"Membership in the family of God is neither inconsequential or something to be casually ignored. The church is God's agenda for the world. Jesus said, "I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it." The church is indestructable and will exist for eternity. It will outlive this universe, and so will your role in it."
- Rick Warren
Saturday, June 27, 2009
I don't think what I'm about to suggest is all that revolutionary. I would hope there's common ground here, regardless of whether you're a conservative or progressive, Republican or Democrat, right-wing nutcase or bed-wetting liberal.
And this has nothing specifically to do with the Cap and Trade bill the House of Reps passed yesterday, although that legislation was the inspiration behind this post (as was the TARP vote earlier this year).
So, without further ado, here are some basic parliamentary principles I'd love to see our elected representatives follow:
- A bill presented to Congress needs to be about what it's about. In other words, every part of the bill needs to be about the main theme of the bill. For instance, if the bill is about stopping global climate change, then it can't have provisions in it that authorize the expanding of some non-climate-change related boondoggle project (a museum, airport, etc) in an on-the-fence member's district
- As a corollary, if said member wants to use federal funds to fund the aforementioned boondoggle project, he or she should submit a bill to Congress that is specifically about funding said project.
- Voting on any bill in Congress should not occur until the bill has been finalized and published on the internet for at least 72 hours. Most bills before Congress run hundreds or thousands of pages (though principle #1 above would put the kibosh on that). It's insane for our Congresspeople to vote on bills that they haven't read. Most of us won't spend our own money on something if we haven't done at least a little research to know what we're getting. How come Congress thinks it's OK to spend our money when they have no real way of knowing what they are spending it on?
- As a corollary, it's insulting for our representatives to vote on bills that their own constituents have not been at least given the opportunity to read. It makes the whole business look really shady.
- I realize that there's give and take when debating pieces of legislation, and that a bill will morph over time. So I'd relax the 72 hour time-line for additional amendments to a bill that arise in debate. But any amendment would need to adhere strictly to principle #1 above, and at least a 24 hour period should be required for amendments to be published and digested before rushing through a vote.
A note to our Congressional leadership: I understand that it seems important, sometimes, to finish a vote before a long weekend or holiday. But, trust me, the world will survive just fine, even if it has to wait a few more days for our representatives to make sure they know what they are voting on.
These principles seem fairly common-sense to me. Uncontroversial, even. Do I ask too much?
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/5485.
Comments on "Some Basic Parliamentary Rules I'd Like To Suggest":
2. Inklingstar
- 06/27/2009 1:07 pm CDT
So adding three hundred pages of amendments at 3:00 AM and voting on it before there's even a physical copy of the amended bill isn't a good thing?
I would think that Democrat voters would be disappointed in their congress, except most of them are probably happy to see their agenda passed any way it can be.
4. Inklingstar
- 06/27/2009 1:30 pm CDT
I should add that one of the eight GOP representatives to vote for this non-existent bill was Dave Reichardt, from the 8th District south of Seattle. I'd advocate for his ouster in the next election, but his only recent opponent has been an airheaded liberal who would only rubber-stamp Pelosi every chance she gets.
Can we all move to Texas and secede yet?
6. salguod
- 06/27/2009 3:17 pm CDT
On #3:
It's insane for our Congresspeople to vote on bills that they haven't read. Most of us won't spend our own money on something if we haven't done at least a little research to know what we're getting.
Have you read all of the fine print for each credit card you have? Or each software package user agreement? All your mortgage docs?
I'm not saying that they shouldn't be informed, but voting or agreeing with something that you've not read in it's entirety isn't that unusual.
That said, I'm absolutely all for #1. If something can't stand on its own, it shouldn't pass.
7. Sharpton
- 06/27/2009 4:11 pm CDT
But...should the bills have all that kind of fine print?
I mean, the fine print on credit cards is viewed as a bad thing most of the time.
Seriously, is it so hard to ask that, by and large, they keep them under novel length for these bills?
Also, I approve of this product and/or service.
8. Shrode
- 06/27/2009 4:24 pm CDT
Good Job, Bill.
If this were adopted, it would totally change the way those people do business.
Being able to "bargain" for a holdout's vote by throwing in a few extra million for his constituent's is part of how the game is played.
I don't think these people would know how to function under your rules.
That said, you are so right, it will never happen. (I could see McCain liking this though. Send this to him. :) Or email it to one of your congressmen. Kay Bailey's particularly keen on making people like her right now.
9. Bill
- 06/27/2009 4:47 pm CDT
Have you read all of the fine print for each credit card you have? Or each software package user agreement? All your mortgage docs?
I'm not saying that they shouldn't be informed, but voting or agreeing with something that you've not read in it's entirety isn't that unusual.
