Loading this candidate’s profile from the FEC filings and campaign records.
Where They Stand is a nonpartisan guide to everyone running for Congress: their money, their own words and how incumbents voted. Find your ballot →
Loading this candidate’s profile from the FEC filings and campaign records.
Where They Stand is a nonpartisan guide to everyone running for Congress: their money, their own words and how incumbents voted. Find your ballot →
Candidates › ID-01 race › 2025–2026
I Independent nominee for U.S. House, ID-01
Has not served in Congress
No campaign site or public profiles are attached to this record yet.
15 priorities from zabelforcongress.com, in the order they are listed there. Every heading and the text under it is copied exactly, as one passage for each page it is from, and links to that place on the page; hover a source to see which passage it opens.
- Fix Social Security before the funds run out. This calls for a balanced approach: raise revenue and reduce payouts for the highest earners while extending the program to more people.
- Get the national debt under control. Last year we paid more in interest than we spent on defense, and the consequences are landing on every family. Raise revenue and reduce expenditures while we grow the economy.
- Bring down the cost of health care. Premiums keep rising and too many Idahoans are one bill away from a crisis. Attack the waste in all cost areas—including hospital services, physician services, and prescription drugs—not just insurance.
- Protect our public lands. Keep Idaho's public lands public. They belong to all of us, and I'll oppose efforts to sell them off or use them destructively.
That's just the start.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · zabelforcongress.com
Heading as listed on zabelforcongress.com ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com at this heading) · “31-Year Veteran. Retired Air Force Major General. Neighbor.Still serving.” on zabelforcongress.com ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com at this heading)
Housing is the top budget priority for Idahoans three years running, and with good reason: more than half of renters say they can't afford to buy because prices are too high. The federal government can help by removing obstacles that drive up building, outfitting, and insurance costs for new housing, starting with tariffs and a broken worker visa system. Read the policy outline →
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · zabelforcongress.com/what-i-stand-for
Build more houses, and remove the obstacles that make it harder and costlier to do so.
The intuitive solution to the housing shortage is the right one: build more houses. How many, what type, and where is a problem best left to the states to determine. But the federal government has a role too. Entire new neighborhoods will be required, and that drives costs and considerations beyond the initial build.
Those who create the economy ought to be able to live in it.
I propose a solution set that has the federal government remove obstacles that would otherwise pile costs on new home buyers.
Proposal 1 — Building Costs ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/policy-outlines at this heading)
Unwind the tariff regime that increases both the initial costs of building materials and appliances and that of insurers for replacements. Tariffs are a tax on American home buyers: they raise costs at every stage of construction and drive up insurance premiums when homes need to be repaired or rebuilt.
Proposal 2 — Infrastructure
When the states identify what, where, and how much they want to build, the federal government should provide grants to extend public infrastructure, such as roads and utilities, to those areas. New neighborhoods require new connections; that cost should not fall on initial buyers.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · zabelforcongress.com/policy-outlines
Idaho's agricultural exports are not a sideline, they are essential to our economy. Tariffs raise the costs of fertilizer and other raw materials, invite retaliation, and destroy confidence in the reliability of our supply. When markets move elsewhere, they are not readily recovered. Other federal policies and proposals further increase the stress on our agricultural industry, threatening access to public lands and the existence of an adequate agricultural workforce. Drop the tariffs and commit to reasonable immigration reform. Read the policy outline →
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · zabelforcongress.com/what-i-stand-for
Idaho feeds the world. The obstacles in front of us now are ones we put there ourselves.
Idaho grows food products that the world depends on. Our struggles now result largely from self-inflicted wounds, and the solutions are clear.
Drop the Tariffs ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/policy-outlines at this heading)
Tariffs raise the costs of fertilizer and other raw materials, invite retaliation from trading partners, and destroy confidence in the reliability of our supply. When markets move elsewhere, they are not readily recovered.
Reform Immigration ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/policy-outlines at this heading)
Legitimize and support the workers our agricultural sector depends on. Idaho's farms, dairies, and food processors rely on workers that the domestic labor market doesn't supply in adequate numbers. Restricting that labor doesn't protect American jobs, it leaves crops in the field and businesses on the edge of failure. The immigration reform outlined below addresses this directly.
Build Confidence, Not Uncertainty ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/policy-outlines at this heading)
Commit to the world that we will continue to be there as reliable producers. Trading relationships are built on trust and long time horizons. Unpredictable policy — tariffs imposed and lifted, supply threatened by workforce disruptions — undermines that trust and drives buyers to establish supply chains elsewhere.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · zabelforcongress.com/policy-outlines
Idaho's farms, dairies, and food processors depend on workers that the domestic labor market doesn't supply in adequate numbers. Restricting that labor doesn't protect American jobs, it leaves crops in the field and businesses on the edge of failure. We need to match legal immigration pathways to what the economy actually needs. We also need enforcement that is fair and consistent, because uncertainty drives workers underground and makes the planning that businesses depend on impossible.Read the policy outline →
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · zabelforcongress.com/what-i-stand-for
A dual-track solution: build the right system for the future, and deal appropriately with those already here.
Immigration reform is a deeply emotional issue, without an easy, one-size-fits-all solution. There may be as many as 14 million undocumented – illegal – immigrants residing in the U.S. Among them are gang members who strapped on a backpack filled with drugs to pay their way into U.S. cities, as well as the families of Afghans who sacrificed their safety by helping U.S. forces during the long occupation of their home country. There are repeat criminals, who return over and over again after being deported, and families who have lived peacefully, worked, and paid taxes and social security for decades. There are refugees, who, though they mean no harm, can quickly overwhelm community resources like schools and clinical care. No one characterization can cover 14 million people, and there are no quick solutions.
At the same time, our economy depends on foreign workers to augment those from the U.S., and there are significant mismatches between what our economy needs and what our immigration system provides. This sort of complex problem is best solved by breaking into manageable pieces. First, we need to control our border effectively, with full funding to need and smart use of technology. From there, I propose a dual-track solution: devise our preferred future framework separately from dealing with the undocumented immigrants already here.
Track One
Building the Right System Going Forward
Start with a clear-eyed snapshot of our current needs for temporary, seasonal, non-seasonal, and highly-skilled workers. Set reasonable visa goals for each category, with a process for periodic revision. Fund integration so that communities aren't overwhelmed.
Track Two
Dealing with Those Already Here
It took us a long time to get to the level of dysfunction we have seen in immigration, and it will take real effort to fix it. Those here without authorization should not be, but we have run a historically inefficient system, with years-long backlogs. We need to work through each category for the right disposition.
Track One: The Future Framework ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/policy-outlines at this heading)
The future solution should start with a snapshot of our current needs for temporary, seasonal, non-seasonal, and highly-skilled workers. We already have visa programs to cover most of these categories. I support the Securing Agriculture's Workforce Act to fill out more of our needs.
Congress should set reasonable visa goals for all categories, with a process for revising those goals periodically. That's our baseline, and we provide funding for integrating immigrants into communities so that schools, clinics, and other community resources are not overwhelmed.
Integration Costs — Worker Visas ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/policy-outlines at this heading)
For worker visas, the states should be responsible for integration costs. Workers entering through visa programs bring economic benefit; the states should throttle up and down the number of workers and families they accept by balancing economic gain with the costs of their integration into communities.
Integration Costs — Refugees and TPS ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/policy-outlines at this heading)
Refugees or others in Temporary Protected Status arrive through federal humanitarian programs, and the federal government should bear the cost of their integration into the communities that receive them.
