, member abuse in committees, another Coup Attempt and COVID.\nI agree mostly with some of the items like term limits, which should absolutely be considered, but disallowing Proxy Voting is Republicans wanting to abuse power.",
">\n\nThe hang up is not allowing an insurrectionist as the speaker of the house. McCarthy should not hold speaker position. If the majority seats change for the house, each party tweaks or changes the rules. However, a republican house majority is not about better governance, look at this circus going on. I haven't been this entertained in ages , when it comes to DC politicking.",
">\n\nI didn’t say McCarthy should be speaker, or that I want a GOP majority in the House. I don’t want either, I was just curious what people thought the effect of the new rules would be.",
">\n\nI'm sorry , I just don't see those changes happening. Proposed and actual are two different things. The house majority, now republican, first order of business was removing the metal detectors. Metal detectors because terrorists stormed our capital building. These next two years are going to be painful. Better governance, like the talks to cut all that IRS funding that was so crucially needed to re-coop, we the people's money from tax evaders and corporations.",
">\n\nSounds like proposals from people who have no experience or knowledge of how legislation is passed.",
">\n\nOr perhaps they know how legislation is currently passed, and as a result know it's a broken system. Passing unpopular provisions by adding enough bribes to them isn't a functional legislative process.",
">\n\nThey know enough to know that this will fully gridlock all legislation. The ones proposing it don't want a functional government. They're the same ones preventing the legislature from being sworn in. They were the ones involved in the coup attempt two years ago.",
">\n\nLol presenting your tribal fact opposed narrative rather than actually addressing the concept.\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right?",
">\n\n\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right? \n\nThe Republicans, obviously. Specifically the treason caucus politicians who have pushed for these exact concessions from McCarthy."
] |
>
careerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.
Perhaps because the careerists believe in good governance and we've seen from all the research into the states that put term limits in place and/or repeal them that term limits don't enhance good governance or return power to "the people" and instead make less effective legislators and push power into unelected lobbyists and staffers?
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.",
">\n\nOr, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due.",
">\n\nIs that not what the August recess is for? Also its too easily abused because it can be used as excuse to not attend the congress at all. I still think personal relationships matter and your not gonna get that by voting by proxy. You should have to have face to face interactions with your fellow moc to get legislation done.",
">\n\nProxy Voting is not about good governance, its about holding lawmakers hostage to the dangers GOP members want to put everyone else at risk for: Shootings, member abuse in committees, another Coup Attempt and COVID.\nI agree mostly with some of the items like term limits, which should absolutely be considered, but disallowing Proxy Voting is Republicans wanting to abuse power.",
">\n\nThe hang up is not allowing an insurrectionist as the speaker of the house. McCarthy should not hold speaker position. If the majority seats change for the house, each party tweaks or changes the rules. However, a republican house majority is not about better governance, look at this circus going on. I haven't been this entertained in ages , when it comes to DC politicking.",
">\n\nI didn’t say McCarthy should be speaker, or that I want a GOP majority in the House. I don’t want either, I was just curious what people thought the effect of the new rules would be.",
">\n\nI'm sorry , I just don't see those changes happening. Proposed and actual are two different things. The house majority, now republican, first order of business was removing the metal detectors. Metal detectors because terrorists stormed our capital building. These next two years are going to be painful. Better governance, like the talks to cut all that IRS funding that was so crucially needed to re-coop, we the people's money from tax evaders and corporations.",
">\n\nSounds like proposals from people who have no experience or knowledge of how legislation is passed.",
">\n\nOr perhaps they know how legislation is currently passed, and as a result know it's a broken system. Passing unpopular provisions by adding enough bribes to them isn't a functional legislative process.",
">\n\nThey know enough to know that this will fully gridlock all legislation. The ones proposing it don't want a functional government. They're the same ones preventing the legislature from being sworn in. They were the ones involved in the coup attempt two years ago.",
">\n\nLol presenting your tribal fact opposed narrative rather than actually addressing the concept.\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right?",
">\n\n\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right? \n\nThe Republicans, obviously. Specifically the treason caucus politicians who have pushed for these exact concessions from McCarthy.",
">\n\nThere is good and bad. TBH the idea of term limits is also quite appealing but officials especially the careerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons."
] |
>
The biggest problem with these rules they are proposing are the result of them not doing their jobs. The Congress hasn't passed a complete budget in over 10 years, they've been operating on Continuing Resolutions and Omnibus spending bills, because the two sides refuse to come together and compromise and get things done for the country, they have these partisan fights and small groups with agendas that tangle things up and then whine to the media. The biggest thing is these elected individuals have to get back to doing the jobs they are sent there to do, instead of grandstanding like the GOP is doing right now. But on the other hand this could be tied right back to the voters, when 25-30% of the eligible voters don't vote, and many allow themselves to be disenfranchised, by not doing what is necessary to vote. If the state throws up barriers then jump through the hoops and cast your vote, that's the only way change happens, gerrymandering isn't going away anytime soon, so getting maximum participation is critical.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.",
">\n\nOr, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due.",
">\n\nIs that not what the August recess is for? Also its too easily abused because it can be used as excuse to not attend the congress at all. I still think personal relationships matter and your not gonna get that by voting by proxy. You should have to have face to face interactions with your fellow moc to get legislation done.",
">\n\nProxy Voting is not about good governance, its about holding lawmakers hostage to the dangers GOP members want to put everyone else at risk for: Shootings, member abuse in committees, another Coup Attempt and COVID.\nI agree mostly with some of the items like term limits, which should absolutely be considered, but disallowing Proxy Voting is Republicans wanting to abuse power.",
">\n\nThe hang up is not allowing an insurrectionist as the speaker of the house. McCarthy should not hold speaker position. If the majority seats change for the house, each party tweaks or changes the rules. However, a republican house majority is not about better governance, look at this circus going on. I haven't been this entertained in ages , when it comes to DC politicking.",
">\n\nI didn’t say McCarthy should be speaker, or that I want a GOP majority in the House. I don’t want either, I was just curious what people thought the effect of the new rules would be.",
">\n\nI'm sorry , I just don't see those changes happening. Proposed and actual are two different things. The house majority, now republican, first order of business was removing the metal detectors. Metal detectors because terrorists stormed our capital building. These next two years are going to be painful. Better governance, like the talks to cut all that IRS funding that was so crucially needed to re-coop, we the people's money from tax evaders and corporations.",
">\n\nSounds like proposals from people who have no experience or knowledge of how legislation is passed.",
">\n\nOr perhaps they know how legislation is currently passed, and as a result know it's a broken system. Passing unpopular provisions by adding enough bribes to them isn't a functional legislative process.",
">\n\nThey know enough to know that this will fully gridlock all legislation. The ones proposing it don't want a functional government. They're the same ones preventing the legislature from being sworn in. They were the ones involved in the coup attempt two years ago.",
">\n\nLol presenting your tribal fact opposed narrative rather than actually addressing the concept.\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right?",
">\n\n\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right? \n\nThe Republicans, obviously. Specifically the treason caucus politicians who have pushed for these exact concessions from McCarthy.",
">\n\nThere is good and bad. TBH the idea of term limits is also quite appealing but officials especially the careerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.",
">\n\n\ncareerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.\n\nPerhaps because the careerists believe in good governance and we've seen from all the research into the states that put term limits in place and/or repeal them that term limits don't enhance good governance or return power to \"the people\" and instead make less effective legislators and push power into unelected lobbyists and staffers?"
] |
>
Whatever leads to the least getting done in Congress is the best we can hope for. I don't care who does it.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.",
">\n\nOr, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due.",
">\n\nIs that not what the August recess is for? Also its too easily abused because it can be used as excuse to not attend the congress at all. I still think personal relationships matter and your not gonna get that by voting by proxy. You should have to have face to face interactions with your fellow moc to get legislation done.",
">\n\nProxy Voting is not about good governance, its about holding lawmakers hostage to the dangers GOP members want to put everyone else at risk for: Shootings, member abuse in committees, another Coup Attempt and COVID.\nI agree mostly with some of the items like term limits, which should absolutely be considered, but disallowing Proxy Voting is Republicans wanting to abuse power.",
">\n\nThe hang up is not allowing an insurrectionist as the speaker of the house. McCarthy should not hold speaker position. If the majority seats change for the house, each party tweaks or changes the rules. However, a republican house majority is not about better governance, look at this circus going on. I haven't been this entertained in ages , when it comes to DC politicking.",
">\n\nI didn’t say McCarthy should be speaker, or that I want a GOP majority in the House. I don’t want either, I was just curious what people thought the effect of the new rules would be.",
">\n\nI'm sorry , I just don't see those changes happening. Proposed and actual are two different things. The house majority, now republican, first order of business was removing the metal detectors. Metal detectors because terrorists stormed our capital building. These next two years are going to be painful. Better governance, like the talks to cut all that IRS funding that was so crucially needed to re-coop, we the people's money from tax evaders and corporations.",
">\n\nSounds like proposals from people who have no experience or knowledge of how legislation is passed.",
">\n\nOr perhaps they know how legislation is currently passed, and as a result know it's a broken system. Passing unpopular provisions by adding enough bribes to them isn't a functional legislative process.",
">\n\nThey know enough to know that this will fully gridlock all legislation. The ones proposing it don't want a functional government. They're the same ones preventing the legislature from being sworn in. They were the ones involved in the coup attempt two years ago.",
">\n\nLol presenting your tribal fact opposed narrative rather than actually addressing the concept.\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right?",
">\n\n\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right? \n\nThe Republicans, obviously. Specifically the treason caucus politicians who have pushed for these exact concessions from McCarthy.",
">\n\nThere is good and bad. TBH the idea of term limits is also quite appealing but officials especially the careerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.",
">\n\n\ncareerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.\n\nPerhaps because the careerists believe in good governance and we've seen from all the research into the states that put term limits in place and/or repeal them that term limits don't enhance good governance or return power to \"the people\" and instead make less effective legislators and push power into unelected lobbyists and staffers?",
">\n\nThe biggest problem with these rules they are proposing are the result of them not doing their jobs. The Congress hasn't passed a complete budget in over 10 years, they've been operating on Continuing Resolutions and Omnibus spending bills, because the two sides refuse to come together and compromise and get things done for the country, they have these partisan fights and small groups with agendas that tangle things up and then whine to the media. The biggest thing is these elected individuals have to get back to doing the jobs they are sent there to do, instead of grandstanding like the GOP is doing right now. But on the other hand this could be tied right back to the voters, when 25-30% of the eligible voters don't vote, and many allow themselves to be disenfranchised, by not doing what is necessary to vote. If the state throws up barriers then jump through the hoops and cast your vote, that's the only way change happens, gerrymandering isn't going away anytime soon, so getting maximum participation is critical."
] |
>
you really don't want to see the country default on its debts. like, you think you do, but you really don't.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.",
">\n\nOr, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due.",
">\n\nIs that not what the August recess is for? Also its too easily abused because it can be used as excuse to not attend the congress at all. I still think personal relationships matter and your not gonna get that by voting by proxy. You should have to have face to face interactions with your fellow moc to get legislation done.",
">\n\nProxy Voting is not about good governance, its about holding lawmakers hostage to the dangers GOP members want to put everyone else at risk for: Shootings, member abuse in committees, another Coup Attempt and COVID.\nI agree mostly with some of the items like term limits, which should absolutely be considered, but disallowing Proxy Voting is Republicans wanting to abuse power.",
">\n\nThe hang up is not allowing an insurrectionist as the speaker of the house. McCarthy should not hold speaker position. If the majority seats change for the house, each party tweaks or changes the rules. However, a republican house majority is not about better governance, look at this circus going on. I haven't been this entertained in ages , when it comes to DC politicking.",
">\n\nI didn’t say McCarthy should be speaker, or that I want a GOP majority in the House. I don’t want either, I was just curious what people thought the effect of the new rules would be.",
">\n\nI'm sorry , I just don't see those changes happening. Proposed and actual are two different things. The house majority, now republican, first order of business was removing the metal detectors. Metal detectors because terrorists stormed our capital building. These next two years are going to be painful. Better governance, like the talks to cut all that IRS funding that was so crucially needed to re-coop, we the people's money from tax evaders and corporations.",
">\n\nSounds like proposals from people who have no experience or knowledge of how legislation is passed.",
">\n\nOr perhaps they know how legislation is currently passed, and as a result know it's a broken system. Passing unpopular provisions by adding enough bribes to them isn't a functional legislative process.",
">\n\nThey know enough to know that this will fully gridlock all legislation. The ones proposing it don't want a functional government. They're the same ones preventing the legislature from being sworn in. They were the ones involved in the coup attempt two years ago.",
">\n\nLol presenting your tribal fact opposed narrative rather than actually addressing the concept.\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right?",
">\n\n\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right? \n\nThe Republicans, obviously. Specifically the treason caucus politicians who have pushed for these exact concessions from McCarthy.",
">\n\nThere is good and bad. TBH the idea of term limits is also quite appealing but officials especially the careerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.",
">\n\n\ncareerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.\n\nPerhaps because the careerists believe in good governance and we've seen from all the research into the states that put term limits in place and/or repeal them that term limits don't enhance good governance or return power to \"the people\" and instead make less effective legislators and push power into unelected lobbyists and staffers?",
">\n\nThe biggest problem with these rules they are proposing are the result of them not doing their jobs. The Congress hasn't passed a complete budget in over 10 years, they've been operating on Continuing Resolutions and Omnibus spending bills, because the two sides refuse to come together and compromise and get things done for the country, they have these partisan fights and small groups with agendas that tangle things up and then whine to the media. The biggest thing is these elected individuals have to get back to doing the jobs they are sent there to do, instead of grandstanding like the GOP is doing right now. But on the other hand this could be tied right back to the voters, when 25-30% of the eligible voters don't vote, and many allow themselves to be disenfranchised, by not doing what is necessary to vote. If the state throws up barriers then jump through the hoops and cast your vote, that's the only way change happens, gerrymandering isn't going away anytime soon, so getting maximum participation is critical.",
">\n\nWhatever leads to the least getting done in Congress is the best we can hope for. I don't care who does it."
] |
>
You are right, I want to see us cut our spending instead of taking out even more loans to pay off the ones we already have
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.",
">\n\nOr, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due.",
">\n\nIs that not what the August recess is for? Also its too easily abused because it can be used as excuse to not attend the congress at all. I still think personal relationships matter and your not gonna get that by voting by proxy. You should have to have face to face interactions with your fellow moc to get legislation done.",
">\n\nProxy Voting is not about good governance, its about holding lawmakers hostage to the dangers GOP members want to put everyone else at risk for: Shootings, member abuse in committees, another Coup Attempt and COVID.\nI agree mostly with some of the items like term limits, which should absolutely be considered, but disallowing Proxy Voting is Republicans wanting to abuse power.",
">\n\nThe hang up is not allowing an insurrectionist as the speaker of the house. McCarthy should not hold speaker position. If the majority seats change for the house, each party tweaks or changes the rules. However, a republican house majority is not about better governance, look at this circus going on. I haven't been this entertained in ages , when it comes to DC politicking.",
">\n\nI didn’t say McCarthy should be speaker, or that I want a GOP majority in the House. I don’t want either, I was just curious what people thought the effect of the new rules would be.",
">\n\nI'm sorry , I just don't see those changes happening. Proposed and actual are two different things. The house majority, now republican, first order of business was removing the metal detectors. Metal detectors because terrorists stormed our capital building. These next two years are going to be painful. Better governance, like the talks to cut all that IRS funding that was so crucially needed to re-coop, we the people's money from tax evaders and corporations.",
">\n\nSounds like proposals from people who have no experience or knowledge of how legislation is passed.",
">\n\nOr perhaps they know how legislation is currently passed, and as a result know it's a broken system. Passing unpopular provisions by adding enough bribes to them isn't a functional legislative process.",
">\n\nThey know enough to know that this will fully gridlock all legislation. The ones proposing it don't want a functional government. They're the same ones preventing the legislature from being sworn in. They were the ones involved in the coup attempt two years ago.",
">\n\nLol presenting your tribal fact opposed narrative rather than actually addressing the concept.\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right?",
">\n\n\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right? \n\nThe Republicans, obviously. Specifically the treason caucus politicians who have pushed for these exact concessions from McCarthy.",
">\n\nThere is good and bad. TBH the idea of term limits is also quite appealing but officials especially the careerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.",
">\n\n\ncareerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.\n\nPerhaps because the careerists believe in good governance and we've seen from all the research into the states that put term limits in place and/or repeal them that term limits don't enhance good governance or return power to \"the people\" and instead make less effective legislators and push power into unelected lobbyists and staffers?",
">\n\nThe biggest problem with these rules they are proposing are the result of them not doing their jobs. The Congress hasn't passed a complete budget in over 10 years, they've been operating on Continuing Resolutions and Omnibus spending bills, because the two sides refuse to come together and compromise and get things done for the country, they have these partisan fights and small groups with agendas that tangle things up and then whine to the media. The biggest thing is these elected individuals have to get back to doing the jobs they are sent there to do, instead of grandstanding like the GOP is doing right now. But on the other hand this could be tied right back to the voters, when 25-30% of the eligible voters don't vote, and many allow themselves to be disenfranchised, by not doing what is necessary to vote. If the state throws up barriers then jump through the hoops and cast your vote, that's the only way change happens, gerrymandering isn't going away anytime soon, so getting maximum participation is critical.",
">\n\nWhatever leads to the least getting done in Congress is the best we can hope for. I don't care who does it.",
">\n\nyou really don't want to see the country default on its debts. like, you think you do, but you really don't."
] |
>
Loans against what? The entire US economy? I love people that try to make equivalencies between the national debt and something like household debt. They are fundamentally different things.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.",
">\n\nOr, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due.",
">\n\nIs that not what the August recess is for? Also its too easily abused because it can be used as excuse to not attend the congress at all. I still think personal relationships matter and your not gonna get that by voting by proxy. You should have to have face to face interactions with your fellow moc to get legislation done.",
">\n\nProxy Voting is not about good governance, its about holding lawmakers hostage to the dangers GOP members want to put everyone else at risk for: Shootings, member abuse in committees, another Coup Attempt and COVID.\nI agree mostly with some of the items like term limits, which should absolutely be considered, but disallowing Proxy Voting is Republicans wanting to abuse power.",
">\n\nThe hang up is not allowing an insurrectionist as the speaker of the house. McCarthy should not hold speaker position. If the majority seats change for the house, each party tweaks or changes the rules. However, a republican house majority is not about better governance, look at this circus going on. I haven't been this entertained in ages , when it comes to DC politicking.",
">\n\nI didn’t say McCarthy should be speaker, or that I want a GOP majority in the House. I don’t want either, I was just curious what people thought the effect of the new rules would be.",
">\n\nI'm sorry , I just don't see those changes happening. Proposed and actual are two different things. The house majority, now republican, first order of business was removing the metal detectors. Metal detectors because terrorists stormed our capital building. These next two years are going to be painful. Better governance, like the talks to cut all that IRS funding that was so crucially needed to re-coop, we the people's money from tax evaders and corporations.",
">\n\nSounds like proposals from people who have no experience or knowledge of how legislation is passed.",
">\n\nOr perhaps they know how legislation is currently passed, and as a result know it's a broken system. Passing unpopular provisions by adding enough bribes to them isn't a functional legislative process.",
">\n\nThey know enough to know that this will fully gridlock all legislation. The ones proposing it don't want a functional government. They're the same ones preventing the legislature from being sworn in. They were the ones involved in the coup attempt two years ago.",
">\n\nLol presenting your tribal fact opposed narrative rather than actually addressing the concept.\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right?",
">\n\n\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right? \n\nThe Republicans, obviously. Specifically the treason caucus politicians who have pushed for these exact concessions from McCarthy.",
">\n\nThere is good and bad. TBH the idea of term limits is also quite appealing but officials especially the careerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.",
">\n\n\ncareerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.\n\nPerhaps because the careerists believe in good governance and we've seen from all the research into the states that put term limits in place and/or repeal them that term limits don't enhance good governance or return power to \"the people\" and instead make less effective legislators and push power into unelected lobbyists and staffers?",
">\n\nThe biggest problem with these rules they are proposing are the result of them not doing their jobs. The Congress hasn't passed a complete budget in over 10 years, they've been operating on Continuing Resolutions and Omnibus spending bills, because the two sides refuse to come together and compromise and get things done for the country, they have these partisan fights and small groups with agendas that tangle things up and then whine to the media. The biggest thing is these elected individuals have to get back to doing the jobs they are sent there to do, instead of grandstanding like the GOP is doing right now. But on the other hand this could be tied right back to the voters, when 25-30% of the eligible voters don't vote, and many allow themselves to be disenfranchised, by not doing what is necessary to vote. If the state throws up barriers then jump through the hoops and cast your vote, that's the only way change happens, gerrymandering isn't going away anytime soon, so getting maximum participation is critical.",
">\n\nWhatever leads to the least getting done in Congress is the best we can hope for. I don't care who does it.",
">\n\nyou really don't want to see the country default on its debts. like, you think you do, but you really don't.",
">\n\nYou are right, I want to see us cut our spending instead of taking out even more loans to pay off the ones we already have"
] |
>
Never claimed they were similar.
I Said I prefer they make cuts over raising the ceiling
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.",
">\n\nOr, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due.",
">\n\nIs that not what the August recess is for? Also its too easily abused because it can be used as excuse to not attend the congress at all. I still think personal relationships matter and your not gonna get that by voting by proxy. You should have to have face to face interactions with your fellow moc to get legislation done.",
">\n\nProxy Voting is not about good governance, its about holding lawmakers hostage to the dangers GOP members want to put everyone else at risk for: Shootings, member abuse in committees, another Coup Attempt and COVID.\nI agree mostly with some of the items like term limits, which should absolutely be considered, but disallowing Proxy Voting is Republicans wanting to abuse power.",
">\n\nThe hang up is not allowing an insurrectionist as the speaker of the house. McCarthy should not hold speaker position. If the majority seats change for the house, each party tweaks or changes the rules. However, a republican house majority is not about better governance, look at this circus going on. I haven't been this entertained in ages , when it comes to DC politicking.",
">\n\nI didn’t say McCarthy should be speaker, or that I want a GOP majority in the House. I don’t want either, I was just curious what people thought the effect of the new rules would be.",
">\n\nI'm sorry , I just don't see those changes happening. Proposed and actual are two different things. The house majority, now republican, first order of business was removing the metal detectors. Metal detectors because terrorists stormed our capital building. These next two years are going to be painful. Better governance, like the talks to cut all that IRS funding that was so crucially needed to re-coop, we the people's money from tax evaders and corporations.",
">\n\nSounds like proposals from people who have no experience or knowledge of how legislation is passed.",
">\n\nOr perhaps they know how legislation is currently passed, and as a result know it's a broken system. Passing unpopular provisions by adding enough bribes to them isn't a functional legislative process.",
">\n\nThey know enough to know that this will fully gridlock all legislation. The ones proposing it don't want a functional government. They're the same ones preventing the legislature from being sworn in. They were the ones involved in the coup attempt two years ago.",
">\n\nLol presenting your tribal fact opposed narrative rather than actually addressing the concept.\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right?",
">\n\n\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right? \n\nThe Republicans, obviously. Specifically the treason caucus politicians who have pushed for these exact concessions from McCarthy.",
">\n\nThere is good and bad. TBH the idea of term limits is also quite appealing but officials especially the careerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.",
">\n\n\ncareerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.\n\nPerhaps because the careerists believe in good governance and we've seen from all the research into the states that put term limits in place and/or repeal them that term limits don't enhance good governance or return power to \"the people\" and instead make less effective legislators and push power into unelected lobbyists and staffers?",
">\n\nThe biggest problem with these rules they are proposing are the result of them not doing their jobs. The Congress hasn't passed a complete budget in over 10 years, they've been operating on Continuing Resolutions and Omnibus spending bills, because the two sides refuse to come together and compromise and get things done for the country, they have these partisan fights and small groups with agendas that tangle things up and then whine to the media. The biggest thing is these elected individuals have to get back to doing the jobs they are sent there to do, instead of grandstanding like the GOP is doing right now. But on the other hand this could be tied right back to the voters, when 25-30% of the eligible voters don't vote, and many allow themselves to be disenfranchised, by not doing what is necessary to vote. If the state throws up barriers then jump through the hoops and cast your vote, that's the only way change happens, gerrymandering isn't going away anytime soon, so getting maximum participation is critical.",
">\n\nWhatever leads to the least getting done in Congress is the best we can hope for. I don't care who does it.",
">\n\nyou really don't want to see the country default on its debts. like, you think you do, but you really don't.",
">\n\nYou are right, I want to see us cut our spending instead of taking out even more loans to pay off the ones we already have",
">\n\nLoans against what? The entire US economy? I love people that try to make equivalencies between the national debt and something like household debt. They are fundamentally different things."
] |
>
Raising the ceiling isn’t taking out more loans. You can both make cuts and raise the ceiling at the same time, and we have done that in the past.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.",
">\n\nOr, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due.",
">\n\nIs that not what the August recess is for? Also its too easily abused because it can be used as excuse to not attend the congress at all. I still think personal relationships matter and your not gonna get that by voting by proxy. You should have to have face to face interactions with your fellow moc to get legislation done.",
">\n\nProxy Voting is not about good governance, its about holding lawmakers hostage to the dangers GOP members want to put everyone else at risk for: Shootings, member abuse in committees, another Coup Attempt and COVID.\nI agree mostly with some of the items like term limits, which should absolutely be considered, but disallowing Proxy Voting is Republicans wanting to abuse power.",
">\n\nThe hang up is not allowing an insurrectionist as the speaker of the house. McCarthy should not hold speaker position. If the majority seats change for the house, each party tweaks or changes the rules. However, a republican house majority is not about better governance, look at this circus going on. I haven't been this entertained in ages , when it comes to DC politicking.",
">\n\nI didn’t say McCarthy should be speaker, or that I want a GOP majority in the House. I don’t want either, I was just curious what people thought the effect of the new rules would be.",
">\n\nI'm sorry , I just don't see those changes happening. Proposed and actual are two different things. The house majority, now republican, first order of business was removing the metal detectors. Metal detectors because terrorists stormed our capital building. These next two years are going to be painful. Better governance, like the talks to cut all that IRS funding that was so crucially needed to re-coop, we the people's money from tax evaders and corporations.",
">\n\nSounds like proposals from people who have no experience or knowledge of how legislation is passed.",
">\n\nOr perhaps they know how legislation is currently passed, and as a result know it's a broken system. Passing unpopular provisions by adding enough bribes to them isn't a functional legislative process.",
">\n\nThey know enough to know that this will fully gridlock all legislation. The ones proposing it don't want a functional government. They're the same ones preventing the legislature from being sworn in. They were the ones involved in the coup attempt two years ago.",
">\n\nLol presenting your tribal fact opposed narrative rather than actually addressing the concept.\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right?",
">\n\n\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right? \n\nThe Republicans, obviously. Specifically the treason caucus politicians who have pushed for these exact concessions from McCarthy.",
">\n\nThere is good and bad. TBH the idea of term limits is also quite appealing but officials especially the careerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.",
">\n\n\ncareerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.\n\nPerhaps because the careerists believe in good governance and we've seen from all the research into the states that put term limits in place and/or repeal them that term limits don't enhance good governance or return power to \"the people\" and instead make less effective legislators and push power into unelected lobbyists and staffers?",
">\n\nThe biggest problem with these rules they are proposing are the result of them not doing their jobs. The Congress hasn't passed a complete budget in over 10 years, they've been operating on Continuing Resolutions and Omnibus spending bills, because the two sides refuse to come together and compromise and get things done for the country, they have these partisan fights and small groups with agendas that tangle things up and then whine to the media. The biggest thing is these elected individuals have to get back to doing the jobs they are sent there to do, instead of grandstanding like the GOP is doing right now. But on the other hand this could be tied right back to the voters, when 25-30% of the eligible voters don't vote, and many allow themselves to be disenfranchised, by not doing what is necessary to vote. If the state throws up barriers then jump through the hoops and cast your vote, that's the only way change happens, gerrymandering isn't going away anytime soon, so getting maximum participation is critical.",
">\n\nWhatever leads to the least getting done in Congress is the best we can hope for. I don't care who does it.",
">\n\nyou really don't want to see the country default on its debts. like, you think you do, but you really don't.",
">\n\nYou are right, I want to see us cut our spending instead of taking out even more loans to pay off the ones we already have",
">\n\nLoans against what? The entire US economy? I love people that try to make equivalencies between the national debt and something like household debt. They are fundamentally different things.",
">\n\nNever claimed they were similar.\nI Said I prefer they make cuts over raising the ceiling"
] |
>
You can make cuts and not raise the ceiling. Let's do that one
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.",
">\n\nOr, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due.",
">\n\nIs that not what the August recess is for? Also its too easily abused because it can be used as excuse to not attend the congress at all. I still think personal relationships matter and your not gonna get that by voting by proxy. You should have to have face to face interactions with your fellow moc to get legislation done.",
">\n\nProxy Voting is not about good governance, its about holding lawmakers hostage to the dangers GOP members want to put everyone else at risk for: Shootings, member abuse in committees, another Coup Attempt and COVID.\nI agree mostly with some of the items like term limits, which should absolutely be considered, but disallowing Proxy Voting is Republicans wanting to abuse power.",
">\n\nThe hang up is not allowing an insurrectionist as the speaker of the house. McCarthy should not hold speaker position. If the majority seats change for the house, each party tweaks or changes the rules. However, a republican house majority is not about better governance, look at this circus going on. I haven't been this entertained in ages , when it comes to DC politicking.",
">\n\nI didn’t say McCarthy should be speaker, or that I want a GOP majority in the House. I don’t want either, I was just curious what people thought the effect of the new rules would be.",
">\n\nI'm sorry , I just don't see those changes happening. Proposed and actual are two different things. The house majority, now republican, first order of business was removing the metal detectors. Metal detectors because terrorists stormed our capital building. These next two years are going to be painful. Better governance, like the talks to cut all that IRS funding that was so crucially needed to re-coop, we the people's money from tax evaders and corporations.",
">\n\nSounds like proposals from people who have no experience or knowledge of how legislation is passed.",
">\n\nOr perhaps they know how legislation is currently passed, and as a result know it's a broken system. Passing unpopular provisions by adding enough bribes to them isn't a functional legislative process.",
">\n\nThey know enough to know that this will fully gridlock all legislation. The ones proposing it don't want a functional government. They're the same ones preventing the legislature from being sworn in. They were the ones involved in the coup attempt two years ago.",
">\n\nLol presenting your tribal fact opposed narrative rather than actually addressing the concept.\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right?",
">\n\n\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right? \n\nThe Republicans, obviously. Specifically the treason caucus politicians who have pushed for these exact concessions from McCarthy.",
">\n\nThere is good and bad. TBH the idea of term limits is also quite appealing but officials especially the careerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.",
">\n\n\ncareerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.\n\nPerhaps because the careerists believe in good governance and we've seen from all the research into the states that put term limits in place and/or repeal them that term limits don't enhance good governance or return power to \"the people\" and instead make less effective legislators and push power into unelected lobbyists and staffers?",
">\n\nThe biggest problem with these rules they are proposing are the result of them not doing their jobs. The Congress hasn't passed a complete budget in over 10 years, they've been operating on Continuing Resolutions and Omnibus spending bills, because the two sides refuse to come together and compromise and get things done for the country, they have these partisan fights and small groups with agendas that tangle things up and then whine to the media. The biggest thing is these elected individuals have to get back to doing the jobs they are sent there to do, instead of grandstanding like the GOP is doing right now. But on the other hand this could be tied right back to the voters, when 25-30% of the eligible voters don't vote, and many allow themselves to be disenfranchised, by not doing what is necessary to vote. If the state throws up barriers then jump through the hoops and cast your vote, that's the only way change happens, gerrymandering isn't going away anytime soon, so getting maximum participation is critical.",
">\n\nWhatever leads to the least getting done in Congress is the best we can hope for. I don't care who does it.",
">\n\nyou really don't want to see the country default on its debts. like, you think you do, but you really don't.",
">\n\nYou are right, I want to see us cut our spending instead of taking out even more loans to pay off the ones we already have",
">\n\nLoans against what? The entire US economy? I love people that try to make equivalencies between the national debt and something like household debt. They are fundamentally different things.",
">\n\nNever claimed they were similar.\nI Said I prefer they make cuts over raising the ceiling",
">\n\nRaising the ceiling isn’t taking out more loans. You can both make cuts and raise the ceiling at the same time, and we have done that in the past."