I don't think this is the same thing. For instance, on a mortgage, at the least I know what I'm spending, what the closing costs are, what it is I'm buying.
Say the mortgage documents also included, without me being aware, the purchase of a motorcycle, a swimming pool for the neighbor next door, and a year's supply of ice cream for my brother in law's aunt . . .
And let's further assume that I was at the closing/signing for my mortgage and was told "there are another hundred pages of documents, containing who knows what, that we just wrote and haven't had time to print up for you. You're OK with that, right?"
I'd be an idiot to sign without reading. But, the other key difference here is that, in my mortgage scenario, it's my money.
For Congress, it's not their money. It's ours. That's one reason they don't care about all the "fine print".
10. Quaid
- 06/27/2009 10:55 pm CDT
Bill, I hear you and agree with the spirit of your suggestions, but I don't think that #1 and #2 are practically possible. There are many amendments that could be rationalized and explained away as relating vaguely to the point of the legislation.
For example, an on-the-fence Representative adds on an amendment to the Cap & Trade Bill to Reduce Climate Change" that funds a new building in his/her district built entirely out of "Green" materials and is highly energy efficient. Does this amendment count as having to do with the purpose of the Bill? It has nothing to do with energy policy, but the point of the bill - to reduce climate change - is the amendment's supposed chief concern with its Green-ness and its future energy efficiency.
Enacting your rules 1 & 2 would require a judge (or a panel of judges) to sit in on the House floor and decide what amendments correlate and do not correlate with the theme.
As for #3, I think you're dead on. I would add in the provision, "unless overturned by a 75% majority" so something can be passed in an emergency, if absolutely necessary. Perhaps certain legislation during a time of war or other important event such as drawing up articles of impeachment. If these things are deemed an emergency by 75% of the House, I could see the 72-hour rule being overcome necessarily.
Rule 3 would slow things down a bit, BUT it would also inhibit last-minute add-ons and other pork that gets thrown in at the last second to entice members to vote yea/nay, thus impacting the spirit behind your rules #1 & 2.
11. Shrode
- 06/28/2009 7:09 am CDT
Have you read all of the fine print for each credit card you have? Or each software package user agreement? All your mortgage docs?
I'm the one guy in the universe that actually does read all that stuff.
You should see me when I'm sitting across the desk from someone when I'm having to sign such things. My sweet wife just smiles at the person and says, "He always does this." And they wait (sometimes patiently, sometimes impatiently) while I read every last word.
And I KNOW it's unusual, because the person/representative is never used to it.
I read software agreements too. Though I confess that in moments of weakness I have, on some occasions, just skimmed a part or two. But even then I didn't click "I accept" until I was certain of everything in it. 
12. Bill
- 06/28/2009 7:28 am CDT
Shrode - my friend Brian in Spring does the same thing. :-)
I respect you guys for doing that, and need to be more careful myself. But in further answer to salguod above, the difference between me not reading the fine print and Congress not reading the fine print is this: for me, if I screw up, the person hurt is . . . me. Well, and my family too.
Congress screws up and the person hurt is - the whole country. It's not Congress' money.
Quaid: you're correct that #1 and #2 are not practical. But, in the example you gave, I'd probably allow the green building because it has something to do with the bill. Recently, I can't remember which bill, there was an amendment that had to do with carrying guns in national parks. It had squat to do with the main bill and should have been its own standalone bill.
I would like #1 and #2 adopted as a matter of honor and principle among Congress. I'd like it to not have to be enforced with a congressional panel (but I'd be OK with that too) but rather just part of the fabric of the way Congress does things.
Could happen. Yeah,and maybe monkeys will fly out of my [ . . . ] too.
13. Whitney
- 06/28/2009 3:44 pm CDT
Awesome idea. I was watching a wee bit of a discussion on a fair and balanced news channel about this most recent passage, and was sickened. One of the "pro" passage guys literally couldn't look at the interviewer, or the camera for that matter, in the eye. (I guess a camera doesn't have an "eye", but you know what I mean.) I felt like he was just lying to me, ya know?
Bottom line is: although it's an awesome idea, not enough people in our fair "democratic" nation really care what goes on in D.C. Sad. :(
14. III
- 06/28/2009 6:58 pm CDT
Maybe I'm just naive about politics (which I am), but it seems to me that if you outlaw pork then you pretty much eliminate at least 75% of all political leverage in the legislature. I mean, what else can you promise a fence-riding voter to get them to help pass your (important and theoretically good) bill?
I think what you're asking IS too much--you are asking politicians not to be politicians, which is essentially a revamping of our entire political system. Obviously, I think our nation would be better off without pork and politicians, but I think it's about as practical of a long-term political system as Communism. I just don't see it happening in our fallen world.
