Both Parties Must Work Together
With Democrats taking control of Congress, both parties face an uncomfortable question: When did winning political arguments become more important than solving America’s problems?
Republicans promised fiscal responsibility. The deficit grew. They promised to expose government waste, but their own savings claims failed independent scrutiny. They promised economic relief, yet Americans confronted gasoline above $4 a gallon, diesel above $6, persistent inflation, and mortgage rates exceeding 7%.
They promised to avoid prolonged foreign wars. Instead, the United States entered another costly conflict, accompanied by assurances that a resolution was just weeks away.
Yesterday, voters handed Democrats control of the House and Senate. The political balance changed, but the country’s problems did not.
Republican explanations will follow. The media was unfair. Democrats misled voters. Outside money influenced the election. Republican voters stayed home. Some arguments may have merit, but none substitutes for examining what Republicans accomplished with the authority voters gave them in 2024.
Americans expected stronger borders, lower prices, fiscal responsibility, economic opportunity, and greater government accountability. Those were legitimate expectations. The question is whether the results matched the promises.
The Economy Americans Actually Experienced
Washington spent much of 2026 debating whether the economy was strong. American families were confronting a different set of numbers.
By Election Day, regular gasoline averaged $4.15 per gallon nationally, compared with $3.04 a year earlier. Diesel averaged $6.29, up from $3.68. Those increases affected farmers, truckers, manufacturers, and ultimately consumers.
Annual inflation stood at 3.7% in September, while the average 30-year mortgage rate reached 7.24% in late October. Families faced higher borrowing costs, businesses struggled with expensive financing, and retirees continued absorbing years of accumulated price increases.
Not every problem originated with this administration. Global energy markets, Federal Reserve policy, international conflicts, and earlier fiscal decisions all contributed.
But policy choices matter. The Iran conflict contributed to higher energy prices. Tariffs increased costs for certain businesses and consumers. Federal borrowing added pressure to financial markets, although its precise effect on interest rates is difficult to isolate.
Americans were entitled to ask whether government policies were providing economic relief or adding to their financial burdens.
Fiscal Responsibility Cannot Depend on Party Affiliation
Republicans have spent decades warning about excessive government spending. Yet fiscal year 2026 ended with a deficit approaching $2 trillion, approximately $218 billion higher than the previous year. By early October, gross federal debt had reached $40.25 trillion.
Both parties contributed to that debt, and Republicans inherited substantial financial obligations. But they also made decisions that affected its future.
The Republican-backed 2025 reconciliation law extended tax provisions, reduced spending in several federal programs, and increased funding for other priorities. Supporters argued that these changes would encourage investment and economic growth.
The Congressional Budget Office, however, estimated that the legislation would increase cumulative federal deficits by approximately $3.4 trillion over ten years, excluding additional debt-service costs.
That was a legislative choice, not simply an inherited problem.
Tax relief can be sound economic policy, but reducing revenue without sufficient offsets has fiscal consequences. Republicans should have acknowledged those consequences and explained how they intended to address them.
If trillion-dollar deficits were unacceptable under Democratic administrations, they should be unacceptable under Republican administrations.
DOGE: When the Numbers Didn’t Add Up
Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency promised to expose waste and save taxpayers enormous sums. Its objective was worthwhile. Government should be efficient, transparent, and accountable.
But the Government Accountability Office’s August 2026 review identified serious deficiencies in DOGE’s reported savings.
As of July 7, DOGE claimed $110 billion in savings from contracts, grants, and leases. GAO could not verify the methodology behind 96% of reported grant savings. DOGE also claimed more than $1.7 billion in savings from a Defense Health Agency contract that was never terminated. GAO found no savings from that item.
Some DOGE actions produced potential savings, and those deserve recognition. But unsupported accounting should concern every fiscal conservative.
Government efficiency must be measured through verified savings, improved services, and sustainable spending reductions—not impressive headlines.
Tariffs: The Difference Between Promises and Results
President Trump repeatedly presented tariffs as a way to protect American industries, generate revenue, and make foreign countries pay.
Tariffs can provide negotiating leverage and protect strategic industries. But American importers pay them, and substantial costs can reach businesses and consumers.
Research by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that tariffs increased consumer prices, including through higher costs for manufacturers relying on imported components.
On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not authorize the president to impose tariffs, creating substantial refund obligations.
Republicans should have demanded clearer answers about which industries benefited, who paid more, and whether American manufacturing became more competitive. Trade policy should be measured by actual investment, productivity, wages, and economic security.
The War and the Limits of Presidential Promises
Trump campaigned on ending conflicts and avoiding prolonged foreign wars. On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched military strikes against Iran.
