Lately we have seen everything from school lunches to sneakers to the 4th of July politicized. That’s a pity.

But a greater pity is the politicization of the U.S. economy. The left declares the economy is the opposite of what it is. Left-wing voices try to drown out the good economic news.

The improvements in the economy only benefit the rich, they tell us. The tax cuts only helped the wealthy, they claim. But hard facts brutally destroy their claims.

I can understand why politicians do this. They need to denigrate their opponents. They need to badmouth anything for which their opponents take credit.

In these times, progressive politicians feel they must oppose everything President Trump touches. 

I wish voices on the left would change their rhetoric. I know it’s an impossible hope, but imagine if they would declare their hatred of Trump yet also acknowledge our economy is improving the lot of most Americans. Or at least many million more people than in the past.

I’d like to hear the opponents say: “We despise Trump. We refuse to give him credit for anything large or small. But yes, the economy is doing well for more and more of the people of this country. And if we are elected, it will improve it more and help even more people.”

Impossible dream, so why wish for it? Because it would be good for more of us to appreciate what a tonic fewer regulations and lower tax rates are for an economy.

This administration has certainly reduced regulations that govern our lives and businesses. And its tax reforms lowered taxes for most Americans — directly and indirectly. To suggest these moves did not contribute to the growth in the economy is to stick your head deep in the sand.

The economy has responded the way it did to similar reforms in the JFK era. It has also reacted positively the way it did to similar reforms many decades ago. 

The U.S. government is collecting more in taxes, despite the lower tax rates. This is because the economy is expanding and automatically throwing off more tax revenue. 

Americans deserve to know this. They don’t deserve the distortions served up by Trump-hating politicians, academics, and the media.

The haters claim, for instance, that the poor have received zilch from the healthier economy. Tell that to the more than 3 million folks who have stopped collecting food stamps. (Remember, 10 million joined the food stamp rolls during the Obama years.)

The haters claim minorities have been ignored in our economic expansion. Tell that to millions of them who have come off the unemployment rolls. The jobless rates for minorities are dramatically lower than they were. Unemployment has fallen twice as much for blacks as it has for whites.

The Wall Street Journal reminded us recently that more than 3 million blacks and Hispanics have jobs now than two years ago. A smaller percentage of black women are unemployed now than at any time in nearly 50 years.

We hear critics claim that poor folks might have work, but they have to work two jobs to survive. The facts say something else. About 5 percent of Americans hold more than one job. The figure has not changed in the last nine years.

The detractors tell us workers are not seeing wage gains. Another distortion. Average hourly pay is growing at a good clip. And growing faster than it was a few years ago.

There are lessons we can all learn, or re-learn, from this situation. Our economy has grown healthier at a time when we have reduced government’s interference. (For regulations and taxes certainly interfere.) In growing healthier, it has improved the fortunes of most Americans.

We might be smart to try more of the same. And we should certainly think twice before raising tax rates and adding more government regulations.

From Tom…as in Morgan.                   

Tom Morgan writes about political, financial, and other subjects from his home in upstate New York. Contact him at tomasinmorgan@yahoo.com, read more of his writing at tomasinmorgan.com, or find him on Facebook.

The other day, someone I’ve known for years offered a pointed bit of criticism. “It’s easy for people like you to make long lists of things Congress should do to improve,” he said. “But you know good and well most of them won’t happen. So, if you’re really serious, what’s the one most important thing it could do? What does Congress absolutely need to start getting itself back on track?”

He was right. “People like me” — that is, people who comment publicly about all the things Congress gets wrong — often have long laundry lists of fixes, from wringing the influence of special-interest money out of the system to members of different parties spending more time together. But the most important fix? That takes some thinking.

I’ve spent some time on it and have my answer. But you’re not going to like it. What’s critically important for Congress to do? Return to the regular order.

I know, even a lot of policy wonks don’t know what that means. That’s because it’s a little hard to define precisely. Drawing on the work of Congressional scholars Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein, you could think of the regular order as the rules, precedents, and norms that have evolved over Congressional history to make sure that Congress treats its members fairly in the course of its work and that it plays its proper role in our scheme of government.

In part, this is about process. You may think of committee hearings, expert testimony, and a fair debate and amendments process as eye-glazing details, but they evolved for a reason. They are how Congress ensured that a diversity of voices were heard, members received the benefit of the best thinking in the country on difficult issues, and even rank-and-file members had a chance to shape policy.

I put those in the past tense because, of course, mostly they no longer happen. Instead, Congress has gotten into some distressing habits — omnibus bills, weakened committees (especially in the budget process), amendment-free legislating — which all add up to a curtailed process dominated by the leadership. Congress has limited floor debate, tends to bypass ordinary members, and gives disproportionate influence to big donors and lobbyists. It often sidesteps dealing with tough issues. And it’s not unusual for important legislative provisions to be added at the last minute by powerful members without discussion or debate.

The result is the diminished, unproductive Congress we now see. Deliberation, openness, the give-and-take of a free society, the process of consulting with experts and those who might be affected by legislation, a Congress that squarely addresses the tough questions that need to be answered if we’re to move forward as a society — all have fallen victim to Congress’s abandonment of the regular order. And largely because of this, Congress no longer plays the role that our founders envisioned and our diverse, complex society needs.

Now, I don’t want to give the impression that the regular order is flawless. Any process will have its problems, and even when it was observed, the regular order still put too much power in the hands of too few people.

But it was far better than the ad hoc, unpredictable, and often dysfunctional process we see now. Because once the regular order breaks down, democracy-defying habits like omnibus bills, sleight-of-hand legislating, and powerful leadership teams take hold.

And the result isn’t just an institution that no longer represents the American people. It’s also a bad product — legislation that isn’t vetted, doesn’t reflect a consensus among members, and often reveals itself to be unsustainable once it meets the real world.

In short, if you’ve got a bad process, you’re likely to create a bad result. A good process doesn’t ensure good results, but it definitely boosts the chances of getting to one.

We have two centuries of experience on Capitol Hill that have taught us how to run a legislature so that the voices of the American people can be reflected in the halls of power, multiple viewpoints get fair and respectful consideration, and ordinary legislators have a fair shot at influencing the results. Until we get back to that, no amount of tinkering with Congress will add up to much.        

Lee Hamilton is a senior advisor for the Indiana University (IU) Center on Representative Government, distinguished scholar at IU Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies, and professor of practice at the IU O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Hamilton, a Democrat, was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years, representing a district in south central Indiana.