] |
>
No, actually you can’t. If you don’t raise the ceiling, the government can’t spend any money, whether or not you cut the budget. That would fuck up the entire globes economy, not just americas.
If you want everybody to become drastically more impoverished, then sure don’t raise the ceiling. If you don’t want to cause completely unnecessary pain, the ceiling should be raised and then abolished entirely.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.",
">\n\nOr, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due.",
">\n\nIs that not what the August recess is for? Also its too easily abused because it can be used as excuse to not attend the congress at all. I still think personal relationships matter and your not gonna get that by voting by proxy. You should have to have face to face interactions with your fellow moc to get legislation done.",
">\n\nProxy Voting is not about good governance, its about holding lawmakers hostage to the dangers GOP members want to put everyone else at risk for: Shootings, member abuse in committees, another Coup Attempt and COVID.\nI agree mostly with some of the items like term limits, which should absolutely be considered, but disallowing Proxy Voting is Republicans wanting to abuse power.",
">\n\nThe hang up is not allowing an insurrectionist as the speaker of the house. McCarthy should not hold speaker position. If the majority seats change for the house, each party tweaks or changes the rules. However, a republican house majority is not about better governance, look at this circus going on. I haven't been this entertained in ages , when it comes to DC politicking.",
">\n\nI didn’t say McCarthy should be speaker, or that I want a GOP majority in the House. I don’t want either, I was just curious what people thought the effect of the new rules would be.",
">\n\nI'm sorry , I just don't see those changes happening. Proposed and actual are two different things. The house majority, now republican, first order of business was removing the metal detectors. Metal detectors because terrorists stormed our capital building. These next two years are going to be painful. Better governance, like the talks to cut all that IRS funding that was so crucially needed to re-coop, we the people's money from tax evaders and corporations.",
">\n\nSounds like proposals from people who have no experience or knowledge of how legislation is passed.",
">\n\nOr perhaps they know how legislation is currently passed, and as a result know it's a broken system. Passing unpopular provisions by adding enough bribes to them isn't a functional legislative process.",
">\n\nThey know enough to know that this will fully gridlock all legislation. The ones proposing it don't want a functional government. They're the same ones preventing the legislature from being sworn in. They were the ones involved in the coup attempt two years ago.",
">\n\nLol presenting your tribal fact opposed narrative rather than actually addressing the concept.\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right?",
">\n\n\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right? \n\nThe Republicans, obviously. Specifically the treason caucus politicians who have pushed for these exact concessions from McCarthy.",
">\n\nThere is good and bad. TBH the idea of term limits is also quite appealing but officials especially the careerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.",
">\n\n\ncareerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.\n\nPerhaps because the careerists believe in good governance and we've seen from all the research into the states that put term limits in place and/or repeal them that term limits don't enhance good governance or return power to \"the people\" and instead make less effective legislators and push power into unelected lobbyists and staffers?",
">\n\nThe biggest problem with these rules they are proposing are the result of them not doing their jobs. The Congress hasn't passed a complete budget in over 10 years, they've been operating on Continuing Resolutions and Omnibus spending bills, because the two sides refuse to come together and compromise and get things done for the country, they have these partisan fights and small groups with agendas that tangle things up and then whine to the media. The biggest thing is these elected individuals have to get back to doing the jobs they are sent there to do, instead of grandstanding like the GOP is doing right now. But on the other hand this could be tied right back to the voters, when 25-30% of the eligible voters don't vote, and many allow themselves to be disenfranchised, by not doing what is necessary to vote. If the state throws up barriers then jump through the hoops and cast your vote, that's the only way change happens, gerrymandering isn't going away anytime soon, so getting maximum participation is critical.",
">\n\nWhatever leads to the least getting done in Congress is the best we can hope for. I don't care who does it.",
">\n\nyou really don't want to see the country default on its debts. like, you think you do, but you really don't.",
">\n\nYou are right, I want to see us cut our spending instead of taking out even more loans to pay off the ones we already have",
">\n\nLoans against what? The entire US economy? I love people that try to make equivalencies between the national debt and something like household debt. They are fundamentally different things.",
">\n\nNever claimed they were similar.\nI Said I prefer they make cuts over raising the ceiling",
">\n\nRaising the ceiling isn’t taking out more loans. You can both make cuts and raise the ceiling at the same time, and we have done that in the past.",
">\n\nYou can make cuts and not raise the ceiling. Let's do that one"
] |
>
Most of these proposed rule changes are reasonable IMO, I just don’t believe they are being pushed for in good faith. I’m of the impression that he could of said yes to all of these before vote one and they’d still drag him through the mud to prove a point
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.",
">\n\nOr, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due.",
">\n\nIs that not what the August recess is for? Also its too easily abused because it can be used as excuse to not attend the congress at all. I still think personal relationships matter and your not gonna get that by voting by proxy. You should have to have face to face interactions with your fellow moc to get legislation done.",
">\n\nProxy Voting is not about good governance, its about holding lawmakers hostage to the dangers GOP members want to put everyone else at risk for: Shootings, member abuse in committees, another Coup Attempt and COVID.\nI agree mostly with some of the items like term limits, which should absolutely be considered, but disallowing Proxy Voting is Republicans wanting to abuse power.",
">\n\nThe hang up is not allowing an insurrectionist as the speaker of the house. McCarthy should not hold speaker position. If the majority seats change for the house, each party tweaks or changes the rules. However, a republican house majority is not about better governance, look at this circus going on. I haven't been this entertained in ages , when it comes to DC politicking.",
">\n\nI didn’t say McCarthy should be speaker, or that I want a GOP majority in the House. I don’t want either, I was just curious what people thought the effect of the new rules would be.",
">\n\nI'm sorry , I just don't see those changes happening. Proposed and actual are two different things. The house majority, now republican, first order of business was removing the metal detectors. Metal detectors because terrorists stormed our capital building. These next two years are going to be painful. Better governance, like the talks to cut all that IRS funding that was so crucially needed to re-coop, we the people's money from tax evaders and corporations.",
">\n\nSounds like proposals from people who have no experience or knowledge of how legislation is passed.",
">\n\nOr perhaps they know how legislation is currently passed, and as a result know it's a broken system. Passing unpopular provisions by adding enough bribes to them isn't a functional legislative process.",
">\n\nThey know enough to know that this will fully gridlock all legislation. The ones proposing it don't want a functional government. They're the same ones preventing the legislature from being sworn in. They were the ones involved in the coup attempt two years ago.",
">\n\nLol presenting your tribal fact opposed narrative rather than actually addressing the concept.\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right?",
">\n\n\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right? \n\nThe Republicans, obviously. Specifically the treason caucus politicians who have pushed for these exact concessions from McCarthy.",
">\n\nThere is good and bad. TBH the idea of term limits is also quite appealing but officials especially the careerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.",
">\n\n\ncareerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.\n\nPerhaps because the careerists believe in good governance and we've seen from all the research into the states that put term limits in place and/or repeal them that term limits don't enhance good governance or return power to \"the people\" and instead make less effective legislators and push power into unelected lobbyists and staffers?",
">\n\nThe biggest problem with these rules they are proposing are the result of them not doing their jobs. The Congress hasn't passed a complete budget in over 10 years, they've been operating on Continuing Resolutions and Omnibus spending bills, because the two sides refuse to come together and compromise and get things done for the country, they have these partisan fights and small groups with agendas that tangle things up and then whine to the media. The biggest thing is these elected individuals have to get back to doing the jobs they are sent there to do, instead of grandstanding like the GOP is doing right now. But on the other hand this could be tied right back to the voters, when 25-30% of the eligible voters don't vote, and many allow themselves to be disenfranchised, by not doing what is necessary to vote. If the state throws up barriers then jump through the hoops and cast your vote, that's the only way change happens, gerrymandering isn't going away anytime soon, so getting maximum participation is critical.",
">\n\nWhatever leads to the least getting done in Congress is the best we can hope for. I don't care who does it.",
">\n\nyou really don't want to see the country default on its debts. like, you think you do, but you really don't.",
">\n\nYou are right, I want to see us cut our spending instead of taking out even more loans to pay off the ones we already have",
">\n\nLoans against what? The entire US economy? I love people that try to make equivalencies between the national debt and something like household debt. They are fundamentally different things.",
">\n\nNever claimed they were similar.\nI Said I prefer they make cuts over raising the ceiling",
">\n\nRaising the ceiling isn’t taking out more loans. You can both make cuts and raise the ceiling at the same time, and we have done that in the past.",
">\n\nYou can make cuts and not raise the ceiling. Let's do that one",
">\n\nNo, actually you can’t. If you don’t raise the ceiling, the government can’t spend any money, whether or not you cut the budget. That would fuck up the entire globes economy, not just americas. \nIf you want everybody to become drastically more impoverished, then sure don’t raise the ceiling. If you don’t want to cause completely unnecessary pain, the ceiling should be raised and then abolished entirely."
] |
>
They mostly sound reasonable to the average voter, which is why they are popular.
But when you implement them in practice, people quickly understand why they are dumb ideas. A single subject law sounds nice, but what is a single subject? Who defines that scope? And if we reduce it to the granular level, are we going to have the time to go through every one of these votes?
It also reduces the power of the minority party, since usually the minority party can get a few things into an omnibus, but if you go line by line the minority party might not get anything they want.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.",
">\n\nOr, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due.",
">\n\nIs that not what the August recess is for? Also its too easily abused because it can be used as excuse to not attend the congress at all. I still think personal relationships matter and your not gonna get that by voting by proxy. You should have to have face to face interactions with your fellow moc to get legislation done.",
">\n\nProxy Voting is not about good governance, its about holding lawmakers hostage to the dangers GOP members want to put everyone else at risk for: Shootings, member abuse in committees, another Coup Attempt and COVID.\nI agree mostly with some of the items like term limits, which should absolutely be considered, but disallowing Proxy Voting is Republicans wanting to abuse power.",
">\n\nThe hang up is not allowing an insurrectionist as the speaker of the house. McCarthy should not hold speaker position. If the majority seats change for the house, each party tweaks or changes the rules. However, a republican house majority is not about better governance, look at this circus going on. I haven't been this entertained in ages , when it comes to DC politicking.",
">\n\nI didn’t say McCarthy should be speaker, or that I want a GOP majority in the House. I don’t want either, I was just curious what people thought the effect of the new rules would be.",
">\n\nI'm sorry , I just don't see those changes happening. Proposed and actual are two different things. The house majority, now republican, first order of business was removing the metal detectors. Metal detectors because terrorists stormed our capital building. These next two years are going to be painful. Better governance, like the talks to cut all that IRS funding that was so crucially needed to re-coop, we the people's money from tax evaders and corporations.",
">\n\nSounds like proposals from people who have no experience or knowledge of how legislation is passed.",
">\n\nOr perhaps they know how legislation is currently passed, and as a result know it's a broken system. Passing unpopular provisions by adding enough bribes to them isn't a functional legislative process.",
">\n\nThey know enough to know that this will fully gridlock all legislation. The ones proposing it don't want a functional government. They're the same ones preventing the legislature from being sworn in. They were the ones involved in the coup attempt two years ago.",
">\n\nLol presenting your tribal fact opposed narrative rather than actually addressing the concept.\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right?",
">\n\n\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right? \n\nThe Republicans, obviously. Specifically the treason caucus politicians who have pushed for these exact concessions from McCarthy.",
">\n\nThere is good and bad. TBH the idea of term limits is also quite appealing but officials especially the careerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.",
">\n\n\ncareerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.\n\nPerhaps because the careerists believe in good governance and we've seen from all the research into the states that put term limits in place and/or repeal them that term limits don't enhance good governance or return power to \"the people\" and instead make less effective legislators and push power into unelected lobbyists and staffers?",
">\n\nThe biggest problem with these rules they are proposing are the result of them not doing their jobs. The Congress hasn't passed a complete budget in over 10 years, they've been operating on Continuing Resolutions and Omnibus spending bills, because the two sides refuse to come together and compromise and get things done for the country, they have these partisan fights and small groups with agendas that tangle things up and then whine to the media. The biggest thing is these elected individuals have to get back to doing the jobs they are sent there to do, instead of grandstanding like the GOP is doing right now. But on the other hand this could be tied right back to the voters, when 25-30% of the eligible voters don't vote, and many allow themselves to be disenfranchised, by not doing what is necessary to vote. If the state throws up barriers then jump through the hoops and cast your vote, that's the only way change happens, gerrymandering isn't going away anytime soon, so getting maximum participation is critical.",
">\n\nWhatever leads to the least getting done in Congress is the best we can hope for. I don't care who does it.",
">\n\nyou really don't want to see the country default on its debts. like, you think you do, but you really don't.",
">\n\nYou are right, I want to see us cut our spending instead of taking out even more loans to pay off the ones we already have",
">\n\nLoans against what? The entire US economy? I love people that try to make equivalencies between the national debt and something like household debt. They are fundamentally different things.",
">\n\nNever claimed they were similar.\nI Said I prefer they make cuts over raising the ceiling",
">\n\nRaising the ceiling isn’t taking out more loans. You can both make cuts and raise the ceiling at the same time, and we have done that in the past.",
">\n\nYou can make cuts and not raise the ceiling. Let's do that one",
">\n\nNo, actually you can’t. If you don’t raise the ceiling, the government can’t spend any money, whether or not you cut the budget. That would fuck up the entire globes economy, not just americas. \nIf you want everybody to become drastically more impoverished, then sure don’t raise the ceiling. If you don’t want to cause completely unnecessary pain, the ceiling should be raised and then abolished entirely.",
">\n\nMost of these proposed rule changes are reasonable IMO, I just don’t believe they are being pushed for in good faith. I’m of the impression that he could of said yes to all of these before vote one and they’d still drag him through the mud to prove a point"
] |
>
They mostly sound reasonable to the average voter, which is why they are popular.
Which is the whole reason we don't do direct democracy. In short, voters are too ill informed and stupid to decide policies because they just go for whatever sounds good and ignore the facts.
For example, "right to work" laws are actually terrible for the working class. UBI seems like it would reduce poverty but it increases it. Putting people in horrible prisons for crimes seems like it would reduce crime but it actually increases it slightly and lenient sentencing reduces crime. Or look at how schools teach reading in a way that keeps kids from learning to read well.
Of course having a republican form of government instead of direct democracy allows for corruption from the representatives, so that is another issue. But voters deciding the laws directly leads to a ton of bad policy.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.",
">\n\nOr, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due.",
">\n\nIs that not what the August recess is for? Also its too easily abused because it can be used as excuse to not attend the congress at all. I still think personal relationships matter and your not gonna get that by voting by proxy. You should have to have face to face interactions with your fellow moc to get legislation done.",
">\n\nProxy Voting is not about good governance, its about holding lawmakers hostage to the dangers GOP members want to put everyone else at risk for: Shootings, member abuse in committees, another Coup Attempt and COVID.\nI agree mostly with some of the items like term limits, which should absolutely be considered, but disallowing Proxy Voting is Republicans wanting to abuse power.",
">\n\nThe hang up is not allowing an insurrectionist as the speaker of the house. McCarthy should not hold speaker position. If the majority seats change for the house, each party tweaks or changes the rules. However, a republican house majority is not about better governance, look at this circus going on. I haven't been this entertained in ages , when it comes to DC politicking.",
">\n\nI didn’t say McCarthy should be speaker, or that I want a GOP majority in the House. I don’t want either, I was just curious what people thought the effect of the new rules would be.",
">\n\nI'm sorry , I just don't see those changes happening. Proposed and actual are two different things. The house majority, now republican, first order of business was removing the metal detectors. Metal detectors because terrorists stormed our capital building. These next two years are going to be painful. Better governance, like the talks to cut all that IRS funding that was so crucially needed to re-coop, we the people's money from tax evaders and corporations.",
">\n\nSounds like proposals from people who have no experience or knowledge of how legislation is passed.",
">\n\nOr perhaps they know how legislation is currently passed, and as a result know it's a broken system. Passing unpopular provisions by adding enough bribes to them isn't a functional legislative process.",
">\n\nThey know enough to know that this will fully gridlock all legislation. The ones proposing it don't want a functional government. They're the same ones preventing the legislature from being sworn in. They were the ones involved in the coup attempt two years ago.",
">\n\nLol presenting your tribal fact opposed narrative rather than actually addressing the concept.\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right?",
">\n\n\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right? \n\nThe Republicans, obviously. Specifically the treason caucus politicians who have pushed for these exact concessions from McCarthy.",
">\n\nThere is good and bad. TBH the idea of term limits is also quite appealing but officials especially the careerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.",
">\n\n\ncareerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.\n\nPerhaps because the careerists believe in good governance and we've seen from all the research into the states that put term limits in place and/or repeal them that term limits don't enhance good governance or return power to \"the people\" and instead make less effective legislators and push power into unelected lobbyists and staffers?",
">\n\nThe biggest problem with these rules they are proposing are the result of them not doing their jobs. The Congress hasn't passed a complete budget in over 10 years, they've been operating on Continuing Resolutions and Omnibus spending bills, because the two sides refuse to come together and compromise and get things done for the country, they have these partisan fights and small groups with agendas that tangle things up and then whine to the media. The biggest thing is these elected individuals have to get back to doing the jobs they are sent there to do, instead of grandstanding like the GOP is doing right now. But on the other hand this could be tied right back to the voters, when 25-30% of the eligible voters don't vote, and many allow themselves to be disenfranchised, by not doing what is necessary to vote. If the state throws up barriers then jump through the hoops and cast your vote, that's the only way change happens, gerrymandering isn't going away anytime soon, so getting maximum participation is critical.",
">\n\nWhatever leads to the least getting done in Congress is the best we can hope for. I don't care who does it.",
">\n\nyou really don't want to see the country default on its debts. like, you think you do, but you really don't.",
">\n\nYou are right, I want to see us cut our spending instead of taking out even more loans to pay off the ones we already have",
">\n\nLoans against what? The entire US economy? I love people that try to make equivalencies between the national debt and something like household debt. They are fundamentally different things.",
">\n\nNever claimed they were similar.\nI Said I prefer they make cuts over raising the ceiling",
">\n\nRaising the ceiling isn’t taking out more loans. You can both make cuts and raise the ceiling at the same time, and we have done that in the past.",
">\n\nYou can make cuts and not raise the ceiling. Let's do that one",
">\n\nNo, actually you can’t. If you don’t raise the ceiling, the government can’t spend any money, whether or not you cut the budget. That would fuck up the entire globes economy, not just americas. \nIf you want everybody to become drastically more impoverished, then sure don’t raise the ceiling. If you don’t want to cause completely unnecessary pain, the ceiling should be raised and then abolished entirely.",
">\n\nMost of these proposed rule changes are reasonable IMO, I just don’t believe they are being pushed for in good faith. I’m of the impression that he could of said yes to all of these before vote one and they’d still drag him through the mud to prove a point",
">\n\nThey mostly sound reasonable to the average voter, which is why they are popular.\nBut when you implement them in practice, people quickly understand why they are dumb ideas. A single subject law sounds nice, but what is a single subject? Who defines that scope? And if we reduce it to the granular level, are we going to have the time to go through every one of these votes? \nIt also reduces the power of the minority party, since usually the minority party can get a few things into an omnibus, but if you go line by line the minority party might not get anything they want."
] |
>
As far as what was specifically listed above, I have no issues except maybe with eliminating proxy voting - we have the internet & - as much as I’ll talk smack about them every opportunity presented - representatives are people with lives outside of their work. Omnibus bills shouldn’t exist, with Congress voting on them without even fully knowing what they contain. They’re usually labelled & championed as being relevant to a single subject that most would view favorable while that single subject is a very small portion of what is included & used as a political weapon to ram through other less favorable legislation by claiming anyone that votes against it is against whatever is in the title. If bills were limited to a single subject & legislators given more time to see what’s in them, I honestly think progress could be made much more expediently & without the back room dealings buried within them.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.",
">\n\nOr, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due.",
">\n\nIs that not what the August recess is for? Also its too easily abused because it can be used as excuse to not attend the congress at all. I still think personal relationships matter and your not gonna get that by voting by proxy. You should have to have face to face interactions with your fellow moc to get legislation done.",
">\n\nProxy Voting is not about good governance, its about holding lawmakers hostage to the dangers GOP members want to put everyone else at risk for: Shootings, member abuse in committees, another Coup Attempt and COVID.\nI agree mostly with some of the items like term limits, which should absolutely be considered, but disallowing Proxy Voting is Republicans wanting to abuse power.",
">\n\nThe hang up is not allowing an insurrectionist as the speaker of the house. McCarthy should not hold speaker position. If the majority seats change for the house, each party tweaks or changes the rules. However, a republican house majority is not about better governance, look at this circus going on. I haven't been this entertained in ages , when it comes to DC politicking.",
">\n\nI didn’t say McCarthy should be speaker, or that I want a GOP majority in the House. I don’t want either, I was just curious what people thought the effect of the new rules would be.",
">\n\nI'm sorry , I just don't see those changes happening. Proposed and actual are two different things. The house majority, now republican, first order of business was removing the metal detectors. Metal detectors because terrorists stormed our capital building. These next two years are going to be painful. Better governance, like the talks to cut all that IRS funding that was so crucially needed to re-coop, we the people's money from tax evaders and corporations.",
">\n\nSounds like proposals from people who have no experience or knowledge of how legislation is passed.",
">\n\nOr perhaps they know how legislation is currently passed, and as a result know it's a broken system. Passing unpopular provisions by adding enough bribes to them isn't a functional legislative process.",
">\n\nThey know enough to know that this will fully gridlock all legislation. The ones proposing it don't want a functional government. They're the same ones preventing the legislature from being sworn in. They were the ones involved in the coup attempt two years ago.",
">\n\nLol presenting your tribal fact opposed narrative rather than actually addressing the concept.\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right?",
">\n\n\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right? \n\nThe Republicans, obviously. Specifically the treason caucus politicians who have pushed for these exact concessions from McCarthy.",
">\n\nThere is good and bad. TBH the idea of term limits is also quite appealing but officials especially the careerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.",
">\n\n\ncareerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.\n\nPerhaps because the careerists believe in good governance and we've seen from all the research into the states that put term limits in place and/or repeal them that term limits don't enhance good governance or return power to \"the people\" and instead make less effective legislators and push power into unelected lobbyists and staffers?",
">\n\nThe biggest problem with these rules they are proposing are the result of them not doing their jobs. The Congress hasn't passed a complete budget in over 10 years, they've been operating on Continuing Resolutions and Omnibus spending bills, because the two sides refuse to come together and compromise and get things done for the country, they have these partisan fights and small groups with agendas that tangle things up and then whine to the media. The biggest thing is these elected individuals have to get back to doing the jobs they are sent there to do, instead of grandstanding like the GOP is doing right now. But on the other hand this could be tied right back to the voters, when 25-30% of the eligible voters don't vote, and many allow themselves to be disenfranchised, by not doing what is necessary to vote. If the state throws up barriers then jump through the hoops and cast your vote, that's the only way change happens, gerrymandering isn't going away anytime soon, so getting maximum participation is critical.",
">\n\nWhatever leads to the least getting done in Congress is the best we can hope for. I don't care who does it.",
">\n\nyou really don't want to see the country default on its debts. like, you think you do, but you really don't.",
">\n\nYou are right, I want to see us cut our spending instead of taking out even more loans to pay off the ones we already have",
">\n\nLoans against what? The entire US economy? I love people that try to make equivalencies between the national debt and something like household debt. They are fundamentally different things.",
">\n\nNever claimed they were similar.\nI Said I prefer they make cuts over raising the ceiling",
">\n\nRaising the ceiling isn’t taking out more loans. You can both make cuts and raise the ceiling at the same time, and we have done that in the past.",
">\n\nYou can make cuts and not raise the ceiling. Let's do that one",
">\n\nNo, actually you can’t. If you don’t raise the ceiling, the government can’t spend any money, whether or not you cut the budget. That would fuck up the entire globes economy, not just americas. \nIf you want everybody to become drastically more impoverished, then sure don’t raise the ceiling. If you don’t want to cause completely unnecessary pain, the ceiling should be raised and then abolished entirely.",
">\n\nMost of these proposed rule changes are reasonable IMO, I just don’t believe they are being pushed for in good faith. I’m of the impression that he could of said yes to all of these before vote one and they’d still drag him through the mud to prove a point",
">\n\nThey mostly sound reasonable to the average voter, which is why they are popular.\nBut when you implement them in practice, people quickly understand why they are dumb ideas. A single subject law sounds nice, but what is a single subject? Who defines that scope? And if we reduce it to the granular level, are we going to have the time to go through every one of these votes? \nIt also reduces the power of the minority party, since usually the minority party can get a few things into an omnibus, but if you go line by line the minority party might not get anything they want.",
">\n\n\nThey mostly sound reasonable to the average voter, which is why they are popular.\n\nWhich is the whole reason we don't do direct democracy. In short, voters are too ill informed and stupid to decide policies because they just go for whatever sounds good and ignore the facts. \nFor example, \"right to work\" laws are actually terrible for the working class. UBI seems like it would reduce poverty but it increases it. Putting people in horrible prisons for crimes seems like it would reduce crime but it actually increases it slightly and lenient sentencing reduces crime. Or look at how schools teach reading in a way that keeps kids from learning to read well. \nOf course having a republican form of government instead of direct democracy allows for corruption from the representatives, so that is another issue. But voters deciding the laws directly leads to a ton of bad policy."
