The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is a nonpartisan, non-profit organization committed to educating the public on issues with significant fiscal policy impact. Our bipartisan leadership comprises some of the nation's leading budget experts, including many past heads of the House and Senate Budget Committees, the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, the Government Accountability Office, and the Federal Reserve Board.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
- YouTube
Defining The Democracy Movement: Rahmin Sarabi
Aug 07, 2025
The Fulcrum presents The Path Forward: Defining the Democracy Reform Movement. Scott Warren's interview series engages diverse thought leaders to elevate the conversation about building a thriving and healthy democratic republic that fulfills its potential as a national social and political game-changer. This initiative is the start of focused collaborations and dialogue led by The Bridge Alliance and The Fulcrum teams to help the movement find a path forward.
The latest interview in this series features Rahmin Sarabi, founder and Director of the American Public Trust, an organization dedicated to promoting and implementing deliberative democracy practices, such as citizen assemblies.
Deliberative democracy is a political concept that emphasizes the importance of discussion and consensus-building in the decision-making process. Its implementation, through interventions like participatory budgeting, where residents help decide how to allocate public funds, and citizen assemblies, where randomly selected residents deliberate and make policy recommendations, has gained traction in recent years. Successful examples in Brazil and several European countries have inspired pilots across the United States.
I spoke with Rahmin to explore why he sees deliberative democracy as a necessary antidote to the challenges facing our political system today. Proponents like Rahmin argue these reforms can reimagine democracy for a public that has grown deeply distrustful, while producing public decisions that are more representative. This perspective suggests that one of the central challenges in the pro-democracy sector is how we practice democracy itself.
Skeptics, however, raise both philosophical and practical concerns. Some argue that the U.S. is fundamentally governed as a republic, where elected representatives—not citizens directly—should make policy decisions. Others point to the cost and scalability of these practices. For example, convening a citizen assembly of 40 people in a municipality over several weekends is expensive and not easily replicable. This raises the question: do these processes meaningfully expand participation, or give a small group more access?
I posed these questions to Rahmin, whose responses reflected a thoughtful theory of change and a clear vision for why deliberative democracy matters. His key points included:
- Citizen assemblies aren’t the whole game:
- In a field often drawn to “silver bullet” solutions, citizen (or civic) assemblies have become the latest favorite. Popularized in places like Ireland, which held a national assembly to tackle the thorny issue of abortion, and France, which held one to define ambitious climate policies, they bring together a random assortment of citizens to debate an issue deeply and produce a recommendation—much like a jury for public policy.
This approach has been used in places like Deschutes County, Oregon (to address youth homelessness), and Fort Collins, Colorado (to consider public land use).
While acknowledging their value, Rahmin sees them as one tool within a broader collaborative governance toolkit:
“So, I think (citizen assemblies are) like the Mercedes Benz, or whatever metaphor we want. It's a powerful tool. It should be used on our toughest issues. But if we frame it as collaborative governance, there's a whole other set of tools that are more accessible in between as well.”
- The deliberation in deliberative democracy matters:
Many focus on the democracy part—the final recommendations—but Rahmin stresses the importance of the deliberation itself.
In an era of deepening affective polarization, when people struggle to engage across ideological divides, deliberative processes can create space for constructive dialogue. They allow participants to grapple with complex public problems while engaging with those who may hold opposing views—all within the context of solving a real issue.
As Rahmin articulates, “We need more voice in general. As much as we can move that voice in the direction of an informed voice, the better.”
- The broader vision is a new democracy. I find that one of the weaknesses of the deliberative democracy ecosystem is a lack of a comprehensive theory of change - what do proponents want to accomplish? How do you get from a few people helping to decide how to spend a public budget or choose a public issue to widespread systemic change?
For Rahmin, the goal isn’t incremental reform—it’s wholesale transformation:
As he expresses, “I think if this stuff just looks like incremental add-ons to the status quo - whatever liberal democracy that we've had the last 3 decades- no one's going to care….
So this is an area where, frankly, I'd love to have more allies envisioning how we can work better together, because otherwise we're preaching to the choir and having lovely Zoom calls amongst a very small community and not really reaching the public.”
Ultimately, Rahmin argues, we must offer people “a new kind of democracy.”
I came away from our conversation with a deeper understanding of the deliberative democracy sector and a clearer sense of how Rahmin sees its potential to transform—not just supplement—our democratic system.
Scott Warren is a fellow at the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University. He is co-leading a trans-partisan effort to protect the basic parameters, rules, and institutions of the American republic. He is the co-founder of Generation Citizen, a national civics education organization.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
An Israeli airstrike hit Deir al-Balah in central Gaza on Jan. 1, 2024.
Majdi Fathi/NurPhoto via Getty Images
Why Recognizing the State of Palestine Does Not “Reward Hamas”
Aug 07, 2025
President Donald Trump finally acknowledged there is “real starvation” in Gaza—a reality that has generated momentum among holdout countries to recognize a State of Palestine, as 147 of 193 U.N. members have already done. Trump claims that this impermissibly “rewards Hamas.” Concerns about the optics of “rewarding” a militant group that is not the country’s government should not drive the decision to recognize Palestine as a state or the decision to maintain diplomatic relations with its government.
