America’s debt tops $34 trillion, but a commission to address it appears dead in Congress

WASHINGTON — For Mike Johnson, it was essentially 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 burden. “The consequences of not acting now are unbearable,” he said, echoing the warnings of his predecessor and other Republicans in the House of Representatives.

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

The collapse underscores an unyielding dynamic in Washington, with lawmakers in both parties reluctant to consider the unpopular compromises that would be necessary to stem the rising tide of red ink in the country — especially in an election year. Faced with the reality that any budget committee would almost certainly suggest that Americans pay more or get less from their government, lawmakers have time and again done what they do best: push the problem to the next Congress. And they seem ready to do it again.

Many Democrats and left-wing 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, fearing the panel would recommend tax increases. They have labeled the commission a “tax trap.”

“I’m disappointed that we don’t have as much momentum as I thought we would,” said Rep. Jodey Arrington, the Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee. “The speaker supported it and endorsed it from the beginning. But I think there are some outside groups that have weighed in, saying this is a backdoor way to raise taxes, and it has scared some of my Republican colleagues.”

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., sponsor of the Senate debt committee bill, was even more pessimistic.

“No one seems to care,” Manchin said. “It’s a shame, $34.6 trillion in debt. Nobody cares.”

The debt commission legislation, modeled after previous efforts, would create a 16-member panel to recommend steps that can be taken to balance the federal budget as quickly as possible and to ensure the fiscal health of Medicare and the improve social security in the long term. The commission would have 16 members – 12 from Congress, evenly divided by party, and four outside experts without voting rights. The Republican Party-controlled House Budget Committee advanced the bill on a 22-12 vote.

The fiscal realities facing each committee are well documented and center largely on Social Security and Medicare, which take up an increasing share of the federal budget, and interest payments on the national debt.

For Social Security, reserves for the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund will run out in 2033. At that point, the program will generate enough tax revenue to pay approximately 79% of planned benefits. For Medicare, the trust fund that covers inpatient hospital stays, hospice care and stays in skilled nursing facilities has sufficient resources to pay full benefits through 2036. At that point, cuts of 11% would be needed to match incoming revenues.

The last budget committee more than a decade ago – chaired by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson – recommended cutting a $4 trillion deficit over the course of 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 consider it in 2010.

Supporters of a new debt panel noted that they based their bill on something that has been successful in the past: commissions to consolidate the nation’s military bases. The new commission would operate under a similar structure, with legislation requiring each chamber to quickly vote on its final proposal.

Still, Democratic lawmakers and the White House are skeptical about forming a debt commission. Shalanda Young, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, told lawmakers at a recent hearing that the administration was concerned that the only thing on the table before the committee would be Social Security cuts, and that Americans with high income earners would not be asked to pay. higher taxes.

“It will be 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 a hundred Democratic lawmakers also signed a letter opposing the commission in January, as powerful groups such as the AFL-CIO and AARP voiced their concerns.

When Republican groups also spoke out against the bill, including American for Tax Reform and the Club for Growth, the prospects for progress were significantly dampened. Their opposition weakened the Republican leadership’s influence in tying the commission to an annual spending bill or other “must-pass” measure.

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

Grover Norquist, president of American for Tax Reform, said any mechanism that allows tax increases undermines former President Donald Trump and other Republicans who ran for office on a platform of tax cuts. He said the focus should be strictly on spending cuts, and that “tax increases are what politicians do instead of making decisions and tough choices.”

“The modern Republican Party will not put tax increases on the table as if they are part of the solution to anything,” Norquist said. “Tax increases don’t solve a problem.”

That approach also ensures that Democrats like Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas to be wary of a commission.

“We cannot solve our problems by cutting back completely. It will have to be with some extra income. Unless the revenue is very much on the table, I’m not for anything. It has to be both,” Doggett said.

As bleak as things look right now, Rep. Scott Peters, D-Calif., said getting legislation through Congress is often a long game. Getting a House committee to approve the commission was an important step, he said. “We’re as far along as we’ve ever been.”

Supporters said they will continue to push for approval of a commission by the end of this Congress. Manchin mentioned the possibility of tying it to legislation in a lame-duck session after the election and before the new Congress is sworn in.

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