[Bobboau]

http://www.engadget.com/2015/12/18/house-senate-pass-budget-with-cisa/

ok, so, yeah repeatedly we told them no and they just shoved it into a spending bill and rushed it through.

****ing awesome!

[Klaustrophobia]

Yeah, I saw that.  One MASSIVE step toward fixing the horrible broken mess that is our government would be a law against binding unrelated legislation together to be passed or rejected together.  There is literally no valid reason for this practice.  It can ONLY serve as a means to force through things that wouldn't pass otherwise.

[Mongoose]

Yeah, I sincerely wish that the Framers of the Constitution would have had the foresight to see how dickbaggish politics would get in the future, and had inserted language into it to prevent that bull****.  Hell, even a line-item veto would work wonders.

(Interestingly, the Constitution of the Confederacy, which was by and large a copypasta of the US Constitution, included line-item veto powers, although Jefferson Davis never used them.)

[Klaustrophobia]

I don't like that either.  That puts almost total power in the hands of the president to enact his party's agenda and completely squash all opposition or compromise. 

Hell, we don't even have to start with a full-on ban on bundling.  Just saying that the budget bill can do nothing except allocate money would go 90% of the way.  The yearly budget is where most of these things get snuck in because neither side wants to be seen as the one that shut down the government (even though recent shutdowns have proven that the country doesn't collapse if this happens, and in fact it would go completely unnoticed if not for executive orders to cause as much disruption as possible with the shutdown).

[jr2]

1) Require votes to be recorded.  E-vote, that will eliminate any tediousness and any excuse for verbal votes.  (It might even allow for absentee votes for representatives / senators that are out of town!)

2) Require any amendments / additions to be submitted for vote, just as if the proposal was already signed into law.

Between those two, you shouldn't have any more problems with this type of nonsense.  Or, if you do, they won't be able to hide and will be voted out of office.

[Nemesis6]

Reminds of me of the NSA's method of bypassing restrictions -- The NSA cooperates, receives info, and delegates tasks to the GCHQ, its British counterpart. Whenever it falls afoul of some legal restriction, it orders the GCHQ to do the work, then receives the data. So the next time some slick politician or agency representative comes out, telling the public that the NSA doesn't spy on American citizens, he is kind of right; the GCHQ did the illegal act, the NSA just received the results.

In light of this, any and all reform that doesn't address this kind of loophole is ultimately useless.

[Klaustrophobia]

Or, if you do, they won't be able to hide and will be voted out of office.

Yeah... that never happens.  Politicians can do the absolute sickest political **** and no one cares.  To get voted out you have to get caught sending dick pics.

[Ghostavo]

Wow... just... wow...