Simple way of getting rid of the pork (better than the line-item veto)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 29, 2024, 03:12:27 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Simple way of getting rid of the pork (better than the line-item veto)
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Would you support the following constitutional amendment?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 13

Author Topic: Simple way of getting rid of the pork (better than the line-item veto)  (Read 1405 times)
Angel of Death
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,412
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 14, 2006, 08:59:19 PM »

Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 14, 2006, 09:02:38 PM »

Almost any collection of clauses could be described as dealing with one subject--just as almost any collection of clauses could be described as dealing with multiple subjects.
Logged
Tetro Kornbluth
Gully Foyle
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,845
Ireland, Republic of


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 14, 2006, 09:09:55 PM »

Might need to brush up on it's legalese. But it sounds a fairly sound amendment. Though I would need to know more detail about how exactly the legalistative system works before commenting further.
Logged
Gabu
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,386
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -4.32, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2006, 10:00:28 PM »

This could easily be bypassed by having senators express that the legislation relates to "improvement of the country".
Logged
Colin
ColinW
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,684
Papua New Guinea


Political Matrix
E: 3.87, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 14, 2006, 10:15:47 PM »

It has loopholes but it would be an improvement.

Atlasia has a regulation like this within its Constitution.
Logged
MaC
Milk_and_cereal
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,787


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 15, 2006, 02:40:39 AM »

go to downsizedc.org and read the text of the RTBA, pretty much one of the main points of it.
Logged
Keystone Phil
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,607


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 16, 2006, 12:06:15 AM »

It has loopholes but it would be an improvement.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 19, 2006, 01:03:00 AM »

I'd oppose it; it's too restrictive and could lead to a lot of problems.

I agree that pork barrell spending needs to be cut down, but the best way to do this is to vote out politicians who support it. Of course, no one wants to do that since voters like pork in their own district; they only oppose it when someone else's Congressman does it.
Logged
Reignman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,236


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -3.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 20, 2006, 10:30:12 PM »

Sounds like it'd probably be a good idea.
Logged
Democratic Hawk
LucysBeau
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,703
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 20, 2006, 10:33:12 PM »

No, why shouldn't politicians bring home a bit bacon? They are there, individually, to represent the interests of their states and districts, as well as, collectively, to serve the interest of the nation

Still, that argument doesn't justify rampant excesses like the infamous 'Bridge To Nowhere'

Dave
Logged
Emsworth
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,054


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 21, 2006, 03:56:48 PM »

No, why shouldn't politicians bring home a bit bacon?
The citizens of a particular district can pay for their own pet projects. They can tax themselves through their own local government, and appropriate money from their own budgets. I think that it is highly unjustifiable for the whole nation to be charged for the endeavors of a particular region.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.04 seconds with 13 queries.