Quite possible eliminating riders would almost eliminate the need for a line item veto. So, have each bill pertain to a subject and only to that subject. This would effectively eliminate the "back door" that Bill55AZ was talking about.

Topics of debate:
Should each Bill/Law in Congress pertain to one subject? Why or Why not?
I.E. Amending "Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title." to U.S. Constitution.

Edited for spelling and other stuff.

Should each Bill/Law in Congress pertain to one subject? Why or Why not?
I.E. "Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title."
YES! I've been saying this to myself for so long. How do we change it?

I'm not close enough to the legislative process to tell if there's some sort of process advantage to lumping a bunch of laws together that are unrelated, and I can imagine that things like spending appropriations are pretty darn hard to hold in check, given the present system. However, I have worked in business close enough to the money to get a feel for what works and what doesn't.

The more focused spending is in business, generally the better run organization. I've seen exceptions, but that usually involves hot and heavy product development with clear ideas about success. Money leakage doesn't matter so much if huge profits come about. The trouble with government is that profit will never come about. Governments don't make any money, not any part of them.

So, with that kind of reasoning, I'm all for amending the Constitution to force legislators to keep on subject when legislating. I'd vote for ratification of such an amendment to our Constitution, thus making pork a lot harder to hide from us.

Hope some knowledgeable folks weigh in with arguments against this idea. I can only see one side -- keep the legislators on subject, reduce pork.

Maybe what would be good is to create a non-partisan editing branch. If your bill gets redlined a lot, it isn't on subject and thus won't be submitted for debate.

Moving with this idea, the editing branch could create a law style guide, just as colleges, newspapers and tech writing outfits have developed or use other style guides.

So maybe a Constitutional amendment isn't necessary? Just get a bunch of English major types together to whip those lawyers into shape, and by gosh, we'd love our work -- relish it even. The red pen is mightier than the silver tongue!

Would a legislative bill slush pile develop? Would legislative editors get to send out the rejection slips like publishers do? One could only hope so.

Should each Bill/Law in Congress pertain to one subject? Why or Why not? I.E. Amending "Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title." to U.S. Constitution.



This sounds good in theory, but I’m in doubt about the practicality. Bills often have riders containing pork included, but amendments are sometimes added to kill a particular bill.

I don’t think a line item veto is necessary or desirable. As I stated in a previous post, I don’t see how that can be done without a constitutional amendment.

Legislative processes, like how bills are amended, should be reformed by changing the rules in each house, rather than a constitutional amendment.

I think this is an idea that at face value seems GREAT- but as soon as you really start to think the big picture through, it has some serious flaws, that, perhaps, our founding fathers recognized, or just lucked out when they started our system LOL

One man's "Pork" is another mans neccesary infrastructure developement!

For instance, a very small (in population), very remote state, like us, is 50 years behind in our infrastructure developement, and we have a very large need to (responsibly) develope this state, with roads, railroads bridges etc. Also some "fringe" projects pay off later, such as the super computer for our university etc, that was decried nationaly as "pork" and our senator named one of the worst pork barrel spender in the nation- but, in reality, our state needs this stuff desperately- and how does this all come to our state? Why, by riders!

I think that this is a very, very important check in the majority party's power, throughout our history, to keep the minority from being punished for thier opposition, for instance, the repubs want to get even for the dems on some issue or another, so they neglect thier areas, some that may even save lives, but taking away the money neccesary for one public safety issue or another. this is checked by the "rider" system.

Sure, it creates pork, but it also moderates the majorities power.

Maybe it's a check on the majority's party, CR, and then again, maybe not. We had this system in place for the entirety of my time in Florida. Bills had to address one, and only one, specific subject, except for the means of paying for it, if required. I don't ever recall the system being used by one party in power to punish the other, if the bill was valid, and the service needed.

Besides, in a lot of our states, our Representatives and Senators are split, so that they would need to come to an agreement on the most important items needed for their state, and then submit these items as separate bills. Congress as a whole, I think would not postpone public safety issues, for instance, or truly needed infrastructure work, because they would be hurting their own party's cause in that state, which could come back to haunt them at election time.

In my opinion, if you really want to be able to reduce taxes, and maintain the services we have, this is one way to do it. Make every expense justifiable, and not just tack a bunch of expensive crap onto an unrelated bill when no one is looking. If the expense is truly needed, then it should be able to stand on it's own merits, without having to be snuck in under the radar.

