Opinion - Can Congress dig itself out of its three holes?
The first rule of holes is, if you find yourself in one, quit digging. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman embellished on that proverb a few years back when he wrote: When you find yourself in three holes, bring a lot of shovels.
Friedman was writing in the context of America's growing number of global economic competitors. But his advice can also apply to the state of Congress today. The three holes it has fallen into involve not living up to its basic constitutional roles of first exercising the powers of the purse; second making all laws necessary and proper to maintain the union; and third checking and balancing the other branches against abusing their authorities.
Congress is not in good standing with the American people on any of these fronts. Its job approval ratings, according to Gallup, have been running in the high-teens to mid-20 percent ranges for the last several years.
On the fiscal front, Congress has still not finalized its 2025 spending numbers, half-way through the fiscal year, limping along instead on short-term continuing appropriations resolutions. All these continuing resolution battles have been driven by the dire prospect of government shutdowns. With each new deadline looming it's a shame-game kabuki dance of trying to blame the other party. It's not a game the American people enjoy watching, nor are they into partisan score-keeping over such a spectacle. Their common reaction is, stop fighting amongst yourselves and start getting things done for the country.
The deficit has doubled to nearly $2 trillion over the last four years and the statutory debt limit was breached in mid-January, threatening another government shutdown crisis if the government runs out of patchwork gimmicks and loses its borrowing authority to pay its bills.
The second hole into which Congress is falling deeper is its duty to make all laws necessary and proper to maintain a more perfect union. It is a more nebulous duty since there is no metric to gauge just how many or what laws are needed, let alone whether they are the product of thoughtful deliberation.
What we do know is that the people are united in their perceptions that Congress and the executive are not addressing core problems such as higher prices and job security. The administration's tack of reducing federal funding for programs already on the books and the number of people needed to administer them is running into court challenges that will take some time to sort out. Thousands of federal workers have been fired from their jobs and the services they delivered have been discontinued causing serious economic distress at the state and local levels.
How Congress will react to these new edicts and downsizing is uncertain. The cherished belief that authorized programs cannot be altered or abolished without changes in the law is losing its credibility as the president argues the 'unitary executive theory' that he alone makes the final determinations as to what the law is and whether and how much to spend on what.
For instance, the continuing resolution enacted last week, carrying things through the rest of the fiscal year, actually gives the president more authority and flexibility to reallocate funds to other areas than previously was allowed.
Finally, the third hole of taking care that the laws are faithfully executed, oversight of the executive, naturally follows the second hole. Such authority loses any meaning if the unitary executive theory prevails over congressional checks on any abuses by the executive. The current lack of consultation between the branches before taking unilateral action has already set that precedent.
Congress can hardly uphold the law by vigorous oversight if the very essence of that law has been shredded. With the same party controlling both Congress and the executive, the will is not there to make early course corrections. It matters little how many shovels you bring to digging Congress out of its three holes if the executive branch has already supplanted them sitting atop its new mounds of power.
Restoring trust in Congress will take a concerted effort over time to move overly zealous executive officials back into their proper constitutional boxes. To restore trust in Congress requires that Congress first regain trust in itself. That requires the first branch showing respect for its power and the intent to exercise it.
That will mean restoring the primacy of committees over legislating and oversight, and reducing party leadership dominance proportionately. It also means confining the executive branch to working within the statutory parameters Congress sets. It is a tall order but achievable if Congress can rally self and the people behind it.
Don Wolfensberger is a 28-year congressional staff veteran culminating as chief-of staff for the House Rules Committee in 1995. He is author of, 'Congress and the People: Deliberative Democracy on Trial' (2000), and, 'Changing Cultures in Congress: From Fair Play to Power Plays' (2018).
