5 ms·

This just means the issue needs to be addressed in a separate, "clean" bill rather than being piggy-backed on top of the reconciliation process. If things were

This just means the issue needs to be addressed in a separate, "clean" bill rather than being piggy-backed on top of the reconciliation process. If things were normal in Congress, it would be a no-brainer.

kbutler 9y ago
Have things ever been "normal" in Congress? The practice of piggy-backing your little bill on other bills that are likely to pass has been around a long time. Presidents have asked for a line-item veto since at least Reagan, and it was even in the Confederate States constitution. But yes, there should be a general rule and practice that bills don't address multiple unrelated topics.
- ubernostrum 9y ago
  The CSA Constitution is kind of the perfect example of the "stopped clock is right twice a day" aphorism. It was intended to create a separatist society in which brutal race-based slavery would be permanently enshrined and protected. And also happened to include line-item veto and a provision forbidding "Christmas-tree" style multi-subject bills.
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    The Nazis built good rockets. Just because you don't like someone's politics doesn't mean they can't do other things well.
    - smt88 9y ago
      Point taken, but "someone's politics" is really underselling the Holocaust and hundreds of years of chattel slavery.
      - deadmetheny 9y ago
        The idea that everything bad people did is inherently bad is nonsense. The holocaust and slavery aren't the point of the discussion.
- analog31 9y ago
  Some of the states, including mine, have line-item veto, yet it doesn't prevent piggy-backing.
- tootie 9y ago
  Reagan's tax bill got 97 votes in the senate because he asked Democrats what they would allow before he started. Congress didn't start to come apart until Gingrich.
  - kbutler 9y ago
    Were you by chance a teenager during the Gingrich years? It seems a common pattern to think the government goes off the rails as one begins to become more aware of politics. Dysfunctional congress goes back long before that. 1960s https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/50-years-ago-americans-fired-their-dysfunctional-congress/384688/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/50-year... “The 88th Congress, before the [Kennedy] assassination, had sat longer than any peacetime Congress in memory while accomplishing practically nothing. It was feebly led, wedded to its own lethargy and impervious to criticism. It could not even pass routine appropriations bills. It was a scandal of drift and inefficiency.” 1856 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_of_Charles_Sumner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_of_Charles_Sumner was 'symbolic of the "breakdown of reasoned discourse" that led to the Civil War.' Congress has been broken for a long, long time.
    - tootie 9y ago
      Certainly the Civil War era was a lower low point, but we have actual data that says Congress is getting worse and the Gingrich era represented a nadir that we can't break out of. Congress will never be as productive as people expect but also expectations change. It really has gotten worse. To say it's always been broken belies the enormous progress American society has made in the past 100 years. It definitely can work and has worked extremely well on the balance. Just not now. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/04/10/president-obama-said-the-113th-congress-is-the-least-productive-ever-is-he-right/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/04/10/pr...
      - Dagwoodie 9y ago
        The country has never been more divided politically and I highly doubt that had anything to do with Gingrich.
- EpicEng 9y ago
  >But yes, there should be a general rule and practice that bills don't address multiple unrelated topics You sure about that? We always hear about the 'bad' attachments to bills, but it's a negotiation tool. Many 'good' bills came to life via the same process, bills which never would have seen the light of day otherwise.
- acomjean 9y ago
  there was a line item veto in the US. The courts struck it down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996 yeah the practice of stuffing a bill with unrelated extras was called pork. It goes on today (wonder why arctic refuge drilling is in a tax cut bill?) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel
matt4077 9y ago
If you only have a single issue being discussed, that discussion is, almost by definition, a zero-sum game. Example: you want to buy 10 apples, and only the price can change. Your win is the vendor's loss, and vice versa. If you allow other issues to be added, you create potential for win-win tradeoffs. Example: "I can't give you these apples for less than I pay, nonnono, my dear friend. But I'll give you this wonderful watermelon on top, for free".
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- UncleEntity 9y ago
  > Example: you want to buy 10 apples, and only the price can change. Your win is the vendor's loss, and vice versa. That doesn't even make sense, if the vendor values what you are paying above owning 10 apples and you value 10 apples over the price the vendor is willing to sell for you both win. --edit-- That's actually how market prices are determined at the fundamental level.
  - benchaney 9y ago
    The is a difference between the trade being zero sum, and the negotiation being zero sum. In the apple example, the trade is not zero sum, but the negotiation is. If I negotiate to spend less money for the same amount of apples, then the seller has lost as much as I gained. The caveat being that even in this simplified apple example there are multiple dimensions to negotiate on. I could buy more apples at a lower cost per apple, which may very well be benefit both parties.
    - UncleEntity 9y ago
      > If I negotiate to spend less money for the same amount of apples, then the seller has lost as much as I gained. That assumes that apples have an intrinsic value above and beyond the value placed upon them by the two trading parties. Marginal utility and all that...

