THEMARCHONSELMA: Whyitmatters60yearslater, anditsimpactonAmericatoday.
“RESPONSIVENESS AND RESULTS”
Mississippi State Rep. Rodney Hall discusses what public service is all about
A Brief History of GOVERNMENT REFORM
by John M. Kamensky & Mark A. Abramson
Qualcomm, a San Diego-based company, has been leading the way in chip design for wireless and AI innovations, powering everything from cars to cellphones. Since our inception, Qualcomm has invested over $90 billion in R&D, representing nearly 20% of annual revenue since 2006. In 2023, Qualcomm’s R&D spending was ranked second highest among the 23 major companies that comprise the U.S. chip industry -- reflecting our ongoing commitment to supporting innovation in the U.S. semiconductor industry.
Qualcomm is proud to support the Ripon Society.
A Brief History of Government Reform
By John M. Kamensky & Mark A. Abramson
There have been more than 15 attempts to reform the U.S. government since the early 1900s. Are the lessons of these past efforts even relevant in this age of DOGE?
8 The Mission of the DOGE Caucus
By
Joni Ernst
With America more than $36 trillion in debt, the Senator from Iowa outlines the effort she is leading on Capitol Hill to make government smaller, smarter, and more accountable to the people.
10 Good Government Begins with Accountability
By Philip Howard
Letting officials take responsibility for results means they must answer to superior officials and, ultimately, to elected officials. This is how democratic government is supposed to work.
Politics & Perspective
12 The Drivers of our Debt and the Empty Rhetoric of Politics Today By Maya MacGuineas
America’s fiscal situation is quickly deteriorating.
But instead of fixing it, our nation’s leaders are engaging in fake justifications and finger-pointing.
14 Will the Congress and the Courts Respond to the Trump Power Grab?
By Philip G. Joyce
The key question in Washington these days is how much the President will be able to bypass the other branches of government in pursuit of his priorities.
Cornerstone of America’s Economic Revival By Zach Mottl
President Trump’s trade and tariff agenda is not just a negotiating tool — it is essential to rebuilding our nation’s industrial base.
Feature -- “The March on Selma 60 Years Later: Why it still matters, and its impact on our country today.”
Courage Changed a Nation and Remains an Example for Us All
Matters
Martin Luther King Jr.: A Legacy of
Years Later, the Fight for Voting Rights Continues
WE ARE THE FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE FOR TIMESHARE OWNERS
For over 30 years, the ARDA-Resort Owners’ Coalition (ARDA–ROC) has championed causes on every regulatory and legislative level and this includes protecting owners from exit company scams and deceptive practices.
We are dedicated to providing essential resources and necessary information to help owners who want to exit their timeshare, avoid paying unnecessary fees or falling victim to deceptive or fraudulent exit schemes.
ARDA-ROC IS PROUD TO SUPPORT THE RIPON SOCIETY
The Coalition for Responsible Exit was created to help timeshare owners learn about their safe and responsible timeshare exit options. If your resort or HOA is interested in joining the Coalition for Responsible Exit or if you want to discuss how to best share this information with your HOA Board, please e-mail rclements@arda.org
Visit www.responsibleexit.com to learn more.
THE RIPON SOCIETY HONORARY CONGRESSIONAL ADVISORY BOARD
U.S. Senators:
Shelley Moore Capito - Senate Co-Chair
Todd Young - Senate Co-Chair
Marsha Blackburn
Bill Cassidy, M.D.
Susan M. Collins
John Curtis
Steve Daines
Joni Ernst
Deb Fischer
John Hoeven
Jerry Moran
Mike Rounds
Thom Tillis
Roger Wicker
U.S. Representatives:
Frank Lucas - House Co-Chair
August Pfluger - House Co-Chair
Stephanie Bice - House Co-Chair
Mike Kelly - Vice Chair
Dan Newhouse - Vice Chair
Ann Wagner - Vice Chair
Mark Amodei
Don Bacon
Troy Balderson
Andy Barr
Mike Bost
Vern Buchanan
Ken Calvert
Kat Cammack
Mike Carey
Buddy Carter
Tom Cole
Jake Ellzey
Tom Emmer
Ron Estes
Randy Feenstra
Brian Fitzpatrick
Scott Franklin
Andrew Garbarino
Tony Gonzales
Sam Graves
Kevin Hern
French Hill
Ashley Hinson
Bill Huizenga
Dusty Johnson
Dave Joyce
John Joyce, M.D.
Young Kim
Darin LaHood
Bob Latta
Laurel Lee
Julia Letlow
Brian Mast
Michael McCaul
Carol Miller
John Moolenaar
Blake Moore
Greg Murphy, M.D.
Jay Obernolte
Guy Reschenthaler
In this edition
At a time when federal agencies are being scrutinized and federal employees are being subjected to a review that some are calling unfair and others are calling long overdue, the latest edition of The Ripon Forum examines the history of government reform in the United States and whether the lessons of the past are even relevant given the changes underway today.
“There have been more than 15 attempts to reform and reorganize the United States federal government since the Progressive Era in the early 1900s,” write John Kamensky and Mark Abramson in the lead essay for this latest edition of the centrist Republican journal of political thought and opinion. “The latest of these efforts … is literally shaking the foundation of official Washington with its no-holds-barred approach.”
Citing past reform efforts launched by Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton, Kamensky and Abramson note that, “There is evidence that including career civil servants in the work of a reform initiative can increase the success of the ‘improving program’ initiatives since they can gain ‘buy-in’ from the civil service.” But, they add, the current effort being led by Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency “has not been operating like any of these past reform efforts…” As a result, the pair conclude, “America is in uncharted territory when it comes to government reform.”
Iowa Senator Joni Ernst, who leads the DOGE Caucus in the Senate, agrees. “The election of President Donald Trump and formation of DOGE has broken through and disrupted business-as-usual in Washington,” Ernst writes in an essay. “Finally, the tables are turning, and we are already trimming the fat. Not a moment too soon either. The federal government is more than $36 trillion in debt, adding $3 billion a day in interest payments, and spending money faster than ever before.”
Philip Howard, one of the most respected experts on government reform in America today, has been a longtime advocate of the need to shake up the federal bureaucracy. In an essay for the Forum, he explains why restoring a sense of accountability is key to any effort to make government work. “Accountability is essential not only to remove poor performers, but also to instill pride and responsibility in public culture,” he writes. “Mutual trust is difficult when everyone knows performance doesn’t matter.”
In other essays for this edition of the Forum, deficit hawk Maya MacGuineas of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget argues that any effort to reduce the national debt will be inadequate without also reforming the amount our country spends on entitlements. Scholar Philip Joyce examines the constitutionality of the President’s actions and why the checks and balances envisioned by the Founding Fathers will only work if all branches of government play a role. Zach Mottl discusses why he believes tariffs are an essential part of America’s economic revival.
In a special feature examining the 60th anniversary of the March on Selma, U.S. Sens. Katie Britt, Chris Coons, and Maggie Hassan and U.S. Reps. Jay Obernolte and Terri Sewell are joined by Faith & Politics Institute President Robert Traynham in examining the impact of this historic event and why the courage demonstrated by the Civil Rights Activists who marched from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama in March of 1965 still resonates in America today.
And in the latest Ripon Profile, Mississippi State Representative Rodney Hall — the first black Republican elected to that state’s legislature since reconstruction — discusses, among other topics, what public service means to him.
As always, we hope you enjoy this edition of The Ripon Forum, and encourage you to contact us with any questions or comments you may have.
Lou
Zickar
Editor of
The Ripon
Forum louzickar@riponsociety.org
A Brief History of GOVERNMENT REFORM
by John M. Kamensky & Mark A. Abramson
There have been more than 15 attempts to reform and reorganize the United States federal government since the Progressive Era in the early 1900s.
The latest of these efforts -- led by President Trump and Elon Musk and branded the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE -- is literally shaking the foundation of official Washington with its no-holds-barred approach.
With Congress taking a backseat as federal workers are offered buyouts and federal agencies like USAID are shut down, and with many legal scholars arguing that these and other actions taken by DOGE are unconstitutional, now
is a good time to not only look back on some of these prior reform efforts, but ask whether the lessons of the past are even relevant today.
