How a law should be made

I have said this before but not in great detail…

A new law that is needed or wanted should have some very strict  rules.
The bill should be very short, no need for long winded crap. No add-on’s unless it deals directly with the bill being voted on. Here is an example of how I think the bills should look like:

Tittle Extending food stamp relief for 2013-2015

Intent of the bill is to provide a food stamp extension to those in need who by no fault of their own are having trouble feeding their family or themselves. Congress is intentional leaving fault vague so each case worker can apply common sense per each case.

Cost of the bill will be 1 billion USD over 2 years. Bill expires 2 years after signed into law.

The funding will be split up by the number of citizens per state as well as the need in each state. The numbers will come from last census report, the need will be reported by each states social service department.

Funding must be applied for 90 days after bill is signed into law, and then 90 days prior to anniversary date that the bill was signed into law.
States are to apply their current criteria for who is approved  to receive food stamps.
Any funds not spent will default back into the general funds.

Is it perfect? No, is their room for improvement? sure, with that said all bills should strive to be short and to the point. To me the intent of the law needs to be spelled out so their is no wiggle room to get around the rules.