Hiller Instinct: Should Congress take 5-week recess?

 With violence overseas, health care, and an immigration crisis happening among other things right now some think a five-week recess by Congress is bad timing.

My first thought was: how can Congress leave Washington now for five weeks?

It’s like soldiers deserting in a time of war.

But then I remembered something Hillary Clinton said: “What difference, at this point, what difference does it make?”

She was talking about how four Americans were killed in Benghazi, but she might just as well have been wondering what difference it makes whether Congress stays, or goes.

With polls showing immigration is now the nation’s number one issue, the House has a plan, and so does the Senate. But neither is likely to pass before the recess begins.

This recess will also give Congress a chance to maintain its reputation.

I hope you’re not surprised to learn it’s shaping up as the least productive Congress in history, with the lowest number of passed bills, and the lowest number of days worked.

Congress is scheduled to work just 113 days this year, which is about 23 weeks. How much less do you think you’d get done if you worked less than half a year?

So I look at the Middle East, and Ukraine, and the continuing problems with healthcare, the economy and education, and they all seem like subjects Congress is supposed to address, but “what difference, at this point, what difference does it make?”

I can already hear all the congressional press secretaries, scurrying around, saying, “hold on, we work 24/7/365, we can go back at any time.”

To which I’d say, “Why bother?”

Comments

blog comments powered by Disqus