Report: Democrat-controlled Senate laziest in 20 years

[Jackson]

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 wasn’t 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 that’s 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.

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.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/polit...rat-controlled-senate-laziest-20-years/493996




This is the year we really need a change in Congress as well as in the administration. This Democratic Leadership has to be history.

 

[rdean]

Does seem lazy when Republicans block everything and refused to negotiate. I Remember just before last election when the Republicans were referred to as the "Filibuster Party". Using the filibuster the most in US history by any party. How do these things get forgotten?

 

[Artevelde]

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 wasn’t 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 that’s 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.

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.

Report: Democrat-controlled Senate laziest in 20 years | Washington Examiner




This is the year we really need a change in Congress as well as in the administration. This Democratic Leadership has to be history.

Actually, party affiliations aside, the less Congress legislates the better I would argue.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

"Fat, Dumb And Stupid is no way to go through life son."

--Dean Wormer

 

[Full-Auto]

Does seem lazy when Republicans block everything and refused to negotiate. I Remember just before last election when the Republicans were referred to as the "Filibuster Party". Using the filibuster the most in US history by any party. How do these things get forgotten?

Hey low life.

ANY CUT IS EXTREME

 

[SniperFire]

I wouldn't care if they did little beyond do their Consitutional duty and passed a budget.


But Harry Reid says F that, he would rather see America spin out of control as long as he and Obama can rule by executive decree.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Does seem lazy when Republicans block everything and refused to negotiate. I Remember just before last election when the Republicans were referred to as the "Filibuster Party". Using the filibuster the most in US history by any party. How do these things get forgotten?

Funny. Last year in the Senate, the Republicans put Obama's proposed budget to a vote and it was defeated 96-0. When Democrats don't even vote for their own plan then what the hell do you expect the Republicans to do?

 

[rightwinger]

Not really amazing when you consider this is the first Senate in history where a 60% filibuster proof majority was required for every piece of legislation

Republicans reap what they sow

 

[paulitician]

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 wasn’t 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 that’s 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 Senate’s office didn’t 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 Obama’s 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.

Report: Democrat-controlled Senate laziest in 20 years | Washington Examiner
DRUDGE REPORT 2012®

*MERGED*

 

[SniperFire]

Not really amazing when you consider this is the first Senate in history where a 60% filibuster proof majority was required for every piece of legislation

Republicans reap what they sow

You are saying a Senate budget resolution must pass filibuster?

 

[Sallow]

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 wasn’t 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 that’s 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.

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.

Report: Democrat-controlled Senate laziest in 20 years | Washington Examiner




This is the year we really need a change in Congress as well as in the administration. This Democratic Leadership has to be history.

Actually, party affiliations aside, the less Congress legislates the better I would argue.

Which is basically part of the Grover Norquist plan to de-legitimize the democratically elected and Constitutionally mandated government..and replace it with a plutocracy run by the wealthy.

The Republican plan as well..as they all signed pledges that puts Norquist above the Constitution.

 

[nodoginnafight]

So what you're saying is that this Democrat-controlled Senate is to be blamed for not passing more legislation????

I thought you guys WANTED less government.

See when you try to gin up stupid complaints like this - you really look stupid.

 

[grunt11b]

Does seem lazy when Republicans block everything and refused to negotiate. I Remember just before last election when the Republicans were referred to as the "Filibuster Party". Using the filibuster the most in US history by any party. How do these things get forgotten?

Block everything? you really are a dumbfuck aren't you? The GOP sent over 20 bills down to the Democrat controlled senate, most of them budgets, and Prince Harry did not even allow them to be placed on the floor for a vote. The do-nothings Obama speaks of are really the jackasses in his own party, and then they hop on MSNBC and spew the bullshit and you buy into every bit of it. Congrats Rdean, you still are one of the most misinformed posters on this board!!
And of course they fillibuster shit, when it has to do with reckless uncontrollable spending. Someone has to save the republic dipshit,apparently it is not going to be anybody leaning left.

 

[Jackson]

So what you're saying is that this Democrat-controlled Senate is to be blamed for not passing more legislation????

I thought you guys WANTED less government.

See when you try to gin up stupid complaints like this - you really look stupid.

They are capable of introducing spending cuts as well. But that wouldn't enter their minds or allowed to go to the floor by the leadership.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

So what you're saying is that this Democrat-controlled Senate is to be blamed for not passing more legislation????

I thought you guys WANTED less government.

See when you try to gin up stupid complaints like this - you really look stupid.

Less govt sure. And I can even live with less laws and regulations whether that's there intent or not. But come on; they're too damn lazy to even pass a budget (something I had figured was Constitutionally mandated to even be appropriating money). That's where I definitely draw the line. What the hell are we even paying them for; if they can't pass a budget?

 

[Full-Auto]

Report: Democrat-controlled Senate laziest in 20 years | Washington Examiner




This is the year we really need a change in Congress as well as in the administration. This Democratic Leadership has to be history.

Actually, party affiliations aside, the less Congress legislates the better I would argue.

Which is basically part of the Grover Norquist plan to de-legitimize the democratically elected and Constitutionally mandated government..and replace it with a plutocracy run by the wealthy.

The Republican plan as well..as they all signed pledges that puts Norquist above the Constitution.

we can tell it really sucks for you to have to pay your own way.

Vote dem that monthly check will be the pinnacle of your success.

 

[grunt11b]

Not really amazing when you consider this is the first Senate in history where a 60% filibuster proof majority was required for every piece of legislation

Republicans reap what they sow

Someone has to be responsible, dipshit.

 

[Artevelde]

Report: Democrat-controlled Senate laziest in 20 years | Washington Examiner




This is the year we really need a change in Congress as well as in the administration. This Democratic Leadership has to be history.

Actually, party affiliations aside, the less Congress legislates the better I would argue.

Which is basically part of the Grover Norquist plan to de-legitimize the democratically elected and Constitutionally mandated government..and replace it with a plutocracy run by the wealthy.

The Republican plan as well..as they all signed pledges that puts Norquist above the Constitution.

Norquist can speak for himself and so can I. Unlike other people on this forum I don't need somebody's "plan" or "party-line" to tell me what to think. In my basic Conservative philosophy the role of a democratically elected Congress is so important that it shouldn't be squandered by passing innumerable pieces of legislation. The more legislation a legislature passes the less valuable and impressive that legislation becomes. The legislative function and process is not something to be used in order to fill some quota or to make some media waves.

 

[nodoginnafight]

So what you're saying is that this Democrat-controlled Senate is to be blamed for not passing more legislation????

I thought you guys WANTED less government.

See when you try to gin up stupid complaints like this - you really look stupid.

Less govt sure. And I can even live with less laws and regulations whether that's there intent or not. But come on; they're too damn lazy to even pass a budget (something I had figured was Constitutionally mandated to even be appropriating money). That's where I definitely draw the line. What the hell are we even paying them for; if they can't pass a budget?

It's the job of the House of Representatives to produce a budget

 

[Full-Auto]

So what you're saying is that this Democrat-controlled Senate is to be blamed for not passing more legislation????

I thought you guys WANTED less government.

See when you try to gin up stupid complaints like this - you really look stupid.

Less govt sure. And I can even live with less laws and regulations whether that's there intent or not. But come on; they're too damn lazy to even pass a budget (something I had figured was Constitutionally mandated to even be appropriating money). That's where I definitely draw the line. What the hell are we even paying them for; if they can't pass a budget?

It's the job of the House of Representatives to produce a budget

Which they have.

How much longer should we wait for you to make a point?