NationStates Jolt Archive

I tried to make the title as non-US-centric as I could, because I don't want just US opinions on this. Here goes:

The US Senate just passed a Defense Appropriations Bill that funds the military for the coming fiscal year. Attached to the bill was a rider (or whatever they call it when they do this) making hate crimes law applicable to sexual orientation and gender identity (and some other categories that weren't covered by the original hate crimes concept).

I suppose the notion is that Bush would veto the new hate crimes categories on their own, but will be hard pressed to veto a bill when it contains military appropriations. My question to General is manifold:

Is this any way to make law? Playing "gotcha" politics with issues by attaching them to critical spending bills? Can anyone tell me where this procedure came from and how it was ever rationalized as a good thing? I realize that the pork barrel/mutual favors idea has something to do with it (I'll pass your jobs bill if you approve this rider that mandates a certain amount of them come into my district), but this seems intellectually dishonest.

It's as if the senate (all Democrats, the Independents and seven Republicans in the case of this particular rider) KNOWS the hate crimes additions would never get approved on their own, so, like a child trying to sneak brussels sprouts off his dinner plate in his napkin, they attach it to something they know the President will have a hard time saying "no" to.

They think (or so it seems) that if the President vetos this bill with the rider, they can tar him as somehow not supporting the troops. Now I'm no Bush supporter, but isn't this just plain stupid? Bush is going to veto the living hell out of this bill (assuming that it gets reconciled with the House version anyway) and not be seen as unsupportive of the troops because he can point to congress and say "they tried to add a completely unrelated social engineering rider to the bill". And we're back to square zero.

I'm no senator, but if I can see that this childish tactic will fail, why can't they? Isn't this just a colossal waste of time and taxpayer money?

Finally, do legislations around the world work like this, too? What say the Generalites?

first off, assuming politics won't be political is silly. Secondly, they passed a bill accomplishing multiple things. That's Congress' perogative. They can create a bill accomplishing multiple objectives. The president can then decide whether to take it all, or leave it all. He doesn't get to cherry pick the parts of a bill he likes.

And frankly speaking, a little of "you get what you want when we get what we want" is healthy and good for the democratic process. It requires compromise. It requires parties to meet each other half way.

What you suggest of split them up and keep them seperate would be exactly what you said would happen. One bill would win, the other would not. That's not compromise. That's not meeting half way. This is.

Riders do a lot what the democratic process is supposed to do, create compromise.

While I detest riders, this one should already have been a law -- it IS a hate crime, whether you like it or not.

It's why West Virginia has so many highways.

Is this any way to make law? Playing "gotcha" politics with issues by attaching them to critical spending bills? Can anyone tell me where this procedure came from and how it was ever rationalized as a good thing? I realize that the pork barrel/mutual favors idea has something to do with it (I'll pass your jobs bill if you approve this rider that mandates a certain amount of them come into my district), but this seems intellectually dishonest.

It's as if the senate (all Democrats, the Independents and seven Republicans in the case of this particular rider) KNOWS the hate crimes additions would never get approved on their own, so, like a child trying to sneak brussels sprouts off his dinner plate in his napkin, they attach it to something they know the President will have a hard time saying "no" to.

Bills can do as many things as they are written to do, so putting civil rights with defense spending is allowed, intellectually dishonest or not. Since the President's only option is pass or veto, this forces Bush to actually compromise on the civil rights legislation, or at least debate it instead of vetoing it outright, if he wants his defense money. It's part of politics to compromise, even if you have to get the other side to the bargaining table with tactics like this bill.

They think (or so it seems) that if the President vetos this bill with the rider, they can tar him as somehow not supporting the troops. Now I'm no Bush supporter, but isn't this just plain stupid? Bush is going to veto the living hell out of this bill (assuming that it gets reconciled with the House version anyway) and not be seen as unsupportive of the troops because he can point to congress and say "they tried to add a completely unrelated social engineering rider to the bill". And we're back to square zero.
Bush won't settle for a stalemate, because vetoing the defense spending will just get another spending bill with a rider sent to his desk. He and his administration know that someone will have to give on the issue or else his defense funds will never get to him, which is the whole point of the rider. The supporters of the rider can't override a veto, but they can mess with any other legislation that comes their way to force a compromise. The public relations aspect you mention is hardly the primary goal of this rider, especially since Bush's rating are already horribly low and the elections for his replacement are so close.

