Isn't it actually a good thing that the current Congress has done less than any other in the last 20 Years?

Question

I see a lot of complaining about this Congress doing nothing over the past, almost, two years. While it is true that the House has voted on less actual legislation than any Congress since they started tracking such numbers while also voting on the most useless resolution shouldn't we be counting our blessings?

Isn't the make up of the House and Senate such that had they had effective leadership they could have done even greater damage since coming into power?

Answer 1

Bush has vetoed and stopped many a bill  more than any other since truman:

An excerpt:

The fact that the House was unable to override Bush's veto has no bearing on the chamber's Democratic leadership. Opponents of Bush's veto actually picked up eight extra votes from the original September roll call passing the bill. Forty-four Republicans broke rank and joined Democrats to vote for the override last week, whereas just two Democrats voted to sustain Bush's veto.

Historically, it's incredibly rare for Congress to override a presidential veto. President Bill Clinton issued 36 vetoes; Congress overcame just two of them. Between 1989 and 1993, Congress defeated only one of President George H.W. Bush's 29 vetoes. Going back even further, lawmakers during President Harry Truman's administration overrode 12 vetoes -- out of 180.

Bush's weakness is reflected in the fact that his major domestic policy initiatives have floundered. First there was the failed 2005 campaign to privatize Social Security, to which the administration devoted more than 100 government officials, 228 public events, and at least $2.8 million of taxpayers' money. Then in his 2006 and 2007 State of the Union addresses, Bush promised to expand his health savings accounts to fix the health care crisis. These plans -- tax-free savings accounts combined with high-deductible insurance policies -- were widely criticized as too expensive and unrealistic, and were forgotten.

More recently, Bush was unable to use the institutional power of the presidency to convince his right-wing allies to embrace his immigration reform proposal. In fact, solidly conservative Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) wanted the President to "back off."

In August, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Joel Kaplan insisted that the Bush administration still has an "ambitious agenda." "When we come back in the fall, the Congress is going to have a full plate in front of it," he said. But even the President's conservative allies aren't buying this spin. Right-wing pundits Charles Krauthammer and Fred Barnes have both publicly asserted that Bush has "no agenda" anymore. Bush himself acknowledged last month that he carries little weight, especially on the issue of Iraq. "People listen to [Gen. David Petraeus], not to me," said Bush, who is nevertheless fond of referring to himself as "the Decider."

The American public also has a low opinion of Bush's relevance. As early as last January, 71 percent said they viewed Bush as a "lame duck," and 58 percent wished the Bush presidency "were simply over."

But just because the American people wish it doesn't make it so. Bush can still do a lot of damage during his remaining months in office. Outgoing presidents often resort to executive orders and regulations to leave their mark on U.S. policy and avoid working with the legislative branch -- in fact, they're the only options when facing an opposition legislative branch. In February, U.S. News and World Report reported that White House advisers were looking around for ways to "jump-start" Bush's final two years, "including issuing executive orders to get things done without having to ask for support from the Democratic-controlled Congress."

In January, Bush signed Executive Order 12866, putting political appointees -- rather than experienced civil servants -- in charge of regulatory agencies. House Oversight Committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) lamented that the move allowed the "political staff at the White House to dictate decisions on health and safety issues, even if the government's own impartial experts disagree."

More recently, Bush signed an executive order on July 20, restarting a controversial CIA interrogation program that allows the agency to use coercive interrogation techniques on detainees at the agency's "black sites."

The media are acting like this state-of-play -- Congress pushing progressive policies only to be stymied by a lame duck's veto pen -- is a surprise. The New York Times claimed that Bush's use of veto threats and vetoes is a "feat Democrats would never have imagined when they pushed Republicans out of power a year ago." The Associated Press wrote, "Democrats, to their shock, have learned that the 2006 elections did not yield a mandate to start winding down the Iraq war."

Reporters were perhaps the only ones, then, who didn't expect Bush to continue opposing progressive policies. Democrats won a majority in the House and the Senate after the 2006 elections, but they did not get the supermajority needed to overcome Bush's vetoes. Without a dramatic change of heart by one side, this outcome virtually guaranteed partisan clashes. And ultimately, it's much easier for one man to reject a bill than for two-thirds of the House and Senate to vote together.