] |
>
I’m on board with the bullet points except for the proxy voting. Or maybe not limiting them so narrowly to a single subject but there has to be a plausible reason how subjects are related. And I mean a real one, not the oh it affects something sold or made in almost every state so interstate commerce clause ties it together.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.",
">\n\nOr, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due.",
">\n\nIs that not what the August recess is for? Also its too easily abused because it can be used as excuse to not attend the congress at all. I still think personal relationships matter and your not gonna get that by voting by proxy. You should have to have face to face interactions with your fellow moc to get legislation done.",
">\n\nProxy Voting is not about good governance, its about holding lawmakers hostage to the dangers GOP members want to put everyone else at risk for: Shootings, member abuse in committees, another Coup Attempt and COVID.\nI agree mostly with some of the items like term limits, which should absolutely be considered, but disallowing Proxy Voting is Republicans wanting to abuse power.",
">\n\nThe hang up is not allowing an insurrectionist as the speaker of the house. McCarthy should not hold speaker position. If the majority seats change for the house, each party tweaks or changes the rules. However, a republican house majority is not about better governance, look at this circus going on. I haven't been this entertained in ages , when it comes to DC politicking.",
">\n\nI didn’t say McCarthy should be speaker, or that I want a GOP majority in the House. I don’t want either, I was just curious what people thought the effect of the new rules would be.",
">\n\nI'm sorry , I just don't see those changes happening. Proposed and actual are two different things. The house majority, now republican, first order of business was removing the metal detectors. Metal detectors because terrorists stormed our capital building. These next two years are going to be painful. Better governance, like the talks to cut all that IRS funding that was so crucially needed to re-coop, we the people's money from tax evaders and corporations.",
">\n\nSounds like proposals from people who have no experience or knowledge of how legislation is passed.",
">\n\nOr perhaps they know how legislation is currently passed, and as a result know it's a broken system. Passing unpopular provisions by adding enough bribes to them isn't a functional legislative process.",
">\n\nThey know enough to know that this will fully gridlock all legislation. The ones proposing it don't want a functional government. They're the same ones preventing the legislature from being sworn in. They were the ones involved in the coup attempt two years ago.",
">\n\nLol presenting your tribal fact opposed narrative rather than actually addressing the concept.\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right?",
">\n\n\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right? \n\nThe Republicans, obviously. Specifically the treason caucus politicians who have pushed for these exact concessions from McCarthy.",
">\n\nThere is good and bad. TBH the idea of term limits is also quite appealing but officials especially the careerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.",
">\n\n\ncareerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.\n\nPerhaps because the careerists believe in good governance and we've seen from all the research into the states that put term limits in place and/or repeal them that term limits don't enhance good governance or return power to \"the people\" and instead make less effective legislators and push power into unelected lobbyists and staffers?",
">\n\nThe biggest problem with these rules they are proposing are the result of them not doing their jobs. The Congress hasn't passed a complete budget in over 10 years, they've been operating on Continuing Resolutions and Omnibus spending bills, because the two sides refuse to come together and compromise and get things done for the country, they have these partisan fights and small groups with agendas that tangle things up and then whine to the media. The biggest thing is these elected individuals have to get back to doing the jobs they are sent there to do, instead of grandstanding like the GOP is doing right now. But on the other hand this could be tied right back to the voters, when 25-30% of the eligible voters don't vote, and many allow themselves to be disenfranchised, by not doing what is necessary to vote. If the state throws up barriers then jump through the hoops and cast your vote, that's the only way change happens, gerrymandering isn't going away anytime soon, so getting maximum participation is critical.",
">\n\nWhatever leads to the least getting done in Congress is the best we can hope for. I don't care who does it.",
">\n\nyou really don't want to see the country default on its debts. like, you think you do, but you really don't.",
">\n\nYou are right, I want to see us cut our spending instead of taking out even more loans to pay off the ones we already have",
">\n\nLoans against what? The entire US economy? I love people that try to make equivalencies between the national debt and something like household debt. They are fundamentally different things.",
">\n\nNever claimed they were similar.\nI Said I prefer they make cuts over raising the ceiling",
">\n\nRaising the ceiling isn’t taking out more loans. You can both make cuts and raise the ceiling at the same time, and we have done that in the past.",
">\n\nYou can make cuts and not raise the ceiling. Let's do that one",
">\n\nNo, actually you can’t. If you don’t raise the ceiling, the government can’t spend any money, whether or not you cut the budget. That would fuck up the entire globes economy, not just americas. \nIf you want everybody to become drastically more impoverished, then sure don’t raise the ceiling. If you don’t want to cause completely unnecessary pain, the ceiling should be raised and then abolished entirely.",
">\n\nMost of these proposed rule changes are reasonable IMO, I just don’t believe they are being pushed for in good faith. I’m of the impression that he could of said yes to all of these before vote one and they’d still drag him through the mud to prove a point",
">\n\nThey mostly sound reasonable to the average voter, which is why they are popular.\nBut when you implement them in practice, people quickly understand why they are dumb ideas. A single subject law sounds nice, but what is a single subject? Who defines that scope? And if we reduce it to the granular level, are we going to have the time to go through every one of these votes? \nIt also reduces the power of the minority party, since usually the minority party can get a few things into an omnibus, but if you go line by line the minority party might not get anything they want.",
">\n\n\nThey mostly sound reasonable to the average voter, which is why they are popular.\n\nWhich is the whole reason we don't do direct democracy. In short, voters are too ill informed and stupid to decide policies because they just go for whatever sounds good and ignore the facts. \nFor example, \"right to work\" laws are actually terrible for the working class. UBI seems like it would reduce poverty but it increases it. Putting people in horrible prisons for crimes seems like it would reduce crime but it actually increases it slightly and lenient sentencing reduces crime. Or look at how schools teach reading in a way that keeps kids from learning to read well. \nOf course having a republican form of government instead of direct democracy allows for corruption from the representatives, so that is another issue. But voters deciding the laws directly leads to a ton of bad policy.",
">\n\nAs far as what was specifically listed above, I have no issues except maybe with eliminating proxy voting - we have the internet & - as much as I’ll talk smack about them every opportunity presented - representatives are people with lives outside of their work. Omnibus bills shouldn’t exist, with Congress voting on them without even fully knowing what they contain. They’re usually labelled & championed as being relevant to a single subject that most would view favorable while that single subject is a very small portion of what is included & used as a political weapon to ram through other less favorable legislation by claiming anyone that votes against it is against whatever is in the title. If bills were limited to a single subject & legislators given more time to see what’s in them, I honestly think progress could be made much more expediently & without the back room dealings buried within them."
] |
>
Limit bills to a single subject
The point of this is to make it effectively impossible to compromise or cooperate with Democrats.
Now it won't be possible to vote on a bill that has something the Dems want and something the GOP want.
The House will first have to pass a bill that benefits one party, and then pass another bill that benefits the other. But there's no mechanism to ensure that the parties hold up the bargain on the second one.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.",
">\n\nOr, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due.",
">\n\nIs that not what the August recess is for? Also its too easily abused because it can be used as excuse to not attend the congress at all. I still think personal relationships matter and your not gonna get that by voting by proxy. You should have to have face to face interactions with your fellow moc to get legislation done.",
">\n\nProxy Voting is not about good governance, its about holding lawmakers hostage to the dangers GOP members want to put everyone else at risk for: Shootings, member abuse in committees, another Coup Attempt and COVID.\nI agree mostly with some of the items like term limits, which should absolutely be considered, but disallowing Proxy Voting is Republicans wanting to abuse power.",
">\n\nThe hang up is not allowing an insurrectionist as the speaker of the house. McCarthy should not hold speaker position. If the majority seats change for the house, each party tweaks or changes the rules. However, a republican house majority is not about better governance, look at this circus going on. I haven't been this entertained in ages , when it comes to DC politicking.",
">\n\nI didn’t say McCarthy should be speaker, or that I want a GOP majority in the House. I don’t want either, I was just curious what people thought the effect of the new rules would be.",
">\n\nI'm sorry , I just don't see those changes happening. Proposed and actual are two different things. The house majority, now republican, first order of business was removing the metal detectors. Metal detectors because terrorists stormed our capital building. These next two years are going to be painful. Better governance, like the talks to cut all that IRS funding that was so crucially needed to re-coop, we the people's money from tax evaders and corporations.",
">\n\nSounds like proposals from people who have no experience or knowledge of how legislation is passed.",
">\n\nOr perhaps they know how legislation is currently passed, and as a result know it's a broken system. Passing unpopular provisions by adding enough bribes to them isn't a functional legislative process.",
">\n\nThey know enough to know that this will fully gridlock all legislation. The ones proposing it don't want a functional government. They're the same ones preventing the legislature from being sworn in. They were the ones involved in the coup attempt two years ago.",
">\n\nLol presenting your tribal fact opposed narrative rather than actually addressing the concept.\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right?",
">\n\n\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right? \n\nThe Republicans, obviously. Specifically the treason caucus politicians who have pushed for these exact concessions from McCarthy.",
">\n\nThere is good and bad. TBH the idea of term limits is also quite appealing but officials especially the careerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.",
">\n\n\ncareerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.\n\nPerhaps because the careerists believe in good governance and we've seen from all the research into the states that put term limits in place and/or repeal them that term limits don't enhance good governance or return power to \"the people\" and instead make less effective legislators and push power into unelected lobbyists and staffers?",
">\n\nThe biggest problem with these rules they are proposing are the result of them not doing their jobs. The Congress hasn't passed a complete budget in over 10 years, they've been operating on Continuing Resolutions and Omnibus spending bills, because the two sides refuse to come together and compromise and get things done for the country, they have these partisan fights and small groups with agendas that tangle things up and then whine to the media. The biggest thing is these elected individuals have to get back to doing the jobs they are sent there to do, instead of grandstanding like the GOP is doing right now. But on the other hand this could be tied right back to the voters, when 25-30% of the eligible voters don't vote, and many allow themselves to be disenfranchised, by not doing what is necessary to vote. If the state throws up barriers then jump through the hoops and cast your vote, that's the only way change happens, gerrymandering isn't going away anytime soon, so getting maximum participation is critical.",
">\n\nWhatever leads to the least getting done in Congress is the best we can hope for. I don't care who does it.",
">\n\nyou really don't want to see the country default on its debts. like, you think you do, but you really don't.",
">\n\nYou are right, I want to see us cut our spending instead of taking out even more loans to pay off the ones we already have",
">\n\nLoans against what? The entire US economy? I love people that try to make equivalencies between the national debt and something like household debt. They are fundamentally different things.",
">\n\nNever claimed they were similar.\nI Said I prefer they make cuts over raising the ceiling",
">\n\nRaising the ceiling isn’t taking out more loans. You can both make cuts and raise the ceiling at the same time, and we have done that in the past.",
">\n\nYou can make cuts and not raise the ceiling. Let's do that one",
">\n\nNo, actually you can’t. If you don’t raise the ceiling, the government can’t spend any money, whether or not you cut the budget. That would fuck up the entire globes economy, not just americas. \nIf you want everybody to become drastically more impoverished, then sure don’t raise the ceiling. If you don’t want to cause completely unnecessary pain, the ceiling should be raised and then abolished entirely.",
">\n\nMost of these proposed rule changes are reasonable IMO, I just don’t believe they are being pushed for in good faith. I’m of the impression that he could of said yes to all of these before vote one and they’d still drag him through the mud to prove a point",
">\n\nThey mostly sound reasonable to the average voter, which is why they are popular.\nBut when you implement them in practice, people quickly understand why they are dumb ideas. A single subject law sounds nice, but what is a single subject? Who defines that scope? And if we reduce it to the granular level, are we going to have the time to go through every one of these votes? \nIt also reduces the power of the minority party, since usually the minority party can get a few things into an omnibus, but if you go line by line the minority party might not get anything they want.",
">\n\n\nThey mostly sound reasonable to the average voter, which is why they are popular.\n\nWhich is the whole reason we don't do direct democracy. In short, voters are too ill informed and stupid to decide policies because they just go for whatever sounds good and ignore the facts. \nFor example, \"right to work\" laws are actually terrible for the working class. UBI seems like it would reduce poverty but it increases it. Putting people in horrible prisons for crimes seems like it would reduce crime but it actually increases it slightly and lenient sentencing reduces crime. Or look at how schools teach reading in a way that keeps kids from learning to read well. \nOf course having a republican form of government instead of direct democracy allows for corruption from the representatives, so that is another issue. But voters deciding the laws directly leads to a ton of bad policy.",
">\n\nAs far as what was specifically listed above, I have no issues except maybe with eliminating proxy voting - we have the internet & - as much as I’ll talk smack about them every opportunity presented - representatives are people with lives outside of their work. Omnibus bills shouldn’t exist, with Congress voting on them without even fully knowing what they contain. They’re usually labelled & championed as being relevant to a single subject that most would view favorable while that single subject is a very small portion of what is included & used as a political weapon to ram through other less favorable legislation by claiming anyone that votes against it is against whatever is in the title. If bills were limited to a single subject & legislators given more time to see what’s in them, I honestly think progress could be made much more expediently & without the back room dealings buried within them.",
">\n\nI’m on board with the bullet points except for the proxy voting. Or maybe not limiting them so narrowly to a single subject but there has to be a plausible reason how subjects are related. And I mean a real one, not the oh it affects something sold or made in almost every state so interstate commerce clause ties it together."
] |
>
I could see there maybe still being compromise if both parties aligned on the subject in the legislation.
The bigger issue I think is right now the GOP has no incentive to compromise with the democrats even under the current rules.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.",
">\n\nOr, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due.",
">\n\nIs that not what the August recess is for? Also its too easily abused because it can be used as excuse to not attend the congress at all. I still think personal relationships matter and your not gonna get that by voting by proxy. You should have to have face to face interactions with your fellow moc to get legislation done.",
">\n\nProxy Voting is not about good governance, its about holding lawmakers hostage to the dangers GOP members want to put everyone else at risk for: Shootings, member abuse in committees, another Coup Attempt and COVID.\nI agree mostly with some of the items like term limits, which should absolutely be considered, but disallowing Proxy Voting is Republicans wanting to abuse power.",
">\n\nThe hang up is not allowing an insurrectionist as the speaker of the house. McCarthy should not hold speaker position. If the majority seats change for the house, each party tweaks or changes the rules. However, a republican house majority is not about better governance, look at this circus going on. I haven't been this entertained in ages , when it comes to DC politicking.",
">\n\nI didn’t say McCarthy should be speaker, or that I want a GOP majority in the House. I don’t want either, I was just curious what people thought the effect of the new rules would be.",
">\n\nI'm sorry , I just don't see those changes happening. Proposed and actual are two different things. The house majority, now republican, first order of business was removing the metal detectors. Metal detectors because terrorists stormed our capital building. These next two years are going to be painful. Better governance, like the talks to cut all that IRS funding that was so crucially needed to re-coop, we the people's money from tax evaders and corporations.",
">\n\nSounds like proposals from people who have no experience or knowledge of how legislation is passed.",
">\n\nOr perhaps they know how legislation is currently passed, and as a result know it's a broken system. Passing unpopular provisions by adding enough bribes to them isn't a functional legislative process.",
">\n\nThey know enough to know that this will fully gridlock all legislation. The ones proposing it don't want a functional government. They're the same ones preventing the legislature from being sworn in. They were the ones involved in the coup attempt two years ago.",
">\n\nLol presenting your tribal fact opposed narrative rather than actually addressing the concept.\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right?",
">\n\n\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right? \n\nThe Republicans, obviously. Specifically the treason caucus politicians who have pushed for these exact concessions from McCarthy.",
">\n\nThere is good and bad. TBH the idea of term limits is also quite appealing but officials especially the careerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.",
">\n\n\ncareerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.\n\nPerhaps because the careerists believe in good governance and we've seen from all the research into the states that put term limits in place and/or repeal them that term limits don't enhance good governance or return power to \"the people\" and instead make less effective legislators and push power into unelected lobbyists and staffers?",
">\n\nThe biggest problem with these rules they are proposing are the result of them not doing their jobs. The Congress hasn't passed a complete budget in over 10 years, they've been operating on Continuing Resolutions and Omnibus spending bills, because the two sides refuse to come together and compromise and get things done for the country, they have these partisan fights and small groups with agendas that tangle things up and then whine to the media. The biggest thing is these elected individuals have to get back to doing the jobs they are sent there to do, instead of grandstanding like the GOP is doing right now. But on the other hand this could be tied right back to the voters, when 25-30% of the eligible voters don't vote, and many allow themselves to be disenfranchised, by not doing what is necessary to vote. If the state throws up barriers then jump through the hoops and cast your vote, that's the only way change happens, gerrymandering isn't going away anytime soon, so getting maximum participation is critical.",
">\n\nWhatever leads to the least getting done in Congress is the best we can hope for. I don't care who does it.",
">\n\nyou really don't want to see the country default on its debts. like, you think you do, but you really don't.",
">\n\nYou are right, I want to see us cut our spending instead of taking out even more loans to pay off the ones we already have",
">\n\nLoans against what? The entire US economy? I love people that try to make equivalencies between the national debt and something like household debt. They are fundamentally different things.",
">\n\nNever claimed they were similar.\nI Said I prefer they make cuts over raising the ceiling",
">\n\nRaising the ceiling isn’t taking out more loans. You can both make cuts and raise the ceiling at the same time, and we have done that in the past.",
">\n\nYou can make cuts and not raise the ceiling. Let's do that one",
">\n\nNo, actually you can’t. If you don’t raise the ceiling, the government can’t spend any money, whether or not you cut the budget. That would fuck up the entire globes economy, not just americas. \nIf you want everybody to become drastically more impoverished, then sure don’t raise the ceiling. If you don’t want to cause completely unnecessary pain, the ceiling should be raised and then abolished entirely.",
">\n\nMost of these proposed rule changes are reasonable IMO, I just don’t believe they are being pushed for in good faith. I’m of the impression that he could of said yes to all of these before vote one and they’d still drag him through the mud to prove a point",
">\n\nThey mostly sound reasonable to the average voter, which is why they are popular.\nBut when you implement them in practice, people quickly understand why they are dumb ideas. A single subject law sounds nice, but what is a single subject? Who defines that scope? And if we reduce it to the granular level, are we going to have the time to go through every one of these votes? \nIt also reduces the power of the minority party, since usually the minority party can get a few things into an omnibus, but if you go line by line the minority party might not get anything they want.",
">\n\n\nThey mostly sound reasonable to the average voter, which is why they are popular.\n\nWhich is the whole reason we don't do direct democracy. In short, voters are too ill informed and stupid to decide policies because they just go for whatever sounds good and ignore the facts. \nFor example, \"right to work\" laws are actually terrible for the working class. UBI seems like it would reduce poverty but it increases it. Putting people in horrible prisons for crimes seems like it would reduce crime but it actually increases it slightly and lenient sentencing reduces crime. Or look at how schools teach reading in a way that keeps kids from learning to read well. \nOf course having a republican form of government instead of direct democracy allows for corruption from the representatives, so that is another issue. But voters deciding the laws directly leads to a ton of bad policy.",
">\n\nAs far as what was specifically listed above, I have no issues except maybe with eliminating proxy voting - we have the internet & - as much as I’ll talk smack about them every opportunity presented - representatives are people with lives outside of their work. Omnibus bills shouldn’t exist, with Congress voting on them without even fully knowing what they contain. They’re usually labelled & championed as being relevant to a single subject that most would view favorable while that single subject is a very small portion of what is included & used as a political weapon to ram through other less favorable legislation by claiming anyone that votes against it is against whatever is in the title. If bills were limited to a single subject & legislators given more time to see what’s in them, I honestly think progress could be made much more expediently & without the back room dealings buried within them.",
">\n\nI’m on board with the bullet points except for the proxy voting. Or maybe not limiting them so narrowly to a single subject but there has to be a plausible reason how subjects are related. And I mean a real one, not the oh it affects something sold or made in almost every state so interstate commerce clause ties it together.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThe point of this is to make it effectively impossible to compromise or cooperate with Democrats. \nNow it won't be possible to vote on a bill that has something the Dems want and something the GOP want. \nThe House will first have to pass a bill that benefits one party, and then pass another bill that benefits the other. But there's no mechanism to ensure that the parties hold up the bargain on the second one."
] |
>
If it was something like the Dems and the GOP agreed on a new rule for social media companies, then yeah, that would be possible.
But a compromise like, "We tighten up religious freedom protections in public schools and also tighten up rules for car emissions" is now by definition impossible.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.",
">\n\nOr, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due.",
">\n\nIs that not what the August recess is for? Also its too easily abused because it can be used as excuse to not attend the congress at all. I still think personal relationships matter and your not gonna get that by voting by proxy. You should have to have face to face interactions with your fellow moc to get legislation done.",
">\n\nProxy Voting is not about good governance, its about holding lawmakers hostage to the dangers GOP members want to put everyone else at risk for: Shootings, member abuse in committees, another Coup Attempt and COVID.\nI agree mostly with some of the items like term limits, which should absolutely be considered, but disallowing Proxy Voting is Republicans wanting to abuse power.",
">\n\nThe hang up is not allowing an insurrectionist as the speaker of the house. McCarthy should not hold speaker position. If the majority seats change for the house, each party tweaks or changes the rules. However, a republican house majority is not about better governance, look at this circus going on. I haven't been this entertained in ages , when it comes to DC politicking.",
">\n\nI didn’t say McCarthy should be speaker, or that I want a GOP majority in the House. I don’t want either, I was just curious what people thought the effect of the new rules would be.",
">\n\nI'm sorry , I just don't see those changes happening. Proposed and actual are two different things. The house majority, now republican, first order of business was removing the metal detectors. Metal detectors because terrorists stormed our capital building. These next two years are going to be painful. Better governance, like the talks to cut all that IRS funding that was so crucially needed to re-coop, we the people's money from tax evaders and corporations.",
">\n\nSounds like proposals from people who have no experience or knowledge of how legislation is passed.",
">\n\nOr perhaps they know how legislation is currently passed, and as a result know it's a broken system. Passing unpopular provisions by adding enough bribes to them isn't a functional legislative process.",
">\n\nThey know enough to know that this will fully gridlock all legislation. The ones proposing it don't want a functional government. They're the same ones preventing the legislature from being sworn in. They were the ones involved in the coup attempt two years ago.",
">\n\nLol presenting your tribal fact opposed narrative rather than actually addressing the concept.\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right?",
">\n\n\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right? \n\nThe Republicans, obviously. Specifically the treason caucus politicians who have pushed for these exact concessions from McCarthy.",
">\n\nThere is good and bad. TBH the idea of term limits is also quite appealing but officials especially the careerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.",
">\n\n\ncareerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.\n\nPerhaps because the careerists believe in good governance and we've seen from all the research into the states that put term limits in place and/or repeal them that term limits don't enhance good governance or return power to \"the people\" and instead make less effective legislators and push power into unelected lobbyists and staffers?",
">\n\nThe biggest problem with these rules they are proposing are the result of them not doing their jobs. The Congress hasn't passed a complete budget in over 10 years, they've been operating on Continuing Resolutions and Omnibus spending bills, because the two sides refuse to come together and compromise and get things done for the country, they have these partisan fights and small groups with agendas that tangle things up and then whine to the media. The biggest thing is these elected individuals have to get back to doing the jobs they are sent there to do, instead of grandstanding like the GOP is doing right now. But on the other hand this could be tied right back to the voters, when 25-30% of the eligible voters don't vote, and many allow themselves to be disenfranchised, by not doing what is necessary to vote. If the state throws up barriers then jump through the hoops and cast your vote, that's the only way change happens, gerrymandering isn't going away anytime soon, so getting maximum participation is critical.",
">\n\nWhatever leads to the least getting done in Congress is the best we can hope for. I don't care who does it.",
">\n\nyou really don't want to see the country default on its debts. like, you think you do, but you really don't.",
">\n\nYou are right, I want to see us cut our spending instead of taking out even more loans to pay off the ones we already have",
">\n\nLoans against what? The entire US economy? I love people that try to make equivalencies between the national debt and something like household debt. They are fundamentally different things.",
">\n\nNever claimed they were similar.\nI Said I prefer they make cuts over raising the ceiling",
">\n\nRaising the ceiling isn’t taking out more loans. You can both make cuts and raise the ceiling at the same time, and we have done that in the past.",
">\n\nYou can make cuts and not raise the ceiling. Let's do that one",
">\n\nNo, actually you can’t. If you don’t raise the ceiling, the government can’t spend any money, whether or not you cut the budget. That would fuck up the entire globes economy, not just americas. \nIf you want everybody to become drastically more impoverished, then sure don’t raise the ceiling. If you don’t want to cause completely unnecessary pain, the ceiling should be raised and then abolished entirely.",
">\n\nMost of these proposed rule changes are reasonable IMO, I just don’t believe they are being pushed for in good faith. I’m of the impression that he could of said yes to all of these before vote one and they’d still drag him through the mud to prove a point",
">\n\nThey mostly sound reasonable to the average voter, which is why they are popular.\nBut when you implement them in practice, people quickly understand why they are dumb ideas. A single subject law sounds nice, but what is a single subject? Who defines that scope? And if we reduce it to the granular level, are we going to have the time to go through every one of these votes? \nIt also reduces the power of the minority party, since usually the minority party can get a few things into an omnibus, but if you go line by line the minority party might not get anything they want.",
">\n\n\nThey mostly sound reasonable to the average voter, which is why they are popular.\n\nWhich is the whole reason we don't do direct democracy. In short, voters are too ill informed and stupid to decide policies because they just go for whatever sounds good and ignore the facts. \nFor example, \"right to work\" laws are actually terrible for the working class. UBI seems like it would reduce poverty but it increases it. Putting people in horrible prisons for crimes seems like it would reduce crime but it actually increases it slightly and lenient sentencing reduces crime. Or look at how schools teach reading in a way that keeps kids from learning to read well. \nOf course having a republican form of government instead of direct democracy allows for corruption from the representatives, so that is another issue. But voters deciding the laws directly leads to a ton of bad policy.",
">\n\nAs far as what was specifically listed above, I have no issues except maybe with eliminating proxy voting - we have the internet & - as much as I’ll talk smack about them every opportunity presented - representatives are people with lives outside of their work. Omnibus bills shouldn’t exist, with Congress voting on them without even fully knowing what they contain. They’re usually labelled & championed as being relevant to a single subject that most would view favorable while that single subject is a very small portion of what is included & used as a political weapon to ram through other less favorable legislation by claiming anyone that votes against it is against whatever is in the title. If bills were limited to a single subject & legislators given more time to see what’s in them, I honestly think progress could be made much more expediently & without the back room dealings buried within them.",
">\n\nI’m on board with the bullet points except for the proxy voting. Or maybe not limiting them so narrowly to a single subject but there has to be a plausible reason how subjects are related. And I mean a real one, not the oh it affects something sold or made in almost every state so interstate commerce clause ties it together.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThe point of this is to make it effectively impossible to compromise or cooperate with Democrats. \nNow it won't be possible to vote on a bill that has something the Dems want and something the GOP want. \nThe House will first have to pass a bill that benefits one party, and then pass another bill that benefits the other. But there's no mechanism to ensure that the parties hold up the bargain on the second one.",
">\n\nI could see there maybe still being compromise if both parties aligned on the subject in the legislation. \nThe bigger issue I think is right now the GOP has no incentive to compromise with the democrats even under the current rules."
] |
>
Very true, good point.
