How Washington Works, Part 2

The short answer: a lot. That has to do with the skyrocketing cost of getting elected. The average race for a U.S. House of Representatives seat cost $4.4 million in 2020—and in a single race in Georgia for a Senate seat, the two major candidates together raised nearly $255 million.

That means fund-raising is an almost daily activity for many lawmakers—and especially for House members, who have to run for re-election every two years. (Senators seek re-election every six years.)

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which oversees House campaigns, has recommended in the past that members spend a whopping four hours a day on “call time”—contacting donors by phone to ask for money—compared with just two hours a day in committee hearings or on the House floor.

“House members start running for re-election as soon as they’ve been sworn in. It’s nonstop,” says Congressman Jim Cooper, a Tennessee Democrat. “If they don’t, people assume they are deathly sick or just haven’t announced their retirement yet.”

The short answer: a lot. That has to do with the skyrocketing cost of getting elected. The average race for a U.S. House of Representatives seat cost $4.4 million in 2020. In a single race in Georgia for a Senate seat, the two major candidates together raised nearly $255 million.

That means fund-raising is an almost daily activity for many lawmakers. It’s even more critical for House members, who have to run for re-election every two years. (Senators seek re-election every six years.)

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee oversees House campaigns. It has recommended in the past that members spend four hours a day on “call time,” contacting donors by phone to ask for money. That’s compared with the two hours a day they spend in committee hearings or on the House floor.

“House members start running for re-election as soon as they’ve been sworn in. It’s nonstop,” says Congressman Jim Cooper, a Tennessee Democrat. “If they don’t, people assume they are deathly sick or just haven’t announced their retirement yet.”

House members in tight races could spend as much as 75 percent of their time looking for donations, Cooper says. The money-raising grind means that members spend a lot of time at home, meeting constituents and potential donors. In theory, that’s a plus; the Framers of the Constitution envisioned a Congress that stayed in close touch with the people in their districts.

But the modern Congress has more work to do than the Framers could ever have imagined—and in 2020, House members spent only 163 of the 366 days at work in Washington. That’s less than half the year.

“I’m a believer in Congress as an institution to address the nation’s most pressing problems,” says David Jolly, a former Republican congressman from Florida. But the reality, he adds, is that “elected government today is primarily a job of political fund-raising, not legislating.”

House members in tight races could spend as much as 75 percent of their time looking for donations, Cooper says. The money-raising grind means that members spend a lot of time at home. That gives them plenty of opportunities to meet constituents and potential donors. In theory, that’s a plus. The Framers of the Constitution envisioned a Congress that stayed in close touch with the people in their districts.

But the modern Congress has more work to do than the Framers could ever have imagined. In 2020, House members spent only 163 of the 366 days at work in Washington. That’s less than half the year.

“I’m a believer in Congress as an institution to address the nation’s most pressing problems,” says David Jolly, a former Republican congressman from Florida. But the reality, he adds, is that “elected government today is primarily a job of political fund-raising, not legislating.”

The federal government expects to spend about $6.85 trillion this year. It will take in a record $3.84 trillion in taxes, but that’s still trillions short of what it needs. More than $2 trillion in emergency spending caused by the pandemic is one reason. But even without that expense, the government has been running a huge deficit for years, borrowing money to keep functioning.

Most of the government’s money comes from income taxes. The top 50 percent of earners pay more than 97 percent of the personal income taxes the government collects. Corporations pay income taxes too, and they contribute about 7 percent of the government’s total tax take.

Most of the rest of the money—a little over a third of all revenues—comes from the Social Security tax deducted from workers’ paychecks.

So what does the government buy with all those tax dollars? Mandated programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (health care for the elderly and poor) total about $3 trillion. Not counting pandemic spending, that leaves about $1.47 trillion for everything else—from a $705 billion military budget to spending on roads, education, the environment, and so on.

Figuring out how to close the gap between tax revenue and spending is one of the biggest federal issues. Six in 10 Americans feel the wealthy and corporations should pay more taxes, according to an April survey by the Pew Research Center. Conservatives have blocked tax hikes, saying they’ll be a drag on the economy. They say the real problem is the skyrocketing costs of Social Security and health benefits, which are gobbling up a rising share of spending, and many economists agree.

The federal government expects to spend about $6.85 trillion this year. It will take in a record $3.84 trillion in taxes, but that’s still trillions short of what it needs. More than $2 trillion in emergency spending caused by the pandemic is one reason. But even without that expense, the government has been running a huge deficit for years. It has continued borrowing money to keep functioning.

Most of the government’s money comes from income taxes. The top 50 percent of earners pay more than 97 percent of the personal income taxes the government collects. Corporations pay income taxes too. They also contribute about 7 percent of the government’s total tax take.

