Third Party & Independents: Archives

That’s quite a list of broken links there. I’m sure you’ll fix em’ eventually, but I’d like to raise some objections to the list in general.

Passed amendments and motions related to bills which themselves have not passed both chambers of Congress, much less been signed into law, are not actual accomplishments, even if they are potential accomplishments.

And measures which didn’t pass, as a considerable number of those didn’t, are not going to make “differences in the lives of 10s of millions of Americans.” Those should all be weeded from the list. What’s presented seems to be nothing more than a laundry list of everything Congress has voted on, no matter how minor, and without reference to either the up or down results of the votes or passage of the related bills.

I notice, for example, an amendment about Amtrak subsidies that failed 94-328. Was this for or against those subsidies? What was it? The description and link don’t say, but where is the achievement in a mere amendment that was clearly rejected by a majority of both parties? Why do you ask us to stand up and cheer for the mere existence of this rejected amendment? Well, hurray.

But of those things which have passed and become law (and I wish the list could be narrowed down to those), shouldn’t we give some attention to whether the difference they’ll make in the lives of millions are positive or negative? To evaluate the success of this Democrat-controlled Congress as opposed to the previous Congress, shouldn’t we also pay attention to what measures were passed that wouldn’t have passed by any Congress, no matter how it was composed (i.e. routine spending bills)?

A similar list of votes by the last Republican-controlled congress would be much longer and have many more items which actually became law. Since the only criteria you’re using is the number of things voted on, without regard to whether things passed, failed, or were actually good for the country, then the Republican Congress was much, much better.

Thanks, David. The accusations of a do-nothing Congress come from Repulican partisans who want us to believe that acting as a check and balance on the executive branch is not their job.

Loyal Opp, thanks for the heads up on the links. Fixed now.

I debated whether to edit the list. I chose not to, because what didn’t pass is self evident in the list.

And the measures not yet signed into law by the President need not be counted against Congress as doing nothing, should he veto them.

Finally, I did not want to appear to be cherry picking from the list. It’s all there, let the readers do their own cherry picking, and save me from having to defend having done so. Much more efficient of my time that way.

Again, thank you for bringing the broken links to my attention.

Your welcome, AP. But, when, if ever, are Democrats going to get around to ridding our governance and politics of the corruption by the wealthy special interests. That is like a major theme with Independent voters, and I don’t see Democrat’s future as a dominant one without their support.

I am sure Democrats would like to see 40 years of being majority party in one or both houses of Congress, instead of only 4, 6, or 8.

A fairly routine list of accomplishments. A little shorter than most. It is not a do nothing congress; it is just a do not much congress - except they are very enthusiastic about holding political hearings. That is what they are good at and where they spend the taxpayers’ money.

BTW - for the Dems to do not much is good. When they are active it costs us all lots of money.

Leave it to Jack to “overgeneralize”…the very topic of the article!! Be specific! We’re already spending money (and big bucks, too!) totally outside the “budget”…why not criticize what is already being spent than trying to “generalize” that a party with a one vote majority will overspend…they can’t pass anything without at least a little support from the other side of the aisle!

David, The Dems are part of the problem when it comes to the big money influence within our Government. If Im not mistaken the monied class, with an eye to the future, are very busy supporting Clinton and Obama as we speak. I hope Im wrong but will the new bill on ethics and election reform really have any teeth in it?

Jack, Not much is certaingly better than the repub lead 109th. I dont think the right side of the aisle should be throwing stones when it comes to a worthless congress. Far right posters here have been down on the 110th as a do nothing congress even as they were just arriving in DC. Its just empty rhetoric from the right who stood by the 109th for so long and less we forget there are still quite a few leftovers from the 109th. The 109th didnt even have to face the veto from the likes of W it was clear sailing for them and look how useless they were. Oversight was well non existant at best in the 109th, that may explain why now that Congress is actually doing their job it seems that they are meddling. The pole was set so low for so long that the 110th actually looks even more impressive.
Maybe this next election cycle we will have thrown enough out to have an impact on business as usual in DC.

