It has been interesting to me to read about a few bills that have either been passed or voted down lately. The question began to form in my mind is whether it is better for a bill to pass because it appeals to the constituents or to vote it down and face the ire of the constituents. Then, I realized what is going on. I will call it sound bite bills. These are bills that really serve no purpose other to sound like they are great bills, but there is no real meat to the bill. Or should I say that the bills if passed will eventually do more harm than good. So, the regular ole representatives are stuck. Here is a bill that has a great sound bite to it that the constituents want, but the explanation of why it is not the right bill to vote for is not something that can easily be explained. Thus, many are stuck in a position of having to decide whether they should vote for a bad bill or vote against a bill that makes them look like they are not listening to their constituents.
The more I have thought about this, the more I keep coming back to the same place. Who is bringing these bills forward for a vote before they make sure that all is in place by dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s? And, why are they bringing it forward as an unfinished bill? Do they want the bill to fail but without their fingerprints on it? Do they want it to pass knowing that it could cause problems in the future? Or are they so concerned with getting a bill forward that they really haven’t thought through the process to realize that they are introducing these bills that are best called Sound Bite Bills.
Finally, when are the representatives going to take the time to do due diligence on these bills and call out the problems with them so that a vote is not taken on a bill that needs to be improved before a vote is called?