Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Is Congress Too Old and Too Lazy?
Leading up to the elections, the nation discussed numerous domestic and foreign issues including Iraq, the war on terror, health care, minimum wage, corruption, et cetera. A couple of items that received only passing mention is our aging Congress and its poor work ethic.
The average age in the Senate is the highest in history before the elections and probably remains so.
Harry Truman railed against the do-nothing Congress in 1948. But this Congress is lazier.
Maybe Congress needs extra rest because of all the old Senators and Congress persons. I doubt it. I imagine that the typical Senator and Congressperson is in it more for themselves than for the American citizen, thus the corruption problem. I would love for the Democrats to prove me wrong but they are not off to a good start. Of course, it will be hard to replicate the high ethical standards of the Clinton administration.
The average age in the Senate is the highest in history before the elections and probably remains so.
Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.V., is an institution. He's the longest serving senator in U.S. history. He's also 88 years old, and if he wins re-election -- he's the clear favorite in his race -- he'll be 95 at the end of his ninth term.Congress has also done very little work. Lou Dobbs notes Congress' laziness and allegiance to corporate America.
But Byrd isn't alone. Also up for re-election is Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, who is 82 and would be 88 at the end of his third term, if re-elected. And over in the House, the 83-year-old Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Texas, is running for a 14th term.
Congress, in fact, is the grayest it's ever been, and don't expect this to change much after the November midterms. The average age of a senator is 60 (the oldest ever) and the average age of a member of the House is 55 (the oldest in more than a century).
This Republican-led, do-nothing Congress is on its way home for a five-week vacation. I'm sure while there, they'll be glad to explain to their constituents why they need so much rest in a year in which they will work fewer than 80 days.Emphasis mine.
The Republicans in Congress have little to brag about when they return home. And the Democrats have a lot of explaining to do, as well. Once the party of the New Deal, Fair Deal and Great Society, the party of working men and women, the Democrats are now buried as deeply in the pockets of their corporate masters as are the Republicans.
Harry Truman railed against the do-nothing Congress in 1948. But this Congress is lazier.
Including today, the 109th Congress will have been in session 93 days this year. At a comparable date in 1948, the 80th had been in session 110 days."Will the new Democratic controlled Congress work harder? We'll have to wait and see. But I wouldn't bet on it. The Democrats don't seem any more committed to fighting corruption than the Republicans were. Instapundit notes some examples.
Maybe Congress needs extra rest because of all the old Senators and Congress persons. I doubt it. I imagine that the typical Senator and Congressperson is in it more for themselves than for the American citizen, thus the corruption problem. I would love for the Democrats to prove me wrong but they are not off to a good start. Of course, it will be hard to replicate the high ethical standards of the Clinton administration.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]