Or a bill that would provide subsidies to two different groups would be impossible, right? Like Dems would support a bill giving assistance to coal companies as long as it provided for inner city schools or something.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.",
">\n\nOr, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due.",
">\n\nIs that not what the August recess is for? Also its too easily abused because it can be used as excuse to not attend the congress at all. I still think personal relationships matter and your not gonna get that by voting by proxy. You should have to have face to face interactions with your fellow moc to get legislation done.",
">\n\nProxy Voting is not about good governance, its about holding lawmakers hostage to the dangers GOP members want to put everyone else at risk for: Shootings, member abuse in committees, another Coup Attempt and COVID.\nI agree mostly with some of the items like term limits, which should absolutely be considered, but disallowing Proxy Voting is Republicans wanting to abuse power.",
">\n\nThe hang up is not allowing an insurrectionist as the speaker of the house. McCarthy should not hold speaker position. If the majority seats change for the house, each party tweaks or changes the rules. However, a republican house majority is not about better governance, look at this circus going on. I haven't been this entertained in ages , when it comes to DC politicking.",
">\n\nI didn’t say McCarthy should be speaker, or that I want a GOP majority in the House. I don’t want either, I was just curious what people thought the effect of the new rules would be.",
">\n\nI'm sorry , I just don't see those changes happening. Proposed and actual are two different things. The house majority, now republican, first order of business was removing the metal detectors. Metal detectors because terrorists stormed our capital building. These next two years are going to be painful. Better governance, like the talks to cut all that IRS funding that was so crucially needed to re-coop, we the people's money from tax evaders and corporations.",
">\n\nSounds like proposals from people who have no experience or knowledge of how legislation is passed.",
">\n\nOr perhaps they know how legislation is currently passed, and as a result know it's a broken system. Passing unpopular provisions by adding enough bribes to them isn't a functional legislative process.",
">\n\nThey know enough to know that this will fully gridlock all legislation. The ones proposing it don't want a functional government. They're the same ones preventing the legislature from being sworn in. They were the ones involved in the coup attempt two years ago.",
">\n\nLol presenting your tribal fact opposed narrative rather than actually addressing the concept.\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right?",
">\n\n\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right? \n\nThe Republicans, obviously. Specifically the treason caucus politicians who have pushed for these exact concessions from McCarthy.",
">\n\nThere is good and bad. TBH the idea of term limits is also quite appealing but officials especially the careerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.",
">\n\n\ncareerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.\n\nPerhaps because the careerists believe in good governance and we've seen from all the research into the states that put term limits in place and/or repeal them that term limits don't enhance good governance or return power to \"the people\" and instead make less effective legislators and push power into unelected lobbyists and staffers?",
">\n\nThe biggest problem with these rules they are proposing are the result of them not doing their jobs. The Congress hasn't passed a complete budget in over 10 years, they've been operating on Continuing Resolutions and Omnibus spending bills, because the two sides refuse to come together and compromise and get things done for the country, they have these partisan fights and small groups with agendas that tangle things up and then whine to the media. The biggest thing is these elected individuals have to get back to doing the jobs they are sent there to do, instead of grandstanding like the GOP is doing right now. But on the other hand this could be tied right back to the voters, when 25-30% of the eligible voters don't vote, and many allow themselves to be disenfranchised, by not doing what is necessary to vote. If the state throws up barriers then jump through the hoops and cast your vote, that's the only way change happens, gerrymandering isn't going away anytime soon, so getting maximum participation is critical.",
">\n\nWhatever leads to the least getting done in Congress is the best we can hope for. I don't care who does it.",
">\n\nyou really don't want to see the country default on its debts. like, you think you do, but you really don't.",
">\n\nYou are right, I want to see us cut our spending instead of taking out even more loans to pay off the ones we already have",
">\n\nLoans against what? The entire US economy? I love people that try to make equivalencies between the national debt and something like household debt. They are fundamentally different things.",
">\n\nNever claimed they were similar.\nI Said I prefer they make cuts over raising the ceiling",
">\n\nRaising the ceiling isn’t taking out more loans. You can both make cuts and raise the ceiling at the same time, and we have done that in the past.",
">\n\nYou can make cuts and not raise the ceiling. Let's do that one",
">\n\nNo, actually you can’t. If you don’t raise the ceiling, the government can’t spend any money, whether or not you cut the budget. That would fuck up the entire globes economy, not just americas. \nIf you want everybody to become drastically more impoverished, then sure don’t raise the ceiling. If you don’t want to cause completely unnecessary pain, the ceiling should be raised and then abolished entirely.",
">\n\nMost of these proposed rule changes are reasonable IMO, I just don’t believe they are being pushed for in good faith. I’m of the impression that he could of said yes to all of these before vote one and they’d still drag him through the mud to prove a point",
">\n\nThey mostly sound reasonable to the average voter, which is why they are popular.\nBut when you implement them in practice, people quickly understand why they are dumb ideas. A single subject law sounds nice, but what is a single subject? Who defines that scope? And if we reduce it to the granular level, are we going to have the time to go through every one of these votes? \nIt also reduces the power of the minority party, since usually the minority party can get a few things into an omnibus, but if you go line by line the minority party might not get anything they want.",
">\n\n\nThey mostly sound reasonable to the average voter, which is why they are popular.\n\nWhich is the whole reason we don't do direct democracy. In short, voters are too ill informed and stupid to decide policies because they just go for whatever sounds good and ignore the facts. \nFor example, \"right to work\" laws are actually terrible for the working class. UBI seems like it would reduce poverty but it increases it. Putting people in horrible prisons for crimes seems like it would reduce crime but it actually increases it slightly and lenient sentencing reduces crime. Or look at how schools teach reading in a way that keeps kids from learning to read well. \nOf course having a republican form of government instead of direct democracy allows for corruption from the representatives, so that is another issue. But voters deciding the laws directly leads to a ton of bad policy.",
">\n\nAs far as what was specifically listed above, I have no issues except maybe with eliminating proxy voting - we have the internet & - as much as I’ll talk smack about them every opportunity presented - representatives are people with lives outside of their work. Omnibus bills shouldn’t exist, with Congress voting on them without even fully knowing what they contain. They’re usually labelled & championed as being relevant to a single subject that most would view favorable while that single subject is a very small portion of what is included & used as a political weapon to ram through other less favorable legislation by claiming anyone that votes against it is against whatever is in the title. If bills were limited to a single subject & legislators given more time to see what’s in them, I honestly think progress could be made much more expediently & without the back room dealings buried within them.",
">\n\nI’m on board with the bullet points except for the proxy voting. Or maybe not limiting them so narrowly to a single subject but there has to be a plausible reason how subjects are related. And I mean a real one, not the oh it affects something sold or made in almost every state so interstate commerce clause ties it together.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThe point of this is to make it effectively impossible to compromise or cooperate with Democrats. \nNow it won't be possible to vote on a bill that has something the Dems want and something the GOP want. \nThe House will first have to pass a bill that benefits one party, and then pass another bill that benefits the other. But there's no mechanism to ensure that the parties hold up the bargain on the second one.",
">\n\nI could see there maybe still being compromise if both parties aligned on the subject in the legislation. \nThe bigger issue I think is right now the GOP has no incentive to compromise with the democrats even under the current rules.",
">\n\nIf it was something like the Dems and the GOP agreed on a new rule for social media companies, then yeah, that would be possible. \nBut a compromise like, \"We tighten up religious freedom protections in public schools and also tighten up rules for car emissions\" is now by definition impossible."
] |
>
Right, not possible.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.",
">\n\nOr, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due.",
">\n\nIs that not what the August recess is for? Also its too easily abused because it can be used as excuse to not attend the congress at all. I still think personal relationships matter and your not gonna get that by voting by proxy. You should have to have face to face interactions with your fellow moc to get legislation done.",
">\n\nProxy Voting is not about good governance, its about holding lawmakers hostage to the dangers GOP members want to put everyone else at risk for: Shootings, member abuse in committees, another Coup Attempt and COVID.\nI agree mostly with some of the items like term limits, which should absolutely be considered, but disallowing Proxy Voting is Republicans wanting to abuse power.",
">\n\nThe hang up is not allowing an insurrectionist as the speaker of the house. McCarthy should not hold speaker position. If the majority seats change for the house, each party tweaks or changes the rules. However, a republican house majority is not about better governance, look at this circus going on. I haven't been this entertained in ages , when it comes to DC politicking.",
">\n\nI didn’t say McCarthy should be speaker, or that I want a GOP majority in the House. I don’t want either, I was just curious what people thought the effect of the new rules would be.",
">\n\nI'm sorry , I just don't see those changes happening. Proposed and actual are two different things. The house majority, now republican, first order of business was removing the metal detectors. Metal detectors because terrorists stormed our capital building. These next two years are going to be painful. Better governance, like the talks to cut all that IRS funding that was so crucially needed to re-coop, we the people's money from tax evaders and corporations.",
">\n\nSounds like proposals from people who have no experience or knowledge of how legislation is passed.",
">\n\nOr perhaps they know how legislation is currently passed, and as a result know it's a broken system. Passing unpopular provisions by adding enough bribes to them isn't a functional legislative process.",
">\n\nThey know enough to know that this will fully gridlock all legislation. The ones proposing it don't want a functional government. They're the same ones preventing the legislature from being sworn in. They were the ones involved in the coup attempt two years ago.",
">\n\nLol presenting your tribal fact opposed narrative rather than actually addressing the concept.\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right?",
">\n\n\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right? \n\nThe Republicans, obviously. Specifically the treason caucus politicians who have pushed for these exact concessions from McCarthy.",
">\n\nThere is good and bad. TBH the idea of term limits is also quite appealing but officials especially the careerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.",
">\n\n\ncareerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.\n\nPerhaps because the careerists believe in good governance and we've seen from all the research into the states that put term limits in place and/or repeal them that term limits don't enhance good governance or return power to \"the people\" and instead make less effective legislators and push power into unelected lobbyists and staffers?",
">\n\nThe biggest problem with these rules they are proposing are the result of them not doing their jobs. The Congress hasn't passed a complete budget in over 10 years, they've been operating on Continuing Resolutions and Omnibus spending bills, because the two sides refuse to come together and compromise and get things done for the country, they have these partisan fights and small groups with agendas that tangle things up and then whine to the media. The biggest thing is these elected individuals have to get back to doing the jobs they are sent there to do, instead of grandstanding like the GOP is doing right now. But on the other hand this could be tied right back to the voters, when 25-30% of the eligible voters don't vote, and many allow themselves to be disenfranchised, by not doing what is necessary to vote. If the state throws up barriers then jump through the hoops and cast your vote, that's the only way change happens, gerrymandering isn't going away anytime soon, so getting maximum participation is critical.",
">\n\nWhatever leads to the least getting done in Congress is the best we can hope for. I don't care who does it.",
">\n\nyou really don't want to see the country default on its debts. like, you think you do, but you really don't.",
">\n\nYou are right, I want to see us cut our spending instead of taking out even more loans to pay off the ones we already have",
">\n\nLoans against what? The entire US economy? I love people that try to make equivalencies between the national debt and something like household debt. They are fundamentally different things.",
">\n\nNever claimed they were similar.\nI Said I prefer they make cuts over raising the ceiling",
">\n\nRaising the ceiling isn’t taking out more loans. You can both make cuts and raise the ceiling at the same time, and we have done that in the past.",
">\n\nYou can make cuts and not raise the ceiling. Let's do that one",
">\n\nNo, actually you can’t. If you don’t raise the ceiling, the government can’t spend any money, whether or not you cut the budget. That would fuck up the entire globes economy, not just americas. \nIf you want everybody to become drastically more impoverished, then sure don’t raise the ceiling. If you don’t want to cause completely unnecessary pain, the ceiling should be raised and then abolished entirely.",
">\n\nMost of these proposed rule changes are reasonable IMO, I just don’t believe they are being pushed for in good faith. I’m of the impression that he could of said yes to all of these before vote one and they’d still drag him through the mud to prove a point",
">\n\nThey mostly sound reasonable to the average voter, which is why they are popular.\nBut when you implement them in practice, people quickly understand why they are dumb ideas. A single subject law sounds nice, but what is a single subject? Who defines that scope? And if we reduce it to the granular level, are we going to have the time to go through every one of these votes? \nIt also reduces the power of the minority party, since usually the minority party can get a few things into an omnibus, but if you go line by line the minority party might not get anything they want.",
">\n\n\nThey mostly sound reasonable to the average voter, which is why they are popular.\n\nWhich is the whole reason we don't do direct democracy. In short, voters are too ill informed and stupid to decide policies because they just go for whatever sounds good and ignore the facts. \nFor example, \"right to work\" laws are actually terrible for the working class. UBI seems like it would reduce poverty but it increases it. Putting people in horrible prisons for crimes seems like it would reduce crime but it actually increases it slightly and lenient sentencing reduces crime. Or look at how schools teach reading in a way that keeps kids from learning to read well. \nOf course having a republican form of government instead of direct democracy allows for corruption from the representatives, so that is another issue. But voters deciding the laws directly leads to a ton of bad policy.",
">\n\nAs far as what was specifically listed above, I have no issues except maybe with eliminating proxy voting - we have the internet & - as much as I’ll talk smack about them every opportunity presented - representatives are people with lives outside of their work. Omnibus bills shouldn’t exist, with Congress voting on them without even fully knowing what they contain. They’re usually labelled & championed as being relevant to a single subject that most would view favorable while that single subject is a very small portion of what is included & used as a political weapon to ram through other less favorable legislation by claiming anyone that votes against it is against whatever is in the title. If bills were limited to a single subject & legislators given more time to see what’s in them, I honestly think progress could be made much more expediently & without the back room dealings buried within them.",
">\n\nI’m on board with the bullet points except for the proxy voting. Or maybe not limiting them so narrowly to a single subject but there has to be a plausible reason how subjects are related. And I mean a real one, not the oh it affects something sold or made in almost every state so interstate commerce clause ties it together.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThe point of this is to make it effectively impossible to compromise or cooperate with Democrats. \nNow it won't be possible to vote on a bill that has something the Dems want and something the GOP want. \nThe House will first have to pass a bill that benefits one party, and then pass another bill that benefits the other. But there's no mechanism to ensure that the parties hold up the bargain on the second one.",
">\n\nI could see there maybe still being compromise if both parties aligned on the subject in the legislation. \nThe bigger issue I think is right now the GOP has no incentive to compromise with the democrats even under the current rules.",
">\n\nIf it was something like the Dems and the GOP agreed on a new rule for social media companies, then yeah, that would be possible. \nBut a compromise like, \"We tighten up religious freedom protections in public schools and also tighten up rules for car emissions\" is now by definition impossible.",
">\n\nVery true, good point. \nOr a bill that would provide subsidies to two different groups would be impossible, right? Like Dems would support a bill giving assistance to coal companies as long as it provided for inner city schools or something."
] |
>
This would eliminate the ability to compromise.
Right now Dems can propose something they feel is important and when Republicans object, they can add something Republicans want. That way each side gets something from it. With "single issue" bills, each side would have to trust that the other will pass another bill in order to make these sorts of compromises - and of course at some critical point one side will violate that trust in order to be manipulative. Neither side will trust the other side after what has gone down over the past few decades.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.",
">\n\nOr, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due.",
">\n\nIs that not what the August recess is for? Also its too easily abused because it can be used as excuse to not attend the congress at all. I still think personal relationships matter and your not gonna get that by voting by proxy. You should have to have face to face interactions with your fellow moc to get legislation done.",
">\n\nProxy Voting is not about good governance, its about holding lawmakers hostage to the dangers GOP members want to put everyone else at risk for: Shootings, member abuse in committees, another Coup Attempt and COVID.\nI agree mostly with some of the items like term limits, which should absolutely be considered, but disallowing Proxy Voting is Republicans wanting to abuse power.",
">\n\nThe hang up is not allowing an insurrectionist as the speaker of the house. McCarthy should not hold speaker position. If the majority seats change for the house, each party tweaks or changes the rules. However, a republican house majority is not about better governance, look at this circus going on. I haven't been this entertained in ages , when it comes to DC politicking.",
">\n\nI didn’t say McCarthy should be speaker, or that I want a GOP majority in the House. I don’t want either, I was just curious what people thought the effect of the new rules would be.",
">\n\nI'm sorry , I just don't see those changes happening. Proposed and actual are two different things. The house majority, now republican, first order of business was removing the metal detectors. Metal detectors because terrorists stormed our capital building. These next two years are going to be painful. Better governance, like the talks to cut all that IRS funding that was so crucially needed to re-coop, we the people's money from tax evaders and corporations.",
">\n\nSounds like proposals from people who have no experience or knowledge of how legislation is passed.",
">\n\nOr perhaps they know how legislation is currently passed, and as a result know it's a broken system. Passing unpopular provisions by adding enough bribes to them isn't a functional legislative process.",
">\n\nThey know enough to know that this will fully gridlock all legislation. The ones proposing it don't want a functional government. They're the same ones preventing the legislature from being sworn in. They were the ones involved in the coup attempt two years ago.",
">\n\nLol presenting your tribal fact opposed narrative rather than actually addressing the concept.\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right?",
">\n\n\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right? \n\nThe Republicans, obviously. Specifically the treason caucus politicians who have pushed for these exact concessions from McCarthy.",
">\n\nThere is good and bad. TBH the idea of term limits is also quite appealing but officials especially the careerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.",
">\n\n\ncareerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.\n\nPerhaps because the careerists believe in good governance and we've seen from all the research into the states that put term limits in place and/or repeal them that term limits don't enhance good governance or return power to \"the people\" and instead make less effective legislators and push power into unelected lobbyists and staffers?",
">\n\nThe biggest problem with these rules they are proposing are the result of them not doing their jobs. The Congress hasn't passed a complete budget in over 10 years, they've been operating on Continuing Resolutions and Omnibus spending bills, because the two sides refuse to come together and compromise and get things done for the country, they have these partisan fights and small groups with agendas that tangle things up and then whine to the media. The biggest thing is these elected individuals have to get back to doing the jobs they are sent there to do, instead of grandstanding like the GOP is doing right now. But on the other hand this could be tied right back to the voters, when 25-30% of the eligible voters don't vote, and many allow themselves to be disenfranchised, by not doing what is necessary to vote. If the state throws up barriers then jump through the hoops and cast your vote, that's the only way change happens, gerrymandering isn't going away anytime soon, so getting maximum participation is critical.",
">\n\nWhatever leads to the least getting done in Congress is the best we can hope for. I don't care who does it.",
">\n\nyou really don't want to see the country default on its debts. like, you think you do, but you really don't.",
">\n\nYou are right, I want to see us cut our spending instead of taking out even more loans to pay off the ones we already have",
">\n\nLoans against what? The entire US economy? I love people that try to make equivalencies between the national debt and something like household debt. They are fundamentally different things.",
">\n\nNever claimed they were similar.\nI Said I prefer they make cuts over raising the ceiling",
">\n\nRaising the ceiling isn’t taking out more loans. You can both make cuts and raise the ceiling at the same time, and we have done that in the past.",
">\n\nYou can make cuts and not raise the ceiling. Let's do that one",
">\n\nNo, actually you can’t. If you don’t raise the ceiling, the government can’t spend any money, whether or not you cut the budget. That would fuck up the entire globes economy, not just americas. \nIf you want everybody to become drastically more impoverished, then sure don’t raise the ceiling. If you don’t want to cause completely unnecessary pain, the ceiling should be raised and then abolished entirely.",
">\n\nMost of these proposed rule changes are reasonable IMO, I just don’t believe they are being pushed for in good faith. I’m of the impression that he could of said yes to all of these before vote one and they’d still drag him through the mud to prove a point",
">\n\nThey mostly sound reasonable to the average voter, which is why they are popular.\nBut when you implement them in practice, people quickly understand why they are dumb ideas. A single subject law sounds nice, but what is a single subject? Who defines that scope? And if we reduce it to the granular level, are we going to have the time to go through every one of these votes? \nIt also reduces the power of the minority party, since usually the minority party can get a few things into an omnibus, but if you go line by line the minority party might not get anything they want.",
">\n\n\nThey mostly sound reasonable to the average voter, which is why they are popular.\n\nWhich is the whole reason we don't do direct democracy. In short, voters are too ill informed and stupid to decide policies because they just go for whatever sounds good and ignore the facts. \nFor example, \"right to work\" laws are actually terrible for the working class. UBI seems like it would reduce poverty but it increases it. Putting people in horrible prisons for crimes seems like it would reduce crime but it actually increases it slightly and lenient sentencing reduces crime. Or look at how schools teach reading in a way that keeps kids from learning to read well. \nOf course having a republican form of government instead of direct democracy allows for corruption from the representatives, so that is another issue. But voters deciding the laws directly leads to a ton of bad policy.",
">\n\nAs far as what was specifically listed above, I have no issues except maybe with eliminating proxy voting - we have the internet & - as much as I’ll talk smack about them every opportunity presented - representatives are people with lives outside of their work. Omnibus bills shouldn’t exist, with Congress voting on them without even fully knowing what they contain. They’re usually labelled & championed as being relevant to a single subject that most would view favorable while that single subject is a very small portion of what is included & used as a political weapon to ram through other less favorable legislation by claiming anyone that votes against it is against whatever is in the title. If bills were limited to a single subject & legislators given more time to see what’s in them, I honestly think progress could be made much more expediently & without the back room dealings buried within them.",
">\n\nI’m on board with the bullet points except for the proxy voting. Or maybe not limiting them so narrowly to a single subject but there has to be a plausible reason how subjects are related. And I mean a real one, not the oh it affects something sold or made in almost every state so interstate commerce clause ties it together.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThe point of this is to make it effectively impossible to compromise or cooperate with Democrats. \nNow it won't be possible to vote on a bill that has something the Dems want and something the GOP want. \nThe House will first have to pass a bill that benefits one party, and then pass another bill that benefits the other. But there's no mechanism to ensure that the parties hold up the bargain on the second one.",
">\n\nI could see there maybe still being compromise if both parties aligned on the subject in the legislation. \nThe bigger issue I think is right now the GOP has no incentive to compromise with the democrats even under the current rules.",
">\n\nIf it was something like the Dems and the GOP agreed on a new rule for social media companies, then yeah, that would be possible. \nBut a compromise like, \"We tighten up religious freedom protections in public schools and also tighten up rules for car emissions\" is now by definition impossible.",
">\n\nVery true, good point. \nOr a bill that would provide subsidies to two different groups would be impossible, right? Like Dems would support a bill giving assistance to coal companies as long as it provided for inner city schools or something.",
">\n\nRight, not possible."
] |
>
For the items you put in your bulleted list I personally think those should all be passed as law if not Constitutional Amendments.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.",
">\n\nOr, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due.",
">\n\nIs that not what the August recess is for? Also its too easily abused because it can be used as excuse to not attend the congress at all. I still think personal relationships matter and your not gonna get that by voting by proxy. You should have to have face to face interactions with your fellow moc to get legislation done.",
">\n\nProxy Voting is not about good governance, its about holding lawmakers hostage to the dangers GOP members want to put everyone else at risk for: Shootings, member abuse in committees, another Coup Attempt and COVID.\nI agree mostly with some of the items like term limits, which should absolutely be considered, but disallowing Proxy Voting is Republicans wanting to abuse power.",
">\n\nThe hang up is not allowing an insurrectionist as the speaker of the house. McCarthy should not hold speaker position. If the majority seats change for the house, each party tweaks or changes the rules. However, a republican house majority is not about better governance, look at this circus going on. I haven't been this entertained in ages , when it comes to DC politicking.",
">\n\nI didn’t say McCarthy should be speaker, or that I want a GOP majority in the House. I don’t want either, I was just curious what people thought the effect of the new rules would be.",
">\n\nI'm sorry , I just don't see those changes happening. Proposed and actual are two different things. The house majority, now republican, first order of business was removing the metal detectors. Metal detectors because terrorists stormed our capital building. These next two years are going to be painful. Better governance, like the talks to cut all that IRS funding that was so crucially needed to re-coop, we the people's money from tax evaders and corporations.",
">\n\nSounds like proposals from people who have no experience or knowledge of how legislation is passed.",
">\n\nOr perhaps they know how legislation is currently passed, and as a result know it's a broken system. Passing unpopular provisions by adding enough bribes to them isn't a functional legislative process.",
">\n\nThey know enough to know that this will fully gridlock all legislation. The ones proposing it don't want a functional government. They're the same ones preventing the legislature from being sworn in. They were the ones involved in the coup attempt two years ago.",
">\n\nLol presenting your tribal fact opposed narrative rather than actually addressing the concept.\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right?",
">\n\n\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right? \n\nThe Republicans, obviously. Specifically the treason caucus politicians who have pushed for these exact concessions from McCarthy.",
">\n\nThere is good and bad. TBH the idea of term limits is also quite appealing but officials especially the careerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.",
">\n\n\ncareerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.\n\nPerhaps because the careerists believe in good governance and we've seen from all the research into the states that put term limits in place and/or repeal them that term limits don't enhance good governance or return power to \"the people\" and instead make less effective legislators and push power into unelected lobbyists and staffers?",
">\n\nThe biggest problem with these rules they are proposing are the result of them not doing their jobs. The Congress hasn't passed a complete budget in over 10 years, they've been operating on Continuing Resolutions and Omnibus spending bills, because the two sides refuse to come together and compromise and get things done for the country, they have these partisan fights and small groups with agendas that tangle things up and then whine to the media. The biggest thing is these elected individuals have to get back to doing the jobs they are sent there to do, instead of grandstanding like the GOP is doing right now. But on the other hand this could be tied right back to the voters, when 25-30% of the eligible voters don't vote, and many allow themselves to be disenfranchised, by not doing what is necessary to vote. If the state throws up barriers then jump through the hoops and cast your vote, that's the only way change happens, gerrymandering isn't going away anytime soon, so getting maximum participation is critical.",
">\n\nWhatever leads to the least getting done in Congress is the best we can hope for. I don't care who does it.",
">\n\nyou really don't want to see the country default on its debts. like, you think you do, but you really don't.",
">\n\nYou are right, I want to see us cut our spending instead of taking out even more loans to pay off the ones we already have",
">\n\nLoans against what? The entire US economy? I love people that try to make equivalencies between the national debt and something like household debt. They are fundamentally different things.",
">\n\nNever claimed they were similar.\nI Said I prefer they make cuts over raising the ceiling",
">\n\nRaising the ceiling isn’t taking out more loans. You can both make cuts and raise the ceiling at the same time, and we have done that in the past.",
">\n\nYou can make cuts and not raise the ceiling. Let's do that one",
">\n\nNo, actually you can’t. If you don’t raise the ceiling, the government can’t spend any money, whether or not you cut the budget. That would fuck up the entire globes economy, not just americas. \nIf you want everybody to become drastically more impoverished, then sure don’t raise the ceiling. If you don’t want to cause completely unnecessary pain, the ceiling should be raised and then abolished entirely.",
">\n\nMost of these proposed rule changes are reasonable IMO, I just don’t believe they are being pushed for in good faith. I’m of the impression that he could of said yes to all of these before vote one and they’d still drag him through the mud to prove a point",
">\n\nThey mostly sound reasonable to the average voter, which is why they are popular.\nBut when you implement them in practice, people quickly understand why they are dumb ideas. A single subject law sounds nice, but what is a single subject? Who defines that scope? And if we reduce it to the granular level, are we going to have the time to go through every one of these votes? \nIt also reduces the power of the minority party, since usually the minority party can get a few things into an omnibus, but if you go line by line the minority party might not get anything they want.",
">\n\n\nThey mostly sound reasonable to the average voter, which is why they are popular.\n\nWhich is the whole reason we don't do direct democracy. In short, voters are too ill informed and stupid to decide policies because they just go for whatever sounds good and ignore the facts. \nFor example, \"right to work\" laws are actually terrible for the working class. UBI seems like it would reduce poverty but it increases it. Putting people in horrible prisons for crimes seems like it would reduce crime but it actually increases it slightly and lenient sentencing reduces crime. Or look at how schools teach reading in a way that keeps kids from learning to read well. \nOf course having a republican form of government instead of direct democracy allows for corruption from the representatives, so that is another issue. But voters deciding the laws directly leads to a ton of bad policy.",
">\n\nAs far as what was specifically listed above, I have no issues except maybe with eliminating proxy voting - we have the internet & - as much as I’ll talk smack about them every opportunity presented - representatives are people with lives outside of their work. Omnibus bills shouldn’t exist, with Congress voting on them without even fully knowing what they contain. They’re usually labelled & championed as being relevant to a single subject that most would view favorable while that single subject is a very small portion of what is included & used as a political weapon to ram through other less favorable legislation by claiming anyone that votes against it is against whatever is in the title. If bills were limited to a single subject & legislators given more time to see what’s in them, I honestly think progress could be made much more expediently & without the back room dealings buried within them.",
">\n\nI’m on board with the bullet points except for the proxy voting. Or maybe not limiting them so narrowly to a single subject but there has to be a plausible reason how subjects are related. And I mean a real one, not the oh it affects something sold or made in almost every state so interstate commerce clause ties it together.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThe point of this is to make it effectively impossible to compromise or cooperate with Democrats. \nNow it won't be possible to vote on a bill that has something the Dems want and something the GOP want. \nThe House will first have to pass a bill that benefits one party, and then pass another bill that benefits the other. But there's no mechanism to ensure that the parties hold up the bargain on the second one.",
">\n\nI could see there maybe still being compromise if both parties aligned on the subject in the legislation. \nThe bigger issue I think is right now the GOP has no incentive to compromise with the democrats even under the current rules.",
">\n\nIf it was something like the Dems and the GOP agreed on a new rule for social media companies, then yeah, that would be possible. \nBut a compromise like, \"We tighten up religious freedom protections in public schools and also tighten up rules for car emissions\" is now by definition impossible.",
">\n\nVery true, good point. \nOr a bill that would provide subsidies to two different groups would be impossible, right? Like Dems would support a bill giving assistance to coal companies as long as it provided for inner city schools or something.",
">\n\nRight, not possible.",
">\n\nThis would eliminate the ability to compromise. \nRight now Dems can propose something they feel is important and when Republicans object, they can add something Republicans want. That way each side gets something from it. With \"single issue\" bills, each side would have to trust that the other will pass another bill in order to make these sorts of compromises - and of course at some critical point one side will violate that trust in order to be manipulative. Neither side will trust the other side after what has gone down over the past few decades."
