Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

8 steps to preventing another lost decade at the Capitol

Opinion

U.S. Capitol
Zach Gibson/Getty Images
Renacci was a Republican member of the House from Ohio from 2011 through 2018, when he lost a bid for the Senate. He is the author of "The GOP's Lost Decade: An Inside View of Why Washington Doesn't Work"(30 Point Press).

It's easy to go in to Congress and spend. It's much harder to go in and do what's right. Ten years after the wave of Tea Party reformers arrived at the Capitol, we're still spending without any concern for the long-term implications or the next generation.

We just crossed $22 trillion in debt and are heading toward $30 trillion. This year we are running ever-larger deficits while ignoring the underlying cause of the debt, especially entitlement programs.

We're doing the same thing at the state and local levels — spending without the ability to pay and kicking the can down the road. We continue to shirk our fiscal responsibility. And, as long as we do, the new decade will be just as lost as the last one.

Congress can take steps to fix the problem, and if the current members can't get the job done, then it's up to voters to remind them who's in charge. Here are some steps for changing the way the place works that I believe would go a long way toward ending dysfunction in Washington.


Return to regular order. It's simple: Committee chairmen should be freely elected by the committee members, not chosen by House leadership, and they should be focused on running their committees. Then bills should be drafted in committee and debated among all committee members. Then they should be presented to the committee chairman, and if there are enough votes, sent to the floor of the House for more debate.

Lastly, hearings should return to their original purpose of being fact-finding tools so Congress can make better informed decisions. They should not be used to reinforce the party line.

Balance the budget. Every year Congress needs to pass a budget, and the president should give an annual Fiscal State of the Union so that members have a clear picture of the government's financial health.

We need to eliminate the gimmicks — no more continuing resolutions, Rules Committee hijinks with the waiving of budget requirements, and no emergency expenditures unless they're absolutely justified.

Every member of the House should be required to take a turn on the Budget Committee. Since no one wants to take the hard votes, the Budget Committee is Washington's equivalent of Siberia. If we made a rotation on Budget mandatory, it would force everyone to understand the hard choices we face.

Establish term limits. Incumbents' ability to raise money allows most of them to stay in office as long as they want. Putting a limit on their length of service is the only answer. Any limits need to be pure term limits so members can't jump back and forth between the House and the Senate for years.

I would argue for a limit of five terms in the House (10 years) and two in the Senate (12 years). And no person should be able to hold federal office for more than 16 years anywhere, including the presidency and vice presidency.

Reform leadership. Leadership positions in Congress have become too powerful. Committee chairmen and the speaker need to be overseers and administrators, ensuring that members are following the proper protocol and that legislation is progressing as it should. They shouldn't be impeding the process or allowing for partisan victories at the expense of sound policy.

In addition, the House should consider electing a speaker who is not a member of Congress — but an esteemed public servant who has a proven record of statesmanship but is no longer beholden to a political party. In effect, lawmakers would hire an outside administrator, agreed upon by a majority from both parties.

Restrict campaign donations. Simply capping donations at the current limits of $2,700 for a federal candidate from individuals and $5,000 a year from political action committees doesn't work. It's too easy to disguise or spread the money around. We need to limit donations by source, including the political parties.

Vote from home. The main reason lawmakers go to Washington is to vote. If members could vote from home, we could save millions of dollars a year in travel costs.

As it stands right now, the only way to track your vote is for you to vote on the floor of the House or Senate. But this is really just a matter of changing the rules and setting up a secure website, with identity verification, to collect the votes.

Concentrate on committee work. Rather than allowing committees to meet whenever they want, we should squeeze all the committee work into a few weeks and require that lawmakers stay in Washington until their work is done. Combined with voting from home, this would force members to be more productive.

In Texas, lawmakers meet for only five months once every two years. It forces them to get things done. The longer the session, the more mistakes people can make.

Know your adversary. Washington has descended into tribalism and identity politics. No matter how bitterly we disagree, everyone working to govern the country must recognize the need to cooperate.

Committee meetings are segregated by party so Democrats and Republicans have little interaction. Committee chairmen could address this problem by requiring that the entire committee meet in the same room.

Individual members should sit down to breakfast and do whatever it takes to find common ground. The opposing party isn't the enemy. We are all on the same side — the side of America and democracy.

Disagreeing on policy is healthy. Refusing to speak to one another because we disagree isn't.

These are just a few ideas for how to make the federal government work better and get the legislative process back on track, so it's actually fixing problems that matter to people rather than helping the political elite score points and get ahead.


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less