Posted on 01/18/2017 7:55:22 AM PST by yoe
President Obama oversaw the deepest legislative malaise in modern political history, according to the Washington Times Legislative Index, which captures his struggles to find ways to work with a (Congredd) that ranged from lukewarm to openly hostile toward him.p
Over the course of his eight years, he has signed just 1,227 bills into law — less, even, than one-term Presidents Carter and George H.W. Bush. Digging deeper into the numbers, Congress spent less time in session, handled less business on the chamber floors and generally sputtered for much of Mr. Obama’s tenure, according to The Times’ index.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Mr. Obama may have cleared the way for those of his race, if working for the government will no longer be given a pass for wrong doing...pandering to a minority is NOT a kindness and should be a crime. Our community organizer was in over his head....he is going to try again from a residence in Washington, D.C. which could be construed as a from of Treason.
And much of what he signed into law was harmful instead of helpful!
Obama didn’t need a legislature - he has a pen and a phone.
“Over the course of his eight years, he has signed just 1,227 bills into law “
Wonder what percentage the Fraud’s unilateral and partisan decrees accounted for in this total.
Yet the NY Slimes and Washington Compost have him at a 60% approval rating.
So what's wrong with that? Many folks seem to think that the more new laws that are passed, the better. A Congress that passes many new laws is "productive". One that doesn't is "not productive".
That's crazy thinking.
In general I’d call “fewer bills signed into law” a success rather than failure. More laws means less rights (after a very small number of laws that make sense and are needed).
Unfortunately he made up for that by creating more “laws” & regulations without congress.
I think gridlock is a good thing.
I agree Obama is a loser in many ways - but the number of new laws one creates is NOT a metric for success in my book. Its simply a measure of how big one has managed to increase the already bloated nanny-state
Perhaps we should like at the increase in the size of the Federal Register to see how big Obama has blown the nanny state with his executive orders.
yeah it’s not the quantity but the impact of the bills that worries me.
I think the answer is none.
Executive orders aren’t laws.
Passing fewer laws is a good thing. Of course Obama put in far more oppressive regulations than other presidents so he didn’t have to mess with pesky congress.
This tragic mistake will continue to be the record setter for all time.
How this fatal error continues to hold popularity ratings above 50% is just one of life’s mysteries.
It is. That is why there is three branches of government. We’re better off the less that is enacted in DC.
The treason was widespread.
Obama was never eligible to be President.
The Constitution says natural born citizen.
He is not a natural born citizen.
Everyone in the District of Corruption knew it.
He told us he was born a British subject as a result of having a foreign national father.
BOTH parties wanted to run ineligible candidates.
Rubio, Cruz, Jindal have already tried to follow his usurping of the office.
Haley, George P. Bush and Kamala Harris are waiting in the wings.
I’m with you.
I would rather they do very few things but do them exceedingly well.
That would put the brakes on the Pander Express.
It isn’t how many he signed, it is HOW MUCH DAMAGE he did with the orders, statutes, and laws enacted.
And that is massive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.