Executive Flexibility, With Guardrails ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/policy-outlines at this heading)
Every year in execution, the executive needs to be able to adjust to current realities, which might include opening the door to more refugees or restricting immigration from specific sources. But when the executive acts, it must do so within guardrails. If the executive increases the number of immigrants, they cover integration costs without increasing borrowing. When the executive reduces immigration below expectation, they make up for lost tax revenue and Social Security contributions, again, without increasing borrowing. They respond as needed, with responsibility for the impacts to our communities and our future.
Enforcement and the Courts ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/policy-outlines at this heading)
The system only works if it is enforced consistently and adjudicated fairly. Border enforcement and immigration courts must both be fully resourced to need. Understaffed courts produce the multi-year backlogs that undermine confidence in the entire system.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has earned its reputation as a deeply unprofessional organization, with deadly consequences. I support gut-level reform of the organization and accountability for those who committed crimes, all the way up to the highest levels of organizational leadership.
Track Two: The Undocumented Already Here ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/policy-outlines at this heading)
The undocumented immigrants already here need special handling. They should not be here without authorization, but we have traditionally run a sadly inefficient immigration system, with average wait times to see an immigration judge that has extended up to five years. Once again, we are facing a complex problem that is best handled in manageable pieces.
Serious Crimes ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/policy-outlines at this heading)
People here illegally who have committed serious crimes should be deported.
The Dreamers ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/policy-outlines at this heading)
Dreamers should immediately receive green cards: lawful permanent residency. They were brought here as children. They had no choice and committed no crime in coming here.
Agricultural Workers ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/policy-outlines at this heading)
I support the Securing Agriculture's Workforce Act as the right vehicle for establishing a pathway to legitimate temporary worker status for the agricultural workers who are already here, and will continue to push for its passage or an equivalent solution that meets Idaho's needs.
Everyone Else ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/policy-outlines at this heading)
Beyond agricultural workers, there will be identifiable groups and solutions crafted to address those needs. At some point, we may need to go case by case to determine an outcome. But we are talking about people, even if not citizens, meeting proven economic needs, and shared responsibility for where we are today. No one word covers 14 million people, not amnesty, and not deport.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · zabelforcongress.com/policy-outlines
Our federal government holds extraordinary powers, including the use of deadly force at home and abroad. Federal agents enjoy presumptive immunity and our military must presume orders are lawful. Our government needs these powers to respond quickly and effectively to threats from within and outside the country. But in our system, the power ultimately lies with the people, and federal agencies and the individuals in them must be accountable to Congress, as the people's branch of government. In the last year, we've seen Americans killed on the streets by federal agents and hundreds of Idaho citizens and legal residents detained at a family event in Wilder. From the Nassar case to the Epstein files, we see evidence that serious crimes were reported over and over again to federal authorities, while they failed to respond adequately. And, the thousands of American lives lost in Korea and Vietnam taught us painful lessons about the consequences of committing military forces to combat without clear congressional authorization — lessons that led directly to the War Powers Act of 1973. We owe it to their memories, and to the veterans of those wars still living in Idaho today, to make sure our service members are entered into military conflicts only with the authorization of Congress and the backing of law. Congress must hold federal agents and agencies accountable, by our laws, the people harmed cannot do so directly. I support restructuring Inspector General positions to report directly to Congress, strengthening whistleblower protections, and restoring rigorous Congressional oversight of federal agencies and the use of military force. Read the policy outline →
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · zabelforcongress.com/what-i-stand-for
Hold the government accountable to the people it serves, through independent oversight, protected whistleblowers, and a Congress that exercises the authority the Constitution gives it.
Federal agencies operate with extraordinary powers, including detention, use of force, and the commitment of military lives. The people those agencies affect often have no direct legal recourse. That places the full burden of accountability on Congress, which has not consistently carried it. Inspectors General are structurally compromised. Whistleblowers face retaliation with limited protection. Congressional oversight has atrophied. And the authorization and aftermath of military force have both been treated as optional. These are serious problems, but solvable.
Restructure Inspectors General ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/policy-outlines at this heading)
Inspectors General are supposed to provide independent oversight of waste, fraud, abuse, and misconduct in federal agencies, but they report to the agency heads they oversee, which limits their independence at the source. I support restructuring all federal IGs to report directly to Congress rather than to the agencies they are charged with scrutinizing, with appointment and removal authority vested accordingly.
Strengthen Whistleblower Protections ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/policy-outlines at this heading)
Federal whistleblowers are often the first people to detect and report serious misconduct, and they face real retaliation for doing so. Current law limits their recourse to administrative processes that agencies can obstruct or delay. I support guaranteeing federal employees the right to take retaliation cases to federal court, and closing the security clearance loophole that allows agencies to silence national security whistleblowers.
Restore Congressional Oversight of Spending ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/policy-outlines at this heading)
Congress appropriates funds but frequently loses visibility into how they are used. I support requiring agencies to provide Congress with timely visibility into spending and fund reprogramming, and restoring Congress's authority to claw back funds that were unused or obligated in ways that were not authorized.
Honor the Authorization of Force, and Its Aftermath ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/policy-outlines at this heading)
The War Powers Resolution exists because Congress recognized that war affects the entire nation and cannot be entered into on a single person's determination. I support reforming the law to close the loopholes that presidents of both parties have exploited, requiring an affirmative congressional vote to sustain military operations rather than letting congressional inaction stand as tacit approval.
The obligation to service members and veterans does not end when the fighting stops. I support fully funding the PACT Act, which provides health care for veterans suffering burn pit exposure from Iraq and Afghanistan. I also support the Major Richard Star Act, which would end the unjust dollar-for-dollar reduction of retirement pay for combat-injured veterans who are medically retired prior to reaching 20 years of service.
Let me be clear. This page is about changes to policy. Congress already has substantial oversight responsibilities, and as your representative, I will not let recent or ongoing violations of law or conscience lie.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · zabelforcongress.com/policy-outlines
We pay almost a trillion dollars in interest on the national debt every year, with roughly 30 percent of that debt held by investors abroad, from foreign governments to private institutions. That money isn't building roads or securing our borders — it's gone.
$1T+ ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/fiscal-stewardship at this heading)
Projected FY26 interest payments
on the national debt
3× ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/fiscal-stewardship at this heading)
U.S. sovereign credit downgrades
by major rating agencies
19% ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/fiscal-stewardship at this heading)
Share of all federal revenue consumed
by interest payments in FY 2025
The Stakes ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/fiscal-stewardship at this heading)
A debt problem that has moved from abstract to concrete.
Experts disagree on exactly how much national debt is too much, but wherever that line is, we've crossed it. The United States now pays over a trillion dollars in interest on the debt each year... not on programs, not on services, but on the cost of having borrowed too much for too long.
The consequences are no longer theoretical. As debt grows relative to the size of the economy, investors demand higher interest rates to compensate for greater fiscal risk. That dynamic has been underscored by credit downgrades from the top three rating agencies. Higher Treasury rates feed directly into higher borrowing costs for households and businesses, pushing up mortgage rates, auto loans, student debt, and business financing. The national debt is not an abstract bookkeeping issue. It is a concrete driver of the affordability pressures families feel every day.
My approach to beginning to manage the national debt is threefold: reduce expenditures by reforming and right-sizing what we ask the federal government to do, lower the cost of government by streamlining the laws and policies that drive more burden than value, and collect adequate revenue by reforming the tax code. The proposals that follow address all three. They are not a complete solution — the debt did not accumulate in one Congress and will not be resolved in one — but they are a serious contribution to a problem that neither party has been willing to address squarely.
