|
| | 1980 Take November 12, 1980. Congress returned for a “lame-duck session” that ended on December 16. Jimmy Carter lost his presidential bid to Ronald Reagan, and the Democrats lost their hold on the Senate, but retained a slight majority in the House. In the remaining weeks, Congress focused on the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1980, the first bill of its kind to pass both chambers. Congress had adopted its budget resolution the previous June, long before the November election, telling committees to identify reductions and raise tax revenues. The final budget work and agreement on the reconciliation bill, however, would happen in the lame-duck session. It was signed on December 5, with Carter as president and the outgoing Congress still in office. The law was estimated to reduce the 1981 fiscal-year deficit by roughly $8 billion (translating to $3.6 billion in additional revenue and $4.6 billion less in spending). This lame-duck session wasn’t really all that “lame,” as it also passed appropriations bills, government funding resolutions, bills concerning Alaskan lands, toxic cleanups, military benefits, and revenue sharing with local governments. So it wasn’t focused exclusively on the deficit plan. |
|
25 | Lame-duck sessions aren’t rare (25 have occurred since 1940); only eleven have followed an election that switched the majority party in one or both chambers. |
|
| The 2026 midterms could result in another. But it doesn’t look like it would be as productive as that 1980 session, even if it too focuses on fiscal consolidation. |
| | If they win, every bill becomes a ransom negotiation. It’ll be very tough. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, SEPTEMBER 9, 2026 |
|
| The “they,” in this case, refers to the Democratic Party, and is a quote from President Donald Trump on September 9, 2026, about the hazards of losing the midterms. It’s a clear indicator of the current political climate and a good description of what he expects if Democrats take control of Congress in 2027, limiting what he might do with the second half of his current term. |
| If that is the administration’s expectation, it makes sense that preparations would lay the groundwork for party-centric goals during the lame-duck session. Unfortunately, only a few clear indicators have appeared to signal what those lame-duck goals would be. On October 6, Trump teased “big surprises” from White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director Russ Vought but did not clarify. |
| One concrete possibility for the “surprise” has emerged: a fiscal-consolidation plan that Vought and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent are said to be developing. Unlike in 1980, though, Congress has not voted on any resolutions, no official committees have been formed to evaluate spending and taxes, and no formal groundwork has been put in place. Should Democrats win in the midterms, Bessent said Republicans would “have to rush that through a lame duck as opposed to being able to take more time.” |
| Given the history of lame-duck sessions, a fiscal-consolidation plan isn’t a big surprise. On the other hand, openly admitting it would be rushed through a lame-duck session is surprisingly blatant. On October 8, Bessent said he expected the plan would be unveiled “right after the midterm,” giving voters no hint of its contents prior to casting ballots. Did Trump mean the program cuts, taxes, and other line items are the surprise? |
| Another candidate for the surprise is the “Trump Dividend.” Officially announced on September 10, it’s described as a “$5,000 cash payment to every adult American citizen, made possible by the strength of the American economy,” under Trump’s leadership. The dividend comes with a surprising contingency: it only goes out if the “Republicans win the House of Representatives and the United States Senate.” |
| Again, surprisingly blatant, but also surprisingly under-explained. The Trump Dividend currently has no Congressional approval and no White House accounting for how it would be funded. |
| Perhaps the surprise is how these promises are supposed to fit together? The Trump dividend is contingent on Republicans retaining both chambers. Bessent suggested that losing a chamber would accelerate the fiscal-consolidation plan. It doesn’t make them competing proposals, but it also leaves voters without any explanations of how the administration plans to make the math work. |
| Is the surprise the fiscal mismatch? The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that one round of $5,000 payments would cost over $1 trillion. The fiscal-consolidation plan is supposed to reduce the deficit. |
| Is the surprise the lack of details about either proposal? Will checks really go out? Will that fiscal-consolidation plan be one that voters would approve? |
| In 1980, Congress was not perfect or above political calculation. Postponing final action delayed difficult pre-election votes and gave incumbents time to campaign. But that Congress also used its lame-duck session to complete substantial work. It’s also not that everything was better “back in the day” or that an outgoing Congress should just stop governing: It’s that there is still work worth expecting from people holding Congressional seats. Lawmakers on either side of the aisle can insist on seeing proposals, debating costs, and hearing from those affected before supporting legislation. An abbreviated calendar should be the exact reason to get answers, never an excuse to skip the questions. |
| “Big surprises” sound fun, but when they create unanswered questions around our money and the programs we use, that suspense loses its appeal. Asking what it costs, who will pay, and what happens next doesn’t spoil the fun. The terms should never be saved for the time after the ballots are cast and counted. |
| Yes, the midterms are crucial this year. But keeping everyone guessing is only fun in an actual game of “duck, duck, goose.” Before politicians ask to keep their seats, they owe us more than a promise to explain it all later. Voters should choose their representatives and never find themselves running in circles, chasing them for an explanation or a check. |
Faithfully,  |
P.S. I want to hear your take on this. Hit reply and share your biggest takeaway from today’s issue. (Yes, this goes straight to my inbox.) |
NOTES |
HOW DID WE DO TODAY? |
