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

An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less
Towards a Reformed Capitalism
oval brown wooden conference table and chairs inside conference room

Towards a Reformed Capitalism

Despite all the laws and regulations that apply to corporations, which for the most part are designed to make corporations more responsive to the greater good, corporations have wreaked great harm on our environment, their workers, their customers, and the general public. Despite all the rules, capitalism can still pretty much do what it wants.

The problem is not that the laws and regulations are not enforced, although that is partly true. The problem is more that the laws and regulations are weak because of the strong influence corporations have on both Congress (this is true of Democrats as well as Republicans) and those responsible for regulating.

Keep ReadingShow less
Families of Americans Overseas Wrongfully Detained Bring Advocacy to Capitol Hill

The Bring Our Families Home campaign brought together loved ones of Americans wrongly detained overseas to display portraits in the Senate Russell Rotunda on Wednesday, May 6.

(Jacques Abou-Rizk, MNS)

Families of Americans Overseas Wrongfully Detained Bring Advocacy to Capitol Hill

WASHINGTON – American journalist Reza Valizadeh visited his elderly Iranian parents in March 2024 for the first time in 15 years. Valizadeh’s stories for Voice of America and other U.S. government-funded outlets often criticized the Iranian regime. So before traveling, he sought and received confirmation that he would be safe from a high-ranking commander in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a branch of Iran’s armed forces. However, in September that same year, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps arrested Valizadeh, and Tehran’s Revolutionary Court sentenced him to ten years in prison for “collaboration with a hostile government.”

In the Rotunda of the Senate Russell Building last week, the Bring Our Families Home campaign set up portraits of Valizadeh and 12 other Americans currently wrongfully detained overseas. The group, family members of illegitimately detained Americans, appealed to Congress to push for their safe return. Each foam poster board included the name, home state, and country of detainment. The display also included portraits of the 33 people released after advocacy by the James W. Foley Foundation.

Keep ReadingShow less
DHS Funding During the Shutdown
Getty Images, Charles-McClintock Wilson

DHS Funding During the Shutdown

When Congress failed to approve funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of this fiscal year in February, almost all of its employees began to work without pay. That situation changed, however, on April 3, when President Donald Trump issued a memorandum ordering the DHS secretary and director of the Office of Management and Budget to “use funds that have a reasonable and logical nexus to the functions of DHS” to pay its employees and issue back pay.

Trump shifted money to avoid the political embarrassment that would be caused by the collapse of airport security screening through the actions of disgruntled agents and the disruption to air travel that would ensue. But it’s legally dubious.

Keep ReadingShow less