comment: >
  
  You mean some extra money that isn't needed in this district, and some kick backs over there and boom, we allow the NSA to tap phones in the Gay Marriage act of 2023
context: "Limit bills to a single subject" - Sounds great in principle, but there's only so many days in a legislative session and it's a big country with a lot that needs to be addressed. Splitting each subject into its own bill to go through the whole sausage factory would grind the process to a crawl.
  "Make it harder to waive the germaneness rule for amendments" - I like this one, though I imagine if waiving this rule is commonplace then it likely has to do with my first point that sometimes they need to squeeze something extra into a bill without going through the whole nine yards. Plus, who gets to be the arbiter of what's "germane"?
  "Expand the time between a bill’s introduction and its floor debate" - The giant bills everyone whines about get that size through endless haggling by the leadership, and probably don't contain nearly as many surprises as an opponent would have you believe. Even the 72 hour window they're asking for isn't going to be enough to read the phonebooks they'll generate, let alone parse its minutiae for legal implications, and in the end you're gonna vote the way the whip tells you to.
  "Eliminate proxy voting" - Yeah, this one ain't going anywhere, particularly when even the ones who whined about it find it incredibly useful. I like the idea of representatives having to physically be there to cast votes as a symbol of democracy, but in an age of instant communications there's really no need unless you plan on posturing for CSPAN.
  Something you'll notice about all of these points is that they slow down the legislative process considerably, forcing additional debate and procedure and other various time-wasting processes to take place before anything can get done. These aren't being proposed because their proponents believe in a more transparent and principled governance, but because they want to grind the process of government itself to a complete halt any time they feel like it. Making the government sclerotic and unable to respond to crises feeds their agenda and strengthens their argument that the federal government is a bureaucratic nightmare designed to turn taxpayer dollars into sludge and uselessness. And so of course we should de-fund it and give all the money to that nimble private sector and its invisible hand, which of course only has our best interests at heart.
  Take anything the Freedom Caucus proposes with a giant grain of salt and the worse possible interpretation, because that's what they're going to do with it. >
  
  The freedom caucus real agenda is the freedom to do nothing and the freedom to spread chaos across the country and pretend it’s not their fault >
  
  You know there are people who genuinely believe that the federal government should have less power and more decision making should be left up to the states? It's not some cynical take as you suggest. >
  
  Yeah, and that’s a terrible idea which has been proven to be terrible time and again throughout all of our country’s history. >
  
  Ummm...no? Ceding more power to the states is a good thing. This country is very diverse politically. I don't see why Texas can't be a libertarian / conservative bastion while California is a rad prog lefty state - and not try to impose each other's will on each other at a federal level. I don't want a leftist agenda forced on me, just as I wouldn't want to force my center-right views on people who don't want them. Let states do what they want, and see what works and doesn't work from that. >
  
  Maybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level
  Republicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit. >
  
  
  Maybe because most states are socially regressive and it’s good public policy to oppose that on a federal level
  
  Okay, even if you're right, why do you feel the need to impose your will on an electorate that doesn't want it? Let Texas be Texas and let California be California. There should be no ideological, partisan political stance forced at the federal level.
  
  Republicans primarily win through gerrymandering. Even in conservative states they don’t win as hard as people think they do. Fuck this tyranny of the minority shit.
  
  Democrats gerrymander just as much too. And also, this simply isn't true. There are plenty of red states whereby the Republicans win both electorally / by district and by absolute numbers as well. >
  
  Because when one political party’s entire platform has become various measures to take away rights from groups they don’t like, that’s not just something you can agree to disagree on. It’s not like there aren’t 20 million+ non conservatives in Texas that don’t want to lose their rights, right? >
  
  "Limit bills to a single subject"
  This would make the legislature work MUCH more poorly.  It's precisely all the horse trading that goes into these omnibus type bills which makes them work.  I'm not saying it's pretty. it's not it's the sausage.  A post office name here,  a special grant mechanism for a highway there and BOOM you have some new laws.