I think the system is a much different animal at the state and local level. Line item veto's work better in the state level, it simply is not as complicated as the national level, plus you don't have things like, say, national defense LOL- plus the feds mandate some things to the states, so there is a check here as well.

I see that if we didn't have the riders to bills, Alaska would have lost out in a big way, because I find very few folks at any level that really know or understand the situation or era that Alaska is in right now. I hear cries of "pork" spending against us all the time, and, some of it is, but the great majority of the spent on this state were very neccesary to our growth as a state.

Should each Bill/Law in Congress pertain to one subject? Why or Why not? I think so. Aside from actual federal property and federal roads, I disagree that the rest of us should pay for infrastructure in other states. Of course every state wants federally funded local infrastructure! Why should someone in Georgia, for instance, pay for a pool in New Jersey, where the salaries are comparatively much higher, and the Georgians will reap no benefit? Let Alaskans fund their own local projects, and let Georgians fund their own projects.

The line item veto worked extremely well for the year Clinton had it. My only criticism would be that he didn't use it enough. I see no reason why the one subject bill wouldn't work as well or better.

Actually Mrs. P- I think you just unintentionally made my point for me LOL- here is why- the federal goverment gets SO MUCH more in return from Alaska than it gives back- mostly in oil, of course, but in so much natural resources- I wish I had a link, but Ted Stevens,had a very neat budget thing where he was able to show that the US gets about 3 bucks out of Alaska vs 1 dollar spent on Alaska. 90% of what he did get for our state, was through the clever use of riders.

I mean, taking it to the logical extreme, why should there be federal tax at all, shouldn't it all go to the states to fund what is neccesary for the state- and then, each state legislature vote on what they feel like sending to the federal goverment for defense?

This particular clause would not necessarily eliminate political 'pork', but it would force Congress to be smarter when passing it. Instead of having a rider for Interstate Highway for Alaska in a unrelated bill, it would be placed in a bill of a related topic--an Interstate Highway Improvement bill which would also contain 'pork' for Nebraska, Arkansas, Nevada.....

This would give the President an easer time to sift though what bills are important and which ones are not (relatively speaking), and use his power of veto on those not so important bills.

Federal tax goes to fund the federal government... state tax goes to fund what is necessary to the state. Now, some infrastructure issues are federal and these need to be dealt with, obviously. But I that not allowing riders would focus attention on an issue. I also like the idea of riders on the same topic. But the current system is abused and needs to have restrictions.

It will also take away bill leverage. Some riders are added to gain opposition votes. "You sign my bill and I agree to add in something that will benefit you." I wouldn't mind getting rid of this behavior. It keeps Congress focused. If the opposition does not want a bill, they don't vote to pass it. It's clear and easily tracked.

Most of the nation had the feds re-do their entire infrastructure back in the Eisenhour administration- which laid the ground work for future state projects, which the states could afford to do on their own steam.

I still think the entire rider system is an important check in both executive power and majority vs minority + big states vs Little states.

I also actually agree with the deal making part of this- one of the things that I hate so much about the current politics is the LACK of compromise and deal making. To me, this is what makes a representive democracy work- it keeps the minority etc from being squashed in the proccess, and radicalized due to the proccess.

I equate it, though, of course not as extreme, with the problems in Palestine or Northern Ireland. The majority, or party in power, was not willing to give an inch or compromise or deal make with the opposing party, and perhaps for good reason- but this radicalizes the entire minority, instead of making them complacent with the proccess, if not feeling a little dissatisfied.

So, though the system does relate some abuses, over all I think it is a good thing. If anything, this regime has shown us the need to further decentralize power instead of consolidate it!

I began to read this thread sitting on the fence (the only unsure vote), but to me CruisingRam make's quite a compelling arguement.

Take this for example :


But the opposition is willing to compromise on the bill due to the rider. Compromise being the key word. I can see how it does have flaws and the idea of one bill one subject seems great, but overall it seem's to be a good way to compromise "you get something you want, I get something I want".

This seem's to be the end result of rider's.

