I disagree. There are some people that think that some laws are necessary, and when they don't see those laws being fast-tracked thru Congress they equate that to dysfunction. What should be evident is that if the law doesn't pass, it really isn't that necessary and not favored heavily enough by enough people.
If a congressman refuses to vote in favor of a thing that his or her electorate feels is critical, he will be removed upon the next election. If his electorate is so intellectually bankrupt (as oh so many Americans are), then they will leave that person in Congress to continue failing to do things that are critical. The former is a check on the system; those failing to represent those who elected him is removed. The latter is not a symptom of dysfunction in Congress. It's a symptom of the dysfunction of the voters.
We were never supposed to have a government that built an ever-growing catalogue of all things we citizens cannot do. They were never intended to prevent us from being offended, or uncomfortable. They were meant to defend our borders, settle disputes between states, and very little else. They (and the plethora of activists) have taken it upon themselves to try to govern how we think, act, drive, read, are entertained, eat, sleep, breath... They have changed the foundation of our system from innocent until proven guilty at which time you'll be punished, to attempting to prevent us from ever becoming guilty by forcing the behavior they desire.