|
That's not how it works, ever. Think about it: if there is a spending proposal that benefits only ONE member's constituents, why would the other 434 reps vote for it?
I'm surprised that you're using the typically liberal/democrat tactic of proposing a systemic change on it's own merits, where the real reason is to further a second agenda. It's a fact that representatives need a reliable mechanism to bring direct monetary benefits to their constituents. Some silly rule change that prevents piggy-backing spending onto another bill will never happen unless it includes a replacement mechanism that will work as effectively.
|