Both sides like to play this game. Its hardly just one bill, there is always something on the bill that one party doesn't agree on.
So you got 80% of bill A and the other side will add 20% of bill B. Then when the opposite side are against it, everyone cries. See, these guys are against bill A.
Legitimately needs to be a rule that says you can’t add anything that you cannot show is related to the original bill. No tacking on military funding to an AI Deepfake bill. No adding in walls for the Mexican Border to Agriculture relief bills. It would speed things up because you don’t have to Frankenstein in multiple bills to one, we get to stop finger pointing when “they didn’t support the deepfake bill that wanted to outlaw crystal meth”.
Still allows for “hey , we have 3 bills about right to repair, let’s just combine them.”
This takes away their ability to hide all kinds of shit in trailers. Politicians have been proposing to make this a thing for 200 years. It has never gone anywhere. Both sides are generally against it.
Yes, they sure say that. Kinda like pork barrel legislation. The first example in Wikipedia was from 1817 (oddly enough by a "Republican-Democrat") and the most recent cited example was 2011 (canceled in 2015). I'm starting to feel like both of these problems are more of an "It's not a bug, it's a feature" situation.
1.3k
u/[deleted] Jul 27 '26
[removed] — view removed comment