The Core Argument ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/fiscal-stewardship at this heading)
Fiscal stewardship is not about bigger or smaller government. It is about government that is funded, focused, and functional. Government that collects what it needs, spends what it commits to, and stops when the job is done.
Why Congress Has Failed to Act ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/fiscal-stewardship at this heading)
Neither party has been willing to do all of what's required.
Republicans have repeatedly chosen tax cuts over fiscal discipline, betting that growth will cover the gap. It hasn't. Democrats have been reluctant to reform government programs even when those programs have become outdated or ineffective. Neither approach produces the result we need.
The result is a debt that grows through both expansions and recessions, through Republican and Democratic administrations alike. Closing the gap requires doing several things at once: raising more revenue, reducing wasteful and unauthorized spending, and reforming the laws that make government more expensive and less effective than it has to be. The drivers below explain why no single-lever approach will work.
Revenue ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/fiscal-stewardship at this heading)
The government has repeatedly committed to spending it cannot collect.
A century of evidence shows that changes in tax rates have had very small effects on economic growth, often barely measurable. What reduced rates do reliably produce is a growing gap between what the government has committed to spend and what it actually collects.
Spending ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/fiscal-stewardship at this heading)
Executive overreach has added costs Congress didn't authorize.
Both parties have allowed the executive branch to spend money in ways Congress never sanctioned, from unilateral student loan cancellation to unauthorized military operations to extravagant procurement. Congress must reassert its constitutional role over the purse.
Budget Process ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/fiscal-stewardship at this heading)
Congress hasn't passed a budget on time in decades.
In the last 50 years, Congress has met its own deadline for passing all twelve appropriations bills only four times. The resulting cycle of continuing resolutions, shutdown threats, and emergency spending drives real administrative costs, forces agencies into perpetual contingency planning, and makes disciplined long-term fiscal management nearly impossible.
Outdated Laws ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/fiscal-stewardship at this heading)
Laws that cost more than they deliver don't go away on their own.
We have a long history of adding laws and regulations to address the problems of the day, but little history of revisiting what isn't working. Administering ineffective laws makes government bigger and more costly without making it better.
Before interest
We Spend More Than We Collect — Before a Single Interest Payment
The federal government spends more than it collects, before paying a dollar of interest. That means the debt isn't just a legacy of past decisions. We are adding to it right now, every single day.
1 in 5 Dollars
One of every five dollars you pay in taxes goes to interest on the national debt. Nothing built. No one defended. No family served.
The Plan ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/fiscal-stewardship at this heading)
Three pillars of a serious start.
Getting the debt under control requires acting on all three fronts simultaneously: spending discipline, government reform, and revenue. No single pillar is sufficient, and this plan does not claim otherwise. What it offers is a defensible, actionable contribution to a long-term project that will require sustained effort across multiple Congresses. Click any pillar to expand the policy details.
The goal is not to balance the budget. The goal is to stop the debt from growing faster than the economy, a more achievable target that still requires closing a large share of the annual deficit. If every proposal here is enacted, we get roughly 35 to 40 percent of the way there. That's a meaningful start. The remaining gap is real, and closing it will be the work of multiple Congresses, but the commitment to finding and implementing further reductions doesn't end here.
Control Executive Spending
Constitutional limits · Unauthorized expenditures · Congressional oversight
Reassert Congressional Authority Over Spending ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/fiscal-stewardship at this heading)
The Constitution is explicit: Congress writes the laws and controls the purse. The executive branch executes those laws. When the executive spends money in ways Congress never authorized — whether canceling hundreds of billions in student debt by fiat, conducting military operations without legal authority, or refurbishing aircraft for discretionary use — it is not just a constitutional violation. It drives real costs to taxpayers that Congress never approved.
Reform Laws That Cost More Than They Deliver
A reformed USDS · Budget process · APA · CFO Act · Tax code · Permitting
Reform and Recharge the U.S. Digital Service Under the GAO ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/fiscal-stewardship at this heading)
The U.S. Digital Service was established in the mid-2010s to modernize the information systems of federal agencies. I propose we subordinate a revitalized USDS under the GAO with a new mandate: to recommend changes to law, policy, and institutional structures that are more complex than they need to be. The remarkable productivity gains the private sector has achieved over the last century came primarily from technology applied to streamlined processes; the federal government should be no different. Laws and processes that are simpler to execute require fewer people to administer and impose less burden on the individuals and businesses that must comply with them. The organization would be time-limited by design so that it completes its work and does not become another permanent fixture of the bureaucracy it is meant to streamline and improve.
The following are among the first places to look: nominated areas for review, not a confirmed or complete reform agenda. Some may prove not to require reform; others not listed here may. A reformed USDS or GAO would help produce that assessment rigorously. Here is an example of what is possible.
Modernize the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/fiscal-stewardship at this heading)
The APA governs how federal agencies create rules and regulations. Modernizing it can lower compliance costs for regulated entities, reduce unpredictable judicial burdens, and streamline comment processes, while maintaining the core protections the law was crafted to preserve. The goal is not deregulation for its own sake; it is regulation that is faster, more legible, and less costly to administer.
Reform the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/fiscal-stewardship at this heading)
In the last 50 years, Congress has met the goal of passing all twelve appropriations bills before the start of the fiscal year only four times. The dysfunction that results — continuing resolutions, shutdown threats, and redundant planning cycles — forces agencies to spend real money on contingency budgets and repeated preparations. A reformed budget process is not just good governance; it is a cost reduction.
Replace Financial Statement Audits with Performance Audits ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/fiscal-stewardship at this heading)
The CFO Act of 1990 requires financial statement audits of federal agencies, a structure better suited to businesses than to government entities. Most experts agree that government is better served by performance audits, which assess whether public resources are actually achieving their intended outcomes, rather than simply confirming that accounting records are accurate. I support transitioning to a performance audit model that follows the flow of resources and asks whether the spending is justified by results.
Simplify the Internal Revenue Code ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/fiscal-stewardship at this heading)
The tax code has grown very complex, driving administrative burden to the IRS and to taxpayers alike. A simpler code, one with fewer carve-outs and special treatments, reduces compliance costs, narrows the opportunities for avoidance, and is easier for the IRS to enforce.
Streamline Federal Permitting ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/fiscal-stewardship at this heading)
Reforms to the National Environmental Policy Act and the federal permitting process could cut out years of delay and reduce duplicative environmental analysis without weakening substantive environmental standards. Streamlined timelines and better-coordinated reviews serve both project proponents and the public. Read the NEPA reform example.
Refocus the Federal Criminal Code ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/fiscal-stewardship at this heading)
Federal criminal law has expanded far beyond uniquely federal offenses. I support refocusing it on conduct that genuinely requires a federal response and returning primary responsibility for other crimes to the states, which are better positioned to handle them efficiently.
Collect Fair and Adequate Revenue
Corporate taxes · Individual rates · Estate taxes · Loopholes · IRS enforcement
Fully Staff the IRS and Pursue Tax Evasion ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/fiscal-stewardship at this heading)
Years of IRS budget cuts have reduced the agency's ability to audit high-income returns and pursue sophisticated tax evasion schemes. Every dollar invested in IRS enforcement capacity returns significantly more in recovered revenue. A fully staffed IRS focused on high-income and corporate tax evasion is one of the most cost-effective fiscal tools available.
Restore and Enforce the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/fiscal-stewardship at this heading)
The Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax was designed to ensure that profitable corporations pay at least a baseline level of tax regardless of deductions and credits. It should be fully restored and enforced so that profitable companies cannot use accounting strategies to eliminate their federal tax liability entirely.
