The US Congress has had sharp words for the Iraqi government's lack of progress in meeting key milestones. I wonder how that very Congress would fare in an evaluation of they're own performance?

Remember the "First 100 days" commitment...?

Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."

Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.

Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds.

All the days after that: 'Pay as you go,' meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.

Now I can't recall all of this, so help me out:

1. The link between lobbyists and legislators seems as solid as ever. The tough stand against earmarks? It's easy to say you'll eliminate earmarks if you decide to call them something else instead.
2. The 9/11 commission recommendations? I don't think much progress was made there.
3. The minimum wage hike certainly didn't get accomplished in the first 100 days. In fact, the House passed a bill, the Senate passed a different one, and it sat stuck in limbo for a couple of months until it got snuck into an Iraq funding bill. Now there's some fine leadership that's sure to inspire the Iraqi ministers...
4. Interest rate cut for students? Surely we would have heard about that one.
   
5. Nothing has changed with the pharmaceutical companies.
6. Stem cell research changes? Nope.
   

No, the performance on these milestones has been woefully inadequate. The US Congress should be glad they aren't being graded, and if they were they'd find themselves behind the Iraqis. Maybe we should learn some things from them instead...