Before the newly elected members of Congress become contaminated by the prevailing congressional culture, they should consider a reform that would achieve a broader range of benefits than any other they might embrace: dismantling the more than 1,100 grants-in-aid programs that spend one-sixth of the federal budget on matters that are the exclusive business of state and local governments.

Congressional freshmen should be warned, however, that if they accept this suggestion they will be fiercely opposed by their senior colleagues who have found the creation and exploitation of lucrative grants-in-aid programs the surest way to scratch their constituents’ backs (think “entitlements”) and ensure their re-election. But that should add zest to the enterprise.

Those programs, which provide funding for Medicaid as well as everything from road and bridge construction to rural housing, job training and fighting childhood obesity—now touch virtually every activity in which state and local governments are engaged. Their direct cost has grown, according to the federal budget, to an estimated $640.8 billion in 2015 from $24.1 billion in 1970.

Illinois residents can submit suggestions to the State Government Suggestion Award Board and receive $50 to $5,000 for a successful suggestion.

Rewards are paid in relation to the amount of money they save.

To participate, constituents must be Illinois residents with an original suggestion.

A couple of years ago, the city of Chicago started a summer jobs programfor teenagers attending high schools in some of the city’s high-crime, low-income neighborhoods. The program was meant, of course, to connect students to work. But officials also hoped that it might curb the kinds of problems — like higher crime — that arise when there’s no work to be found.

Research on the program conducted by the University of Chicago Crime Lab and just published in the journal Science suggests that these summer jobs have actually had such an effect: Students who were randomly assigned to participate in the program had 43 percent fewer violent-crime arrests over 16 months, compared to students in a control group.

That number is striking for a couple of reasons: It implies that a relatively short (and inexpensive) intervention like an eight-week summer jobs program can have a lasting effect on teenage behavior. And it lends empirical support to a popular refrain by advocates: “Nothing stops a bullet like a job.”

A few days before the election, a Chicago radio host introduced Bruce Rauner and wife Diana, telling listeners “behind every great man is a great woman.”

“In front sometimes too,” replied Bruce Rauner, laughing.

Diana Rauner is accustomed to being out front. She’s got a collection of degrees from the nation’s top universities. She runs one of the state’s leading early education nonprofits. And she helped her husband become Illinois’ next governor by appearing in a TV ad at a crucial point in the race.

Kaycee Eckhardt, a former charter school teacher in New Orleans, has decidedly mixed feelings about teachers unions. She believes they play an important role on certain issues, including ensuring teachers aren’t overworked. But she worries they sometimes squelch teacher voices by insisting on a party line.

“You can’t tell teachers what to say,” she said. “Unions do that a lot, even with good intentions.”

So Eckhardt joined America Achieves, one of a growing number of new organizations aimed at amplifying “teacher voice” — but outside of traditional union pathways. The groups go by names likeTeach Plus, Educators 4 Excellence, and Leading Educators, and they offer teachers everything from media training to peer networking opportunities.

Congress should reduce the corporate tax rate in a responsible manner that neither adds to our budget deficit nor burdens middle class taxpayers with added federal income tax.

The combined top federal and state corporate tax rate is the highest of any developed country in the world. The excessive corporate tax rate serves as a disincentive to U.S. companies deciding whether to expand here. It operates as a major barrier to foreign investment. While our trading partners have slashed their statutory rates in the last 10-15 years we have kept our top federal income tax rate stagnant at 35 percent.  There is a widespread bipartisan consensus, including President Obama and the 2012 Republican ticket of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, that the corporate income tax rate needs to be reduced.

The real question is not whether this should be done but how it should be implemented. It would be fiscally irresponsible to cut the rate without paying for the lost revenue.  Politicians speak of paying for tax rate reduction by widening the base but are often short on details. Some have proposed that revenue can be generated by eliminating the tax exemption on employer provided benefits like health care. This is really a stealth form of a middle class tax increase.

This November’s electoral wave reopened and widened the strategic playing field for critics of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Republican control of both houses of Congress, plus larger majorities of state governors and state legislatures present both opportunities and challenges to move beyond rhetorical opposition and advance changes in national health policy. Initial speculation tends to focus more on tactical considerations on Capitol Hill: which items are easiest to pass in the Senate, how to use budget reconciliation, and which votes will “look good” politically even if vetoed by President Obama.

Those are not inconsequential matters in the near term, but they can obscure more important ones. What are the most important policy and political priorities for the new Republican majorities? How much of Obamacare actually can be overturned within the next two years? Which procedural approach in Congress offers the most promise? Does a more incremental and less ambitious strategy that aims primarily at remaining just “not as bad” as the other side in public opinion surveys ensure more success in holding on to power (and gaining the presidency) in the November 2016 elections?

Many tradeoffs and judgment calls are involved in these decisions. Achieving substantial structural change in current health policy remains urgent, but it is unlikely to be accomplished in any single vote in the coming year. Making progress that is more than cosmetic and transitory requires deeper thinking about strategies to replace the core of Obamacare, and not just revise the outer edges of the ACA.