Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

The urgent 21st century upgrades Congress needs to do its job

Sen. Rick Scott

While we heard a lot about Sen. Rick Scott's feued with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, we have read little about his excellent constiuent service, writes Kevin Kosar.

Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images

Kosar is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He is the co-editor of “Congress Overwhelmed: Congressional Capacity and Prospects for Reform” (University of Chicago Press, 2020). He hosts the Understanding Congress podcast.

The public has been really down on Congress for about 20 years. A Gallup poll in September found public approval of our nation’s legislature was a mere 17 percent. The ugly fight over the speakership quite probably did not buoy Americans’ feelings.

For sure, some of this grumpy public sentiment is driven by negative media. The old saying is that in journalism, what bleeds leads. Coverage of Capitol Hill focuses heavily on conflict.

A survey conducted by Daniel Cox, my American Enterprise Institute colleague, found that “more than 8 in 10 (82 percent) Americans who say their preferred news topic is politics and government say the coverage was mostly negative.” The most outrageous partisans in Congress get a disproportionately high amount of coverage, and one finds more clips of political fighting on social media than of Democrats and Republicans working together like adults doing the public’s business.


Americans likely also are dissatisfied because they do not hear about much of what Congress does. For example, Sen. Rick Scott’s (R-Fla.) office provides superb constituent services. But I cannot recall the last time I saw a media story on that happy news. I have, however, seen plenty of coverage of Scott’s feud with Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The work of oversight and legislation moves in fits and starts on Capitol Hill, but few people beyond the Hill hear of it. During the previous Congress, laws were passed to increase the supply of baby food, speed up payments to relatives of deceased Armed Services veterans, strengthen the nation’s cybersecurity defenses and more. Yet, public approval of the first branch remained abysmal.

Those points noted, Congress is to blame for some of its low standing. The Democratic and Republican parties’ intense battle for majority control of each chamber has led to lots of toxic behavior on the Hill. The parties feel an incentive to own high-salience issues and to use them to fundraise and campaign against the other party, rather than to solve the problems through bargaining.

This is why we do not see sober discussions on tough issues like immigration reform or reducing the nation’s sky-high deficits and debt. Lost upon these partisans is that their squabbling is making more and more voters dislike the parties and our legislature.

Congress also has made it harder for it to please the public by failing to upgrade its own capacity. Think about it; any entity can only do as much as it is capable. A charity can only feed as many people as it can afford to acquire food. A factory produces only as many cars as its assembly lines and workers can assemble.

The same holds true for Congress. Demands on Congress have been escalating for 40 years. The number of voters has gone up 45 percent since 1980, leaving the average member of the House of Representatives with 760,000 constituents to serve. The amount of federal spending recently hit $6.5 trillion, and we expect Congress to oversee how all of those dollars are spent. Interest groups have proliferated, all of whom knock on Congress’ door and shower it with communications demanding attention.

Meanwhile, Congress has not significantly upgraded its capacity since the early 1970s. Today, Congress has fewer staff (10,000) than it did in 1980 (11,000). Congressional committees, which are supposed to be the engines for policymaking and oversight, also have fewer staff (3,100 in 1980 and 2,300 today).

Everyone in Congress knows the budget process is a mess, yet they continue to refuse to replace the 1974 statute that created it. Most hearings continue to be conducted in the way they were a century ago, with Team Donkey on one side of the dais and Team Elephant on the other. Witnesses sit at tables below and read statements and respond to the questions lobbed at them.

Just about every aspect of Congress’ capacity is behind the times, from its work processes to its technology to its internal organization and staffing. Happily, the U.S. Constitution authorizes the first branch to organize itself and appropriate whatever money it needs to do its job. We voters would be wise to tell Congress to rebuild itself for the 21st century and get on with the public’s business.

This piece was first published in The Hill.

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