Skip to comments.The Liberal 'Least Productive' Complaint
Posted on 01/08/2014 6:01:37 AM PST by Kaslin
Liberals are angry President Barack Obama won a second term, and yet, they didn't get the liberal agenda items they wanted passed in 2013, including gun control and amnesty for illegal aliens. The complaint at the end of the year is that this was the "least productive Congress" in 66 years, with production always being measured by the amount of legislation passed.
But the media complaint here isn't about just any legislation; it's about a liberal wish list. Washington Post reporter Paul Kane laments the "shrunken ambitions" of congressional Democrats in a front-page story: "Back in 2009, during the heady days of hope and change, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) introduced 90 pieces of legislation. In 2013, amid gridlock and dysfunction, he sponsored just 35 bills. None of them became law."
Kane laments Congress as "an institution whose historically low approval rating has been at or below 20 percent for three years." So the problem on Capitol Hill began in 2011 -- the minute Republicans took over the House majority.
The Post reporter does not explain that journalists just started seizing on an overall approval rating for Congress -- an electorally irrelevant number compared to each representative's popularity in the home state or district -- as a way of bolstering Obama by comparison. They didn't seize on any measure of the popularity of Congress during former President George W. Bush's second term because they wanted him to look like a complete loser.
This "least productive Congress" rap suggests that the passage of any legislation is the equivalent of progress. Get a load of how Kane offers a brief balance to his own thesis: "For instance, amid all the outcry over congressional dysfunction in 2010, 2011 and 2012, Congress still managed to pass a bounty of landmark laws, including the Affordable Care Act and two tax-and-budget bills that brought a combined $2.8 trillion in deficit savings."
Note to America: Reporters still insist Obamacare is a "landmark" achievement, regardless of how millions of Americans, now without health care, feel they've been kicked in the teeth by a president who repeatedly lied to them. Reporters simply ignore the very real deficit numbers Obama has rung up -- over $5.1 trillion in his first term -- and pretend it's a tremendous achievement that Congress passed by its own tricky accounting some imaginary "$2.8 trillion in deficit savings."
The deficit in fiscal 2013 was $680 billion, the lowest of the Obama years. This is what happens when Congress is hounded as "least productive." And yet there is no fiscal achievement here, either. As Terry Jeffrey at CNSNews.com has explained, even adjusted for inflation, this deficit is exceeded by only one pre-Obama deficit -- the one the U.S. government ran in 1943, during the height of World War II.
The deficit came down in part because House Republicans forced sequestration on Team Obama -- an idea the White House first proposed, even if it meant it only as an empty threat. The sequester clipped the deficit in spite of TV and print reporters screeching about the tsunami of suffering that would result. This turned out to be an assembly line of phony baloney, right down to the silly unnecessary shutdown of White House tours by the Obamas. Whatever money they've "saved," they blew it somewhere else -- like on endless Christmas vacations.
Back on Dec. 5, 2013, CBS congressional reporter Nancy Cordes scolded a "do-nothing Congress" -- those were the words on screen. Cordes warned of the price of inaction: "American families could see milk prices spike to $7 a gallon if Congress can't pass a farm bill by the end of the year. Lawmakers are also running out of time to set funding and policy for the Pentagon next year, and they still need to confirm Janet Yellen as the next Federal Reserve chair before Ben Bernanke's term ends next month."
Since then, Yellen has been confirmed, the Pentagon funded, and milk is still $3.50 a gallon. This is what the "news" business does today -- it cajoles and threatens about the need for a more "productive" liberal future instead of reporting on what has already happened. And it does succeed in intimidating squeamish Republicans.
These TV reporters are hardly the ones to drag out the "least productive" scolding. If we measured their productivity by the number of congressional hearings and investigative stories delving into our corrupt government -- IRS harassment, Benghazi cover-up, "Fast and Furious" cover-up and on and on -- we could rightly conclude they are the "least productive" journalists in history.
MSNBC uses ‘least productive’ all the time, CNN sometimes uses it.
But they define congress productivity based solely on how many bills/laws Obama signs into law.
And all that means is how much the GOP house passes what Reid and Obama demand.
So its a scam metric.
The media is the enemy, they must be held accountable. Any suggestions?
They only mean ‘least productive’ in how much liberal agenda is passed.
If Conservatives were in charge and passed 10 times as many laws eliminating departmens and cutting the size of the government they would be calling it “counter-productive”
Yeah it amazes me when I hear liberals whine about how few laws have been passed.
My complaint is how few they’ve been able to repeal or block.
Libs have mostly had the upper hand since 2007 in the sense that any bill that got passed into law since then furthered their progressive goals in one way or another(none went backwards), so its convenient for them to define it that way.
Its a over-simplication to appeal to the clueless masses, much like GOP’s ‘The national deficit is like a family spending more than it takes in’
My response would be :”Republicans were elected to STOP bills like Obama-care from being law.
You know the ‘Progressives’ use that $680B deficit figure as an accomplishment. Since the fiscal year ended Sept 30, 2013, they added over $300B in October 2013. They just cooked the books.
This is a real bone of contention with me as I can do the math.
Few laws passed actually add to our freedoms. There are exceptions like passing RTW on Michigan and even the Colorado pot law (which I personally don’t love) but the vast majority are laws which restrict.
Banning light bulbs didn’t add anything to anyone’s freedom and only causes harm.
That's not really the purpose of government.
Maximum freedom would come from total anarchy, which is no government.
An example GOP would like is governments actions as a response to 9/11 attacks. Clearly keeping us safe from future 9/11s was going to restrict some of our freedoms.
I’d like to see legislatures across this nation “produce” by repealing laws.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.