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Business Insider
5 minutes ago
- Business Insider
A YouTuber created a $75 grill scrubber to experience the challenges of making stuff in the US — and it sold out
A really nice grill brush will cost you about $25 at your local big box store, but YouTuber Dustin Sandlin is betting he can get customers to shell out three times that amount for a Made-in-America version. Sandlin traces his passion for US manufacturing to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, when he was bothered by the lack of American-made essential goods. "Everybody wanted N95 masks and face shields, and they couldn't get it," he said in a recent YouTube video. "This revealed to me how anemic our manufacturing capacity in America has become, because I was waiting on some billionaire to come save us, and it didn't happen." So began a yearslong deep dive into the challenges of making products in the US, which Sandlin documented for his series on YouTube called "Smarter Every Day." After working with John Youngblood, the owner of a local specialty grill accessories company, Sandlin got excited about the idea of developing a better scrubber. Sandlin and Youngblood wanted to produce it in the US with as many domestically sourced components as possible, and sell it at a retail price. In a video that went live Sunday and has since amassed more than 2 million views, Sandlin shares why he decided to get serious about US manufacturing, explains how he navigated the design process, and makes a sales pitch for viewers to buy it for themselves. On Tuesday, Youngblood told Business Insider the $75 scrubber has sold through its initial production run of several thousand units within a day, and his company is now taking pre-orders. "We're going to have a backlog for a while," Youngblood said. Most grill brushes are meant to be thrown away. This one isn't. Many lower-cost grill brushes aren't typically designed to last more than a year of use — grill-maker Weber recommends changing them after each grilling season. Another problem is that the bristles have been known to come off and can end up in grilled food. Sandlin and Youngblood found that welded chain mail — like the material of a medieval knight's armor — was highly effective at cleaning grill grates without breaking. There was one problem: "We could only find it in China." After a few tries, the team managed to find a US supplier who could make about 2,000 units a month and a supplier in India to augment the rest. Attaching the chain mail to a handle proved to be another adventure. Sandlin said the average one-inch industrial bolt costs around 9 cents when imported, but that jumps to 38 cents for versions made in the US. "Most machine shops I talked to directly, they said, 'Yeah, we can't even get the material for the price of the finished bolts that you're getting from a foreign supplier,'" Sandlin said. Then there was the process of making injection-molded parts to provide support and flexibility, which required machining custom tools and dies (the metal forms that shape a material) for shops to use in production. "This is the moment where this whole experiment came into focus for me," Sandlin said. "I realized at that moment we're screwed." American manufacturing has exported the smart part of making stuff The reason for Sandlin's pessimism is that many of the shops he spoke with send tool and die design files to China to be made and imported for use in US production lines. "I don't want my intellectual property in China, I want to make it here," he said. "And they said, 'Good luck.'" The problem illuminated by this episode goes far beyond a seemingly simple grilling accessory. "We're screwed as a nation if we can't do the intelligent work of tool and die: making the tools that make the things," Sandlin said. "We have flipped it. We are now to the point where the smart stuff is done somewhere else." Sandlin and Youngblood eventually found US suppliers for all of their custom components. They're working to get every piece sourced here. The video shows two instances where Sandlin was surprised by the apparent country of origin being different from what he says he was led to believe: The first batch of knobs arrived in packaging stating they were made in Costa Rica rather than the US. Several boxes of chain mail (ostensibly from India) had markings that suggested they were instead from China. "I'm shocked," Sandlin said. "It's pretty weird to set out to try to make a thing completely in America and to find out towards the end of the process that you made something in China anyways." Sandlin says he's not interested in having America be the dominant world player — he wants more opportunities for people here to have good jobs that allow them to take care of their communities. "If you are ever, ever in a position to make a decision about where your thing is manufactured, take a second and consider making a little less profit, maybe in order to invest in your local community," he said.
