When I was doing a little bit of research about caucuses last week, I checked out current bills floating around the U.S. Capitol that might be of interest. I wanted to find examples of legislation that all citizens could possibly agree on—Democrat, Republican, Independent or Green. I think I may have found something.
I wish I could introduce the legislative idea without telling you where it originated, the way my dad would like bills to be made. For years my dad has said legislators should be confined to a soundproof booth when bills are introduced. Our congressional representatives shouldn’t be able to see or hear who is presenting an idea. Everything possible should be done to prevent the decision makers from knowing just where the idea is coming from.
Then, in theory, legislators would vote on the merits of the proposed legislation, not because the political party they are beholden to is introducing the idea. If they don’t know the idea is coming from Senator So-and-so who voted against them last week, perhaps they would be more willing to sign on to a piece of legislation.
Alas, there is no way to put Dad’s idea into practice. But I do like it.
Just as I like the news report I found about Representative Mia Love (R-Utah) who had introduced HR 4335: One Subject at a Time Act, a measure to limit bills in Congress to one subject at a time. Love, elected to her congressional seat in 2014, hopes to prevent lawmakers from bundling things together or folding legislation into large appropriations bills. Each bill would rise and fall on its own merits.
Handling one subject at a time would prevent the time wasted in debate over bills, when one party or the other won’t vote yes because of some unpalatable subject attached.
It would also eliminate the campaign tactic of candidates pointing to such votes, claiming their opponent voted against helping the elderly, funding our veterans programs, or saving Social Security. Not, of course, because the opponent is opposed to the core issue, but because there was something else attached regarding women’s rights or nuclear treaties or something completely unrelated.
I don’t know if anyone falls for those campaign tactics. I know I don’t. When I see an ad blaring that candidate So-and-so voted against this bill and now puppies are going to die, I know there is more to the story. I think Representative Love’s bill could put an end to this political posturing, so I support it. I’m going to jot a note to our Minnesota representatives, asking them if they’ve heard about the bill and asking them to get behind it.
Unfortunately I don’t think Representative Love will get the One Subject bill passed. She hasn’t been in the House of Representatives long enough to gain the allies needed—this is where Dad’s idea would come in handy. I don’t know if one representative can overcome the “this is the way we’ve always done it” attitude of Congress.
But, as I said last week when I was encouraging everyone to attend a caucus on March 1, there might be another way. The idea could take the grassroots route to change. If our legislative representatives heard this idea from the attendees at the caucuses, the county conventions, the national conventions— of both the Democratic and Republican parties—it could just happen.
And if it did, we could then start to work on my dad’s idea. Any ideas on how to make a congressional soundproof booth?
I have wondered at
times what the Ten
Commandments would
have looked like if Moses
had run them through the
U.S. Congress.
Ronald Reagan
Leave a Reply