Close Tax Loopholes Used to Avoid Taxes ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/fiscal-stewardship at this heading)
High-income individuals and large corporations have access to a range of strategies — pass-through structuring, offshore arrangements, and others — that allow them to legally reduce their tax burden far below the statutory rate. I support a systematic effort to identify and close these loopholes.
Raise the Corporate Tax Rate ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/fiscal-stewardship at this heading)
The Congressional Budget Office has analyzed the impacts of raising the corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 22 and to 28 percent. I favor increasing it to 28 percent, with further analysis of the impacts of 30 and 35 percent. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act cut the corporate rate sharply on the promise of investment and growth, but the primary documented effect has been debt growth, not economic expansion.
Raise Rates on the Highest Earners — Leave All Lower Rates Alone ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/fiscal-stewardship at this heading)
I support raising the top individual income tax rates, targeting earners above roughly the 95th percentile. The proposed structure: a rate of 39.6% for income above approximately $320,000 (single filers) and $640,000 (married filing jointly); and a rate of 43% for income above approximately $500,000 (single filers) and $1,000,000 (married filing jointly). These figures are notional; they will be calibrated at enactment and indexed to reflect income growth.
Coordination note: My Social Security reform proposal raises the taxable earnings ceiling, increasing payroll contributions for earners in roughly the $184,500–$310,000 range. The income tax thresholds above will be calibrated in light of whatever Social Security ceiling reform is enacted, so that no single income band faces an undue compounding of both changes at once.
Restore Estate and Gift Taxes ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/fiscal-stewardship at this heading)
I support restoring estate and gift taxes to the levels that would have applied upon expiration of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, had the One Big Beautiful Bill Act not replaced them. Wealth passed between generations should be subject to a fair level of taxation.
Increase Capital Gains Taxes for Higher-Earning Households ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/fiscal-stewardship at this heading)
The preferential tax treatment of capital gains disproportionately benefits the highest-earning households, for whom investment income makes up a large share of total income. I support raising capital gains taxes for households at the upper end of the income distribution.
What I Oppose: Wealth Taxes and Taxes on Unrealized Gains ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/fiscal-stewardship at this heading)
I oppose annual wealth taxes (other than estate and gift taxes) and taxes on unrealized capital gains. These approaches raise significant practical and constitutional concerns, and could drive asset liquidations that harm the markets and the broader economy. Our goal is adequate revenue, not the most aggressive conceivable tax structure.
The Bottom Line ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/fiscal-stewardship at this heading)
We fund what we commit to. We limit what we start. And we stop when the job is done. That is not an ideological position. It is the basic discipline that makes everything else possible.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · zabelforcongress.com/fiscal-stewardship
$5.3T ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/health-care at this heading)
U.S. health expenditures
in 2024
18%
Share of GDP spent on
health care today
20.3% ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/health-care at this heading)
Projected GDP share by 2033
without reform
What we're working on
A cost crisis and an access crisis, each making the other worse.
When people talk about America's health care problem, they usually mean the price tag. And the price tag is real: the United States spent $5.3 trillion on health care in 2024: $15,474 per person, 18 percent of everything the economy produced. Without reform, CMS projects that share climbs to 20.3 percent of GDP by 2033. Because wages have historically grown more slowly than the economy as a whole, that increase will hit families even harder than the raw numbers suggest.
But the problem isn't only cost. The U.S. delivers lower life expectancy and higher rates of preventable death than the average peer nation, despite spending roughly two and a half times as much per person. That gap isn't explained by better outcomes. We are paying more and getting less.
Cost and access feed each other. When costs rise, people drop coverage or delay care. When people delay care, conditions worsen and become more expensive to treat, driving costs higher. When the uninsured show up in emergency rooms, those costs get shifted onto everyone else's premiums. Breaking this spiral requires addressing both sides at once.
We are seeing it happen to us. Idahoans got a rude surprise when 2026 health insurance costs were revealed. Employer-sponsored group insurance rose to roughly $18,500 per employee. When federal subsidies expired at the end of 2025, individual and small-business premiums climbed sharply, and an estimated 35,000 Idahoans lost Marketplace coverage as a result. And in rural Idaho, the problem has an additional dimension that no market theory resolves: in many communities, there is simply one hospital, one clinic, one option. Reform has to work for those communities, not just for cities where competition is at least theoretically possible.
The goal of this plan is to bend the cost curve back down — for families, employers, and government together — while protecting and expanding access, with particular attention to the rural communities that are most exposed when the system fails.
The Core Problem ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/health-care at this heading)
Health care doesn't behave like a normal market. Adding competition doesn't automatically bring prices down, and in rural Idaho, there often isn't any competition at all.
The Particular Challenge ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/health-care at this heading)
The U.S. has a market-based health care system. The problem is that health care doesn't behave like a market.
Unlike virtually every other high-income country, the U.S. relies on private insurance and private providers, with prices influenced by market forces rather than government-set budgets. Markets are almost always the right answer, so why isn't competition solving this?
Several reasons, each reinforcing the others:
Fixed Costs ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/health-care at this heading)
Hospitals can't compete on price the way other businesses can.
Just to open its doors, a hospital needs a 24/7 emergency department, ICUs, operating rooms, specialized equipment, and large administrative infrastructure. Adding a second hospital nearby doesn't reduce costs; instead, it raises the average cost per patient for both. Think of a hospital like an airport. If you plop a new one down by an old one, you don't get competition, you get under-utilization of both.
A Different Kind of Spending Pressure ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/health-care at this heading)
Non-profit status removes the shareholder — it doesn't remove the spending pressure.
Kootenai Health, St. Luke's, St. Alphonsus, and most of Idaho's individual insurance providers are non-profit or not-for-profit entities. They don't pay dividends or answer to shareholders. But I spent years working on Air Force budgets, and the Air Force doesn't make a profit either. It answers to Congress, undergoes rigorous audits, and still has well-documented inefficiencies and cost overruns. Removing the profit motive changes the incentive structure; it doesn't eliminate the spending pressure or guarantee disciplined use of resources.
Silent Consumers ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/health-care at this heading)
Patients rarely control the cost-versus-value tradeoff.
With treatments and drugs, the consumer rarely gets to weigh costs against benefits themselves. Someone else makes those choices, which breaks the feedback loop that normally constrains prices in a competitive market.
Rural Reality ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/health-care at this heading)
In much of Idaho, there is no competition to leverage.
In rural areas, residents are fortunate to have a single provider of any service. Market-based pricing theories simply don't apply. Any reform must protect this reality, not paper over it.
The Single-Payer Alternative ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/health-care at this heading)
Why not Medicare for All?
If the markets are failing us, why not just go to a European system? Why not "Medicare for All" or another single-payer solution? I don't disagree with the goals: universal coverage and lower costs. The problem is that the proposed solution doesn't reliably get us there.
The case for fundamental change rests on a real fact: health care in the U.S. costs more and produces worse outcomes than in other high-income nations. Any replacement system would have to move the needle on costs, outcomes, or both, significantly. Otherwise the disruption isn't justified.
A wholesale shift to single-payer clears neither bar with confidence. On outcomes: for the roughly 160 million Americans with employer-sponsored coverage, the evidence suggests little change in individual experience. The gains are at the population-level. They come from extending coverage to people who currently go without: people in Idaho who are suffering or dying because they can't access care when they need it. That matters. But if we are not going to measurably improve outcomes for the majority of Americans, then it's hard to justify asking them to pay more. And on costs, whether Medicare for All pays for itself depends entirely on the assumptions you make going in. A 2019 RAND analysis estimated total national health expenditures would run 1.8 percent higher than the status quo. The Congressional Budget Office is more optimistic and projects lower overall costs. The honest answer is that nobody knows.