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk regrets some of his Trump criticisms, says they 'went too far'
Elon Musk, the world's richest person and Donald Trump's former advisor, said Wednesday he regretted some of his recent criticisms of the US president, after the pair's public falling-out last week. "I regret some of my posts about President @realDonaldTrump last week. They went too far," Musk wrote on his social media platform X. Musk's expression of regret came just days after Trump threatened the tech billionaire with "serious consequences" if he sought to punish Republicans who vote for a controversial spending bill. Their blistering break-up -- largely carried out on social media before a riveted public since Thursday last week -- was ignited by Musk's harsh criticism of Trump's so-called "big, beautiful" spending bill, which is currently before Congress. Some lawmakers who were against the bill had called on Musk -- one of the Republican Party's biggest financial backers in last year's presidential election -- to fund primary challenges against Republicans who voted for the legislation. "He'll have to pay very serious consequences if he does that," Trump, who also branded Musk "disrespectful," told NBC News on Saturday, without specifying what those consequences would be. Trump also said he had "no" desire to repair his relationship with the South African-born Tesla and SpaceX chief, and that he has "no intention of speaking to him." In his post on Wednesday, Musk did not specify which of his criticisms of Trump had gone "too far." - 'Wish him well' - The former allies had seemed to have cut ties amicably about two weeks ago, with Trump giving Musk a glowing send-off as he left his cost-cutting role at the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). But their relationship cracked within days as Musk described the spending bill as an "abomination" that, if passed by Congress, could define Trump's second term in office. Trump hit back at Musk's comments in an Oval Office diatribe and from there the row detonated, leaving Washington stunned. "Look, Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore. I was surprised," Trump told reporters. Musk, who was Trump's biggest donor to his 2024 campaign, also raised the issue of the Republican's election win. "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate," he posted, adding: "Such ingratitude." Trump later said on his Truth Social platform that cutting billions of dollars in subsidies and contracts to Musk's companies would be the "easiest way" to save the US government money. US media have put the value of the contracts at $18 billion. With real political and economic risks to their falling out, both appeared to inch back from the brink on Friday, with Trump telling reporters "I just wish him well," and Musk responding on X: "Likewise." Trump had spoken to NBC on Saturday after Musk deleted one of the explosive allegations he had made during their fallout, linking the president with disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. Musk had alleged that the Republican president is featured in unreleased government files on former associates of Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 while he faced sex trafficking charges. Trump was named in a trove of deposition and statements linked to Epstein that were unsealed by a New York judge in early 2024. The president has not been accused of any wrongdoing in the case. "Time to drop the really big bomb: (Trump) is in the Epstein files," Musk posted on X. "That is the real reason they have not been made public." Musk did not reveal which files he was talking about and offered no evidence for his claim. He appeared to have deleted those tweets by Saturday morning. bur-sco/dhc
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The days around Trump's trade war announcements saw spikes in lawmaker stock market transactions
In the days before President Donald Trump suddenly paused most of the punishing tariffs on foreign countries he had revealed in early April, more than a dozen congressional lawmakers were tied to thousands of dollars' worth of stock transactions, including significant purchases as the US stock market tumbled, a CNN analysis of financial filings shows. Seven Democrats and three Republicans reported stock transactions made on April 7, two days before Trump instituted the pause, according to a CNN review of a database of congressional financial filings compiled by Capitol Trades, a platform by the financial data research firm 2iQ which tracks lawmakers' financial activity. That day, a post on X erroneously suggested a pause was already underway, tumbling stocks and sending the markets into a state of turbulence. The next day, on the eve of Trump's tariff reprieve, seven Republicans and four Democrats were tied to transactions, filings show. The White House that day announced it would impose hefty tariffs on China and the S&P 500 closed at its lowest level so far this year. Then came April 9. 