Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Wanted: An Endangered Competent Congress Act

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.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

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

Project 2025: The Department of Labor

Hill was policy director for the Center for Humane Technology, co-founder of FairVote and political reform director at New America. You can reach him on X @StevenHill1776.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a right-wing blueprint for Donald Trump’s return to the White House, is an ambitious manifesto to redesign the federal government and its many administrative agencies to support and sustain neo-conservative dominance for the next decade. One of the agencies in its crosshairs is the Department of Labor, as well as its affiliated agencies, including the National Labor Relations Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

Project 2025 proposes a remake of the Department of Labor in order to roll back decades of labor laws and rights amidst a nostalgic “back to the future” framing based on race, gender, religion and anti-abortion sentiment. But oddly, tucked into the corners of the document are some real nuggets of innovative and progressive thinking that propose certain labor rights which even many liberals have never dared to propose.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Keep ReadingShow less
Preamble to the U.S. Constitution
mscornelius/Getty Images

We can’t amend 'We the People' but 'we' do need a constitutional reboot

LaRue writes at Structure Matters. He is former deputy director of the Eisenhower Institute and of the American Society of International Law.

The following article was accepted for publication prior to the attempted assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Both the author and the editors determined no changes were necessary.

Keep ReadingShow less
Beau Breslin on C-SPAN
C-CSPAN screenshot

Project 2025: A C-SPAN interview

Beau Breslin, a regular contributor to The Fulcrum, was recently interviewed on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” about Project 2025.

Breslin is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair of Political Science at Skidmore College and author of “A Constitution for the Living: Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation’s Fundamental Law.” He writes “A Republic, if we can keep it,” a Fulcrum series to assist American citizens on the bumpy road ahead this election year. By highlighting components, principles and stories of the Constitution, Breslin hopes to remind us that the American political experiment remains, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, the “most interesting in the world.”

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting laws against homelessness

People protest outside the Supreme Court as the justices prepared to hear Grants Pass v. Johnson on April 22.

Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

High court upholds law criminalizing homelessness, making things worse

Herring is an assistant professor of sociology at UCLA, co-author of an amicus brief in Johnson v. Grants Pass and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network.

In late June, the Supreme Court decided in the case of Johnson v. Grants Pass that the government can criminalize homelessness. In the court’s 6-3 decision, split along ideological lines, the conservative justices ruled that bans on sleeping in public when there are no shelter beds available do not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

This ruling will only make homelessness worse. It may also propel U.S. localities into a “race to the bottom” in passing increasingly punitive policies aimed at locking up or banishing the unhoused.

Keep ReadingShow less
Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Republican House members hold a press event to highlight the introduction in 2023.

Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Project 2025: A federal Parents' Bill of Rights

Biffle is a podcast host and contributor at BillTrack50.

This is part of a series offering a nonpartisan counter to Project 2025, a conservative guideline to reforming government and policymaking during the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. The Fulcrum's cross partisan analysis of Project 2025 relies on unbiased critical thinking, reexamines outdated assumptions, and uses reason, scientific evidence, and data in analyzing and critiquing Project 2025.

Project 2025, the conservative Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump administration, includes an outline for a Parents' Bill of Rights, cementing parental considerations as a “top tier” right.

The proposal calls for passing legislation to ensure families have a "fair hearing in court when the federal government enforces policies that undermine their rights to raise, educate, and care for their children." Further, “the law would require the government to satisfy ‘strict scrutiny’ — the highest standard of judicial review — when the government infringes parental rights.”

Keep ReadingShow less