Great piece with additional insights defined in the jump piece that your readers should study: https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2026/01/100016/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email . While you touched on several critical reforms, more needs to be said about redistricting and reducing CD size, campaign finance, and, as you implied, decentralization of the internal work process.
This is an accurate if unfortunate description of the Congress in both its exaggerated form that we are suffering today and the historically more complex phenomena that historians and political scientists spend so much time dissecting...
... except that the the solution for the toxicity is not aversion to the central problem any more than the correct approach to a abusive spouse who is a productive parent would be to have him or her spend more time at work.
As with any family, are elected members of Congress - especially in the House - representing *all* of their constituents, even those who did not vote for them or who might vehemently disagree with a position on just one issue in which the majority of their constituents are in broad agreement.
It is reasonable that a representative could have a contentious position on an issue that was expressed clearly during a campaign, but that becomes toxic if contrary views held by a large number of constituents are ignored or even targeted with ridicule or retribution once the member is in office.
Yes, I think one thing that reformers have been arguing is that elected officials have to go through primaries, and primary voters are not typical, hence they are appealing to a subset of voters not the typical voters.
I am unclear how this comment connects with what I wrote in my essay, "What's wrong with Congress." Did you mean to make this comment on another article?
I am unclear how this comment connects with what I wrote in my essay, "What's wrong with Congress." Did you mean to make this comment on another article?
Well, there are a not insignificant number of legislators who do not disagree with a lot of what ICE has done. And these legislators think a majority of their voters also are OK with it. So here we are.
Right on. Yes, if Congress wants to delegate authority, it should do so explicitly and with guidelines. On occasion, it has done that. For example, Congress did not want to deal with setting rates for postage. So here's how they delegated that authority (39 USC 3622):
§3622. Modern rate regulation
(a) Authority Generally.—The Postal Regulatory Commission shall, within 18 months after the date of enactment of this section, by regulation establish (and may from time to time thereafter by regulation revise) a modern system for regulating rates and classes for market-dominant products.
(b) Objectives.—Such system shall be designed to achieve the following objectives, each of which shall be applied in conjunction with the others:
(1) To maximize incentives to reduce costs and increase efficiency.
(2) To create predictability and stability in rates.
(3) To maintain high quality service standards established under section 3691.
(4) To allow the Postal Service pricing flexibility.
(5) To assure adequate revenues, including retained earnings, to maintain financial stability.
(6) To reduce the administrative burden and increase the transparency of the ratemaking process.
(7) To enhance mail security and deter terrorism.
(8) To establish and maintain a just and reasonable schedule for rates and classifications, however the objective under this paragraph shall not be construed to prohibit the Postal Service from making changes of unequal magnitude within, between, or among classes of mail.
(9) To allocate the total institutional costs of the Postal Service appropriately between market-dominant and competitive products.
(c) Factors.—In establishing or revising such system, the Postal Regulatory Commission shall take into account—
(1) the value of the mail service actually provided each class or type of mail service to both the sender and the recipient, including but not limited to the collection, mode of transportation, and priority of delivery;
(2) the requirement that each class of mail or type of mail service bear the direct and indirect postal costs attributable to each class or type of mail service through reliably identified causal relationships plus that portion of all other costs of the Postal Service reasonably assignable to such class or type;
(3) the effect of rate increases upon the general public, business mail users, and enterprises in the private sector of the economy engaged in the delivery of mail matter other than letters;
(4) the available alternative means of sending and receiving letters and other mail matter at reasonable costs;
(5) the degree of preparation of mail for delivery into the postal system performed by the mailer and its effect upon reducing costs to the Postal Service;
(6) simplicity of structure for the entire schedule and simple, identifiable relationships between the rates or fees charged the various classes of mail for postal services;
(7) the importance of pricing flexibility to encourage increased mail volume and operational efficiency;
(8) the relative value to the people of the kinds of mail matter entered into the postal system and the desirability and justification for special classifications and services of mail;
(9) the importance of providing classifications with extremely high degrees of reliability and speed of delivery and of providing those that do not require high degrees of reliability and speed of delivery;
(10) the desirability of special classifications for both postal users and the Postal Service in accordance with the policies of this title, including agreements between the Postal Service and postal users, when available on public and reasonable terms to similarly situated mailers, that—
(A) either—
(i) improve the net financial position of the Postal Service through reducing Postal Service costs or increasing the overall contribution to the institutional costs of the Postal Service; or
(ii) enhance the performance of mail preparation, processing, transportation, or other functions; and
(B) do not cause unreasonable harm to the marketplace.
