7 ms·
Repealing SB174 has bipartisan support. The house already passed its repeal but it died in Senate because a separate took (that also repealed it) took its place
by slipnslider 1y ago
Repealing SB174 has bipartisan support. The house already passed its repeal but it died in Senate because a separate took (that also repealed it) took its place but that separate bill stalled out.
174 is so small it can't go through both chambers on its own so it needs to get attached a larger bill like OBBA.
It's unfortunate because it appears both sides want this repealed to allow immediate amortization of domestic R&D expenses.
https://abgi-usa.com/section174/latest-and-greatest https://abgi-usa.com/section174/latest-and-greatest
- cibyr 1y agoIt's so depressing to hear that congress can't even do small things that everyone agrees upon.
- dragonwriter 1y agoIf everyone agreed on it, Congress would have no problem doing it (Congress itself, after all, is a subset of "everyone".)
- cj 1y agoIt’s possible for everyone to want something, while simultaneously being incapable of getting it done.
- _dark_matter_ 1y agoThat's still not true. As long as a group within "everyone" (or multiple groups) decide that their support is required to pass the bill, they can suddenly demand concessions and the bill now gets complicated with good and bad.
- dragonwriter 1y ago> As long as a group within "everyone" (or multiple groups) decide that their support is required to pass the bill, they can suddenly demand concessions Well, yes, but then everyone doesn't really want it, do they? Someone wants something else, and wants that something else enough that it is worth jeopardizing the supposedly universal goal for it.
- Dylan16807 1y agoYes they do want it. If you've ever negotiated, I bet you've done the same thing of jeopardizing something you want in order to get something else you want. If you never do that, you'll make a lot of deals where you're riding the edge of just barely acceptable and the other person is taking advantage of you. But in this case, with a standalone law, doing it gets pretty rude and we'd be better off if nobody did it.
- candiddevmike 1y agoA highly disproportional subset of everyone, maybe. Though uncapping the house wouldn't fix the Senate (maybe adding some more states would)
- Supermancho 1y agoIf they could be required to craft single issue bills, this wouldn't be as big an issue. Instead we get the clusters of good and bad that inevitably die or sometimes worse, pass.
- formerly_proven 1y ago> 174 is so small it can't go through both chambers on its own so it needs to get attached a larger bill like OBBA. There's a minimum size for laws?
- Pet_Ant 1y agoI think there is a limit on the number of bills that can make it through the procedures so it’s too low profile to get scheduled.
- sigwinch 1y agoI don’t understand the downvotes. Fewer than, say, 2% of 15000 bills pass across two sessions. 274, to be precise. Some bill is always #275.
- coliveira 1y agoTheoretically no, but congress won't vote anything that has no collateral advantages to everybody involved.
- antonvs 1y agoWhich is one of the many ways in which the system is broken.
- rs186 1y agoIt's almost funny that small code reviews are preferred in software engineering (https://google.github.io/eng-practices/review/developer/small-cls.html https://google.github.io/eng-practices/review/developer/smal...), but in Congress we have these stupid "big beautiful bill(s)" that are sometimes thousand pages long, and sometimes only released hours before a formal vote. Almost like these bills are intended to fool constituents, cripple opponents' plans, and created just in the hope that they get passed and signed into law without anyone looking carefully.
- 1y ago