What does it mean if the next Congress is one of the least experienced in decades?
June 11th, 2012
04:00 PM ET

What does it mean if the next Congress is one of the least experienced in decades?

By CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The next Congress will be one of the least experienced in decades.

And it might even be more polarized than the current Congress, if that's possible.

Politico reports that the House and Senate will be filled with "rookies and sophomores unbound by the institution's traditions" who have "virtually no experience doing serious legislative work."

It will be hard to tell them apart from the current Congress.

Here's the deal: the 2010 elections brought in a record number of new lawmakers, mostly Republican.

Then there were dozens of retirements in 2012, plus the expected election turnover in November.

All this means the new Congress could have more than 155 members with fewer than four years experience.

Some suggest this is a good thing, that it's time to "throw the bums out" and that the turnover will bring fresh blood into a growingly unpopular institution.

And for good reason. The current Congress is more partisan and less willing to compromise than ever. Plus it could be argued a lot of them don't know what they're doing.

One Democratic congressmen tells Politico, "There are chairmen of subcommittees who don't know which end of the gavel to use, much less how to get a bill through Congress."

As the United States heads for that "fiscal cliff" next year, the makeup of the Congress that will be elected in November is very much a wildcard. We're running out of room to either make mistakes or do nothing.

House Speaker John Boehner insists all these fresh faces have had a positive impact, bringing "energy, enthusiasm and real-world experience" to Washington.

But what have they done for us lately? Nothing. And it might get worse.

Here’s my question to you: What does it mean if the next Congress is one of the least experienced in decades?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Gee, it might mean that nothing will get done, that they won't be able to agree on anything, that they will wait until the last minute to raise the debt ceiling thus causing a drop in the U.S.'s credit rating. Oh sorry, that's what is happening with this Congress. How could an inexperienced Congress be any worse?

Tom in Philadelphia:
Just like the Congress does now. They will listen to their contributors. Remember that they are bought and paid for.

It means maybe that they'll actually get something done if they don't know how to filibuster or use all of the other stall tactics. I think it's wonderful.

John in San Jose, California:
Jack, We don't need experience. We need fresh minds with fresh ideas not tied to the old ways of doing business.

Kristen in Olympia, Washington:
It means we will continue to stall out in Congress. It takes time to become accustomed to the ways of Congress and we don't have time for learning on the job. We need a Congress that will act on our behalf now.

Jeff in North Carolina:
It means that the more senior members will have even more power in their chambers than they do now. It doesn't matter, Jack. We're too far gone. Send in the vultures.

Wayne in Virginia:
Maybe with a bunch of new faces, the old worn-out faces will quit, get voted out the next election, or come to the realization that the people are tired of the same old b.s.

Who would even notice? Name the last 5 items this Congress has accomplished? Zero...

Posted by
Filed under: Congress
soundoff (120 Responses)
  1. lindaleemeyer

    It means that perhaps the status quo of the current congress will go out the window. It could be good or bad depending on the intelligence of those who are elected. Irf we get highly intelligent and thoughtful people in office then maybe the corruption of the current system can be eliminated. If not then look out for possibly more corruption than we currently have.

    June 11, 2012 at 1:07 pm |
  2. June in Wyoming

    New Congress may not be experienced? Could be a Godsend. Keep them away
    and far removed from the idiocies of the sitting Congress, which can't play well
    together. This is not funny, it is serious for this country. If any special interest group thinks not pulling together and compromising is a good idea, they aren't
    seeing beyond the end of their nose. Yes, this means you, Mr. Norquist!

    June 11, 2012 at 1:13 pm |
  3. Pete in Georgia

    It means that this country might have a chance.
    A Congress without the experienced deceivers of yesteryear will be refreshing.
    Who knows, they might even do something for the good of the country instead of marching to the beat of special interests........................controlled by lobbyists.
    What a breath of fresh air !!!

    June 11, 2012 at 1:17 pm |
  4. Mel - Houston

    The party structure will train them in six month and then we'll have the same old thing. What we need is about 10 more political parties so "we the people" can sort things out. With 12 parties the bank, Wall Street and corporations won't be able to buy them all out.

    June 11, 2012 at 1:25 pm |
  5. TomInRochNY

    It means the Chinese curse will be upon us (in more ways than one), "May you live in interesting times." You thought the debt debacle was bad. Just wait for all the unresolved issues we have, and there are many, to be work on (well, not really worked on) by the new congress. There are many "interesting" things that could come if either side wins control of congress.

    Tom, Rochester, NY

    June 11, 2012 at 1:25 pm |
  6. Bill of New Mexico

    Experience is not what the voter wants. What the voter wants is for their representative to not yield an inch to the other side.

