Very clever technique to get laws passed with little opposition.

[dixiegrrrrl]

Here's how it works:

**Introduce a bill which forms a Commission to "study" something and to make recommendations.

**Bury in the bill a procedure which allows the Commission to write legislation,
AND
**provide in the bill that such legislation will be introduced under the conditions of
an up or down vote, very limited debate, no amendment rule,
and almost immediate passage in both House and Senate.

The law which forms a Commission passes, but so do all the provisions of the law including
the almost certain passage of the Commission legislation.
Viola....a new law, written by a Commission, almost automatic passage, no Congressperson's
fingerprints on it.


Example:
H.R. 4625: Civil Service Reform and Government Reorganization Commission Act of 2009
the whole bill is one page, and Sec. 3 is how it will pass:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-4625

But, here is the most important issue:
The same legislative trick was tried at attack the Soc. Sec. Program.
The Conrad-Gregg Commission "would have required the Congress to vote on its budget-cutting
recommendations in a “fast-track,” undemocratic up-or-down vote with no amendments and little
opportunity for debate.
Senate Republicans, some of whom sponsored the legislation, refused to vote for it."
http://www.alternet.org/story/145725/obama_pick_for_budget_commission_is_a_very_ominous_sign%3B_a_social_security-medicare_slasher

(Now Pres. Obama is forming by Exec. order a new Commission to "examine" Soc. Sec.)

Seems it will behoove us to dig a little deeper when legislation is introduced to form a Commission.

[ThomWV]

1. I see, bury the objectionable stuff in the hope the opposition doesn't see it - like the Patriot Act

[leveymg]

2. You got that number. But, there is an alternative explanation: SS is still the "third-rail"

The Commission is a way for everyone to say "they're studying the problem" and that some fix is coming without having to make the hard choices and deals that cutting SS would entail. This isn't likely to pass, so it's essentially a distraction.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

3. I detest the kind of shit like this.

... yet another obstacle placed between the people and the government to centralize power in the hand of the elite.
Legislating from the bench and comittees is abhorant. Authoritative bullshit.
In America, we should vote for the people writing and signing the legislation.


Personally, I'm not even a fan of earmarking unrelated legislation into "must pass" bills.
If new laws are necessary and have The People's support, they should be able to stand up to scrutiy written in their own bill.

[dixiegrrrrl]

4. I started looking at this after reading that the ORIGINAL plan to cut Soc. Sec.

was developed to have a Commission appointed to draw up the "3rd rail" legislation.
This was back in late 80's..
And sure enough, the legislation was written, as noted in my OP, but was voted down, but notice
it is still a go ahead for a Commission.

[kenny blankenship]

5. All our globalizing trade deals were passed with Fast Track votes

and they worked out well, right?

Why not apply the same process to Social Security?

[dixiegrrrrl]

6. Guess we *should * be grateful that Congress CAN pass legistlation

when it wants to.


:sarcasm:

[AllentownJake]

7. K&R

[Mira]

8. Excellent observation that bears watching. And also,

of course, needs go be exposed. Good one. K&R

[bvar22]

9. The last remaining unpicked PLUM for the DLC White House:

The "Privatization" (destruction) of Social Security.

Look Out!
Its coming.
Right after they finish giving a $TRILLION dollars of Public Money to the For Profit Health Insurance Industry.

Giving Social Security to their "friends" on Wall Street is NEXT on he DLC Hit List.


The DLC New Team
Progressives Need NOT Apply

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)

"NEW Democrats"!
Transferring MORE Public Wealth to Private Pockets than the Republicans could EVER dream about.
:party:

[Trillo]

10. Yes. I have noted the same thing.

A "commission" is a subset of legislators that has the perceived intent of denying responsibility among the greater population of legislators. Dualistically, it also buries "bugs" in far too much "code" for all legislators to read carefully and fully understand.

This is why I believe legislators should have a line item veto. It would provide them an incentive to read and vote on each phrase, and it would additionally "fingerprint" them to each phrase instead of just a greater Bill's broadbrush suggested by the title and summary. If there were too many bills, or a bill became too big, or there were phrases within a bill they didn't understand, they could vote no on those subsets of the Bills.

This could make our laws simple enough again for most folks to understand, presuming our legislators are truly a statistically representative sample of the population at large, particularly in regards to their beliefs, but it may also have other effects.

Another option would be to return us to the Representative-to-population ratio originally conceived by the constitution, and non-committee legislators could form their own study groups to help them keep up with the paperwork deluge.