If you have something to say, post a comment. I will not respond to anonymous commenters, so if you care to joust with the GROUCH, open yourself a FREE GMAIL account and get yourself an ID so I'll know who you are.

If you'd like to be a guest contributor, email me at:
Opinions of the guests are not necessarily the opinion of the GROUCH!

Saturday, December 25, 2010

KISS - - - A Prayer for Simplicity

KISS (keep it simple, STUPID). Murry Chrissmuss everyone. Well, the lame duck congress is gone, FINALLY! I am sure many in Warshington, after the first of the year, are looking forward to things returning to NORMAL. Boy I hope not. If there is one thing I would like for Chrissmuss, it would be SIMPLICITY IN GUBMENT.

Beginning in January let's have no more multithousand page bills that nobody reads. Lets have no more bills have that have to be voted upon and passed before we know what is in them. Instead let's insist that congress change the way it does bidness. Let's limit bills to 3 or 4 pages. Let's have a bill address one topic and one topic only. Let there be no more amendments to bills which pile a bunch of hidden, unrelated junk on top of the original bill. Let's have no more giant spending programs, pork, and earmarks attached to the original bill.

One topic, and one topic only! That is the way it should be, an up or down vote, then if the legislators want to have a pork spending project, then give it a bill all its own.......simple.......understandable.....3 or 4 pages........everyone reads and understands..........lay it out in front of God and everybody for all the world to see.......an up or down vote!

It seems to me that this would be a clear, straightforward way of doing the people's bidness, and for once, it wouldn't cost us anything. In the long run it would probably save us billions. It's really all I want for Chrissmuss this year. Is it too much to ask?


  1. Sounds great, I'm with you!

    Right Truth

  2. Can I presume from your post that you oppose the use of the fillibuster in the Senate which has been used repeatedly to stop the majority of Senators from voting in favor of a bill that a minority of the Senators opposed?

  3. No, Uncle Walt, in fact I like the idea of super majorities. It would not hurt my feelings if a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT was passed that required 60 percent majorities on routine legislation in both the House and the Senate. This way it would be very difficult for the federal gubment to get much of anything done which in my opinion is a good thing. Most of everything the federal gubment does ends up being bad for us, therefore the more the are hamstrung, the better.

    My use of the term "up or down vote" in my post does not necessarily mean that I believe simple majorities are good. I mean that every issue should have a bill all its own, no amendments, no additions, no pork, and each bill should receive an individual vote.

  4. I agree Grouch, but I do believe that Hell will freeze over first before Congress gives up their earmarks. I don't see Old Scratch wearing a fur coat either.

  5. I think we might be mixing apples and pineapples.

    I asked if you opposed the use of the filibuster to prevent the congress from voting on something and you responded by advocating requiring a supermajority on all votes.

    Thats sort of two different things.

    So, whether or not a supermajority is required for passage, do you support or oppose the minority party using the filibuster to simply prevent a vote on things?

  6. I am fine with the filibuster. It is a procedural thing devised by the senate, not in the constitution. Nevertheless, I am fine with it as it gives the minority party more clout. It would really be a lot more fun though if the filibustering senators actually had to be present and talking ad nauseum. Perhaps while all the talking was going on, the rest of them could be reading the 2000 page bills they create.