Many of the riders would harm the EPA's "ability to do its critical work," said one former agency lawyer.
House Republicans have added over 290 “poison pill” riders to the federal budget bill that would restrict government spending. These riders would roll back progress on issues like LGBTQ+ rights, immigration, and environmental protections. The new riders include blocking same-sex marriage equality funding, banning LGBTQ+ flags from federal buildings, restricting visas for foreign farmworkers, and limiting the EPA’s ability to regulate pollution. Advocacy groups are calling on lawmakers to remove all the riders from the budget bill and pass legislation without the controversial restrictions. The riders would damage agencies’ ability to do critical work and reverse gains in environmental justice, according to critics.
Adding phrases to become law which have nothing to do with the scope and intention of the overall bill, and are generally wild additions that have no hope of passing on their own.
Sometimes they’re added to intentionally bog down a bill so it won’t pass. The riders are used as a sort of narcissistic bargaining chip in political “negotiation”.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
What is a poison pill and a rider in the context of a spending bill?
Adding phrases to become law which have nothing to do with the scope and intention of the overall bill, and are generally wild additions that have no hope of passing on their own.
Sometimes they’re added to intentionally bog down a bill so it won’t pass. The riders are used as a sort of narcissistic bargaining chip in political “negotiation”.