Letter: Congressional bait ‘n’ switch an insult to American people


I, for one, am sick and tired of the bait ‘n’ switch that infects much of the legislation proposed in Congress. I’m also tired of how that system is used to over-characterize or/and mis-characterize the votes of our representatives in the House and Senate.

In too many ways than one, it’s federal horse trading...with worn out saddles and degraded spurs negotiated in exchange for an otherwise desired steed.

To get A and B, let’s say, a Senator or Representative must choke hard to vote yea for a bill that includes C and D. It’s a sphincter-puckering vote, yes. But it’s the only way to get A and B passed. However, come election time, the Congressperson’s vote for C and D is foremost in his or her competitor’s campaign, while A and B are ignored. That is just not fair.

I want a constitutional amendment that says that any bill before the House or Senate may only be focused on the primary substance of the bill. If you want to fund the building of a bridge, then that’s it. You may not include any riders that provide funding for a golf course, a moose path, or the testing of how fast a shrimp can run on a treadmill. Enough, already.

You want to fund the legwork of the shrimp? Great. Go for it. But don’t bury that in a panoply of other unrelated allocations. Stand up and say that the motility of a shrimp is important. Then let the voters decide...but limit the decision making – and budget spending -- process to the single issue, in this case being the testing of shrimp.

Years ago, budgetary allocations from Congress included multi-thousand dollars to study the sweat of Australian aborigines and to learn why college students like to play Frisbee. I’m not kidding! And it’s been far worse than that. Your tax dollars at work.

The true pain, though, is that members of our Legislative Branch have to gulp hard to vote for a bill that will help serve The People but that will also include “uncomfortable” allocations ... and then in re-election time they get nailed for C&D and not the reluctantly traded-off benefits for A&B. And this applies to Left and Right alike.

Much has been said about government transparency. But let’s be transparent and specific about what goes on in Congress. I’ve had it with Congressional bills that purport to be about home delivery pizza but are rife with additions that guarantee new car loans and free haircuts.

Michael Westlund



Comments are not posted immediately. Submissions must adhere to our Use of Service Terms of Use agreement. Rambling or nonsensical comments may not be posted. Comment submissions may not exceed a 200 word limit, and in order for us to reasonably manage this feature we may limit excessive comment entries.

IzzatSo 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Spend a little time on the websites for the Senate and the House of Representatives. You will be amazed (and probably disgusted) at the wide-ranging topics they deal with daily. Virtually none fall within the original limits of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution which enumerates the powers of the Congress. They have gradually assumed more and more power to 'run things' their way. Witness how many 1000+page bills are considered. No one can read the whole thing; even Representative Gosar complained on how little time was allowed to read the most recent 2000+ page tax bill ("you have to pass it to see what's in it"). No wonder lobbyists, via their paid lapdogs, get their wishes stuffed into 'must-pass' bills. I agree with Mr. Westlund, all bills should be limited to the single topic being considered. No riders allowed. Maybe some conscientious lawmaker will slip in a rider to outlaw riders in the future. Now that would be a real improvement, but don't hold your breath.


tbabbitt 8 months, 2 weeks ago

One thing we could do is to ensure that congressional votes are anonymous. That way donors wont be able to demand compliance.


IzzatSo 8 months, 2 weeks ago

And voters won't know if their elected official is voting the way we elected them to vote. Perfect non-transparency. Perhaps a better solution is to force our representatives to wear suits like NASCAR drivers that clearly advertise who is sponsoring them. Perfect transparency.


BillBassett 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Kinda funny, complaining about the politicians doing what politician do. As for a constitutional amendment, how about we get that pesky old Equal Rights Amendment ratified? It's still kicking around you know. 46 years.
Way to go Arizona!