Would we take all the bills proposed over a year's span, lump them all into one, and pass them as a single bill? Why, then do we place all our funding in single bill? Seems dysfunctional, to me. I watched a video of Sen. Mike Lee of Utah trying to persuade his fellow Congress members to change the practice, and I agree with him that it is not at all the way to run a government.
As I listened to him, my mind flipped back to a news story I saw Thursday. "House votes to arm Syrian rebels," it was titled, but when a got a few paragraphs in, I read how the legislation to arm Syrian rebels was part of the same bill allowing the federal government to operate normally after the budget year ends Sept. 30. Yes, it was tied to the spending approval. I later learned funding for war efforts in the Ukraine was also tossed into the bill. How's that for an all-or-none approach: You can approve the spending and the wars, or you can deny the spending and the wars. One doesn't come without the other. Now, if you are against the war efforts, you might be stuck voting for them, anyway, for how do you vote against funding the government?
Slapping any rider into a bill is a bad practice. Each issue should be considered on its own merits. But, placing all funding in a single bill, and slipping in war measures, to boot, is taking this practice a bit too far.
No comments:
Post a Comment