'BE COOL!' and 'THIS IS A GREAT TIME TO BUY,' Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform that day, hours before his White House announced a 90-day pause on tariffs against a number of countries save for China. The announcement set the S&P 500 on track to post its biggest single-day gain since October 2008. House and Senate lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have long traded stocks, and their reported transactions so far this Congress have largely mirrored Americans' high volume of trading activity amid the frenetic market shifts fueled by the president's whipsaw economic policy. While lawmakers who spoke with CNN denied having advance briefings, some who bought ahead of the president's tariff reprieve stood to make significant gains after it spurred a market rebound. Lawmakers told CNN the trades were made largely by third-party financial advisors with unilateral control over their portfolios. But experts and some on Capitol Hill say questions around the timing of the transactions strikes at the heart of an ethical and optical question that has long dogged Congress: Can lawmakers play the market without generating suspicion their access to information gives them an unfair advantage, or should they ban the practice altogether? 'At a time where there was significant or important non-public information swirling around Washington, the public can't help but fear that members of Congress are using their access to information to personally profit,' Indiana University Maurer School of Law Professor Donna Nagy, who has testified before Congress on the issue, told CNN after viewing the trading data. 'And whether that perception is true or not, it is destructive. It fuels a corrosive belief that lawmakers are using their positions for purposes of profit and not for the public interest.' Lawmakers, their spouses, and children are permitted to make trades but they are mandated to report any activity done on their behalf within 45 days. They are only required to disclose a monetary value range for trades. From March 31 — just before the president's April 2 'Liberation Day' announcement of tariffs of at least 10% across all countries — through the April 9 pause, a total of 35 lawmakers (19 Republicans and 16 Democrats) reported purchases between about $8.6 million and $27.9 million and sales between about $5.9 million and $22.4 million across 1,265 transactions. Not all of the trades were individual stocks; some involved were mutual funds or public bonds. From March 31 through April 9, Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna reported the most transactions at 438, while GOP Rep. Kevin Hern reported the single highest-value transaction of up to $5 million on April 4. Eleven lawmakers reported one transaction. Fourteen lawmakers reported two transactions or fewer. The transactions Khanna reported, his communications director Sarah Drory told CNN, were not stock trades but part of a trust managed by an independent third party that stems from money his wife had before they were married. Hern spokeswoman Miranda Dabney, meanwhile, told CNN: 'Rep. Hern does not have day-to-day management or control over his stock portfolio or his businesses.' In statements provided to CNN, representatives for the lawmakers who reported trades during that period pointed to various agreements with third-party financial advisors and noted that some purchases were bonds and not individual stocks. The offices told CNN the lawmakers are not directly involved in the purchases. 'President Trump was telling the entire world for months, and even decades, about the benefits of tariffs. It was even a central component of his 2024 presidential campaign. Suggesting any behind-the-scenes coordination is ridiculous,' a spokesperson for Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said, pushing back on concerns around the timing of the trades. The Georgia Republican – whose 11 reported purchases on April 8 included between $1,000 and $15,000 worth of stock each, according to the filings – does not direct her own trades but instead has a fiduciary agreement with her portfolio manager, the spokesperson said. Around Trump's trade war, a number of Republicans publicly pledged support for Trump's economic policy while protecting their own financial interests. Sen. Markwayne Mullin sold between $290,000 and $700,000 in stocks across industries from a joint account on April 8 through 'an independent, third-party operator firm that manages all stock portfolio investments on his behalf,' according to his spokesperson. At the same time, the Oklahoma Republican was publicly supporting the president's escalating trade war, despite the financial decisions that appeared to mirror broader consumer concerns. Hern, the fourth-highest ranking Republican in the House said on February 13, shortly after Trump announced 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from all countries: 'These reciprocal tariffs will incentivize other nations to level the playing field and remove long-standing, exorbitant tariffs.' On March 31 — two days before Trump announced expansive tariffs on April 2 — a trust affiliated with Hern sold between $500,000 and $1 million worth of structured investments. For Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, one of the Republicans behind the push to ban lawmaker stock trading, having an intermediary conduct the trades does little to assuage concern. 'Members of Congress should come here to advance the interests of their constituents, not to enrich themselves using stock trading,' Roy said. Rhode Island Rep. Seth Magaziner, one of the leading negotiators on the Democratic side of the effort to ban congressional stock trading who participates in regular meetings on the issue, similarly told CNN: 'We should eliminate the opportunity for members of Congress to engage in any sort of insider trading because the opportunity clearly exists.' The director of government affairs at the Project on Government Oversight Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette told CNN, 'You occasionally have these moments where it really clarifies and distills down just how bad this is. And I think the tariff announcements and subsequent trades and transactions are a prime example of that.' March 3 — the day before Trump levied an additional 10% tariff on China and a 25% tariff on Mexican and Canadian imports with some exceptions — saw the highest number of lawmakers reporting stock trading in a single day through mid-April, according to CNN's analysis. Sixteen lawmakers, evenly split among Democrats and Republicans, reported hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of transactions that day — most of them purchases. The president had confirmed at an afternoon White House event on March 3 that the tariffs would take effect the next day, leading to a sharp selloff in stocks. At that point, March 3 had so far been the worst day for the market. Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Dave McCormick, who reported purchases between $50,000 and $100,000, was the only lawmaker to report having personally traded on March 3. McCormick did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Lawmakers reached by CNN sought to distance themselves from the transactions filed during those key dates around Trump's tariffs announcements. CNN reached out to the 16 lawmakers who reported transactions on March 3, and the 35 lawmakers, some of whom overlapped, who reported having transactions between March 31 and April 9. Those who responded to CNN said they were unaware of trades being made through various agreements with financial advisors. They said the filings did not reflect traditional stock trades and that they had no interactions with the administration around key announcements. Some told CNN the filings reflected trades or reinvestments through a joint account or by a spouse. Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer is waiting on congressional approval for a blind trust, a spokesman told CNN. GOP Rep. Bruce Westerman, meanwhile, has instructed his investment advisor to not invest in individual stocks and is in the process of putting his assets back into a fund, after receiving heat for recent investments, spokesperson Kinsey Featherston shared. Democratic Rep. Julie Johnson has begun the process of divesting her stocks, managed by an independent third party, into ETFs and mutual funds upon becoming a member of Congress, her spokesperson told CNN. Some said they supported efforts to ban lawmaker trading of individual stocks, even those with active portfolios, including Khanna and GOP Rep. Rob Bresnahan. The STOCK Act passed with overwhelming support in 2012 to increase transparency about lawmaker stock trading and made it illegal for lawmakers to use inside information for financial benefit. But lawmakers and experts argue problems persist with existing reporting structures and enforcement mechanisms. Along with only being required to report a monetary range of transactions, lawmakers also don't report the timing of a trade on a given day, which could be useful context for those determining whether seemingly well-timed trades could be based on non-public information. There is also currently no designated oversight body to determine whether lawmakers hold a conflict of interest in their trading practices. Legal experts say that even lawmakers who use financial advisors to trade on their behalf are not necessarily insulated from scrutiny, and it depends on the details of the agreement. The $200 fine for late filings is hardly a deterrent, experts argue. 'That doesn't pass the sniff test even a little bit because there is no guarantee that they're not talking to those people because there is no prohibition against them from talking to those financial advisors,' Hedtler-Gaudette said of the arrangements most lawmakers have with their financial advisors. As efforts to ban congressional stock trading have fallen short, scholars and ethics experts have argued that members of Congress are privy to more information than the average American and are often faced with legislative decisions that overlap with their investment portfolios. 'It is essentially completely legal for a congressman, congresswoman or senator to go to Goldman Sachs, Blackrock or Vanguard and be like, 'Hey I'm proposing this regulation, what do you think will be the impact on the market?' There is nothing to stop you from that,' said Dr. Jan Hanousek Jr., an assistant professor at the University of Memphis who has studied the patterns of lawmaker stock trading. 'This is an insane problem.' Beyond ethics concerns, a 2022 Fox News poll found that 70% of respondents supported banning members of Congress and their families from trading stock, while a January UC San Diego study found that even when lawmakers make their trading practices public, it 'erodes' the legitimacy of Congress. The push to ban lawmaker stock trading last peaked when dozens of federal officials and some lawmakers made lucrative stock and mutual fund trades as the government was preparing for the financial onslaught of the Covid-19 pandemic in early 2020. The Department of Justice has since closed investigations into the moves. But in a sign this Congress' bipartisan group of lawmakers may be closer to finding the political will to ban the practice, House Speaker Mike Johnson, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and the president himself have publicly supported the effort, following news of lawmaker stock trading activity around the tariff announcements. 'I have been working on this issue for years,' Roy told CNN. 'We can and should fix the problem during this term now that President Trump and the Speaker have signaled their support for the measure. We have the will and the mandate of the American people to do this. Let's deliver.' CNN's John Towfighi contributed to this report.