3 ms·
> It's almost impossible to repeal things. The US still has a mohair subsidy from WWI. This is what I don't get; why? I get that laws aren't repealed as often
by pmccool 17y ago
> It's almost impossible to repeal things. The US still has a mohair subsidy from WWI.
This is what I don't get; why? I get that laws aren't repealed as often as they should be. My personal suspicion is that it's a lack of political will. I'm not from the US, I don't know that much about the political system. I imagined that repealing a law would be a matter of passing a bill, same as making one. Is this assumption wrong?
- anamax 17y ago> I imagined that repealing a law would be a matter of passing a bill, same as making one. Is this assumption wrong? That's correct. > This is what I don't get; why Why doesn't matter. What matters is whether it's true, because it's silly to act as if things are different, and what you're going to do about it. > My personal suspicion is that it's a lack of political will. Laws have beneficiaries. For example, someone is collecting that mohair subsidy. Those folks are quite motivated to keep things the way they are. The folks who would benefit from killing ths subsidy are diffuse - they don't even know that they're paying it. Plus, legislators get rewarded for doing "new" things, not for fixing old ones that no one remembers. That's why my "must be renewed every so often" proposal requires more and more effort to pass each time (approaching some limit). The longer that something has been around, the more popular it should be if it's actually worthwhile.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- anamax 17y agoArgh - too late to edit for clarity. The assumption is correct - the mechanism for repealing a law is just like the mechanism for making a law.