] |
>
Anything the Freedom Crackers propose is a losing proposition from the start. They have no good ideas.
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.",
">\n\nOr, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due.",
">\n\nIs that not what the August recess is for? Also its too easily abused because it can be used as excuse to not attend the congress at all. I still think personal relationships matter and your not gonna get that by voting by proxy. You should have to have face to face interactions with your fellow moc to get legislation done.",
">\n\nProxy Voting is not about good governance, its about holding lawmakers hostage to the dangers GOP members want to put everyone else at risk for: Shootings, member abuse in committees, another Coup Attempt and COVID.\nI agree mostly with some of the items like term limits, which should absolutely be considered, but disallowing Proxy Voting is Republicans wanting to abuse power.",
">\n\nThe hang up is not allowing an insurrectionist as the speaker of the house. McCarthy should not hold speaker position. If the majority seats change for the house, each party tweaks or changes the rules. However, a republican house majority is not about better governance, look at this circus going on. I haven't been this entertained in ages , when it comes to DC politicking.",
">\n\nI didn’t say McCarthy should be speaker, or that I want a GOP majority in the House. I don’t want either, I was just curious what people thought the effect of the new rules would be.",
">\n\nI'm sorry , I just don't see those changes happening. Proposed and actual are two different things. The house majority, now republican, first order of business was removing the metal detectors. Metal detectors because terrorists stormed our capital building. These next two years are going to be painful. Better governance, like the talks to cut all that IRS funding that was so crucially needed to re-coop, we the people's money from tax evaders and corporations.",
">\n\nSounds like proposals from people who have no experience or knowledge of how legislation is passed.",
">\n\nOr perhaps they know how legislation is currently passed, and as a result know it's a broken system. Passing unpopular provisions by adding enough bribes to them isn't a functional legislative process.",
">\n\nThey know enough to know that this will fully gridlock all legislation. The ones proposing it don't want a functional government. They're the same ones preventing the legislature from being sworn in. They were the ones involved in the coup attempt two years ago.",
">\n\nLol presenting your tribal fact opposed narrative rather than actually addressing the concept.\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right?",
">\n\n\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right? \n\nThe Republicans, obviously. Specifically the treason caucus politicians who have pushed for these exact concessions from McCarthy.",
">\n\nThere is good and bad. TBH the idea of term limits is also quite appealing but officials especially the careerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.",
">\n\n\ncareerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.\n\nPerhaps because the careerists believe in good governance and we've seen from all the research into the states that put term limits in place and/or repeal them that term limits don't enhance good governance or return power to \"the people\" and instead make less effective legislators and push power into unelected lobbyists and staffers?",
">\n\nThe biggest problem with these rules they are proposing are the result of them not doing their jobs. The Congress hasn't passed a complete budget in over 10 years, they've been operating on Continuing Resolutions and Omnibus spending bills, because the two sides refuse to come together and compromise and get things done for the country, they have these partisan fights and small groups with agendas that tangle things up and then whine to the media. The biggest thing is these elected individuals have to get back to doing the jobs they are sent there to do, instead of grandstanding like the GOP is doing right now. But on the other hand this could be tied right back to the voters, when 25-30% of the eligible voters don't vote, and many allow themselves to be disenfranchised, by not doing what is necessary to vote. If the state throws up barriers then jump through the hoops and cast your vote, that's the only way change happens, gerrymandering isn't going away anytime soon, so getting maximum participation is critical.",
">\n\nWhatever leads to the least getting done in Congress is the best we can hope for. I don't care who does it.",
">\n\nyou really don't want to see the country default on its debts. like, you think you do, but you really don't.",
">\n\nYou are right, I want to see us cut our spending instead of taking out even more loans to pay off the ones we already have",
">\n\nLoans against what? The entire US economy? I love people that try to make equivalencies between the national debt and something like household debt. They are fundamentally different things.",
">\n\nNever claimed they were similar.\nI Said I prefer they make cuts over raising the ceiling",
">\n\nRaising the ceiling isn’t taking out more loans. You can both make cuts and raise the ceiling at the same time, and we have done that in the past.",
">\n\nYou can make cuts and not raise the ceiling. Let's do that one",
">\n\nNo, actually you can’t. If you don’t raise the ceiling, the government can’t spend any money, whether or not you cut the budget. That would fuck up the entire globes economy, not just americas. \nIf you want everybody to become drastically more impoverished, then sure don’t raise the ceiling. If you don’t want to cause completely unnecessary pain, the ceiling should be raised and then abolished entirely.",
">\n\nMost of these proposed rule changes are reasonable IMO, I just don’t believe they are being pushed for in good faith. I’m of the impression that he could of said yes to all of these before vote one and they’d still drag him through the mud to prove a point",
">\n\nThey mostly sound reasonable to the average voter, which is why they are popular.\nBut when you implement them in practice, people quickly understand why they are dumb ideas. A single subject law sounds nice, but what is a single subject? Who defines that scope? And if we reduce it to the granular level, are we going to have the time to go through every one of these votes? \nIt also reduces the power of the minority party, since usually the minority party can get a few things into an omnibus, but if you go line by line the minority party might not get anything they want.",
">\n\n\nThey mostly sound reasonable to the average voter, which is why they are popular.\n\nWhich is the whole reason we don't do direct democracy. In short, voters are too ill informed and stupid to decide policies because they just go for whatever sounds good and ignore the facts. \nFor example, \"right to work\" laws are actually terrible for the working class. UBI seems like it would reduce poverty but it increases it. Putting people in horrible prisons for crimes seems like it would reduce crime but it actually increases it slightly and lenient sentencing reduces crime. Or look at how schools teach reading in a way that keeps kids from learning to read well. \nOf course having a republican form of government instead of direct democracy allows for corruption from the representatives, so that is another issue. But voters deciding the laws directly leads to a ton of bad policy.",
">\n\nAs far as what was specifically listed above, I have no issues except maybe with eliminating proxy voting - we have the internet & - as much as I’ll talk smack about them every opportunity presented - representatives are people with lives outside of their work. Omnibus bills shouldn’t exist, with Congress voting on them without even fully knowing what they contain. They’re usually labelled & championed as being relevant to a single subject that most would view favorable while that single subject is a very small portion of what is included & used as a political weapon to ram through other less favorable legislation by claiming anyone that votes against it is against whatever is in the title. If bills were limited to a single subject & legislators given more time to see what’s in them, I honestly think progress could be made much more expediently & without the back room dealings buried within them.",
">\n\nI’m on board with the bullet points except for the proxy voting. Or maybe not limiting them so narrowly to a single subject but there has to be a plausible reason how subjects are related. And I mean a real one, not the oh it affects something sold or made in almost every state so interstate commerce clause ties it together.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThe point of this is to make it effectively impossible to compromise or cooperate with Democrats. \nNow it won't be possible to vote on a bill that has something the Dems want and something the GOP want. \nThe House will first have to pass a bill that benefits one party, and then pass another bill that benefits the other. But there's no mechanism to ensure that the parties hold up the bargain on the second one.",
">\n\nI could see there maybe still being compromise if both parties aligned on the subject in the legislation. \nThe bigger issue I think is right now the GOP has no incentive to compromise with the democrats even under the current rules.",
">\n\nIf it was something like the Dems and the GOP agreed on a new rule for social media companies, then yeah, that would be possible. \nBut a compromise like, \"We tighten up religious freedom protections in public schools and also tighten up rules for car emissions\" is now by definition impossible.",
">\n\nVery true, good point. \nOr a bill that would provide subsidies to two different groups would be impossible, right? Like Dems would support a bill giving assistance to coal companies as long as it provided for inner city schools or something.",
">\n\nRight, not possible.",
">\n\nThis would eliminate the ability to compromise. \nRight now Dems can propose something they feel is important and when Republicans object, they can add something Republicans want. That way each side gets something from it. With \"single issue\" bills, each side would have to trust that the other will pass another bill in order to make these sorts of compromises - and of course at some critical point one side will violate that trust in order to be manipulative. Neither side will trust the other side after what has gone down over the past few decades.",
">\n\nFor the items you put in your bulleted list I personally think those should all be passed as law if not Constitutional Amendments."
] |
>
|
[
"\"Limit bills to a single subject\" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.\n\"Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's \"germane\"?\n\"Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.\n\"Eliminate proxy voting\" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.\nSomething you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.\nTake anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it.",
">\n\nThe freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault",
">\n\nYou know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest.",
">\n\nYeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history.",
">\n\nUmmm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that.",
">\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.",
">\n\n\nMaybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level\n\nOkay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.\n\nRepublicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.\n\nDemocrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well.",
">\n\nBecause when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right?",
">\n\n\"Limit bills to a single subject\"\nThis would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly. It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work. I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage. A post office name here, a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.",
">\n\nYou mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023",
">\n\nThey already can thanks to the Patriot Act, worry not.",
">\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.",
">\n\n\nThe Patriot Act expired some time ago.\n\nThat's funny. You're funny.\nThe patriot act was largely restricted to wire communications.\nSubpoenas on content providers, site managers and other similar providers have been upheld for a decade now, outside of whatsapp and a few other e2e encrypted systems there's not much they have to worry about.",
">\n\nThe patriot act was relevant when we communicated primarily by phone. \nWe now communicate through 3rd parties, who can be much more easily subpoenaed.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nWhile that SOUNDS good, in practice it would lead to no one ever eating their vegetables. Bundling items is necessary for unpopular but needed things to pass.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nProxy voting should stay forever. No longer is a district deprived of their vote because the member is in the hospital or has to go to their kid's wedding.",
">\n\nSo we should want to keep in place a system that forces through things the voting public doesn't want?\nPlease defend this position that its a good thing politicians can quietly push through things the voting public doesn't want",
">\n\nHaving every single tiny thing have to go through committee and maybe be brought up for a vote is a great way for nothing to get done, ever. Even the stuff the government does a great job with, like food safety or tracking the weather.",
">\n\nNothing passed in the 118th House will even reach the Senate floor let alone the President's desk. Doesn't matter if \"nothing\" gets done.\nBut also I'm tired of hearing about Congressional terms that \"do nothing\" from people who don't read the Congressional Record. They've always done far more than people claim.",
">\n\nThat's simply false. A debt ceiling bill will pass. A government funding bill will pass. Etc.",
">\n\nPerhaps they will, but I knew someone would shout me down by pointing out the few obvious exceptions.\nBut we're dealing with a faction that just might deliberately push the federal reserve to insolvency by suspending interest payments on bonds. They very well might halt funding to the nonessential functions of government. They've certainly done it before.\nBigger question is whether they will pass a fiscal budget. And they will. And there will be daily mundane HR's recorded in the Congressional Record and the non-controversial stuff will pass. But the right wing agenda of the Q and MAGA factions? None of that stuff is going anywhere.",
">\n\nYes, I really hope they don't suspend payments. And allowing the bundling of items makes it more likely the government will be funded.",
">\n\nSingle subject bills mean no budget bills get passed. It’s a pipedream but it does reflect a massive problem/challenge of legislation by rider.",
">\n\nWhy wouldn't we see this as disingenuous as all the other Republican proposals?",
">\n\nThese rules will get scrapped the instant Republicans get the White House and Senate.\nIt's just veiled obstruction.",
">\n\nI think they just want to obstruct everything, these rulles make that easier.",
">\n\nYep, the real purpose of these rules is to grind the government to a halt and enable these folks to obstruct the function of government more than they do already.",
">\n\nI'm not really a fan of changes that make it harder for Congress to actually legislate. Nearly every problem in the US' federal government can be tracked back to a legislature that simply doesn't work.",
">\n\nPart of that not working is the turn away from regular order.",
">\n\nDo you know why regular order exists and what its purpose is? It's to make conducting business fair, quick/efficient, and standardized.\nMost of these proposals don't enhance regular order. They are a perversion of the intent of enforcing regular order.\nThe reason why Congress can't legislate is that people, and by people I mean mostly conservatives, abuse regular order to have the opposite effect of what regular order is supposed to provide. The reason why regular order is bypassed is because of the same reasons why these proposals will hurt the United States not help it.\nThese are basically standard conservative tactics in the US, make proposals that sound good, but pervert all of the meaning and reasoning behind a proposal so it has the opposite effect. It's so tiring dealing with dishonest people like American conservatives.",
">\n\nNone sense. At no time when dems had the house did they propose and vote on separate appropriations bills. Either did republicans. Both have been failing the public and shirking their duty.",
">\n\nYou are not understanding what regular order is. It's not just \"vote on all proposed bills\".\nHave you ever run a meeting under anything considered \"regular order\".",
">\n\nThe single subject one would grind legislative proceedings to a halt and make passing anything unbelievably time-consuming and cause a major backlog.",
">\n\nHow exactly does limiting legislation to a single subject slow legislation? That is, unless politicians don't want their support for narrow issues made explicit. In all other areas of life, focus helps clarity and progress. It seems we should seek opacity in legislation. Apparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.",
">\n\nIsn't it obvious? Instead of one bill that does 10 things, you now need up to 10 bills, each of which will have to run the full gamut of committee consideration, floor deliberation, rewrites, and final voting.\n\nApparently these big bills aren't even read by those voting in support anymore.\n\nThe \"congresspeople don't read the bills\" bit is a red herring. Their staffers do the reading and advising. More to the point, how could they read anything if you're multiplying the number of bills to read? The end result is expanding the docket to the point where things won't fit into a legislative session.",
">\n\nGreat points and I'm not sure the Senate is on board with receiving hundreds of piecemeal single issue bills",
">\n\nYes, and the Congressional ping-pong of editing bills and sending them back is only going to compound the issue.\nThis also just occurred to me: what about bills that originate in the Senate? Will those be chopped up to accommodate House rules? If \"pass this Senate bill\" counts as a single issue, then you end up with a loophole to originate everything possible in the Senate.",
">\n\nHow is voting on single issues a problem, in principle? The voters will see who supports what, and the back room deals will be less relevant. More voter responsiveness will be the result. Also, more cooperation on uncontroversial things, so that it's clear that some things are common ground. This will make bipartisanship in some areas clearer.",
">\n\nAsk yourself this. Why didn't MAGA do any of this when Trump was in office and they had both chambers of Congress?",
">\n\nEach one of the proposals you listed sounds ok at the surface level, but would actually be very bad if implemented. \nIt’s hard enough getting the small number of bills passed we have now- imagine that process if we needed to pass 3000 bills just to have a functional budget. This also applies to the germaneness rule- splitting up bills into hundreds of smaller bills does nothing but slow the entire process down. \nExpanding time between introduction and floor debate slows the process down, and there is still no guarantee congresspeople would read the legislation. Their staff are the ones reading the legislation currently, not the reps themselves, and that wouldn’t change just because we gave the interns a couple more days to read bills. In theory it could allow time to catch problematic provisions or sentences, but I don’t see that happening. It’ll just slow the process down for no benefit. \nProxy voting should never be eliminated, and should be encouraged if the representative isn’t present for whatever reason.",
">\n\nThe crux of the \"Freedom Caucus\" movement, and conservatism at large, is reducing complex topics into bumper sticker slogans and then act surprised when things capsize.",
">\n\nGiven that these are proposals from the group that wants to tear down the government entirely, it doesn't seem likely for any of their proposals to be good nor support governance.\nWhat, for example, does \"a single subject\" mean? Is \"responding to a pandemic\" a single subject? Is \"the federal budget\" a single subject? Would \"a war\" be? Who decides?",
">\n\nIt means that if there are too many words for it to fit through Boebert's tiny brain, they can't vote on it.",
">\n\n...that's it, then.\nI'd say it's been an honor, but it really hasn't.",
">\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house. The fact that the republicans have such a narrow majority has given these right-wing nuts outsized power and influence which is bad for the country. These proposed changes are effectively like lining the walls of your arteries with plaque, restricting the flow the legislation that is needed for the proper function of government overall. The house controls the purse which is needed for all the other things.",
">\n\n\nHere is what I think:\nMuch of the changes the \"freedom caucus\" nuts are proposing are coming from people who do not understand parliamentary processes or are intentionally hamstringing the position of speaker of the house.\n\nMy take? Even if all of their demands were met, they'd come up with new ones. They have no interest in actually governing. The same thing happened under Obama when the Dems got a deal from the Reps, only to have the fringe reject what they previously agreed to.",
">\n\nYep. This is the J6 caucus. They're the people who just want to smear feces on the walls of the Capitol. They just blindly blame the government for everything and want to destroy it, and pretend that ignoring every problem will fix things.",
">\n\nMany good points. One thought.\nWouldn’t this greatly increase the precision and therefore the power of the presidential veto? Instead of a line item veto you get line item Bills.\nNow you can’t slip some things your party wants by an opposing President by wrapping it in sugar.",
">\n\nMaybe. But it essentially eliminates the ability to compromise. \nAs it is now, your party will agree to something my party wants if my party concedes something your party wants. With single item bills, only the party in power would ever get what they want.",
">\n\nSo you're saying only the ideas with majority support will get passed?\nIs that a good or bad thing in your opinion?",
">\n\nBad. There are absolutely things that must be passed that aren’t popular enough to pass as an individual vote.",
">\n\nI have a strange hunch that those things line up with your personal views. What a coincidence that would be eh?",
">\n\nI’m talking about things like bridges, roads, etc. If every single thing Congress pays for has to be individually considered and voted on, there is no way that the things that are least politically important but still critical to the continued function of our country would ever get prioritized, and extremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes",
">\n\n\nextremists would hold those items hostage in order to get votes for their personal ideological purposes\n\nThey can't, their ideological purposes aren't bridges and roads so they won't go in the bridges and roads bill.\nCongress shouldn't usually be passing bridge and road legislation anyway. Infrastructure related to national defense is about all that should go in there, and that shouldn't be interpreted too broadly.",
">\n\nThey absolutely can - what happens when let’s say 150 republicans decide they won’t vote for anything unless a full abortion ban comes up for a vote?",
">\n\nWhatever good there may be, it is overshadowed by the very obvious harms and half-baked intentions. This upcoming Congress is DOA with or without these rules and concessions. For Pete's sake, one concession is that super PACs go unchallenged by leadership in primaries.",
">\n\nDoesn’t single issue bills just remove riders from bills? A single issue doesn’t need to be specific but under the same umbrella. IE highway funds, airport and a new bridge all grouped together as infrastructure.",
">\n\nNo sadly, it's just obstructionist",
">\n\nI know it’s a problem but how specific do single issue bills need to be",
">\n\n\"Limit to a single subject\" is super difficult to make work in practice. \nHow do you define a single subject? Can I pass a bill to fund a repair programme for all the bridges in America? Or does every bridge need its own bill? If I can do a single bill for all the bridges, can I also add in road repairs to that same bill? What tunnels? Traffic light upgrades? Smart highway infrastructure? \nAll are related, but could be argued to be distinct.",
">\n\nYeah, I think the intention would be to basically block omnibus bills, like to avoid having a banking bill that also builds a bridge. But beyond obvious situations like that it could be really tough to define in practice. \nYour example is a really good and could be drawn out into other areas. Let’s say you want to write a banking bill, well how do you define a bank? Are credit card companies included under the new standard or does that need another separate bill?\nThen I wonder how it would be policed, would the parliamentarian be the one in charge of determining if a bill is a single subject or would they be a vote in a committee? All very nebulas.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nIncredibly stupid and disappointing. The single subject should be \"governing the United States\". What happens if Congress wants to pass a transit bill, and cannot get enough opposition support? Under this rule, you have gridlock. But if someone were to say \"Hey other party, how about we throw you a bone on... gun control or abortion or police reform or tax reform?\" If you compromise somewhere else, then you can actually move the ball forward on multiple issues. I would think everyone from both parties would agree this is a stupid idea if you consider it for longer than ten seconds. But everything Congress does is designed to appeal to people with a very short attention span. This sounds good as a bumper sticker slogan, but its a stupid policy.\nAlso, this gives the whips much more power over their party members, and takes away considerable discretion and power from YOUR congressman. \nTom Emmer and Katherine Clark will be the two party whips next session. Their job is to call each member of their party and literally tell that Congress member how to vote. So when a single issue bill comes to the floor for a vote, Whip Katherine Clark will be calling my Congress woman Diana Degette and telling her what he party line is and how to vote. There's a negotiation process by which my Congresswoman Degette could get a pass, but that's rare. She will likely always vote the party line because there's nothing in the single issue bill throwing a bone to my district.\nBut if Congresswoman Degette did neogiate.. say a new park or road for Denver, then Congresswoman Degette would tell the part whip \"No, I'm not voting the party line because this benefits my district. Go to hell\".\nTaking away that power from members of congress is bullshit. Its a recipe for gridlock and authoritarian control of congress members by the parties. I don't have the words to describe how shitty this is.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\n\nKills all bills in the Senate. This advantage the Republicans who want to kill all bills and prove government can't work by making government not work. This is bad for governance if the filibuster remains.\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nIt's weird they're the ones proposing this, as they're were writing in the margins of their 500 page tax scam bill late late at night until moments before the vote. No one had copies to read as it wasn't even done. They actively made mistakes. This is fine as long as the timeline is reasonable. Some exceptions for emergencies may be required - weather disasters, foreign attacks, etc.\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nThis is dumb. We have the technology. There's no need to require people to be in the building to vote. Maybe having a limit would be fine to prevent everyone from calling in from a golf course all year.",
">\n\nWell, the bottom line according to the North Carolina Rep Dan Bishop who was interviewed on CNN is that the dissenters want to be sure the Speaker will shut down the government rather than increase the debt limit in the Fall. \nMy take: If this is the real reason, they want to shut the government down and wreck the economy so they can run against the Dems on the bad economy (that the GOP created by refusing to increase the debt limit).",
">\n\nI agree with anything that makes congress a body that votes on issues and moves on to the next. It feels like the rules have become so weaponized that congress doesn't really get things done anymore. \n\nLimit bills to a single subject;\nI'm not sure I 100% agree with this.\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments;\nI don't like this one.\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate;\nThis I agree with this. It was either Dan Crenshaw or someone I heard in an interview saying that they will sometimes get a 1000+ page bill and be expected to debate and vote on it with no time for review. Who knows what kind of bullshit someone could throw into a bill behind closed doors. \nEliminate proxy voting;\nMeh",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nMake it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments\n\nSee above\n\nExpand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate\n\nLemme guess... +1 minute if it's by a GOP rep, or +1000 years if it's by a Dem? The complete lack of any specificity makes this sound so wishy-washy as to be utterly impossible to take seriously\n\nEliminate proxy voting\n\nTo what end? Did the GOP finally pick up on the Trump platform of hating their families (or the ones they weren't suspiciously \"close\" to)?\nIf those were the highlights of the proposed rules, then I can't imagine what the lowlights were. I've heard more salient and sensible New Year's Resolutions from kindergartners.",
">\n\n\nThey already are -- the subject is \"politics\" and it encompasses literally everything.\n\nThis, exactly. Even defining what \"a single subject\" means is a pathway to madness.",
">\n\nPeople love talking about \"common sense\" rules, but they always seem to assume that everyone is sharing their personal definition of what that means.",
">\n\nI've had a few conversations in my life that led to the dawning horror that the other party thought we obviously agreed on everything on the basis of us both being dudes. \nOr both white dudes. \nOr both white, presumably Christian dudes.\nI had one of those conversations just yesterday. They never go well.",
">\n\nI like getting rid of proxy voting. Have waivers for sickness or family emergencies but other than that it should not be used. If you're a MOC and can't be bothered to make your way to Washington then find another job.",
">\n\nOr, counterpoint, proxy voting allows members to spend more time in their home districts providing constituent services precisely because they don't have to fly back and forth to Washington -- at taxpayer expense -- every time a vote is due.",
">\n\nIs that not what the August recess is for? Also its too easily abused because it can be used as excuse to not attend the congress at all. I still think personal relationships matter and your not gonna get that by voting by proxy. You should have to have face to face interactions with your fellow moc to get legislation done.",
">\n\nProxy Voting is not about good governance, its about holding lawmakers hostage to the dangers GOP members want to put everyone else at risk for: Shootings, member abuse in committees, another Coup Attempt and COVID.\nI agree mostly with some of the items like term limits, which should absolutely be considered, but disallowing Proxy Voting is Republicans wanting to abuse power.",
">\n\nThe hang up is not allowing an insurrectionist as the speaker of the house. McCarthy should not hold speaker position. If the majority seats change for the house, each party tweaks or changes the rules. However, a republican house majority is not about better governance, look at this circus going on. I haven't been this entertained in ages , when it comes to DC politicking.",
">\n\nI didn’t say McCarthy should be speaker, or that I want a GOP majority in the House. I don’t want either, I was just curious what people thought the effect of the new rules would be.",
">\n\nI'm sorry , I just don't see those changes happening. Proposed and actual are two different things. The house majority, now republican, first order of business was removing the metal detectors. Metal detectors because terrorists stormed our capital building. These next two years are going to be painful. Better governance, like the talks to cut all that IRS funding that was so crucially needed to re-coop, we the people's money from tax evaders and corporations.",
">\n\nSounds like proposals from people who have no experience or knowledge of how legislation is passed.",
">\n\nOr perhaps they know how legislation is currently passed, and as a result know it's a broken system. Passing unpopular provisions by adding enough bribes to them isn't a functional legislative process.",
">\n\nThey know enough to know that this will fully gridlock all legislation. The ones proposing it don't want a functional government. They're the same ones preventing the legislature from being sworn in. They were the ones involved in the coup attempt two years ago.",
">\n\nLol presenting your tribal fact opposed narrative rather than actually addressing the concept.\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right?",
">\n\n\nWhich party's supporters stormed the White House again? They must be the coup group you're talking about right? \n\nThe Republicans, obviously. Specifically the treason caucus politicians who have pushed for these exact concessions from McCarthy.",
">\n\nThere is good and bad. TBH the idea of term limits is also quite appealing but officials especially the careerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.",
">\n\n\ncareerists are dead set against it for understandable reasons.\n\nPerhaps because the careerists believe in good governance and we've seen from all the research into the states that put term limits in place and/or repeal them that term limits don't enhance good governance or return power to \"the people\" and instead make less effective legislators and push power into unelected lobbyists and staffers?",
">\n\nThe biggest problem with these rules they are proposing are the result of them not doing their jobs. The Congress hasn't passed a complete budget in over 10 years, they've been operating on Continuing Resolutions and Omnibus spending bills, because the two sides refuse to come together and compromise and get things done for the country, they have these partisan fights and small groups with agendas that tangle things up and then whine to the media. The biggest thing is these elected individuals have to get back to doing the jobs they are sent there to do, instead of grandstanding like the GOP is doing right now. But on the other hand this could be tied right back to the voters, when 25-30% of the eligible voters don't vote, and many allow themselves to be disenfranchised, by not doing what is necessary to vote. If the state throws up barriers then jump through the hoops and cast your vote, that's the only way change happens, gerrymandering isn't going away anytime soon, so getting maximum participation is critical.",
">\n\nWhatever leads to the least getting done in Congress is the best we can hope for. I don't care who does it.",
">\n\nyou really don't want to see the country default on its debts. like, you think you do, but you really don't.",
">\n\nYou are right, I want to see us cut our spending instead of taking out even more loans to pay off the ones we already have",
">\n\nLoans against what? The entire US economy? I love people that try to make equivalencies between the national debt and something like household debt. They are fundamentally different things.",
">\n\nNever claimed they were similar.\nI Said I prefer they make cuts over raising the ceiling",
">\n\nRaising the ceiling isn’t taking out more loans. You can both make cuts and raise the ceiling at the same time, and we have done that in the past.",
">\n\nYou can make cuts and not raise the ceiling. Let's do that one",
">\n\nNo, actually you can’t. If you don’t raise the ceiling, the government can’t spend any money, whether or not you cut the budget. That would fuck up the entire globes economy, not just americas. \nIf you want everybody to become drastically more impoverished, then sure don’t raise the ceiling. If you don’t want to cause completely unnecessary pain, the ceiling should be raised and then abolished entirely.",
">\n\nMost of these proposed rule changes are reasonable IMO, I just don’t believe they are being pushed for in good faith. I’m of the impression that he could of said yes to all of these before vote one and they’d still drag him through the mud to prove a point",
">\n\nThey mostly sound reasonable to the average voter, which is why they are popular.\nBut when you implement them in practice, people quickly understand why they are dumb ideas. A single subject law sounds nice, but what is a single subject? Who defines that scope? And if we reduce it to the granular level, are we going to have the time to go through every one of these votes? \nIt also reduces the power of the minority party, since usually the minority party can get a few things into an omnibus, but if you go line by line the minority party might not get anything they want.",
">\n\n\nThey mostly sound reasonable to the average voter, which is why they are popular.\n\nWhich is the whole reason we don't do direct democracy. In short, voters are too ill informed and stupid to decide policies because they just go for whatever sounds good and ignore the facts. \nFor example, \"right to work\" laws are actually terrible for the working class. UBI seems like it would reduce poverty but it increases it. Putting people in horrible prisons for crimes seems like it would reduce crime but it actually increases it slightly and lenient sentencing reduces crime. Or look at how schools teach reading in a way that keeps kids from learning to read well. \nOf course having a republican form of government instead of direct democracy allows for corruption from the representatives, so that is another issue. But voters deciding the laws directly leads to a ton of bad policy.",
">\n\nAs far as what was specifically listed above, I have no issues except maybe with eliminating proxy voting - we have the internet & - as much as I’ll talk smack about them every opportunity presented - representatives are people with lives outside of their work. Omnibus bills shouldn’t exist, with Congress voting on them without even fully knowing what they contain. They’re usually labelled & championed as being relevant to a single subject that most would view favorable while that single subject is a very small portion of what is included & used as a political weapon to ram through other less favorable legislation by claiming anyone that votes against it is against whatever is in the title. If bills were limited to a single subject & legislators given more time to see what’s in them, I honestly think progress could be made much more expediently & without the back room dealings buried within them.",
">\n\nI’m on board with the bullet points except for the proxy voting. Or maybe not limiting them so narrowly to a single subject but there has to be a plausible reason how subjects are related. And I mean a real one, not the oh it affects something sold or made in almost every state so interstate commerce clause ties it together.",
">\n\n\nLimit bills to a single subject\n\nThe point of this is to make it effectively impossible to compromise or cooperate with Democrats. \nNow it won't be possible to vote on a bill that has something the Dems want and something the GOP want. \nThe House will first have to pass a bill that benefits one party, and then pass another bill that benefits the other. But there's no mechanism to ensure that the parties hold up the bargain on the second one.",
">\n\nI could see there maybe still being compromise if both parties aligned on the subject in the legislation. \nThe bigger issue I think is right now the GOP has no incentive to compromise with the democrats even under the current rules.",
">\n\nIf it was something like the Dems and the GOP agreed on a new rule for social media companies, then yeah, that would be possible. \nBut a compromise like, \"We tighten up religious freedom protections in public schools and also tighten up rules for car emissions\" is now by definition impossible.",
">\n\nVery true, good point. \nOr a bill that would provide subsidies to two different groups would be impossible, right? Like Dems would support a bill giving assistance to coal companies as long as it provided for inner city schools or something.",
">\n\nRight, not possible.",
">\n\nThis would eliminate the ability to compromise. \nRight now Dems can propose something they feel is important and when Republicans object, they can add something Republicans want. That way each side gets something from it. With \"single issue\" bills, each side would have to trust that the other will pass another bill in order to make these sorts of compromises - and of course at some critical point one side will violate that trust in order to be manipulative. Neither side will trust the other side after what has gone down over the past few decades.",
">\n\nFor the items you put in your bulleted list I personally think those should all be passed as law if not Constitutional Amendments.",
">\n\nAnything the Freedom Crackers propose is a losing proposition from the start. They have no good ideas."
