How do legislators justify proposing over 500 bills with no force of law (expressing opinions and naming post offices) when there isn't enough time to pass individual budgets this year, resulting in more earmarks on huge consolidated omnibus bills?
Asked by: michael perigard from Seattle, WA
Asked of All U.S. Congress on Dec 2nd, 2007
Answer from: U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA)
I completely agree. I think we should pass all twelve of these appropriations bills. That’s been my constant message to our leadership—let’s pass our bills and get our work done. I want to bring up mine first. I want to go first with the interior and environment appropriations bill.
Those are fine. They don’t take much time. We have resolutions on all kinds of resolutions on various things, you know, appreciation of our troops in the field. You know, these are nice things that show that the United States Congress cares about…and, and, and, you know, naming post offices is a long tradition in that. So I, I, I do agree, we do need to get the appropriations bills done. I’m going to fight for that.
Answered on Apr 4th, 2008
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion...
Posted by spigot on April 16th, 2008 at 3:41 PM
I asked how Congress can justify wasting their time naming post offices and voicing opinions on foreign policy when they said they didn't have enough time for the budget process that we're all used to, the one where things are actually debated and people can't trade earmarks for votes as easily because there's more time for close scrutiny.
Representative Dicks said he completely agreed with me, and then disagreed with me on both points, and then somehow twisted my issue into a general issue of consolidated appropriations bills. It isn't a problem that the Congress spends it's time naming post offices because that doesn't "take much time"? I'm curious if the representative doesn't think all the money Congress spends collectively paying him, his staff, the Congressional staff and everyone and everything else involved with non-binding resolutions could go to better use?
He also said it's important to show what the Congress cares about by doing things such as expressing their appreciation for the troops in the field. Were the troops in the field worried about the appreciation of Congress? Was their appreciation in question? Would that time be better spent appreciating the troops by doing their job and deliberating the defense budget? We don't pay representatives to collectively voice opinions on foreign policy, especially when they're in legally non-binding resolutions! These are opinions they've all already made clear by making the rounds on television, the internet, radio and print media, why waste our time and money by "making them official" in a legally non-binding document!
I'm disappointed Representative Dicks couldn't give an answer without being a politician. As far as showing what Congress cares about, if he truly cared about the appropriations bills, he might have "expressed the sense of the House" less often and spent more time "fighting for" a sensible budget debate.
So, my first askyourlawmaker answer gets scored a 0 for faith in my legislature but 100 for defending the idea that politicians care not about the question, nor how it is asked, but how their carefully crafted answer will play as a sound bite. I understand he is a busy man, but I would have preferred hearing "I'm very busy right now, I can't answer your question," to the half-assed answer he gave. Then again, according to him, Congress doesn't seem to have a problem wasting people's time and money.