Skip to comments.Report: Democrat-controlled Senate laziest in 20 years
Posted on 04/16/2012 12:47:17 PM PDT by Kaslin
For those who need proof that the Senate was a do-nothing chamber in 2011 beyond the constant partisan bickering and failure to pass a federal budget, there is now hard evidence that it was among the laziest in 20 years.
In her latest report, Secretary of the Senate Nancy Erickson revealed a slew of data that put the first session of the 112th Senate at the bottom of Senates since 1992 in legislative productivity, an especially damning finding considering that it wasnt an election year when congressional action is usually lower.
For example, while the Democratically-controlled Senate was in session for 170 days, it spent an average of just 6.5 hours in session on those days, the second lowest since 1992. Only 2008 logged a lower average of 5.4 hours a day, and thats when action was put off because several senators were running for president, among them Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain.
On the passage of public laws, arguably its most important job, the Senate notched just 90, the second lowest in 20 years, and it passed a total of 402 measures, also the second lowest. And as the president has been complaining about, the chamber confirmed a 20-year low of 19,815 judicial and other nominations.
The Secretary of the Senates office didnt comment on the statistics, but it did provide a comparison to action in 2009, the first term of the 111th Senate, when many of President Obamas initiatives were considered by the Democratically-controlled House and Senate. By comparison the number of Senate bills offered last year was down 30 percent, the number of amendments offered sank 55 percent, and the number of roll call votes dropped 40 percent.
Congress doing less is not necessarily a bad thing.
I wish they were so lazy they didn’t do ANYTHING, but alas...
I don’t see this as necessarily a bad thing.
Hear, hear!! They’ver done far too much in my book.
I think that, ideally, Congress should be doing nothing at all, unless they’re going start repealing stuff.
Lazy senate, lazy pResident.
Seems the only ones who are working are the czars and all we know is that they are up to nothing good.
WOW! Y’all beat me to it! Unless they’re repealing a lot of BS laws & regs, I say Hooray for lazy and likewise for gridlock.
Agreed but if only working 170 days, let just pay them for the 170 days. Lets move to a part time congress.
About 80% of them need a looooong vacation...
Rats don’t need to do anything since Barry passes most things by Executive Order or such.
They can just fundraise, fly around , and worship The One.
They could be REPEALING laws, deconstructing slob-fat agencies (EPA anyone? Education dept?)....they are just letting the terminal train travel on down the tracks to America’s destruction. For that our forebears would be on the Capitol steps with tar and feathers....or worse
And McConnell....RIP....is gonna save us all!!!!
You can also look at it as they haven’t passed as much damaging legislation as they could have the last 10 years. Obamacare was so bad they had enough reserves of bad to last them a few more years, even if they pass nothing else.
but Without pay
Yes; McConnell is going to save us. I’m on his mailing list, and he said so. His email was titled: This Cannot Stand. Here’s the take-away quote.:
“I pledge to you that the my[sic] Senate GOP colleagues and I will do everything in our power to stop Obama’s gross abuses of power. Can I count on you to stand with me?”
So I wrote back:
You old blowhard. When have you ever lifted a single finger to protect us from Obama’s abuses? He’s run roughshod over us while you got rich on insider trading. We’re in a world of hurt and you’re sitting pretty. So NOW you’re going to stop Obama?
Just stop with the BS, okay? Nobody believes you any more—and most of us want you defeated in the next election.
Signed, Average Voter
Almost verbatim what I sent him. I did preface it with” sorry to interrupt your executive nap”
Lol. I envy the line about McConnell’s nap. Plus, maybe we should have ragged him about Viagra. Isn’t there some sort of historical/political connection between the line: ‘this will not stand’, and Viagra?
Or am I confusing G. H. W. Bush w Dole?
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.