The ineptly named American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 was chockfull of special favors. (More is coming, I suspect.) It made me think that in today’s age, why does Congress permit amendments to any legislation? Would we be better without amendments?
Perhaps it made sense when we were using quills and inkwell to write legislation (that was ultimately set by a printer and then distributed), perhaps it just made sense to tack an amendment to a piece of legislation to save everyone some time and effort. In today’s world is it necessary to do that? Seems to me that the distribution of information is so much faster and easier today that amendments could simply be disallowed. Congress should vote for what comes out of the committee: up or down, yea or nay. That would prevent many special interests from adding icing to their cake.
Perhaps four things are needed for legislative quality:
1. No amendments permitted. When it is out of committee, it is done. Shouldn’t committees be responsible for the quality of the product they put before the whole body?
2. If Congress does wish to add an amendment, shouldn’t there be a ‘amendment impact’ statement that accompanies the amendment specifically describing what it will and will not do for the legislation produced by the committee? And when the answer is ‘not a damn thing’, shouldn’t it be disallowed?
3. Shouldn’t there be a ‘degree of separation’ value given to each amendment that shows how well it relates to the purpose and scope and title of the legislation? For example, shouldn’t the American Tax Relief Act prevent anyone from adding a rider that favors one commercial industry over another? Like NASCAR and Hollywood?
4.And finally, shouldn’t Congressmen of all hues possess a line item veto? Why give it to the President? Give it to Congressmen and let the chips fall where they may.
While I prefer no amendments to any legislation, if they are kept in the process then we need a way to prevent irrelevant amendments from tainting good legislation. Is there a better way?
What if we set up a legislative quality inspector who must approve the bill as meeting quality standards before cloture occurs? A master-at-arms for legislative quality may have value in Congress.
Reasonable Citizen 