NationStates Jolt Archive

The most recent "emergency" military appropriations bill was just sent to the US Senate after perfunctory debate in the House, where it passed. [The cost of the war has now topped $300B.]

Attached to this bill is a kind of illegal immigration reform that includes an unfunded mandate to force states to make one driver's license for citizens -- that can be used to vote, board ariplanes, and in short do a kind of state/federal double duty -- and another type of license for aliens not "in the pipeline" for citizenship. This driving-only license would not be valid for boarding planes, voting or anything federal.

While I abhor the notion that we're essentially creating second-class citizens as well as yet another abandonment of "smaller government" principles by the party that's supposed to champion that concept, that's not what I'm angry about.

Attaching a bill that needs to be debated and held up to scrutiny to such an emotionally-charged and patriotism-soaked bill like military appropriations is just plain underhanded. I have never cared which party does it, "poison pill" riders and other attachments to bills that can't be killed by honest debate is a sneaky and childish way to legislate.

What congressman or senator is going to be seen as "anti-troops" by voting against money for the military during a war? It's foul, cowardly and incredibly pushy. If you can't get the dual ID bill to pass in its own right, that should tell you something -- perhaps the constituencies don't LIKE it (that's idealistic, to be sure, but still possible).

My question, then, is this: when and how did this practice start and how has the Legislative Branch allowed it to become the bastion of playground bullies from the party in power? Was there ever a good reason for this concept to be used?

*Forgive any inaccuracies, I heard this report on the radio and my short-term memory is like that of a mayfly.*

It's a way of passing legislation that would never pass anyway, by attaching it to a popular bill. The reasoning is people won't read it. They usually don't. That's why I dislike humans, they give in so much to their own psychology.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

If true, that really, really, really sucks.

Way to screw over people.

It's a way of passing legislation that would never pass anyway, by attaching it to a popular bill. The reasoning is people won't read it. They usually don't. That's why I dislike humans, they give in so much to their own psychology.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

And if they actually do read the legislation and do vote against it their voting record will just get used against them when they go and try to... oh, I don't know... run for president or something... :rolleyes:

And if they actually do read the legislation and do vote against it their voting record will just get used against them when they go and try to... oh, I don't know... run for president or something... :rolleyes:How many of them are going to run for president anyway?

~Czardas, Supreme(ly Cynical) Ruler of the Universe

The most recent "emergency" military appropriations bill was just sent to the US Senate after perfunctory debate in the House, where it passed. [The cost of the war has now topped $300B.]

Attached to this bill is a kind of illegal immigration reform that includes an unfunded mandate to force states to make one driver's license for citizens -- that can be used to vote, board ariplanes, and in short do a kind of state/federal double duty -- and another type of license for aliens not "in the pipeline" for citizenship. This driving-only license would not be valid for boarding planes, voting or anything federal.

While I abhor the notion that we're essentially creating second-class citizens as well as yet another abandonment of "smaller government" principles by the party that's supposed to champion that concept, that's not what I'm angry about.

Attaching a bill that needs to be debated and held up to scrutiny to such an emotionally-charged and patriotism-soaked bill like military appropriations is just plain underhanded. I have never cared which party does it, "poison pill" riders and other attachments to bills that can't be killed by honest debate is a sneaky and childish way to legislate.

What congressman or senator is going to be seen as "anti-troops" by voting against money for the military during a war? It's foul, cowardly and incredibly pushy. If you can't get the dual ID bill to pass in its own right, that should tell you something -- perhaps the constituencies don't LIKE it (that's idealistic, to be sure, but still possible).

My question, then, is this: when and how did this practice start and how has the Legislative Branch allowed it to become the bastion of playground bullies from the party in power? Was there ever a good reason for this concept to be used?

*Forgive any inaccuracies, I heard this report on the radio and my short-term memory is like that of a mayfly.*
1 Aliens are by definition not citizens, therefor we aren't creating second class citizens.

2 You are absolutely correct on your main point. It's no way to get just laws passed. It's been going on as long as I can remember, and it never struck me as fair.

I think that enough political officicials have took a strong stance against the war that it won't make a difference if a senator actually votes against this bill. The voting record can be used to show that the official didn't support the war, but if they were already protesting the war on tv it really doesn't matter. If the majority of Congress really does think the attatched bill is a bad idea then it probably won't pass.

You're right. The real problem has been sidestepped again. That is the problem of controlling who is in this country. There is barely a pol in DC that takes it seriously. You know we have to pay Medicare and Medicaid benefits to illegals now? What a load of crap! We really need to just round them up, deport them, and don't let them just walk back in.