kbutler 9y ago

Have things ever been "normal" in Congress? The practice of piggy-backing your little bill on other bills that are likely to pass has been around a long time. Presidents have asked for a line-item veto since at least Reagan, and it was even in the Confederate States constitution. But yes, there should be a general rule and practice that bills don't address multiple unrelated topics.

ubernostrum 9y ago
The CSA Constitution is kind of the perfect example of the "stopped clock is right twice a day" aphorism. It was intended to create a separatist society in which brutal race-based slavery would be permanently enshrined and protected. And also happened to include line-item veto and a provision forbidding "Christmas-tree" style multi-subject bills.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  The Nazis built good rockets. Just because you don't like someone's politics doesn't mean they can't do other things well.
  - smt88 9y ago
    Point taken, but "someone's politics" is really underselling the Holocaust and hundreds of years of chattel slavery.
    - deadmetheny 9y ago
      The idea that everything bad people did is inherently bad is nonsense. The holocaust and slavery aren't the point of the discussion.
analog31 9y ago
Some of the states, including mine, have line-item veto, yet it doesn't prevent piggy-backing.
tootie 9y ago
Reagan's tax bill got 97 votes in the senate because he asked Democrats what they would allow before he started. Congress didn't start to come apart until Gingrich.
- kbutler 9y ago
  Were you by chance a teenager during the Gingrich years? It seems a common pattern to think the government goes off the rails as one begins to become more aware of politics. Dysfunctional congress goes back long before that. 1960s https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/50-years-ago-americans-fired-their-dysfunctional-congress/384688/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/50-year... “The 88th Congress, before the [Kennedy] assassination, had sat longer than any peacetime Congress in memory while accomplishing practically nothing. It was feebly led, wedded to its own lethargy and impervious to criticism. It could not even pass routine appropriations bills. It was a scandal of drift and inefficiency.” 1856 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_of_Charles_Sumner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_of_Charles_Sumner was 'symbolic of the "breakdown of reasoned discourse" that led to the Civil War.' Congress has been broken for a long, long time.
  - tootie 9y ago
    Certainly the Civil War era was a lower low point, but we have actual data that says Congress is getting worse and the Gingrich era represented a nadir that we can't break out of. Congress will never be as productive as people expect but also expectations change. It really has gotten worse. To say it's always been broken belies the enormous progress American society has made in the past 100 years. It definitely can work and has worked extremely well on the balance. Just not now. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/04/10/president-obama-said-the-113th-congress-is-the-least-productive-ever-is-he-right/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/04/10/pr...
    - Dagwoodie 9y ago
      The country has never been more divided politically and I highly doubt that had anything to do with Gingrich.
EpicEng 9y ago
>But yes, there should be a general rule and practice that bills don't address multiple unrelated topics You sure about that? We always hear about the 'bad' attachments to bills, but it's a negotiation tool. Many 'good' bills came to life via the same process, bills which never would have seen the light of day otherwise.
acomjean 9y ago
there was a line item veto in the US. The courts struck it down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996 yeah the practice of stuffing a bill with unrelated extras was called pork. It goes on today (wonder why arctic refuge drilling is in a tax cut bill?) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel

matt4077 9y ago

If you only have a single issue being discussed, that discussion is, almost by definition, a zero-sum game. Example: you want to buy 10 apples, and only the price can change. Your win is the vendor's loss, and vice versa. If you allow other issues to be added, you create potential for win-win tradeoffs. Example: "I can't give you these apples for less than I pay, nonnono, my dear friend. But I'll give you this wonderful watermelon on top, for free".

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
UncleEntity 9y ago
> Example: you want to buy 10 apples, and only the price can change. Your win is the vendor's loss, and vice versa. That doesn't even make sense, if the vendor values what you are paying above owning 10 apples and you value 10 apples over the price the vendor is willing to sell for you both win. --edit-- That's actually how market prices are determined at the fundamental level.
- benchaney 9y ago
  The is a difference between the trade being zero sum, and the negotiation being zero sum. In the apple example, the trade is not zero sum, but the negotiation is. If I negotiate to spend less money for the same amount of apples, then the seller has lost as much as I gained. The caveat being that even in this simplified apple example there are multiple dimensions to negotiate on. I could buy more apples at a lower cost per apple, which may very well be benefit both parties.
  - UncleEntity 9y ago
    > If I negotiate to spend less money for the same amount of apples, then the seller has lost as much as I gained. That assumes that apples have an intrinsic value above and beyond the value placed upon them by the two trading parties. Marginal utility and all that...