Why does a single committe have so much power over what gets written into the bill.

[TheCoxwain]

Why cant someone bring the house bill for vote on the senate (or vice versa)? Or the atleast the corresponding portion over which there is common jurisdiction?


I cant understand - why the fuck some limp dick blue dog like Max Baucus get to be so fucking powerful that he can dictate the presidents agenda.

[Hippo_Tron]

1. That's the way congress works

It's also one of the reasons that they've delegated a lot of authority to the executive branch. The logic being that decisions made by somebody appointed by somebody who was elected by the entire country is more democratic than decisions made by some committee chairman who was only elected by one congressional district.

There have been some ways to get around this (Newt Gingrich often tried to bypass the committee system many times) but for a Speaker or Majority Leader to do that, it can come back to bite them in the ass.

[truedelphi]

2. I am pretty convinced that Obama, through his alter ego Rahm, and

Baucus are pretty much on the same page.

End of story.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. Because we don't have and don't want a dictatorship.

If Obama had the only say, we wouldn't have a legislative branch that actually writes the laws.

But for a more specific answer to your question, the committee system is established because members of Congress cannot possibly be an expert in or focus on every issue at once - it's just not feasible. Committees are a way to properly develop and vet legislation by legislators that deal with the same issues intimately over an extended period of time. If those people, whom are presumably more well-versed on the specific details of the issue, give the go-ahead, then it's brought to a vote by the entire chamber.

[TheCoxwain]

4. I am not talking about the executive ... just the congress .

if anything - I am asking for further separation of powers -- it should be upto individual senators to sponsor bills --- Fuck the bloody commitees.

[John Q. Citizen]

5. The committee system is the problem today? I can't keep up with what the latest problem is,

you know.

Why would it be better for individuals to write major pieces of legislation that would need 60 votes to pass? Do you believe that would help? Why?

[rockymountaindem]

11. Because then the full Senate and House would be continually bogged down

with crazy bills being thrown up by all and sundry to address pet issues every day. There's a reason this kind of filter process developed. It's a pain in the ass and takes a long time, but the alternatives aren't necessarily any better and are certainly not without their drawbacks.

[rucky]

8. I think the OP was arguing for more democracy

not less.

[TreasonousBastard]

6. Actually, there are three Senate committees coming up with bills...

and in the end there can be only One.

And Baucus is may be the committee chair, but he still has five other members and up to 50 staffers and other hangers-on at each meeting to deal with in order to get some legislation out the door. Each meeting they hammer out one more little bit that all six can agree on-- not an easy task.

This is the most complex piece of legislation in maybe 50 years, and you expect it to move faster?

[Thrill]

7. Because its the Finance Committee. Its in charge of how things get paid for

It doesn't matter. On something like Healthcare, which touches other committees. They don't have as much power. It can be changed on the Senate floor via Amendments and in Conference

[alcibiades_mystery]

9. welcome to the sausage factory

What the fuck did you think it was?

[Igel]

10. An individual can.

It's a bit burdensome, because it's meant to avoid clogging the system, but it can happen. In fact, it does happen, often enough.

If the leadership is opposed to what's being offered it's harder. If the member is junior, it's harder. Most of the time when such a bill is moved, seconded, and passed it's with prior knowledge of the leadership.

Almost invariably, when such a bill is moved without prior knowledge of the leadership, either it fails to get a second and dies an immediate death, or the bill is seconded and is debated. During the debate the first thing that happens is that somebody moves for it to be sent to some committee or other, that motion is seconded and necessarily needs to be voted on first. That vote usually passes and the motion gets sent to a committee where, most likely, the committee chair is annoyed that it wasn't brought to his committee first, or the committee chair has no interest in the bill, so it languishes there forever.

In any event, we do have a three-branch government. Under * many people pointed out that the Congress has a large say in how things are run and has a large say, or should have a large say, over the *country's* agenda. Blue Dog or not, Senators and Representatives do have some importance in this republic, and the president's agenda is merely the president's--not the country's--agenda. Sometimes it's good to support it, sometimes it's good to cause it to be amended, sometimes it's good to thwart it, but we always have the same institutions and the same strengths and weaknesses.