Countries that have already recognized the State of Palestine point to the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and the fact that the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) forms a defined geographic area with a government and a population—the traditional criteria for statehood. Countries that have not recognized the State of Palestine point to the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) lack of effective control over parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and to the idea that recognition can be used as future diplomatic leverage. But waiting to recognize a state of Palestine until after there is a negotiated agreement between Israel and the PA is an outdated position that amounts to “kicking the can” down an interminable road.
In the face of mounting evidence of starvation and even genocide in Gaza, France indicated that it will formally recognize the State of Palestine at the upcoming 80th session of the U.N. General Assembly. The United Kingdom indicated that it will recognize the State of Palestine if Israel does not take certain steps (using recognition as a stick for the Israeli government), and Canada announced that it will grant recognition if the PA meets certain conditions (using recognition as a carrot for the PA). These recognition announcements underscore the gravity of the humanitarian situation and the consensus that neither side can use violence to further expansionist aims.
Like many internationally recognized borders, Israel’s borders entrench certain historical injustices. As a practical matter, borders are designed to reduce conflict by ensuring the territorial integrity and political independence of each state. Hamas’s call to establish a Palestinian state “from the river to the sea” violates Israel’s international right to territorial integrity and political independence; so too do certain Israeli politicians’ (and evangelical Christians’) calls to extend Israeli sovereignty throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), which are not lawfully part of Israel.
Jews and Palestinians share a deep historical and emotional connection to the same territory and deserve to live in community without fear of persecution or further displacement. Formal recognition of both Israel and Palestine reinforces the message that neither Israeli Jews nor Palestinians can claim exclusive control of all the territory from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Regional dynamics, including the desire to avoid a nuclear threat from Iran, should not prevent a clear-headed assessment of the current Israeli government’s extremism and its embrace of eliminationist rhetoric that sounds eerily like that of Israel’s enemies.
Hamas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose codependence many have noted, have not served the interests of the populations they claim to protect. Hamas’s authoritarianism and suppression of dissent in Gaza are well known, and Arab countries are now adamant that Hamas play no role in Gaza’s future. The Israeli government’s unrelenting militarism and decimation of Palestinian life in Gaza, as well as violence in the West Bank and the subversion of domestic rule-of-law institutions, are tearing apart the fabric of Israeli society and further endangering Jews in the diaspora.
Those who care about the future of the region and its peoples should not let the mantra of “rewarding terrorists” stop them from supporting efforts to end starvation in Gaza, disarm Hamas, and empower actors on both sides whose vision for the “day after” involves coordination and coexistence, not extermination and expansionism.
Chimène Keitner is a professor of law at the University of California, Davis School of Law, a PD Soros Fellow, and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project. She previously served as Counselor on International Law at the U.S. Department of State.
Keep ReadingShow less
Writer and educator Brent McKenzie shares on the importance of civic engagement and how he went from doomscrolling to creating a project called "Idiots & Charlatans."
hapabapa/Getty Images
Doomscrolling Won’t Save Us — But Doing Something Might
Aug 07, 2025
The kids call it doomscrolling—that endless, glazed-eyed spin through terrible headline after terrible headline. And let’s be honest: content from today’s political circus is built for it. It’s so absurd, so extreme, that you find yourself muttering, “This can’t be real.”
But that’s the trap. The worse it gets, the harder it is to look away. And somewhere along the way, outrage starts to replace action. I know—because I caught myself doing it.
The Guardian. Axios. CNN. Social media. I’d bounce between them like I was looking for an emergency exit. Twenty minutes later, I’d be furious and discouraged—but no more informed, and no closer to doing anything about it. Just more adrenaline. And a little less hope.
And I came of age when activism mattered—when organizing, speaking up, marching, and writing letters could actually change things. I still believe that. But somewhere along the way, the energy that used to go into action started going into…scrolling.
That’s when I realized I needed a new focus. I needed to do something.
So I built something that could help me focus on what really matters—and tune out the rest.
For me, that meant building a small project called Idiots & Charlatans, not as a reaction website or think piece factory but as a tool to help me stay anchored in a few big values: democracy, truth, equity, climate, justice, and free speech. I call them my non-negotiables.
At first, I didn’t know where to start. Every headline felt catastrophic, and every issue felt urgent. But then I asked myself: which battles, if lost, will be the hardest to undo? That question helped me cut through the noise.
I made a short list—my non-negotiables:
🗳️ Democracy, because once it slips, getting it back is nearly impossible.
🌍 Climate, because the clock doesn’t reset.
🧑🏽🤝🧑🏼 Equity and justice, because the rollback is real and the pain is personal.
📢 Free speech and truth, because without them, we lose the ability to fight for anything else.
When a headline touches one of those, I pay attention. When it doesn’t, I don’t. And that shift alone has made all the difference.
That’s what helped me, but the bigger question is:
What will help you?
Because this isn’t just about how we cope with the news.
It’s about how we respond to it.