Iran presents legitimate national security concerns. But Americans also deserve clearly defined military objectives, credible cost estimates, and an exit strategy.
On March 31, Trump suggested the United States could conclude its military campaign within two or three weeks. The conflict continued beyond that timetable.
Presidents cannot control every development in a military conflict. But when they offer specific timelines, they create expectations and assume responsibility for explaining why those expectations were not met.
Congress has an equally important obligation to demand clear objectives and oversee military expenditures.
On March 5, 215 House Republicans voted against a resolution directing the removal of American forces from unauthorized hostilities with Iran. Supporters argued that the president needed flexibility, while critics emphasized Congress’s constitutional responsibilities.
But Republican opposition subsequently grew. On June 3, the House voted 215–208 in favor of a war-powers resolution seeking to end unauthorized American military involvement. Four Republicans joined Democrats, demonstrating that concern about the conflict had crossed party lines.
That distinction matters. Not every Republican lawmaker simply followed the White House, and congressional independence should be acknowledged regardless of party.
Supporting America’s military does not require unquestioning support for every military decision.
The Warning Signs Were Visible
A Reuters/Ipsos survey conducted October 29–November 2 found Trump’s approval rating at 32%. Among likely voters, 52% supported or leaned toward Democratic congressional candidates, compared with 44% for Republicans.
Those numbers cannot establish why every voter made a particular choice. Candidate quality, turnout, local concerns, and historical midterm patterns also matter. But they demonstrated dissatisfaction Republican leaders could not reasonably ignore.
Republicans can point to tax relief, deregulation, investment incentives, and border enforcement as accomplishments. Those policies deserve fair consideration.
But Americans experience the economy through household expenses, not presidential announcements. A rising stock market does not automatically resolve financial pressure on a family struggling with groceries, insurance, or a mortgage.
Voters are entitled to compare what leaders promised with what they experienced.
Democrats: Victory Is Not Permission to Waste Two Years
Democrats now face their own test.
They can devote the next two years to politically motivated investigations, treating impeachment as a substitute for an economic agenda. Or they can demonstrate that they understand the responsibilities of governing.
Congress must investigate credible allegations of wrongdoing. Impeachment remains a legitimate constitutional remedy when the evidence warrants it. Oversight and productive legislation are not competing responsibilities; Congress can and should do both.
There are practical opportunities for bipartisan progress.
First, Congress could establish a credible long-term fiscal framework addressing spending, debt reduction, and the sustainability of Social Security and Medicare.
Second, lawmakers could address affordability through housing construction, permitting reform, energy infrastructure, and healthcare competition.
Third, both parties could strengthen accountability by requiring independently verified federal savings reports and more transparent reporting of major government programs.
These proposals will require difficult negotiations. With a Republican president remaining in office, meaningful legislation will require compromise.
Impeachment proceedings do not themselves lower grocery prices. Televised confrontations do not balance the budget. Political victories do not repair infrastructure or strengthen retirement security.
Democrats should not allow opposition to Donald Trump to become their entire governing identity. They now share responsibility for confronting the problems they criticized Republicans for failing to solve.
The Lesson Washington Keeps Refusing to Learn
Republican losses do not prove that conservative principles are wrong. Nor does Democratic control of Congress establish that Democrats have better answers to every national problem.
But the election provides an opportunity to examine what was promised, what was delivered, and what should have been done differently.
The national debt still exceeds $40 trillion. Energy prices remain elevated. Housing is expensive, families face financial pressure, and America needs a credible foreign policy.
Republicans should examine their governing record without treating every criticism of Trump as an attack on conservatism. Democrats should recognize that investigating an administration cannot substitute for addressing the country’s needs.
Both parties should challenge their own leaders, acknowledge inconvenient facts, and accept responsibility for the decisions they make.
The American people do not elect members of Congress simply to campaign, investigate their opponents, or defend their political parties.
We elect them to govern.
Sources and References
- AAA — National Fuel Prices, November 3, 2026.
- Bureau of Labor Statistics — Consumer Price Index, September 2026.
- Freddie Mac — Primary Mortgage Market Survey, October 29, 2026.
- Congressional Budget Office — Monthly Budget Review, September 2026.
- Congressional Budget Office — Effects on Deficits and Debt of Public Law 119-21, August 2025.
- Government Accountability Office — DOGE Wall of Receipts, August 6, 2026.
- Federal Reserve Bank of New York — The Anatomy of Tariff Pass-Through into Consumer Prices, September 2026.
- U.S. Supreme Court — Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, February 20, 2026.
- Reuters — House Votes for Measure That Would End Iran War, June 3, 2026.
- Reuters/Ipsos — Early November Survey, November 2, 2026.
Leave a Reply