] |
So their guard is down
|
[] |
>
That would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.
|
[
"So their guard is down"
] |
>
Great... now I have to write this movie.
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery."
] |
>
Send me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie."
] |
>
Even criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production."
] |
>
Yep. It’s all online these days.
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore"
] |
>
The real robbers work for the banks.
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days."
] |
>
Always have been
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks."
] |
>
No wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been"
] |
>
Good luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically."
] |
>
Because they’ve all been robbed?
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash."
] |
>
Nah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?"
] |
>
Canada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions...."
] |
>
When our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada."
] |
>
Postal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.
That may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.
We have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.
Anyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse.
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world."
] |
>
Maybe smaller canadian communities should look into banding together to set up some form of service company, not to make a profit, just owned by hundreds of little towns and villages, pay into it by the head, own it by the head, and then just let them provide internet, tv, phone, banking services, etc. At just enough above cost to save up for future investments, and just price the competition out of the market they don't want to serve anyways. And locals can vote on how much they want to subsidise themselves to get better service.
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.",
">\n\nPostal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.\nThat may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.\nWe have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.\nAnyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse."
] |
>
Well we have credit unions which fit the bill. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular. Advertising spaces in Canada, of all sorts, are just plastered with the big banks. Free iPad if you open an account type of things. I suspect it works, but am not sure.
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.",
">\n\nPostal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.\nThat may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.\nWe have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.\nAnyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse.",
">\n\nMaybe smaller canadian communities should look into banding together to set up some form of service company, not to make a profit, just owned by hundreds of little towns and villages, pay into it by the head, own it by the head, and then just let them provide internet, tv, phone, banking services, etc. At just enough above cost to save up for future investments, and just price the competition out of the market they don't want to serve anyways. And locals can vote on how much they want to subsidise themselves to get better service."
] |
>
The other thing the big banks have going for them is Visa/MasterCard on debit. Credit unions generally don't offer that; your debit card will typically be Interac only, which means it's only good for shopping at physical stores in Canada and the US.
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.",
">\n\nPostal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.\nThat may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.\nWe have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.\nAnyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse.",
">\n\nMaybe smaller canadian communities should look into banding together to set up some form of service company, not to make a profit, just owned by hundreds of little towns and villages, pay into it by the head, own it by the head, and then just let them provide internet, tv, phone, banking services, etc. At just enough above cost to save up for future investments, and just price the competition out of the market they don't want to serve anyways. And locals can vote on how much they want to subsidise themselves to get better service.",
">\n\nWell we have credit unions which fit the bill. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular. Advertising spaces in Canada, of all sorts, are just plastered with the big banks. Free iPad if you open an account type of things. I suspect it works, but am not sure."
] |
>
Because the real robbers is sitting inside the bank.
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.",
">\n\nPostal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.\nThat may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.\nWe have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.\nAnyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse.",
">\n\nMaybe smaller canadian communities should look into banding together to set up some form of service company, not to make a profit, just owned by hundreds of little towns and villages, pay into it by the head, own it by the head, and then just let them provide internet, tv, phone, banking services, etc. At just enough above cost to save up for future investments, and just price the competition out of the market they don't want to serve anyways. And locals can vote on how much they want to subsidise themselves to get better service.",
">\n\nWell we have credit unions which fit the bill. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular. Advertising spaces in Canada, of all sorts, are just plastered with the big banks. Free iPad if you open an account type of things. I suspect it works, but am not sure.",
">\n\nThe other thing the big banks have going for them is Visa/MasterCard on debit. Credit unions generally don't offer that; your debit card will typically be Interac only, which means it's only good for shopping at physical stores in Canada and the US."
] |
>
Sounds like something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.",
">\n\nPostal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.\nThat may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.\nWe have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.\nAnyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse.",
">\n\nMaybe smaller canadian communities should look into banding together to set up some form of service company, not to make a profit, just owned by hundreds of little towns and villages, pay into it by the head, own it by the head, and then just let them provide internet, tv, phone, banking services, etc. At just enough above cost to save up for future investments, and just price the competition out of the market they don't want to serve anyways. And locals can vote on how much they want to subsidise themselves to get better service.",
">\n\nWell we have credit unions which fit the bill. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular. Advertising spaces in Canada, of all sorts, are just plastered with the big banks. Free iPad if you open an account type of things. I suspect it works, but am not sure.",
">\n\nThe other thing the big banks have going for them is Visa/MasterCard on debit. Credit unions generally don't offer that; your debit card will typically be Interac only, which means it's only good for shopping at physical stores in Canada and the US.",
">\n\nBecause the real robbers is sitting inside the bank."
] |
>
Wow. Is there a subreddit for that? Maybe
r/unexpectedBard
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.",
">\n\nPostal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.\nThat may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.\nWe have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.\nAnyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse.",
">\n\nMaybe smaller canadian communities should look into banding together to set up some form of service company, not to make a profit, just owned by hundreds of little towns and villages, pay into it by the head, own it by the head, and then just let them provide internet, tv, phone, banking services, etc. At just enough above cost to save up for future investments, and just price the competition out of the market they don't want to serve anyways. And locals can vote on how much they want to subsidise themselves to get better service.",
">\n\nWell we have credit unions which fit the bill. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular. Advertising spaces in Canada, of all sorts, are just plastered with the big banks. Free iPad if you open an account type of things. I suspect it works, but am not sure.",
">\n\nThe other thing the big banks have going for them is Visa/MasterCard on debit. Credit unions generally don't offer that; your debit card will typically be Interac only, which means it's only good for shopping at physical stores in Canada and the US.",
">\n\nBecause the real robbers is sitting inside the bank.",
">\n\nSounds like something is rotten in the state of Denmark."
] |
>
well that’s what it is now
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.",
">\n\nPostal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.\nThat may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.\nWe have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.\nAnyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse.",
">\n\nMaybe smaller canadian communities should look into banding together to set up some form of service company, not to make a profit, just owned by hundreds of little towns and villages, pay into it by the head, own it by the head, and then just let them provide internet, tv, phone, banking services, etc. At just enough above cost to save up for future investments, and just price the competition out of the market they don't want to serve anyways. And locals can vote on how much they want to subsidise themselves to get better service.",
">\n\nWell we have credit unions which fit the bill. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular. Advertising spaces in Canada, of all sorts, are just plastered with the big banks. Free iPad if you open an account type of things. I suspect it works, but am not sure.",
">\n\nThe other thing the big banks have going for them is Visa/MasterCard on debit. Credit unions generally don't offer that; your debit card will typically be Interac only, which means it's only good for shopping at physical stores in Canada and the US.",
">\n\nBecause the real robbers is sitting inside the bank.",
">\n\nSounds like something is rotten in the state of Denmark.",
">\n\nWow. Is there a subreddit for that? Maybe \nr/unexpectedBard"
] |
>
Next news article will be, staff if Danish bank distraught after losing their jobs due to irrelevancy
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.",
">\n\nPostal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.\nThat may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.\nWe have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.\nAnyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse.",
">\n\nMaybe smaller canadian communities should look into banding together to set up some form of service company, not to make a profit, just owned by hundreds of little towns and villages, pay into it by the head, own it by the head, and then just let them provide internet, tv, phone, banking services, etc. At just enough above cost to save up for future investments, and just price the competition out of the market they don't want to serve anyways. And locals can vote on how much they want to subsidise themselves to get better service.",
">\n\nWell we have credit unions which fit the bill. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular. Advertising spaces in Canada, of all sorts, are just plastered with the big banks. Free iPad if you open an account type of things. I suspect it works, but am not sure.",
">\n\nThe other thing the big banks have going for them is Visa/MasterCard on debit. Credit unions generally don't offer that; your debit card will typically be Interac only, which means it's only good for shopping at physical stores in Canada and the US.",
">\n\nBecause the real robbers is sitting inside the bank.",
">\n\nSounds like something is rotten in the state of Denmark.",
">\n\nWow. Is there a subreddit for that? Maybe \nr/unexpectedBard",
">\n\nwell that’s what it is now"
] |
>
We'll... In 2015 the biggest danish bank accepted forged documents and payed this guy (the owner Sanjay at 6:41) €1.7 billion back in dividend taxes. A couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this. It's nice that that the employees are not endangered, but I'm sure they (and by extension the taxpayers) are getting robbed plenty.
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.",
">\n\nPostal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.\nThat may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.\nWe have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.\nAnyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse.",
">\n\nMaybe smaller canadian communities should look into banding together to set up some form of service company, not to make a profit, just owned by hundreds of little towns and villages, pay into it by the head, own it by the head, and then just let them provide internet, tv, phone, banking services, etc. At just enough above cost to save up for future investments, and just price the competition out of the market they don't want to serve anyways. And locals can vote on how much they want to subsidise themselves to get better service.",
">\n\nWell we have credit unions which fit the bill. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular. Advertising spaces in Canada, of all sorts, are just plastered with the big banks. Free iPad if you open an account type of things. I suspect it works, but am not sure.",
">\n\nThe other thing the big banks have going for them is Visa/MasterCard on debit. Credit unions generally don't offer that; your debit card will typically be Interac only, which means it's only good for shopping at physical stores in Canada and the US.",
">\n\nBecause the real robbers is sitting inside the bank.",
">\n\nSounds like something is rotten in the state of Denmark.",
">\n\nWow. Is there a subreddit for that? Maybe \nr/unexpectedBard",
">\n\nwell that’s what it is now",
">\n\nNext news article will be, staff if Danish bank distraught after losing their jobs due to irrelevancy"
] |
>
A couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this.
That's not true. I have done something slightly related at work, which required me to contact the tax authorities to request something similar to what they did with the dividend taxes. The current wait time (12 months) has been postponed by 9 months twice because they're revising their systems and presumably doing everything manually now. When I obviously sounded dumbfounded on the phone, they explained it was because of that case.
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.",
">\n\nPostal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.\nThat may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.\nWe have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.\nAnyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse.",
">\n\nMaybe smaller canadian communities should look into banding together to set up some form of service company, not to make a profit, just owned by hundreds of little towns and villages, pay into it by the head, own it by the head, and then just let them provide internet, tv, phone, banking services, etc. At just enough above cost to save up for future investments, and just price the competition out of the market they don't want to serve anyways. And locals can vote on how much they want to subsidise themselves to get better service.",
">\n\nWell we have credit unions which fit the bill. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular. Advertising spaces in Canada, of all sorts, are just plastered with the big banks. Free iPad if you open an account type of things. I suspect it works, but am not sure.",
">\n\nThe other thing the big banks have going for them is Visa/MasterCard on debit. Credit unions generally don't offer that; your debit card will typically be Interac only, which means it's only good for shopping at physical stores in Canada and the US.",
">\n\nBecause the real robbers is sitting inside the bank.",
">\n\nSounds like something is rotten in the state of Denmark.",
">\n\nWow. Is there a subreddit for that? Maybe \nr/unexpectedBard",
">\n\nwell that’s what it is now",
">\n\nNext news article will be, staff if Danish bank distraught after losing their jobs due to irrelevancy",
">\n\nWe'll... In 2015 the biggest danish bank accepted forged documents and payed this guy (the owner Sanjay at 6:41) €1.7 billion back in dividend taxes. A couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this. It's nice that that the employees are not endangered, but I'm sure they (and by extension the taxpayers) are getting robbed plenty."
] |
>
Policies for the plebs. Youre not a billionaire lol
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.",
">\n\nPostal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.\nThat may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.\nWe have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.\nAnyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse.",
">\n\nMaybe smaller canadian communities should look into banding together to set up some form of service company, not to make a profit, just owned by hundreds of little towns and villages, pay into it by the head, own it by the head, and then just let them provide internet, tv, phone, banking services, etc. At just enough above cost to save up for future investments, and just price the competition out of the market they don't want to serve anyways. And locals can vote on how much they want to subsidise themselves to get better service.",
">\n\nWell we have credit unions which fit the bill. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular. Advertising spaces in Canada, of all sorts, are just plastered with the big banks. Free iPad if you open an account type of things. I suspect it works, but am not sure.",
">\n\nThe other thing the big banks have going for them is Visa/MasterCard on debit. Credit unions generally don't offer that; your debit card will typically be Interac only, which means it's only good for shopping at physical stores in Canada and the US.",
">\n\nBecause the real robbers is sitting inside the bank.",
">\n\nSounds like something is rotten in the state of Denmark.",
">\n\nWow. Is there a subreddit for that? Maybe \nr/unexpectedBard",
">\n\nwell that’s what it is now",
">\n\nNext news article will be, staff if Danish bank distraught after losing their jobs due to irrelevancy",
">\n\nWe'll... In 2015 the biggest danish bank accepted forged documents and payed this guy (the owner Sanjay at 6:41) €1.7 billion back in dividend taxes. A couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this. It's nice that that the employees are not endangered, but I'm sure they (and by extension the taxpayers) are getting robbed plenty.",
">\n\n\nA couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this.\n\nThat's not true. I have done something slightly related at work, which required me to contact the tax authorities to request something similar to what they did with the dividend taxes. The current wait time (12 months) has been postponed by 9 months twice because they're revising their systems and presumably doing everything manually now. When I obviously sounded dumbfounded on the phone, they explained it was because of that case."
] |
>
No, that’s right, I’m not. But I did it for a multi-billion dollar insurance company.
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.",
">\n\nPostal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.\nThat may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.\nWe have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.\nAnyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse.",
">\n\nMaybe smaller canadian communities should look into banding together to set up some form of service company, not to make a profit, just owned by hundreds of little towns and villages, pay into it by the head, own it by the head, and then just let them provide internet, tv, phone, banking services, etc. At just enough above cost to save up for future investments, and just price the competition out of the market they don't want to serve anyways. And locals can vote on how much they want to subsidise themselves to get better service.",
">\n\nWell we have credit unions which fit the bill. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular. Advertising spaces in Canada, of all sorts, are just plastered with the big banks. Free iPad if you open an account type of things. I suspect it works, but am not sure.",
">\n\nThe other thing the big banks have going for them is Visa/MasterCard on debit. Credit unions generally don't offer that; your debit card will typically be Interac only, which means it's only good for shopping at physical stores in Canada and the US.",
">\n\nBecause the real robbers is sitting inside the bank.",
">\n\nSounds like something is rotten in the state of Denmark.",
">\n\nWow. Is there a subreddit for that? Maybe \nr/unexpectedBard",
">\n\nwell that’s what it is now",
">\n\nNext news article will be, staff if Danish bank distraught after losing their jobs due to irrelevancy",
">\n\nWe'll... In 2015 the biggest danish bank accepted forged documents and payed this guy (the owner Sanjay at 6:41) €1.7 billion back in dividend taxes. A couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this. It's nice that that the employees are not endangered, but I'm sure they (and by extension the taxpayers) are getting robbed plenty.",
">\n\n\nA couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this.\n\nThat's not true. I have done something slightly related at work, which required me to contact the tax authorities to request something similar to what they did with the dividend taxes. The current wait time (12 months) has been postponed by 9 months twice because they're revising their systems and presumably doing everything manually now. When I obviously sounded dumbfounded on the phone, they explained it was because of that case.",
">\n\nPolicies for the plebs. Youre not a billionaire lol"
] |
>
In the Bronx I remember on the news they celebrated no murders for one whole day! But early the next day, the streak was broken.
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.",
">\n\nPostal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.\nThat may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.\nWe have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.\nAnyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse.",
">\n\nMaybe smaller canadian communities should look into banding together to set up some form of service company, not to make a profit, just owned by hundreds of little towns and villages, pay into it by the head, own it by the head, and then just let them provide internet, tv, phone, banking services, etc. At just enough above cost to save up for future investments, and just price the competition out of the market they don't want to serve anyways. And locals can vote on how much they want to subsidise themselves to get better service.",
">\n\nWell we have credit unions which fit the bill. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular. Advertising spaces in Canada, of all sorts, are just plastered with the big banks. Free iPad if you open an account type of things. I suspect it works, but am not sure.",
">\n\nThe other thing the big banks have going for them is Visa/MasterCard on debit. Credit unions generally don't offer that; your debit card will typically be Interac only, which means it's only good for shopping at physical stores in Canada and the US.",
">\n\nBecause the real robbers is sitting inside the bank.",
">\n\nSounds like something is rotten in the state of Denmark.",
">\n\nWow. Is there a subreddit for that? Maybe \nr/unexpectedBard",
">\n\nwell that’s what it is now",
">\n\nNext news article will be, staff if Danish bank distraught after losing their jobs due to irrelevancy",
">\n\nWe'll... In 2015 the biggest danish bank accepted forged documents and payed this guy (the owner Sanjay at 6:41) €1.7 billion back in dividend taxes. A couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this. It's nice that that the employees are not endangered, but I'm sure they (and by extension the taxpayers) are getting robbed plenty.",
">\n\n\nA couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this.\n\nThat's not true. I have done something slightly related at work, which required me to contact the tax authorities to request something similar to what they did with the dividend taxes. The current wait time (12 months) has been postponed by 9 months twice because they're revising their systems and presumably doing everything manually now. When I obviously sounded dumbfounded on the phone, they explained it was because of that case.",
">\n\nPolicies for the plebs. Youre not a billionaire lol",
">\n\nNo, that’s right, I’m not. But I did it for a multi-billion dollar insurance company."
] |
>
Because it was a challenge and someone answered.
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.",
">\n\nPostal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.\nThat may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.\nWe have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.\nAnyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse.",
">\n\nMaybe smaller canadian communities should look into banding together to set up some form of service company, not to make a profit, just owned by hundreds of little towns and villages, pay into it by the head, own it by the head, and then just let them provide internet, tv, phone, banking services, etc. At just enough above cost to save up for future investments, and just price the competition out of the market they don't want to serve anyways. And locals can vote on how much they want to subsidise themselves to get better service.",
">\n\nWell we have credit unions which fit the bill. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular. Advertising spaces in Canada, of all sorts, are just plastered with the big banks. Free iPad if you open an account type of things. I suspect it works, but am not sure.",
">\n\nThe other thing the big banks have going for them is Visa/MasterCard on debit. Credit unions generally don't offer that; your debit card will typically be Interac only, which means it's only good for shopping at physical stores in Canada and the US.",
">\n\nBecause the real robbers is sitting inside the bank.",
">\n\nSounds like something is rotten in the state of Denmark.",
">\n\nWow. Is there a subreddit for that? Maybe \nr/unexpectedBard",
">\n\nwell that’s what it is now",
">\n\nNext news article will be, staff if Danish bank distraught after losing their jobs due to irrelevancy",
">\n\nWe'll... In 2015 the biggest danish bank accepted forged documents and payed this guy (the owner Sanjay at 6:41) €1.7 billion back in dividend taxes. A couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this. It's nice that that the employees are not endangered, but I'm sure they (and by extension the taxpayers) are getting robbed plenty.",
">\n\n\nA couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this.\n\nThat's not true. I have done something slightly related at work, which required me to contact the tax authorities to request something similar to what they did with the dividend taxes. The current wait time (12 months) has been postponed by 9 months twice because they're revising their systems and presumably doing everything manually now. When I obviously sounded dumbfounded on the phone, they explained it was because of that case.",
">\n\nPolicies for the plebs. Youre not a billionaire lol",
">\n\nNo, that’s right, I’m not. But I did it for a multi-billion dollar insurance company.",
">\n\nIn the Bronx I remember on the news they celebrated no murders for one whole day! But early the next day, the streak was broken."
] |
>
They said no to gentrification.
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.",
">\n\nPostal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.\nThat may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.\nWe have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.\nAnyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse.",
">\n\nMaybe smaller canadian communities should look into banding together to set up some form of service company, not to make a profit, just owned by hundreds of little towns and villages, pay into it by the head, own it by the head, and then just let them provide internet, tv, phone, banking services, etc. At just enough above cost to save up for future investments, and just price the competition out of the market they don't want to serve anyways. And locals can vote on how much they want to subsidise themselves to get better service.",
">\n\nWell we have credit unions which fit the bill. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular. Advertising spaces in Canada, of all sorts, are just plastered with the big banks. Free iPad if you open an account type of things. I suspect it works, but am not sure.",
">\n\nThe other thing the big banks have going for them is Visa/MasterCard on debit. Credit unions generally don't offer that; your debit card will typically be Interac only, which means it's only good for shopping at physical stores in Canada and the US.",
">\n\nBecause the real robbers is sitting inside the bank.",
">\n\nSounds like something is rotten in the state of Denmark.",
">\n\nWow. Is there a subreddit for that? Maybe \nr/unexpectedBard",
">\n\nwell that’s what it is now",
">\n\nNext news article will be, staff if Danish bank distraught after losing their jobs due to irrelevancy",
">\n\nWe'll... In 2015 the biggest danish bank accepted forged documents and payed this guy (the owner Sanjay at 6:41) €1.7 billion back in dividend taxes. A couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this. It's nice that that the employees are not endangered, but I'm sure they (and by extension the taxpayers) are getting robbed plenty.",
">\n\n\nA couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this.\n\nThat's not true. I have done something slightly related at work, which required me to contact the tax authorities to request something similar to what they did with the dividend taxes. The current wait time (12 months) has been postponed by 9 months twice because they're revising their systems and presumably doing everything manually now. When I obviously sounded dumbfounded on the phone, they explained it was because of that case.",
">\n\nPolicies for the plebs. Youre not a billionaire lol",
">\n\nNo, that’s right, I’m not. But I did it for a multi-billion dollar insurance company.",
">\n\nIn the Bronx I remember on the news they celebrated no murders for one whole day! But early the next day, the streak was broken.",
">\n\nBecause it was a challenge and someone answered."
] |
>
Suddenly Streisand effect
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.",
">\n\nPostal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.\nThat may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.\nWe have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.\nAnyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse.",
">\n\nMaybe smaller canadian communities should look into banding together to set up some form of service company, not to make a profit, just owned by hundreds of little towns and villages, pay into it by the head, own it by the head, and then just let them provide internet, tv, phone, banking services, etc. At just enough above cost to save up for future investments, and just price the competition out of the market they don't want to serve anyways. And locals can vote on how much they want to subsidise themselves to get better service.",
">\n\nWell we have credit unions which fit the bill. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular. Advertising spaces in Canada, of all sorts, are just plastered with the big banks. Free iPad if you open an account type of things. I suspect it works, but am not sure.",
">\n\nThe other thing the big banks have going for them is Visa/MasterCard on debit. Credit unions generally don't offer that; your debit card will typically be Interac only, which means it's only good for shopping at physical stores in Canada and the US.",
">\n\nBecause the real robbers is sitting inside the bank.",
">\n\nSounds like something is rotten in the state of Denmark.",
">\n\nWow. Is there a subreddit for that? Maybe \nr/unexpectedBard",
">\n\nwell that’s what it is now",
">\n\nNext news article will be, staff if Danish bank distraught after losing their jobs due to irrelevancy",
">\n\nWe'll... In 2015 the biggest danish bank accepted forged documents and payed this guy (the owner Sanjay at 6:41) €1.7 billion back in dividend taxes. A couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this. It's nice that that the employees are not endangered, but I'm sure they (and by extension the taxpayers) are getting robbed plenty.",
">\n\n\nA couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this.\n\nThat's not true. I have done something slightly related at work, which required me to contact the tax authorities to request something similar to what they did with the dividend taxes. The current wait time (12 months) has been postponed by 9 months twice because they're revising their systems and presumably doing everything manually now. When I obviously sounded dumbfounded on the phone, they explained it was because of that case.",
">\n\nPolicies for the plebs. Youre not a billionaire lol",
">\n\nNo, that’s right, I’m not. But I did it for a multi-billion dollar insurance company.",
">\n\nIn the Bronx I remember on the news they celebrated no murders for one whole day! But early the next day, the streak was broken.",
">\n\nBecause it was a challenge and someone answered.",
">\n\nThey said no to gentrification."
] |
>
How common are bank robberies in general? It's such a stereotypical crime, but I don't often hear about actual modern bank robberies. I imagine the risk to reward is very low given how little cash banks typically have on hand.