    I think the voter will get what the voter wants.

    June 11, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
  7. Tom Bulger, Canandaigua, NY

    It means that the Tea Party has been successful in purging the old timers with had a history of working across the aisle. With them it's grid lock, or walk.

    June 11, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
  8. JD in NH

    Maybe it means the dead wood is gone and something might get done for a change. I guess it depends on who is elected.

    June 11, 2012 at 1:32 pm |
  9. DT - Saint Paul, MN

    What does experience have to do with anything? They're representatives, not decision makers. Every single one of them has a team of people helping them do the paperwork. Their job is to sit in a chair and vote. I think these people forgot a long time ago they are the voice of the people.

    June 11, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
  10. Russ in PA

    Nothing. Congress should be doing as little as possible. After all, what hath the Code of Federal Regulations wrought? A more vibrant, freer society? Or one choked by red tape and bureacrats? How many times do we have must we hear in the news that this or that politicians wants to clear the red tape to achieve some sort of goal? Doesn't anyone ever catch on that Congress can't manage an economy, let alone a country? Dudes, free markets!!!

    June 11, 2012 at 1:36 pm |
  11. Randy

    As long as we have corporately financed elections...nothing.

    June 11, 2012 at 1:42 pm |
  12. Beth-Canada

    Gee, it might mean that nothing will get done, that they won't be able to agree on anything, that they will wait till the last minute to raise the debt ceiling thus causing a drop in the U.S.'s credit rating. Oh sorry, that's what is happening with this Congress. How could an inexperienced Congress be any worse?

    June 11, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
  13. Gary in San Jose, California

    It sounds like a positive to me. They don't have the legacy baggage and the performance bar is very low. Just look at how poorly the experienced have performed and ask yourself how anyone could possibly do worse.

    June 11, 2012 at 1:45 pm |
  14. wayne, va beach, va

    Maybe with a bunch of new faces, the old worn out faces will quit, get voted out the next election, or come to realization that the people are tired of the same old bs.

    June 11, 2012 at 1:46 pm |
  15. Steve, Clifton, Virginia

    If the lack of Washington experience of the incoming Congress enhances the possibilities of compromise in order to place the interest of the general welfare of the country above ideologies, then it could mean that the country has a chance to get back on the right track.

    June 11, 2012 at 1:49 pm |
  16. MB

    Who would even notice ? Name the last 5 items this Congress has accomplished ? Zero . So again why would anyone even notice.

    June 11, 2012 at 1:50 pm |
  17. Oliver El Paso, TX

    Just maybe they would act in a more professional way and work to get issues resolve for the USA. What John Boedner and Erick Cantor are doing is unamerican they act like hoods it their way or no way. They have work hard to make Obama look bad.The only people they are hurting is the American people! If Obama louses he still wake away with his benefits, while the country suffer more even if Romney wins, these guy will not change they keep acting in the same way.

    June 11, 2012 at 1:52 pm |
  18. Rich McKinney, Texas

    Jack it stands to reason that the past congresses have not done a very good job and they had years and years of tenure and experience. Perhaps an inexperienced younger group of visionaries will do much better. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome. This might actually be the change we were all looking for 3 and a half years ago and never got.

    June 11, 2012 at 1:54 pm |
  19. Michael Bindner, Alexandria VA

    I suspect that some of the Tea Party neophytes will be replaced by more experienced professional politicians in this next election, so your premise is false. I don't think it is possible to go lower than the current Congress.

    June 11, 2012 at 2:03 pm |
  20. George in PA

    Bad – if it means follow the leader and they imitate the older members who've put us in this mess. Good – if they're idealistic and actually try to solve today's major issues. Not to be pessimistic but they say the most accurate way to predict tomorrow's weather is to say "same as today". I'm concerned that we're in for four more years of a do nothing congress no matter who wins the Presidental election.

    June 11, 2012 at 2:07 pm |
  21. Brad, Portland, OR

    Whether they're experienced or not is less important than whether they have the integrity to resist the influence of lobbyists and special interests, and whether they're WILLING TO COMPROMISE with the other party.

    People who take a "my way or the highway" attitude just ensure gridlock and the failure to meet the needs of the American people.

    June 11, 2012 at 2:15 pm |
  22. Loren, Chicago

    Things will get done? Experience, while useful, can also lead to people insisting on doing things the way that it's always been done. Maybe with some new blood, Congress might just look at the process of governing differently and stop thinking about how to get reelected and more about creating a workable plan for the future of our country.

    Of course, it could just be business as usual and we're left with a typical spend, spend, spend Congress. No way to know until they start working, but we can dream.

    June 11, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
  23. Richard C.