The First Hoover Commission (1947-1949)
An efficiency-conscious Republican Congress adopted the Lodge-Brown Act in July 1947 to “straighten out” the federal government. Formally, this law created a Commission on the Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government, but it quickly became more widely known as the Hoover Commission after its chair, former President Herbert Hoover.
The first Hoover Commission was envisioned to lay the groundwork for a Republican president since President Harry Truman was at the time widely viewed as unpopular and likely to not be elected in 1948. The Commission’s report was to be delivered after the 1948 election. But Truman won.
Still, Truman embraced the final report and its recommendations, which had been developed by a bipartisan, 12-member commission that included Members of Congress.
This Commission has been popularly seen as the highwater mark in American government reform. Why?
The Commission focused its attention on “improving programs” and better performance of government. For example, it recommended a major reorganization of functions to significantly reduce the number of agencies reporting directly to the president. Its recommendations led to the creation of the Executive Office of the President, the General Services Administration, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Commission with largely the same mandate as the first. Yet, this second Commission was largely seen as less successful.
Former President Hoover also chaired this effort, but there was a new focus – “eliminating programs.” There were proposals to eliminate “government competition with private enterprises” and either privatize activities or end programs by contracting them out to the private sector to perform.
President Ronald Reagan delivers remarks on receiving the Final Report of the President’s Private Sector Survey on Cost Control (the Grace Commission) in the Rose Garden at the White House on October 28, 1985.
When the Commission was created, both the House and Senate were controlled by Republicans. But by the time the Commission’s report was released 18 months later and implementation got underway, all three branches were controlled by Democrats. That may have eased the adoption of many of the recommendations. The value of a congressionally chartered Commission, with a bipartisan membership appointed by the President, House and Senate leaders likely added legitimacy and acceptance to the effort.
In the second year of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, he chartered a “private sector review of the operations of the Federal Government to identify opportunities for efficiency and cost reduction.”
The final report was released 22 months later. It detailed 2,500 commercial-type government activities seen as competitive with the private sector. There were also proposals to terminate some programs by devolving them to state and local governments, such as urban renewal programs.
However, by the time the Commission’s report was released in 1955, both houses of Congress fell under the control of Democrats. There was opposition to eliminating programs and activities. There was support, however, for recommendations to improve programs such as the Commission’s budget and accounting reforms, and the reduction of reporting and survey burdens on the public.
The
Grace Commission (1982-1984)
The Second Hoover Commission (1953-1955)
When Dwight Eisenhower took office in 1953, both houses of Congress were under the control of Republicans. Congress created a second statutory
In the second year of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, he chartered a “private sector review of the operations of the Federal Government to identify opportunities for efficiency and cost reduction.” This review – officially known as the President’s Private Sector Survey on Cost Control - was led by corporate executive J. Peter Grace who recruited a cadre of 161 corporate chief executives who loaned the Commission some 2,000 staff to conduct dozens
of reviews. The effort was staffed and funded entirely outside the government, and took 18 months to complete. Its focus was on “eliminating programs.”
According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the final effort produced 47 volumes (23,000 pages) with 2,478 specific recommendations. The Commission recommended privatizing certain functions such as federal power marketing, reducing the federal workforce via attrition, and means-testing certain benefits such as veterans disability payments.
The Commission claimed that if its recommendations were adopted, savings would total $424 billion in the first three years. The savings claims were seen as highly inflated and many were controversial.
President Reagan accepted 83 percent of the Commission’s recommendations. Of these, a large number of recommendations to improve programs were adopted but CRS noted: “Savings in administrative expenses directly attributable to the Grace Commission were modest.” These included, for example, the adoption of electronic funds transfers and other commercial financial practices. They also laid the groundwork for the eventual adoption of the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990.
Reinventing Government
(1993 – 2001)
support costs, largely through staff reductions, and modernizing operations through technology and “cutting red tape.” The initial report was released six months later.
Subsequent implementation was promoted by a small task force of career managers reporting to Vice President Gore over the following eight years. Twothirds of its recommendations were adopted, resulting in $136 billion in savings and a workforce reduction of 426,200.
Two-thirds of the recommendations of the Reinventing Government Task Force led by Al Gore were adopted, resulting in $136 billion in savings and a workforce reduction of 426,200.
Lessons from the Past
Just weeks into his administration, President Bill Clinton launched the National Performance Review (NPR), also dubbed “Reinventing Government.” He placed Vice President Al Gore at its head, who in turn recruited a temporary task force of about 250 career civil servants. Vice President Gore counseled the leaders of the Review to “don’t move boxes; fix what’s inside them” – the “improving programs” route. As a consequence, it focused on reducing mission
While most of its recommendations could be achieved administratively, NPR achieved a number of legislative successes to improve program operations. These included adopting measures of government performance; streamlining purchasing (for example, by adopting the use of purchase cards); and modernizing the government’s approach to technology (for example, by requiring agencies to appoint chief information officers and giving them authority over computer purchases). However, because many of its initiatives were administratively based, they lacked sustainability over time, especially those related to employee empowerment initiatives and recognition.
In looking back at past reform efforts, there are some useful lessons.
First, a focus on making government work better can gain significant support, as was seen in the first Hoover Commission and the Reinventing Government initiatives. There are signs that DOGE will devote some efforts to “improving performance” through its embrace of information technology initiatives.
Second, when recommendations need congressional approval, being fast can make a difference. When a reform initiative spans the life of more than one Congress – and there is a chance
President Bill Clinton and Vice President Al Gore present the Report of the National Performance Review on the South Lawn of the White House on September 27, 1993.
that either house may flip to the opposing party – then bolder recommendations can be jeopardized. Moving fast also allows more time to focus on implementation. This was a strength of the Reinventing Government initiative.
And third, reform efforts that try to make government cheaper, such as by eliminating programs or reducing headcount, necessarily involve Congress. Such an emphasis was a stumbling block for the Second Hoover Commission and the Grace Commission. As DOGE launches its initiatives, it will be important for the team to work with Congress as they move along the “eliminating programs” path which will require congressional action. DOGE now has the luxury of both houses of Congress being held by the Republicans. If congressional actions are not completed by the end of 2026, there is the possibility of a Democratically controlled House or Senate. As seen in previous initiatives, a change in Congress can significantly affect the chances of legislative approval.
Are These Lessons Even Relevant Today?
At the time of this writing, DOGE has not been operating like any of these past reform efforts, where the need for change is assessed, and recommendations are made for the President and Congress to act upon.
There
Finally, there is evidence that including career civil servants in the work of a reform initiative can increase the success of the “improving program” initiatives since they can gain “buy-in” from the civil service. In contrast, the “eliminating programs” approach has been predominately staffed by individuals outside of government, and civil service “buy-in” was not sought.
By contrast, DOGE and Musk have been acting unilaterally with little regard for past precedent and even less regard for congressional authority and control. Besides offering buyouts to federal employees and closing down USAID as previously mentioned, DOGE operatives have gained access to the personnel payment systems and databases at the Office of Personal Management.
This approach is not only unorthodox, but it also may be – again, as previously mentioned – unconstitutional. As such, the relevance of previous reform initiatives – while interesting and instructional and informative -- is also profoundly unclear.
In short, America is in uncharted territory when it comes to government reform, with President Trump and Elon Musk setting the direction, and Congress, the Courts, and the American people along for the ride. RF
John M. Kamensky is Emeritus Senior Fellow, IBM Center for The Business of Government. His email: john.m.kamensky@ gmail.com. Mark A. Abramson is President, Leadership Inc. His email: mark.abramson@comcast.net
John M. Kamensky Mark A. Abramson
The Mission of the DOGE Caucus
by JONI ERNST
My fellow Iowans sent me to Washington to fight for taxpayers and make the porkers squeal.
For a decade, I waged a lonely battle exposing waste, fraud, and abuse. It often felt like I was living a twisted fairytale. Much like Goldilocks, it was always too little, too big, and never just right to cut spending.
Until recently.
The election of President Donald Trump and formation of the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, has broken through and disrupted business-as-usual in Washington. Finally, the tables are turning, and we are already trimming the fat.
Not a moment too soon either. The federal government is more than $36 trillion in debt, adding $3 billion a day in interest payments, and spending money faster than ever before.
