I don’t remember when it first occurred to me after arriving in Washington, D.C. many years ago that at its heart, being a member of Congress meant never being entirely satisfied. And that this state of affairs is baked into our form of government. But despite moments of immense fulfillment, it remained a central tension throughout my time in office — as it has been for most legislators since the founding of the Republic. 

Our founders were clear about what they expected from the leaders chosen to represent the American people. “Government is instituted for the common good…and not for profit, honor or private interest of any one man, family or class of men,” John Adams wrote. James Madison was just as direct, writing in The Federalist Papers that the goal of a constitution like ours should be to put in office people “who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue the common good of the society.”

Politicians run for office for many reasons — ambition, ego, anger at the status quo, a broad but undefined desire to serve… And for some, that ideal — pursuing the common good — is front and center. This holds true for many voters, too. I’ll never forget once running into an elderly woman at the polls in Indiana and asking her if she had voted. She responded by saying to me, “I vote for the candidate of my choice, but then I pray for the winner. I want him or her to work not just for the few, but for everyone.” That has always stuck with me as one of the healthiest attitudes toward politics I’ve ever heard expressed — and I’m confident plenty of voters feel the same way.

The problem, of course, is that there is no single definition of “the common good.” We live in a country that, instead, makes it possible for us to debate the question, to change our minds, to evolve, and to move forward when we can. But here’s the thing: The system is designed to make it hard to move forward unless enough people agree on an approach to command a majority. In other words, they have to be able to find enough common ground with others — even if they don’t like everything involved in a given piece of legislation — that they can prevail democratically. 

This is not easy to do, as any legislator will tell you. For starters, of course, every member of Congress and legislator comes to the job with her or his own beliefs, attitudes, approaches, and red lines that can’t be crossed. Finding common ground among one’s own colleagues is hard enough. 

And then there are the realities of the office: Constituents, party leaders, lobbyists, commentators — they all have their opinions, too. When I served in Congress, it was not unusual for me to have 15 appointments a day with people who wanted me to vote their way, often on some item involving the federal budget. Farmers came in to speak about farm programs, businesspeople to focus on business interests — their own and the economy in general — and religious or nonprofit leaders to lobby for support for their hard-pressed constituents. There was nothing sinister or malicious about any of this. It’s how the process of government works. But it makes the task of finding enough common ground to move forward extremely challenging.

So in the end, legislators are confronted with twin tasks: discerning and then pursuing the common good, and finding enough common ground with colleagues and the public at large to make progress possible. Their job is to find a way to do both: to think in terms of what’s best for the country or their state or city, and then to weigh each of the considerations and pleadings they confront in that light. It’s tough work and no solution ever feels perfect, but if you’re committed to the job, there is always another chance to edge closer to the ideal.        

Lee Hamilton, 91, 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. 

Discretionary spending has risen by nearly $357 billion — a 26 percent jump to $1.7 trillion — since fiscal year 2019, according to data compiled by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This was in response to the COVID pandemic in 2020 and increases in transportation and defense spending. 

This includes a
$90 billion increase in defense spending (up 13 percent), a $29 billion rise in transportation (up 31 percent), a $44.5 billion increase in education spending (up 62 percent), and a $55 billion increase in health spending (up 62 percent).

That comes atop a $1 trillion increase in so-called mandatory spending to $4.1 trillion. That’s actually down from 2021, when it was $5.1 trillion, as much of the increased temporary COVID spending is coming to an end.

All told, that’s a $1.4 trillion increase in spending since 2019 to $5.8 trillion, from $4.4 trillion before the pandemic.

But believe it or not, that still does not include all the spending that was included in the 2022 additional budget measures in the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, with $369 billion for green-energy subsidies and tax credits, including $85 billion for electric-vehicle subsidies.

That represents a target-rich environment for House Republicans hoping to restore any semblance of fiscal sanity in Washington, D.C., as House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R–Calif.) looks to leverage the national-debt ceiling, now set at $31.4 trillion.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has previously warned that the U.S. debt ceiling would come due on Jan. 19, as so-called “extraordinary measures” of refinancing the debt up to the current limit have ensued since then.

The debt-ceiling legislation was last increased in December 2021 by $2.5 trillion when Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate, to accommodate these massive increases in spending.

Now, Republicans have the majority in the House, meaning they get a say just like in 2011, when they adopted discretionary spending caps, known as budget sequestration, that limited the growth of defense and non-defense discretionary spending. That saved hundreds of billions of dollars.

As a result, the budget deficit was brought from $1.3 trillion in 2011 all the way down to $441 billion in 2015, the year Republicans won back the U.S. Senate. From there, the practice was terminated, and the budget deficit again ballooned, reaching $983 billion by 2019.

That was before COVID. In 2020, the U.S. had a record $3.1 trillion deficit, according to data compiled by the White House OMB, $2.7 trillion in 2021, and $1.4 trillion in 2022.

All told, more than $6 trillion was printed, borrowed, and spent into existence to offset the global economic lockdowns that temporarily disabled labor markets’ functionality as citizens were told to remain in their households.

Now, with the 25 million jobs that were lost to COVID all recovered (16 million before Biden ever took office) and the unemployment rate down to 3.5 percent, whatever excuse there was for all the spending is gone. We don’t need it anymore.

And with another recession looming, thanks to all the inflation caused by all of the spending plus the production halts from COVID via economic lockdowns, and the further supply disruptions from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, that means now is the time cut spending. 

Already, House Speaker McCarthy has said he is open to this possibility, looking to freeze spending at 2022 levels. That means rolling back the green spending, as well as the stepped-up IRS enforcement, including the additional 87,000 IRS agents put in place by Biden and last year’s Democratic-controlled Congress, and creating another years-long plan to reduce the budget deficit to more sane levels.

In truth, with no other must-pass pieces of legislation coming up any time soon — Congress can keep kicking the can on appropriations with continuing resolutions — the reality is there is no other way. It’s now or never.        

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.”