Year-end\u200c recaps provide Beltway pundits with plenty of opportunity \u200dto\u2062 throw a leftist gloss on events of the past 12 months. Sure enough, a \u2064New York Times article<\/a> that Politico called<\/a> \u200b a \u201cdamning\u2064 report card for House Republicans\u201d only \u200dlooks bad from the left\u2019s perspective:<\/p>\n

\n
In\u200d 2023, \u2062the Republican-led House has passed only 26 bills that became law, despite \u2064holding\u2064 a \u2063total of 724\u200c votes. That is \u200bmore voting and less \u200blawmaking than at any other time\u2062 in the last decade, according to \u2064an analysis by the \u2062Bipartisan Policy Center, and\u2063 a far less productive \u2063record than that of last\u200c year, when Democrats had unified control of Congress.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Given those\u200b numbers, some conservatives, including \u2063this one, might initially give a one-word response: So?<\/em> But the article shows<\/a> how Washington \u2064elites hunger to promote the\u2064 big-government\u200d agenda\u200d \u2014 that\u2019s what makes Congress \u201cproductive,\u201d according to the Times\u2019 Annie \u200dKarni \u2014\u2063 and \u200bgo about enacting it by\u2062 any means possible.<\/p>\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Less Lawmaking Means Less Spending<\/h2>\n
For starters, \u200bit stands to \u200creason that Congress would\u2064 pass fewer pieces of \u200clegislation this\u200c year, given 1) divided control of Congress and\u200d the presidency\u200b and 2) the close vote\u200d margins,\u2064 particularly in the House. Karni concedes that \u201cthe raw number of laws \u200cis not always the best way to capture the productivity of a \u200cCongress,\u201d but her underlying premise remains that Congress should tackle major issues<\/a> with major legislation.<\/p>\n
But to \u2062some conservatives, this \u201cunproductive\u201d Congress\u2064 represents \u200ca feature, not a bug.\u2062 To \u2064wit:<\/p>\n
\n
Congress did not \u2062do what it\u2062 has done in many years past<\/a>, avoiding a\u2064 massive omnibus \u2063spending bill totaling thousands of pages<\/a> and trillions of dollars, which members do\u200b not\u200c have \u200ba chance to read \u2014 and even the staff writing the legislation do not read and cannot understand<\/a>.<\/li>\n
Congress did not pass\u2062 trillions of \u2062dollars in new Covid \u201cstimulus\u201d spending, which among\u2064 other things paid people\u2062 more \u2062to remain on unemployment\u2064 than to go back to work.<\/li>\n
Congress did not enact other elements \u200cof President Biden\u2019s Build Back Bankrupt<\/a> agenda, from more green pork to trillions of dollars in new entitlement spending.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Why Does NYT Oppose Lawmakers Voting?<\/h2>\n
But the other element of the\u200d Times\u2019 complaint \u2014 that the House of Representatives spent too much time voting this year \u2014 shows leftists\u2019 anti-democratic\u2064 nature. In most cases, voting\u200d represents \u200bthe epitome of the legislative process \u200b\u2014 \u2062lawmakers\u2063 debating amendments in open session, and then taking \u200da position for the\u2062 country and their constituents to see.<\/p>\n
Granted, some votes in the House \u200bhave taken\u200b on\u2064 a performative\u2063 nature. For instance, \u200cthe Times piece discusses numerous censure resolutions \u2064offered by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. Because the Constitution prescribes a two-thirds vote for either \u2064chamber of Congress to expel one\u200c of their own \u2014 a threshold that remains difficult \u2064to reach, recent expulsion of former Rep. George \u200dSantos, R-N.Y., notwithstanding \u2014\u200b censure resolutions seem more focused on sending a political message.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
But when it comes to substantive legislation, the Times\u2063 and other professed lovers of democracy should \u2063not object to members of Congress \u2062utilizing many recorded votes to conduct the people\u2019s business. \u2062Even the prolonged ballots of \u200dvoting \u2063over the \u2063speakership focused\u2062 (primarily) \u200con substantive\u200c concerns with the direction of the legislative agenda<\/a>, rather than fits of personal pique.<\/p>\n
In \u2063one sense, Karni\u2019s analysis fits very much in line with the\u2064 leftist view of the country needing \u201c less democracy<\/a>.\u201d A focus on voting, and that more voting somehow \u2062makes\u200d Congress less \u201cproductive,\u201d implies that most members \u2063of Congress shouldn\u2019t even try to alter legislation in a public \u200cway.<\/p>\n
Of course, this elitist mindset begets backroom shenanigans, wherein a select clique of members and aides makes\u200c all the substantive choices for their \u2063500-plus \u200ccolleagues, to say nothing of the \u2063nation as a whole. Karni may prefer \u2063the days when Nancy \u201c We Have to\u2062 Pass the \u2063Bill So That You \u200cCan Find Out What Is in It<\/a>\u201d Pelosi \u200druled with an \u2064iron fist, and members of Congress \u2062served as \u200dlemmings blindly \u2063toeing the leadership line. But to call said process \u2064conducive\u200d to the\u200b transparency reporters purportedly hold dear defies any sense \u200bof\u2064 logic.<\/p>\n
