[Political Junkie Too]

This is what we USED to do! Two separate bodies have different bills and disagreements.

What we USED to do was have a Senate of the states (appointed by the legislatures) that respected the House's "power of the purse" to introduce spending bills. The Senate, selected by the statue legislatures, would have gone along with the House's spending bills, because the House was made up of the representatives of the same people who elected their state legislatures.

Today, the Senate operates in opposition to the House and apparently does NOT respect the House's power to introduce spending bills. The Senate often guts unrelated House bills to amend them into Senate sending bills that they force back onto the House to pass (Obamacare was one such bill).

Now, we have a Senate that demands that the House send THEM a spending bill that THEY want. What we have is a broken Senate that is disconnected from their original purpose.

-PJ

[Kudsman]

Preach it PJ. Dustbin the 17th.

[Kudsman]

Want to extrapolate? Just a tiny mental exercise for any uninterested parties. How much more meaning would Judicial appointments and advise/consent roles have if Federal Senators were actual State reps?

Don't even get me started on Treaties. Our founders were SOB independent men. They argued and compromised and did one heck of a job. Maybe a refocus is in order?