WSJ Today: 109th Congress "a bust"

[Beet]

Americans have learned to expect little from Congress, and by that standard the 109th version, controlled by Republicans, has met expectations. On the other hand, anyone who hoped that the GOP would make something of its historic governing opportunity is bound to be disappointed so far.

Five months in, Congress can point to the following achievements: a bankruptcy bill 10 years in the making, and a class-action reform watered down essentially to a jurisdictional change to federal from state courts. That's about it. Among the 2004 campaign promises that aren't close to being fulfilled are making the Bush tax cuts permanent, reforming Social Security and expanding the market for private health care. Instead of any of those big three, Congress next seems poised to pass a subsidy-laden energy bill and a highway bill with some 4,000 earmarks for individual Members. For this we elected Republicans?

****

I laugh.

[A18]

We shall see.

[Beet]

Yes we shall. And what's with the whole deal of switching jurisdictions to federal courts and away from states? What ever happened to Reagan's "new federalism"?

[Beet]

House delay means Social Security overhaul not likely this year

By James Kuhnhenn, Knight Ridder Newspapers Wed Jul 13, 7:59 PM ET

WASHINGTON - House leaders said Wednesday that they can't take up a Social Security bill before this fall, dealing a serious blow to any hope that Congress might enact an overhaul of the nation's retirement system this year.

The Senate is no closer to action than the House of Representatives.

That means the legislation, if it's ever taken up, is likely to be pushed into 2006, where election-year politics could make it virtually impossible to tackle the type of controversial changes that President Bush envisions.

[MODU]

Funny how the articles don't weigh as heavily on the Democrats in Congress as it does Republicans . . . because you can't have one without the other.

But that's the old addage:  If Pro = good, and Con = bad, what's the opposite of PROgress?

[Democratic Hawk]

Americans have learned to expect little from Congress, and by that standard the 109th version, controlled by Republicans, has met expectations. On the other hand, anyone who hoped that the GOP would make something of its historic governing opportunity is bound to be disappointed so far.

Five months in, Congress can point to the following achievements: a bankruptcy bill 10 years in the making, and a class-action reform watered down essentially to a jurisdictional change to federal from state courts. That's about it. Among the 2004 campaign promises that aren't close to being fulfilled are making the Bush tax cuts permanent, reforming Social Security and expanding the market for private health care. Instead of any of those big three, Congress next seems poised to pass a subsidy-laden energy bill and a highway bill with some 4,000 earmarks for individual Members. For this we elected Republicans?

****

I laugh.

The GOP-controlled Congress could be characterised as being a bunch of "good for nothings, do nothings", if you ask me

Dave

[A18]

I really don't care much about Social Security, although it is hilarious that the party of no ideas is now complaining that we aren't doing something they oppose fast enough.

Above all else, what this country needs is pro-growth tax reform.

[Cubby]

Funny how the articles don't weigh as heavily on the Democrats in Congress as it does Republicans . . . because you can't have one without the other.

But that's the old addage:  If Pro = good, and Con = bad, what's the opposite of PROgress?

The Republicans control both houses of Congress now, so yes the article should focus on them more. The Dems usually aren't given the opportunity to have their proposed legislation discussed.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Funny how the articles don't weigh as heavily on the Democrats in Congress as it does Republicans . . . because you can't have one without the other.

But that's the old addage:  If Pro = good, and Con = bad, what's the opposite of PROgress?

The Republicans control both houses of Congress now, so yes the article should focus on them more. The Dems usually aren't given the opportunity to have their proposed legislation discussed.

Republicans can't help but blame Democrats for their own failures.

[A18]

I'm the only Republican to post in this thread. Where did I blame Democrats for my party not passing things quickly enough? You know, things you oppose and yet whine about?

[MODU]

Funny how the articles don't weigh as heavily on the Democrats in Congress as it does Republicans . . . because you can't have one without the other.

But that's the old addage:  If Pro = good, and Con = bad, what's the opposite of PROgress?

The Republicans control both houses of Congress now, so yes the article should focus on them more. The Dems usually aren't given the opportunity to have their proposed legislation discussed.

Yet they do not have the super majority it would take to make the Democrats less insignificant than they are currently as the minority, so yes, the Democrats to have to carry some of the burden.  While a few Democrats are willing to "work with" the Republicans, they have primarily taken the role of obstructionist.  While that is sometimes a good thing on bad legislation, it's a bad thing on most legislation.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Funny how the articles don't weigh as heavily on the Democrats in Congress as it does Republicans . . . because you can't have one without the other.

But that's the old addage:  If Pro = good, and Con = bad, what's the opposite of PROgress?

The Republicans control both houses of Congress now, so yes the article should focus on them more. The Dems usually aren't given the opportunity to have their proposed legislation discussed.

Yet they do not have the super majority it would take to make the Democrats less insignificant than they are currently as the minority, so yes, the Democrats to have to carry some of the burden.  While a few Democrats are willing to "work with" the Republicans, they have primarily taken the role of obstructionist.  While that is sometimes a good thing on bad legislation, it's a bad thing on most legislation.

The Republicans have gotten almost everything through that their party supports. The Democratic party should not bend over backwards for you far-right extremists. Your party has had quite a bit of power for the last few years, and it shows how immature your party is when all they can do is blame Democrats. Give the government back to the grown ups.

[Defarge]

The Republicans are perfectly capable of ramming through whatever bills they want.  What prevents social security reform is not the Democratic Party, but internal dissension within the Republican Party.  As far as I can see, the only thing Democrats have been able to do is prevent Bolton and two judges from being confirmed.  If the Republicans were united they could invoke the nuclear option and end the filibuster.  But internal dissent, not the Democrats, keeps the Republicans from doing this.  Internal dissent, not the Democrats, keeps the Republican Congress from fulfilling their campaign promises.

[MODU]

The Republicans have gotten almost everything through that their party supports. The Democratic party should not bend over backwards for you far-right extremists. Your party has had quite a bit of power for the last few years, and it shows how immature your party is when all they can do is blame Democrats. Give the government back to the grown ups.

Didn't say they should.  I just said that they need to work with, not against, the other party.

[Bono]

Funny how the articles don't weigh as heavily on the Democrats in Congress as it does Republicans . . . because you can't have one without the other.

But that's the old addage:  If Pro = good, and Con = bad, what's the opposite of PROgress?

The Republicans control both houses of Congress now, so yes the article should focus on them more. The Dems usually aren't given the opportunity to have their proposed legislation discussed.

Yet they do not have the super majority it would take to make the Democrats less insignificant than they are currently as the minority, so yes, the Democrats to have to carry some of the burden.  While a few Democrats are willing to "work with" the Republicans, they have primarily taken the role of obstructionist.  While that is sometimes a good thing on bad legislation, it's a bad thing on most legislation.

The Republicans have gotten almost everything through that their party supports.

Examples?

[A18]

Five tax cuts, that bankruptcy bill, and a partial-birth abortion ban. That's about it, but we'll probably get tax reform and a guest worker program through this Congress.

[Bono]

Five tax cuts, that bankruptcy bill, and a partial-birth abortion ban. That's about it, but we'll probably get tax reform and a guest worker program through this Congress.

That's almost everything we want?

[A18]

You just said examples. Certainly we didn't get almost everything we wanted.