Yet Another Scheme to Cut Social Security
Latest Democratic/Republican Gambit: A "Fiscal Commission"
The new year has seen a resurgence of a phenomenon we've examined several times in Political Economy Watch: manufactured panic over the size of the U.S. national debt and attempts to cut Social Security as the supposed remedy for the problems of the debt. This week we'll take a look at the latest version of this scheme; next week we'll look at the political players more closely.
Yet Another Commission to Cut Social Security
In September of last year, twelve Democratic (minority) members of the House of Representatives joined with twelve Republican (majority) congresspeople to introduce a bill, 118 H.R. 5779, known as the "Fiscal Commission Act of 2023". According to the text of this bill, the purpose of the proposed Fiscal Commission would be to:
"... identify policies to improve the fiscal situation in the medium term and to achieve a sustainable debt-to-GDP ratio of the long term, and for any recommendations related to Federal programs for which a Federal trust fund exists, to improve solvency for a period of at least 75 years."
The "Federal programs for which a Federal trust fund exists" are, of course, Social Security and Medicare. Among other things, the commission would be mandated to:
"... propose recommendations designed to balance the budget at the earliest reasonable date, including at minimum stabilizing the debt-to-GDP ratio at or below one hundred percent by the end of the 10-year period beginning on the date the Fiscal Commission is established ...."
The obsession with balancing the federal budget. The more sophisticated version of that obsession: keeping the debt-to-GDP ratio at a certain level. Haven't we been through this before?
Yes, we have been through this before. Peruse the archives of just this little blog alone and you'll find many posts discussing the widespread misunderstanding of federal deficit spending, the national debt and the funding of Social Security and Medicare as structured through their respective trust funds. Take a look at the very first substantive post on this blog from last March, "Return of the Repressed: Republicans Resume Attack on Social Security".
Wasn't There Another Commission About the Federal Budget?
But, in a more specific vein, you may be thinking, "Didn't I hear some years back about some federal commission on the Federal budget that was recommending cuts to Social Security?"
Yes, you did. You're probably thinking about the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which was established via executive order by President Obama in February 2010 "to address our nation's fiscal challenges. The Commission [was] charged with identifying policies to improve the fiscal situation in the medium term and to achieve fiscal sustainability over the long run." It was popularly known as the "Simpson-Bowles Commission" after its co-chairs, a former Republican senator from Wyoming and a former White House Chief of Staff under Bill Clinton.
This commission issued its final report in December 2010 which, among other things, called for tax increases and raising the age of qualification for Social Security benefits. For lack of sufficient agreement between Republican and Democratic members of the Commission, the report's recommendations never came up for a vote in Congress, though a few of those recommendations were reflected in later laws. Nevertheless, Simpson-Bowles contributed to the "deficit hawk" mentality dominant in politics in Washington, D.C.
What's Different About This "Fiscal Commission"?
The Fiscal Commission being proposed in HR 5779, however, is a horse of a different color. Simpson-Bowles was ultimately just intended to be advisory. This Fiscal Commission, however, is intended to re-shape the way the U.S. Congress passes laws.
Before going further, we should say at this point that the proposed Fiscal Commission is not going to an agency like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) or the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It is not going to be an administrative agency with some degree of enforcement powers located, broadly speaking, within the executive branch of the federal government. This Fiscal Commission thing is, for all practical purposes, to be located within the legislative branch, i.e., Congress.
The Commission would consist of 16 members: 4 groups of 4 people appointed by each of the Democratic and Republican leadership in each house; 3 of those 4 would be members of the respective houses of Congress; the remaining person would be an "outside expert." The reports of bills considered by the Fiscal Commission would be "fast-tracked" to the floors of the House and the Senate, not be amendable and not be subject to the filibuster rules in the Senate.
Does this "fast-tracking" also ring a bell? Yes, it is similar to the way successive administrations have "fast-tracked" trade agreements like NAFTA) through Congress. It dispenses with the "regular order" through which bills proceed through Congress. It means that major changes in Social Security and Medicare can be sped through Congress with much less of the public discussion which Congress's regular committee and floor procedures provides. The AFL-CIO denounced this procedure in a letter to all members of Congress (PDF) on January 17:
"Under this bill, closed-door drafting of provisions to reduce federal deficits through program cuts and revenue changes would produce a bill that cannot be amended. Fast track procedures would require expedited floor consideration in the House and in the Senate without filibuster. The lack of transparency and accountability in such a process raises significant doubts about the intentions behind the approach, such as substantial benefit cuts in Social Security and other federal programs."
How I Found Out About This Proposal
As mentioned above, next week I will explore why some Democrats have lined up with Republicans to support the creation of this Fiscal Commission and what that implies for political battles in the years ahead.
But first, I want to give credit to the website of the Northwest Labor Press for calling my attention to this issue. The NWLP describes itself as:
"an independent, union-supported newspaper ... [whose] print edition is mailed out twice a month to about 45,000 members of more than 80 unions in Oregon and Southwest Washington. ... Founded in 1900 by a consortium of trade unions, it’s one of America’s oldest and last remaining labor movement newspapers."
Check out this article posted on February 2, "Bill in Congress could lead to cuts in Social Security", by NWLP's Mallory Gruben and Don McIntosh.