Reclaim that time—the time you’d normally spend doomscrolling—and do something. Anything.
- Call your representative.
- Volunteer at a voter registration event.
- Donate $10 to a trusted cause or candidate.
- Talk to a friend who’s tuned out.
Because let’s be honest: we’re not going to doomscroll our way out of this mess.
And as older Americans—people who’ve lived through enough to know what’s at stake—we can still show others what serious civic responsibility looks like.
We don’t need more commentary. We need more courage.
We don’t need more dread. We need more doing.
So if you find yourself scrolling tonight, just ask:
What else could I be doing instead?
Brent McKenzie is a writer and educator based in the United States. He is the creator of Idiots & Charlatans, a watchdog-style website focused on democratic values and climate change. He previously taught in Brussels and has spent the majority of his professional career in educational publishing.
Keep ReadingShow less
Changing Conversations Around Immigration
Aug 07, 2025
At FrameWorks, we consider it our personal and moral mission to support those working to build a more humane immigration system. While we certainly don’t have all the answers, we join in the shared outrage over current injustices and harms and want to offer support where we can.
One thing we know is that the language we use to demand that change affects how people think about immigration. And if we aren’t intentional, the language we use to highlight protections for immigrants can inadvertently lead people towards thinking about the need to protect “us” from immigrants.
That’s because the U.S. public’s understanding of law and immigration interact in ways that focus attention on crime. Here’s how we’ve seen this thinking work:
- A Law = Criminal Law mindset leads people to assume that any discussions of the law are necessarily about criminal law, directing thinking towards discipline and punishment.
- This mindset exists alongside harmful mindsets about immigration, like Immigrants as “Them” (which positions immigrants as a dangerous “other” who threaten some version of “us”) and a Lawbreakers mindset (which equates immigrants who are undocumented with criminals). That means that discussions of immigration law can easily make people focus on three things: enforcement, detainment, and detention.
“Well, if it’s illegal to enter the country and not be documented then by default, you’re a criminal. Now, does that put you on the same level as a criminal that is murdering people? No, but it’s still essentially a crime… So yes, by default, you are a criminal if you enter a country against their laws.”
—Focus group participant, June 2025
These mindsets all come together to focus attention on punishing immigrants and enforcing the law—and the administration is doing everything it can to strengthen these mindsets and make people think that ICE is “just enforcing the law.”
To counter their framing, we may be tempted to argue over enforcement of the law and the illegality of much of what the administration is doing. But when the debate stays about whether and how to enforce the law, we’re on losing ground. In the context of conversations about enforcement, it can seem to people like simple common sense that we need to enforce the law—are we really suggesting that we not enforce it?
The good news is that people do think the ways in which the administration is enforcing the laws is inhumane:
“There’s just gotta be a better way to do it than secret police that are doing these massive raids like this.”
—Focus group participant, June 2025
“I would question whether or not they’re receiving whatever ‘due process’ is. And if illegal immigrants… What are their rights, legally, in this? Because they’re still humans, they still have rights.”
—Focus group participant, June 2025
This line of thinking is an opening—a way for us to make our case rather than staying stuck refuting frames and language we don’t want to reinforce. We can root our messages in a principle that most Americans still hold dear: We have a moral obligation to create a humane immigration system that treats everyone with dignity and respect.
Our research suggests that to strategically counter the “just enforcing the law” trap:
- Back up and talk about how the system is designed. When we bring the failures of our system into view, we get out of the false choice between enforcing or not enforcing the law.
- Foreground the value of shared humanity, dignity, and respect. This highlights what people are already seeing—that current actions are not humane. And combined with step one, it orients people toward how to move forward, both in the short and long term.
Here’s what this might look like:
Our laws lay the groundwork for the kind of society we live in. Laws that treat everybody with dignity and respect every person’s humanity lay the groundwork for a moral society.
But right now, our immigration laws are anything but moral or humane. ICE is indiscriminately grabbing people off the street and holding them in detention centers, where they can’t see their children or access legal aid.
Americans want an immigration system that treats everybody with dignity and respect—and there is widespread support for changes that would bring the system in line with our ideals. But those changes aren’t happening because our political system makes it hard to pass popular laws, and immigrant families and communities are paying the price for our government not listening to us.
We need to demand changes to our immigration laws. And in the meantime, we can’t allow the immoral, inhumane treatment of our neighbors to continue.
Depending on your particular communications context, you might want to build support for immediate actions we must take or lay the groundwork for more long-term change to our immigration laws. The example above is doing a bit of both, but you can vary your message to emphasize one or the other.
If you’d like further insight from FrameWorks research on talking about immigration, check out:
- Talking About Immigration Now: Moving Beyond the ‘Worthiness Trap’
- From Them to Ours: Framing Strategies for Talking About Immigrant Youth
- How Metaphors Catalyze and Crystallize Anti-Immigrant Sentiment and Policy
Clara Blustein Lindholm serves as the Director of Research Interpretation for the Culture Change Project at the FrameWorks Institute.
Changing Conversations Around Immigration was originally published by FrameWorks Institute.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More