Bob and I do not always agree. Okay, Bob and I almost never agree. But he’s right on this one.

Posted by Kris Amundson on 16 August 02009 @ 1pm

While I think there are a lot of frivolous bills that get introduced and the limit will encourage a more focused use of time, isn’t there something intuitively odd about giving out a limit for bills? Without looking at the statistics, and setting desires for small/less government aside, isn’t there at least a sense that legislators should not have to set an issue aside that matters because they’ve used up their bill limit? Or rather, that this opens an arena for bills to become something almost to be bartered. With 14 bills this idea of course has little to no real grounds. They still have plenty of bills, but like I said, isn’t there at least an intuitive problem with a bill limit?

I’m saying the obvious, I think, but I bring this up only because it seems to me pretty evident that if of one these (but why not both?) should have a limit, it should be constitutional amendments. Those should be reserved for serious business and this set up is asking for more amendments from the likes of Bob Marshall who have very little trouble reaching their limit.

So yeah, get cracking.

Posted by Cory Capron on 17 August 02009 @ 1pm