And here's the geographic problem. Rural hospitals don't break even on Medicare and Medicaid patients today. They stay open by charging private insurers more. Extending government reimbursement rates to all payers eliminates that cross-subsidy. Proponents argue that better-designed reimbursement rates could offset this; critics say the political durability of getting those details right, in a single legislative package, on a decade-long implementation timeline, is a significant gamble. For Idaho's First District — where in many communities there is one hospital, one clinic, one option — that gamble isn't abstract.
The plan on this page pursues the same underlying goals (expanded coverage, lower costs, less waste) through the structural reforms described above: restoring competition, reducing drug costs, expanding transparency, and patching the marketplace while those reforms take hold. If those reforms prove insufficient, the case for more fundamental restructuring deserves a serious hearing, with real evidence about what worked and what didn't. But we should know where we're going before we abandon what we have.
The Plan
Four pillars of reform. ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/health-care at this heading)
The goal is to take health care costs down several notches and constrain future growth, for both government programs and households, below normal inflation. This will be a long-term, evolving effort. Click any pillar to expand the policy details.
Restore Competition in Hospital & Physician Services
Site-neutral payments · Anti-trust enforcement · Fair pricing authority
Site-Neutral Payments ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/health-care at this heading)
Require Medicare and Tricare to pay the same amount for a service regardless of where it is delivered: in a hospital outpatient department, a physician's office, or an ambulatory care center. Limit hospital facility fees charged for services that don't require hospital-level care.
Anti-Trust & Anti-Monopoly Enforcement ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/health-care at this heading)
Strengthen and enforce laws to oppose and reverse vertical integration (the practice of hospitals buying up physician practices to eliminate competition and charge higher fees). Ban anti-competitive contracting clauses between hospitals and insurers.
Expand CMS Influence on Payment Rates and Scope of Practice ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/health-care at this heading)
Physician payment rates are largely set through a process dominated by physician professional organizations, with predictable results. Expand CMS authority to set rates using transparent, data-driven methods that account for clinical complexity, resource use, and access needs by locality and specialty, independent of professional association lobbying. Expand use of nurse practitioners and physician assistants where clinical evidence supports equal outcomes, particularly in rural areas where physician shortages leave patients without options.
Protect Rural & Underserved Communities ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/health-care at this heading)
Phase in reforms gradually, with targeted subsidies where higher costs are genuinely necessary to sustain access. Reform the 340B drug pricing program as part of this effort.
Support Transparency & Comparative Effectiveness
Research · Pricing disclosure · Low-value service reduction
Fund Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/health-care at this heading)
Systematically compare different treatments, drugs, and care strategies to determine what works best for which patients under what circumstances. When doctors and patients can compare real-world outcomes — effectiveness, benefits, harms, and costs — the lowest-cost effective option wins more often.
Clinical Appropriateness Reporting ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/health-care at this heading)
Support Choosing Wisely initiatives to identify and reduce low-value physician services: those that cost money but don't improve outcomes.
Hospital & Insurer Pricing Transparency ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/health-care at this heading)
Require hospitals to publicly disclose actual negotiated prices, both what they pay for drugs and what they charge insurers and patients. Require insurers to disclose actual negotiated rates and allowed amounts for every payer, for every service.
Reduce Prescription Drug Costs
Patent reform · Generic entry · Reference pricing · PBM reform · Pharmaceutical surtax
Fund Basic Research ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/health-care at this heading)
Invest in methods and technologies that lower the cost of discovering, developing, testing, and manufacturing drugs and medical devices to reduce the cost basis before market pricing even begins.
Reform Patent Protection ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/health-care at this heading)
Enable earlier entry of generics and biosimilars. Crack down on patent thickets, ever-greening, and misuse of FDA's REMS program to block generic competition. Buy out patents on high-use, high-cost drugs. Support nonprofit or public manufacturing for critical generics prone to shortages.
Expand CMS Drug Price Negotiations and Reform Pharmacy Benefit Management ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/health-care at this heading)
Increase the list of drugs subject to Medicare price negotiation. On PBM reform: Congress took two important steps in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2026, requiring 100% rebate pass-through and banning spread pricing in Medicare Part D, effective 2028–2029. What remains unfinished is the commercial market: those same protections don't yet apply to employer-sponsored and individual plans, where most working-age Idahoans get their coverage. The deeper structural problem — insurers owning PBMs owning pharmacies, with each layer extracting margin — is largely untouched by the 2026 law and remains a primary target.
Reform U.S. Drug Pricing to Reflect International Reality ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/health-care at this heading)
Pharmaceutical companies charge Americans 2½ to 3 times what they charge patients in other high-income countries for the same drugs. The tools to address this are domestic: expand Medicare price negotiation, use international reference pricing to anchor what Medicare pays to what other wealthy nations pay, and apply that discipline to the commercial market over time.
Excess Pharmaceutical Profit Surtax (EPPS) ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/health-care at this heading)
Target a surtax on pharmaceutical firms earning double or more the standard return on invested capital. Big-name pharmaceutical firms routinely earn around double typical corporate returns. Revenue from the EPPS would reduce Medicaid and ACA costs and fund the near-term subsidy bridge while structural reforms take hold. As U.S. drug prices approach international benchmarks through negotiation and patent reform, the EPPS phases down accordingly.
Patch the Insurance Marketplace
Subsidy bridge · Surtax revenue · Stopping the coverage spiral
The Subsidy Cliff Problem ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/health-care at this heading)
When enhanced subsidies expired at the end of 2025, Idaho Marketplace premiums spiked sharply. An estimated 35,000 Idahoans lost coverage. Nationally, costs rose 114% out-of-pocket on average. When costs spike, healthier people drop coverage, leaving a sicker and more expensive pool. That drives premiums higher, causing more to drop out. Left unaddressed, it becomes self-reinforcing.
Use EPPS Revenue to Restore Subsidies ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/health-care at this heading)
Direct pharmaceutical surtax revenue toward restoring as much of the expired ACA subsidies as possible, prioritizing the reduction or elimination of the subsidy cliff, keeping coverage affordable for the broadest possible population while longer-term structural reforms take hold. This is a bridge to buy time for the structural reforms throughout the rest of this plan to reduce what coverage actually costs.
Monitor and Respond ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/health-care at this heading)
The 2026 coverage losses are now measurable. Track who dropped coverage, at what income levels, and what the downstream effects are on premiums, uncompensated care, and rural hospital finances. Use that data to calibrate the subsidy bridge and make the case to Congress for action. The goal is to arrest the spiral and reverse it.
The Big Picture of Reform ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/health-care at this heading)
Where we are, and where we’re going.
Our national conversation about health care costs has been focused too narrowly on shifting costs between the people and the federal government. No matter which way you push it, it’s a losing argument. The CMS projects that overall health care spending (including hospital costs, physician services, insurance, and prescription drug costs) will continue to grow by about 5.8% per year on into the future, outpacing inflation and income growth. It’s too much, no matter who pays the bill. And the kicker is, a series of studies shows that about a quarter of what we pay — a quarter of that $5.3 trillion per year — is waste. It’s valueless tests and procedures, lack of preventive care, and administrative hoops that patients and providers jump through before any care is delivered.
And yet, incredibly, we can make it worse. Congress’s actions in the current term — failing to extend the ACA expanded subsidies and enacting changes to Medicaid in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — reduce the amount of the federal budget directed toward health care. But in doing so, they added administrative complexity to what remains and increased the burden on our health care institutions. While it will take some time for the impact of their changes to roll through, historically, these changes have meant higher costs and poorer outcomes. This is the wrong direction, and any health care reform agenda has to start with stop making things worse.