While I detest riders, this one should already have been a law -- it IS a hate crime, whether you like it or not.

People should be punished for what they do, not what they're thinking while they do it.

People should be punished for what they do, not what they're thinking while they do it.

uh huh, sure. Funny how we make murder and manslaughter different things. But ah hell, let's just get rid of the concept of mens rea all together!

Now, do you have anything on topic to add?

They could easily do the same thing without the ability to attach riders. The only difference is they would have to just come out and say "we're only passing your defense spending if you sign our civil rights legislation" and that would take longer, be blunter, and be less efficient.

Now it's when hundreds of riders are hidden in a bill that I begin to have problems...

They could easily do the same thing without the ability to attach riders. The only difference is they would have to just come out and say "we're only passing your defense spending if you sign our civil rights legislation" and that would take longer, be blunter, and be less efficient.



And totally non binding, as congress can not obligate the president to do anything, nor can the president obligate congress. So if Bush says "ok give me the defense bill now, I'll sign it, then pass your civil rights bill and I'll sign it" there's nothing at all binding him to that word.

Conversley the other way, nothing holding the senate to its word either.

It sorta has to be an all or nothing proposition

Seems fine to me. Why must a bill that primarily deals with the defense budget only deal with the defense budget? Bills don't need to be pigeonholed into categories.

And totally non binding, as congress can not obligate the president to do anything, nor can the president obligate congress. So if Bush says "ok give me the defense bill now, I'll sign it, then pass your civil rights bill and I'll sign it" there's nothing at all binding him to that word.

Conversley the other way, nothing holding the senate to its word either.

It sorta has to be an all or nothing proposition


Or they could be moderately intelligent and make him sign their bill before producing his defense bill at all. It would all be much messier, with more backstabbing and reneging, but it would be essentially the same.

Or they could be moderately intelligent and make him sign their bill before producing his defense bill at all. .

Yeah, I already covered that. Why would a president agree to that if there is nothing binding the congress from producing that bill after the fact?

That seems to be only way things get done at the national level so I'm okay with it. Compromise is almost always a good thing.

It is deplorable. If a law cannot stand on its own, it should not be passed.
Riders like this is how we get millions of dollars being spent to build warehouses for peanut growers.

This is also why corporations buy politicians - they can put some change in regulations into law which greatly favors them and screws over everyone else.

Were politicians upstanding gentlemen, we wouldnt have this problem. Alas, we elect disreputable types that get away with adding 300 pages of new regulations written directly by a pharmaceutical company onto a random bill, and nobody calls them on it.

If something is not a good enough idea to pass on its own, maybe it shouldnt be passed.

It is deplorable. If a law cannot stand on its own, it should not be passed.
Riders like this is how we get millions of dollars being spent to build warehouses for peanut growers.

This is also why corporations buy politicians - they can put some change in regulations into law which greatly favors them and screws over everyone else.

Were politicians upstanding gentlemen, we wouldnt have this problem. Alas, we elect disreputable types that get away with adding 300 pages of new regulations written directly by a pharmaceutical company onto a random bill, and nobody calls them on it.

If something is not a good enough idea to pass on its own, maybe it shouldnt be passed.

Something being a good idea doesn't guarantee it'll pass. And vice versa. Bush has already indicated that he may veto this Bill(linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Sheppard#Hate_crime_legislation_proposed)). And for examples of the latter, I direct your attention to the PATRIOT Act and DOMA.

first off, assuming politics won't be political is silly. Secondly, they passed a bill accomplishing multiple things. That's Congress' perogative. They can create a bill accomplishing multiple objectives. The president can then decide whether to take it all, or leave it all. He doesn't get to cherry pick the parts of a bill he likes.

And frankly speaking, a little of "you get what you want when we get what we want" is healthy and good for the democratic process. It requires compromise. It requires parties to meet each other half way.

What you suggest of split them up and keep them seperate would be exactly what you said would happen. One bill would win, the other would not. That's not compromise. That's not meeting half way. This is.

Riders do a lot what the democratic process is supposed to do, create compromise.

