Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Wanted: An Endangered Competent Congress Act

Opinion

U.S. Capitol at night

Congress needs lawmakers willing to puruse bipartisan solutions, writes Corbin.

Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Corbin is professor emeritus of marketing at the University of Northern Iowa.

As a regular op-ed contributor to newspapers in 39 states, I read a lot of various and sundry topics, seeking opportunities to craft a research-based message that might be of interest to readers.

A while back I read that 2023 marked the 50th anniversary of the Endangered Species Act. Soon after, a friend referred me to a 2013 Huffington Post article by Diane Dimon titled, “ There ought to be a law against an ‘incompetent’ Congress.”

After reflecting on these two topics – endangered species and an incompetent Congress – a little humor entered the noggin, research ensued and a serious column came to fruition. Let me explain.


The ESA has saved 99 percent of our 2,300 endangered wildlife species and their habitats (e.g., bald eagle, peregrine falcon, gray wolf, etc.). Congress last reauthorized ESA funding in 1992. But doing so again would be a challenge because reauthorization would require a competent Congress to take action. As Hamlet would say, “ay, there’s the rub!”

Despite rising polarization in Congress, researchers with the Center for Effective Lawmaking found, in longitudinal studies, legislative effectiveness is heightened when bipartisanship exists. Historians reveal we’ve had many competent members of Congress touted for their bipartisanship, including Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, Robert La Follette, Robert Taft, Ted Kennedy, Margaret Chase Smith, Nancy Kassebaum, William Proxmire, Henry Cabot Lodge, Sam Rayburn, and – saving the best for last – John McCain and Tip O’Neill.

Truly bipartisan lawmakers are becoming extinct. It’s time for citizens to petition the government to enact the Endangered Competent Congress Act of 2024. But, we’d need a competent House, Senate and president to take action; we’ve not witnessed such a breed in decades.

A June 2013 Gallup survey found only 17 percent of their respondents approved of Congress’ performance. How’s Congress performing 10 years later? At the end of 2023, Congress’ approval rating stood at a mere 15 percent.

How bad is Congress? Here are some December 2023 headlines that sum it up: “ America and the terrible, horrible, no good very bad Congress ” (Fox News). “ Worst Congress Ever? ” (The Fiscal Times). “ Farewell to one of the dumbest years in Congressional history ” (Politico). “ Worst. Congress. Ever. ” (The Washington Post). “ Capitol Hill stunner: 2023 led to fewest laws in decades ” (Axios). “ A look back at how awful politics was in 2023 ” (The Wall Street Journal). “ This horrible Congress is even worse than you thought ” (The New Republic).

Ten years ago, Dimond noted the average salary for most members of Congress was $174,000 per year plus each lawmaker received over $1.3 million per year for office expenses. She wrote, “Now, let’s multiply that by the 535 members of lackluster, partisan-paralyzed Congress and you get a grand total that tops $818 million. So, what do you think? You think we’re getting our almost billion dollars’ worth of leadership? Yeah, me neither.”

Today, congressional salaries and allowances amount to $975,540,000. The average American works 240 days a year; the House was scheduled to meet for 117 days in 2023 while Senators worked 154 days.

To regain trust and confidence in our representatives to D.C., plus force them to work together on behalf of their constituents (hey, that’s a novel idea) and create a more effective Congress, we must begin by reelecting those willing to pursue bipartisan solutions and de-hiring the bottom of the barrel.

Check out the nonpartisan Bipartisan Index produced by the Lugar Center and McCourt School at Georgetown. Bipartisanship scores for members of the Senate and House are listed in rank as well as alphabetical order. Reflect on the ranking of your two senators and House members, plus the lowest ranking legislators in both chambers.

Not surprisingly, lawmakers in the top tier of both chambers' rankings are about equally divided between Democrats and Republicans. Names of the least bipartisan will be quite familiar; extremists, rabble rousers and whiners to a fault.

Before the Nov. 5 election, let’s campaign to get rid of 20 percent of the bottom-feeder and least cooperating members of Congress – regardless of their party affiliation. They’ve proven they can’t or won’t work across the aisle. “Party before people” and “After me, you come first” are their mantras. If we cleaned the deck of congressional bottom-feeders, politicians and party leaders would quickly get the message. Bipartisanship would ensue to restore an effective and productive legislative body.

Are you with me or against me in having a more functional and productive Congress? You get to decide on Nov. 5.


Read More

The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly

Congress faces growing pressure to pass redistricting reform as lawmakers debate banning gerrymandering, independent commissions, and mid-decade map changes amid renewed national controversy over fair elections.

Getty Images, aire images

Congress's Missed Opportunities on Redistricting Reform

On April 29, Issue One posted an image on Facebook and Instagram: CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS WITH THREE SIMPLE STEPS:

  1. Establish Clear National Criteria for Fair Maps
  2. Require Independent Redistricting Commissions in Every State
  3. Ban Mid-Decade Redistricting.

Issue One added below: “… but it needs 60 Senate votes to do it.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep ReadingShow less
Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep ReadingShow less