But that’s not enough. The CMS made its projections before the current congressional term started. Taming these costs — stopping the growth so that our ability to pay can catch up — will be an effort of many years. In the near term, we start with a bridge while we get the structural reforms in place. That means put back the expanded subsidies (moderated by the excess pharmaceutical profits surtax) and reverse the Medicaid coverage cuts. Enact the structural reforms that run throughout this proposal, and then, when the cost of care is reduced, the government programs that cover the costs of care directly, like Medicare and Medicaid, should also see restrained costs. Over time, we should be able to reduce or eliminate the bridge while we keep attention on improving how health care is delivered.
What's at Stake ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/health-care at this heading)
Health care policy, health care costs — it can all sound abstract. But on the ground it’s deeply personal. It’s someone you love going to the doctor, getting the care they need, and not going into medical debt for the rest of their lives. Our government is supposed to make that easier, not harder.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · zabelforcongress.com/health-care
If nothing changes, your Social Security check will be cut by 22% in 2032. Congress has known this for decades and done nothing. I have a plan to fix it.
The Stakes ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/social-security at this heading)
A program that transformed American retirement is now facing its greatest test.
Social Security was established in 1935 to reduce poverty among the elderly. At that time, roughly half of elderly Americans lived in poverty. Social Security brought that number down dramatically. Today, only about 6 to 8 percent of elderly Americans live in poverty. According to the 2025 Social Security Trustees Report, the program provides benefits to about 68 million people, including 54 million retired workers and dependents, 6 million survivors of deceased workers, and 8 million disabled workers and their dependents.
Just over 40 percent of Social Security beneficiaries rely on the program for more than half their income. About 14 percent rely on it for 90 percent or more of their income. In total, Social Security keeps about 20 million elderly Americans and 1 million children out of poverty (per the Brookings Institution blueprint). This is not an abstract budget line — it is a lifeline.
But the program is in trouble. Starting in 2021, changing demographics forced Social Security to begin drawing down the Old Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) trust fund to cover benefits owed to retirees. The Trustees estimate that the OASI trust fund will be exhausted in 2032. After that point, payroll contributions from current workers will cover only about 78 percent of earned benefits, a 22 percent across-the-board cut for every recipient.
The Core Challenge ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/social-security at this heading)
The primary challenge is demographics: Americans are living longer and having fewer babies. Other structural factors compound it — coverage gaps, investment constraints, and an eroding tax base — but no reform works without confronting the demographic reality head-on.
Why Congress Has Failed to Act ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/social-security at this heading)
The parties have been divided. But a bipartisan path exists.
Senate reconciliation rules bar provisions that recommend changes to Social Security, which means neither party can push through changes on a party-line vote with a simple majority. That procedural reality has forced genuine bipartisan negotiation, and deadlock.
Broadly speaking, Democrats have proposed changes that increase revenue to restore solvency, while Republicans have generally proposed benefit reductions. Neither approach alone is sufficient, or politically viable. The four structural forces below explain why any single-lever approach is bound to fail, and why a comprehensive, balanced solution is the only real path forward.
Demographics ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/social-security at this heading)
We're living longer and having fewer children.
The program was designed when life expectancy was much shorter and birth rates much higher. Today's retirees live longer, drawing benefits for more years. Fewer workers are entering the workforce relative to the number of retirees. Neither of these trends is likely to reverse.
Program Design ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/social-security at this heading)
Social Security is insurance, not a savings account.
The program is built on two principles: adequacy (benefits must protect against poverty for low-wage workers) and equity (benefits must be fair relative to contributions). Any reform must preserve both, and must not crowd out people's ability to save for retirement in other ways.
Coverage Gaps ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/social-security at this heading)
About 6% of American workers are not covered.
In 2024, roughly 6 percent of American workers held jobs classified as "uncovered employment," mainly state and local government employees enrolled in alternative pension plans. Bringing more workers into the system is a key part of the solution.
Trust Fund Rules ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/social-security at this heading)
By law, the fund can only invest in Treasury securities.
Since 1935, the law has directed that the trust fund be invested only in Treasury bonds. Decades of experience, as well as smaller-scale models like the National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust, suggest we can manage the risk of broader investment more responsibly.
In February 2025, the Brookings Institution published a blueprint for a bipartisan solution designed to meet the program's needs for the next 75 years. The proposal includes revenue increases, targeted benefit reductions, benefit improvements, expanded coverage, and restructured trust fund policies. It has something for every stakeholder, and designed to avoid the poison pills that have derailed past efforts. My proposal adopts almost all of what Brookings proposes, with a few deliberate adjustments.
20M+
Americans Kept Out of Poverty
Social Security keeps approximately 20 million elderly Americans and 1 million children above the poverty line. This is the program's core purpose: insurance against poverty, not a retirement savings vehicle, and any reform must preserve that fundamental mission.
1983
The Last Time Congress Fixed This
The last major Social Security reform was in 1983, when Congress gradually raised the full retirement age from 65 to 67, brought new federal employees into the program, and extended income tax to some benefits. Those reforms secured the program at full benefits for almost 50 years. True reform is attainable, but only if Congress is willing to act.
The Plan
Five pillars of reform. ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/social-security at this heading)
Pillars one through four follow the structure and categories of the Brookings Institution blueprint. Pillar five contains my own additions and adjustments to the Brookings proposal. Click any pillar to expand the policy details.
Tax-Based Revenue Enhancements
Taxable ceiling · Pass-through loophole
Raise the Taxable Maximum Ceiling ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/social-security at this heading)
The taxable maximum is currently $184,500 (2026), adjusted annually by the national average wage index. Because the highest earners' incomes have grown faster than average wages for decades, the ceiling now covers only about 83 percent of all earnings, down from 90 percent in 1983. This proposal would increase the ceiling each year until it once again covers 90 percent of total earnings, then maintain that 90 percent target going forward, indexed to wages to hold it there.
Close the Pass-Through Payroll Tax Loophole ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/social-security at this heading)
Owners of S-corporations and certain limited partners can categorize a significant share of their business income as distributions rather than wages, avoiding Social Security payroll taxes on that income. This proposal requires all active pass-through business owners who materially participate in their business to pay Social Security taxes on their full earnings up to the taxable maximum, the same obligation all other workers carry.
Benefit Reductions
Calculation years · High-earner taxation · Dependent benefits · Child retiree benefits
Expand Benefit Calculation Years from 35 to 40 ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/social-security at this heading)
Social Security benefits are calculated using a worker's highest 35 years of earnings. This proposal would gradually increase that to 40 years, phasing in one additional year every two years beginning in 2032 and reaching 40 years by 2040. This better aligns the benefit calculation with actual lifetime earnings given longer working lives.
Tax All Social Security Benefits of High Earners ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/social-security at this heading)
Currently, only 50 to 85 percent of Social Security benefits are subject to federal income tax, depending on income. This proposal would subject all benefits of single filers with adjusted gross income above $100,000 and joint filers above $125,000 to income tax, with those thresholds indexed annually for wage growth.
Phase Out the Dependent Retiree Spouse Benefit ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/social-security at this heading)
A spouse can currently receive up to 50 percent of their partner's Social Security benefit even without their own earnings record. This proposal would gradually reduce and eliminate that benefit for new retiree beneficiaries beginning in 2027, phasing out over ten years. It would not affect anyone receiving the benefit before enactment, and would not apply to disabled spouses or widow(er)s.
