3 ms·

So can someone please help explain to me how this is permissible? Taking this to extremes, why would politicians not sneak every crazy wild idea that they have

So can someone please help explain to me how this is permissible? Taking this to extremes, why would politicians not sneak every crazy wild idea that they have onto this bill if it's a must-pass bill?

mod 11y ago
They do that all the time. That's why I'm a professional developer these days, instead of a professional poker player.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Taking this to extremes, why would politicians not sneak every crazy wild idea that they have onto this bill if it's a must-pass bill? They try; there are various constraints: (1) Individual members can't just stick a rider onto a bill, riders are amendments, and are voted on. (2) Riders are, in effect, a strong-arm negotiation tactic between one house of Congress and the other, or between Congress and the executive -- a gamble that the other side sees the other provisions of the bill as "must pass" enough to accept the added conditions. But those gambles can be wrong, resulting in neither the main bill or the added provision getting passed. So, the biggest incentive to add non-germane riders is to a bill you are less concerned with passing than those you are trying to get to accept the rider as a precondition for the rest of the bill, where them rejecting the rider is more unattractive to them that it is to you. If you really think its a "must pass" bill (rather than just wanting others to think that so that they'll accept the rider), you won't want to risk causing it to fail somewhere in the process because the rider you attached was unacceptable.
- retbull 11y ago
  Unless you want the political fodder to say the other party is also willing to shut the government down. If you don't care about shutting everything down you can put horrible things in a must pass bill.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    If you don't care about shutting everything down, there is no such thing as a "must-pass" bill; at least, the fact that not passing a bill would lead to a shutdown doesn't make it must-pass if you don't care about shutting everything down. But I think you are agreeing with what I said, that its more attractive to attach riders to something you think your counterparty sees as "must pass", but you do not.
TallGuyShort 11y ago
That absolutely happens all the time. In a less scum-baggy case, the Republicans recently denied a healthcare bill for 9/11 first-responders citing high cost, and the Democrats' rather non-chalant response was to the effect of, "nah it's okay - we'll just throw it in the budget bill". It's the norm.

mod 11y ago

They do that all the time. That's why I'm a professional developer these days, instead of a professional poker player.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Taking this to extremes, why would politicians not sneak every crazy wild idea that they have onto this bill if it's a must-pass bill? They try; there are various constraints: (1) Individual members can't just stick a rider onto a bill, riders are amendments, and are voted on. (2) Riders are, in effect, a strong-arm negotiation tactic between one house of Congress and the other, or between Congress and the executive -- a gamble that the other side sees the other provisions of the bill as "must pass" enough to accept the added conditions. But those gambles can be wrong, resulting in neither the main bill or the added provision getting passed. So, the biggest incentive to add non-germane riders is to a bill you are less concerned with passing than those you are trying to get to accept the rider as a precondition for the rest of the bill, where them rejecting the rider is more unattractive to them that it is to you. If you really think its a "must pass" bill (rather than just wanting others to think that so that they'll accept the rider), you won't want to risk causing it to fail somewhere in the process because the rider you attached was unacceptable.

retbull 11y ago
Unless you want the political fodder to say the other party is also willing to shut the government down. If you don't care about shutting everything down you can put horrible things in a must pass bill.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  If you don't care about shutting everything down, there is no such thing as a "must-pass" bill; at least, the fact that not passing a bill would lead to a shutdown doesn't make it must-pass if you don't care about shutting everything down. But I think you are agreeing with what I said, that its more attractive to attach riders to something you think your counterparty sees as "must pass", but you do not.

TallGuyShort 11y ago

That absolutely happens all the time. In a less scum-baggy case, the Republicans recently denied a healthcare bill for 9/11 first-responders citing high cost, and the Democrats' rather non-chalant response was to the effect of, "nah it's okay - we'll just throw it in the budget bill". It's the norm.