    How refreshing! What exactly do you need for experience to be in Congress? Let me see; doing little or nothing; taking vacations; accepting various perks from lobbyists? Let's be honest, maybe less experience will equal more work being done for America, not themselves!
    Malvern, PA.

    June 11, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
  24. Matt

    What has experience brought us so far? Partisan girdlock, continued increase in the deficit, lack of concern for the average citizen, ad infinitum. I am not sure that inexperienced Congresspersons can do anymore damage.


    June 11, 2012 at 2:20 pm |
  25. Chris from Florida

    Congress is not experienced, in gneral, because the freshman class of 2010 had many new Tea Party affiliated members, freshly elected in the wake of voter frustration with incumbants, than in recent elections. My sense is the same is about to happen in 2012. Congress' approval rating is in the basement for the gridlock. That said, experience is good on Capital Hill, but it is also an indicator of "good-'ol-boy" syndrome. I'd rather see well-intentioned smart people up there than the current pack of political hacks. Pelosi and Reed and Boehner and Cantor are the reasone we have gridlock. Get rid of them and we might see some progress.

    June 11, 2012 at 2:25 pm |
  26. Ken in Pinon Hills, California

    t doesn't mean much, the lobbyists have all the experience they will need, in a Washington where there are strings attached to our puppet legislators.

    June 11, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
  27. Susan-NJ

    It may mean they are the least crooked.

    June 11, 2012 at 2:28 pm |
  28. Ed from California

    Can't be any worse....right? If the Republicans captured both houses and the White House.....Tahiti, here I come!!

    June 11, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
  29. David, in hot and sunny Tampa

    Honestly Jack, the current crop of do nothings couldn't be hurt more by the addition of more incompetents. With the addition of seventy Tea Bag nitwits Congress came to a screeching halt. If they stay and more are added to their ranks this country will be heading for the worst of times that will take decades to repair. Or if there is an influx of new faces from the opposite side of the aisle, things will be equally bad. I do not understand why we love extremists so much because they invariably lead to disaster.

    June 11, 2012 at 2:29 pm |
  30. calaurore9

    It means they haven't yet become prostitutes of lobbyists. That's a good thing.

    C. in Ma.

    June 11, 2012 at 2:30 pm |
  31. Annie, Atlanta

    Well, there's two schools of thought as far as being bought off on this one. There's those who believe inexperience makes it easier to buy these guys and there's those who think embedded politicians have made it their life's work to be bought off. Either way, they both get bought off, which is easier now than ever with the Citizen's united decision. So we, meaning regular American citizens, are screwed no matter how you look at it. Plutocracy with a little oligarchy thrown in for good measure, anyone?

    June 11, 2012 at 2:30 pm |
  32. Jeff In Bishop, Georgia

    Mr. Cafferty, it has been proven many times over that experience in Congress has resulted in failure. Our country needs to operate within a budget for starters. Earmarks are like an incurable disease. As long as the people keep electing politicians instead of statesmen, our republic is doomed.

    June 11, 2012 at 2:33 pm |
  33. Sandstone

    "Not enough Seniors on board, Jack. Also maybe not close knitted enough, when/ where they might get a little more serious on what is really happening."

    June 11, 2012 at 2:40 pm |
  34. Andrew Quinn

    It usually means bad laws, poorly written, and more laws written by lobbyists because representatives don't have the experience to craft legislation or to filter the lobbyists. Our goose is cooked.

    June 11, 2012 at 2:44 pm |
  35. Larry from Georgetown, Tx

    We can only hope that the next Congress in 2013 isn't already running for the next election and gets something done to solve the major problems that we are facing. Oops, I forgot, they are politicians, new or old.

    June 11, 2012 at 2:45 pm |

    As long as we get rid of the in-experienced no-nothings a.k.a. the Tea Party, we should be in good shape. Case in point: Candidate Murcoch of Indiana. Rep. Alan West of Florida.

    June 11, 2012 at 2:48 pm |
  37. Gary H. Boyd

    Jack,your question suggests you consider experience to be an asset. Based upon what's taken place, or more specifically, what's not taken place within the hallowed halls of Congress over the past 3 years, I respectfully disagree. When the Congress has over a 90% disapproval rating it's time to throw the bums out. All that supposed "experience" has put the country in the toilet.

    Gary in Scottsdale, Arizona

    June 11, 2012 at 2:51 pm |
  38. Jenna Roseville CA

    What does it mean if the next Congress is one of the least experienced in decades?

    We need some new blood Jack, the more old stick in the mud Republicans and TEAHADIST we can get rid of the better.

    We need to elect more Independents and REAL Democrats – not DINO's (Democrats In Name Only) who put nation BEFORE party.

