Policy Escalation vs. Stagnation - Considering "Good" & "Bad" Laws

Whether or not you support the tedious legislative process of bills being made into laws depends on whether you prefer the legislation of ‘bad’ laws or the hindrance of ‘good’ laws. This choice is difficult to make given the varying subjects of the bills, party affiliations and ideology.

For Congressman then, the legislative process must be both cumbersome and a relatively effective method for passing a bill. A Republican Senator, for example, would be more than glad to reject a bill supporting taxes on the wealthy, marveling at the barrier that the process has provided for him. At the same time, he would stomp his foot in impatience as a bill which supports tax cuts winds its way through the checks in a most lethargic way.

Should the process of making a bill into a law be made easier? Once again, the ‘bad’ law ‘good’ law question arises. In this case, we must not only look at what the framers intended, but also the political scene. By political scene, I mean the “danger” or “benefit” the bill actually poses to the American population.

Today, with major issues that affect the lives and livelihood of people such as unemployment, and rising health care costs, the process should not be made easier, but should not stagnate either. Legislators should have enough time to think about these issues and come up with a decision that suits them, and enough opportunities to reject unfavorable bills. All the same, stagnation is dangerous - successful legislation can only be passed if there is activity in Congress. What am I trying to say? Just that the consideration of whether you prefer the hindrance of bad laws versus the passage of good laws ultimately determines whether you prefer policy stagnation or escalation. In the case that you prefer both, what do you do?!