Congress Is Trying To Avoid Taking Responsibility for the Debt Crisis It Created
A fiscal commission might be a good idea, but it's also the ultimate expression of Congress' irresponsibility.

It's not quite accurate to say that no one in Congress wants to talk about the national debt and the federal government's deteriorating fiscal condition.
Indeed, during Wednesday morning's meeting of the House Budget Committee, there was a lot of talk about exactly that.
"Runaway deficit-spending and our unsustainable national debt…threatens not only our economy, but our national security, our way of life, our leadership in the world, and everything good about America's influence," said Rep. Jodey Arrington (R–Texas), the committee's chairman. He pointed to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections showing that America's debt, as a share of the size of the nation's economy, is now as large as it was at the end of the Second World War—and that interest payments on the debt will soon cost more than the entire military budget.
What's missing, however, is any sense that Congress is willing to turn those words into action. Just look at the premise of Wednesday's hearing: "Examining the need for a fiscal commission."
Yes, it was a meeting about the possibility of forming a committee to have more meetings about the possibility of doing something to address the problem. In fact, it was the second such committee hearing in front of the House Budget Committee within the past few weeks.
It seems like there ought to be a more direct way to address this. Like, say, if there was a committee that already existed within Congress charged with handling budgetary issues. A House Budget Committee, perhaps.
But instead of using Wednesday's meeting to seek consensus on how to solve the federal government's budgetary problems, lawmakers spent two hours debating a series of bills that aim to let Congress offload that responsibility to a special commission. What that commission would look like and how its recommendations would be handled will depend on which proposal (if any of them) eventually becomes law—and even that seems somewhat unlikely, with Democrats voicing their opposition to the idea throughout Wednesday's hearing.
To be fair, there are plenty of good arguments for why a fiscal commission might be the best way for Congress to fix the mess that it has made. It is an idea that's certainly worthy of being considered, even if the whole exercise seems a little bit over-engineered.
Romina Boccia, director of budget and entitlement policy at the Cato Institute, argues persuasively in her Substack that a fiscal commission is the best way to overcome the political hurdles that prevent Congress from taking meaningful action on borrowing and entitlement costs (which are driving a sizable portion of future deficits).
Boccia's preferred solution would allow the commission's proposals to be "self-executing unless Congress objects," meaning that legislators would have the "political cover to vocally object to reforms that will create inevitable winners and losers, without re-election concerns undermining an outcome that's in the best interest of the nation."
It's probably true that Congress itself is the biggest hurdle to managing the federal government's fiscal situation. Unfortunately, that's also the biggest reason to be skeptical: any decisions made by a fiscal commission will only be as good as Congress' willingness to abide by them.
Beyond that, it still isn't clear to me how a fiscal commission is going to be able to accomplish anything that the existing Budget Committees couldn't already do. There's no secret knowledge out there about how to reduce deficits that will only be unlocked by bringing together a collection of legislators and private sector experts, which is what most of the bills to create a commission propose doing. Congress should hold hearings, invite experts to share their views, draft proposals, vet those ideas through the committee process, and then put the resulting bills on the House floor for a full vote.
Shielding Congress from the electoral consequences of making poor fiscal decisions doesn't seem like it will improve the quality of budget-making. If anything, we need Congress to be held more accountable for this mess.
A $33 trillion national debt didn't come crashing out of the sky like an asteroid that couldn't be avoided. Congress chose this outcome, with each and every budget bill and emergency spending package passed over the last two decades. Nothing will change until Congress chooses differently. Shrugging off the obligation to budget responsibly is what caused this mess, but now lawmakers are eager to find yet another way to shirk responsibility for managing the country's finances.
"No responsible leader can look at rapid deterioration of our balance sheet, the CBO projection of these unsustainable deficits, and the long-term unfunded liabilities of our nation, and not feel compelled to intervene and change course," Arrington said Wednesday.
He's right, but that only draws a line under the contradiction. A responsible Congress would be working on a serious plan to get the deficit under control. Instead, the Budget Committee is working on proposals to avoid having to do that.
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
Don't worry - if Fatass Donnie is elected again all this deficit talk will go away because "deficits don't matter" when Republicans control DC.
That's why we're forgiving college loan debt. Because deficits matter.
When Democrats spend money they call it "an investment in the economy." They'll say cutting taxes is what causes deficits.
When Republicans cut taxes they call it "stimulating the economy." They'll say spending is what causes deficits.
When Republicans cut taxes they call it “stimulating the economy.” They’ll say spending is what causes deficits.
I disagree. When Republicans spend money they call it "growing the military".
And sarc again equates tax cuts with spending. To think just a month ago he almost realized that just freezing spending growth would reduce the deficit. Now he equates keeping your own money with dem spending.
I don't know how you concluded that from what I said. Must be the voices in your head again. You should take medication for that.
Fuck off you drunk pussy. We’re trying to have a serious discussion here.
You’re funny
Fuck off you drunk pussy. We’re trying to have a serious discussion here.
That should be the universal response to all his inane drunken ravings.
Fuck off you drunk pussy. We’re trying to have a serious discussion here.
Unless you’re finally ready to follow through on your threat to come kick my ass.
