It's broke. Time to fix it. Article #6

It's been awhile since the last time I posted one of these, so you may want to go back and at least catch the intro.

It's broke . . . 

There has been a desire that Congress must prove the constitutionality of any bill they bring up for a vote. Congress, of course, has ignored this desire and have fought against such a "mandate". Why? Such a mandate would force them to have to read the Constitution and would tie their hands when it comes to attacks upon our liberty.

When it comes to a socially-emphasized agenda, any restrictions against such an agenda must be ignored at all costs. Of course, once a bill has become law, lawyers are brought in (happily lining their pockets) as lawsuits are filed against such laws. While those lawsuits are in process, the new law is considered "good" until proven otherwise. The longer the process, the more entrenched those laws become - forming judicial "precedents" that are often viewed as more legally binding than the very Constitution our system is based upon.

Why not force Congress to prove that the bill they are proposing IS constitutional to begin with? Would we have to worry about attacks against the 2nd Amendment that take away our liberty - empowering those who desire to harm us (not just criminals - a.k.a. "lawbreakers", but the very government that oversteps its bounds), or our 1st Amendment rights to voice opinions such as these, and to worship anywhere we so desire (including "public" property)?

I think it is time for those very politicians who have taken an OATH to serve and protect the Constitution of the United States to accept that they are not our gods, but our servants. And that we the people should not have to provide the leg work to prove when they are out of line to prove a law is unconstitutional.

. . . time to fix it!

© Emittravel 2013

Stuff My Brain Says #54

I just read that Congress has proposed the addition of an online sales tax as a rider to the defense authorization bill. It's not that I'm for or against an online sales tax, I'm just mad that these bozos put the two together. What does an online sales tax have to do with defense?? Answer: not a damn thing.

For more on this, see my blog article on the concept of one bill, one vote.

© Emittravel 2012

Stuff My Brain Says #37

Wait. Either it is, or it isn't. On one hand we have the coveted "Buffet Rule" (an increased tax percentage on the so-called "wealthy") that is being touted as truly fair by our President. You see, according to the Buffet Rule, wealthy people are not paying enough in taxes and it's not fair - so says Warren Buffet, the one for whom the bill is named. On the other hand, we have people like Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Senator Robert Casey (D-PA) who want to make it so that any person with a net worth of over so much who leaves the country and renounces their citizenship as having left PRIMARILY for tax reasons, and bar them from ever returning to the country. You see, there is a gentleman named Eduardo Saverin (a co-founder of Facebook) who is doing that very thing. Wait. I thought all wealthy people felt they didn't pay enough in taxes and should pay more. Why would anyone want to ever leave this country based on paying too much? Which way do you want it? Either they want to pay more or they don't. It can't be both.

© Emittravel 2012

It's Broke. Time to fix it. Article #1

It's broke . . .

Okay, so we got politicians in Washington that are known to do the least amount of damage when they are on recess. The economy has a spike upwards, the stock market is strengthened, and, due to the lack of toxic hot air spewing from those who only love the sound of their own voices, the temperature in our nation's capital returns to non-global-warming levels. But since they DO spend time in Washington pushing through legislation, and since that seems to be their only purpose (spending the PEOPLE'S money), here is an idea to help control the fiscal damage they produce: One Bill, One Vote, No Riders.

One of the reasons that spending is so out of control, is that there are so many items attached to a bill that has nothing to do with the original bill. You have heard the phrase "pork-barrel spending".

Initial bill (thanks Schoolhouse Rock!)



After the bill makes the political rounds . . .

How in the world does money to investigate the affect of fruit flies on road construction have to do with defense spending? (Okay, I made that example up, but to be honest, the actual spending is less believable.) Nothing. Not a thing. So, how do those things possibly pass? They pass as riders. Have you heard John Kerry say he voted FOR something BEFORE he voted against something? Once you have picked yourself up from the floor, and think about it, you realize he may ACTUALLY be telling the truth. Here's how: He voted FOR something only because he was voting FOR something that this particular item was attached to. When that same item later comes up for a vote he can vote against it. You see, just because a politician voted on something in a way you disliked, does not mean he was not properly representing you. You have to determine if the item was a rider on a bill that he SHOULD have voted for. (This logic also works in the reverse.) By the way, this was only an example; he may really be as insane as he sounds.

The solution is that each bill presented ONLY receives a vote for THAT bill. No riders. If you want spending to take place for that bridge to nowhere, it MUST be voted on separately. This would first eliminate such spending (who wants to admit to ACTUALLY voting for such things), and second, provide a more accurate voting record to view at election time.

And one other thing: with One Bill, One Vote, No Riders, the need for a Presidential line-item veto becomes moot.

. . . time to fix it!

©Emittravel 2010