America’s debt is over $34 trillion, but a commission to solve the problem appears dead in Congress

WASHINGTON — For Mike Johnson, it was practically a Day 1 priority.

It is high time, the newly elected speaker of the House of Representatives said in October, to create a bipartisan commission to address the federal government’s growing $34.6 trillion debt. “The consequences of not acting now are intolerable,” he said, echoing the warnings of his predecessor and other House Republicans.

More than six months later, the proposal appears to be all but dead, wiped out by vocal opposition from both the right and the left.

The collapse underscores the intransigent dynamic in Washington, as lawmakers from both parties are reluctant to consider the unpopular compromises that would be necessary to stem the country’s growing tide of red ink – especially in an election year. Given that any finance commission would almost certainly suggest that Americans pay more or get less from their government, lawmakers have repeatedly done what they do so well: take the issue to the next Congress. And they seem ready to do it again.

Many Democrats and left-leaning advocacy groups oppose the commission because they fear it would recommend cuts to Social Security benefits. Some Republicans and right-wing groups also oppose it because they fear the panel would recommend tax increases. They describe the Commission as a “tax trap”.

“I’m disappointed that we didn’t get as much momentum as I expected,” said House Budget Committee Republican Chairman Jodey Arrington. “The speaker supported it and advocated it from the beginning. But I think there are some outside groups that have come forward and said that this is a backdoor method of raising taxes and that this has frightened some of my Republican colleagues.”

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-Wa., sponsor of the debt relief bill in the Senate, was even more pessimistic.

“Nobody seems to care,” Manchin said. “It’s a disgrace, $34.6 trillion in debt. Nobody cares.”

The debt commission legislation, modeled on previous efforts, would create a 16-member panel to recommend actions that could be taken to balance the federal budget at the earliest appropriate time and improve the long-term financial health of Medicare and Social Security. The commission would have 16 members — 12 from Congress, evenly divided by party, and four outside experts without voting rights. The Republican-controlled House Budget Committee advanced the bill by a vote of 22-12.

The fiscal realities facing each commission are well documented and center in large part on Social Security and Medicare, which consume an ever-increasing share of the federal budget, as well as interest payments on the national debt.

As for Social Security, reserves for the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund will be depleted in 2033. At that point, the program will have enough tax revenue to pay about 79% of planned benefits. For Medicare, the trust fund, which covers inpatient hospitalizations, hospice care and skilled nursing facility stays, has sufficient funds to pay full benefits through 2036. At this point, spending cuts of 11% would be required to offset incoming revenues.

The last Finance Commission over a decade ago — chaired by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson — recommended $4 trillion in deficit reduction over a decade through a combination of tax increases and painful spending cuts. But the 11-7 vote in favor of the package was not enough to force Congress to reconsider it in 2010.

Proponents of a new debt board noted that they modeled their bill after something that has been successful in the past – commissions to consolidate the country’s military bases. The new commission would operate under a similar structure, with the legislation requiring each chamber to vote quickly on its final proposal.

Nevertheless, Democratic MPs and the White House are skeptical about the formation of a debt commission. Shalanda Young, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, told lawmakers in a recent hearing that the administration was concerned that the commission would only table cuts to Social Security benefits and not ask high-income Americans to pay would higher taxes.

“It is carried on the backs of those who have paid into the system and rely on this program to retire in peace,” Young said.

More than 100 Democratic lawmakers signed a letter opposing the commission back in January, as powerful groups like the AFL-CIO and AARP voiced their concerns.

When Republican-allied groups also spoke out against the bill, including Americans for Tax Reform and the Club for Growth, the prospects for progress deteriorated significantly. Their opposition weakened the GOP leadership’s hold on tying the commission to an annual spending bill or other mandatory measure to pass.

“There is no guarantee of the result. I think that’s what’s scaring more people, and this city would like to know what the outcome is,” said the House bill’s author, Rep. Bill Huizenga, R-Mich.

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, said any mechanism that allows tax increases undermines former President Donald Trump and other Republicans running for office on a tax-cutting platform. He said the focus must be strictly on spending cuts and “raising taxes is what politicians do instead of making decisions and difficult decisions.”

“The modern Republican Party will not put tax increases on the table as if they were part of the solution to anything,” Norquist said. “Increasing taxes doesn’t solve any problem.”

This approach also makes Democrats like Texas Rep. Lloyd Doggett wary of a commission.

“We cannot solve our problems through complete cuts. It must be associated with additional income. Unless the revenue is very much at stake, I’m not in favor of anything. It has to be both,” Doggett said.

As dire as the situation looks for the bill right now, Rep. Scott Peters of California said it’s often a long road getting legislation through Congress. Getting a House committee to approve the commission is an important step, he said. “We are further along than ever before.”

Advocates said they would continue to push for approval of a commission by the end of this Congress. Manchin mentioned the possibility of incorporating it into legislation in a lame-duck session after the election and before the new Congress took office.

“We’re in this classic situation where everyone hates us,” said Peters, one of three Democrats who voted for the bill in committee and are co-sponsors. “We have to do the right thing.”