Okay, I see that point of view and accept it as valid, even if it means some of the more ridiculous riders are allowed.

But just because "that's the way it is", does that mean it should be that way?

I'm reading in most of these responses that the give-and-take of riders is a way to avoid what would be a more "messy" give-and-take of open compromise. But why not make the process open? Why not make legislators and the President say things like "I don't like your bill, but if you pass my defense spending bill, I won't veto your hate crimes bill" or something to that effect?

I suppose what gets me about the way it is now is that very few people have the patience or time to wade through the aforementioned 300 pages of riders to find pork legends like "bridges to nowhere" or like boondoggles. Then again, I guess that's why the old saw goes "there are two things nobody should ever see made: sausage and legislation."

EDIT: Also, I have begun to dislike the snark and "my reality versus your reality" that's overtaken politics and the news. I know some will say that it's always been like that, but it seems worse now than it's been in my memory (and I'm old enough to remember Tip O'Neill). If you mention a news source as where you've heard about something you are concerned about, the first thing an opponent does now is discredit your source. As in "you heard that on NPR? Well, they're a bunch of bleeding heart commies." So what? Answer my question unless you can't. Maybe it's two years of having only Rush and Hannity and Larson and the like when NPR switches to music for the day. I hear Rush call out the arrogance of the media while bieng incredibly arrogant himself and all kinds of intellectual dishonesty both in the media and on display in congress, and I wonder "how does anyone know what's the truth or what's right or who to believe anymore?"

I'm not asking NSG to solve that problem for me (I know better), but I'd like to hear opinions on the state of dishonesty and disingenuity in public discourse of all kinds.

Here's another possible outcome. Dear Leader signs the bill into law, then issues a Signing Statement which effectively says "Fuck the Fags."

Here in Britain riders don't seem to be the done thing. I can't disagree with what the rider said in this particular case but I'm against them. I think each piece of legislation should be debated and voted on its own merits. Sticking on riders just to gain the support of other MPs/Congressmen on the basis of constituency issues distracts from the original purpose of the legislation. Plus it could encourage wasteful spending, with an entire state or country ending up paying for services that only a certain area gets, all to buy the political support of that area's representative (Is that what Americans refer to when they talk of pork barrel spending?).

Logrolling is a time-honored tradition among politicians. You guys ought to read some good ole Public Choice theory.

Anthony Downs "An Economic Theory of Democracy" and
James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock "The Calculus of Consent"
are great for starters.


The Florida Constitution has a "single subject" rule, so that an act can ONLY deal with one topic. It also requires that appropriations bills ONLY contain appropriations and not substantive law. I would love to see an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that accomplishes these things, but I'm afraid our federal government would come to a grinding halt. Oh, who am I kidding? I'm not afraid, I rather relish the thought.

Here's another possible outcome. Dear Leader signs the bill into law, then issues a Signing Statement which effectively says "Fuck the Fags."

In what way?

I suppose the notion is that Bush would veto the new hate crimes categories on their own, but will be hard pressed to veto a bill when it contains military appropriations. My question to General is manifold:

Is this any way to make law? Playing "gotcha" politics with issues by attaching them to critical spending bills? Can anyone tell me where this procedure came from and how it was ever rationalized as a good thing? I realize that the pork barrel/mutual favors idea has something to do with it (I'll pass your jobs bill if you approve this rider that mandates a certain amount of them come into my district), but this seems intellectually dishonest.

It's as if the senate (all Democrats, the Independents and seven Republicans in the case of this particular rider) KNOWS the hate crimes additions would never get approved on their own, so, like a child trying to sneak brussels sprouts off his dinner plate in his napkin, they attach it to something they know the President will have a hard time saying "no" to.

They think (or so it seems) that if the President vetos this bill with the rider, they can tar him as somehow not supporting the troops. Now I'm no Bush supporter, but isn't this just plain stupid? Bush is going to veto the living hell out of this bill (assuming that it gets reconciled with the House version anyway) and not be seen as unsupportive of the troops because he can point to congress and say "they tried to add a completely unrelated social engineering rider to the bill". And we're back to square zero.

