The U.S. Needs a Fiscal Commission Because Congress Won't Do Its Job
In the last 50 years, when the budget process has been in place, Congress has managed only four times to pass a budget on time.

There's much talk today about the need for a fiscal commission. The House Budget Committee held a hearing about it a few weeks ago. Pundits are Substacking about whether using the approach to put federal finances on a sustainable path is a good or a bad idea. And according to a recent polling, voters support the idea of a commission.
Great. But that shouldn't obscure the fact that a commission would be the result of our legislators constantly acting like children by refusing to be good stewards of taxpayers' dollars, which is their No. 1 job. There are also a few important things needed to make such a commission successful.
In the last 50 years, when the budget process has been in place, Congress has managed only four times to pass a budget on time and through the regular process. Seventeen times, members of Congress haven't bothered to pass a budget at all. That hasn't stopped them from spending money they didn't have, or from making promises to voters they wouldn't be able to fulfill. I doubt I need to remind you that it's gotten worse. In the last half-decade, Congress added $5 trillion to the already elevated and growing federal debt with no plan for repayment.
Nor should I need to remind this column's readers that government interest payments are growing quickly, propelled by higher interest rates applied to an expanding debt level. That's the result of years of excuses that interest rates would remain historically low.
While you might see how legislators chose to believe that inflation and high interest rates were things of the past, there's no excuse for ignoring the upcoming insolvency of programs like Medicare and Social Security. This looming calamity has been warned of for decades in government reports and scholarly publications.
To be sure, the insolvency dates might change with new projections, but what has been constant is the knowledge that around the 2030s, Social Security's trust fund will dry out, triggering a reduction in benefits across the board of about 20 percent. To avoid cutting benefits, Congress could decide to borrow the money—at least $116 trillion of it—over the next 30 years. That option has been right there, written in all its red-ink glory, in the tables of reports produced by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
So, yes, Congress knew this was coming. And yet it did nothing. Making matters worse, Republicans have abandoned the mantle of at least paying lip service to fiscal responsibility by refusing to talk about entitlement reform.
Now that we are clear about a bunch of delinquents who don't want to do their jobs, let's consider a fiscal commission.
At the heart of the commission's charge must be a commitment not just to reduce some deficits but to put the government back on a sustainable track. As my colleague and former CBO Director Keith Hall convinced me, the commission will fail if it doesn't have a clear target from the start. Then it will need to be both transparent and accountable by operating in the open, making its findings and deliberations available to the public, and thereby fostering an informed debate about the choices facing the nation.
The commission could be established through legislation mandating that Congress consider any resulting proposals on a fast-track basis, with limited opportunities for amendment and delay. Such mechanisms have been used successfully in the past with military-base closure commissions and trade agreements, and they could be adapted to the task of fiscal reform.
The commission's work would inevitably confront entrenched interests and face stiff opposition from those who benefit from the status quo. It would therefore need to be composed of individuals capable of rising above partisanship and special interests to act in the nation's best interest. Members of Congress might themselves want to sit on the commission, though few of them fit these requirements, considering who got us into this mess in the first place.
In short, a fiscal commission represents a pragmatic approach to a problem that has for too long been mired in politics and short-term thinking. It offers a pathway out of the fiscal morass, provided it is empowered to act, and its recommendations are taken seriously.
For Congress, which has shirked its responsibilities, the commission offers a chance to redeem itself by enabling reforms that might otherwise never see the light of day. In this way, the commission does not usurp Congress' role but rather complements it, providing the impetus needed for genuine fiscal reform.
COPYRIGHT 2023 CREATORS.COM.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It’s too late.
It's been too late for a long time. We can only hope that there will be enough left of our society to rebuild after the collapse.
The empire is collapsing. A commission won’t change the outcome.
Good on Nikki Haley for calling out Fatass Donnie for his $8 trillion in new debt but if she wins Congress won't let any POTUS cut spending.
You love her because she's a female Jeb Bush.
I like that she attacks the Swamp-Rat and called him "scum". He is a con man just like Donnie is.
Dumbass, she's a part of that very swamp.
Are we surprised the biggest neocon is his favorite?
My guess is swamp-rat is an anti-Indian slur.
She is an adult female; love is a bit strong given pluggo’s predilections.
I would rather vote for the female Hunter Biden. Does she exist?
Noelle Bush?
In the last 50 years, when the budget process has been in place, Congress has managed only four times to pass a budget on time and through the regular process.
Then the problem here isn't the need for a commission, it's the need for discipline in Congress to get the budget out. Congress (and for that matter the Executive Branch too) is undisciplined and more in it for their own gain.
