Producing what, though?

The Washington Post summarizes the just-concluded Congress with this headline:

"Stormy but highly productive 111th Congress adjourns"

Clearly this headline is derived from the volume of controversial legislation jammed down the American throat passed by the legislators, quality be damned:

A Congress that was dominated by Democrats passed more landmark legislation than any since the era of Lyndon B. Johnson's "Great Society." Congress approved an $814 billion economic stimulus, a massive health-care overhaul, and new regulations on Wall Street trading and consumer credit cards. The list grew longer during this month's frenetic lame-duck session: tax cuts, a nuclear arms treaty and a repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military.

OK... if volume of output alone means "productive," I guess the label fits. Of course, it also fits a newborn baby, but I don't think most people relish living with their output, either.

There are measures of performance, and measures of effectiveness. Each new Congress tries to outdo the others on the first score, which is why the Federal Code now registers in the bazillions of pages. Congresscritters live in terror of being labeled "do nothing." But passing legislation is one thing. Improving the situation is another. For instance: Congress 'approved an $814 billion economic stimulus.' That was months ago. Did it work? Considering it was the second (or third, depending how you count) attempt, does that tell us anything? And is it really wise in the final days of an unpopular Congress to cram together passage of policy on so many divisive topics? One gets the sense this 'frenetic' activity was less concerned with effectiveness than with getting a certain agenda lodged in the law, election results notwithstanding.

Congress should abide by the code of physicians: "first, do no harm." We are far, far from that modus operandi. At the rate these 'frenetic' politicians are 'producing,' we may soon come to prefer dead duck over lame duck.