With numbers this big, it’s critical we get involved at every avenue to scrutinize spending, including through appropriations bills, the reconciliation process, and the rollback of Biden-era rules and regulations.
That’s why I am carrying out DOGE’s goals in the Senate.
eral workforce.
My telework report revealed 6 percent of workers report in-person full-time, and my investigations have exposed that federal employees keep themselves very busy during the workday – just not at their jobs.
The election of President Donald Trump and formation of DOGE has broken through and disrupted business-as-usual in Washington. Finally, the tables are turning, and we are already trimming the fat.
As Senate DOGE Caucus Chair and Founder, I am leaning on my decade of experience to create a roadmap to cut more than $2 trillion. The craziest part is that we can eliminate waste without touching essential programs that create jobs, support livelihoods, and provide key services.
There is no better place to start than the broken fed -
Whether it is relaxing on a beach, hitting the golf course, or sitting in a jail cell, bureaucrats keep a very interesting calendar while on the clock. Even worse, many of these bureaucrats have moved hundreds or thousands of miles away from their D.C. headquarters, with some ripping off taxpayers with incorrect locality pay.
To put a cherry on top, while these bureaucrats “work” from home, taxpayers are paying more than $15 billion every year to maintain office buildings that are mostly ghost towns, with the average occupancy sitting at an embarrassing 12 percent. Federal employees clearly don’t want to work in Washington, and taxpayers don’t want to foot the bill. There is an obvious solution that the Trump administration has already tapped into. Bring all bureaucrats back to work, condense office space, and sell off extra unused buildings.
On day one, President Trump did just that by signing an executive order calling bureaucrats back to the office and back to work for the American people.
On the topic of fixing the federal workforce, you would think the IRS would be the last place for a tax revolt, but in fact the spirit of 1776 is very much alive there with more than 800 employees owing millions in back taxes. Tax evasion only gets worse throughout government with nearly 150,000 bureaucrats owing $1.5 billion in back taxes. It is time to audit the auditors and fire these tax-dodging tax collectors.
ing like a bloated bureaucracy and start treating tax dollars more like a family budget.
We can eliminate waste without touching essential programs that create jobs, support livelihoods, and provide key services.
While we crackdown on pointless waste in Washington, next should be the long list of boondoggles. From California’s crazy train to nowhere (that is more than $100 billion over budget) to a trillion-dollar secret slush fund, the swamp needs to stop operat -
That starts with ending spending that is so insane it would almost be funny if taxpayers weren’t footing the bill. From costume parties and coloring books for bureaucrats to silly science experiments putting shrimp on a treadmill, tax dollars are being flushed down the drain
And as I have said, if you can’t find waste in Washington, there is only one reason – you did not look. I have spent a lot of time looking, and the Trump administration, DOGE, and I are ready to carry out this work and downsize the government. RF
The future of automotive starts here.
General Motors, a proud supporter of The Ripon Society, is committed to the U.S. automotive industry. Driven by our customers, we’re advancing vehicle technology for all.
Good Government Begins with Accountability
by PHILIP K. HOWARD
Yes, the bureaucracy in Washington is a cloggedup tangle. That’s why two-thirds of Americans think it needs a major overhaul, and why there’s so much excitement about the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) led by Elon Musk.
But slashing away at Washington’s many stupidities won’t fix much — like trying to prune a jungle. The way to drain the swamp is to pull the plug on its flawed operating philosophy — the post-1960s red tape compliance model. Americans are swimming in red tape. Is your paperwork in order?
A simpler governing framework of goals and principles will be far better than trying to prescribe the details of implementation. The Constitution — 7,500 words long — works pretty well. By contrast, today’s system of federal rules, procedures, and other red tape — 150 million words of binding law and regulation — mainly achieves legal gridlock.
for healthcare, schools, and employers are like legal quicksand, suffocating common sense throughout American society.
Making government work sensibly is not rocket science — replace the red tape jungle with a simpler framework activated by human responsibility. Focus on results, not mindless compliance. Getting anything done requires judgment on the spot. “Nothing that’s any good works by itself,” as Thomas Edison put it. “You got to make the damn thing work.”
Philip K. Howard
Making government work sensibly is not rocket science — replace the red tape jungle with a simpler framework activated by human responsibility. Focus on results, not mindless compliance.
DOGE has focused on cutting WHAT government does — say, $100 million F-35 fighter planes that can be destroyed by a $500 drone. But most failures of government are because of inept implementation — HOW government does it. Infrastructure permitting delays, for example, can more than double the cost of projects and cause environmental harm by prolonging polluting bottlenecks. Defense Department procurement red tape results in inferior products at high prices with years of delay. Procedural mandates
Governing by results would return to the principlesbased framework that was in place, more or less, from 1789 until the 1960s. Law would provide boundaries that define the scope of an official’s authority. Within legal boundaries, officials would have the job to make governing choices, accountable to superiors and, ultimately, to voters. The 1956 Interstate Highway Act was 29 pages long, and within ten years 21,000 miles had been built . Today, it takes years to get approval for one stretch. A simpler, results-oriented framework also liberates citizens from thousand-page rulebooks and years of process to get permits.
But there’s one catch — civil servants must be accountable. Letting officials take responsibility for results means they must answer to superior officials and, ultimately, to elected officials. This is how democratic government is supposed to work — a chain of accountability that ends at the ballot box.
It’s little wonder that democracy no longer functions. Accountability has largely vanished in the federal government — 99 percent of federal employees are rated “ fully successful .” Poor performers are practically impossible to fire, even when caught spending their days surfing porn sites Originally intended to be a merit system, civil service has become an entitlement —protected by layers of red tape and union collective bargaining rights.
President Trump has re-instated a new “Schedule F” to make the most senior civil servants employees at will. But Schedule F does nothing to empower senior civil servants to manage the thousands of junior civil servants below them. Elaborate legal procedures require a supervisor, for example, to prove in a grievance proceeding that Mr. X doesn’t try hard, or abuses his authority. How does a supervisor prove a bad attitude or poor judgment?
Court have limited Congress’s ability to impinge on “executive power” regarding personnel judgments. Under these rulings, a president could disavow key aspects of civil service law, including: — elaborate disciplinary procedures that make it impractical to terminate, discipline, or even give an honest job performance evaluation;
Accountability is essential not only to remove poor performers, but also to instill pride and responsibility in public culture. Mutual trust is difficult when everyone knows performance doesn’t matter. “We note deep disaffection within the public service,” the 2003 Volcker Commission concluded. “They resent the protections provided to those poor performers among them who impede their own work and drag down the reputation of all government workers.” Like obsolete infrastructure, America’s civil service framework should be largely scrapped. Numerous reform proposals have gone nowhere because of union opposition.
Accountability is essential not only to remove poor performers, but also to instill pride and responsibility in public culture. Mutual trust is difficult when everyone knows performance doesn’t matter.
— the statutory mandate to collectively bargain with unions; and, — the mechanistic hiring procedures that drive away good candidates. By executive order, the president could create a genuine merit system. The new system should aim to inspire trust, not fear. Giving officials responsibility for results will attract qualified applicants who want to make a difference. Giving supervisors responsibility to make accountability judgments will inspire mutual trust that all are held to the same standard. Protecting against unfair personnel decisions can be achieved not by legal trials, but by giving oversight authority to an independent inspector or committee.
Congress will continue to kick the can down the road until forced to act. By asserting the constitutional powers of the executive, the president can provoke a constitutional challenge to be decided by the Supreme Court. Remaking civil service by executive order might also prod Congress into a long overdue modernization of the operating machinery of government.
Until then, the main products of Washington will be paralysis and waste. RF
Trump’s Schedule F points the way to a bolder approach — to start remaking civil service by executive order.
The Constitution in Article II provides that “The executive Power shall be vested in a President.” Numerous rulings by the Supreme
Philip K. Howard is a longtime leader of government and legal reform in America. He is Chair of Common Good and has advised both parties on needed reforms. He is also a bestselling author whose latest book, Everyday Freedom, was reviewed by the Forum last year.
The Drivers of Our Debt and the Empty Rhetoric of Politics Today
by MAYA MACGUINEAS
The nation’s fiscal situation is deteriorating quite rapidly, and instead of fixing it, our nation’s leaders engage in fake justifications and ongoing fingerpointing.
