The newspaper Politico has a scary take on the new Congress that will assume office in January: The serious and very difficult issues facing the country will be in the hands of one of the least experienced Congresses in decades.
Between the unusually large 2011 freshman class, retirements and defeated incumbents, the new Congress could have more than 155 members with less than four years of experience, a number not seen since the early 1990s, and "the chambers will be filled with rookies and sophomores unbound by the institution's traditions while having virtually no experience doing serious legislative work."
Or doing work of any kind in Congress.
The House, under both parties in recent years, sets up calendars that call for members to spend long periods of time back in their districts raising money and campaigning, then returning to Washington for a few days.
One veteran lawmaker even cracked that they don't have the time or the experience to know one end of the gavel from the other, much less how to get a bill through Congress.
Politico adds, however, that an influx of new blood could bring fresh ideas and new energy. But based on the new members so far, it could just as easily mean a crop of confrontational, hyperpartisan zealots who don't feel they have to learn anything because they know with total certitude what they know.
Last summer, the new lawmakers came close to driving the nation into technical default; they forced the House leadership to renege on a deal that allowed the nation to stay solvent.
Thanks to their intransigence, we still, after three years, don't have an essential national transportation bill and it's conceivable we may not get one, something to keep in mind as we revert to a nation of dirt roads.
Traditionally, lawmakers spent years building expertise and seniority in issues like defense, taxes, transportation, public works and health care, but the new breed, at least so far, disdains both seniority and expertise. They have their slogans and they're sticking to them.
But vital issues await both the lame-duck and the new Congress:
What to do about extending the tax cuts? How to avoid an automatic across-the-board $1.3 trillion budget that the Pentagon says will seriously weaken the military? Some kind of planning for the impact of a European debt crisis, or the Chinese economy suddenly going flat? And preparing for another increase in the debt ceiling?
Come January, this country could go one of two ways. Nothing so far arouses any confidence that the newcomers will pick — or are even capable of choosing — the right direction.




Ventura County's Most Wanted May 16th
Devastating tornadoes hit midwest



















Scripps Interactive Newspapers Group
Comments » 6
Forever_Young writes:
Last month, the Senate gave us, a clear and unmistakable illustration of why we need to sack all the Democrats, and a bunch of the RINOs, too. They voted down not one, not two, but five budget bills, four of which would actually have done us some good. This comes as we move into the fourth year that the Senate has failed to do its duty by passing a budget, leaving the country economically adrift.
The mind boggles that they’ve gotten away with this. Can you imagine a private company, especially a large one that is in deep financial trouble, whose management refuses to produce a budget, much less a budget aimed at solving the problems that threaten to put them out of business? Can you imagine stockholders of such a company pretending that this is just wonderful, no problem, everything gonna be just fine?
Sack the Senate!
Chilibreath writes:
"But based on the new members so far, it could just as easily mean a crop of confrontational, hyperpartisan zealots who don't feel they have to learn anything because they know with total certitude what they know."
That's what happens when rookie Democrats are elected.
supercommuter writes:
Imagine the first congress with 100% of the members with no congressional experience. No old salts with experience under their belts to mentor the new recruits. Frankly, in my opinion, we will be much better off with one of the least experienced legislatures in decades.
raylaw43#321876 writes:
I guess you didn't read the editorial. Both Houses passed a budget STATUTE, not a RESOLUTION, which provides for a $1.3 trillion across the board cut in January.
That is a budget, unless you do not like what the Republican House and 60+ Senators did.
raylaw43#321876 writes:
You obviously do not know the difference between a STATUTE and a RESOLUTION. A resolution is not a law; it is merely a guideline, which is why Bush43 could conduct two wars off-budget, and put us $5 trillion in debt.
A resolution can be changed by another resolution or by statute, but a resolution cannot change a statute. A statute must be passed by both Houses of Congress and signed by the President; a resolution need not be signed by the President because it is not binding on the President.
Perhaps you should read the Constitution and learn something about Constitutional Law.
Lets_Be_Truthful writes:
No experience? That didn't stop Obama did it? It may have actually helped Clinton too. Almost anything is better than what we have now with the do nothings only interested in their pockets like Princess Pelosi, Reid, and Boehner.
Want to participate in the conversation? Become a subscriber today. Subscribers can read and comment on any story, anytime. Non-subscribers will only be able to view comments on select stories.