Most of the rest of the money comes from the Social Security tax deducted from workers’ paychecks. That accounts for a little over a third of all revenues.

So what does the government buy with all those tax dollars? Mandated programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid (health care for the elderly and poor) total about $3 trillion. Not counting pandemic spending, that leaves about $1.47 trillion for everything else. That includes everything from a $705 billion military budget to spending on roads, education, the environment, and so on.

Figuring out how to close the gap between tax revenue and spending is one of the biggest federal issues. Six in 10 Americans feel the wealthy and corporations should pay more taxes, according to an April survey by the Pew Research Center. Conservatives have blocked tax hikes, saying they’ll be a drag on the economy. They say the real problem is the skyrocketing costs of Social Security and health benefits. Many economists agree that these costs take up a rising share of spending.

Simply put, lobbyists exercise a right given to all Americans by the First Amendment—to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Most people can’t go to Washington to make themselves heard, so lobbyists essentially act for them, sometimes representing huge groups of people or companies that share a common interest.

These days, the 11,500 lobbyists in Washington are a $3.5 billion-a-year business. Some are “hired guns” seeking favors from Congress or federal agencies for anyone who pays them. Some work for trade associations representing specific industries, from giant oil companies to beekeepers. Others rely on public donations to lobby for causes like clean air or the right to vote.

Because they’re seeking special treatment from the government, lobbyists can appear to be engaged in a sketchy business, and lobbying has endured its share of scandals. Some lobbyists give campaign contributions to legislators they hope to persuade, creating the impression—and even the reality—that they’re buying influence. And although ethics rules have curbed them, there are still posh golf weekends, ski trips, and other junkets arranged by lobbyists for legislators with whom they want to curry favor.

But if there are bad lobbyists, there’s nothing inherently bad about lobbying. For better or worse, lobbyists have gained new importance in a Congress that’s increasingly short of staff members and money to tackle complex issues.

“As congressional office budgets are cut, there’s that much more reliance on lobbyists for information and expertise,” says Aaron Scherb, of the public-interest group Common Cause. “They’re helping draft legislation and advance legislation.”

That coziness can open the door to improper influence, he says. But as in any profession, people who lobby have reputations to uphold.

“Some lobbyists are very mediocre, and some are very good and passionate about their issues,” Scherb says. “If you provide lousy information or false information, you’re not going to be respected at all.”

Simply put, lobbyists exercise a right given to all Americans by the First Amendment—to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Most people can’t go to Washington to make themselves heard. Lobbyists can. They essentially act for the public. Sometimes they represent huge groups of people or companies that share a common interest.

These days, the 11,500 lobbyists in Washington are a $3.5 billion-a-year business. Some are “hired guns” seeking favors from Congress or federal agencies for anyone who pays them. Some work for trade associations representing specific industries, from giant oil companies to beekeepers. Others rely on public donations to lobby for causes like clean air or the right to vote.

Lobbyists seek special treatment from the government. That can make them appear to be engaged in a sketchy business. And lobbying has endured its share of scandals. Some lobbyists give campaign contributions to legislators they hope to persuade. That creates the impression that they’re buying influence. And that can be the reality. Although ethics rules have curbed them, there are still posh golf weekends, ski trips, and other trips arranged by lobbyists for legislators with whom they want to gain favor.

But if there are bad lobbyists, there’s nothing fundamentally bad about lobbying. For better or worse, lobbyists have gained new importance in a Congress that’s increasingly short of staff members and money to tackle complex issues.

“As congressional office budgets are cut, there’s that much more reliance on lobbyists for information and expertise,” says Aaron Scherb, of the public-interest group Common Cause. “They’re helping draft legislation and advance legislation.”

That coziness can open the door to improper influence, he says. But as in any profession, people who lobby have reputations to uphold.

“Some lobbyists are very mediocre, and some are very good and passionate about their issues,” Scherb says. “If you provide lousy information or false information, you’re not going to be respected at all.”

Fifty years ago, Walter Cronkite ended every broadcast of the CBS Evening News with the words “And that’s the way it is.” And for Americans, who got almost all of their Washington news in a nightly half hour from TV anchors, it was the way it was: a quick, serious, and, above all, impartial report on how government worked.

The rise of social media has shattered that model, and it’s not yet clear what will replace it.

Today, one in five Americans rely often on social media for news, according to the Pew Research Center. That’s more than the proportion who rely on newspapers. And the share of people watching network news nightly plummeted to 27 percent in 2019, from 62 percent in 1995, according to Gallup.

