Granted, it's a rather indirect measure. I'm sure you have a better gage in mind?I find the assumption that passing laws = congressional productivity to be absurd.
Granted, it's a rather indirect measure. I'm sure you have a better gage in mind?
Uh, it depends on the laws written, of course. That's like saying building a bridge isn't inherently useful.
How about bills passed? Those may create laws, destroy laws, or both. If a bill gets to the president, is vetoed, and gets passed anyway then score two points.Granted, it's a rather indirect measure. I'm sure you have a better gage in mind?
You assume things are done without purpose. That's a rather nihilistic attitude. And abnormal.
Something done with purpose is useful to someone. But may be not be to you. But if you're nihilistic you deem nothing important.
Seems like approval of presidential appointments should get in there somehow, too, but I can't figure out how to do it. If a president makes nothing but stupid appointments, I don't want to see congress punished for it but if congress just bounces everyone the president sends then they deserve a big hit. (I'm really afraid we're going to start losing SC judges for years at a time simply because congress refuses to let anyone in that might sometimes rule in favor of the other side.)
You're missing the point. Just because something doesn't fit a purpose or need that suits you, doesn't make it not useful to someone else. For example, building a bridge may be useful to someone who just likes to build bridges. Believing otherwise is nihilistic.
Building a bridge isn't inherently useful.