PDA

View Full Version : 2011 least productive Congressional year in history - and this is a BAD thing???



Little-Acorn
01-16-2012, 11:36 AM
This article states that Congress in 2011 passed fewer bills, did less debating, held fewer votes etc. etc. than in any Congressional year since records have been kept since, well, whenever it was started.

I'm not sure why they phrase it as a BAD thing, though.

The Framers deliberately designed this government to be a cantankerous, difficult machine for getting anything done... because they believed that people could get along just fine without government sticking its nose into eveything, regulating everything, restricting everything. Or at least most things. The way they designed it, four very different groups had to agree before any bill could becoe law and stay that way: (1) a group of citizen-legislators (House), (2) a group of professional politicians (Senate), a single man of high integrity (President), and a group of men sitting as judges, who were often lawyers (Courts). Only if all four of those groups all agreed, could a bill become a law and not get tossed out later.

Some of those definitions, especially the hird, might sound unfamiliar today. But that's how they designed it.

Sounds to me like, at long last, government is starting to act exactly as it is supposed to. The fewer regulations and restrictions (that's ALL a government can do) that get passed, the better off we all are.

And we can directly thank the House freshmen of 2010, who, also at long last, hold similar views to the Framers themselves.

So what's the problem here?

----------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/15/congress-logs-most-futile-legislative-year-on-reco/?page=all#pagebreak

Congress logs most futile legislative year on record

Outlook for House, Senate also shows scant accomplishment for ‘12 session

by Stephen Dinan
The Washington Times

Sunday, January 15, 2012

It’s official: Congress ended its least-productive year in modern history after passing 80 bills — fewer than during any other session since year-end records began being kept in 1947.

Furthermore, an analysis by The Washington Times of the scope of such activities as time spent in debate, number of conference reports produced and votes taken on the House and Senate floors found that Congress set a record for legislative futility by accomplishing less in 2011 than any other year in history.

The Senate’s record was weakest by a huge margin, according to the futility index, and the House had its 10th-worst session on record.

Of the bills the 112th Congress did pass, the majority were housekeeping measures, such as naming post office buildings or extending existing laws. Sometimes, it was too difficult for the two chambers to hammer out agreements. More often, the Senate failed to reach agreement within the chamber.

That left much of the machinery of the federal government on autopilot, with the exception of spending, where monumental clashes dominated the legislative session.

“Absent unified party control with a bolstered Senate majority, I think it’s just very hard to get things done, particularly in a period when revenues aren’t growing and the decisions are how to cut, and how to cut in the long term,” said Sarah Binder, who studies Congress as a Brookings Institution scholar and professor at George Washington University. “Congress just isn’t very good at solving long-term problems.”

The futility record could be short-lived. The full House returns from a monthlong Christmas break on Tuesday to begin the second session, but all sides expect election-year paralysis, meaning some of the usually routine bills may run into trouble.

fj1200
01-16-2012, 01:10 PM
So what's the problem here?

Depends, are they keeping from increasing the role of government or from decreasing the role of government?

ConHog
01-16-2012, 02:34 PM
Depends, are they keeping from increasing the role of government or from decreasing the role of government?

Serious question here, can you think of a single example of Congress shrinking the federal government? EVER?

fj1200
01-16-2012, 04:46 PM
Serious question here, can you think of a single example of Congress shrinking the federal government? EVER?

I'm pretty sure that there would be an example out there somewhere but overall clearly not, unless you throw the military in there. Even the budgetary successes of the 90's didn't come about because of a reduction in government but rather a restraint on its growth as well as uncommon economic growth (a nice cap gains tax cut if you ask me ;) ).

Little-Acorn
01-16-2012, 10:45 PM
Serious question here, can you think of a single example of Congress shrinking the federal government? EVER?

They are extremely rare.

One obvious example, of courrse, is the gigantic military that was built up (for good reason) during WWII, getting hugely reduced after the war. But note that the huge social-engineering bureaucracies also built up similarly during the 1930s and 40s, mostly did NOT get cut down proportionately - many of them are with us today, swollen to even more grotesque size, plus much more.

Another example is the devolvement of Welfare to the states during the 104th Congress (1995-1996). Pushed hard by Republicans (and spearheaded, once again, by the new freshmen class of 1994 and a guy named Gingrich), and resisted bitterly at every turn by Democrats until Bill Clinton, facing an election he might lose, finally signed it.

Outside of those two examples, I can't think of any others. They are indeed rare.

ConHog
01-17-2012, 05:59 PM
I'm pretty sure that there would be an example out there somewhere but overall clearly not, unless you throw the military in there. Even the budgetary successes of the 90's didn't come about because of a reduction in government but rather a restraint on its growth as well as uncommon economic growth (a nice cap gains tax cut if you ask me ;) ).


The exception that proves the rule, I suppose.