    Roseville CA

    June 11, 2012 at 2:51 pm |
  39. jk in MN

    If there aren't any grownups elected who are willing to put the Country's economic needs ahead of the Lobbyists or their Party's agenda, then it will be "No business conducted" – just like it's been the past bseveral years. Both parties are to blame for this – the GOP more than the Dems, but they both are guilty.

    June 11, 2012 at 2:52 pm |
  40. Lorraine in Maine

    Who knows, fresh faces, fresh idea's. Get rid of some dead wood in Congress. Which leads me to term limits for Congress, Senators, and Rep.

    June 11, 2012 at 2:59 pm |
  41. NC Jeff in Sims

    It means that the more senior members will have even more power in their chambers than they do now. It doesn't matter Jack. We're too far gone. Send in the vultures.

    June 11, 2012 at 2:59 pm |
  42. Doug Ericson

    It doesn't mean anything if God doesn't decide to park his spaceship here on Earth, and pay us a visit for a while to straighten things out. Because anything short of an Act of God, or somewthing like a dead-on hit from a Moon sized meteror, isn't going to change a thing in, The Capitol of Crooks. Young Crook, Old Crook, Black Crook, White Crook, Christian Crook, Jewish Crook, Secular Crook, Muslim Crook, anything for a dollar. If they are a member of Congress, then you can be sure they are a Crook, and you know they are lying, whatever they say, whatever they holler. But the pacifist in me says wait, they will drive themselves off a cliff, or play bumper pool with their Lexus in the wee hours of the mornig. There is that one saving grace for having the most crooked Government of all time, and that is to watch these fools, who think they are fooling us, make fools of themselves. Doug, Pepperell, MA.

    June 11, 2012 at 3:00 pm |
  43. Pete in Florida

    Since we need to completely remove ALL incumbents from Congress if we're ever to reform this incompetent traitorous body of fools, it's a good start. Vote out ALL incumbents, every election, until they learn to put country ahead of party, put citizens ahead of donors, and start doing the will of the PEOPLE. Then, the first order of business must be term limits and the end of private campaign financoing.

    June 11, 2012 at 3:04 pm |
  44. Kristen

    It means we will continue to stall out in Congress. It takes time to become accustomed to the way of Congress and we don't have time for learning on the job. We need a Congress that will act on our behalf and now.

    Olympia, WA

    June 11, 2012 at 3:08 pm |
  45. Phyllis G. Williams

    What does it mean if the next Congress is one of the least experienced in decades?

    They will need to show that wisdom and brilliance does not alway depend on earlier
    experience, as the time is coming when "a little child shall lead them (smile) –
    (Isaiah 11: 6).

    June 11, 2012 at 3:08 pm |
  46. John E


    We don't need experience. We need fresh minds with fresh ideas not tied to the old ways of doing things. We need people that will work for the people not for politicial parties and outdated ideals that are the cornerstone to both sides of the isle.

    If it all means we get a congress that works for the people again, that is held to account to the same laws they write and is does the fundamental changes necessary to take big money out of politcs and return the government by the people, for the people again, then any inexperience is a good thing.

    John E
    San Jose, CA

    June 11, 2012 at 3:10 pm |
  47. Dave, Orlando, FL

    It means that these bums will not be able to screw the American people as efficiently and as thoroughly as the more experienced bums have been doing. Not to worry though, they will learn quickly.

    June 11, 2012 at 3:18 pm |
  48. Bob D Iowa

    Jack just look at what the current Congress has done or for that fact NOT DONE and it is going nowhere. They have had one objective and that is to find ways not to pay their debt to the society that made us great. They call it conservative but for those of us that have paid for the prior generation’s health, welfare and national development I call it Treason. Yes Treason they call themselves Patriots but Patriots of what their own wealth their own high living and to hell with those that made the country. Their own mentor Ronald Reagan wouldn’t have stood for what they are doing or the breaking of his promises to the American Seniors.

    June 11, 2012 at 3:28 pm |
  49. Jeff Braun

    It means maybe that they'll actually get something done if they don't know how to filibuster or use all of the other stall tactics. I think it's wonderful.

    June 11, 2012 at 3:33 pm |
  50. Tom from Canonsburg

    Just like it does with the Congress does now. They will listen to their contributors. Remember that they are bought & paid for.

    June 11, 2012 at 3:36 pm |
  51. Larry in Houston

    What does it mean if the next Congress is one of the least experienced in decades?
    I like your questions, Jack. I guess when you want the opinions of regular people out there, you typically ask or start out Your Questions with : "what does it mean" or that phrase is in the question somewhere.
    Now to your Question – – It means that there is going to be More Gridlock. They might be some of the people who has the "Union" mentality. When I was a regular 'ol worker, when it came time to negotiate, my union bosses would not budge, and ended up getting what they wanted, most of the time. So, if the "newbies" have that mentality, then that's the way it will be, in the future.

