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.
This is only being presented by the GOP because it serves their purposes to delay and drum up criticism for Dem. initiatives. I support the idea as long as it's equally applicable to future administrations and can't be repealed.
It's a good idea but much too expensive. Even if we gave this amount to the number of US taxpayers only (138 million) the cost would be almost 3 trillion. For every person in the US, it would be over 6 trillion.
I disagree with the Supreme Court idea. Those offices are uniquely suited to long-term roles. Some term limits could be effective, however, for congress...much more than only 2 years though.
We're not crippled right now, and we still have time to make significant investments in green energy, which is better for everyone in the long run. Oil is a finite resource, and we should be cautious about using our reserves. Look at how crucial oil resources were in past wars to get an idea of why this important.
This is completely true, and I can personally attest to this occurring in education. A great deal of money is wasted because of this, and it would be really helpful to reform the system by allowing entities to "save" money they didn't spend, without penalizing them of more funding the following year.