I don't believe the rider system was created to be used as a check and balance system. Nor do I believe it should be used as such. That is an abuse in and of itself. Tagging "special interest" riders onto an important piece of legislation -- especially when they have no connection to the subject of the bill -- is a problem. It should never be a situation where a congressman will only give money to support soldiers if he can also get money to some special side project in Liberia (a rider on the bill for supplemental funding for the soldiers in Iraq that became such a topic of discussion during the campaign). Then a senator can say he voted to support the troops, when he wasn't really... he was helping himself and some special interest group at the soldiers' expense.

If a smaller state needs funds, they can campaign for them... Sure make promises to vote on bigger legislation in exchange for support on a smaller bill... That's the job of a politician. But riders confuse the process. I'm not saying we should do away with deal-making. I just think that if a bill has a subject, anything in that bill should be related to that subject.

And you are comparing foreign diplomatic conflicts with the passing of legislation? What does that really have to do with riders on bills passed by Congress?

CR, you say Alaskan's would have lost out in a big way without riders? Maybe so. On the other hand, with them, it seems Alaska is actually taking more than their "fair share" of federal pork dollars. This, from the Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) website:


Hmm, seems that it really helps to have Senators in high places. But, let's take a look at some of those riders, seeing as they are such an important part of Alaska's "growth".

$3 million for "weather research" at the University of Alaska
$150,000 for a botanical garden in Anchorage.
$300,000 for a senior center in Fairbanks.
$1 million for housing upgrades in the Kenai Peninsula.
$900,000 for an aquarium in Ketchikan.
$525,000 for a quarry upgrade in Nome.
$500,000 for the Kincaid Park Soccer and Nordic Ski Center in Anchorage.
Alaska Rep. Don Young wants taxpayers to shell out $200 million for one bridge and $2 billion for the other. Both bridges would benefit virtually no one at a time when the country is running huge deficits, waging war in Iraq, and struggling to find a way to adequately fund everything from homeland security to education.

Now, Alaska is certainly not alone in having the Feds pay for dubious projects and programs:

$200,000 for the Aviation Hall of Fame - $100,000 for the Punxsutawney (Pa) Weather Museum - $3.5 million for bus acquisition in Atlanta - $250,000 for the Country Music Hall of Fame in Nashville - $100,000 for a municipal swimming pool in Ottawa, Kansas - $75,000 for the Paper Industry International Hall of Fame in Appleton, Wisconsin - $25,000 for fitness equipment for the YMCA in Bradford County, Pennsylvania - $4 million for a fertilizer development center in Alabama - $1 million for a Norwegian-American Foundation in Seattle - $6.8 million for 13 Pennsylvania hospitals for construction, renovation, and equipment - $1 million for the YMCA of Western Stark County, Ohio - $50 million to build an enclosed rainforest/aquarium in Iowa (Iowa!) that's slated for a town of just 80,000 residents, and 100 miles from the closest population center (Quad Cities). Never mind that the income projections are grossly overstated for a population five times what this town is. What they need, apparently, is "tourism".

I'm sorry, but at a time when we have people in Congress seriously talking about raising the retirement age and contribution of seniors to get Social Security and Medicare, couldn't we have found better ways to have spent more than $50 Billion at the Federal level? Since when is financing a state run nursing home, or covering the cost of an aquarium or an exercise facility of national importance?

And it's not even a matter of just providing pork to domestic funding. Again, from the CAGW website:

What about spending US funds on those projects that hold the greatest potential for job creation and equal opportunity for the American people? I'm not saying that some of these programs aren't worth consideration. But it looks to me like most of them should be funded strictly locally. Those that aren't should be vetted throught the same process that every other expediture goes through - not tacked onto a totally unrelated bill, and buried in the stack of paperwork.

Why not give single-bill topic, single-vote a try? We could hardly do worse in curtailing unneeded spending than we are doing right now. Let the "Halls of Fame" and city swimming pool projects find a way to finance themselves.

I don't doubt that everyone's priorities are well, more prior than anyone else LOL

Quite frankly, I see everything on this list as at least as important as anything else ever mentioned - but that because it affects me as well. Pretty much everyone of those items listed brought in increased revenue and jobs- a net gain for the feds.

$3 million for "weather research" at the University of Alaska

That was UAF- made big news up here- helping us track global warming.