    June 11, 2012 at 3:37 pm |
  52. Riley ODay

    It means nothing, as Nothing ever changes in D.C.. Business as usual.

    June 11, 2012 at 3:38 pm |
  53. Ralph Moore

    Perhaps if we get a NEW congress, whether it be Republican or Democrat, perhaps SOMETHING can get done! I rather doubt it since we now have a totally biased one.
    It also would be a benefit, to the country, to have a WORKING Congress that wasn't. as Will Rodgers once said " Wasn't the BEST that MONEY could buy":!!!!!!!!!!

    June 11, 2012 at 3:43 pm |
  54. Frank from Connellsville, PA

    If we can get them away for suckling at the party breast, then there maybe hope. Unfortunately, people know to to school and grad school with the sole intent of getting elected. They owe people from the start of their "careers." It isn't about the experience of those we elect, but who is holding their leash.

    June 11, 2012 at 3:51 pm |
  55. susan

    It all depends on what the meaning of the word is, is. Oops, I mean, it depends on what you mean by "experienced."

    It could mean that they have not yet been contaminated by the lobbyists, and it could mean they come in with ideals that have not yet been compromised. Or, "experienced" could also mean, you know whose back to scratch and how long the scratching procedure should take. With very few exceptions, I have found those who are "experienced" to be completely worthless when it comes to getting stuff done (unless your back itches)!


    June 11, 2012 at 3:53 pm |
  56. Caleb from Tennessee

    You mean to tell me that there's people less experienced then our current congress? Wow! I didn't think that was possible!

    June 11, 2012 at 3:54 pm |
  57. curtis in philadelphia

    You asked: "But what have they done for us lately?" And then you say: "Nothing". Jack, when you say "nothing", I think you're being far too generous.

    June 11, 2012 at 3:56 pm |
  58. Eric M. Los Angeles

    If our congress was a professional sports team we would be in last place in our divison, with little or no hope for the playoffs. I'm tired of losing. I want a new coaching staff, some players that put team first and a front office that cares about the fans.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:00 pm |
  59. Ed in California

    If we want the same results, then we should keep electing the same people. If we are dissatisfied with the way the system is working, then indeed it is valid to elect others regardless of their experience or because of the lack thereof.

    I think it is clearly time for change!. Not 2008 pseudo change, but real change!

    June 11, 2012 at 4:02 pm |
  60. 1grasshopper

    It means that we just might get some work done on purpose.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:03 pm |
  61. Paul in NC

    John Boehner couldn't be more wrong. The class of 2008 has brought neither energy nor enthusiasm; only obstructionism. And Boehner has been a spectacular failure as Speaker. The serious problems our country faces can't be solved by voting "NO" on every bill. The only legislation passed by the House has been partisan in-your-face nonsense that stood no chance of passing in the Senate. I would gladly welcomme 155 new faces and endure their freshman mistakes as long as the current crop gets sent back to the caves they emerged from.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:03 pm |
  62. Mike in Minneapolis

    It means Wall Street will have to train them.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:04 pm |
  63. NurseLisa in CT

    while all in favor of throwing the old guard out, they'll remain on the gov't payroll for life, and the new congresspeople will get paid lots too – hopefully with more results that will have a long term impact for good, but it won't be apparent either way, for years.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:07 pm |
  64. Cee.La

    If the T,pers are any indication of new, then we are in deeper trouble.....we must return to compromise on the issues....in order to move forward......

    June 11, 2012 at 4:08 pm |
  65. Ted

    This is an easy one...You see what happened when we elected an INEXPERIENCED PRESIDENT...Lots of fancy speeches and little knowledge about an economy.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:09 pm |
  66. vicky

    No difference. The only bills that are been passed across party line are the ones that meet their needs.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:17 pm |
  67. Dave In Texas

    If we get a new congress from top down it will be the best this to happen to America since the founding. Remember, Jack, our founders were inexperienced also, but built the greatest country on Earth.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:17 pm |
  68. Keith Ensminger

    Oh yeah, this fresh blood with real world experience? The debt ceiling fiasco shows these experience bloodhounds are no different than real world thieves who order delivery pizza, grab the pie and stiff the driver. Thanks for nothing.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
  69. Sarah Middleton, OR

    It might be a good thing,
    as long as they haven't signed any silly pledges before their term starts,
    and are actually committed to getting something done instead of their strict adherence to the party line.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
  70. Laith F. Gulli

    It does not matter since Congress is now a religious organization.