There is a huge risk that we will soon see large tax cuts that add hundreds of billions, if not trillions, to the debt. We should fully offset these tax cuts by broadening the tax base and cutting spending.
But instead, in addition to making exaggerated growth claims, those who defend tax cuts will no doubt point to the bloated Democratic American Rescue Plan that also borrowed too much and kicked off inflation.
And Democrats will in turn point to the first Trump Administration, where tax cuts not only added trillions to the debt, but spending increases added trillions more.
Republicans will likely respond by pointing to the cynical scare tactics of Democrats that whip seniors into a frenzy at any mention of reforming Social Security and Medicare, which has led to decades of unsustainable growth in automatic spending.
To which, Democrats will remind Republicans that they, too, now promise not to touch the programs, despite that fact that they are rapidly heading towards insolvency.
have near record debt levels. Three-quarters of the deterioration resulted from bipartisan legislation. As divided as the two parties are, agreement comes much easier when they are borrowing.
The fiscal picture has now moved from worrying to alarming. Our deficits are approaching $2 trillion a year, and interest payments are the second largest item in the budget — even larger than defense. We are expected to break the record for debt as a share of the economy, set just after WWII, in just four years. And yet the current plan is to borrow another $22 trillion over the coming decade despite warnings from just about anyone who has looked at the numbers.
Maya MacGuineas
We are now so polarized and dysfunctional that our leaders are unwilling to do anything hard. They are more intent on their party and their own political success, and they see unpaid-for tax cuts and spending increases as key to that success.
And they will all be right, for there are no fiscal heroes in this story.
Twenty-five years ago, we were running budget surpluses, and the national debt was heading towards being paid off. Instead, we reversed course and now
Nonetheless, we are now so polarized and dysfunctional that our leaders are unwilling to do anything hard. They are more intent on their party and their own political success, and they see unpaid-for tax cuts and spending increases as key to that success. We the voters are complicit too, continuing to reward those who promise us the moon while blaming the other party for all of our problems, despite the damage this borrowing continues to do to the country.
The exceedingly high debt levels weaken the U.S. in just about every way possible. They crowd out private investment and slow economic growth and the standard of living. They lead to inflation and higher interest rates, which cause a variety of hardships for American families who then face higher prices and borrowing costs. As interest payments
grow, they squeeze out other parts of the budget. And they leave us ill-prepared for the next emergency, recession, pandemic, or geopolitical crisis, where we will need to borrow but will have less of an ability to do so cheaply due to all the unnecessary borrowing from the past.
At this point, our dependence on borrowing has become not just an economic threat, but a national security threat, as well. It will be difficult to absorb the increases in defense spending we will almost surely need in what is proving to be an extremely risky geo-political environment. Just as one example, the Salt Typhoon attack showed us we desperately need to harden our defenses for a technodriven warfare model. This will create more domestic pressure as we either fail to fund other pressing priorities or pile on more debt, and we will be far more vulnerable if and when we need to respond to attacks at home or abroad, given our dependence on foreign borrowing. The external risks from China and others should remind us that we can’t compete internationally if we can’t cooperate domestically, but even the national security wake-up call has failed to help us take the debt threat seriously thus far.
And this is how great nations fall – divided, distracted, distrustful, and drowning in debt.
cuts are not only offset, they are more than offset, say by 150%, so every bill is also at least a down payment on fiscal improvement.
Beyond that, we need to implement a debt reduction plan to stabilize the debt as the share of the economy, or get the deficit to 3 percent of GDP — the minimum goals we should aim for. To get there, it will take roughly $9 trillion in savings over the decade — a large amount for sure, that will require us to do a little bit of everything. We need a plan to make Social Security solvent, including lower benefits for the well-off, raising the retirement age for younger workers, and lifting the payroll tax cap. We need to fix our health care system, both by reducing inefficiencies and the many ways industry stakeholders and states game the system, along with more structural reforms including how benefits are delivered and how prices are structured.
We the voters are complicit too, continuing to reward those who promise us the moon while blaming the other party for all of our problems, despite the damage this borrowing continues to do to the country.
The good news — and there still is some — is that the solutions are straightforward. This is not to say that they are easy, but that is what true leadership is about. Were we to choose to turn the situation around, we still could, though that window will not last indefinitely.
We must immediately agree not to make the situation worse. Political leaders should commit to “No New Borrowing” until the debt is back under control. Frankly, they should go a step further, and adopt Paygo-Plus, whereby anytime the debt-to-GDP ratio is over 100 percent, any new spending or tax
We should comb through every other area of the budget, from agriculture to welfare to the defense procurement process. If we save 10 percent of the $89 trillion we are projected to spend over the decade, we are more than the full way there — just 5 percent would get us most of the way. We should likewise reduce spending through the tax code, which is roughly $25 trillion over the decade. To that end, if we cap all the tax breaks any taxpayer can receive at either a dollar amount or a share of their income, along with interest savings, we can achieve our fiscal target.
Every year we wait, the task gets more difficult and the chance that we have an inflation or debt crisis is greater. The time for casting blame and running away from our collective responsibility has passed if we hope to avoid a crisis.
RF
Maya MacGuineas is the president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
Will the Congress and the Courts Respond to the Trump Power Grab?
by PHILIP G. JOYCE
The flurry of executive orders and pronouncements in the early days of the Trump administration suggests that the administration finds few limits to its ability to act unilaterally. While the executive order proposing to end “birthright citizenship” got the most attention initially, the President has issued more than 50 such orders, and many of these have in common a desire to exert control over policies and processes, independent of action by the other two branches.
In addition to executive orders, the administration has taken several other steps consistent with a view of expanded Presidential power under what is called the “unitary executive” theory. Most notable among these other actions have been the removal of officials either as an act of retribution or simply to replace individuals with those more sympathetic to the priorities of the President. (The case of encouraging federal employees to resign by promising to pay them through September 30th seems clearly to be motivated by the latter.)
amendment.
The other two branches are not powerless if they want to check the President’s power. The Congress can impose limits on what the executive may do through passing specific laws that impose restrictions on the executive when implementing these laws (these, of course, must be approved by the President). The courts can take action to prevent certain presidential actions from taking effect, particularly if they clash with either the law or constitution.
Philip G. Joyce
This exercise of strong executive powers flies in the face of the system of separated powers set up by the framers of the Constitution, which was a response to the tyrannical power exercised by the English king.
This exercise of strong executive powers flies in the face of the system of separated powers set up by the framers of the Constitution, which was a response to the tyrannical power exercised by the English king. President Trump is hardly the first President to chafe under the constraints of the separation of powers. Executive orders, in particular, are nothing new. Theodore Roosevelt issued more than 1000, and Franklin Roosevelt more than 3700. More recently, President Biden attempted to forgive student loans by executive order and declared that the Equal Rights Amendment had taken effect, even though clearly the requisite number of states did not ratify it prior to the deadline established by the proposed
Perhaps most importantly, the administration has argued that it has the authority to withhold, or not spend, legallyprovided funds. It appeared to test this initially by “pausing” all federal grant and loan spending on January 27th, but later rescinded this action after it was successfully challenged in court. This still leaves open the possibility that the executive branch will refuse to spend funds for programs that they do not agree with. Russell Vought, the OMB-Director designate, argued in his nomination hearings that he believed that the exercise of such authority, referred to as “impoundment,” was legal and constitutional. Attempts by a President to wrest the “power of the purse” from Congress also has historical antecedents. Impoundment had its high point during the second Nixon administration, but the courts routinely ruled that the President is required to faithfully execute ALL of the laws, not just the ones that he agrees with. Subsequently, in 1974 the Congress provided for a systematic procedure for the cancellation of spending authority, when it enacted the Impoundment Control Act. The law stated that the President could not refuse to spend funds unless Congress specifically
cancelled the spending in question. The exception was in cases where the intended result could be achieved without the expenditure of the full amount provided.
Impoundments because of policy differences rather than for reasons of efficiency, therefore, are not permitted under the law. If the power to impound were to exist, it would effectively make negotiating with the Congress unnecessary in cases where the President wants less spending than the Congress, since the President could simply refuse to spend those funds after the fact.