I'm no senator, but if I can see that this childish tactic will fail, why can't they? Isn't this just a colossal waste of time and taxpayer money?
You mean like the way Kerry initially voted for a bill supporting the use of force in Iraq, then voted against the subsequent bill because the Whitehouse and GOP had attached so much pork and riders that had nothing to do with the war whatsoever?
And then how this childish tactic of forcing ppl into voting for things they didn't want backfired on the Whitehouse and GOP because everyone could see through their childish antics, everyone supported Kerry's stand and no-one in the world dreamt of calling him a 'Flip-Flopper' because he first supported a bill then voted against it's subsequent pork-ladened rewrite?

You mean something like that?

It's as if the senate (all Democrats, the Independents and seven Republicans in the case of this particular rider) KNOWS the hate crimes additions would never get approved on their own, so, like a child trying to sneak brussels sprouts off his dinner plate in his napkin, they attach it to something they know the President will have a hard time saying "no" to.


It's more akin to 16 people at a party all agreeing to order a pizza with pepperoni, one guy they invited six days ago and don't really like any more saying it's either just cheese or there's no pizza at all, and then those 16 people ordering a pepperoni pizza with extra cheese.

Or.. something. I don't know. I'm pretty hungry.

But this kind of stuff happens with bills all the time, from what I know of the American political system. It may be intellectually dishonest, but.. Should Bush really get an unlimited amount of vetos? He throws the damn things around like candy, and I think Congress is justified in doing what it can to get around that man's temper tantrums.

Here's another possible outcome. Dear Leader signs the bill into law, then issues a Signing Statement which effectively says "Fuck the Fags."

That kinky bastard! ;)

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13090831']Here in Britain riders don't seem to be the done thing.
No, because they are pretty much unnecessary. The government almost always has a parliamentary majority (because we have an executive dependant on the legislature) which means the government should always be able to pass its legislative programme without fear of veto, or loss of parliamentary support.

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13090831']I can't disagree with what the rider said in this particular case but I'm against them. I think each piece of legislation should be debated and voted on its own merits. Sticking on riders just to gain the support of other MPs/Congressmen on the basis of constituency issues distracts from the original purpose of the legislation. Plus it could encourage wasteful spending, with an entire state or country ending up paying for services that only a certain area gets, all to buy the political support of that area's representative (Is that what Americans refer to when they talk of pork barrel spending?).
I think you're confusing riders and pork, although I can't see why they can't happen at the same time.

Here's another possible outcome. Dear Leader signs the bill into law, then issues a Signing Statement which effectively says "Fuck the Fags."
What? You think he'll make it compulsory for us to do so?

I BEFRIEND CHESTNUTS;13090831']Here in Britain riders don't seem to be the done thing. I can't disagree with what the rider said in this particular case but I'm against them. I think each piece of legislation should be debated and voted on its own merits. Sticking on riders just to gain the support of other MPs/Congressmen on the basis of constituency issues distracts from the original purpose of the legislation. Plus it could encourage wasteful spending, with an entire state or country ending up paying for services that only a certain area gets, all to buy the political support of that area's representative (Is that what Americans refer to when they talk of pork barrel spending?).

If the rider includes a jobs package, major construction/infrastructure work, or something large and costly to build like that, then yes, that's what is meant by "pork barrel" spending.

You mean like the way Kerry initially voted for a bill supporting the use of force in Iraq, then voted against the subsequent bill because the Whitehouse and GOP had attached so much pork and riders that had nothing to do with the war whatsoever?
And then how this childish tactic of forcing ppl into voting for things they didn't want backfired on the Whitehouse and GOP because everyone could see through their childish antics, everyone supported Kerry's stand and no-one in the world dreamt of calling him a 'Flip-Flopper' because he first supported a bill then voted against it's subsequent pork-ladened rewrite?

You mean something like that?

Exactly like that. Go look for nuance in American politics.

I suppose what gets me about the way it is now is that very few people have the patience or time to wade through the aforementioned 300 pages of riders to find pork legends like "bridges to nowhere" or like boondoggles. Then again, I guess that's why the old saw goes "there are two things nobody should ever see made: sausage and legislation."Then perhaps it should be made mandatory for all legislators to read the bills they're voting on?

What? You think he'll make it compulsory for us to do so?

I meant he would use a Signing Statement as a Line Item Veto as always, basically declaring his intention to *not* enforce the hate crime provision.