5 ms·

You mean the federal government which has passed the least number of laws of all previous' Congresses?

• Loughla 13y ago
  I genuinely don't understand this statement as a metric for assessing effectiveness. What you're saying is that the best way to tell whether or not the federal government is doing its job is by the simple number of laws it passes. That sounds incorrect. I don't know, maybe I don't understand that measurement, but it seems like volume is a piss-poor way to measure how well the government is operating.
  • guptaneil 13y ago
    It's a measure of productivity, not necessarily quality. Sure it's possible to be productive without being effective (pass a lot of shitty laws), but it's impossible to be effective without being productive (pass no laws at all), unless there is little to fix, which is most certainly not the case. When people complain that this is the least effective Congress in history, they mean it has spent all of its time debating and posturing, rather than actually passing any laws.
    • deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    • lotu 13y ago
      In many cases I feel that Congress doing nothing is the better option. Unfortunately, when Congress acts they tend to make things worse. So a Congress that does nothing is probably about average in terms of effectiveness for me.