We’ve been disappointed by the performance of our government for a long time, and have advanced many opinions on how DC can be fixed. You’ve heard them all, from term limits to impeachment, and each “fix” will make a small improvement. None of them will solve the problem, and we doubt any single act can make DC what it should be. People are people, after all.
Knowing that no single change will magically make DC honest or responsive to the peoples’ needs, we’re proposing another fix that when incorporated into the federal toolbox will make DC a better, more transparent government.
What we’re advocating is that the federal government have only one fund allocation in any bill and that the subject of the allocation must be in the title of the bill.
That a bill, once proposed, cannot be added to or subtracted from in any way that changes the original intent of the bill.
That the subject text of the bill must depict the only matter addressed by the bill.
That a bill passed by one house of the government and is changed and passed by the other house must, when in conference, remain consistent with the intent of the original bill.
So what will this change do? For a start it will prevent the hidden allocation of funds. With the subject of the allocation being in the title everyone will know what the intent of the bill is and when voted on by the Senate or House of Representatives, everyone will know exactly what the elected official’s position is.
Here’s an example; if the current bill funding Israel, Ukraine, and the southern border were required to be three bills, the people would know each elected official’s position on each allocation. As it stands today, they can vote for or against the bill and cite any of the three allocations that made their decision. Perhaps they would give the money to Ukraine but not Israel or the southern border, so they vote no, or Ukraine is so important to them that they vote yes and swallow their vomit concerning the other two allocations.
All the people see is a yes or no vote, and the politician can use any excuse in their best interest to justify it. If they had to vote on each allocation individually their position would be cast in concrete by their vote. No more lying to defend a political decision. What a concept, an honest politician.
The requirement that the title of a bill must reflect the subject of the bill means no more cute, meaningless acronyms or plain language misleading titles. A bill to allocate money to closing the southern border would be titled “a bill to close the southern border” or some other title that described the intent of the bill. Again, the public would know the subject by the title. That’s common sense and the norm pretty much everywhere else. Would you have chosen to read this article if it was titled “The Best Recipe for Hagis”?
On question that comes to mind is, why require that the bill remain true to its title when in conference? It is our considered opinion that political pressure can be exerted to get a bill passed even if the result does not address the subject originally reflected in the title. That happens today, but would not be allowed with implementation of this change.
The requirement that a bill cannot be amended in any way that changes the intent of the bill (as reflected in the title) is rather straightforward. Again, using the current DC kerfuffle as an example, a bill to provide aid to Israel could not be amended to also provide aid to Ukraine or to close the southern border.
Another advantage to this change would probably be fewer pages of text in each bill. This means the elected officials could actually read some of them, and even if their staff continue to read and recommend a position to the elected, there would still be just one subject to vote on and no way to dissemble.
So what’s the downside? We’re not really sure there is a downside for the US. It’s possible that politicians who have survived by saying one thing and doing another will have a problem. It’s also possible that the public will finally know what is actually being passed into law by the feds, and that could cause some reflection on political affiliation by the voters.
If you can think of a downside to this change, please let us know via comment.
We’d love to hear from you.
Always
It will surely be a heavy lift, and possibly impossible. Knowing what the option is valuable nonetheless. Thanks for the comment.
Your proposal is a novel idea in these non-responsive times. Implementation will be a heavy lift for sure.