Eliminate Child Retiree Benefits ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/social-security at this heading)
Children of retirees currently receive Social Security benefits, a structure originally designed for children of disabled or deceased workers. This proposal would end benefits to children of retirees and the associated caretaker benefit for new beneficiaries beginning in January 2027. Everyone receiving these benefits in January 2027 would be protected. The benefit would continue for disabled children, adopted children, and children in the care of a grandparent or eligible relative.
Benefit Improvements
Survivors · Early disability · Student benefits · Grandparent caregivers · Disabled adult children
Five Brookings Improvements — All Adopted ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/social-security at this heading)
The Brookings blueprint proposes five targeted benefit improvements, all of which I support: increasing survivor benefits so that a widow or widower receives the higher of their own benefit or 75 percent of the couple's combined benefits; creating an Early Retirement Disability benefit for workers aged 58 and older who can no longer perform their past work but do not qualify for SSDI under current strict standards; restoring student benefits for children of disabled or deceased parents through age 25, including community college and trade school; providing a child benefit to grandparents and eligible relatives who are the primary caregivers for grandchildren; and improving benefits for disabled adult children by removing marriage as a disqualifying event.
Coverage and Transfers
Legal immigration · Universal coverage · Benefit tax revenue
Expand Legal Immigration to Grow the Workforce ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/social-security at this heading)
The Brookings proposal specifies percentage increases to employment-based and family-based immigration caps: a 50 percent immediate increase to major employment caps followed by 3 percent annual growth, and 1.5 percent annual growth in other permanent categories. Based on those percentages, my calculations suggest these changes would add approximately 1.1 million new temporary workers and 1.2 million permanent residents to the U.S. economy over 10 years, with continuing growth thereafter. (These figures are my approximation from the Brookings percentages; Brookings' own SSA-modeled estimate projects a cumulative net immigration increase of 3.1 million above baseline over the same period.) Expanding the pool of workers paying into Social Security directly addresses the demographic challenge at the core of the program's funding gap.
Achieve Universal Social Security Coverage ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/social-security at this heading)
About 6 percent of American workers — primarily 5.9 million state and local government employees — hold jobs not covered by Social Security, instead participating in alternative public pension plans. This proposal would require all newly hired state and local government employees to be covered by Social Security, with a five-year transition period beginning after enactment to allow pension plans to adjust. Low-cost federal loans would be available to help states manage near-term transition costs.
Redirect Social Security Benefit Tax Revenue to OASDI ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/social-security at this heading)
Since 1993, revenue from taxing Social Security benefits has been directed to Medicare's Hospital Insurance trust fund. This proposal would redirect those proceeds into the OASDI trust funds as soon as doing so would not harm the Medicare fund, with the HI fund made whole through increased Medicare revenues and reduced Medicare Advantage outlays. The taxation of Social Security benefits is more directly tied to the Social Security program than to Medicare, and the revenue should follow that logic.
My Additions and Adjustments
No payroll tax hike · CBO bend-point · WEP/GPO reform · RET repeal · Trust fund investment
No Increase to the Payroll Tax Rate ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/social-security at this heading)
The Brookings blueprint includes a 0.2 percentage point payroll tax increase (0.1 percent each from employer and employee) as the final element to achieve full actuarial balance. I oppose it. Social Security is insurance against poverty, not a retirement savings program, and the payroll tax must not grow to the point that it crowds out workers' ability to save, invest, or pay down a mortgage. Once raised, payroll tax rates do not come back down.
Adjust the Benefit Formula Rather Than the Retirement Age ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/social-security at this heading)
The Brookings proposal raises the full retirement age for workers in the top two income quintiles on the grounds that higher earners as a group live longer. I reject that reasoning. It attributes a characteristic of a population — higher average longevity — to the individuals within it. Any given worker in the top two quintiles may or may not live longer than average; their earnings bracket tells us nothing reliable about their personal longevity. Penalizing their retirement age based on a group statistical pattern is a category error. Instead, I support one of two Congressional Budget Office options that achieve a similar fiscal result more equitably. The first would add a new bend point in the benefit formula for earners above the 70th percentile, reducing the rate at which additional earnings translate to additional benefits at high income levels. The second would make the overall benefit structure more progressive by adjusting the percentages applied at existing bend points. Both options reduce benefit growth for higher earners without making assumptions about any individual's life expectancy.
Minimum Benefit and Caregiver Relief — If Funding Allows ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/social-security at this heading)
Two further improvements not in the Brookings blueprint deserve serious consideration, subject to whether the overall reform package remains in actuarial balance: a meaningful minimum benefit for workers who contributed over a long career but whose lifetime earnings leave them at or near the poverty line; and relief for caregivers — predominantly women — who left the workforce for years to care for children or elderly relatives. Under current rules, those years are assigned zero earnings value in the benefit calculation, unfairly reducing benefits for a group that provided enormous social value.
Reform — Not Repeal — the Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset
The WEP and GPO, enacted in 1983, were intended to correct a structural inequity: because non-covered earnings appear as zeros in Social Security records, workers who split careers between covered and non-covered employment were being treated by the benefit formula as if they were long-term low-wage earners, generating an unintended windfall. The Social Security Fairness Act of 2025 repealed both provisions entirely, eliminating the underpayments, but also opening the door to overpayments for workers whose non-covered pension income is now unchecked against their Social Security benefit calculation. The original formulas were a blunt instrument, designed with the data available in 1983. SSA now has decades of non-covered earnings records. We are capable of designing a proportional formula that gives every worker exactly the benefits they earned, no more and no less. I support restoring a reformed WEP and GPO built on that principle.
Repeal the Retirement Earnings Test ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/social-security at this heading)
The Retirement Earnings Test reduces Social Security benefits for recipients who continue working before reaching full retirement age and earn above a threshold. It creates confusion, discourages continued workforce participation, and sends a counterproductive signal at a moment when we need more workers in the labor force, not fewer. Repealing it removes a disincentive to work without affecting the ultimate benefit calculation.
Invest Half the OASDI Trust Fund in a Total Stock Market Index ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/social-security at this heading)
Current law requires the Social Security trust fund to be invested exclusively in Treasury securities, a restriction written in 1935 during the Great Depression. Nearly a century of market history, and the demonstrated success of public retirement funds like the National Railroad Retirement Investment Trust that have invested in equities for decades, give reasonable grounds for confidence that the risk is manageable. I propose investing half the OASDI Trust Fund in a broadly diversified total stock market index fund. Even if the trust fund is near depletion when this is enacted, rebuilding it over time with market-rate returns will extend the program's long-term solvency more than Treasury-only investment can.
What's at Stake ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/social-security at this heading)
The difference between action and inaction.
The 2026 Trustees Report projects OASI trust fund exhaustion in 2032. Without reform, 22 percent of earned benefits are cut automatically, affecting 68 million Americans overnight. With the reforms above, the program can be stabilized for the next 75 years.
The Bottom Line ↗ (opens zabelforcongress.com/social-security at this heading)
Americans are living longer and having fewer babies. That is the reality we face. With determined, bipartisan action — and without waiting any longer — we can preserve Social Security for everyone who has earned it, and for every generation that follows.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · zabelforcongress.com/social-security
Social Security faces a funding shortfall Congress has known about for decades and refused to fix. The national debt now costs every Idaho family in higher mortgage rates, higher borrowing costs, higher prices. Our farmers and ranchers are caught between tariffs that raise their input costs and retaliation that closes their markets. These are not ideological problems. They are practical ones, and they have practical answers.
I see America as the most successful entity in history in establishing and advancing security and prosperity for its people. Government's job is to reduce the obstacles to American inventiveness and industry, and then stop. That means free markets and open trade, honest rules that keep the largest players from rewriting them, legal immigration matched to what the economy actually needs, a safety net that lets people take risks and recover from setbacks, and investment in the infrastructure and institutions that markets won't build on their own. A government that is funded, focused, functional — and restrained.