The key question, in terms of the eventual success of these executive actions, is how the other two branches respond.
The Congress, especially when one or more houses is controlled by the same political party as the President, has been willing to allow most executive orders to stand. It has also compromised its own legitimacy through its failure to either perform its most basic functions (such as passing appropriation bills) or solve ongoing problems (such as immigration). It would be unprecedented, however, for the Congress to sit idly by while the President takes the kind of full control of federal spending that is implied by an aggressive use of impoundments.
The kind of actions embraced by President Trump represent a potential massive shift of power from the legislative branch to the executive. This suggests that THE important question in the first year of the Trump administration will be exactly how much the administration will be able to sidestep the other two branches of government in their attempts to implement their priorities.
The important question in the first year of the Trump administration will be exactly how much the administration will be able to sidestep the other two branches of government in their attempts to implement their priorities.
That brings us to the courts. Many of the executive orders have already been challenged, and a federal judge declared the executive order on birthright citizenship to be unconstitutional. As noted, the courts have historically not permitted policyfocused impoundments. However, constitutionality is increasingly a fluid concept, and the fact that the Supreme Court found that the President did not have such authority in the past is not necessarily a predictor of what might happen now. Of course, the Congress could also acquiesce to the stated wishes of President Trump and repeal the Impoundment Control Act, but that would represent a kind of unilateral disarmament with respect to the power of the purse.
In the end, the checks and balances envisioned by the Constitution ultimately only work if these other two branches play their prescribed constitutional roles. There is no particular indication that the Republican Congress has any intention to challenge President Trump’s actions, even though they will be weakening themselves in the process (to be clear, Democrats also tended to defer to Presidents Obama and Biden, but not to the extent of giving away their authority over spending). And the Supreme Court, which has a conservative bent, may continue to support the actions of a conservative President. These responses are short-sighted, however, as once power has been ceded to the executive, it may be difficult to get that power back, even in cases where the President is pursuing future policies that the Congress and the courts do not agree with. In that sense, we may be witnessing a “high noon” moment for the separation of powers. RF
Philip Joyce is Professor of Public Policy at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy. He is the author of The Congressional Budget Office: Honest Numbers, Power, and Policymaking, two other books, and more than 50 publications focusing primarily on public budgeting and performance management. Dr. Joyce has 12 years of public sector work experience, including five years with the United States Congressional Budget Office.
A Cornerstone of America’s Economic Revival
by ZACH MOTTL
After decades of deindustrialization, stagnating wages, and the hollowing out of communities across the country, it is clear that the international trading system has failed America. No one has highlighted the damage that “free trade” policies have caused more than President Donald Trump. As former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lightizer correctly wrote, these failures are not “because free trade doesn’t work” but “because free trade doesn’t exist.”
By imposing tariffs on China — and threatening to impose them on Mexico and Canada —Trump is addressing an urgent national security issue — the fentanyl crisis, which is killing thousands of our citizens every month. But using tariffs as leverage on critical national security matters should not be confused with the fundamental fact that the global trading system has failed our country, leading to a record $39 billion agricultural trade deficit in 2024 and a weakened manufacturing base.
Trump’s bold trade and tariff agenda is not just a negotiating tool — it’s a long-overdue strategy to rebuild America’s industrial base, strengthen national security, and generate significant revenue to fund domestic priorities. His proposal to implement universal tariffs represents a necessary course correction after decades of failed free trade policies that have gutted American manufacturing and left U.S. workers competing against subsidized foreign labor.
The first round of Trump tariffs in 2018 did not raise consumer prices. In fact, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) found no evidence of this, and former Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said tariffs will not result in any meaningful price increases.
Zach Mottl
Trump’s bold trade and tariff agenda is not just a negotiating tool — it’s a long-overdue strategy to rebuild America’s industrial base, strengthen national security, and generate significant revenue to fund domestic priorities.
For decades, Washington’s so-called economic “experts” insisted that free trade would benefit the U.S. and that tariffs would hurt the economy, raise consumer prices, and spark global retaliation.
But real-world data proves them wrong.
Opposition to tariffs isn’t about sound economics — it’s a coordinated effort by multinational corporations to keep America dependent on foreign supply chains. These are the same economists who predicted NAFTA would create nearly 200,000 American jobs — it wiped out one million. They claimed Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with China would be a win for U.S. manufacturing — their estimates were directionally wrong by a factor of seven, and America suffered the biggest industrial collapse in modern history.
One of the most overlooked benefits of tariffs is their potential as a revenue source to fund critical domestic initiatives. A universal tariff could generate billions — or even trillions — of dollars in revenue that could be used to offset other taxes on working-class Americans, fund infrastructure projects, and invest in industries that are critical to economic and national security.
Trump has already pledged no taxes on tips, and he wants to make major investments in American infrastructure and domestic production. Tariffs provide a practical way to pay for these initiatives without raising income taxes on hardworking Americans.
The anti-tariff Tax Foundation claims Trump’s universal tariffs on Mexico and Canada would cost American households an additional $830 annually. They
insist that 100 percent of the tariffs are passed on to consumers, which has never been the case in economic history. But even if their numbers were correct, that’s $16 per week — in exchange for a stronger economy, increased wages, and a more resilient supply chain. That’s a tradeoff most Americans would take in a heartbeat.
America’s middle class has seen stagnating wages for decades. Since the 1970s, the cost of living has risen dramatically, while earnings for working-class Americans have failed to keep up. Tariffs change this equation by reshoring production, increasing demand for skilled labor, and raising wages. The result? Better-paying jobs in industries that actually sustain families — not more low-wage service jobs.
I run a fourthgeneration American manufacturing company that buys steel and aluminum, and I’ve seen firsthand what happens when tariffs are used as part of an overall trade and industrial strategy that prioritizes domestic production. During the first Trump administration, we saw initial price spikes in raw materials, but that was largely due to supply chain disruptions from the pandemic. Since then, prices have stabilized, and massive new investments in American production have emerged. This is how tariffs work: they create incentives for domestic production, which leads to more supply and long-term price stability.
outdated system that allows them to flood the U.S. market with underpriced goods.
Mexico and Canada, supposedly America’s closest trade partners, have instead facilitated China’s economic warfare against the U.S. Mexico, in particular, has become a key transshipment hub for Chinese goods, exploiting the 2019 USMCA agreement to evade U.S. trade enforcement. Mexico’s blatant trade violations have also eroded American jobs in steel and aluminum. Steel imports from Mexico have also surged 472 percent beyond agreedupon levels in 2023, with early 2024 data indicating an even sharper 700 percent increase — devastating American producers and forcing plant closures.
One of the most overlooked benefits of tariffs is their potential as a revenue source to fund critical domestic initiatives.
Countries like China, Germany, Japan, and South Korea have built their economies around trade surpluses and aggressive industrial policies that distort markets and undermine any notion of a “level playing field.” These nations subsidize their industries, manipulate currencies, and erect non-tariff barriers while benefiting from an
Alarmingly, Mexico has actively courted Chinese investment, advertising itself as a duty-free gateway for China to bypass U.S. tariffs. Chinese factories in Mexico don’t create real production but instead repackage and reroute goods into the U.S. under false labels. China uses the same strategy in Southeast Asia, further undermining U.S. trade laws.
This is why universal tariffs are essential — they eliminate the need for endless legal battles over transshipment and circumvention, and they are the boldest and most effective tool to rebuild industrial production and secure America’s economic future. It’s time to put American workers, industry, and security first. That starts with a proAmerican trade and tariff agenda — and Trump is right to take bold action to implement it. RF
Zach Mottl is the Chairman of the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA) and President of Atlas Tool Works.
WHERE DO YOU STAND?
Do you agree or disagree with something you have read in this edition of The Ripon Forum? We welcome your thoughts and opinions. Please write our editor at louzickar@riponsociety.org.
60 Years Later THE MARCH ON SELMA
Why it still matters, and its impact on our country today.
