The First Hundred Days

Evote asked in 2001 Does the First Hundred Days Matter? and even from the grammer in the title it's pretty lame. They are correct that often we remember presidents not for their agenda (though FDR did well) but how they responded to various events. Fareed Zakaria description of Bush's first hundred days in 2001 is certainly and example of this, who could have predicted 9/11? But if you look at the hundred days after 9/11 Bush and particularly Guilliani did well.

So with two weeks to go in the first 100 days what have Bush and the 109th Congress managed to get done? It turns out not much:

1. Even before Jan 20 they did one thing, a 133 word law to allow people to deduct charitable contributions to the Indian Ocean Tsunami victims in tax year 2004 instead of 2005. This seems kinda dumb to me, so you get the deduction a year earlier. The tsunami hit on Dec 26, you had 5 days to send your money in if you cared about when you got your deduction, but this probably got more money to the victims so it's hard to complain.
2. The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 which gives federal court original jourisdiction in large class action suits.
3. "A bill to provide for the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo.". Even if you agree with this, by section 7 of the act it can't be used for future precedent (though I think that might actually be precedent).
4. A bill "To reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program through June 30, 2005, and for other purposes"
5. "A bill to extend the existence of the Nazi War Crimes and Japanese Imperial Government Records Interagency Working Group for 2 years."
6. "To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund financing rate."
7. Bankruptcy reform

Republicans control not just the presidency but the House and Senate as well. It should be easy for them to get stuff done. Bush said the election gave him a mandate. To be honest, based on what I've seen they want to do, I'm glad they haven't passed more laws. Today on Meet the Press, House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) said this Congress has been "incredibly productive" and it's only mid-April. You tell me, is the above a lot? The budget is a shambles, health care is still a mess, gas prices are at all time highs, the economy is weak, and that's just domestic stuff.

I've been reading about startup companies and a lot about the how keeping costs down gives you a lot of flexibility. Philip Greenspun writes about the value of someone who brings in $1 million in revenue while costing only about $200,000. We pay congressmen and senators a total of $84,698,400 and that doesn't include the salaries of the 24,000 congressional staff, for that I estimate another $120,000,000. So in round numbers that's $200 million a year or $50 million a quarter. Is the above legislation worth $50 million? Now don't get me wrong, I don't think these salaries are too high (I'm estimating $50,000 per staffer) and though 24,000 people seems like a lot, I imagine they are all pretty overworked. I also know that government is and should be different from a business. My complaint is the output is far too low, the results just aren't there but I guess everyone complains about that.