(11) the educational, cultural, scientific, and informational value to the recipient of mail matter;
(12) the need for the Postal Service to increase its efficiency and reduce its costs, including infrastructure costs, to help maintain high quality, affordable postal services;
(13) the value to the Postal Service and postal users of promoting intelligent mail and of secure, sender-identified mail; and
(14) the policies of this title as well as such other factors as the Commission determines appropriate.
(d) Requirements.—
(1) In general.—The system for regulating rates and classes for market-dominant products shall—
(A) include an annual limitation on the percentage changes in rates to be set by the Postal Regulatory Commission that will be equal to the change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers unadjusted for seasonal variation over the most recent available 12-month period preceding the date the Postal Service files notice of its intention to increase rates;
(B) establish a schedule whereby rates, when necessary and appropriate, would change at regular intervals by predictable amounts;
(C) not later than 45 days before the implementation of any adjustment in rates under this section, including adjustments made under subsection (c)(10)—
(i) require the Postal Service to provide public notice of the adjustment;
(ii) provide an opportunity for review by the Postal Regulatory Commission;
(iii) provide for the Postal Regulatory Commission to notify the Postal Service of any noncompliance of the adjustment with the limitation under subparagraph (A); and
(iv) require the Postal Service to respond to the notice provided under clause (iii) and describe the actions to be taken to comply with the limitation under subparagraph (A);
(D) establish procedures whereby the Postal Service may adjust rates not in excess of the annual limitations under subparagraph (A); and
(E) notwithstanding any limitation set under subparagraphs (A) and (C), and provided there is not sufficient unused rate authority under paragraph (2)(C), establish procedures whereby rates may be adjusted on an expedited basis due to either extraordinary or exceptional circumstances, provided that the Commission determines, after notice and opportunity for a public hearing and comment, and within 90 days after any request by the Postal Service, that such adjustment is reasonable and equitable and necessary to enable the Postal Service, under best practices of honest, efficient, and economical management, to maintain and continue the development of postal services of the kind and quality adapted to the needs of the United States.
Great piece with additional insights defined in the jump piece that your readers should study: https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2026/01/100016/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email . While you touched on several critical reforms, more needs to be said about redistricting and reducing CD size, campaign finance, and, as you implied, decentralization of the internal work process.
This is an accurate if unfortunate description of the Congress in both its exaggerated form that we are suffering today and the historically more complex phenomena that historians and political scientists spend so much time dissecting...
... except that the the solution for the toxicity is not aversion to the central problem any more than the correct approach to a abusive spouse who is a productive parent would be to have him or her spend more time at work.
As with any family, are elected members of Congress - especially in the House - representing *all* of their constituents, even those who did not vote for them or who might vehemently disagree with a position on just one issue in which the majority of their constituents are in broad agreement.
It is reasonable that a representative could have a contentious position on an issue that was expressed clearly during a campaign, but that becomes toxic if contrary views held by a large number of constituents are ignored or even targeted with ridicule or retribution once the member is in office.
Thanks!
Yes, I think one thing that reformers have been arguing is that elected officials have to go through primaries, and primary voters are not typical, hence they are appealing to a subset of voters not the typical voters.
This is fascinating, Kevin
Thank you, Dr. Haskell.
Another wonderful article, Kevin. Thank you!
Thank you!
It's blackmail. Whoever crosses him will be persecuted. Along with family. Ruined for life.
That's what's wrong.
I am unclear how this comment connects with what I wrote in my essay, "What's wrong with Congress." Did you mean to make this comment on another article?
Yes, I apologize. It should have been elsewhere . I'll remove it
I am unclear how this comment connects with what I wrote in my essay, "What's wrong with Congress." Did you mean to make this comment on another article?
Ah, I see what you are saying.
Well, there are a not insignificant number of legislators who do not disagree with a lot of what ICE has done. And these legislators think a majority of their voters also are OK with it. So here we are.
Right on. Yes, if Congress wants to delegate authority, it should do so explicitly and with guidelines. On occasion, it has done that. For example, Congress did not want to deal with setting rates for postage. So here's how they delegated that authority (39 USC 3622):
§3622. Modern rate regulation
(a) Authority Generally.—The Postal Regulatory Commission shall, within 18 months after the date of enactment of this section, by regulation establish (and may from time to time thereafter by regulation revise) a modern system for regulating rates and classes for market-dominant products.
(b) Objectives.—Such system shall be designed to achieve the following objectives, each of which shall be applied in conjunction with the others:
(1) To maximize incentives to reduce costs and increase efficiency.