The 110th Congress has nevertheless aggressively pushed legislation such as the S-CHIP expansion, which 81 percent of the public supports. In April, six in 10 Americans supported c

Answer 2

Hey they did too, they gave themself a raise, passed earmarks to their dem friends and went on vacation.  So there, ha!

Answer 3

Very true.  And have you noticed the price of gas has gone down a lot since Pelosi and Co. have gone on vacation?  I think we should pay them to stay home.

Answer 4

Truly yes.  Bill Clinton's glory years pointed to by so many, forget that our economy was in good shape and it may have been because 6 of Clinton's 8 years, saw a Congress controlled by the Republicans.

Answer 5

Fewer restrictions on my life but they could ease life a little by opening up and letting the oil companies drill for more oil and build more refineries and how about building some more nuclear power plants. h**l if France can do it safely than so can we.  

Answer 6

I would pay them all five times over to stay home.  

True they have passed almost no meaningful legislation, but they have spent a lot more money in the past and made gas prices even higher.  

Gas prices are high because democrats have been against oil exploration and refining and nuclear energy for decades.  Now congress gets together and slaps a tax on the oil companies because the price of gas is high.  If all the oil companies are getting taxed more, then they have to raise their prices or go out of business.  So who's fault is it really that i cant buy new running shoes because i have to spend my money to fill up my car?  My feet are sore because my old ones are worn out.  

In New York state they approve 99.97% of all spending bills proposed, and hundreds of bills are for just one person not to pay taxes.  They're all crooks.  

Answer 7

Good point. Reaching an all-time low approval rating of 9%, who wants 4 more years of Pelosi’s Congress?

Time.com July 17, 2008: "The 260 laws passed by the 110th Congress represent a 30-year low, and they include the naming of 74 post offices, not to mention the nonbinding resolutions designating July National Watermelon Month and recognizing dirt as an essential natural resource."

Edit:

G. W. Bush has vetoed a total of 12 bills during his presidency, with a total of 4 being overridden (33% overridden). Clinton vetoed a total of 37 bills during his presidency, with a total of 2 being overridden (5% overridden). Clinton also signed the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, which was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court two years later. Which President was the bigger obstructionist again?

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resource...

Answer 8

Yes considering the bills they were passing. Now they just need to start going in reverse until we can hit the year 1913 and repeal  the federal reserve act.

Answer 9

Funny, Bush seem to keep his veto pen busy.

Answer 10

No.  A lot of good Democratic legislation has been stopped, especially in the Senate by Republican filibusters.  The country has suffered as a result.  There are still too many Republicans in Congress.  

Answer 11

you failed to assert that bush himself said in his

own words that he is the decider, not pelosi

he has vetoed any and every recovery effort the dems tried to push

you would be correct with your rant if the dems had enough

members in their majority to filibuster bush's vetoes, but they don't

why can't you cons be more honest?

Answer 12

Gridlock! The Cons have taken filibustering to  new art form over 90 at my last count!

PS What about the previous 6 years! WOW what a record of accomplishments by the Neo Cons!!!!

Answer 13

I love "do nothing" congresses. They're not out there s******g things up. I especially love Democrat do nothings. They s***w things up even worse. It's nice to see Bush run circles around Pelosi. She must be the most inept speaker of my lifetime.

Bush has vetoed 2 things in seven years.  Wow! That's alot.

Answer 14

show you what a piece of **** the dems really are, and that is why they never get voted to a second term

Answer 15

Yes. They have put less bills even on the floor than any other Congress.

Answer 16

Yes, actually it has been a blessing.

Answer 17

a congresman's vacation...uhhh...

Answer 18

I would extend that to Congress over the last four years and wholeheartedly agree.

Answer 19

Yep. It is. Much like when we had a genuinely Republican congress. They kept Billy from s******g (no pun intended) things up too much. Unfortunately, that Microsoft anti trust suit that kicked off the recession that defined the end of the Clinton term got by them.

And yet, I still think it's funny that the democrats are still blaming the minority republicans and a lame duck president. Too funny.