With essays by Katie Britt, Chris Coons, Maggie Hassan, Jay Obernolte, Terri Sewell and Robert Traynham
On March, 9, 1965, a group of nearly 1,500 Civil Rights activists shown in this photograph crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama in a second attempt to march to Montgomery in support of voting rights. The marchers were turned back by the police shortly after crossing the bridge. During their first attempt two days earlier, on March 7, the marchers were attacked and brutally beaten by police on a day that would become known as “Bloody Sunday.” Dozens of marchers were injured, including civil rights icon and future Congressman John Lewis,who suffered a fractured skull.
In response to the public outcry following the attack, President Lyndon Johnson sent in military policemen and Army troops to accompany the activists on the march from Selma. They arrived in Montgomery on March 25, where they were joined by nearly 25,000 others for a rally at the State Capitol highlighted by a speech from Martin Luther King, Jr. Less than five months later, on August 6, President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law.
Their Courage Changed a Nation and Remains an Example for Us All
by KATIE BRITT
Sixty years ago, thousands of Americans marched from Selma to Montgomery, calling for the realization of the fundamental right to vote regardless of race, color, or creed. Though the right of black Americans to participate in our democratic process had been recognized long before, that right existed only in words, not in practice. Those who marched did so to make reality reflect the text of the 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The heroes of the Civil Rights Movement confronted the darkest demons of hatred, bigotry, and racism. They were humanity’s better angels and forever changed the course of our state’s and nation’s history. Courageous Alabamians like Rosa Parks and John Lewis truly did bend the moral arc of the universe.
As an Alabamian, the struggle for the fulfillment of Thomas Jefferson’s pronouncement in the Declaration of Independence “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” that motivated the Civil Rights Movement has always been immediate to me.
violence, severe injury, and even death, and, of course, many lost their lives in pursuit of justice. They put themselves in danger for a goal they could not possibly be sure would be reached in their lifetimes.
It makes the challenges we face today seem not impossible but inevitable to be overcome. It makes it even less acceptable for us to freeze in fear of facing adversity. If the civil rights marchers could put their lives on the line to fight for one of the most important causes ever to exist, we can do the hard things in front of us — and ultimately, that’s what God calls us to do.
If the civil rights marchers could put their lives on the line to fight for one of the most important causes ever to exist, we can do the hard things in front of us — and ultimately, that’s what God calls us to do.
Ours is a state that saw the birth of both the Confederacy and the Civil Rights Movement. Throughout that time period, it saw the worst and best of us, the evils of slavery and segregation and the triumphant moral battle for freedom and equality for black Americans. Alabama is where Martin Luther King Jr. preached, “If you love your enemies, you will discover that at the very root of love is the power of redemption.” It is impossible to overstate the enduring impact our state’s history has left us.
But the Civil Rights Movement is not only Alabama’s history. It is not only American history. It is some of the most significant history of all mankind.
Those who spurred the Civil Rights Movement put everything on the line. They faced the possibility of, brutal
For our entire history, our nation has existed on the bedrock notion our rights are not given by government but by God; our value as humans does not come from a king or Congress but from our Creator.
Our Founding Fathers were radicals in this way, and their revolutionary spirit carried forward from the signing of the Declaration of Independence and ratification of the Constitution through Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, in which he cited Thomas Jefferson’s words to explain why slavery was not just an affront to human dignity but profoundly un-American.
It is that same eternal truth that flows through the bloodstreams of all Americans — that race, color, creed, or any other immutable characteristic does not make one group superior to another — that those who marched from Selma to Montgomery carried with them.
The Civil Rights Movement did not challenge the American idea. Rather, it challenged our people and our system of government to fully embrace the American idea and to more faithfully live up to the standards the revolutionaries who declared our independence set for us so long ago. RF
Katie Britt represents Alabama in the United States Senate.
Why Selma Matters Today
by CHRIS COONS
The first time I marched across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma with Congressman John Lewis, I was profoundly moved by the moral force of the history of that place and the courage it took for Lewis and hundreds of nonviolent protestors to march in the face of violent opposition. No matter how many times I made that march across the bridge with him, that feeling never went away.
I traveled many times with my friend John – not just to the sacred sites of the Civil Rights movement in Alabama, South Carolina and Tennessee, but also to my home state of Delaware and to South Africa. In spite of our friendship, there was one thing I always struggled to grasp about him. How did John – a man who grew up poor in rural, Jim Crowera Troy, Alabama, who was spat on and imprisoned, who had his head cracked open on the same bridge he led us across every year – maintain any belief in the Constitution and the rights and freedoms it promised?
It’s a story very familiar to this Journal and its readers. When a group of abolitionists came together in Ripon, Wisconsin to found the Republican Party, there was no credible path to the nationwide abolition of slavery, yet they were less than a decade from the Emancipation Proclamation. Persistent, active engagement brought about a Republican president within six years. Continued engagement convinced Lincoln that total victory was impossible without abolition.
Sen. Coons and John Lewis.
Through sustained action and engagement, things change in our country. They can change much faster than we expect.
The point of Jim Crow laws in places like Troy was to crush anything that resembled that belief – to convince John and every other Black American that the segregated order of things was not just how things were, but how they always would be. Yet John not only believed things could be changed and must be changed, he risked his life repeatedly to change them. Change they did, at first slowly, and then swiftly. On “Bloody Sunday,” John was nearly beaten to death in Selma. Five months later, the Voting Rights Act was enacted.
History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes. While John’s story is unique, there are stories throughout America’s own that echo it. People, often young people, taking aim at insurmountable injustices, and through persistent, active engagement, bringing them to an end faster than anyone thought possible.
For many Americans, the promise of the Constitution seems hard to hang onto right now. Over the last several weeks, the new administration has tried to shred the rule of law and the traditions and institutions our government has relied on. President Trump’s efforts to “flood the zone” with shock and awe actions are an attempt to convince the country not just that this is how things are, but how they will always be going forward.
It is easy to give into despair and bitterness. Instead, I hope voters will think about John and the Selma marchers, only months away from realizing their dreams of the full right to vote. Through sustained action and engagement, things change in our country. They can change much faster than we expect.
We must work hard to restore the things we believe in, even if it seems hope is limited: a vision of human rights that is inclusive, a commitment to the rule of law that is sustained, a belief in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Change may not come in a matter of months, but above all else, we cannot stop believing that it will come. Despite it all, John never gave up on the promise of America and the work required to make it real. Neither may we. RF
Chris Coons represents Delaware in the United States Senate.
Selma Wasn’t Inevitable
by MAGGIE HASSAN
My father – a World War II veteran – instilled in me the understanding that freedom is essential, but it is not inevitable. In our democracy, freedom has been protected and expanded only when enough of us were willing to fight for it: Delegates in a hall in Philadelphia who signed the Declaration of Independence; everyday Americans who fought to rid the world of Hitler’s tyranny; and on March 7, 1965, a band of Civil Rights marchers who braved clouds of tear gas and billy club beatings to cross a bridge in Selma.
What remains most striking to me about Selma’s legacy is how uncertain its outcome was. The ultimate success of the march wasn’t inevitable. The march and the subsequent enactment of voting rights protections were only possible because at every stage people put themselves – their career, their political standing, or even their lives – on the line for the cause of freedom. President Johnson risked losing all of his political capital after winning reelection by endorsing the Voting Rights Act. Northern Democrats and moderate Republicans risked fierce political backlash by coming together to pass it into law.
marchers did not put their lives on the line to secure the right to vote only for our country to become a place again where the powerful and violent can deny any single American their vote simply because they disagree.
It is precisely because of the difficulties of our present moment that I find myself returning to the lessons of Selma. Selma teaches us that progress is neither a straight line nor forged by accident. The work to build a more perfect union is an ongoing mission and it is a task that belong to all of us. In America, better is always possible – but only if we have the courage to come back and try to cross that bridge no matter how many times it takes.
Selma teaches us that progress is neither a straight line nor forged by accident. The work to build a more perfect union is an ongoing mission and it is a task that belong to all of us.
But no one risked more than the marchers. The marchers kept on going – after the murder of one of their own, through tear gas and attack dogs, and even after they were stopped on that Bloody Sunday. They came back to complete the march in even greater numbers, joined by people from every corner of our country.