(2) To create predictability and stability in rates.
(3) To maintain high quality service standards established under section 3691.
(4) To allow the Postal Service pricing flexibility.
(5) To assure adequate revenues, including retained earnings, to maintain financial stability.
(6) To reduce the administrative burden and increase the transparency of the ratemaking process.
(7) To enhance mail security and deter terrorism.
(8) To establish and maintain a just and reasonable schedule for rates and classifications, however the objective under this paragraph shall not be construed to prohibit the Postal Service from making changes of unequal magnitude within, between, or among classes of mail.
(9) To allocate the total institutional costs of the Postal Service appropriately between market-dominant and competitive products.
(c) Factors.—In establishing or revising such system, the Postal Regulatory Commission shall take into account—
(1) the value of the mail service actually provided each class or type of mail service to both the sender and the recipient, including but not limited to the collection, mode of transportation, and priority of delivery;
(2) the requirement that each class of mail or type of mail service bear the direct and indirect postal costs attributable to each class or type of mail service through reliably identified causal relationships plus that portion of all other costs of the Postal Service reasonably assignable to such class or type;
(3) the effect of rate increases upon the general public, business mail users, and enterprises in the private sector of the economy engaged in the delivery of mail matter other than letters;
(4) the available alternative means of sending and receiving letters and other mail matter at reasonable costs;
(5) the degree of preparation of mail for delivery into the postal system performed by the mailer and its effect upon reducing costs to the Postal Service;
(6) simplicity of structure for the entire schedule and simple, identifiable relationships between the rates or fees charged the various classes of mail for postal services;
(7) the importance of pricing flexibility to encourage increased mail volume and operational efficiency;
(8) the relative value to the people of the kinds of mail matter entered into the postal system and the desirability and justification for special classifications and services of mail;
(9) the importance of providing classifications with extremely high degrees of reliability and speed of delivery and of providing those that do not require high degrees of reliability and speed of delivery;
(10) the desirability of special classifications for both postal users and the Postal Service in accordance with the policies of this title, including agreements between the Postal Service and postal users, when available on public and reasonable terms to similarly situated mailers, that—
(A) either—
(i) improve the net financial position of the Postal Service through reducing Postal Service costs or increasing the overall contribution to the institutional costs of the Postal Service; or
(ii) enhance the performance of mail preparation, processing, transportation, or other functions; and
(B) do not cause unreasonable harm to the marketplace.
(11) the educational, cultural, scientific, and informational value to the recipient of mail matter;
(12) the need for the Postal Service to increase its efficiency and reduce its costs, including infrastructure costs, to help maintain high quality, affordable postal services;
(13) the value to the Postal Service and postal users of promoting intelligent mail and of secure, sender-identified mail; and
(14) the policies of this title as well as such other factors as the Commission determines appropriate.
(d) Requirements.—
(1) In general.—The system for regulating rates and classes for market-dominant products shall—
(A) include an annual limitation on the percentage changes in rates to be set by the Postal Regulatory Commission that will be equal to the change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers unadjusted for seasonal variation over the most recent available 12-month period preceding the date the Postal Service files notice of its intention to increase rates;
(B) establish a schedule whereby rates, when necessary and appropriate, would change at regular intervals by predictable amounts;
(C) not later than 45 days before the implementation of any adjustment in rates under this section, including adjustments made under subsection (c)(10)—
(i) require the Postal Service to provide public notice of the adjustment;
(ii) provide an opportunity for review by the Postal Regulatory Commission;
(iii) provide for the Postal Regulatory Commission to notify the Postal Service of any noncompliance of the adjustment with the limitation under subparagraph (A); and
(iv) require the Postal Service to respond to the notice provided under clause (iii) and describe the actions to be taken to comply with the limitation under subparagraph (A);
(D) establish procedures whereby the Postal Service may adjust rates not in excess of the annual limitations under subparagraph (A); and
(E) notwithstanding any limitation set under subparagraphs (A) and (C), and provided there is not sufficient unused rate authority under paragraph (2)(C), establish procedures whereby rates may be adjusted on an expedited basis due to either extraordinary or exceptional circumstances, provided that the Commission determines, after notice and opportunity for a public hearing and comment, and within 90 days after any request by the Postal Service, that such adjustment is reasonable and equitable and necessary to enable the Postal Service, under best practices of honest, efficient, and economical management, to maintain and continue the development of postal services of the kind and quality adapted to the needs of the United States.