The national unemployment rate reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) rose from 3.5 percent to 3.8 percent in August as an additional 514,000 Americans said they could not find work in the BLS’s household survey. Now 6.3 million Americans are said to be unemployed, the highest in more than a year.

But it did not come with a commensurate drop in the number of Americans saying they were working, which increased by 222,000 to 161.48 million.

Instead, it came amid a 736,000 increase in the civilian labor force, which included a 525,000 decrease in the number of Americans not in the labor force and a 211,000 increase in the non-institutional civilian population.

This represents Americans entering the labor force, either from the sidelines or for the first time, but being unable to find a job.

The news comes amid another drop in the number of job openings by 338,000 in July to 8.8 million, a 26.6 percent decrease from its 12 million peak in March 2022. That usually happens during economic slowdowns or recessions, and is associated with increases in unemployment, which is what we’re seeing now.

Other troubling signs include the annual growth of consumer credit that peaked at 9.95 percent in April 2022, dropping to 7.8 percent annualized by December 2022 and then falling to 5.7 percent in June 2023. This indicates Americans have maxed out their credit after the rampant inflation of 2021 and 2022 and are now slowing down spending to catch up on their bills. The economy overheated and so did household budgets.

The slowdown in credit accumulation has also coincided with the slowdown of annualized inflation, which peaked at 9.1 percent in June 2022 but now has slowed down to 3.2 percent in July. The July number is actually bouncing off the recent low of 3 percent in June, and so the Federal Reserve is still considering additional interest-rate hikes, which should further choke credit accumulation until inflation is normalized.

That usually means a recession, despite President Joe Biden’s hopes that it will not come to that.

On that count, the Federal Reserve is still placing a “significant probability of a recession occurring by the end of 2024,” according to the minutes of its July 25-26 meeting of the Board of Governors that was released Aug. 16.

“Respondents to the Open Market Desk’s Survey of Primary Dealers and Survey of Market Participants in July continued to place significant probability of a recession occurring by the end of 2024. However, the timing of a recession expected by survey respondents was again pushed later, and the probability of avoiding a recession through 2024 grew noticeably.”

That is slightly more optimistic than in June when the Fed had projected that “the effects of the expected further tightening in bank credit conditions, amid already tight financial conditions, would lead to a mild recession starting later this year, followed by a moderately paced recovery. Real GDP was projected to decelerate in the current quarter and the next one before declining modestly in both the fourth quarter of this year and first quarter of next year.”

The Fed in June projected unemployment to keep rising steadily to 4.1 percent this year and up to 4.5 percent in 2024, an implied 1.3 million jobs lost between then and now. Now, with unemployment at 3.8 percent, it is possible that its projection is coming true. Peak employment might be about to sunset, and with it, so too might President Biden’s reelection hopes.        

Robert Romano is the VP of public policy at Americans for Limited Government (ALG). The organization says it is a “non-partisan, nationwide network committed to advancing free-market reforms, private-property rights, and core American liberties.” 

One of the hardest things to watch as Congress has evolved over the past decade or more is the extent to which its oversight muscles have atrophied. Sure, committees on Capitol Hill still haul members of the administration in front of them to ask uncomfortable questions. But while there has always been a tinge of theater to the practice, these days it often seems to be mostly about the show — and in particular about scoring political points — and not so much about helping our government operate effectively.

To be blunt, this is a waste. I have always believed that what our founders had in mind was to encourage a creative tension between the president and Congress that would inspire constructive policymaking and produce government action in the nation’s best interests. Oversight is Congress’s chief tool for achieving this.

One big reason is that making government work well is tough — and always has been. Even when accomplished officials are doing their best, they can struggle to ensure that their agencies and programs are being both efficient and effective, not to mention hewing to what Congress intended. Congress’s job is to look into every nook and cranny of the executive branch, pay attention to what’s being done in the people’s name, weigh whether it’s the right course, and, if necessary, legislate improvements.

But there’s more to it than that. I’m not suggesting Congress should directly be involved in the management of federal programs, but it does have a responsibility to ensure that the president and his administration are operating in ways that serve U.S. interests, consider public sentiment, and meet a high standard for prudence, foresight, and even wisdom.

My knowledge on this front lies with foreign policy, thanks to several decades serving on and then chairing the House Foreign Affairs Committee. One of the things I tried to do in hearings, both at the subcommittee and full committee level, was to ask policymakers to articulate their approach and then to defend it. This was neither a simple nor a quick task, since the core idea is to give the people creating U.S. policy a platform to lay out their thoughts and explore the details — which in my experience often meant extended hearings. I wanted plenty of time to delve into the policies themselves, and then to hear how officials defended them.

This meant asking a series of questions. What was the policy itself? What were its objectives? Its strengths and weaknesses? The risks involved? If the policy an administration is pursuing succeeds, what will the world look like a year from now, or two years, or five? And if it’s put in place successfully, what will the U.S. itself look like a few years down the road? How will American interests be served? If we’re talking about foreign policy, how will it affect U.S. standing in the world? And if it’s domestic policy, how will it affect the quality of life in this country?

These are all questions you’d hope public officials ask themselves as they’re formulating policy. Sometimes, they do. But it’s not a given, and it’s Congress’s job to ensure those questions get asked and answered.

There’s great power in this. Good oversight can repair unresponsive bureaucracies, catch mistakes, encourage course corrections early in the game, expose misconduct, lay bare incoherent or chaotic thinking, avoid failure, and help policymakers improve their game for the next time. It takes effort, expertise, and a deep interest in helping the U.S. government succeed, whoever’s in charge. In the end, robust congressional oversight is about ensuring that government can meet its challenges while at the top of its game. It would be nice to have a Congress that thought so, too.        

Lee Hamilton, 92, is a senior advisor for the Indiana University (IU) Center on Representative Government, distinguished scholar at the 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 (1965-1999), representing a district in south-central Indiana.