Sixty years later, our democracy again faces challenges to its fundamental promise. I never thought our country would witness an attempt to overturn by force a free and fair election, as we did on January 6. But we did. And the failure to hold those who committed these crimes accountable continues to weaken our beloved country. Surely the Selma
Dr. King knew this well. At the end of the march, he encouraged his fellow marchers that things would change soon, “How long? Not long, because no lie can live forever,” King told them. “How long? Not long, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”
In today’s polarized political climate rife with bitter partisanship, rising extremism, and unforgiving social media, acts of political courage and conscience –particularly those that are likely to earn the scorn of one’s peers, one’s political party or even one’s President – are not without difficulty or danger. But surely these dangers are easier to bear than billy clubs and tear gas and the cruelty and power of Jim Crow.
Sixty years after Selma, it is again clear that freedom and even American democracy itself are not inevitable, but they remain essential; they are everything. I am hopeful that people from all walks of life will follow the example of those who went before us in Selma and find the courage to stand for freedom, to insist on freedom, to ensure that it rings. RF
Maggie Hassan represents New Hampshire in the United States Senate.
Honoring Martin Luther King Jr.: A Legacy of Unity and Freedom
by JAY OBERNOLTE
This year marks the 60th anniversary of the Selma Bridge Crossing, an historic event that pays tribute to the courage and sacrifices of those who marched for civil rights. The annual Jubilee serves as a powerful reminder of how far our nation has come to ensure the freedoms and opportunities that define the American dream.
As a Member of Congress, I deeply respect the legacy of great Americans like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and all those who stood beside him. The spirit of the Jubilee is one of unity, perseverance, and the unwavering belief that our nation is strongest when we uphold the principles of liberty and justice for all.
As we recently celebrated Martin Luther King Jr. Day, we must reflect on the enduring impact of his leadership. King’s vision for America was rooted in the fundamental truths enshrined in our Declaration of Independence: that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. His peaceful protests and powerful oratory challenged our nation to live up to those founding ideals.
change. The ability of citizens to organize, march, and voice their grievances is a cornerstone of our republic, allowing crusades like the Civil Rights Movement to shape our nation for the better. In 1964, Martin Luther King Jr. was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his unwavering commitment to justice. Just four years later, he was tragically assassinated, but his dream did not die with him. His legacy endures in the freedoms we enjoy today, in the millions of Americans who continue to strive for a more perfect Union, and in the federal holiday that honors his contributions — signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1983.
The ability of citizens to organize, march, and voice their grievances is a cornerstone of our republic, allowing crusades like the Civil Rights Movement to shape our nation for the better.
King’s journey was one of both faith and action. As a Baptist minister in Atlanta, he carried the moral weight of his convictions into the public square. Inspired by the teachings of Gandhi, he championed nonviolent resistance as the means to achieve meaningful, lasting change. His leadership in the Montgomery Bus Boycott and the 1963 March on Washington ultimately led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act — two landmark pieces of legislation that reaffirmed the rights and dignity of every American.
Our nation was founded on the principles of democracy and freedom, and the Constitution enshrines the right to peaceful protest as a means to advocate for
King once said, “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.” His words serve as a call to action for all of us. As elected leaders, as citizens, and as Americans, we must remain steadfast in our commitment to the values that make our nation great—freedom, opportunity, and equality under the law.
As we reflect on the 60th anniversary of the Selma Bridge Crossing, we do so with a renewed commitment to honoring the sacrifices of those who marched before us. Their courage and determination shaped the America we know today, and it is our responsibility to continue their work by fostering a society that values faith, family, and freedom. In the spirit of Martin Luther King Jr., let us strive to be a nation that stands firm in times of challenge and controversy and upholds the American promise for the generations of Americans to come. RF
Jay Obernolte represents the 23rd District of California in the U.S. House of Representatives.
60 Years Later, the Fight for Voting Rights Continues
by TERRI A. SEWELL
Precious. Almost sacred.
That’s how John Lewis described the right to vote. He called it the most powerful nonviolent tool in a democratic society, and he was willing to give everything to defend it.
Sixty years ago, in my hometown of Selma, Alabama, John led thousands of marchers across the Edmund Pettus Bridge. They were ordinary Americans, united by the belief that everyone, regardless of their race, should be afforded the equal right to vote.
Yet, on March 7, 1965 — what would become known as Bloody Sunday — their peaceful demonstration was met with unspeakable violence at the hands of police. The marchers were beaten, gassed, whipped, and some were even killed. Among those hospitalized was John, who sustained a fractured skull after being beaten within an inch of his life.
The marchers’ sacrifices were immense, but they were not in vain. The brutality of Bloody Sunday put a spotlight on the injustices suffered by African Americans in the Jim Crow South and ignited a movement that changed the very fabric of our nation.
Within five months, Congress passed and President Johnson signed the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), guaranteeing Americans of every background the right to make their voices heard at the ballot box, free from discriminatory barriers and restrictions.
Until 2013.
In the House, I’m leading the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Named for the late civil rights leader himself, the bill would put the teeth back into the VRA by requiring states with a recent history of voter discrimination to pre-clear election changes with the Department of Justice.
The tragic reality is that while the vast majority of Democrats in Congress have signed onto this legislation, no Republicans have joined us. While Congress reauthorized the VRA with bipartisan support for decades, this new era of gridlock has driven a wedge between the parties on voting rights.
The marchers’ sacrifices were immense, but they were not in vain. The brutality of Bloody Sunday put a spotlight on the injustices suffered by African Americans in the Jim Crow South and ignited a movement that changed the very fabric of our nation.
In its Shelby County v. Holder ruling, the Supreme Court took an axe to the heart of the VRA, unleashing a tidal wave of restrictive voting laws disproportionately targeting Black and minority voters.
We have all seen the consequences: long lines, closed polling stations, voter roll purges, bans on early and absentee voting. The list goes on.
It’s clear. The fight for voting rights is just as urgent today as it was six decades ago. Now more than ever, we need to restore federal oversight.
Never did I think that 60 years after Bloody Sunday, the cause of those Foot Soldiers would become our cause, too. But as John so eloquently taught us, “Freedom is not a state; it is an act… and each generation must do its part.”
Soon, we in Selma will welcome elected officials, activists, and community leaders from across the nation to commemorate the 60th anniversary of Bloody Sunday. We will once again retrace the footsteps of the marchers and pay tribute to their bravery and heroism.
But the truth is that our commemoration will be incomplete so long as the VRA remains in peril.
If we are to truly honor John’s legacy—and the legacy of all those who marched, bled, and died on that bridge—we should work to restore the law they fought so hard to enact.
That’s why, exactly 60 years after the events of Bloody Sunday, I will be reintroducing the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act in the 119th Congress.
If we believe — as John did — that the vote is sacred, then we should come together, as Democrats and Republicans, to pass it without delay.
In the words of Dr. King, “The time is always right to do what is right.” RF
Terri A. Sewell represents the 7th District of Alabama in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Coming Together to Honor the Legacy of Those Who Marched
by ROBERT TRAYNHAM
This year marks the 60th Anniversary of “Bloody Sunday,” a pivotal moment in American history that symbolizes the enduring struggle for civil rights. On March 7, 1965, thousands of men and women from diverse backgrounds came together in Selma, Alabama, to peacefully march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, united by a shared vision of equality. Their courageous efforts championed the voting rights of African Americans, confronting fierce resistance with unwavering resolve.
The Faith & Politics Institute (FPI), established in 1991, plays a crucial role in preserving the lessons of this significant moment while advancing the ideals of a “more perfect union” today. We actively cultivate hope, justice, and community engagement, encouraging dialogues celebrating the legacy of those who marched for equality.
We honor this legacy through FPI initiatives rooted in the vision of the late Congressman John Lewis and Congressman Amo Houghton to connect lawmakers to the moral imperative of justice.
Over the years, Houghton and Lewis brought hundreds of members of Congress, as well as several U.S. presidents, on annual pilgrimages to Selma, where political leaders, activists, and citizens together cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge in remembrance of those who marched before them. By uniting Members of Congress from both parties, we seek to strengthen our democracy.
These FPI programs remind us of the shared sacrifices made for equality — not just for a chosen few, but for all Americans.