Fifty years ago, Walter Cronkite ended every broadcast of the CBS Evening News with the words “And that’s the way it is.” At the time, Americans got almost all of their Washington news in a nightly half hour from TV anchors. For many of them, it was the way it was: a quick, serious, and, above all, impartial report on how government worked.

The rise of social media has shattered that model, and it’s not yet clear what will replace it.

Today, one in five Americans rely often on social media for news, according to the Pew Research Center. That’s more than the proportion who rely on newspapers. And the share of people watching network news nightly plummeted to 27 percent in 2019, from 62 percent in 1995, according to Gallup.

On the plus side, people now have a much bigger menu of news options and access to more information about Washington and its leaders than ever before. But for better or worse, that fragmenting means most Americans no longer have a common source of news to trust—or sometimes even a shared view of what is actually happening. The rise of social media like Twitter and Instagram allows people to see only the version of events that fits—and reinforces—their political or cultural views.

Experts say that “siloing” also encourages people to see those with different views as enemies in a way that was impossible just a few decades ago. That and the explosion of blatantly false news reports on social media has dramatically eroded public trust in all news sources, both Pew and Gallup say.

Washington is still struggling to adjust to the new ways.

Social media has made politics more hostile, says Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. “It’s made the language harsher, our emotions sharper, and our ability to compromise much more difficult,” he says.

On the plus side, people now have a much bigger menu of news options and access to more information about Washington and its leaders than ever before. But for better or worse, that divide means most Americans no longer have a common source of news to trust. And sometimes people even lack a shared view of what is actually happening. The rise of social media like Twitter and Instagram allows people to see only the version of events that fits and reinforces their political or cultural views.

Experts say that “siloing” also encourages people to see those with different views as enemies in a way that was impossible just a few decades ago. That and the explosion of blatantly false news reports on social media has dramatically destroyed public trust in all news sources, both Pew and Gallup say.

Washington is still struggling to adjust to the new ways.

Social media has made politics more hostile, says Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. “It’s made the language harsher, our emotions sharper, and our ability to compromise much more difficult,” he says.

Trying to make yourself heard in official Washington might seem futile. After all, you’re just one of 330 million people in the U.S. How could you be heard when so many others are also clamoring for attention? In 2019, the House of Representatives alone received as many as 35 million emails, according to the Congressional Management Foundation, a nonprofit group that studies how to make Congress work better.

Most members of Congress track their constituents’ views on issues closely. An individual email is unlikely to be read by a lawmaker; members of Congress routinely get tens of thousands of emails, letters, and calls every month. But aides monitor emails to gauge public opinion back home.

While emails are usually disregarded because they’re so easy to send, congressional staff say that mailed letters get more attention. Some may wind up on a lawmaker’s desk if they include compelling personal stories about why an issue is important to the writer. “In our district,” one staff member told the foundation, “student and kid stories carry a lot of weight.” The personal-letter approach isn’t limited to Congress. President Biden often finds letters tucked into the stack of briefing papers and other documents he takes to his White House residence at night.

It’s good to remember that even the best-crafted appeal to a politician may not change things, because in the American system, change takes time.

“Nobody in American democracy feels they win all the time,” says Nate Persily, a Stanford University democracy expert. “Our system is so full of multiple checks and balances and veto points that even large swatches of the public do not get their way.”

That back-and-forth is part of the ongoing give-and-take between the governed and the government. As President Franklin D. Roosevelt put it, “The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government.”

Trying to make yourself heard in official Washington might seem pointless. After all, you’re just one of 330 million people in the U.S. How could you be heard when so many others are also vying for attention? In 2019, the House of Representatives alone received as many as 35 million emails, according to the Congressional Management Foundation, a nonprofit group that studies how to make Congress work better.

Most members of Congress track their constituents’ views on issues closely. An individual email is unlikely to be read by a lawmaker. That’s because members of Congress often get tens of thousands of emails, letters, and calls every month. But aides check emails to assess public opinion back home.

Emails are usually disregarded because they’re so easy to send. But congressional staff say that mailed letters get more attention. Some may wind up on a lawmaker’s desk if they include compelling personal stories about why an issue is important to the writer. “In our district,” one staff member told the foundation, “student and kid stories carry a lot of weight.” The personal-letter approach isn’t limited to Congress. President Biden often finds letters tucked into the stack of briefing papers and other documents he takes to his White House residence at night.

It’s good to remember that even the best-crafted appeal to a politician may not change things. In the American system, change takes time.

“Nobody in American democracy feels they win all the time,” says Nate Persily, a Stanford University democracy expert. “Our system is so full of multiple checks and balances and veto points that even large swatches of the public do not get their way.”

That back-and-forth is part of the ongoing give-and-take between the governed and the government. As President Franklin D. Roosevelt put it, “The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government.”