Mouth the words in your post. You are equating spending and taxes in your attempt at both sides.
And they are right. Spending, not lack of taxation, causes the deficits and the economic harm.
turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Just like civilian oversight boards fixed policing.
They're ready to cut the budget. Everything is on the table. Except Medicare and Social Security. Other than that any and all suggestions will get careful consideration. Before being rejected.
There are no wrong answers and they have an open-door policy.
There'll be a suggestion box in the...er, next to the trash can.
Man. The narratives you push. They GOP has been talking about cuts to medicaid and SS for well over a decade.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/ryan-plan-makes-deep-cuts-in-social-security
Guess which entities attack them for it and which party says no? You spend all your energy here attacking the party actually wanting to fix things while defending the ones say no. Very odd.
You tired now? Need a rest? I'm sure Dlam will hold your hand.
Youre shown to be a complete hypocrite day in and day out. Constantly uninformed. Constantly pushing leftist narratives. It is hilarious how dumb you are. You are the embodiment Dunning Krueger. Which is fucking hilarious.
Fuck off you drunk pussy. We’re trying to have a serious discussion here.
I hope that they actually do try to cut SS. They will never win another election.
The very premise from whence the $33T debt came from and the very reason the USA will eventually falter.
Again, Why? Simpson Bowles was already done and ignored. Is this committee going to figure out something new? Just do a 6% sequester cut to all government "discretionary" spending and start working on "entitlement" reforms.
The budget was balanced at the end of Bill Clinton's tenure and the surplus was growing. Two Republican tax cuts later, the hole in the budget is big enough to sail an aircraft carrier through. So of course Republicans now want to cut Social Security and Medicare. It's almost like they planned it this way.
once in a lifetime internet bubble which subsequently popped
The budget was never balanced under Clinton. It got close, but we were still borrowing.
The self-serving myth that just won't die.
"The budget was balanced at the end of Bill Clinton’s tenure..."
Lies repeated remain likes.
You.
Are.
Full.
Of.
Shit.
The lie is that he didn't balance the budget. In fact we had a budget surplus four years in a row. The previous President to have balanced a budget was Lyndon Johnson.
The numbers don't lie.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSD
Note that for over four decades, deficits increase under Republicans and decline under Democrats.
Nope, now stop with your bullshit. No one is buying it.
It's funny accounting that shows a surplus when the debt kept growing. Your partisanship makes you gullible.
Sure Jan.
Inconvenient facts.
You wouldn't recognize a fact if it slapped you on the ass and called you Charlie.
Humorously a good part of that was wiping-out SS and Medicare funds.
Clinton had a "surplus" (in many ways this was illusory due to SS surpluses which do not exist anymore) in large part due to a GOP majority Congress which did not allow him to spend well beyond the revenues the government was taking in, not because he was in any way frugal himself. Remember, Clinton himself said that his government knew how to spend an individual citizen's money better than the citizen did.
They will not let a fiscal commission agreement be self-executing “unless Congress objects” because they don’t want an actual solution, even if the fiscal commission could actually come up with a “solution,” which is highly doubtful. As always, raising taxes will not work! Ever! It has been pointed out again and again that tax revenues as a percent of GDP have never varied by more than two percentage points up or down at any time in the last hundred years regardless of what marginal tax rates are set or what new taxes are levied. Cutting corporate taxes has never decreased the tax revenues as a percent of GDP, and increasing corporate taxes has never resulted in an increase in tax revenues. The only solution to deficit spending is to cut spending. Congress is not only the greatest hurdle to cutting spending, it’s the ONLY hurdle!
Lyndon Johnson balanced the budget with a tax increase. That is a fact.
Lol. Progs always living in the past.
You are the gold standard of morons, chuck.
STEAL more!!!! /s
Federal dollars have become a tragedy of commons. Any congressman not gorging at the trough won’t be bringing home the bacon and likely won’t be sent back to DC the next election cycle.
Need a clean sweep through the whole federal government and start over. Resetting to constitutional conditions. Which at this point will be quite an undertaking.
And as Chumby says, the Congress Members who do that will be serving their last term.
Our public wants more government services than we are willing to pay for.
Yes, primarily democrats. I don’t really care what your kind want. Democrat policy has already nearly bankrupted this country. That has to end. I also don’t really care how many of you we need to deal with to save America.
Americans need America. We don’t need democrats. Maybe you Marxists should get the Hell out before things become contentious. Much healthier for your kind.
Perhaps Cuba will take you. They have ‘free’ healthcare and I’m sure you and your fellow travelers will enjoy the ‘comradely’ there in that ‘worker’s paradise’.
"Federal dollars have become a tragedy of commons."
+100000000 Best statement in weeks.
The USA was never suppose to go communist/socialist.
As the global economy continues to evolve, savvy investors are constantly seeking opportunities that not only promise returns but also provide stability and growth. One such destination that has emerged as a beacon for real estate investment is the UAE https://mayak.ae/type-en/houses-for-sale/ . Renowned for its dynamic economy, strategic location, and visionary development projects, the UAE offers a plethora of advantages for those looking to save and grow their wealth through real estate investments.
Will this be any different than
United States Congressional Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction
National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993
National Economic Commission
etc.