The journey hasn’t been easy, especially during the turbulent decade of the 1960s, marked by the Vietnam War escalation, President Kennedy’s assassination, and the Cold War. Yet, amidst this turmoil, the civil rights movement surged forward. In August 1963, the March on Washington drew over 250,000 people to the Lincoln Memorial, where Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his iconic “I Have a Dream” speech, paving the way for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which dismantled segregation and discrimination. For Black Americans, however, progress was often incremental, with the right to vote still obstructed by systemic barriers and violent intimidation.
By visiting the Pettus Bridge in Selma, as well as historic civil rights sites in Montgomery and Birmingham, we continue the important work of honoring the past while charting a new path forward.
This year, FPI will once again bring together a bipartisan delegation and leaders to experience the pilgrimage to Alabama to pay homage to Bloody Sunday and to reflect on the deep sacrifices made. By visiting the Pettus Bridge in Selma, as well as historic civil rights sites in Montgomery and Birmingham, we continue the important work of honoring the past while charting a new path forward.
Our various programs, including Fellow’s initiatives that bring young leaders to Washington to study the profound impact of Congressman Lewis and reflection groups that foster meaningful connections among lawmakers, inspire new generations to uphold democratic values.
The impact of these demonstrations was profound, ultimately leading to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which passed with 30 Republican senators voting for final passage, eliminating discriminatory practices and enhancing ballot access. Nevertheless, the struggle did not conclude there. The assassination of Dr. King in 1968 and ongoing challenges remind us that the fight for racial justice continues even today.
Eyes on the Future
As we honor the past, it is clear that the work initiated in places like Selma remains unfinished. As the late Congressman Lewis stated, “We all have roles to play.” The path toward justice and equality calls for us to engage with our history and persist in the fight today and into the future—not for a chosen few but for all Americans. We must courageously pursue this mission, honoring our past while forging a future where justice and equality prevail for all.
E pluribus unum -- out of one, many. Join us as we write our next American chapter -- together. RF
Robert Traynham serves as President and Chief Executive Officer of The Faith & Politics Institute.
Gonzales & Ciscomani Discuss Effort to Secure America’s Southern Border
WASHINGTON, DC – The Ripon Society hosted a dinner discussion on February 4th with two leaders of Congress who, because of their subcommittee assignments and districts, are at the forefront of the effort to secure America’s southern border and put in place an immigration system that serves the American people the best. The leaders are Tony Gonzales and Juan Ciscomani. Gonzales was elected in 2020 and represents the 23rd District of Texas in the U.S. House of Representatives. Ciscomani was elected in 2022 and represents the 6th Congressional District of Arizona. Both represent districts that are located along the southern border. Both also serve on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, which has made border security one of its top priorities this year.
effect on both American allies and interests around the globe.
“The things that happen here at home absolutely impact the world,” Gonzales stated. “We’re asking 10,000 soldiers to go to the Southwest border instead of Europe. That impacts readiness. Our allies are asking, ‘What’s going on here? What’s
areas along the border, and you need to have that constant dialogue. The border crisis has essentially come to an end very quickly, overnight. The numbers have plummeted, but it’s going to take years in order to tackle some of these issues. And it is going to be costly.”
Ciscomani – who was born in Mexico and is the first naturalized American citizen from Mexico elected to the U.S. House in Arizona history –agreed, and opened his remarks by discussing how he approaches the issue of border security.
“The things that happen here at home absolutely impact the world.”
Tony Gonzales, Remarks to The Ripon Society
February
4, 2025
Gonzales – who spent over 20 years serving in the Navy before his election to Congress – spoke first about the issue, kicking off the discussion by talking about a visit he just made with the Sergeant Major of the Army, and how the actions Congress and the President take to secure our southern border have a ripple
the long-term plan?’ That gets very complicated, very quickly. What I will say, though, is you’re seeing our partners across the world understand that the deck has changed. There’s a new administration and there needs to be a new dialogue. And I think a big part of making sure that we are successful in this is having that dialogue.”
“Juan and I both represent
“I always talk about three buckets when we talk about the border because there are different aspects of the border,” he stated. “Are we talking about border security? Are we talking about trade and commerce? Or are we talking about immigration policy? In my mind, these are three separate buckets that people in Washington or the elected officials from around the country who are not from border districts sometimes don’t really understand. And people tend to look at it from one lens only.”
“I’m an immigrant, so I have an immigrant background. I know that process. It took my family 13 years to become U.S.
citizens. And I’ll tell you, there has to be a better process for that. It can’t take that long, right? This is where the work visa can get done. This is where DACA students deserve a shot at the American dream. This is all the immigration part of it. And then we’ve got trade and commerce for Arizona and for Texas and for the U.S. Mexico is your number one trading partner. So when you have these conversations around tariffs, it has a direct impact on the local economy as it does on security.”
Following their opening remarks, Gonzales and Ciscomani took a number of questions, including one about representing border districts and why it is important for other Americans –and other members of Congress – to understand the unique
challenges facing the people they represent.
“Most people have never been to the southern border,” Gonzales observed. “They don’t know what that means. All they know is what they see on TV or what they hear about. It is very complex. If you live there, you get it, you understand. It isn’t foreign to go over to Mexico for a doctor’s appointment or the dentist. It isn’t foreign to have someone from Mexico come over and go to your school or your church or whatever it may be. That isn’t foreign. It’s natural if you live there. But there are so few of us who understand that. For everyone else, it’s easy to spew the rhetoric or the talking points.”
Ciscomani concurred, and said he plans to host a trip to
the border for new Republican members of Congress so they can better understand the situation on the ground.
“We want to start this as a tradition where we invite a group of freshmen Republicans to the border and show them what the border is like,” the Arizona lawmaker stated. “And we’re going to cover the three buckets so that they can understand that there’s a trade component that is huge for their states. It’s a trade aspect. It’s a cultural aspect. It’s immigration. It’s also security. It’s how it all plays into each one of our states. We’re going to be doing that with every freshman class so that they can be exposed to that and understand it better. We’ve got to share the knowledge.” RF
Name: Rodney Hall
Occupation: State Representative, Mississippi House of Representatives; Attorney; Lieutenant Colonel & Infantry Officer in the MS Army National Guard; Veteran
Previous Positions held: Congressional Staffer, U.S. House of Representatives; Prosecuting & Private Sector Attorney
How has your service as an Army Ranger shaped your political career? It instilled in me a deep commitment to duty, discipline, and the principle that leadership is not about personal ambition but about serving others. The Ranger ethos—never leaving a comrade behind, always accomplishing the mission, and accepting greater responsibility translates directly into my approach to public service. In politics, just as in combat, courage, integrity, and perseverance are essential to advancing the cause of freedom and securing a stronger future for our state and nation.
Being the first Black Republican to serve in the Mississippi state legislature since Reconstruction, how can our party continue to expand our base? Our party must remain rooted in the fundamental principles that have long defined conservatism: faith, family, freedom, and economic opportunity. Expanding our base means ensuring that we are not just talking about these values but demonstrating how conservative policies uplift families and communities, particularly those historically underserved by government.
We must be intentional in engaging new voices, investing in young conservative leaders, and meeting people where they are—whether that’s in the church, the business community, or on college campuses. The Republican Party’s legacy includes leaders like Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln, and we should boldly communicate that conservatism has always been about empowering individuals, strengthening families, and advancing economic independence.
What is one of the most important lessons you learned from your time as a congressional staffer that has influenced how you run your own office? One of the most valuable lessons I learned as a congressional staffer is that public service is about responsiveness and results. The best legislators are those who listen more than they speak, who take the concerns of their constituents seriously, and who work tirelessly to turn conservative principles into real, meaningful policy.
I also learned the importance of coalition-building. While my conservative principles are non-negotiable, I believe in governing with both conviction and wisdom—fighting for what’s right while building consensus where possible.
Finally, what are your top three legislative priorities?
Economic growth & workforce development; defending conservative values, and public safety & national security.
At Constellation, we are working hard to create a clean energy future.
We’re generating power that’s nearly 90% carbon-free with hydro, wind, solar and the nation’s largest, always-on, zero-emissions nuclear fleet.
And we produce around 10% of all clean, emission-free electricity in the country—50% more than any other company in America.
At a time when you’re hearing a lot about investments in clean energy, we’re actually generating it.
Constellation is proud to support the Ripon Society.
constellationenergy.com/poweron
