Making Government Operations More Open

Bills should stand alone -no earmarks -no pork

All Bills should stand clean -no earmarks and non-related.

All Earmarks should be stand along Bills.

All non-related should be stand along Bills.

It seems simple and honest.


Submitted by

Stage: Active

Feedback Score

540 votes
Voting Disabled

Idea Details

Vote Activity (latest 20 votes)

  1. Upvoted
  2. Upvoted
  3. Upvoted
  4. Upvoted
  5. Upvoted
  6. Upvoted
  7. Upvoted
  8. Upvoted
  9. Upvoted
  10. Upvoted
  11. Upvoted
  12. Upvoted
  13. Upvoted
  14. Upvoted
  15. Upvoted
  16. Downvoted
  17. Upvoted
  18. Upvoted
  19. Upvoted
  20. Upvoted
(latest 20 votes)

Similar Ideas [ 4 ]


  1. Comment

    Lol at your last statement.

    If it seems simple and honest, the government will have a hard time doing it.

  2. Comment
    Unsubscribed User

    Who would you rather have earmarking? Congress, subject to scrutiny of other members of Congress and also the public, or the president, who oftentimes has no check on his/her power? Someone needs to be the decider about allocating funds. It's dumb to pretend that only Congress earmarks funds.

  3. Comment
    JSS ( Idea Submitter )

    I agree with Jonathan, no one should use earmarks.

  4. Comment

    Perhaps we need a constitutional ammendment limiting all laws to no more than 10 pages. The'd have to pass smaller piecies, each could be vetoed separately and we'd all understand the individual parts.

  5. Comment
    JSS ( Idea Submitter )

    But limiting pages could effect law that are more complex then others to have more loop holes.

  6. Comment

    no add ons that have nothing to do with a bill. I mean what does carring a concealed weapon in anational park have to do with Health care reform.

  7. Comment

    If the government could come up with a GOOD definition of what an earmark is, then this might work. I know that some definitions are already available, which they could use a starting points.

  8. Comment
    JSS ( Idea Submitter )

    Good definitions means it's no longer am earmark and less bribes for votes.

  9. Comment

    Bills should have a single objective. Everything in that bill should relate directly to that objective.

  10. Comment

    Good point. TO make things even smoother, projects that were traditionally too small to be standalone bills could be grouped into a larger "Invest in America's Roads Act", etc., where there was a thematic reason for it to be there. It makes no sense to have unrelated earmarks attached to important--and completely unrelated--projects.

  11. Comment

    It seems simple and honest but it may be too simple. It's a nice idea in principle but it seems that even related items in the same bill would be subject to deal making and the only way to eliminate that would be to vote separately on every little project of every kind in every neighborhood in every town in every county in every district of every state. But I'm not voting no on this idea. The principle involved is undeniably a good one. I'm afraid though that, as is so often the case, the devil is in the details.

  12. Comment
    JSS ( Idea Submitter )

    I don't agree but like your last statement felkalarp!

  13. Comment

    Not sure how or even if it could be implemented but voted YES anyway.

  14. Comment

    I hate to be real but the only way bill will pass is with earmarks. Another way of saying earmark is compromise. We would no laws without them. I hate them but to say they are removable is impossible. You could never get representatives to vote for anything without giving them something that is on their agenda.

  15. Comment
    Mike B

    Do you even know what an earmark is?

  16. Comment

    If you support this idea, then go to this site and send your thoughts to your congressional delegation on the subject, ask them to sponsor this bill (One Subject at a Time Act) so that it gets to the floor for a vote:

  17. Comment
    JSS ( Idea Submitter )

    Mike B,

    Should I cut and paste it in for you? No need for a attitude.

    The problem has become the abuse of, therefore the right should be limited or removed.

    How many times would you let a person dip into the cookie jar before you slap that hand?

  18. Comment
    JSS ( Idea Submitter )

    The problem has become the abuse of, therefore the right should be limited or removed.

    How many times would you let a person dip into the cookie jar before you slap that hand?

  19. Comment
    JSS ( Idea Submitter )

    Mike B,

    I think I am in the wrong, thought you were directing this comment at me. sorry.

  20. Comment

    This post is popular but not nearly as popular as the posts asking for Obama to make his birth certificate, college record, health records and the like available.

    Count Birth Certificate comments here and you will get over 7,000 But, this site has been rigged so that the posts asking for Obama to support transparency by providing his own birth certificate, health records and college records are not properly counted, even when they do not get deleted. All of the multiple posts would not need to exist if the honest reporting of this site showed the number one request here is for Obama to release his records.

    I have done a personal count of more than 1,000 requests for his birth certificate. My analysis suggests there have been at least 7,000 request for Obama to produce his real birth certificate, college records, health records and other financial records.

    It is possible to review this site to find the most requested ideas by scanning "Top Rated" posts, but the requests for Obama's records do not show up as being top rated. Those runnig this site are cooking the results. If the results were honest people would be able to continue to vote on a single post asking for transparency of Obama's records.

    According to the liars running this website the most requested item has NOT been Obama's birth certificate.

    (My email is - inlcude your email address if you want me to reply to you)

  21. Comment

    Each bill should address one issue and one issue only. That is how our voter mandates in Oregon are regulated, and it removes all the dirty tricks used by politicians to subvert the will of the people.

  22. Comment


    A government of the masses.

    Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.

    Results in mobocracy.

    Attitude toward property is comunistic-negating property rights.

    Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate. whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.

    Results in demagogism license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

    Democracy is the "direct" rule of the people and has been repeatedly tried without success.

    A certain Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, nearly two centuries ago, had this to say about Democracy: " A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship."

    A democracy is majority rule and is destructive of liberty because there is no law to prevent the majority from trampling on individual rights. Whatever the majority says goes! A lynch mob is an example of pure democracy in action. There is only one dissenting vote, and that is cast by the person at the end of the rope.


    Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.

    Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights, and a sensible economic procedure.

    Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.

    A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.

    Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.

    Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world.

    A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of:

    an executive and

    a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create

    a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental acts and to recognize

    certain inherent individual rights.

    Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.

    Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic."

    A republic is a government of law under a Constitution. The Constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority (acting through their government) from violating the rights of the individual. Under this system of government a lynch mob is illegal. The suspected criminal cannot be denied his right to a fair trial even if a majority of the citizenry demands otherwise.

    Difference between Democracy and Republic, in brief:


    a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority.

    b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.

    Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences


    a: a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government.

    b: a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.

    Democracy and Republic are often taken as one of the same thing, but there is a fundamental difference. Whilst in both cases the government is elected by the people, in Democracy the majority rules according to their whims, whilst in the Republic the Government rule according to law. This law is framed in the Constitution to limit the power of Government and ensuring some rights and protection to Minorities and individuals.

    The difference between Republic and Righteous Republic is that in the Republic the Government rules according to the law set up by men, in the Righteous Republic the law is the Law of God. Only in the Righteous Republic it can truly be said "One nation under God" for it is governed under commandments of the only One True God and there is no pluralism of religions.

    Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority can not be questioned; its powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered.

    Mobocracy: 1. Political control by a mob. 2. The mass of common people as the source of political control.