The Washington Times has a Futility
Index, which it uses to judge the effectiveness of Congress. The four factors going into the calculation are time spent in
session, number of pages compiled in the Congressional Record, number of bills
passed and votes taken. The higher the number for each factor, the more
effective each branch of Congress is judged to be.
For an annual comparison, Six months into 2011, the House had been in session for 515 hours, had compiled 4,581 pages in the Congressional Record and had 14 bills signed into law. In 2012, the House had been in session for 452 hours, had amassed 4,657 pages of material in the Congressional Record and had 40 of its bills signed into law. For this year, there have been 380 hours in session, 4178 pages of material in the Congressional Record, and 11 bills enacted into law. The Washington times considers this a dismal record for the House.
I adamantly take exception to the position of the Washington Times.
All laws are inherently restrictive. They generally restrict the rights of the general public or show favoritism to selected groups, to the disadvantage of the remaining public. If we assume that Congress sees its job as passing laws, then the more time they spend in session the more likelihood that we will have new restrictive laws. Similarly, the greater the number of pages of material in the Congressional Record, the greater the complexity of our laws and the more restrictive they are to the general public. Lastly, the more bills enacted into law, the more restriction to the American public.
However, Republican strategist Michael McKenna seems to be at least partially on the right track by saying that House Republicans seem to have learned over the previous two years, the futility of passing bills to cut spending, force more development of energy and cut taxes, only to have them stall in the divided Senate.
The Times judgment of the better Congressional record in 2011 and 2012 is actually based on passage of restrictive laws favorable to the Democratic/socialistic philosophy. The slower action in 2013 seems to recognize that mistake and at least compensate partially for it.
In summary, it is my opinion that the fewer restrictive laws and subsequent agency regulations coming from the federal government, the better for the economy and the freedom of the American people. If Congress wants to take any positive action, it should review and eliminate or modify existing laws, of which we already have too many. We also need to have the Washington Times take another look at how they are judging the health of the United States, rather than assuming that the more time Congress spends in developing new restrictive laws, the better for the American public.
For an annual comparison, Six months into 2011, the House had been in session for 515 hours, had compiled 4,581 pages in the Congressional Record and had 14 bills signed into law. In 2012, the House had been in session for 452 hours, had amassed 4,657 pages of material in the Congressional Record and had 40 of its bills signed into law. For this year, there have been 380 hours in session, 4178 pages of material in the Congressional Record, and 11 bills enacted into law. The Washington times considers this a dismal record for the House.
I adamantly take exception to the position of the Washington Times.
All laws are inherently restrictive. They generally restrict the rights of the general public or show favoritism to selected groups, to the disadvantage of the remaining public. If we assume that Congress sees its job as passing laws, then the more time they spend in session the more likelihood that we will have new restrictive laws. Similarly, the greater the number of pages of material in the Congressional Record, the greater the complexity of our laws and the more restrictive they are to the general public. Lastly, the more bills enacted into law, the more restriction to the American public.
However, Republican strategist Michael McKenna seems to be at least partially on the right track by saying that House Republicans seem to have learned over the previous two years, the futility of passing bills to cut spending, force more development of energy and cut taxes, only to have them stall in the divided Senate.
The Times judgment of the better Congressional record in 2011 and 2012 is actually based on passage of restrictive laws favorable to the Democratic/socialistic philosophy. The slower action in 2013 seems to recognize that mistake and at least compensate partially for it.
In summary, it is my opinion that the fewer restrictive laws and subsequent agency regulations coming from the federal government, the better for the economy and the freedom of the American people. If Congress wants to take any positive action, it should review and eliminate or modify existing laws, of which we already have too many. We also need to have the Washington Times take another look at how they are judging the health of the United States, rather than assuming that the more time Congress spends in developing new restrictive laws, the better for the American public.
No comments:
Post a Comment