Just encountered a new dishonest ploy from a select few Hillary Clinton supporters. Here is the lie: "Hillary in less then 8 got 144 bills passed. Bernie passed only two".
What this person is doing is
1. Getting the facts wrong.
2. Applying different metrics to each candidate.
3. Applying a simplistic and misinformed view of what being an effective legislator entails.
It should go without saying that passing authored and co-sponsored bills out of committee is different from passing only authored bills through both houses of Congress and having them signed by the President.
FACT: This person counts authored and co-sponsored bills for Hillary over all 8 years of her two Senate terms while only counting authored and fully enacted bills signed by the President for just the 113th Congressional session for Bernie.
FACT: Actually, according to the metrics this lie wants us to apply to Bernie, Hillary Clinton passed only 3 bills into law during her 8 years as a Senator.
FACT: Those laws are
S. 1241: A bill to establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site in the State of New York. Bush signed the bill Dec. 3, 2004.
S. 3613: A bill to name a post office the "Major George Quamo Post Office Building." Bush signed the bill Oct. 6, 2006.
S. 3145: A bill to designate a highway in New York as the Timothy J. Russert highway. Bush signed the bill July 23, 2008.
Personally, I feel - and her Congressional colleagues claim- she was an effective Senator in a number of ways even though I see her as a neo-liberal who has had a handful of very disappointing votes and choices, is not as forthright and consistent as Sanders, and is beholden to many damning corporate, big money special interests. She has fought and had success in a number of great causes and really fits the bill of a public servant, in my mind.
As far as legislative effectiveness- My view is encapsulated by the views of these experts' statements:
Two experts who study Congress -- Norman Ornstein, a scholar at American Enterprise Institute, and Sarah Binder, a political science professor at George Washington University and Brookings Institution scholar -- said that the number of sponsored or co-sponsored bills signed into law isn’t a thorough measure of effectiveness or productivity for a member of the Senate.
"Offering amendments on the floor, holding hearings, contributing to oversight, helping to negotiate agreements, pushing federal agencies to be responsive to constituents back home -- all of these might contribute to making a senator ‘effective,’ but none of these endeavors of course would show up in a count of bills sponsored or passed or enacted," Binder said.
As for Bush’s claim about the number of laws "she has her name on," Binder said that it’s fair game to also look at the number of bills Clinton co-sponsored.
"Because ‘have her name on’ is so vague, I don't see the grounds on which to exclude co-sponsored bills," she said.
Ornstein said that the names that go on bills of any real significance are the committee chairs -- for example the Dodd-Frank 2010 banking reform bill. Sen. Chris Dodd and U.S. Rep. Barney Frank were the major figures behind the law, but other senators also had roles and don’t have their names on the bill.
Meanwhile, the Affordable Care Act "does not have Al Franken's name on it, but a really important provision, the medical-loss ratio, was his handiwork," Ornstein said. "Effectiveness can be a behind-the-scenes role, adding a serious amendment, working inside to get the language exactly right. By any reasonable standard, including the private comments of her colleagues on both sides of the aisle when she was in the Senate, she was very effective."
We don't have to be dishonest or insulting to the candidates to examine the facts and assess relative value. I don't think we should be disingenuous about the way congress functions to score false political points either.