4 ms·
It doesn’t have to be the way you’re describing. There was a bill a while back to force bill contents to be narrowly scoped (I.e. no pork barrel spending). It
by jimbob45 5y ago
It doesn’t have to be the way you’re describing.
There was a bill a while back to force bill contents to be narrowly scoped (I.e. no pork barrel spending). It failed, but that doesn’t mean we can’t push for its passage in the future anyway.
- kmeisthax 5y agoThe problem with getting rid of pork-barrel spending is that it removes the one incentive for reps to cooperate on legislation with people they'd otherwise oppose. The only remaining force in legislation post-pork-barrel is ideological extremism.
- zizee 5y agoThis is a pretty poor solution for trying to get people to cooperate. If people are opposing good legislation just because it is being proposed by "the opposition", then the system is broken. Better to solve the problem directly, rather than some unplanned round-about solution with pretty clear downsides.
- PostThisTooFast 5y agoIt might be stricken down anyway. Did you know that a bipartisan effort to grant the president line-item veto power succeeded during the Clinton administration, but was struck down by the Supreme Court?