These positions draw from the tradition the Republican Party once held and has largely abandoned. They are more fiscally serious than what either party currently offers, less ideologically rigid than both, and grounded in what actually works rather than what tests well in a primary. I am not running against a party. I am running for the Idaho that deserves better than what Washington has been delivering.
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · zabelforcongress.com/what-i-stand-for
Social Security faces a funding shortfall by 2032. Congress has known this for decades and done nothing, because fixing it requires both parties to give something up. Social Security is not charity, it is an entitlement to what we paid in over long years of labor. It is the safety net that lets people take risks, knowing that a lifetime of work won't end in poverty. I support a bipartisan reform framework that preserves the program along its principles of adequacy and equity, for the next 75 years and beyond. Read the full position →
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · zabelforcongress.com/what-i-stand-for
It has taken the actions and policies of both parties to push us to the level of debt not seen since the Second World War. We now pay more in interest on the national debt than we spend on defense, Medicare, or border security. There are consequences. Our debt drives up borrowing costs for every Idaho family and crowds out the investments that would actually grow the economy. I support tax reform that asks more from those with the highest earnings — not to punish success, but because the alternative is a debt trajectory that no serious person defends. It also means regulatory and spending reform so that government actually delivers the value it costs. Read the full position →
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · zabelforcongress.com/what-i-stand-for
We spend more per person on health care than any comparable country, and get worse outcomes. The reason traditional solutions haven't worked is that health care doesn't behave like a normal market: adding competition doesn't automatically bring prices down, and in rural Idaho there often isn't any competition to add. That structural reality requires targeted, sustained action on hospital and physician costs, prescription drug pricing, and the insurance marketplace. Getting this right is a long-term project. My proposals are a serious start.Read the full position →
source ↗ (opens the page at this passage) · zabelforcongress.com/what-i-stand-for
FEC filings, Oct 15, 2025 to Oct 14, 2026 · Official FEC bulk data · committee C00926105
77¢ of every dollar raised has been spent across 6 reports ($209.9K of $272.3K). Cash on hand went from $35K on Dec 31, 2025 to $62.3K on Oct 14, 2026.
| Report | Raised in the period | Spent in the period | Cash on hand at its close |
|---|---|---|---|
| YEAR-END 2025 through Dec 31, 2025 | $37,111 | $2,102 | $35,009 |
| APRIL QUARTERLY 2026 through Mar 31, 2026 | $4,040 | $18,792 | $20,257 |
| PRE-PRIMARY 2026 through Apr 29, 2026 | $257 | $8,735 | $11,779 |
| JULY QUARTERLY 2026 through Jun 30, 2026 | $40,090 | $27,396 | $24,473 |
| OCTOBER QUARTERLY 2026 through Sep 30, 2026 | $149,986 | $123,564 | $50,895 |
| PRE-GENERAL 2026 through Oct 14, 2026 | $40,776 | $29,338 | $62,333 |
Each report’s own period, as filed with the FEC; a report filed again counts once, as its latest copy.
Each loan as the campaign’s report through Oct 14, 2026 lists it, with what is still owed. A loan from an earlier cycle can appear here, and one repaid in full drops off the report, so the list need not add up to the row.
5 endorsers listed on Sarah Zabel’s own campaign site: 2 parties, 1 union, 2 organizations.
This is the campaign's claim, checked by an editor against its page; the endorsers have not confirmed it to us. Each name opens the campaign’s page with that name highlighted.
Lost · 2,146 votes (0.7%) · 4 of 4 · Full results ↗
Every contest for this seat that named this candidate, most recent last; a result is shown once the race is called. Election dates and results from civicAPI (civicapi.org). civicAPI aggregates results from Secretaries of State and equivalent election bodies, and makes its own race calls. civicapi.org ↗
Official FEC filing record for the current cycle. The priorities they publish are quoted from their own site, in their order.
Statements are quoted from these pages exactly. Headings, order and wording are the campaign’s; the record marking is ours.
A donor who gave several times appears once. The 12 largest donors by total given are listed. In all, 42 itemized contributions were filed this cycle, totaling $44.6K.
The 2 largest committees by total given are listed. In all, 2 committee contributions were filed this cycle, totaling $1.3K. Counted from the givers' own filings, which can run above the total the campaign itself reports.
Total reported receipts $272,260
Every dollar the committee reported receiving this cycle, split by the source the FEC filing attributes it to. Open a source marked + to see who gave. FEC filings through Oct 14, 2026.
Loading the map
Tap or hover over a state, or focus the map and use the arrow keys, to read its total. Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll to zoom.
91% of the money placed by state came from inside Idaho: $40.6K of $44.6K.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 38 contributions · 91% | $40,564 |
| 1 contribution · 7.9% | $3,500 |
| 2 contributions · 0.6% | $251 |
| 1 contribution · 0.6% | $250 |
By the state each donor wrote on the filing, across 4 states and territories. Donors who have given $200 or less this cycle are not itemized, so they cannot be placed on a map. The FEC’s grouping also counts joint-fundraising memo lines, so these rows can add up to more than the itemized total.
| Employer as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| Written instead of an employer · 2 contributions · 78% of ranked | $3,501 |
| 1 contribution · 11% of ranked | $500 |
| 1 contribution · 11% of ranked | $500 |
A further $40,064 came from donors whose answer names no employer (N/A), so it is not ranked. Itemized gifts over $200, grouped by the words donors filed: not an industry classification, and a gift from an employee is not a gift from the employer. The FEC’s grouping also counts joint-fundraising memo lines, so these rows can add up to more than the itemized total. Gifts of $200 or less ($20,374) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
| Occupation as filed | Amount |
|---|---|
| Written instead of an occupation · 38 contributions · 90% of ranked | $40,064 |
| 1 contribution · 7.9% of ranked | $3,500 |
| 2 contributions · 1.1% of ranked | $501 |
| 1 contribution · 1.1% of ranked | $500 |
Itemized gifts over $200, grouped by the words donors filed: not an industry classification, and a gift from an employee is not a gift from the employer. The FEC’s grouping also counts joint-fundraising memo lines, so these rows can add up to more than the itemized total. Gifts of $200 or less ($20,374) are not itemized, so no employer or occupation is filed for them.
Money groups spent on their own, not through a campaign. Each ad is filed against the candidate it names, so money attacking an opponent shows on the opponent’s row. Open a candidate to see who spent it.
The campaign also refunded $1,150 in contributions, which the categories below do not include.
Total itemized disbursements $85,384
Every itemized payment the committee reported this cycle, sorted by what it said each one was for. The categories are ours; the wording they are matched against is the committee’s own. Open a category to read the filed descriptions and who was paid. FEC filings through Oct 14, 2026.
All 104 itemized payments filed this cycle. Spending below the itemization threshold is not filed line by line.
| Name | Amount |
|---|---|
| 54 payments · 13% of all spending | $27,161 |
| 11 payments · 8.6% of all spending | $18,043 |
| 1 payment · 5.7% of all spending | $11,902 |
| 1 payment · 3.1% of all spending | $6,542 |
| 1 payment · 2.4% of all spending | $5,000 |
| 1 payment · 2.4% of all spending | $5,000 |
| 1 payment · 1.4% of all spending | $2,930 |
| 14 payments · 1.1% of all spending | $2,309 |
The people, firms and committees paid the most, across every kind of payment. Each share is of everything the committee reported spending this cycle, not only the itemized payments above. A payee that is itself a committee links to its own profile.