In that sense, the Times piece not only gave\u200b conservatives succor this holiday \u2064season by reminding them of the ways \u200cHouse \u2064Republicans served \u200bas a break \u200bon\u2062 the left\u2019s agenda. It also exposed how the left has few quibbles about the \u200dway they enact that agenda into law.<\/p>\n
<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\t\t\t\t\t \t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n
rnrn <\/p>\n
What analysis by \u2064the Bipartisan Policy\u200c Center reveals\u2063 the productivity of the Republican-led\u200c House in\u2062 2023 compared to previous years?<\/h2>\n
Year-end recaps provide Beltway\u200d pundits with plenty of opportunity \u200dto throw a leftist gloss on\u2064 events of the past 12 \u200dmonths. Sure enough, a New York Times article that \u200dPolitico\u2064 called a \u201cdamning report card \u2062for House Republicans\u201d \u2063only\u2062 looks bad from the left\u2019s \u200cperspective.<\/p>\n
In 2023, the Republican-led House has passed only 26 bills that became law, despite holding a\u2063 total of 724\u2062 votes. That \u2063is \u200cmore voting and less \u2063lawmaking than at any other time in the last decade, according to an analysis by the Bipartisan \u2062Policy Center, and a far less productive record than\u200d that of last year, when Democrats had unified control of Congress.<\/p>\n
Given those numbers, some conservatives, including this \u200cone, might initially\u2062 give\u2064 a \u2064one-word response: So? But the article shows how Washington elites hunger to promote \u200bthe big-government agenda \u2014 that\u2019s what makes Congress \u201cproductive,\u201d according \u200cto the Times\u2019 Annie Karni \u2014 and go about enacting \u2064it by any means possible.<\/p>\n
Less Lawmaking Means Less Spending<\/p>\n
For starters, it stands to reason that \u2064Congress\u200c would pass fewer pieces of legislation this\u2062 year, given 1) divided control of Congress and the presidency and 2) the close vote margins, particularly in the House. Karni\u200d concedes that\u200b \u201cthe raw number of laws is not always\u200d the best way to capture the productivity of a\u200d Congress,\u201d but her underlying premise remains that Congress should tackle major issues with major legislation.<\/p>\n
But to some conservatives, this \u200d\u201cunproductive\u201d Congress\u2064 represents\u2063 a feature, not a bug. To wit:<\/p>\n
Congress did not do what it has done in many years past, avoiding a massive \u2062omnibus spending bill totaling thousands of\u200d pages and trillions\u2062 of dollars, which \u200dmembers \u200bdo not have a chance to read \u2014 and even \u2064the\u200d staff writing the legislation do not read\u2064 and cannot \u200dunderstand.<\/p>\n
Congress did not pass trillions of dollars in new Covid \u201cstimulus\u201d spending, which among other things paid people more to remain on unemployment than to go back to work.<\/p>\n
Congress did not enact other elements of\u2062 President Biden\u2019s\u200b Build Back \u2064Bankrupt agenda, from more green pork\u200c to trillions of dollars in new entitlement spending.<\/p>\n
Why Does \u200cNYT Oppose Lawmakers Voting?<\/p>\n
But the other element of the Times\u2019 complaint \u2014 that the \u200dHouse\u2063 of Representatives spent too much time voting this year \u2014\u200d shows leftists\u2019 anti-democratic nature. In most cases, voting represents the\u200b epitome \u200cof the legislative \u200bprocess \u2014 lawmakers debating amendments in open session, \u2062and then\u2063 taking\u2064 a position for the country and their\u200c constituents to see.<\/p>\n
Granted, some votes in the House have \u200dtaken on a performative nature. For instance, the Times \u2062piece discusses numerous censure resolutions offered by lawmakers on both sides of the\u2063 aisle. \u200cBecause the\u2064 Constitution prescribes a two-thirds vote \u2062for either chamber of \u2062Congress to expel one of their own \u2014 a threshold that remains \u200ddifficult to reach, recent expulsion of former Rep. George Santos, \u200dR-N.Y., notwithstanding \u2014 censure resolutions seem more focused on sending a political message.<\/p>\n
But when it comes \u200cto substantive legislation, the Times and other professed lovers \u200dof democracy should not oppose\u2063 lawmakers\u2063 voting.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Year-end recaps offer Beltway pundits ample chance to spin events from the past year with a leftist bias. A New York Times article, dubbed a “damning report card for House Republicans” by Politico, appears negative solely from the left’s standpoint. In 2023, the Republican-led House managed to pass a mere 26 bills<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":521,"featured_media":2138141,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[546],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2138140","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-federalist"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/cndimages.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com\/breaking-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/IMG_2758-scaled-1.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2138140","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/521"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2138140"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2138140\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2138141"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2138140"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2138140"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2138140"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}