By their resolutions you shall know them
Rocky Mountatin News
Published August 20, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
When it broke for its August recess, Congress had passed only 294 laws, the fewest at this point of any Congress in the last 20 years.
Out of those, 81 named post offices.
That relative inactivity might be no bad thing for the country.
Unfortunately, among those that did not pass were the 10 appropriations bills, which fund the operations of the federal government and whose passage is Congress' main order of business in fact, almost its whole purpose.
Those bills are supposed to be passed before the end of the federal fiscal year, but no one's betting on it. Some of them may not get passed until the start of 2009.
However, Congress has not been totally idle, you'll be pleased to hear. According to the nonpartisan watchdogs over at Taxpayers for Common Sense, the lawmakers have introduced a total of 1,932 often meaningless resolutions.
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.


August 20, 2008
6:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike846 writes:
Time to throw the rascals out. All 535 of them. Start over, and begin ballot initiatives in every state to impose term limits via a Constitutional amendment. Not that it would work. There is no way Congress is going to pass a law and send it out to voters for ratification that would limit their bloated, corrupt way of life. But maybe it could send a message. And we CAN elect others to take their place. Either party, if they can be shown to be part of this problem, throw them out next chance you get. Vote. Call. Write. Mike
August 20, 2008
6:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
That would be nice but it isn't going to happen. People only get going when they get riled. Notice how this is on the editorial page instead of the front page?
August 20, 2008
7:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
VVVV writes:
By my account, inactivity is the best thing Congress can do. If they aren't working, they aren't screwing anything else up. Once you come to the realization that they consider it beneath them to ever fix the problems they create, you'll see that the only logical benefit they are ever capable of doing is leaving us alone.
August 20, 2008
9:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
vendari01 writes:
I read a bumper sticker the other day that sums it all up: Political incumbents, like diapers, should be changed frequently; usually for the same reasons.
August 20, 2008
10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
TC writes:
VVVV
Vendario01
You're on the right track. Remember when Clinton let the government run out of money and had to shut down a couple of times? Did you notice the government was shut down? I know I didn't. Clinton was a good president precisely because he did almost nothing except get a BJ and bomb an aspirin factory in Africa. The budget balanced. The country prospered.
August 20, 2008
1:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
vendari01 writes:
As much as I'd like to see Congress take care of the appropriations bills (which as the RMN says is their primary mandate), they always see fit to take on several fortunes worth of porkbarrel additions for their constituencies, i.e. financial and political supporters. Be nice to see them actually do their jobs for once. But then, it's the lobbyists and others like them that see to it that nothing changes in D.C.
August 20, 2008
8:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Castle writes:
I'm not much on amending the Constitution, but I'd like to see one change to it. I think it would save a lot of money. Any bill that moves through the House or Senate, should deal with and fund ONLY what the bill is about. As in you can't add pork to a bill. If a Represenitive or Senator wants some pork for their home district, bring it up as a bill, don't hide it in another bill. One bill, one purpose, no pork. No, it'll never happen, but it's a nice dream.