    Laith from Columbus

    June 11, 2012 at 4:19 pm |
  71. Bill-In-Georgia

    It means, the Lobby guys and Big Business will run the country....and instead of having 13% of our jobs overseas it will jump to 29%....Looks like we have to move to the far East to get a job???

    June 11, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
  72. Lea

    Jack, If you consider experienced, the same people that have been taking bribes from lobbyists, and making laws not in the interests of the people, but of themselves and those special interest groups; Thanks but ill take my chances with the rookies..
    ~Lea, Rochester, Ny

    June 11, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
  73. Gigi Oregon

    If it is more Tea party candidates, and their call to shrink government, it will mean more of our government will die. If the republicans have their way we will be no more a (what little we have left) democracy. Little by little over the years since Nixon we have seen the USA crumble into a Republic with laws being written to aid the rich and tax the middle class. Then more and more states will turn Red and we will really find out what Capitalism can do to "we the people" . My grandparents lived with the fall of wall street the great depression and the rebuilding of America under a 4 term elected Franklin Roosevelt. Now we are sinking again with the policies of the elite strangle hold of the government with their tactics and propaganda. Only it is worse this time since the so called religious right have carried their banner in front of the destruction of Democracy for a theocracy. Even to the point of ignoring the scriptures.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
  74. Margaret Fleming

    It means that this country will sink even lower because those who will be elected have very narrow, biased agendas. NONE of these people will be able to see the big picture...............just like those who were elected this last time!!!!

    June 11, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
  75. Stormer Francis

    Jack it maybe refreshing to have new people,who are not so worried about filling their pockets,and try to do better for the American Tax Payers. When we have a President who blames everyone else,but works with no-one. We wish for Clinton who had to work with Republicans and did leave a surplus.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:20 pm |
  76. Tony from Southport

    "What does it mean if the next Congress is one of the least experienced in decades?" Well jack, if a president can serve three and a half years and still have some support, I guess the answer to the question of "no experience" is a resounding "YES"! But if you mean to ask "What does it mean if the next Congress is a Republican majority", then I say we would be on the road to a speedy recovery! What do YOU think Jack?

    June 11, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
  77. j.torrey1@hotmail.com

    If the T.pers are voted in again, then hey will put us into another Civil War. Starting with food riots.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:21 pm |
  78. Lenora

    It means absolutely nothing. This is a job where experience isn't necessary; just morals, character, and a willingness to do the job at hand....what's best for the American people.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:22 pm |
  79. Jack - Lancaster, Ohio

    Mr. Cafferty:

    Well it might mean initially that failures will be due to less experience and not corruption. Although I do feel the forces of corruption will have already sewn their seeds into the new breed before ethics will have been considered. I look at the young republicans and democrats and they seem to be in rapture over their "mentors" and this tells me it will be more of the same just a little younger and more energy to party hardy. So in conclusion this population of our country is screwed !

    June 11, 2012 at 4:22 pm |
  80. Tom Motter

    Given the fact that the "experienced" congress has done little but learn how to get re-elected year after year, maybe it's time to try some in-experience. Who knows, maybe they will figure out how to legislate, something lost on our current politicians.

    Tom Motter
    Seal Beach, CA

    June 11, 2012 at 4:22 pm |
  81. Rick

    Incumbant, or anti-incumbant; functional, or dysfunctional, tea party, or progressive, we get the government we deserve...and we must have been very, very bad.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
  82. Dale Sherman in San Jose

    The lobbyists will get even stronger unless laws are changed. California learned that lobbyists now write most of the new legislation for new representatives, due to term limits eliminating experienced legislatures.
    We need a whole new system of government!

    June 11, 2012 at 4:24 pm |
  83. Tim In Dallas

    If someone had asked this question back in 2008 then maybe we wouldnt have the mess we have now. I think President Hillary Clinton would have done a much better job than the community organzier that holds the office now. You have to remember Hillary has a secret weapon, also known as Bill. Obama is in way over his head and its really starting to show, hopefully to everyone come November.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:24 pm |
  84. Jeff in MS

    More time spent on learning political maneuvering along with learning the ropes from their so called mentors and figuring out what their new found percs are. So basically nothing new happening for us Americans.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:24 pm |
  85. Rich Parks

    How much experiance does it take to say "NO, its MY way or the HIGHWAY" at least the highway is regulated so we don't have to be driven by tea-party-regulation-totalers who would rather go back to driving us off a cliff. Grand Rapids Mi,

    June 11, 2012 at 4:24 pm |
  86. Henry in Maryland

    In a word, Jack, it means disaster. Governing is serious business, and needs experienced people who understand the system and are willing to make compromises for the public good while at the same time doing their best to reflect the core beliefs of the people who elected them. HOW safe would you feel driving a car whose breaks and power steering have just been fixed by a mechanic who hates motor vehicles and has no experience working on cars or other mechanical devices? How safe would you feel flying in plane piloted by someone who has no experience flying and hates aviation and which plane is guided by air traffic controllers who also hate aviation and have no experience?