The need is for accountability not 'behavior change'. Accountability can only be imposed from the outside of the system not from the inside. DeRp's cannot hold themselves or the other accountable because the nanosecond accountability to fiscal responsibility is required, they will instead revert to standard partisan/electoral politics.
IDK if an 'outsider' type media/communications even exists anymore. Journalists have instead spent decades doing the PR bidding of their sources rather than holding any of them accountable. Certainly there is no third party that favors fiscal responsibility, understands it well enough to know how to keep a commission and pols focused on getting there, and has enough independence from DeRp's to be credible to voters who aren't just DeRp base.
So not much chance of anything positive happening.
The need is for accountability not ‘behavior change’. Accountability can only be imposed from the outside of the system not from the inside.
This is profound wishcasting. It's the kind of thing that sounds right (and feels right) in an article, but would probably be a disaster in practice.
"This food is terrible"
Libertarians: Yeah and such small portions!
Yes. That "outside" is called voters.
Turns out, American voters want lots of free crap from the government, damn the consequences. And since progressives have removed all guardrails on government power, American voters get what they want.
Welcome to progressive social democracy! Is it everything you hoped for?
That “outside” is called voters.
Voters spend 5 minutes every 2 years thinking seriously about 'options' in an election. They spend 10x, 50x, 1000x that amount of time/effort listening to and being reinforced by whatever INSIDE partisan spin is being sold.
There is nothing 'outside' about voters in the current system. The only 'outside' choice they have is to vote or not vote. That can change. But voters are NOT 'outside' influenced at present
You can't generalize from your own ignorance and partisanship to others.
Yup. Our appetite for government services exceeds the willingness of voters to pay for them.
Lack of accountability isn't the problem. Accountability is the problem. They're doing what the voters, donors, and pundits want, in aggregate. The only way to rein in spending would be to have it done by a disinterested party: a foreigner, someone not subject to US jurisdiction. Preferably on another planet. An external tyrant. Someone whom the people have no control over.
By now everyone who's "in it" knows it's a game of musical hats, and is hoping someone else will be hatless when the music stops.
They’re doing what the voters, donors, and pundits want, in aggregate.
That the manufacture of consent is capable of great refinements no one, I think, denies. The process by which public opinions arise is certainly no less intricate than it has appeared in these pages, and the opportunities for manipulation open to anyone who understands the process are plain enough...It is no longer possible, for example, to believe in the original dogma of democracy; that the knowledge needed for the management of human affairs comes up spontaneously from the human heart. Where we act on that theory we expose ourselves to self-deception, and to forms of persuasion that we cannot verify. It has been demonstrated that we cannot rely upon intuition, conscience, or the accidents of casual opinion if we are to deal with the world beyond our reach.
Walter Lippmann - Public Opinion 1922
What we 'want' is what someone else manufactured and sold to us.
Whoopee. What’s the evidence that budgets on time are any better than budgets late? Or budgets never, as when I was a child?
Late stage libertarians: We need more government to make the government we have govern better.
Yes. After all libertarians have so many successful governance achievements. No need to change anything because libertarians have no failures to learn from. Success is imminent.
It is basically the Libertarian version of a National Conservative type proposal. Propose a new government structure with immense power to impose your ideological interests while ignoring that a working majority of the electorate is going to oppose you and will not allow your ideologues to control the new power center.
Our solution is the same it has always been: strictly limited government.
Voters want limited government in the abstract and long term, but in the short term, voting for more government is rational. It's a kind of prisoner's dilemma.
The US used to have guardrails against that, but progressives and "social democrats" have destroyed those; the US is now a nation in which federal and state governments wield nearly unlimited power in response to voter preferences.
Democracy won't get us out of it. SCOTUS could reduce the power of government again, or a massive economic/military/social catastrophe can force us to change.
The votes on every abortion referendum show that voters at least want limited government in their personal lives. Republicans don't get this and will experience a thrashing in 2024.
However, voters don't want limited government when it comes to other government functions. We demand cheap gasoline even though we refuse to fund a government takeover of the oil industry, which is the only way the government could make that happen. We demand cheap food but want to protect farmers from competition and trade wars. We want free health insurance that will pay for a lot of medically useless procedures. We want to refuse vaccinations and to refuse to wear masks but want the government to protect us from infectious diseases. We want streets to be clean but we don't want to be prohibited from littering.
Yes: American voters want the least amount of personal responsibility with the most government handouts. BOTH of those are anti-liberty and anti-libertarian.
