The problem: hordes of retiring baby-boomers, together with slumping tax revenues, have sent Social Security into the red several years earlier than expected. The current economic outlook puts the program’s solvency in jeopardy. So what does Congress do to save us from this impending disaster? The solution is obvious—pass a non-binding resolution!

This is not a false scenario: on Feb. 5, 2010, the non-binding House Resolution 1077 was introduced, declaring Congress’s intention to “stand with the American people to reject severe changes to social security, including any and all attempts to privatize [it],” instead promising to “make common-sense adjustments… to strengthen it for future generations.” As well-intentioned as this sounds, it’s nothing more than a way to bait Republicans into publicly picking sides on Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) proposals to cut and privatize social security benefits. A “no” vote would provide a potent sound bite for Democratic campaign ads during the upcoming midterm elections. Regardless of how one feels about social security, it’s easy to tell that H.Res. 1077 is essentially a Democratic National Committee press release in which every sentence begins with “Whereas.”

A non-binding resolution is any bill that, by definition, cannot progress into law. These toothless acts have come to plague Congress. For example, a typical workday in Congress (Feb. 2, 2010, specifically) saw the consideration of such gems as H. Res. 957, which honored NASCAR driver Jimmie Johnson for his “historic achievements” in winning the Sprint Cup, a resolution “recognizing the goals of Catholic Schools Week,” one declaring January 2010 (which ended two days earlier) to be “National Stalking Awareness Month,” and one congratulating “Brescia University for 60 years of leadership in higher education.”

The fact is, non-binding resolutions are ineffective and only divert Congress’s attention from our nation’s myriad problems. The majority of these missives receive virtually no media coverage, nor do they influence government policy. It took Congress eight days after the Haitian earthquake to pass H.Res. 1021, a non-binding expression of “condolences and solidarity.” (During those eight days, they named four post offices.) The high-minded Congressional statement likely offered little solace to Haitians trapped beneath rubble and distracted from governmental efforts to bring tangible benefits to those in need.

Proponents of non-binding resolutions say they offer Congress a chance to express its opinion on issues outside its purview. But why should it? The most notable example in recent history was the late Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha’s resolution demanding an end to the Iraq War. It stimulated debate but ultimately failed to steer military strategy. Congress should propose binding measures for issues that fall within its powers and ignore issues that don’t.

Also on the agenda for Feb. 2nd were resolutions expressing support for Google in its struggle against Chinese censors, commemorating the 65th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, honoring civil rights activist Medgar Evers, and celebrating the 49th anniversary of integrated schools in New Orleans. All of these passed unanimously (Not even Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), the lone vote against the Jimmie Johnson resolution, could say nay). Though all in support of noble causes, these symbolic statements offer little more than an opportunity for Congress to pat itself on the back.

Our representatives should save their adulation for the nation’s Boy Scout troops, NASCAR drivers, and, yes, even our fallen civil rights heroes for the Sunday talk shows. The chambers of Congress are a place for doing things, not saying them.

Jack A. Holkeboer ’12, a Crimson editorial writer, is an economics concentrator in Mather House.