Maybe I totally misread what you were saying, and you agree that it will never happen but just wanted to throw out some things you think would make up an ideal government, and in that case, you can totally disregard this. And if I just don't know what I'm talking about concerning politics, you can disregard it for that, and no harm done, and no offense taken.
15. Brian - Austin
- 06/28/2009 9:32 pm CDT
I had several meetings last week to review the content and potential impact of that bill, I'll bet I know more of the details than half of congress. If you haven't read the bill yet, this is a spoiler alert...the further you get into the details, the worse it gets.
16. Bill
- 06/28/2009 9:55 pm CDT
III
I hear what you're saying, and you're probably right. This is what we get when we make politics a career, rather than something citizens do for a season.
I mean, what else can you promise a fence-riding voter to get them to help pass your (important and theoretically good) bill?
This is what I'm on about. For instance, the TARP bill. In theory, we were in a MASSIVE, WORLD ENDING ECONOMIC CRISIS and TARP was a MUST HAVE (sorry for the shouting, just imitating our pundit class). The original bill was fairly short, and it did not pass.
It did not pass until they brought back another version of the bill a week later, laden with pork and a gazillion pages long.
So, our elected representatives couldn't do what (supposedly) they needed to do to save our economy until they extracted what is, in effect, a bribe.
I'm not satisfied with that. I'm not saying it's ever going to change, but it's wrong.
Even in a fallen world, it's wrong.
17. Bill
- 06/28/2009 9:59 pm CDT
Continuing my previous comment . . .
While I think what I'm suggesting won't ever happen, I don't in the least think it's impractical.
You wrote: "I mean, what else can you promise a fence-riding voter to get them to help pass your (important and theoretically good) bill?"
Can we learn to elect people who would do the right thing because it's the right thing? If we allow pork in bills, and unrelated boondoggles in bills, we'll get votes on bills not based on whether the bill is a good bill or not, or whether it accomplishes it's purpose or not, but rather just on the basis of whether it enlarges the power or re-electability of the on-the-fence representative. Shameful.
We deserve better. Well, maybe not, because we voted for every one of these grasping blowhards.
They all need to go.
18. Evan
- 06/29/2009 10:04 am CDT
I wish the problem was just in the politicians. We could then solve the problem by throwing them out and getting new ones. Unfortunately, it is the whole system.
Our founders knew that power corrupted, regardless of the men you had for rulers. They wrote a Constitution and Bill of Rights to keep the federal government small, and designed systematic checks and balances to primarily limit and check any growth of power.
However, in the last century, Americans have increasingly decided that material comfort and security (I would argue a false security) was more important than freedom. Thus the explosion in size and power of the federal government, high taxation, and the alphabet soup of programs that regulate and support people's lives. Each step taken to increase government is virtually irreversible, as its proponents and beneficiaries fight tooth and nail to keep their priviledges.
So to paraphrase the late Milton Freidman, "Where are you going to get the angels?" to run government with the size and power it has today? It's like asking Gandalf to take up the One Ring hoping he would be better than Sauron.
19. III
- 06/29/2009 2:57 pm CDT
I think Evan should win an award for using a Middle-Earth allusion/analogy on a blog that was inspired by a group that involved Tolkien.
At any rate, I agree with you completely Mr. Bill. The corruption and lack of integrity of most politicians sickens me, and I hate politics as much as you do (Well, maybe not. But I would if I spent much time thinking about it); however, I simply don't think it's possible to have a perfect government. But praise be to God, government was never intended to solve all our problems--that's what Christ did and is doing and will finish doing.
I hope that God will enable me to be a responsible, thinking citizen who will have the courage to try to "throw them all out", but at the same time I pray that He will not let me forget that the Gospel is so much more important, and that the Christ is the only Savior of men.
21. Bill
- 06/29/2009 9:43 pm CDT
III
but at the same time I pray that He will not let me forget that the Gospel is so much more important, and that the Christ is the only Savior of men.
Amen, and of course. Government has never been the savior and I don't have high hopes for it. But there is a deep moral component to how government is run, for good or ill. It affects so many lives.
Whether our government is good or bad, our primary allegiance needs to be to Christ and the gospel. I think that, for the most part, our best action when it comes to politics is to just vote well, and understand that voting has a moral component to it as well.
I hope this post isn't misconstrued as a call for perfect government. Just more common-sense and integrity in government. As Andrew pointed out, I agree with the point that perfect government is impossible. To quote one of my favorite bits from P.J. O'Rourke - "Every government is a parliament of whores. The problem is, in a democracy, the whores are us" (and I apologize for the Driscoll-ish use of salty language there :-)
Evan - you consistently win the award for the best comments. Awesome.
Leave a Comment:
I don't know, that sounds like an actual job.