Simpson Bowles was already done. Dust it off, add a few zeros and apply. Save us the time and money of a new commission that will only be ignored again.
"In the last 50 years, when the budget process has been in place, Congress has managed only four times to pass a budget on time and through the regular process."
And yet "we" re-elect the same damn fools again and again.
Perhaps a constitutional amendment that any year "the budget process" is not followed, no pensions accrue for members or their entire staff, and those members become ineligible to ever again fun for any elected office?
(and every kid gets a pony)
Not strong enough. If they don't pass a budget, Congress is dissolved and we hold new elections.
Perhaps someone outside DeRp advocates against re-electing the same damn fools again and again.
These people get reelected because they deliver what voters want.
The problem isn’t with our politicians, it’s with the toxic combination of what voters want and nearly unlimited government powers.
"We have met the enemy, and he is us".
Pogo
they deliver what voters want.
That is the exact opposite of what happens in the modern world. Every journalist, advertiser, pollster, PR flack, psychologist, consultant, marketer, propagandist, etc - for the last 100+ years - understands that what someone 'wants' is far more a function of what someone else sold them on wanting than it is what arose within them. If you don't understand that, then it is 100% certain that you don't understand it because you don't understand how marketing works and you are deluded about what a human is. And yes - libertarians are stupid and deluded and incompetent as fuck about any of this.
It is often very illuminating...to ask yourself how you got at the facts on which you base your opinion. Who actually saw, heard, felt, counted, named the thing, about which you have an opinion?...The world is vast, the situations that concern us are intricate, the messages are few, the biggest part of opinion must be constructed in the imagination. - Walter Lippmann from Public Opinion 1922
Americans suffer from pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth; marketing, politicians, and journalists didn’t create those desires, they are natural, they feel good. What marketing, politicians, and journalists told people the lies like "don't worry, it's harmless" and "if something goes wrong, the state will pay for it" and "it's not your choice/responsibility, someone else made you do it".
No, JFree, it is stupid, deluded, incompetent people like you who are responsible for this. You promote the very ideology that causes Americans to make such bad choices. Even now, you try to shift blame for the choices people make.
Libertarians and conservatives understand all of this very well: that is why we promote Christian and conservative culture and values and demand that the state let people suffer the consequences of their choices.
While rational, smart people take responsibility for their actions, don't try to shift blame to marketing, and generally make good choices, you are living proof that an approach of teaching kids "God is watching you 24/7 and if you let others lead you into temptation and do any of these 613 things you will burn in hell" is probably the only thing that works.
IOW, we already have a group of people who tell you what you should want because it is good for you, you simply refuse to listen, and in fact have worked hard to eliminate these people from education, government, and public life as much as possible. Again, JFree, YOU are the problem.
Term limits.
I think it should be personal financial liability for any deficit.
So you want to create a super legislature that Congress must abide by? Whose members will some theoretical nonpartisan statesmen who essentially agree with the author on what must be done about the nation’s fiscal health. Who is going to appoint these paragons to this commision? Does anyone like this even exist?
The fact that the normal budgetary process has been derailed has been largely because fiscal hawks have been fighting against the compromises with spendthrifts that allowed that process to work. A normal budgetary process is unlikely to result in fiscal sanity, because there is a majority of voters who will defend their interests in government spending to the hilt, which is why the GOP is so reluctant to talk about entitlements.
This is not a “pragmatic” solution, because it is built on a fantasy that there is a non-partisan majority who is willing to give up their benefits from federal spending, and it is an attempt to replace the Constitutional Republic with an oligarchic superstructure.
I have a better idea: cancel Congress permanently.
Or just cleanse America of the left, regardless of party affiliation. Reset the federal government to constitutional conditions, and hunt down all the Marxist subversives.
I can be done.
cleanse America of the left
You're a good little Nazi.
You were banned for posting a link to child porn.
OK, you get started on that and keep us posted on how it's going.
Put congress on commission.
They have to cover deficits from campaign contributions, but can split half of any surplus, with the other half going into the treasury.
A constitutional amendment requiring single group appropriation bills for each dept and banning CRs would do better.
operating in the open, making its findings and deliberations available to the public
No, no, no. Transparency would make their job impossible. They would need to hammer out deals behind closed doors. You've said why yourself:
The commission's work would inevitably confront entrenched interests and face stiff opposition from those who benefit from the status quo.
Breaking: Jill Stein is running for president in 2024.
Survey…She is running on;
1. Some Free stuff
2. Mostly Free Stuff with income guarantees
3. Total or every sector of the economy as Free with lifetime guaranteed income, cash
If there comes a time when, for whatever reason(s), Social Security benefits must be cut (by whatever amount), then that will happen. That is what “must” means.
