Presumably, he was only trying to garner laughs â€” but as Shakespeare pointed out: â€˜in jest, there is truth.â€™
Listen to Jimmy Kimmelâ€™s take on the 113th Congress:
The referenced Washington Post article explained the â€œbad newsâ€ that the 113th Congressâ€™ accomplishments hit a record-low:
â€œAccording to congressional records, there have been fewer than 60 public laws enacted in the first 11 months of this year, so below the previous low in legislative output that officials have already declared this first session of the 113th Congress the least productive ever. In 1995, when the newly empowered GOP congressional majority confronted the Clinton administration, 88 laws were enacted, the record low in the post-World War II era.â€
Before writing off Congress as dysfunctional, remember that passing legislation is not its only duty. Article 1, section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states:
â€œThe Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United Statesâ€¦.â€
Kimmel joked that perhaps there are no new laws that need to be passed. But, he actually might have a valid point. Of the 56 enacted bills none seem particularly earth shattering. As the Boston Globe pointed out "bridges have been named, veterans affairs hospitals dedicated, and old laws have been renewed. But little more."
So really, what is so horrible about not adding more bills to the cache? Perhaps, I am just too much of a glass-half-full person, but the title of "the number one most unproductive congress" doesn't sound so much like "bad news" to me.