I think what the Democrats in Congress are doing is very wise, albeit frustrating. They are putting forth legislation that they know the American people support, but that they know will not pass, or at least will not pass Dubya’s desk. They then trumpet the fact that the Republicans are fighting the will of the people. They are sowing political seeds, in hope of a good harvest come ‘08. Me, I’m hoping for a bumper crop.

L

David R. Remer,

I’m glad you wrote an article about this. Congressional Quarterly printed some very basic stats regarding just this a few weeks ago:

“……..federal lawmakers [in the House] have held more votes on legislation and other matters in the first six months of this year than they did during the entire 2006 session of the Republican-controlled 109th Congress. That was when GOP leaders decided to defer action to the 110th Congress, now controlled by Democrats, on most of the 2006 spending measures.”

“The House has held 600 roll call votes and six quorum calls so far this year, which puts the chamber well on its way to surpassing the 867 votes and 18 quorum calls Republicans held in 1995 after they assumed control of the House for the first time in 40 years.”

“The Senate, meanwhile, has held about 240 votes this year. That number, combined with the House figure, puts Congress on track to break the all-time record for combined voting — 1,480 — set in 1995 when Republicans controlled both chambers.”

http://tinyurl.com/22rzj2

So, bottom line: calling the 110th a “do nothing” congress is (a)intellectually lazy, (b)pure political bias, or (c)just “sour grapes” displayed by the GOP after what Bush called a real whoopin’.

Re ethics reform: “The bill would require lawmakers to disclose those lobbyists who raise $15,000 or more for them within a six-month period by “bundling” donations from many people. It also would bar lobbyists and their clients from giving gifts to lawmakers.”

“The bill would require former House members to wait a year before lobbying Congress in person. Ex-senators would have to wait two years.”

Is that enough? Not only no, but HELL NO! But it’s a start.

Now, if only someone………anyone, would please get to work on a one bill—one purpose measure I’d be all smiles. I’ll admit though that a part of my reasoning for that is “pure political bias”. Example in point: the minimum wage increase would not have passed and that failure would lay solidly at the doorstep of the GOP.

The even larger part of my reasoning is that it would stifle one hell of a lot of “pork”…….at least the “pork” would have to be somehow related to the original intent of the bill……….but I fear holding my breath for the introduction of such legislation would undoubtedly result in an untimely death.

http://tinyurl.com/35ccrb

“for the Dems to do not much is good. When they are active it costs us all lots of money.”

Jack,

I have to agree, at least in part. The proposed increase in SCHIP coverage for approximately 3 million poor and lower-income children will cost the taxpayer more. About $35 billion over the next five years.

OTOH Medicare Advantage plans (a brain child of the GOP and the insurance industry) costs the taxpayer 11% more than traditional Medicare or $27.6 billion over five years. I also find it ironic that both the local doctors office and the local hospital quit accepting Advantage plans because they don’t pay in a timely manner.

I also wonder just how many of these 3 million kids will end up in emergency rooms much sicker and at a higher cost to consumers because their parents could not afford a simple office call and some scrips. I assume you know that unpaid ER bills get passed along to everyone that can pay?

Thank’s David.

If no bills were passed, but we got some actual oversight (both of the executive branch and themselves) it would satisfy me.

Does anyone know what happened to the second half of the investigation as to how we used the intelligence to get into Iraq?

Thanks David, definitely. This article will be helpful for my facts on democrats series.

Farbeit for me to say (as I’m usually a repub. supporter masquerading as a moderate), but I’m nervous about the SCHIP covering “kids” thru age 24-ish. I’m not worried about its cost - I’m worried about the theory behind the program. I’m tired of people defending SCHIP because there are similar programs on the books (after all if Medicare Advantage is bad, why accept an expansion of SCHIP on top of it?).

Furthermore, as of may, I was aware of no more that a few dozen bills in congress becoming laws in the first five months - and only about eight were new, impacting bills.

But it’s no secret that the previous, Repub-controlled congress was a failure in its own rights. That plain, conceded, basic fact has by now made its way into the next updates of American History textbooks.