Can Congress manage to solve a problem that a huge majority of Americans agree exists -- but also one that people are fiercely divided on the best solution to? Or will the clock run out yet again, leaving us all in the dark?

Yes, those were intentional puns. Because the subject at hand -- once again -- is the changing of time twice a year, from standard to daylight savings and then back again. Almost everybody hates the changes -- that is the part we all agree upon. But what to do about it leaves people almost evenly divided, between those who want standard time year-round and those who prefer permanent daylight time.

I've written about this effort previously, as multiple Congresses have tried to tackle the problem, only to then ultimately decide that it's just not worth the hassle of half the country winding up seriously annoyed at the change. But maybe this time will be different? Sorry, but it's almost impossible not to work "timely" jokes into this discussion, intentional or not.

Here's some of what I had to say about it the last time I wrote about it, roughly a year ago:

This is somewhat of a unique problem, for a number of reasons. First, it's not really a partisan issue at all. Neither Democrats nor Republicans are solidly behind any one plan. Second, it is one of those problems where just about everyone agrees that something needs to change, but they can't all agree on what should be done. This means that no matter what change is implemented, some people are going to be unhappy about it. Which is why I am predicting that what will happen is what always seems to happen (time after time, you might say), which is nothing at all.

Few people like changing the clocks twice a year. But when you ask people which system they'd prefer year-round, some support going to D.S.T. for the whole year while some support going on standard time instead. Both sides have their arguments for and against, and they are quite adamant that their preferred way is the best.

Time is (with apologies to Albert Einstein) rather relative. How many hours of daylight you get is dependent on geography. It depends where you are in your time zone (how far east or west, and how close you are to the border of another time zone), as well as how far north or south you are. So making sweeping claims about how moving to one standard or the other will benefit everyone is rather pointless, because the supposed benefits can't really be averaged out, they depend for each person on where they are located. Attitudes about which system would work better permanently shift depending on where you happen to be. People in Maine are likely to feel differently than people in western Michigan, because they're both at opposite edges of the same time zone. Likewise, people in Seattle or Alaska are likely to feel different than people in San Diego or Hawai'i. Geography matters, and any sweeping claims don't take into account these regional differences. What may be true for the people in Michigan may be just the opposite in Wisconsin, to put this another way, because of their location on both sides of a time zone line.

If by some miracle Congress did institute one system for all of America, there will be millions of people annoyed by the choice. That is true no matter which choice is made, which is what makes it such an intractable political issue. No politician wants to have a large segment of the population annoyed with them, obviously (especially one that doesn't break on party lines).

A while back, the Washington Post created a very interesting interactive U.S. map, where you can see what the current system looks like compared to permanent daylight time or permanent standard time, for every county in the country. By playing around with it a bit, you can see the vast differences that people in different areas experience from the time changes. It's not even a matter of pitting one time zone against another, because there are significant differences within each time zone.

This explains why it's not really a partisan issue. A lot of how you may feel about it depends on where you live. The polling that exists on the issue shows a slight majority -- the most recent poll showed 56 percent of Americans favored permanent daylight time, while only 42 percent favored year-round standard time. Experts in circadian rhythms have come down on the standard time side of the argument, but these days "what the experts think" doesn't carry as much weight as it used to.

Even though the majority polled said they favored daylight time all the time, 42 percent of America is still a lot of people who would be annoyed by such a change. The current legislation (the "Sunshine Protection Act") as written would mandate year-round daylight time for every place in America that hadn't already decided to choose year-round standard time. As written, states and territories wouldn't get to decide later, since these exceptions would be limited to places which had such a system "in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of the Sunshine Protection Act." This doesn't allow states to later change their minds, you will note.

The last time I wrote about this subject, I concluded with what turned out to be the right prediction (which I have to admit, was rather cynically put):

So given the choices -- boldly proclaim one system permanent, pass the buck to the state governments, or just do nothing -- my money's on nothing happening at all. That way, the majority of the people will continue to not like the system -- but at least they're used to it. Doing nothing means not changing things, or more precisely "not giving people something new to complain about." Politically, this is the safest course, because people will continue grumbling each time the clock changes, but they won't be venting their ire on any specific politicians as a result.

And then, a few years down the road, Congress will likely hold more hearings on the subject -- and then wind up doing nothing once again. This is what regularly happens... well... just like clockwork.

However, perhaps this time is different (see earlier comment about the impossibility of avoiding time jokes). This time, Donald Trump seems to be in favor of permanent daylight time. Last year, when that was written, he was much more equivocal about it, saying: "I assume people would like to have more light later, but some people want to have more light earlier because they don't want to take their kids to school in the dark. It's very much a 50-50 issue." This year, he seems more willing to come down on the side of permanent daylight time, saying last month: "I hope we're going to do it. We're pushing it very hard."

This time around, Republicans are planning on attaching the S.P.A. to a larger legislative package on surface transportation programs. So perhaps they'll be able to sort of sneak it by without a whole lot of people noticing. Even if the House GOP does manage to pass it, the bill will still have to get through the Senate, where one of the biggest champions of the idea isn't even there any more (Marco Rubio was a chief sponsor of the idea for a while, and even managed to get the Senate to pass it once by sneaking it through in the middle of a series of other bills that were uncontroversial). But if Trump does get behind the bill in a big way, that might change the political dynamic a bit.

As I said, permanent daylight time would delight a little over half the country while it seriously annoyed a little less than half the country. This wouldn't break down on partisan lines, though, which is rare these days. There are Democrats who would begrudgingly admit: "Well, at least Trump stopped the clock changes" (in the same sort of spirit as: "At least he made the trains run on time," one assumes), and there are also MAGA supporters who would be incensed about the new plan.

Even if the Sunshine Protection Act does manage to pass, there's no guarantee that it will be accepted. Congress did get rid of clock-switching once, back in the oil crisis of the 1970s, when the Emergency Daylight Saving Time Energy Conservation Act mandated year-round daylight time for a period from January of 1974 to April of 1975. Later, they backtracked and ended the experiment in October of 1974, after a huge backlash from parents with schoolchildren. That backlash is still out there, waiting to happen again. Standing up to it and insisting that everyone just get used to the new scheme would take some political spinal fortitude.

So while I am a bit more hopeful about the chances of seeing the clock-switching finally come to an end, I still remain at least a little bit skeptical. And to end with a few more silly puns: has the time come for such a big change in America? Only time will tell....

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant