News Article
And avoids the hard choices while deficits explode.
Americans correctly believe that the federal government is notoriously fiscally inefficient and irresponsible. This inefficiency is particularly noticeable regarding the legislative branch. The nation endures government shutdowns and massive budget deficits despite general prosperity because Congress lacks the political will to reach compromises or enact painful reforms (like reducing massive entitlements, raising taxes, downsizing federal bureaucracy, ending congressional earmarks, or selling government land or other assets). Recent massive lines at airports in March 2026 arose not from the weather but because of the Capitol Hill budgetary stalemate.
As a consequence of the Keynesian Revolution that upended an unwritten but generally honored fiscal mandate to balance budgets, current congressional job security suggests the perceived political costs from reducing the $39 trillion national debt through reduced spending or increased taxes far exceed the political benefits gained from being fiscally responsible. The government literally shuts down too often from political stalemates related to budgetary issues, and Congress hasn’t passed a complete, timely (much less balanced) budget in many years: fiscal year 2026 will be the 25th consecutive year of running budget deficits, imperiling our global economic leadership as well as future generations.
I have worked and consulted with many congressmen, testifying at their hearings over several decades. They are mostly hard-working, bright, and reasonable people. Most have generally good, if not sterling, moral character, although the addiction to the money and fame associated with political power provides notable exceptions, leading occasionally to criminal convictions (Sen. Robert Mendenez and Representative George Santos are two recent examples). Especially worrisome: legislative branch dysfunctionality seems to be growing. Why does the system work so poorly these days?
Three Senators (one now retired) recently wrote insightful books about national governance, confirming that Washington is truly a swamp: John Fetterman (Unfettered), Joe Manchin (In Defense of Common Sense), and John Kennedy (How to Test Negative for Stupid). The first two are or were for most of their career Democrats, while Kennedy is a Republican. All three are considered mavericks. Fetterman hates Senate dress codes, Manchin became viewed as a traitor by his own party but venerated by some Republicans over thwarting perceived Biden-era excesses, and Kennedy has ridiculed many senatorial practices, changing party affiliation himself.
A sentiment from Kennedy’s new book with which I suspect the others would concur: “What we’ve got in Washington is a credentialed ruling elite that cares more about keeping their jobs than doing their jobs.” Fetterman, in his book, says, “I have never viewed my political party as an iron shackle adhering me to the party line. And I don’t take positions for my self-interest. I take positions based on what I believe is right.” Manchin indicts both political parties. He says, “I am fiscally responsible and socially compassionate…Today, the Democratic and Republican parties have drifted so far from these fundamental ideals that it’s hard to tell what they truly stand for anymore.” Similarly, Kennedy adds, “It’s hard to get straight answers in Washington, D.C., in part because common sense is illegal.”
Empirical evidence suggests members of Congress themselves are increasingly dissatisfied with the system. The number voluntarily retiring this year is a good deal higher than normal. A recent report in The Hill indicates some 63 are not seeking reelection in 2026, a marked increase compared with the last four election cycles. It appears that congressional retirement announcements have increased this cycle at least 40 percent from the recent average, perhaps reaching a modern era high.
Why? Six factors come to mind. First, we probably have the oldest contingent of Congressional lawmakers in history. Take the Senate. The average age as of the beginning of this year exceeded 62, and 37 of the 100 are 70 or older, compared with only 10 under 50. Senator Chuck Grassley, Senate president pro tempore, a spry 92, has been in Congress for over 50 years (45 in the Senate). Like most non-political septuagenarians, many incumbents simply want to retire, often to nice pensions and no longer needing to maintain two residences. They want more leisure time, opportunities to be with grandchildren, and to take long cruises.
Second, public opinion is low regarding both Congress and the state of America in general. The Rasmussen poll shows that a majority of likely U.S. voters think the nation is not headed in the right direction, while a minority have approved of the president’s performance in both the Biden and Trump eras. Similarly, low voter satisfaction undoubtedly negatively impacts the perceived job security of lawmakers. Winning reelection is becoming harder and costlier.
Third, the general prosperity of recent years arising from free markets and new innovations has disproportionately advantaged higher-income earners, many holding lucrative jobs in business or law, potentially occupied by former members of Congress. The pay of Congressmen has fallen relative to that of other individuals with similar talents and knowledge. Why not join the gravy train of prosperous individuals enjoying private sector largesse? More money, fewer occupational pressures such as incessant fundraising.
Fourth, the D.C. area, where members of Congress live much of their time, is increasingly costly—housing is expensive and often means paying high private school tuition fees. A study by Pallavi Rao for Visual Capitalist last year found that Washington was the eighth least affordable city in the country.
Fifth, in some states, notably California and Texas, recent gerrymandering efforts have sharply lowered normal reelection probabilities for some House members. Moreover, perhaps a perceived recent decline in the popularity of the Trump administration swayed retirement decisions of some Republican members of Congress, fearful of becoming a powerless minority in a lame duck administration.
Lastly, the prestige associated with being in Congress has probably declined with rising dysfunctionality in D.C. associated with heightened partisan infighting. While being in Congress is still more respectable than running a house of prostitution or drug dealing, the reputational gap between those occupations and Congressional service has narrowed.
Solutions to these problems are politically difficult, constitutionally dubious, or otherwise ineffective. The trio of Senatorial authors cited above had frequent problems with their own political party, echoing a concern identified by some Founding Fathers lamenting the rise of “factions.” Yet eliminating political parties is a nonstarter—mimicking Churchill, political parties are the worst way of achieving policy outcomes, except all others. Or, to quote from Jonathan Turley’s great new book Rage and the Republic, “The Constitution was premised on the assumption that factions are inevitable and created a system designed to allow their expression and transformation.”
Most congressional irresponsibility relates to budgeting, because the political costs of borrowing to pay for new spending currently are small relative to potential political benefits. The nation nearly completed the first steps in procuring a balanced budget constitutional amendment late in the last century. Such an amendment seems increasingly needed, working reasonably well in most of the 49 states having one, as have budgetary constraints used in fiscally responsible nations like Switzerland.
How to change the Constitution? Our Founders wisely made it difficult, and it was last amended more than a third of a century ago. Calling for a constitutional convention is wisely viewed as too radical and potentially dangerous. One politically more doable thought: have Congress approve a 15-member commission of respected, distinguished Americans to reassess current federal budgetary practices. Have the House of Representatives appoint four members, no more than two from any one political party, the Senate do the same, the National Governors Association pick four members, no more than two from each major party, and living former presidents of the U.S., three members, one from each major party and the third politically independent. Let the commission make recommendations, probably ultimately requiring a constitutional amendment initiated either by Congress or through the states, since previous statutory attempts to solve the problem (such as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings budget act of 1985) have not worked.
Social Security is nearly broke; continued budget deficits endanger the dollar’s valuable status as the world’s most respected currency. Public respect and trust in our leadership is low: recent polling shows that only about 40 percent of Americans think we are headed in the right direction. Congress needs new, stronger constraints on its aberrant behavior. Let’s get serious about federal budgetary reform needed to keep from moving from American exceptionalism to banal mediocrity.
