Zika Virus Bill

[zeke4ahs]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ther-zika-failure_us_57cf13c0e4b03d2d4596b6e4 This is exactly the reason that people hate Congress and politics in general and the reason nothing gets done. Tying Planned Parenthood and the Confederate Flag to Zika funding? I realize both parties do this, but Congress has been on break all summer, finally get back, and this is what happens to a serious medical concern. I don't know what needs to be done, but bills should be introduced and passed with the intent of taking care of the main issue, not tacking on things that have nothing to do with the problem.

 

[VanPastorMan]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ther-zika-failure_us_57cf13c0e4b03d2d4596b6e4 This is exactly the reason that people hate Congress and politics in general and the reason nothing gets done. Tying Planned Parenthood and the Confederate Flag to Zika funding? I realize both parties do this, but Congress has been on break all summer, finally get back, and this is what happens to a serious medical concern. I don't know what needs to be done, but bills should be introduced and passed with the intent of taking care of the main issue, not tacking on things that have nothing to do with the problem.

I understand your frustration. But I would like to point out that bills becoming laws should be difficult. You have to fight and argue your way to the best law possible. When you just rush things through then you set yourself up for unintended consequences. I would point to the Affordable Care Act. It was rammed through without one Republican vote and now we see many of the exchanges are in serious trouble. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/30/u...ces-are-in-trouble-what-can-be-done.html?_r=0
I don't agree with everything in the above article,but it at least they point to some of the problems. My point is what if Republicans and Democrats had argued and debated the ACA instead of it getting rammed through? Perhaps we would have come to a compromise that worked better. Yeah, I hear ya. It's frustrating. But living with bad law is more frustrating.

 

[mjvcaj]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ther-zika-failure_us_57cf13c0e4b03d2d4596b6e4 This is exactly the reason that people hate Congress and politics in general and the reason nothing gets done. Tying Planned Parenthood and the Confederate Flag to Zika funding? I realize both parties do this, but Congress has been on break all summer, finally get back, and this is what happens to a serious medical concern. I don't know what needs to be done, but bills should be introduced and passed with the intent of taking care of the main issue, not tacking on things that have nothing to do with the problem.

And you wonder where Trump's popularity came from...

Republicans should be ashamed of themselves. Actions like this should be impeachable, but are a product of a broken system. The problem is... how does the system get fixed where individual legislation is no longer allowed to have any additional pieces or attachments (pork barrel bullshit)?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

The problem is... how does the system get fixed where individual legislation is no longer allowed to have any additional pieces or attachments (pork barrel bullshit)?

Well, I really liked the idea of the line-item veto -- which was passed by the Gingrich/Dole Congress, and signed into law by Bill Clinton....only to be tossed out in the courts as a violation of the separation of powers. I guess I understand that. But, then, I'd also say that if Congress passed laws in a piecemeal fashion (as they should, but aren't compelled to), then presidents could veto what they wanted and sign what they wanted. And, besides, Congress was specifically seeking to give the president this power. It's not like the president was trying to assume a power on his own.

That said, presidential impoundment wouldn't be a terrible substitute for the line-item veto. This merely says that presidents aren't compelled to spend funds appropriated by Congress. Presidents had this power up until Nixon and the Carl Albert-era Democrats were frequently clashing -- and Congress strictly limited presidential impoundment authority...limits that were upheld in the courts.

Most states' governors still have impoundment authority. And this helps immensely to keep the reins on legislative hijinks like this.

I think it would be great to return this power to the presidency -- for various reasons, this being one of them.

 

[Noodle]

I understand your frustration. But I would like to point out that bills becoming laws should be difficult. You have to fight and argue your way to the best law possible. When you just rush things through then you set yourself up for unintended consequences. I would point to the Affordable Care Act. It was rammed through without one Republican vote and now we see many of the exchanges are in serious trouble. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/30/u...ces-are-in-trouble-what-can-be-done.html?_r=0
I don't agree with everything in the above article,but it at least they point to some of the problems. My point is what if Republicans and Democrats had argued and debated the ACA instead of it getting rammed through? Perhaps we would have come to a compromise that worked better. Yeah, I hear ya. It's frustrating. But living with bad law is more frustrating.

Utter nonsense. They are not arguing or debating the merits of the funding for combatting Zika. No, the Republicans are arguing "hey, if you really want this money to combat Zika, then accept all of this other crap we threw in the bill." It's bullshit. And I'm a Republican.