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.",
">\n\nPostal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.\nThat may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.\nWe have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.\nAnyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse.",
">\n\nMaybe smaller canadian communities should look into banding together to set up some form of service company, not to make a profit, just owned by hundreds of little towns and villages, pay into it by the head, own it by the head, and then just let them provide internet, tv, phone, banking services, etc. At just enough above cost to save up for future investments, and just price the competition out of the market they don't want to serve anyways. And locals can vote on how much they want to subsidise themselves to get better service.",
">\n\nWell we have credit unions which fit the bill. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular. Advertising spaces in Canada, of all sorts, are just plastered with the big banks. Free iPad if you open an account type of things. I suspect it works, but am not sure.",
">\n\nThe other thing the big banks have going for them is Visa/MasterCard on debit. Credit unions generally don't offer that; your debit card will typically be Interac only, which means it's only good for shopping at physical stores in Canada and the US.",
">\n\nBecause the real robbers is sitting inside the bank.",
">\n\nSounds like something is rotten in the state of Denmark.",
">\n\nWow. Is there a subreddit for that? Maybe \nr/unexpectedBard",
">\n\nwell that’s what it is now",
">\n\nNext news article will be, staff if Danish bank distraught after losing their jobs due to irrelevancy",
">\n\nWe'll... In 2015 the biggest danish bank accepted forged documents and payed this guy (the owner Sanjay at 6:41) €1.7 billion back in dividend taxes. A couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this. It's nice that that the employees are not endangered, but I'm sure they (and by extension the taxpayers) are getting robbed plenty.",
">\n\n\nA couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this.\n\nThat's not true. I have done something slightly related at work, which required me to contact the tax authorities to request something similar to what they did with the dividend taxes. The current wait time (12 months) has been postponed by 9 months twice because they're revising their systems and presumably doing everything manually now. When I obviously sounded dumbfounded on the phone, they explained it was because of that case.",
">\n\nPolicies for the plebs. Youre not a billionaire lol",
">\n\nNo, that’s right, I’m not. But I did it for a multi-billion dollar insurance company.",
">\n\nIn the Bronx I remember on the news they celebrated no murders for one whole day! But early the next day, the streak was broken.",
">\n\nBecause it was a challenge and someone answered.",
">\n\nThey said no to gentrification.",
">\n\nSuddenly Streisand effect"
] |
>
Gotta rob a bank every other month just to make ends meet smh my head
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.",
">\n\nPostal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.\nThat may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.\nWe have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.\nAnyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse.",
">\n\nMaybe smaller canadian communities should look into banding together to set up some form of service company, not to make a profit, just owned by hundreds of little towns and villages, pay into it by the head, own it by the head, and then just let them provide internet, tv, phone, banking services, etc. At just enough above cost to save up for future investments, and just price the competition out of the market they don't want to serve anyways. And locals can vote on how much they want to subsidise themselves to get better service.",
">\n\nWell we have credit unions which fit the bill. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular. Advertising spaces in Canada, of all sorts, are just plastered with the big banks. Free iPad if you open an account type of things. I suspect it works, but am not sure.",
">\n\nThe other thing the big banks have going for them is Visa/MasterCard on debit. Credit unions generally don't offer that; your debit card will typically be Interac only, which means it's only good for shopping at physical stores in Canada and the US.",
">\n\nBecause the real robbers is sitting inside the bank.",
">\n\nSounds like something is rotten in the state of Denmark.",
">\n\nWow. Is there a subreddit for that? Maybe \nr/unexpectedBard",
">\n\nwell that’s what it is now",
">\n\nNext news article will be, staff if Danish bank distraught after losing their jobs due to irrelevancy",
">\n\nWe'll... In 2015 the biggest danish bank accepted forged documents and payed this guy (the owner Sanjay at 6:41) €1.7 billion back in dividend taxes. A couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this. It's nice that that the employees are not endangered, but I'm sure they (and by extension the taxpayers) are getting robbed plenty.",
">\n\n\nA couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this.\n\nThat's not true. I have done something slightly related at work, which required me to contact the tax authorities to request something similar to what they did with the dividend taxes. The current wait time (12 months) has been postponed by 9 months twice because they're revising their systems and presumably doing everything manually now. When I obviously sounded dumbfounded on the phone, they explained it was because of that case.",
">\n\nPolicies for the plebs. Youre not a billionaire lol",
">\n\nNo, that’s right, I’m not. But I did it for a multi-billion dollar insurance company.",
">\n\nIn the Bronx I remember on the news they celebrated no murders for one whole day! But early the next day, the streak was broken.",
">\n\nBecause it was a challenge and someone answered.",
">\n\nThey said no to gentrification.",
">\n\nSuddenly Streisand effect",
">\n\nHow common are bank robberies in general? It's such a stereotypical crime, but I don't often hear about actual modern bank robberies. I imagine the risk to reward is very low given how little cash banks typically have on hand."
] |
>
Truly a landmark year!
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.",
">\n\nPostal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.\nThat may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.\nWe have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.\nAnyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse.",
">\n\nMaybe smaller canadian communities should look into banding together to set up some form of service company, not to make a profit, just owned by hundreds of little towns and villages, pay into it by the head, own it by the head, and then just let them provide internet, tv, phone, banking services, etc. At just enough above cost to save up for future investments, and just price the competition out of the market they don't want to serve anyways. And locals can vote on how much they want to subsidise themselves to get better service.",
">\n\nWell we have credit unions which fit the bill. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular. Advertising spaces in Canada, of all sorts, are just plastered with the big banks. Free iPad if you open an account type of things. I suspect it works, but am not sure.",
">\n\nThe other thing the big banks have going for them is Visa/MasterCard on debit. Credit unions generally don't offer that; your debit card will typically be Interac only, which means it's only good for shopping at physical stores in Canada and the US.",
">\n\nBecause the real robbers is sitting inside the bank.",
">\n\nSounds like something is rotten in the state of Denmark.",
">\n\nWow. Is there a subreddit for that? Maybe \nr/unexpectedBard",
">\n\nwell that’s what it is now",
">\n\nNext news article will be, staff if Danish bank distraught after losing their jobs due to irrelevancy",
">\n\nWe'll... In 2015 the biggest danish bank accepted forged documents and payed this guy (the owner Sanjay at 6:41) €1.7 billion back in dividend taxes. A couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this. It's nice that that the employees are not endangered, but I'm sure they (and by extension the taxpayers) are getting robbed plenty.",
">\n\n\nA couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this.\n\nThat's not true. I have done something slightly related at work, which required me to contact the tax authorities to request something similar to what they did with the dividend taxes. The current wait time (12 months) has been postponed by 9 months twice because they're revising their systems and presumably doing everything manually now. When I obviously sounded dumbfounded on the phone, they explained it was because of that case.",
">\n\nPolicies for the plebs. Youre not a billionaire lol",
">\n\nNo, that’s right, I’m not. But I did it for a multi-billion dollar insurance company.",
">\n\nIn the Bronx I remember on the news they celebrated no murders for one whole day! But early the next day, the streak was broken.",
">\n\nBecause it was a challenge and someone answered.",
">\n\nThey said no to gentrification.",
">\n\nSuddenly Streisand effect",
">\n\nHow common are bank robberies in general? It's such a stereotypical crime, but I don't often hear about actual modern bank robberies. I imagine the risk to reward is very low given how little cash banks typically have on hand.",
">\n\nGotta rob a bank every other month just to make ends meet smh my head"
] |
>
A bank full of Danishes!
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.",
">\n\nPostal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.\nThat may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.\nWe have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.\nAnyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse.",
">\n\nMaybe smaller canadian communities should look into banding together to set up some form of service company, not to make a profit, just owned by hundreds of little towns and villages, pay into it by the head, own it by the head, and then just let them provide internet, tv, phone, banking services, etc. At just enough above cost to save up for future investments, and just price the competition out of the market they don't want to serve anyways. And locals can vote on how much they want to subsidise themselves to get better service.",
">\n\nWell we have credit unions which fit the bill. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular. Advertising spaces in Canada, of all sorts, are just plastered with the big banks. Free iPad if you open an account type of things. I suspect it works, but am not sure.",
">\n\nThe other thing the big banks have going for them is Visa/MasterCard on debit. Credit unions generally don't offer that; your debit card will typically be Interac only, which means it's only good for shopping at physical stores in Canada and the US.",
">\n\nBecause the real robbers is sitting inside the bank.",
">\n\nSounds like something is rotten in the state of Denmark.",
">\n\nWow. Is there a subreddit for that? Maybe \nr/unexpectedBard",
">\n\nwell that’s what it is now",
">\n\nNext news article will be, staff if Danish bank distraught after losing their jobs due to irrelevancy",
">\n\nWe'll... In 2015 the biggest danish bank accepted forged documents and payed this guy (the owner Sanjay at 6:41) €1.7 billion back in dividend taxes. A couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this. It's nice that that the employees are not endangered, but I'm sure they (and by extension the taxpayers) are getting robbed plenty.",
">\n\n\nA couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this.\n\nThat's not true. I have done something slightly related at work, which required me to contact the tax authorities to request something similar to what they did with the dividend taxes. The current wait time (12 months) has been postponed by 9 months twice because they're revising their systems and presumably doing everything manually now. When I obviously sounded dumbfounded on the phone, they explained it was because of that case.",
">\n\nPolicies for the plebs. Youre not a billionaire lol",
">\n\nNo, that’s right, I’m not. But I did it for a multi-billion dollar insurance company.",
">\n\nIn the Bronx I remember on the news they celebrated no murders for one whole day! But early the next day, the streak was broken.",
">\n\nBecause it was a challenge and someone answered.",
">\n\nThey said no to gentrification.",
">\n\nSuddenly Streisand effect",
">\n\nHow common are bank robberies in general? It's such a stereotypical crime, but I don't often hear about actual modern bank robberies. I imagine the risk to reward is very low given how little cash banks typically have on hand.",
">\n\nGotta rob a bank every other month just to make ends meet smh my head",
">\n\nTruly a landmark year!"
] |
>
I want to rob it now
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.",
">\n\nPostal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.\nThat may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.\nWe have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.\nAnyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse.",
">\n\nMaybe smaller canadian communities should look into banding together to set up some form of service company, not to make a profit, just owned by hundreds of little towns and villages, pay into it by the head, own it by the head, and then just let them provide internet, tv, phone, banking services, etc. At just enough above cost to save up for future investments, and just price the competition out of the market they don't want to serve anyways. And locals can vote on how much they want to subsidise themselves to get better service.",
">\n\nWell we have credit unions which fit the bill. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular. Advertising spaces in Canada, of all sorts, are just plastered with the big banks. Free iPad if you open an account type of things. I suspect it works, but am not sure.",
">\n\nThe other thing the big banks have going for them is Visa/MasterCard on debit. Credit unions generally don't offer that; your debit card will typically be Interac only, which means it's only good for shopping at physical stores in Canada and the US.",
">\n\nBecause the real robbers is sitting inside the bank.",
">\n\nSounds like something is rotten in the state of Denmark.",
">\n\nWow. Is there a subreddit for that? Maybe \nr/unexpectedBard",
">\n\nwell that’s what it is now",
">\n\nNext news article will be, staff if Danish bank distraught after losing their jobs due to irrelevancy",
">\n\nWe'll... In 2015 the biggest danish bank accepted forged documents and payed this guy (the owner Sanjay at 6:41) €1.7 billion back in dividend taxes. A couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this. It's nice that that the employees are not endangered, but I'm sure they (and by extension the taxpayers) are getting robbed plenty.",
">\n\n\nA couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this.\n\nThat's not true. I have done something slightly related at work, which required me to contact the tax authorities to request something similar to what they did with the dividend taxes. The current wait time (12 months) has been postponed by 9 months twice because they're revising their systems and presumably doing everything manually now. When I obviously sounded dumbfounded on the phone, they explained it was because of that case.",
">\n\nPolicies for the plebs. Youre not a billionaire lol",
">\n\nNo, that’s right, I’m not. But I did it for a multi-billion dollar insurance company.",
">\n\nIn the Bronx I remember on the news they celebrated no murders for one whole day! But early the next day, the streak was broken.",
">\n\nBecause it was a challenge and someone answered.",
">\n\nThey said no to gentrification.",
">\n\nSuddenly Streisand effect",
">\n\nHow common are bank robberies in general? It's such a stereotypical crime, but I don't often hear about actual modern bank robberies. I imagine the risk to reward is very low given how little cash banks typically have on hand.",
">\n\nGotta rob a bank every other month just to make ends meet smh my head",
">\n\nTruly a landmark year!",
">\n\nA bank full of Danishes!"
] |
>
Is that really a nottheonion title?
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.",
">\n\nPostal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.\nThat may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.\nWe have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.\nAnyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse.",
">\n\nMaybe smaller canadian communities should look into banding together to set up some form of service company, not to make a profit, just owned by hundreds of little towns and villages, pay into it by the head, own it by the head, and then just let them provide internet, tv, phone, banking services, etc. At just enough above cost to save up for future investments, and just price the competition out of the market they don't want to serve anyways. And locals can vote on how much they want to subsidise themselves to get better service.",
">\n\nWell we have credit unions which fit the bill. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular. Advertising spaces in Canada, of all sorts, are just plastered with the big banks. Free iPad if you open an account type of things. I suspect it works, but am not sure.",
">\n\nThe other thing the big banks have going for them is Visa/MasterCard on debit. Credit unions generally don't offer that; your debit card will typically be Interac only, which means it's only good for shopping at physical stores in Canada and the US.",
">\n\nBecause the real robbers is sitting inside the bank.",
">\n\nSounds like something is rotten in the state of Denmark.",
">\n\nWow. Is there a subreddit for that? Maybe \nr/unexpectedBard",
">\n\nwell that’s what it is now",
">\n\nNext news article will be, staff if Danish bank distraught after losing their jobs due to irrelevancy",
">\n\nWe'll... In 2015 the biggest danish bank accepted forged documents and payed this guy (the owner Sanjay at 6:41) €1.7 billion back in dividend taxes. A couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this. It's nice that that the employees are not endangered, but I'm sure they (and by extension the taxpayers) are getting robbed plenty.",
">\n\n\nA couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this.\n\nThat's not true. I have done something slightly related at work, which required me to contact the tax authorities to request something similar to what they did with the dividend taxes. The current wait time (12 months) has been postponed by 9 months twice because they're revising their systems and presumably doing everything manually now. When I obviously sounded dumbfounded on the phone, they explained it was because of that case.",
">\n\nPolicies for the plebs. Youre not a billionaire lol",
">\n\nNo, that’s right, I’m not. But I did it for a multi-billion dollar insurance company.",
">\n\nIn the Bronx I remember on the news they celebrated no murders for one whole day! But early the next day, the streak was broken.",
">\n\nBecause it was a challenge and someone answered.",
">\n\nThey said no to gentrification.",
">\n\nSuddenly Streisand effect",
">\n\nHow common are bank robberies in general? It's such a stereotypical crime, but I don't often hear about actual modern bank robberies. I imagine the risk to reward is very low given how little cash banks typically have on hand.",
">\n\nGotta rob a bank every other month just to make ends meet smh my head",
">\n\nTruly a landmark year!",
">\n\nA bank full of Danishes!",
">\n\nI want to rob it now"
] |
>
Future is finally looking up eh?
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.",
">\n\nPostal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.\nThat may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.\nWe have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.\nAnyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse.",
">\n\nMaybe smaller canadian communities should look into banding together to set up some form of service company, not to make a profit, just owned by hundreds of little towns and villages, pay into it by the head, own it by the head, and then just let them provide internet, tv, phone, banking services, etc. At just enough above cost to save up for future investments, and just price the competition out of the market they don't want to serve anyways. And locals can vote on how much they want to subsidise themselves to get better service.",
">\n\nWell we have credit unions which fit the bill. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular. Advertising spaces in Canada, of all sorts, are just plastered with the big banks. Free iPad if you open an account type of things. I suspect it works, but am not sure.",
">\n\nThe other thing the big banks have going for them is Visa/MasterCard on debit. Credit unions generally don't offer that; your debit card will typically be Interac only, which means it's only good for shopping at physical stores in Canada and the US.",
">\n\nBecause the real robbers is sitting inside the bank.",
">\n\nSounds like something is rotten in the state of Denmark.",
">\n\nWow. Is there a subreddit for that? Maybe \nr/unexpectedBard",
">\n\nwell that’s what it is now",
">\n\nNext news article will be, staff if Danish bank distraught after losing their jobs due to irrelevancy",
">\n\nWe'll... In 2015 the biggest danish bank accepted forged documents and payed this guy (the owner Sanjay at 6:41) €1.7 billion back in dividend taxes. A couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this. It's nice that that the employees are not endangered, but I'm sure they (and by extension the taxpayers) are getting robbed plenty.",
">\n\n\nA couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this.\n\nThat's not true. I have done something slightly related at work, which required me to contact the tax authorities to request something similar to what they did with the dividend taxes. The current wait time (12 months) has been postponed by 9 months twice because they're revising their systems and presumably doing everything manually now. When I obviously sounded dumbfounded on the phone, they explained it was because of that case.",
">\n\nPolicies for the plebs. Youre not a billionaire lol",
">\n\nNo, that’s right, I’m not. But I did it for a multi-billion dollar insurance company.",
">\n\nIn the Bronx I remember on the news they celebrated no murders for one whole day! But early the next day, the streak was broken.",
">\n\nBecause it was a challenge and someone answered.",
">\n\nThey said no to gentrification.",
">\n\nSuddenly Streisand effect",
">\n\nHow common are bank robberies in general? It's such a stereotypical crime, but I don't often hear about actual modern bank robberies. I imagine the risk to reward is very low given how little cash banks typically have on hand.",
">\n\nGotta rob a bank every other month just to make ends meet smh my head",
">\n\nTruly a landmark year!",
">\n\nA bank full of Danishes!",
">\n\nI want to rob it now",
">\n\nIs that really a nottheonion title?"
] |
>
They received a series of plaques to mark the occassion. And what did they do with them? Stick em' up!
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.",
">\n\nPostal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.\nThat may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.\nWe have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.\nAnyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse.",
">\n\nMaybe smaller canadian communities should look into banding together to set up some form of service company, not to make a profit, just owned by hundreds of little towns and villages, pay into it by the head, own it by the head, and then just let them provide internet, tv, phone, banking services, etc. At just enough above cost to save up for future investments, and just price the competition out of the market they don't want to serve anyways. And locals can vote on how much they want to subsidise themselves to get better service.",
">\n\nWell we have credit unions which fit the bill. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular. Advertising spaces in Canada, of all sorts, are just plastered with the big banks. Free iPad if you open an account type of things. I suspect it works, but am not sure.",
">\n\nThe other thing the big banks have going for them is Visa/MasterCard on debit. Credit unions generally don't offer that; your debit card will typically be Interac only, which means it's only good for shopping at physical stores in Canada and the US.",
">\n\nBecause the real robbers is sitting inside the bank.",
">\n\nSounds like something is rotten in the state of Denmark.",
">\n\nWow. Is there a subreddit for that? Maybe \nr/unexpectedBard",
">\n\nwell that’s what it is now",
">\n\nNext news article will be, staff if Danish bank distraught after losing their jobs due to irrelevancy",
">\n\nWe'll... In 2015 the biggest danish bank accepted forged documents and payed this guy (the owner Sanjay at 6:41) €1.7 billion back in dividend taxes. A couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this. It's nice that that the employees are not endangered, but I'm sure they (and by extension the taxpayers) are getting robbed plenty.",
">\n\n\nA couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this.\n\nThat's not true. I have done something slightly related at work, which required me to contact the tax authorities to request something similar to what they did with the dividend taxes. The current wait time (12 months) has been postponed by 9 months twice because they're revising their systems and presumably doing everything manually now. When I obviously sounded dumbfounded on the phone, they explained it was because of that case.",
">\n\nPolicies for the plebs. Youre not a billionaire lol",
">\n\nNo, that’s right, I’m not. But I did it for a multi-billion dollar insurance company.",
">\n\nIn the Bronx I remember on the news they celebrated no murders for one whole day! But early the next day, the streak was broken.",
">\n\nBecause it was a challenge and someone answered.",
">\n\nThey said no to gentrification.",
">\n\nSuddenly Streisand effect",
">\n\nHow common are bank robberies in general? It's such a stereotypical crime, but I don't often hear about actual modern bank robberies. I imagine the risk to reward is very low given how little cash banks typically have on hand.",
">\n\nGotta rob a bank every other month just to make ends meet smh my head",
">\n\nTruly a landmark year!",
">\n\nA bank full of Danishes!",
">\n\nI want to rob it now",
">\n\nIs that really a nottheonion title?",
">\n\nFuture is finally looking up eh?"
] |
>
For a minute I wondered if this was r/UpliftingNews
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.",
">\n\nPostal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.\nThat may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.\nWe have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.\nAnyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse.",
">\n\nMaybe smaller canadian communities should look into banding together to set up some form of service company, not to make a profit, just owned by hundreds of little towns and villages, pay into it by the head, own it by the head, and then just let them provide internet, tv, phone, banking services, etc. At just enough above cost to save up for future investments, and just price the competition out of the market they don't want to serve anyways. And locals can vote on how much they want to subsidise themselves to get better service.",
">\n\nWell we have credit unions which fit the bill. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular. Advertising spaces in Canada, of all sorts, are just plastered with the big banks. Free iPad if you open an account type of things. I suspect it works, but am not sure.",
">\n\nThe other thing the big banks have going for them is Visa/MasterCard on debit. Credit unions generally don't offer that; your debit card will typically be Interac only, which means it's only good for shopping at physical stores in Canada and the US.",
">\n\nBecause the real robbers is sitting inside the bank.",
">\n\nSounds like something is rotten in the state of Denmark.",
">\n\nWow. Is there a subreddit for that? Maybe \nr/unexpectedBard",
">\n\nwell that’s what it is now",
">\n\nNext news article will be, staff if Danish bank distraught after losing their jobs due to irrelevancy",
">\n\nWe'll... In 2015 the biggest danish bank accepted forged documents and payed this guy (the owner Sanjay at 6:41) €1.7 billion back in dividend taxes. A couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this. It's nice that that the employees are not endangered, but I'm sure they (and by extension the taxpayers) are getting robbed plenty.",
">\n\n\nA couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this.\n\nThat's not true. I have done something slightly related at work, which required me to contact the tax authorities to request something similar to what they did with the dividend taxes. The current wait time (12 months) has been postponed by 9 months twice because they're revising their systems and presumably doing everything manually now. When I obviously sounded dumbfounded on the phone, they explained it was because of that case.",
">\n\nPolicies for the plebs. Youre not a billionaire lol",
">\n\nNo, that’s right, I’m not. But I did it for a multi-billion dollar insurance company.",
">\n\nIn the Bronx I remember on the news they celebrated no murders for one whole day! But early the next day, the streak was broken.",
">\n\nBecause it was a challenge and someone answered.",
">\n\nThey said no to gentrification.",
">\n\nSuddenly Streisand effect",
">\n\nHow common are bank robberies in general? It's such a stereotypical crime, but I don't often hear about actual modern bank robberies. I imagine the risk to reward is very low given how little cash banks typically have on hand.",
">\n\nGotta rob a bank every other month just to make ends meet smh my head",
">\n\nTruly a landmark year!",
">\n\nA bank full of Danishes!",
">\n\nI want to rob it now",
">\n\nIs that really a nottheonion title?",
">\n\nFuture is finally looking up eh?",
">\n\nThey received a series of plaques to mark the occassion. And what did they do with them? Stick em' up!"
] |
>
I knew there was something I forgot to do this year.
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.",
">\n\nPostal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.\nThat may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.\nWe have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.\nAnyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse.",
">\n\nMaybe smaller canadian communities should look into banding together to set up some form of service company, not to make a profit, just owned by hundreds of little towns and villages, pay into it by the head, own it by the head, and then just let them provide internet, tv, phone, banking services, etc. At just enough above cost to save up for future investments, and just price the competition out of the market they don't want to serve anyways. And locals can vote on how much they want to subsidise themselves to get better service.",
">\n\nWell we have credit unions which fit the bill. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular. Advertising spaces in Canada, of all sorts, are just plastered with the big banks. Free iPad if you open an account type of things. I suspect it works, but am not sure.",
">\n\nThe other thing the big banks have going for them is Visa/MasterCard on debit. Credit unions generally don't offer that; your debit card will typically be Interac only, which means it's only good for shopping at physical stores in Canada and the US.",
">\n\nBecause the real robbers is sitting inside the bank.",
">\n\nSounds like something is rotten in the state of Denmark.",
">\n\nWow. Is there a subreddit for that? Maybe \nr/unexpectedBard",
">\n\nwell that’s what it is now",
">\n\nNext news article will be, staff if Danish bank distraught after losing their jobs due to irrelevancy",
">\n\nWe'll... In 2015 the biggest danish bank accepted forged documents and payed this guy (the owner Sanjay at 6:41) €1.7 billion back in dividend taxes. A couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this. It's nice that that the employees are not endangered, but I'm sure they (and by extension the taxpayers) are getting robbed plenty.",
">\n\n\nA couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this.\n\nThat's not true. I have done something slightly related at work, which required me to contact the tax authorities to request something similar to what they did with the dividend taxes. The current wait time (12 months) has been postponed by 9 months twice because they're revising their systems and presumably doing everything manually now. When I obviously sounded dumbfounded on the phone, they explained it was because of that case.",
">\n\nPolicies for the plebs. Youre not a billionaire lol",
">\n\nNo, that’s right, I’m not. But I did it for a multi-billion dollar insurance company.",
">\n\nIn the Bronx I remember on the news they celebrated no murders for one whole day! But early the next day, the streak was broken.",
">\n\nBecause it was a challenge and someone answered.",
">\n\nThey said no to gentrification.",
">\n\nSuddenly Streisand effect",
">\n\nHow common are bank robberies in general? It's such a stereotypical crime, but I don't often hear about actual modern bank robberies. I imagine the risk to reward is very low given how little cash banks typically have on hand.",
">\n\nGotta rob a bank every other month just to make ends meet smh my head",
">\n\nTruly a landmark year!",
">\n\nA bank full of Danishes!",
">\n\nI want to rob it now",
">\n\nIs that really a nottheonion title?",
">\n\nFuture is finally looking up eh?",
">\n\nThey received a series of plaques to mark the occassion. And what did they do with them? Stick em' up!",
">\n\nFor a minute I wondered if this was r/UpliftingNews"
] |
>
It's a lot easier to have nice things when you don't have a raging gun epidemic.
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.",
">\n\nPostal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.\nThat may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.\nWe have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.\nAnyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse.",
">\n\nMaybe smaller canadian communities should look into banding together to set up some form of service company, not to make a profit, just owned by hundreds of little towns and villages, pay into it by the head, own it by the head, and then just let them provide internet, tv, phone, banking services, etc. At just enough above cost to save up for future investments, and just price the competition out of the market they don't want to serve anyways. And locals can vote on how much they want to subsidise themselves to get better service.",
">\n\nWell we have credit unions which fit the bill. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular. Advertising spaces in Canada, of all sorts, are just plastered with the big banks. Free iPad if you open an account type of things. I suspect it works, but am not sure.",
">\n\nThe other thing the big banks have going for them is Visa/MasterCard on debit. Credit unions generally don't offer that; your debit card will typically be Interac only, which means it's only good for shopping at physical stores in Canada and the US.",
">\n\nBecause the real robbers is sitting inside the bank.",
">\n\nSounds like something is rotten in the state of Denmark.",
">\n\nWow. Is there a subreddit for that? Maybe \nr/unexpectedBard",
">\n\nwell that’s what it is now",
">\n\nNext news article will be, staff if Danish bank distraught after losing their jobs due to irrelevancy",
">\n\nWe'll... In 2015 the biggest danish bank accepted forged documents and payed this guy (the owner Sanjay at 6:41) €1.7 billion back in dividend taxes. A couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this. It's nice that that the employees are not endangered, but I'm sure they (and by extension the taxpayers) are getting robbed plenty.",
">\n\n\nA couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this.\n\nThat's not true. I have done something slightly related at work, which required me to contact the tax authorities to request something similar to what they did with the dividend taxes. The current wait time (12 months) has been postponed by 9 months twice because they're revising their systems and presumably doing everything manually now. When I obviously sounded dumbfounded on the phone, they explained it was because of that case.",
">\n\nPolicies for the plebs. Youre not a billionaire lol",
">\n\nNo, that’s right, I’m not. But I did it for a multi-billion dollar insurance company.",
">\n\nIn the Bronx I remember on the news they celebrated no murders for one whole day! But early the next day, the streak was broken.",
">\n\nBecause it was a challenge and someone answered.",
">\n\nThey said no to gentrification.",
">\n\nSuddenly Streisand effect",
">\n\nHow common are bank robberies in general? It's such a stereotypical crime, but I don't often hear about actual modern bank robberies. I imagine the risk to reward is very low given how little cash banks typically have on hand.",
">\n\nGotta rob a bank every other month just to make ends meet smh my head",
">\n\nTruly a landmark year!",
">\n\nA bank full of Danishes!",
">\n\nI want to rob it now",
">\n\nIs that really a nottheonion title?",
">\n\nFuture is finally looking up eh?",
">\n\nThey received a series of plaques to mark the occassion. And what did they do with them? Stick em' up!",
">\n\nFor a minute I wondered if this was r/UpliftingNews",
">\n\nI knew there was something I forgot to do this year."
] |
>
They don’t have cash in the Banks anymore. Denmark is almost totally cashless society.
