The House Budget Committee’s advancement of the Fiscal Commission Act of 2023 has ignited a debate over potential Social Security changes.
Amid concerns over national debt topping $34 trillion, the Fiscal Commission Act of 2023, H.R. 5779, proposes a bipartisan commission to review federal spending, but it faces strong opposition for allegedly endangering Social Security. Critics, including influential Democrats and advocacy organizations, warn of possible cuts to the program, fueling political confrontation over the future of essential social safety nets.
“Republicans in Congress know their plans to gut Americans’ Social Security and Medicare benefits are deeply unpopular,” Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden of Oregon said in a Thursday statement, “so they are resorting to schemes that short-circuit the legislative process, rushing through cuts to Americans’ earned benefits.”
Newsweek reached out the Senate Finance Committee’s office by phone for comment.
“The term ‘fiscal commission’ is the ultimate Washington buzzword, and it translates to trading away Americans’ earned benefits in a secretive, closed-door process,” Wyden said. “Instead of trying to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, Republicans should work with Democrats to ensure the wealthy pay their fair share, which would go a long way towards securing Social Security and Medicare long into the future.”
Proponents of the bill argue about the necessity of a bipartisan approach to tackle the debt crisis, while opponents are wary of any measures that might lead to reductions in Social Security and Medicare benefits.
The bill, co-sponsored by Representatives Bill Huizenga of Michigan, a Republican, and Scott Peters of California, a Democrat, and supported in the Senate by West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin and Utah Republican Mitt Romney, aims to establish a commission to propose solutions for the national debt and the sustainability of federal trust funds.
Pennsylvania Democratic Representative Brendan Boyle, a ranking member on the committee, pointed to the need for direct congressional action rather than relying on a commission—his stance reflected by a broader concern about the potential impact of the commission’s recommendations on the solvency and integrity of crucial welfare programs.
The perspective is shared by advocacy groups like the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare and AARP, which argue for regular legislative processes over the commission’s expedited approach.
According to AARP Executive Vice President and Chief Advocacy and Engagement Officer Nancy LeaMond, the “vote by the House Budget Committee sets up a process where seven members of Congress can ram through drastic cuts to Social Security and Medicare, without amendment, and without a full public debate.
“Social Security and Medicare are critical to American families,” LeaMond said in a statement issued Thursday. “Congress should work to strengthen and protect these programs in the full light of day, with public input through the regular legislative process.”
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.