And most bills, the garden variety type, do take a long time to work their way through Congress--even those that end up with near-unanimous, bipartisan support. I know that from firsthand experience. Took many years to convince Congress to pass the ABLE Act. That law allows people with disabilities to have 401k type accounts without sacrificing Medicaid eligibility--basically, ABLE accounts act as Special Needs Trusts without the huge expense of hiring an attorney and trustee for the latter. A great law that was really needed.

Yes, I fully understand that it is frequently necessary to amend bills focused on one issue so as to include other proposed legislation. Our Congress could not function without that, particularly for minor legislative measures that would get buried if Congress could only consider single issue bills. However, that should not happen for something like Zika funding--especially when those proposing an amendment know that it is certain to kill the bill. Frankly, it's disgusting.

 

[Noodle]

Well, I really liked the idea of the line-item veto -- which was passed by the Gingrich/Dole Congress, and signed into law by Bill Clinton....only to be tossed out in the courts as a violation of the separation of powers. I guess I understand that. But, then, I'd also say that if Congress passed laws in a piecemeal fashion (as they should, but aren't compelled to), then presidents could veto what they wanted and sign what they wanted. And, besides, Congress was specifically seeking to give the president this power. It's not like the president was trying to assume a power on his own.

That said, presidential impoundment wouldn't be a terrible substitute for the line-item veto. This merely says that presidents aren't compelled to spend funds appropriated by Congress. Presidents had this power up until Nixon and the Carl Albert-era Democrats were frequently clashing -- and Congress strictly limited presidential impoundment authority...limits that were upheld in the courts.

Most states' governors still have impoundment authority. And this helps immensely to keep the reins on legislative hijinks like this.

I think it would be great to return this power to the presidency -- for various reasons, this being one of them.

Piecemeal fashion? Are you suggesting something even more restrictive than single issue bills (which I think would be problematic at the federal level)? Yes, the current process can lead to debacles (like the Zika funding), but it also is necessary in many instances.

 

[NPT]

I understand your frustration. But I would like to point out that bills becoming laws should be difficult. You have to fight and argue your way to the best law possible. When you just rush things through then you set yourself up for unintended consequences. I would point to the Affordable Care Act. It was rammed through without one Republican vote and now we see many of the exchanges are in serious trouble. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/30/u...ces-are-in-trouble-what-can-be-done.html?_r=0
I don't agree with everything in the above article,but it at least they point to some of the problems. My point is what if Republicans and Democrats had argued and debated the ACA instead of it getting rammed through? Perhaps we would have come to a compromise that worked better. Yeah, I hear ya. It's frustrating. But living with bad law is more frustrating.

Yeah, but each bill should stand on it's own. It shouldn't be a conglomeration of several unrelated things and shouldn't have spending for another project thrown in.

 

[UncleMark]

However, that should not happen for something like Zika funding--especially when those proposing an amendment know that it is certain to kill the bill. Frankly, it's disgusting.

The political grandstanding is sickening. Inserting a poison pill measure allows them to claim they tried, but the baby killers wouldn't let them.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Piecemeal fashion? Are you suggesting something even more restrictive than single issue bills (which I think would be problematic at the federal level)? Yes, the current process can lead to debacles (like the Zika funding), but it also is necessary in many instances.

I guess it's a matter of picking your poison, then.

Like I said, I think the best solution is line-item veto. Congress could fill a bill up with whatever it wants, and the prez could easily clean out the nonsense. Maybe the courts would give it a fresh look, or maybe a bill could be fashioned to address the courts' objections from the 90s.

Barring that, they should revisit impoundment -- which is Constitutional (and was the law of the land for almost 200 years).

I'll tell you what's not a solution: bellyaching about it.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I guess it's a matter of picking your poison, then.

Like I said, I think the best solution is line-item veto. Congress could fill a bill up with whatever it wants, and the prez could easily clean out the nonsense. Maybe the courts would give it a fresh look, or maybe a bill could be fashioned to address the courts' objections from the 90s.

Barring that, they should revisit impoundment -- which is Constitutional (and was the law of the land for almost 200 years).

I'll tell you what's not a solution: bellyaching about it.

Neither impoundment nor the line-item veto (as it was passed in 1996) would have addressed this specific problem.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Piecemeal fashion? Are you suggesting something even more restrictive than single issue bills (which I think would be problematic at the federal level)? Yes, the current process can lead to debacles (like the Zika funding), but it also is necessary in many instances.

please give examples of where this is necessary.

i agree with NPT that things should stand on their own merit.

of course that would means legislators would need to spend their time legislating, rather than telemarketing for bribes and paybacks.