Social Security will turn 89 this year. It remains one of the nation’s most successful and popular programs that has played a vital role in lifting people out of poverty. It’s designed to be there for us in our old age after decades of hard work and paying into the system. It’s such an important part of our lives that over 80% of registered voters from across the political spectrum not only oppose cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits but also support increasing funding for these programs.
But that didn’t stop members of Congress from trying to gut them, and they’re doing it behind closed doors via a so-called fiscal commission.
Members of Congress are considering the Fiscal Commission Act of 2023, H.R. 5779, introduced by Reps. Bill Huizenga of Michigan and Scott Peters of California, that would give a small group of lawmakers and non-elected individuals enormous power to recommend cuts to Social Security and other popular programs without any ability for the public to weigh in.
The bill just passed out of the House Budget Committee on a mostly party line vote. Throughout the markup, lawmakers who support the bill repeatedly fought amendments to prevent cuts to Social Security and Medicare, saying everything must be on the table. There is a danger this will be added to full-year funding for fiscal 2024.
Besides H.R. 5779, similar bills – H.R. 710 and S. 3262 – would establish a similar fiscal commission whose “expert” members would have enormous power to shape our country’s fiscal policy.
Our country has seen many so-called fiscal commissions, and each one of them has failed to produce meaningful change. So why are some voices in both parties floating the idea again? Because a fiscal commission that represents the interests of wealthy elites can be set up with special procedures to bypass Congress. That means, the people we elect to represent us might not even get a say in whatever cuts a fiscal commission proposes. These fiscal commissions are just a veiled attempt to gut the programs that millions of older Americans pay into and rely on.
On Jan. 11, Reps. John Larson of Connecticut and Jan Schakowsky of Illinois sent a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries signed by 116 members of the U.S. House calling on them to exclude a fiscal commission from legislation funding the federal government for the remainder of fiscal 2024 or any other must-pass bills.
“It is Congress’s responsibility to conduct the oversight and recommend enhancements to solvency or cuts, and it should be done in the open and not behind closed doors,” the letter states. “We do not need a Commission to tell us what we must do, we need the political courage to take up these or any other proposals in regular order.”
AFGE applauds the 116 lawmakers and is echoing calls from them for Congress to reject the proposed fiscal commission.
“If Congress is serious about preserving Social Security, Medicare, and similar programs for future generations, then it needs to have an honest discussion about how to do that – not pawn off these decisions to a secret group behind closed doors,” said AFGE President Everett Kelley.
Congress, for example, has yet to advance Rep. John Larson’s Social Security 2100 Act, which would modernize Social Security, increase benefits, and safeguard the trust fund – all without raising taxes on middle income Americans or raising the retirement age.
Congress still hasn’t agreed on full-year funding for federal agencies, which have been operating under continuing resolutions since the fiscal year began Oct. 1. Instead of focusing on a fiscal commission to cut programs Americans want to preserve, it should focus on investing in our government and programs that improve our lives.