$150,000 for a botanical garden in Anchorage.
$300,000 for a senior center in Fairbanks.
$1 million for housing upgrades in the Kenai Peninsula.
$900,000 for an aquarium in Ketchikan.
$525,000 for a quarry upgrade in Nome.
$500,000 for the Kincaid Park Soccer and Nordic Ski Center in Anchorage.
Alaska Rep. Don Young wants taxpayers to shell out $200 million for one bridge and $2 billion for the other. Both bridges would benefit virtually no one at a time when the country is running huge deficits, waging war in Iraq, and struggling to find a way to adequately fund everything from homeland security to education.

The 2 billion dollar bridge is especially needed and neccesary- it is no different in need than the road projects in the "lower 48" - I can't think of a higher priority in the US in my mind- this is really critical for the growth of Alaska-

Like I said- those items are very neccesary for our state- and we would never get any help at all without the fact that the rider system exists- we have only 600,000 plus poeple in this state, and it will probably double in the next 10 years- it is actually cheaper to do the work now, than work in crisis mode later.

With only 3 electoral votes, without the checks and balances we would lose out badly, in fact, ignored completely.

Ok, CR, let's assume for a moment that I concede the bridges as being necessary. Even a lot of Alaskans don't agree with you, but let's say they are needed. What's wrong with bringing them up as part of the actual transportation bill, to be discussed and voted on, in a manner that allows Alaska's representatives to defend and justify the expense? Why do they have to be planned in secret, hidden away, and then added to, and buried in, an unrelated appropriations bill, if the expense is justifiable?

$2.2 billion for just two bridges? That's more than the entire appropriations for 41 other states. It's twice the appropriation for highway funds for the state of New Jersey, where considering the population density, I would argue that maybe, just maybe, the money could be better spent. Quite frankly, if it's about ensuring that these small, depressed areas get funds so that the local population has a decent income, wouldn't it be cheaper to just pay these folks directly? $2.2 billion would certainly cover a fair number of people for a lot of years.

And what about all the other stuff I mentioned? Municipal swimming pools, athletic centers, gardens, senior centers, and the like?

Self described conservatives here love to rant and rail about the government "stealing" their tax dollars to pay for things like Social Security, or welfare, or healthcare, because they "are not going to receive any benefit" from these things. I would argue differently, of course. The overall benefits to the country are more than just fiscal in those cases.

But why aren't they ranting about this abuse? How much benefit are they going to get from the Paper Industry Hall of Fame, or that swimming pool in Kansas. What compelling need is there to "steal" my tax dollars to pay for upgrades to the Country Music Hall of Fame? Why should the federal government require me, a resident in Illinois, to pay for a YMCA in nowheresville, Ohio?

Let these people put the bills up for an honest discussion of how they will benefit the country as a whole, one bill at a time. Let's see if the American people as a whole feel it's right to finance these items, most of which they will never get a benefit from, rather than the local or state governments.

Exactly. I am at a loss to understand the logic here. If these projects are oh, so wonderful for the rest of the country that they offer a fantastic cost to benefits ratio for all of us, why would't they survive on their own merits?


Well, they raised hell about pork projects during the last administration. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to know why they don't say much now.

I think it's a good idea, though i am not sure how to inject it into the legislative process.

It would shed light on the pork...and seperate the pork from the truly needed local adjustments. A bill should be able to stand on it's own merit.
It would eliminate the "add a subject to kill a subject" part of he process.

The only drawback I see is the time involved in addressing items on an individual basis.

Exactly. I am at a loss to understand the logic here. If these projects are oh, so wonderful for the rest of the country that they offer a fantastic cost to benefits ratio for all of us, why would't they survive on their own merits?






It is all about equity and fairness- when has anything that survived under it's own merits?

There is no way, without the rider system, that a small state like Alaska would get anything. There is nothing in this state that would EVER rise to "benefit to us all" in someone's mind that lives 6000 miles from here.

(BTW- one bridge, the cheaper one, is seen by most as pork boondoggle, though the more expensive one, the bridge between Anchorage and Wassilla, is definately widely supported)

Like I said- most of the "Lower 48" had THEIR stuff provided "for the good of the nation" back in the 50s- and we missed all that- and still have to fight for every dime we get, neccesary or unneccesary, just to bring us up to the same infrastructure boom that the "lower 48" already enjoyed.