9 are Republicans and 1 is a Democrat.

I didn't read it. I've lost all respect for Rolling Stone. They are a liberal propaganda machine masquerading as a music magazine. Their list of 10 worst congresspeople shows their bias. 9 are Republicans and 1 is a Democrat.

In the Sixties and Seventies, Congress met an average of 162 days a year. In the Eighties and Nineties, the average went down to 139 days. This year, the second session of the 109th Congress will set the all-time record for fewest days worked by a U.S. Congress: ninety-three. That means that House members will collect their $165,000 paychecks for only three months of actual work.

What this means is that the current Congress will not only beat but shatter the record for laziness set by the notorious "Do-Nothing" Congress of 1948, which met for a combined 252 days between the House and the Senate. This Congress -- the Do-Even-Less Congress -- met for 218 days, just over half a year, between the House and the Senate combined.

Not to say, of course, that this Congress hasn't made an effort to reform itself. In the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal, and following a public uproar over the widespread abuse of earmarks, both the House and the Senate passed their own versions of an earmark reform bill this year. But when the two chambers couldn't agree on a final version, the House was left to pass its own watered-down measure in the waning days of the most recent session. This pathetically, almost historically half-assed attempt at reforming corruption should tell you all you need to know about the current Congress.

The House rule will force legislators to attach their names to all earmarks. Well, not all earmarks. Actually, the new rule applies only to nonfederal funding -- money for local governments, nonprofits and universities. And the rule will remain in effect only for the remainder of this congressional year -- in other words, for the few remaining days of business after lawmakers return to Washington following the election season. After that, it's back to business as usual next year.

For similarly petulant moves by a committee chair, one need look no further than the Ways and Means Committee, where Rep. Bill Thomas -- a pugnacious Californian with an enviable ego who was caught having an affair with a pharmaceutical lobbyist -- enjoys a reputation rivaling that of the rotund Sensenbrenner. The lowlight of his reign took place just before midnight on July 17th, 2003, when Thomas dumped a "substitute" pension bill on Democrats -- one that they had never read -- and informed them they would be voting on it the next morning. Infuriated, Democrats stalled by demanding that the bill be read out line by line while they recessed to a side room to confer. But Thomas wanted to move forward -- so he called the Capitol police to evict the Democrats.

As has often been the case in the past six years, the vote was held late at night, away from the prying eyes of the public, who might be horrified by what they see. Thanks to such tactics, the 109th is known as the "Dracula" Congress: Twenty bills have been brought to a vote between midnight and 7 a.m.

i did mean to include a "take with a grain of salt" comment in my original posting, but i forgot. anways, there are enough facts in the article to make anyone pause.

One could go on and on about the scandals and failures of the past six years; to document them all would take . . . well, it would take more than ninety-three fucking days, that's for sure. But you can boil the whole sordid mess down to a few basic concepts. Sloth. Greed. Abuse of power. Hatred of democracy. Government as a cheap backroom deal, finished in time for thirty-six holes of the world's best golf. And brains too stupid to be ashamed of any of it. If we have learned nothing else in the Bush years, it's that this Congress cannot be reformed. The only way to change it is to get rid of it.

I've lost all respect for Rolling Stone. They are a liberal propaganda machine masquerading as a music magazine.

I didn't read it. I've lost all respect for Rolling Stone. They are a liberal propaganda machine masquerading as a music magazine. Their list of 10 worst congresspeople shows their bias. 9 are Republicans and 1 is a Democrat.

I remember reading this article before also. It's probably posted around here somewhere.

Thats some lazy modding PD.

I didn't read it. I've lost all respect for Rolling Stone. They are a liberal propaganda machine masquerading as a music magazine. Their list of 10 worst congresspeople shows their bias. 9 are Republicans and 1 is a Democrat.

1947 congress....forget which #, and I dont really feel like looking it up....that is the correct answer to "worst congress ever."

What this means is that the current Congress will not only beat but shatter the record for laziness set by the notorious "Do-Nothing" Congress of 1948, which met for a combined 252 days between the House and the Senate. This Congress -- the Do-Even-Less Congress -- met for 218 days, just over half a year, between the House and the Senate combined.

come on, i was sure this had to be posted somewhere around here but was counting on you to lock this up and redirect me to page xx of thread xyz where somebody else posted it.

i like how a significant percentage of the posters in this thread simply comment on rolling stone (a magazine i don't like either, at least for music-related stuff) and how they won't read it because of that.

it would be like me refusing to watch a thought-provoking show about pearl jam (a topic i'm interested in) because it is on a tv channel i don't like.

this isn't simply a republican-bashing article, it makes mention of the fact that a lot of this can be attributed to precedents the democrats set in the early 90s.

if nothing else, this congress has worked significantly fewer days than any other congress EVER. wouldn't everyone agree that this isn't a good time (iraq, terrorism, etc.) for this to happen?

or how congress spent 12 HOURS investigating the abu ghraib(sp??) scandal, but spent a week and a half debating the terri schiavo case?

come on, i was sure this had to be posted somewhere around here but was counting on you to lock this up and redirect me to page xx of thread xyz where somebody else posted it.

i like how a significant percentage of the posters in this thread simply comment on rolling stone (a magazine i don't like either, at least for music-related stuff) and how they won't read it because of that.

it would be like me refusing to watch a thought-provoking show about pearl jam (a topic i'm interested in) because it is on a tv channel i don't like.

this isn't simply a republican-bashing article, it makes mention of the fact that a lot of this can be attributed to precedents the democrats set in the early 90s.

if nothing else, this congress has worked significantly fewer days than any other congress EVER. wouldn't everyone agree that this isn't a good time (iraq, terrorism, etc.) for this to happen?

or how congress spent 12 HOURS investigating the abu ghraib(sp??) scandal, but spent a week and a half debating the terri schiavo case?

the truth sucks, eh?

it makes me laugh when republicans bellyache that they're being picked on, when it's really just the truth that pisses them off. life's a bitch.