[AnthonyMouse]

There is a difference between imperfection and incompetence.

In one case you do things having thoroughly considered them and refrain from issuing mandates when their net benefit isn't large and unambiguous. A government that acts cautiously and deliberately and refrains from acting when that isn't possible is not one that never takes any action at all. You can be careful without being infallible.

In the other case you pass sloppy rubbish based on rhetoric and populism, don't solve the problem, create new problems, waste resources and divert attention from better solutions, often make the original problem worse and generally just make a hash of things because you're proposing something loud instead of something good.

And issuing no central mandate doesn't inherently mean the problem doesn't get solved, it just means it gets pushed to someone else who may have individual preferences or better context and allows different people to make different choices.

[bryanlarsen]

The only way anything like that could get through Congress is if one party had a filibuster proof majority in both houses. As I said, never.

[AnthonyMouse]

Every year some bills pass with wide bipartisan support. That isn't any guarantee that the bill is any good -- the Patriot Act passed with entirely too many votes in favor -- but in most cases they're simply bills with low opposition. Provide counseling for veterans or something.

Which is exactly what you get when you find the right solution and nobody has any reason to object to it. But if you haven't found the right solution, go back and try harder instead of passing something wrong.