<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/q_zZKEtoPpM"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/q_zZKEtoPpM" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/04/first_100_days_at_least_theres.asp [rquoter]First 100 Days: At Least There's Sound and Fury The House Republicans have released a report on the First 100 Days of the Democratic Congress, concluding that Democrats have accomplished little legislatively. Partisan Democrats will argue that this is not a surprise, given that they have narrow majorities and a president in opposition. They'll argue that it's unfair to expect much in such circumstances. But one might still expect them to vote on bills and send a few to the president, right? Well, not even that is happening. Look at the list of priorities--the 'Six for 06' that the Democrats campaigned on. They promised to implement all recommendations of the 9/11 commission. Leaving aside that they dropped completely the Congressional reform component, the measure still has not been sent to the president. Do they regard it as a priority or not? Raising the minimum wage has majority support in both the House and Senate--yet it still has not been sent to the president. The same is true of stem cell research. Legislation to change the interest rate on student loans, change the Medicare prescription-drug plan, and implement 'a comprehensive energy policy' have not even been voted on in the Senate. Further, though it was not included in the 'Six for 06,' Congressional Democrats spoke constantly about the need to clean up Washington. But while the House and Senate have both passed ethics reform bills, there's no sign that there will ever be a conference report to send to the president. Meanwhile, both House and Senate are disregarding provisions of the bills they have passed. Despite having accomplished very little, Democrats have been willing to stifle debate, change the rules, and generally go back on campaign promises. It's night and day from the first 100 days of the Republican Congress in 1995 (which also faced a narrow majority and an opposition President). Note that I have not touched upon the substance of the bills the Democrats are pushing. There's plenty of room for criticism on the merits of their legislation. I'd encourage you to read the report prepared by the House Republicans, which looks in detail at the substance of the agenda. To see for yourself the 17 bills that have been signed into law this year, click here. Nine of the seventeen are bills to rename post offices and courthouses, which appears to be a bipartisan process--one of them is the 'Rush Hudson Limbaugh Courthouse.'[/rquoter]
My first question would be whether congressional minority leaders had any role in preventing these bills, which have been voted on, from getting to the president.
I'm going to print your signature, basso, so it's handy in the bathroom. It might be a bit scratchy, but I know just what use it deserves. D&D. Cheers!
I for one blame the democratic congress for the fact that not many bills have been "signed into law".... basso did you get an F in high school civics or an INC? The incontrovertible fact remains that the Democrats have done more in the first 100 hours than the Republicans have done in the last 10 years. And that's not to mention the chilling effect they've had on the Lame Duck in chief and his clan of idiots. Hopefully the woefully incompetent Torturer-lackey General Gonzo and his band of christian soldiers will be the next to go. I mean, the democratic victory got Rumsfield fired. THat alone saved a lot more innocent people from being slaughtered due to ego.
i'd post a picture in response, but batman might confuse conflate sex and hemmeroids, and we just wouldn't want that.
I think these are perfectly valid questions. Why haven't these been finalized? They got the drafts done in the first 100 hours - it's been 2+ months since then.
While I agree that these bills should have already been signed into law and don't understand the holdup, I find it amusing that the dems are being accused of being lethargic when the last six years of republican majority has bought us what exactly legislation wise? When was the last time Bush signed a domestic piece of legislation that he lobbied for?
I had a brief talk with Congressman Kevin Brady soon after the first week of this session. He said that he was worried about ability for Congress to get much done because of an intractability of the leadership. Pelosi refused to allow changes to any of the 100-hour drafts of the bills. No in-committee debate was allowed either. He said that he is learning to work with her (For example, he introduces the Sunset Bill every year. This year, he had a conservative Democrat who has supported it introduce his version.), but Pelosi was going to have to learn to bargain more to be effective at all. (My inference) Pelosi came in with the idea that she could ramrod policy through, since the Democrats had won so soundly. What she missed is that most of the new Democrats are much more conservative than the House leadership. The Democratic Party won by inviting non-neocons to their big tent. While less so than the Senate, the House still works on negotiation. I'd rather it be honest negotiation than the slimy negotiation of Delay, but some kind is necessary.
Bush has signed a ridiculous amount of legislation. From the PATRIOT Act to the Medicare Drug Law to the Energy Law, Bush has been really active. There hasn't been a President who set policy so much since (I guess) Johnson.
many- such as the one on iraq. the problem you related in your anectdote are relative to getting tings thru the house. That has not been an issue whatsoever. Getting a version that both the House and Senate agree on has been an issue. Why this has not happened is anybody's guess, who knows where te problems lie. (for that matter, I don't know if 3 months after being passed through both Houses is an inordinately long amount of time for a joint version of bills to come up to vote, given the number of initiatives enacted) I do know that with respect to the stem cell bill, the Senate dragged its feet and passed it two days ago (I think there was some confusion because the House and Senate have previously passed multiple verisons of the bill dating back to 2005). If that is the same version as the House bill then it should be all ready for veto shortly. by the way, since most republicans like basso were telling us that the democratic congress was trying to destroy western civilization, shouldn't you be rejoicing that bills have yet to be signed into law by the president? Anyway, can you name for me one significant legislative initiative that got through both houses of congress in the past 4 years? I can't think of one.
I would think the Medicare Prescription Drug plan would qualify. As for the time it normally takes - that generally depends on the complexity of the legislation and the amount of difference between the House & Senate versions. Some (such as ethics reform) might take a while. Minimum wage, though, should be speedy given that it has high levels of support in both chambers, has the same basic structure in both bills, and has the President's support. Plus, it takes effect as soon as it's signed, so if you're really trying to raise the minimum wage, there's no reason it shouldn't already be on the President's desk.