Why is it better for these cuts to happen sooner rather than later? For the likes of DeRugy, reducing or weakening these programs is a step in the right direction to killing them off.
If Social Security is not sustainable, then it is not sustainable. A twenty percent cut in the 2030s might not cause any less total suffering by the recipients than some major overhaul (that was accomplished any earlier than the 2030s).
That is true. And I've been one of those who has been annoyed my entire adult life that no public discussion about entitlements has ever even been possible. I would never have thought in 1983 that that would be the last time 'SS/Medicare reform' was talked about.
When DeRugy is challenged in real time, like in a podcast interview with Ezra Klein a few months ago, she is must more modest and reasonable about her knowledge of the future.
But when she writes these pieces, they are exceedingly strident and chock full of certitude. The inconsistency between the DeRugy that surfaces during a challenging interview and the DeRugy that writes these strident pieces is what makes her pieces worthless for anything other than entertainment.
Cyberattack shuts down "chronically late" ferries in WA.
Cyberattack shuts down WA transportation website, bringing confusion, disruptions
The outage has caused major disruptions for anyone trying to track the chronically late ferries or navigate mountain passes as winter approaches.
It's funny 'cause it's true!
If this causes them to be 24 hours late, can they claim to be on time tomorrow?
When your hours get so bad, you find up you're waking up at the right time in the morning.
https://twitter.com/LaocoonofTroy/status/1722697910037397663?t=3sJpTqK3MGOhdp8mOd2K5w&s=19
“It is also a habit of tyrants to prefer the company of aliens to that of citizens at table and in society; citizens, they feel, are enemies, but aliens will offer no opposition.”
-Aristotle
[Link]
A fiscal commission would mean that unaccountable "experts" like Veronique de Rugy would set our budgets.
I don't think so.
A dysfunctional Congress is still preferable to that kind of sh*tshow.
Once upon a time, I thought that the decline of the power of the Roman Senate was something imposed on it by a succession of strongmen.
With the behavior of the U.S. Congress over the last fifty years, it is increasingly seeming likely that, instead, the Roman Senate simply shirked its duties into imperial autocracy.
That's what the historic analysis I've seen says. The senators were interested only in graft, not in actual responsibility.
How about I just draw up the next three budgets to show them how, and they can take it from there?
"It would therefore need to be composed of individuals capable of rising above partisanship and special interests to act in the nation's best interest."
Those guys are easy to find. They all ride unicorns with solid gold saddles.
Either house of Congress could ignore any such "mandate" with a majority vote. Legislation cannot constitutionally bind a house when it comes to its own rules.
And it's a *bad* idea. Why should Congress not be able to make as many amendments as they want to the ideas proposed by some random commission? Why should they be rushed into voting on the proposals? What makes you think they won't just vote "no"?
When you have to borrow more money to make the interest payments on your existing debt, you're already broke.
A libertarian asking for more government, and a feckless, useless, pointless 'commission' at that? Uh huh. Don't look in her eyes and back slowly out of the room....
I AM Making a Good Salary from Home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing, under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart.
This Website--------------> https://bitcoindollar346.blogspot.com
How about a rather novel concept; End current services base line budgeting. Every year, congress should start all spending bills with a clean sheet of paper with each spending bill a single subject/department with recorded votes on each. And just for S and G's congress can not spend more money than what was received by the treasury last fiscal year with out a congressional declaration of war.
I'm not say'n, I'm just say'n.
That would pretty much guarantee a declaration of war.
Great article. The rampant spending is on both sides and I truly feel that we are going to suffer the consequences sooner rather than later. Because of our spending and intrusive actions (think Patriot Act) pertaining to dollar denominated transactions the days are numbered where we cease to become the sole world's reserve currency and then the party is over. It is likely to late but at a high level we need term limits on Congress (of which on a bipartisan basis 5 of 6 Americans favor) and a balanced budget amendment with a provision that would narrowly allow spending more in an emergency but the excess spending would be tied to a specific amortization schedule. Think about a municipal bond to build a bridge that has a 30 yr life. The way Washington functions they spend regardless of whether we have the money or not. We must have a mechanism where the politicians have to make a choice. It is at least mildly encouraging that the new speaker has passed a bill pertaining to helping Israel and proposes to pay for it by utilizing funds earmarked for the IRS. The unfortunate part is that it still causes us to spend more than what we take in.
The problem with any such commission is it INHERENTLY gives Congress someone else to blame for NOT doing their job. The commission CAN'T be held accountable by voters.