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.",
">\n\nPostal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.\nThat may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.\nWe have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.\nAnyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse.",
">\n\nMaybe smaller canadian communities should look into banding together to set up some form of service company, not to make a profit, just owned by hundreds of little towns and villages, pay into it by the head, own it by the head, and then just let them provide internet, tv, phone, banking services, etc. At just enough above cost to save up for future investments, and just price the competition out of the market they don't want to serve anyways. And locals can vote on how much they want to subsidise themselves to get better service.",
">\n\nWell we have credit unions which fit the bill. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular. Advertising spaces in Canada, of all sorts, are just plastered with the big banks. Free iPad if you open an account type of things. I suspect it works, but am not sure.",
">\n\nThe other thing the big banks have going for them is Visa/MasterCard on debit. Credit unions generally don't offer that; your debit card will typically be Interac only, which means it's only good for shopping at physical stores in Canada and the US.",
">\n\nBecause the real robbers is sitting inside the bank.",
">\n\nSounds like something is rotten in the state of Denmark.",
">\n\nWow. Is there a subreddit for that? Maybe \nr/unexpectedBard",
">\n\nwell that’s what it is now",
">\n\nNext news article will be, staff if Danish bank distraught after losing their jobs due to irrelevancy",
">\n\nWe'll... In 2015 the biggest danish bank accepted forged documents and payed this guy (the owner Sanjay at 6:41) €1.7 billion back in dividend taxes. A couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this. It's nice that that the employees are not endangered, but I'm sure they (and by extension the taxpayers) are getting robbed plenty.",
">\n\n\nA couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this.\n\nThat's not true. I have done something slightly related at work, which required me to contact the tax authorities to request something similar to what they did with the dividend taxes. The current wait time (12 months) has been postponed by 9 months twice because they're revising their systems and presumably doing everything manually now. When I obviously sounded dumbfounded on the phone, they explained it was because of that case.",
">\n\nPolicies for the plebs. Youre not a billionaire lol",
">\n\nNo, that’s right, I’m not. But I did it for a multi-billion dollar insurance company.",
">\n\nIn the Bronx I remember on the news they celebrated no murders for one whole day! But early the next day, the streak was broken.",
">\n\nBecause it was a challenge and someone answered.",
">\n\nThey said no to gentrification.",
">\n\nSuddenly Streisand effect",
">\n\nHow common are bank robberies in general? It's such a stereotypical crime, but I don't often hear about actual modern bank robberies. I imagine the risk to reward is very low given how little cash banks typically have on hand.",
">\n\nGotta rob a bank every other month just to make ends meet smh my head",
">\n\nTruly a landmark year!",
">\n\nA bank full of Danishes!",
">\n\nI want to rob it now",
">\n\nIs that really a nottheonion title?",
">\n\nFuture is finally looking up eh?",
">\n\nThey received a series of plaques to mark the occassion. And what did they do with them? Stick em' up!",
">\n\nFor a minute I wondered if this was r/UpliftingNews",
">\n\nI knew there was something I forgot to do this year.",
">\n\nIt's a lot easier to have nice things when you don't have a raging gun epidemic."
] |
>
Almost. I was kind of caught by surprise one time when I bumped into a laundromat in suburban Copenhagen that was cash only.
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.",
">\n\nPostal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.\nThat may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.\nWe have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.\nAnyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse.",
">\n\nMaybe smaller canadian communities should look into banding together to set up some form of service company, not to make a profit, just owned by hundreds of little towns and villages, pay into it by the head, own it by the head, and then just let them provide internet, tv, phone, banking services, etc. At just enough above cost to save up for future investments, and just price the competition out of the market they don't want to serve anyways. And locals can vote on how much they want to subsidise themselves to get better service.",
">\n\nWell we have credit unions which fit the bill. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular. Advertising spaces in Canada, of all sorts, are just plastered with the big banks. Free iPad if you open an account type of things. I suspect it works, but am not sure.",
">\n\nThe other thing the big banks have going for them is Visa/MasterCard on debit. Credit unions generally don't offer that; your debit card will typically be Interac only, which means it's only good for shopping at physical stores in Canada and the US.",
">\n\nBecause the real robbers is sitting inside the bank.",
">\n\nSounds like something is rotten in the state of Denmark.",
">\n\nWow. Is there a subreddit for that? Maybe \nr/unexpectedBard",
">\n\nwell that’s what it is now",
">\n\nNext news article will be, staff if Danish bank distraught after losing their jobs due to irrelevancy",
">\n\nWe'll... In 2015 the biggest danish bank accepted forged documents and payed this guy (the owner Sanjay at 6:41) €1.7 billion back in dividend taxes. A couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this. It's nice that that the employees are not endangered, but I'm sure they (and by extension the taxpayers) are getting robbed plenty.",
">\n\n\nA couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this.\n\nThat's not true. I have done something slightly related at work, which required me to contact the tax authorities to request something similar to what they did with the dividend taxes. The current wait time (12 months) has been postponed by 9 months twice because they're revising their systems and presumably doing everything manually now. When I obviously sounded dumbfounded on the phone, they explained it was because of that case.",
">\n\nPolicies for the plebs. Youre not a billionaire lol",
">\n\nNo, that’s right, I’m not. But I did it for a multi-billion dollar insurance company.",
">\n\nIn the Bronx I remember on the news they celebrated no murders for one whole day! But early the next day, the streak was broken.",
">\n\nBecause it was a challenge and someone answered.",
">\n\nThey said no to gentrification.",
">\n\nSuddenly Streisand effect",
">\n\nHow common are bank robberies in general? It's such a stereotypical crime, but I don't often hear about actual modern bank robberies. I imagine the risk to reward is very low given how little cash banks typically have on hand.",
">\n\nGotta rob a bank every other month just to make ends meet smh my head",
">\n\nTruly a landmark year!",
">\n\nA bank full of Danishes!",
">\n\nI want to rob it now",
">\n\nIs that really a nottheonion title?",
">\n\nFuture is finally looking up eh?",
">\n\nThey received a series of plaques to mark the occassion. And what did they do with them? Stick em' up!",
">\n\nFor a minute I wondered if this was r/UpliftingNews",
">\n\nI knew there was something I forgot to do this year.",
">\n\nIt's a lot easier to have nice things when you don't have a raging gun epidemic.",
">\n\nThey don’t have cash in the Banks anymore. Denmark is almost totally cashless society."
] |
>
Are they celebrating with danishes?
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.",
">\n\nPostal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.\nThat may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.\nWe have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.\nAnyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse.",
">\n\nMaybe smaller canadian communities should look into banding together to set up some form of service company, not to make a profit, just owned by hundreds of little towns and villages, pay into it by the head, own it by the head, and then just let them provide internet, tv, phone, banking services, etc. At just enough above cost to save up for future investments, and just price the competition out of the market they don't want to serve anyways. And locals can vote on how much they want to subsidise themselves to get better service.",
">\n\nWell we have credit unions which fit the bill. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular. Advertising spaces in Canada, of all sorts, are just plastered with the big banks. Free iPad if you open an account type of things. I suspect it works, but am not sure.",
">\n\nThe other thing the big banks have going for them is Visa/MasterCard on debit. Credit unions generally don't offer that; your debit card will typically be Interac only, which means it's only good for shopping at physical stores in Canada and the US.",
">\n\nBecause the real robbers is sitting inside the bank.",
">\n\nSounds like something is rotten in the state of Denmark.",
">\n\nWow. Is there a subreddit for that? Maybe \nr/unexpectedBard",
">\n\nwell that’s what it is now",
">\n\nNext news article will be, staff if Danish bank distraught after losing their jobs due to irrelevancy",
">\n\nWe'll... In 2015 the biggest danish bank accepted forged documents and payed this guy (the owner Sanjay at 6:41) €1.7 billion back in dividend taxes. A couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this. It's nice that that the employees are not endangered, but I'm sure they (and by extension the taxpayers) are getting robbed plenty.",
">\n\n\nA couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this.\n\nThat's not true. I have done something slightly related at work, which required me to contact the tax authorities to request something similar to what they did with the dividend taxes. The current wait time (12 months) has been postponed by 9 months twice because they're revising their systems and presumably doing everything manually now. When I obviously sounded dumbfounded on the phone, they explained it was because of that case.",
">\n\nPolicies for the plebs. Youre not a billionaire lol",
">\n\nNo, that’s right, I’m not. But I did it for a multi-billion dollar insurance company.",
">\n\nIn the Bronx I remember on the news they celebrated no murders for one whole day! But early the next day, the streak was broken.",
">\n\nBecause it was a challenge and someone answered.",
">\n\nThey said no to gentrification.",
">\n\nSuddenly Streisand effect",
">\n\nHow common are bank robberies in general? It's such a stereotypical crime, but I don't often hear about actual modern bank robberies. I imagine the risk to reward is very low given how little cash banks typically have on hand.",
">\n\nGotta rob a bank every other month just to make ends meet smh my head",
">\n\nTruly a landmark year!",
">\n\nA bank full of Danishes!",
">\n\nI want to rob it now",
">\n\nIs that really a nottheonion title?",
">\n\nFuture is finally looking up eh?",
">\n\nThey received a series of plaques to mark the occassion. And what did they do with them? Stick em' up!",
">\n\nFor a minute I wondered if this was r/UpliftingNews",
">\n\nI knew there was something I forgot to do this year.",
">\n\nIt's a lot easier to have nice things when you don't have a raging gun epidemic.",
">\n\nThey don’t have cash in the Banks anymore. Denmark is almost totally cashless society.",
">\n\nAlmost. I was kind of caught by surprise one time when I bumped into a laundromat in suburban Copenhagen that was cash only."
] |
>
In addition, the text could have said "one ship will dock in Denmark in 2022."
How would they be able to raid the banks if there are no banks with deposits? Man cannot know what cannot be found.
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.",
">\n\nPostal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.\nThat may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.\nWe have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.\nAnyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse.",
">\n\nMaybe smaller canadian communities should look into banding together to set up some form of service company, not to make a profit, just owned by hundreds of little towns and villages, pay into it by the head, own it by the head, and then just let them provide internet, tv, phone, banking services, etc. At just enough above cost to save up for future investments, and just price the competition out of the market they don't want to serve anyways. And locals can vote on how much they want to subsidise themselves to get better service.",
">\n\nWell we have credit unions which fit the bill. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular. Advertising spaces in Canada, of all sorts, are just plastered with the big banks. Free iPad if you open an account type of things. I suspect it works, but am not sure.",
">\n\nThe other thing the big banks have going for them is Visa/MasterCard on debit. Credit unions generally don't offer that; your debit card will typically be Interac only, which means it's only good for shopping at physical stores in Canada and the US.",
">\n\nBecause the real robbers is sitting inside the bank.",
">\n\nSounds like something is rotten in the state of Denmark.",
">\n\nWow. Is there a subreddit for that? Maybe \nr/unexpectedBard",
">\n\nwell that’s what it is now",
">\n\nNext news article will be, staff if Danish bank distraught after losing their jobs due to irrelevancy",
">\n\nWe'll... In 2015 the biggest danish bank accepted forged documents and payed this guy (the owner Sanjay at 6:41) €1.7 billion back in dividend taxes. A couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this. It's nice that that the employees are not endangered, but I'm sure they (and by extension the taxpayers) are getting robbed plenty.",
">\n\n\nA couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this.\n\nThat's not true. I have done something slightly related at work, which required me to contact the tax authorities to request something similar to what they did with the dividend taxes. The current wait time (12 months) has been postponed by 9 months twice because they're revising their systems and presumably doing everything manually now. When I obviously sounded dumbfounded on the phone, they explained it was because of that case.",
">\n\nPolicies for the plebs. Youre not a billionaire lol",
">\n\nNo, that’s right, I’m not. But I did it for a multi-billion dollar insurance company.",
">\n\nIn the Bronx I remember on the news they celebrated no murders for one whole day! But early the next day, the streak was broken.",
">\n\nBecause it was a challenge and someone answered.",
">\n\nThey said no to gentrification.",
">\n\nSuddenly Streisand effect",
">\n\nHow common are bank robberies in general? It's such a stereotypical crime, but I don't often hear about actual modern bank robberies. I imagine the risk to reward is very low given how little cash banks typically have on hand.",
">\n\nGotta rob a bank every other month just to make ends meet smh my head",
">\n\nTruly a landmark year!",
">\n\nA bank full of Danishes!",
">\n\nI want to rob it now",
">\n\nIs that really a nottheonion title?",
">\n\nFuture is finally looking up eh?",
">\n\nThey received a series of plaques to mark the occassion. And what did they do with them? Stick em' up!",
">\n\nFor a minute I wondered if this was r/UpliftingNews",
">\n\nI knew there was something I forgot to do this year.",
">\n\nIt's a lot easier to have nice things when you don't have a raging gun epidemic.",
">\n\nThey don’t have cash in the Banks anymore. Denmark is almost totally cashless society.",
">\n\nAlmost. I was kind of caught by surprise one time when I bumped into a laundromat in suburban Copenhagen that was cash only.",
">\n\nAre they celebrating with danishes?"
] |
>
We really should be robbing the banks. They are the worst human invention since they added lead to gas
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.",
">\n\nPostal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.\nThat may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.\nWe have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.\nAnyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse.",
">\n\nMaybe smaller canadian communities should look into banding together to set up some form of service company, not to make a profit, just owned by hundreds of little towns and villages, pay into it by the head, own it by the head, and then just let them provide internet, tv, phone, banking services, etc. At just enough above cost to save up for future investments, and just price the competition out of the market they don't want to serve anyways. And locals can vote on how much they want to subsidise themselves to get better service.",
">\n\nWell we have credit unions which fit the bill. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular. Advertising spaces in Canada, of all sorts, are just plastered with the big banks. Free iPad if you open an account type of things. I suspect it works, but am not sure.",
">\n\nThe other thing the big banks have going for them is Visa/MasterCard on debit. Credit unions generally don't offer that; your debit card will typically be Interac only, which means it's only good for shopping at physical stores in Canada and the US.",
">\n\nBecause the real robbers is sitting inside the bank.",
">\n\nSounds like something is rotten in the state of Denmark.",
">\n\nWow. Is there a subreddit for that? Maybe \nr/unexpectedBard",
">\n\nwell that’s what it is now",
">\n\nNext news article will be, staff if Danish bank distraught after losing their jobs due to irrelevancy",
">\n\nWe'll... In 2015 the biggest danish bank accepted forged documents and payed this guy (the owner Sanjay at 6:41) €1.7 billion back in dividend taxes. A couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this. It's nice that that the employees are not endangered, but I'm sure they (and by extension the taxpayers) are getting robbed plenty.",
">\n\n\nA couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this.\n\nThat's not true. I have done something slightly related at work, which required me to contact the tax authorities to request something similar to what they did with the dividend taxes. The current wait time (12 months) has been postponed by 9 months twice because they're revising their systems and presumably doing everything manually now. When I obviously sounded dumbfounded on the phone, they explained it was because of that case.",
">\n\nPolicies for the plebs. Youre not a billionaire lol",
">\n\nNo, that’s right, I’m not. But I did it for a multi-billion dollar insurance company.",
">\n\nIn the Bronx I remember on the news they celebrated no murders for one whole day! But early the next day, the streak was broken.",
">\n\nBecause it was a challenge and someone answered.",
">\n\nThey said no to gentrification.",
">\n\nSuddenly Streisand effect",
">\n\nHow common are bank robberies in general? It's such a stereotypical crime, but I don't often hear about actual modern bank robberies. I imagine the risk to reward is very low given how little cash banks typically have on hand.",
">\n\nGotta rob a bank every other month just to make ends meet smh my head",
">\n\nTruly a landmark year!",
">\n\nA bank full of Danishes!",
">\n\nI want to rob it now",
">\n\nIs that really a nottheonion title?",
">\n\nFuture is finally looking up eh?",
">\n\nThey received a series of plaques to mark the occassion. And what did they do with them? Stick em' up!",
">\n\nFor a minute I wondered if this was r/UpliftingNews",
">\n\nI knew there was something I forgot to do this year.",
">\n\nIt's a lot easier to have nice things when you don't have a raging gun epidemic.",
">\n\nThey don’t have cash in the Banks anymore. Denmark is almost totally cashless society.",
">\n\nAlmost. I was kind of caught by surprise one time when I bumped into a laundromat in suburban Copenhagen that was cash only.",
">\n\nAre they celebrating with danishes?",
">\n\nIn addition, the text could have said \"one ship will dock in Denmark in 2022.\"\nHow would they be able to raid the banks if there are no banks with deposits? Man cannot know what cannot be found."
] |
>
Which is why the robbers have also gone digital, take for example Britta Nielsen and Sanjay Shah
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.",
">\n\nPostal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.\nThat may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.\nWe have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.\nAnyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse.",
">\n\nMaybe smaller canadian communities should look into banding together to set up some form of service company, not to make a profit, just owned by hundreds of little towns and villages, pay into it by the head, own it by the head, and then just let them provide internet, tv, phone, banking services, etc. At just enough above cost to save up for future investments, and just price the competition out of the market they don't want to serve anyways. And locals can vote on how much they want to subsidise themselves to get better service.",
">\n\nWell we have credit unions which fit the bill. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular. Advertising spaces in Canada, of all sorts, are just plastered with the big banks. Free iPad if you open an account type of things. I suspect it works, but am not sure.",
">\n\nThe other thing the big banks have going for them is Visa/MasterCard on debit. Credit unions generally don't offer that; your debit card will typically be Interac only, which means it's only good for shopping at physical stores in Canada and the US.",
">\n\nBecause the real robbers is sitting inside the bank.",
">\n\nSounds like something is rotten in the state of Denmark.",
">\n\nWow. Is there a subreddit for that? Maybe \nr/unexpectedBard",
">\n\nwell that’s what it is now",
">\n\nNext news article will be, staff if Danish bank distraught after losing their jobs due to irrelevancy",
">\n\nWe'll... In 2015 the biggest danish bank accepted forged documents and payed this guy (the owner Sanjay at 6:41) €1.7 billion back in dividend taxes. A couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this. It's nice that that the employees are not endangered, but I'm sure they (and by extension the taxpayers) are getting robbed plenty.",
">\n\n\nA couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this.\n\nThat's not true. I have done something slightly related at work, which required me to contact the tax authorities to request something similar to what they did with the dividend taxes. The current wait time (12 months) has been postponed by 9 months twice because they're revising their systems and presumably doing everything manually now. When I obviously sounded dumbfounded on the phone, they explained it was because of that case.",
">\n\nPolicies for the plebs. Youre not a billionaire lol",
">\n\nNo, that’s right, I’m not. But I did it for a multi-billion dollar insurance company.",
">\n\nIn the Bronx I remember on the news they celebrated no murders for one whole day! But early the next day, the streak was broken.",
">\n\nBecause it was a challenge and someone answered.",
">\n\nThey said no to gentrification.",
">\n\nSuddenly Streisand effect",
">\n\nHow common are bank robberies in general? It's such a stereotypical crime, but I don't often hear about actual modern bank robberies. I imagine the risk to reward is very low given how little cash banks typically have on hand.",
">\n\nGotta rob a bank every other month just to make ends meet smh my head",
">\n\nTruly a landmark year!",
">\n\nA bank full of Danishes!",
">\n\nI want to rob it now",
">\n\nIs that really a nottheonion title?",
">\n\nFuture is finally looking up eh?",
">\n\nThey received a series of plaques to mark the occassion. And what did they do with them? Stick em' up!",
">\n\nFor a minute I wondered if this was r/UpliftingNews",
">\n\nI knew there was something I forgot to do this year.",
">\n\nIt's a lot easier to have nice things when you don't have a raging gun epidemic.",
">\n\nThey don’t have cash in the Banks anymore. Denmark is almost totally cashless society.",
">\n\nAlmost. I was kind of caught by surprise one time when I bumped into a laundromat in suburban Copenhagen that was cash only.",
">\n\nAre they celebrating with danishes?",
">\n\nIn addition, the text could have said \"one ship will dock in Denmark in 2022.\"\nHow would they be able to raid the banks if there are no banks with deposits? Man cannot know what cannot be found.",
">\n\nWe really should be robbing the banks. They are the worst human invention since they added lead to gas"
] |
>
Hey Denmark, what's going on?
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.",
">\n\nPostal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.\nThat may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.\nWe have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.\nAnyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse.",
">\n\nMaybe smaller canadian communities should look into banding together to set up some form of service company, not to make a profit, just owned by hundreds of little towns and villages, pay into it by the head, own it by the head, and then just let them provide internet, tv, phone, banking services, etc. At just enough above cost to save up for future investments, and just price the competition out of the market they don't want to serve anyways. And locals can vote on how much they want to subsidise themselves to get better service.",
">\n\nWell we have credit unions which fit the bill. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular. Advertising spaces in Canada, of all sorts, are just plastered with the big banks. Free iPad if you open an account type of things. I suspect it works, but am not sure.",
">\n\nThe other thing the big banks have going for them is Visa/MasterCard on debit. Credit unions generally don't offer that; your debit card will typically be Interac only, which means it's only good for shopping at physical stores in Canada and the US.",
">\n\nBecause the real robbers is sitting inside the bank.",
">\n\nSounds like something is rotten in the state of Denmark.",
">\n\nWow. Is there a subreddit for that? Maybe \nr/unexpectedBard",
">\n\nwell that’s what it is now",
">\n\nNext news article will be, staff if Danish bank distraught after losing their jobs due to irrelevancy",
">\n\nWe'll... In 2015 the biggest danish bank accepted forged documents and payed this guy (the owner Sanjay at 6:41) €1.7 billion back in dividend taxes. A couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this. It's nice that that the employees are not endangered, but I'm sure they (and by extension the taxpayers) are getting robbed plenty.",
">\n\n\nA couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this.\n\nThat's not true. I have done something slightly related at work, which required me to contact the tax authorities to request something similar to what they did with the dividend taxes. The current wait time (12 months) has been postponed by 9 months twice because they're revising their systems and presumably doing everything manually now. When I obviously sounded dumbfounded on the phone, they explained it was because of that case.",
">\n\nPolicies for the plebs. Youre not a billionaire lol",
">\n\nNo, that’s right, I’m not. But I did it for a multi-billion dollar insurance company.",
">\n\nIn the Bronx I remember on the news they celebrated no murders for one whole day! But early the next day, the streak was broken.",
">\n\nBecause it was a challenge and someone answered.",
">\n\nThey said no to gentrification.",
">\n\nSuddenly Streisand effect",
">\n\nHow common are bank robberies in general? It's such a stereotypical crime, but I don't often hear about actual modern bank robberies. I imagine the risk to reward is very low given how little cash banks typically have on hand.",
">\n\nGotta rob a bank every other month just to make ends meet smh my head",
">\n\nTruly a landmark year!",
">\n\nA bank full of Danishes!",
">\n\nI want to rob it now",
">\n\nIs that really a nottheonion title?",
">\n\nFuture is finally looking up eh?",
">\n\nThey received a series of plaques to mark the occassion. And what did they do with them? Stick em' up!",
">\n\nFor a minute I wondered if this was r/UpliftingNews",
">\n\nI knew there was something I forgot to do this year.",
">\n\nIt's a lot easier to have nice things when you don't have a raging gun epidemic.",
">\n\nThey don’t have cash in the Banks anymore. Denmark is almost totally cashless society.",
">\n\nAlmost. I was kind of caught by surprise one time when I bumped into a laundromat in suburban Copenhagen that was cash only.",
">\n\nAre they celebrating with danishes?",
">\n\nIn addition, the text could have said \"one ship will dock in Denmark in 2022.\"\nHow would they be able to raid the banks if there are no banks with deposits? Man cannot know what cannot be found.",
">\n\nWe really should be robbing the banks. They are the worst human invention since they added lead to gas",
">\n\nWhich is why the robbers have also gone digital, take for example Britta Nielsen and Sanjay Shah"
] |
>
Not bank robberies apparently
|
[
"So their guard is down",
">\n\nThat would honestly have been the perfect time for a robbery.",
">\n\nGreat... now I have to write this movie.",
">\n\nSend me the GoFundMe link when it's time to start production.",
">\n\nEven criminals don't use their local bank branch anymore",
">\n\nYep. It’s all online these days.",
">\n\nThe real robbers work for the banks.",
">\n\nAlways have been",
">\n\nNo wonder, no Danish people would still enter a bank physically.",
">\n\nGood luck even finding one, let alone one that has cash.",
">\n\nBecause they’ve all been robbed?",
">\n\nNah, because they just close them down to save money, gotta have those annual profits stay in the billions....",
">\n\nCanada has joined the conversation. It's pretty unfortunate for remote communities here. It can be very far to the next town. All these branch closure decision coming to you from people in Toronto who have never been anywhere else in Canada.",
">\n\nWhen our post offices began closing years ago, they started, especially in smaller villages to have the local grocery store have a limited hours service desk for postal services, maybe they should look into that kind of deal, especially for a country like Canada, the more remote areas could be hours away, or completely inaccessible for the elderly, even just a few hours a couple of days could mean the world.",
">\n\nPostal banking would be great for the average Canadian but it costs a lot of money to run a political party and the fancy people who own everything and the ones who run for office go to the same gala dinners.\nThat may sound like conspiracy but it's just the gross way major companies operate in Canada. We pay crazy high phone bills and bank fees and internet. We have a few major companies selling each of those and their markets are protected.\nWe have a few major grocery stores. They apparently fixed the price of bread for 14-16 years. So far the biggest consequence has been a $25 gift certificate from one of the companies involved. I think you have to give up your right to sue, though.\nAnyways, in my opinion we support these totally not capitalist entities with protection legislation and we don't really help smaller companies trying to innovate in actual competitive environments. It is perverse.",
">\n\nMaybe smaller canadian communities should look into banding together to set up some form of service company, not to make a profit, just owned by hundreds of little towns and villages, pay into it by the head, own it by the head, and then just let them provide internet, tv, phone, banking services, etc. At just enough above cost to save up for future investments, and just price the competition out of the market they don't want to serve anyways. And locals can vote on how much they want to subsidise themselves to get better service.",
">\n\nWell we have credit unions which fit the bill. I'm not sure why they aren't more popular. Advertising spaces in Canada, of all sorts, are just plastered with the big banks. Free iPad if you open an account type of things. I suspect it works, but am not sure.",
">\n\nThe other thing the big banks have going for them is Visa/MasterCard on debit. Credit unions generally don't offer that; your debit card will typically be Interac only, which means it's only good for shopping at physical stores in Canada and the US.",
">\n\nBecause the real robbers is sitting inside the bank.",
">\n\nSounds like something is rotten in the state of Denmark.",
">\n\nWow. Is there a subreddit for that? Maybe \nr/unexpectedBard",
">\n\nwell that’s what it is now",
">\n\nNext news article will be, staff if Danish bank distraught after losing their jobs due to irrelevancy",
">\n\nWe'll... In 2015 the biggest danish bank accepted forged documents and payed this guy (the owner Sanjay at 6:41) €1.7 billion back in dividend taxes. A couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this. It's nice that that the employees are not endangered, but I'm sure they (and by extension the taxpayers) are getting robbed plenty.",
">\n\n\nA couple of months ago a book came out that revealed how they have not changed the control procedures for this.\n\nThat's not true. I have done something slightly related at work, which required me to contact the tax authorities to request something similar to what they did with the dividend taxes. The current wait time (12 months) has been postponed by 9 months twice because they're revising their systems and presumably doing everything manually now. When I obviously sounded dumbfounded on the phone, they explained it was because of that case.",
">\n\nPolicies for the plebs. Youre not a billionaire lol",
">\n\nNo, that’s right, I’m not. But I did it for a multi-billion dollar insurance company.",
">\n\nIn the Bronx I remember on the news they celebrated no murders for one whole day! But early the next day, the streak was broken.",
">\n\nBecause it was a challenge and someone answered.",
">\n\nThey said no to gentrification.",
">\n\nSuddenly Streisand effect",
">\n\nHow common are bank robberies in general? It's such a stereotypical crime, but I don't often hear about actual modern bank robberies. I imagine the risk to reward is very low given how little cash banks typically have on hand.",
">\n\nGotta rob a bank every other month just to make ends meet smh my head",
">\n\nTruly a landmark year!",
">\n\nA bank full of Danishes!",
">\n\nI want to rob it now",
">\n\nIs that really a nottheonion title?",
">\n\nFuture is finally looking up eh?",
">\n\nThey received a series of plaques to mark the occassion. And what did they do with them? Stick em' up!",
">\n\nFor a minute I wondered if this was r/UpliftingNews",
">\n\nI knew there was something I forgot to do this year.",
">\n\nIt's a lot easier to have nice things when you don't have a raging gun epidemic.",
">\n\nThey don’t have cash in the Banks anymore. Denmark is almost totally cashless society.",
">\n\nAlmost. I was kind of caught by surprise one time when I bumped into a laundromat in suburban Copenhagen that was cash only.",
">\n\nAre they celebrating with danishes?",
">\n\nIn addition, the text could have said \"one ship will dock in Denmark in 2022.\"\nHow would they be able to raid the banks if there are no banks with deposits? Man cannot know what cannot be found.",
">\n\nWe really should be robbing the banks. They are the worst human invention since they added lead to gas",
">\n\nWhich is why the robbers have also gone digital, take for example Britta Nielsen and Sanjay Shah",
">\n\nHey Denmark, what's going on?"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.