    June 11, 2012 at 4:25 pm |
  87. JD

    We'll kick out the Democrats and Republicans and replace them with Democrats and Republicans..And expect different results?

    June 11, 2012 at 4:25 pm |
  88. Heather

    It means that lobbiest and corporations will get what ever they want, and for less money. the richest will pour money into their Tea party favorites and radical republicans. Welcome to plutocracy with the Koch Brothers and Alec running your country.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:25 pm |
  89. Cindy

    If this group signs contracts with lobbists, and does not know the art of "give and take" in negociations, then the whole term will be a lost cause.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:25 pm |
  90. Geoff

    What experience does a Republican need to keep repeating the word "No"?

    June 11, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
  91. John in Charlotte

    Ummmm, how come no mention on how much experience our Commander-In-Chief had when he got into Congress, let alone the highest office in the land?

    June 11, 2012 at 4:26 pm |
  92. Larry - Wyoming

    Jack, it does not matter if they are "inexperienced" or not. We voted them in to do the jobs that need to be done. If they cannot do the job that was given to them, then the term "anyone is replaceable" comes into effect. Then our job as voters is to continue to hire and fire them until we can find the right people for the job. Period.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:27 pm |
  93. A Southern Lady - North Carolina

    Jack – The Tea Partiers that came in in 2010 have brought the work of the House to a halt. Their agenda was not to serve the county but to vote "No" on everything so the Democratic President could make little progress in getting people back to work . You remember, Mitch McConnel's statement that Republicans will not work with the President and it was their goal to make him a one-term President. How un-American, how un-Republican, how shameful ! They caused the downgrade of our financial status when they would not raise the debt limit and it appears they are ready to do it again. John Boehner can not control them, Eric Cantor, eyeing the speaker-ship himself, "uses" them . If they are voted out and reasonable legislators take their place the county has a chance but if more Tea Partiers are elected, it will be more of the same, perhaps worse and that would continue to hurt the country. What has happened to the once-proud Republican party – have they no shame! Apparently not.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
  94. Joe Littlejohn

    I don't see any problem with electing an inexperienced rookie Congress. After all, at a time we were facing the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression we elected an inexperienced amateur for President.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
  95. deborah ballweg Seibert, co

    It means they will be a whole lot less corrupt and MAYBE will be atune to the wishes of the people totally unlike what we have now.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:28 pm |
  96. Tim Loiselle

    As an advocate for term limits I am less concerned with the experience of the elected members of Congress than I am their productivity. You said it right, "what have they done for US (the middle 80%) lately?...Nothing." I for one will not be voting for my incumbent Senator or Representative this fall or in subsequent elections until I see candidates working with their colleagues both Democratic and Republican to help US!
    Tim from Minneapolis

    June 11, 2012 at 4:30 pm |
  97. Rick, Medina, OH


    Too few voters really pay attention to Congressional races; the public needs to treat the process as an extended job interview, and for those seeking 're-election,' treat it as a scorecard. I'm not that bothered by a large group of rookie Congressmen ... I'm more bothered by a large apathetic electorate.

    Medina, Ohio

    June 11, 2012 at 4:31 pm |
  98. Linda in Arizona

    If we get even more rabidly partisan right-wing knownothings, as you are assuming, it will mean even more badly written, constitutionally ignorant, dangerous legislation than we're getting now. You're worried about the result? You should be, especially since your shortsighted "throw the bums out" rants have contributed in no small degree to the coming debacle.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:32 pm |
  99. John in Houston

    As long as they are willing to COMPROMISE, then it really shouldn't matter. However, if they are crazy and cannot even compromise one inch, then we are doomed to continued gridlock.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:32 pm |
  100. Laura

    All it means is that big money, hate, power and control will destroy whatever illusion we have left of a democracy and we'll become another regime state. Keep working at it Washington..better yet just hit the implode button and put us out of your misery.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:32 pm |
  101. RickFromDetroit

    It means that we need term limits, then none of the Congress will know what to do, but I doubt if that would make much of a difference!

