In Ann McCreary's story this week,
"Delisting of wolves will not affect Methow pack", we learn that two politicians - a Montana senator and an Idaho member of the House - slapped a rider onto the beleaguered federal budget bill to delist wolves in their states (and parts of Washington and Oregon as it turns out).
Obviously, the endangered status of wolves has nothing to do with the federal budget, and I would argue that it should be dealt with by scientists, not politicians. But that's the nature of riders. According to
Wikipedia,
"Riders are usually created as a tactic to pass a controversial provision which would not pass as its own bill." The federal budget is important - everyone agrees on that - and this rider was confidently attached for two reasons: 1. The congressmen knew that the president wouldn't veto this important bill because of some silly wolves, and 2. The president (unlike many state governors) doesn't have line-item veto power.
Okay, let's say for argument that you don't really care about wolves and you're just as glad to have them delisted. But what if something
you really cared about got wiped out or drastically changed when some politicians who don't even represent you attached a rider to a bill? Like, let's say an education program, or tax protection for religious institutions, or gun rights? Perhaps legislative riders are really a sneaky, low-down dirty way to get things done in our nation.
Perhaps it's time to reconsider the
Line Item Veto Act of 1996. (Look it up; it's pretty interesting).
And while we're at it, maybe we ought to reconsider "
corporate personhood." I'm just sayin' . . . . but that's another rant.
~Laurelle Walsh~
