More transparency (again?)

[futurebeachbum]

Now the Republicans are pledging more transparency in the way that the House of Representatives operates. The NYT article is called ""[URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/us/politics/05rules.html]Congress to Return With G.O.P. Vowing to Alter Rules[/URL]

Mr. Boehner seeks to do away with large omnibus spending bills, preferring to break them into smaller bills, and to allow for more amendments on bills generally, and more extensive debate.

Members offering bills for new programs will have to explain how they will pay for them, not by raising new revenues but by finding other ways to cut costs. Each bill introduced will also have to cite the specific constitutional authority for its contents.

For the first time under the House rules, all bills will be required to be placed online. Committees will post their rules and their votes, as well as information about testifying witnesses in an effort to make public any conflicts of interest.
...
Some of Mr. Boehner?s more notable proposals concern the transparency and speed with which bills are going to be considered. The Republicans are committed to making all legislation available to lawmakers, and the public, at least three days before a House vote; in large part, this is a respondse to the late-night revisions made to the energy bill, among others, that was decried by Republicans.

This kind of reminds me of the promises we heard in 1994 about enacting term limits. What came of those?

We've heard promises of openness and transparency before (and just a couple of years ago at that), but it has certainly never happened. ("We have to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it") I can't imagine that the investors in the current House majority are any more interested having this happen than the stockholders of their predecessors were.

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[beachmouse]

Term limits for federal office effectively require a constitutional amendment. (and are a bad idea IMO because it concentrates too much power into the hands of lobbyists and staffers, but that's another discussion) What he's talking about here is essentially a House procedural issue, and that's a lot easier for the party in power to change.