    June 11, 2012 at 4:35 pm |
  102. Lorraine

    Inexperience is good sometimes,But it depends on who controlls the two Houses.If more tesparty get in ,country is in big trouble,They only care about controlling a woman"s health

    June 11, 2012 at 4:36 pm |
  103. Jeff

    Maybe the rookies will get some work done before the graft slows them down? It will always be hyper opinionated millionaires in office until we get some serious reform. No chance for regular people – in congress or anywhere else in America.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:36 pm |
  104. A Southern Lady - North Carolina

    Also, when new Republicans are elected, be they normal Republicans or Tea Partiers, will they agree to sign on with Gordon Norquist to do his bidding ? I foolishly thought those elected served and represented the people who voted them into office and would never even consider signing a pledge to a person who has no connection to their home state. I have just discovered that our NC. senator, Richard Burr, signed the PLEDGE to Norquist. How the mighty have falled! Truly sad.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:36 pm |
  105. Phil Dufault

    Jack, I just have one thing to say regarding experience vs common sense. Common sense is lacking in all that experience you question. These Democrates have been blocking any reasonable progress attempted in the House or Senate. I think all that tenured experience is what's holding things up. All that experience is owned by the lobbyists.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:36 pm |
  106. WR Jones

    How can it be bad to clean house of career politicians?
    Who believes that raising taxes on the rich won't result in higher goods and services passed on the poor?
    Who thinks that passing a healthcare bill packed with entitlements during a time when we need jobs and growth was a good idea?
    Only those who have been in Washington DC too long could try to convince the American people of these things would be good for America.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:40 pm |
  107. Jac in Clearwater

    Depending on how many of each party are elected to each house, maybe a little, maybe a lot. I doubt either party will control both houses after the elections; Republicans likely wil control the House, Democrats the Senate. It all comes down to leadership. Our President? Bad joke... There is none in Washington. No one is steering the boat, and we don't have an anchor. We can't and I won't abandon ship either.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:41 pm |
  108. Donaldo in ATL

    Just look at the POTUS, the most underqualified ever to hold the office and you see the results. Inexperience at any job to shows up in the results, so we have to ask ourselves if we want results or to feel good that we did something different. What do your bosses expect??

    June 11, 2012 at 4:41 pm |
  109. KCRick

    I fear this less than having congressmen like Byrd who went back to the 60's or Kennedy. I think fresh blood is good. Our Founding Fathers did not intend for these congressmen to be lifetime occupations.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:41 pm |
  110. Osilama Abu from Ontario,Canada

    As a keen observer of American politics,I am not impressed to see how a country that has been a champion of Democracy world wide-suddenly deminish its status and respect it once commanded,due to continuous political wranglings and at times sheer stupitidy on the part of congress members.These members focus on bringing old stereotype thoughts and beliefs into modern day governance.
    The world is moving on and America better shape up or they will end up a fragmented society like the old Soviet Union,but in this case they will have no friends anywhere to rely on.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:42 pm |
  111. BLKMANinAmerica................WHAT?

    OK, but why not wait and see I mean really what can be done about it now when it hasn't even happened yet............darnit!

    June 11, 2012 at 4:43 pm |
  112. Mr. D

    It's past time to give Congress an enema. Let's hope, however, that the new group will not be too busy texting, listening to IPODS, GPSing, etc ,etc. On second thought, maybe that wouldn't be too bad since it might cut down on the long winded dialog that currenty goes on in both houses and produces little results.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:44 pm |
  113. Jim Charlotte NC

    Just more infighting and stalemates.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:44 pm |
  114. Brian Wickremasinghe - Woodland Hills

    Might work better than the present one.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:45 pm |
  115. Jennifer M in Winnipeg

    Could be a very good thing. They might actually learn something as the go along. The current Congress may have 'years' to their credit, but certainly not 'smarts'. And they don't play well in the sandbox.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:46 pm |
  116. Bob123

    Donaldo in ATL

    Just look at the POTUS, the most underqualified ever to hold the office


    Bush is gone, and we have an intelligent, capable, thinking person in charge now.

    You may know him as President Obama.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:47 pm |
  117. Regan

    We'll be fine.

    Power shifting from entrenched politicians to people who aren't? Isn't that what Americans claim we want?

    June 11, 2012 at 4:47 pm |
  118. Dave

    Doing nothing requires no experience, Jack. I know because I'm an expert at it. Just ask my wife.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:49 pm |
  119. Greg Cox of Bremerton, WA

    Hooray may be in order if they have the nerve and the guts to do something meaningful for a laundry list of ills that face our country...taxes, IRS, wars and interventions overseas, Social Security, jobs, etc., etc., etc. However, don't hold your breath. Within weeks it'll no doubt be "business as usual" in the Capitol of Discontent!

    June 11, 2012 at 4:54 pm |
  120. Jason

    I think it is a good thing. I would LOVE to see the "term limit" issue be discussed. The career politicians really do ruin the process. Of course, I'd like to see the Democratic and Republican parties dissolve. We need to start fresh. I hope we could start with more than two parties too.

    June 11, 2012 at 4:55 pm |