Author
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- Reform Categories
- Resources
- Conclusion
Media Contact
For general and media inquiries and to book our experts, please contact: pr@rstreet.org
Introduction
Americans are facing a looming debt crisis, and Congress must act quickly to turn the tide, as our debt—and the interest on that debt—is rapidly accruing. Lawmakers have procrastinated too long on this issue, and further procrastination will only make future options increasingly dire.
To begin the process of this huge undertaking, we must stop searching for a perfect solution that will throttle our debt accrual with minimal sacrifice—that moment has passed us by. There is a wide variety of previously proposed reforms put forth by lawmakers, economists, think tanks, and other stakeholders from across the political spectrum, many of which have been shown to be beneficial at the state level or at the national level in other countries. Applying some combination of these approaches could significantly improve both our political environment and our fiscal outlook.
In the table that follows, we present a selection of previously proposed fiscal reforms that could help address our spending crisis and reform our dysfunctional budget process in different ways and to different degrees. This table is searchable and sortable and is designed to provide a brief overview of each reform, whether it was introduced previously, and whether it garnered bipartisan support. It also includes links to quickly jump down to additional information that appears in the expanded discussion below the table.
If Congress adopted even a small number of these reforms, we would be on a better path to fiscal stability as a nation.
Accountability and Oversight Reforms
So far, the magic formula to get members of Congress to cast tough votes has remained out of reach. The needs to meet long-established fiscal-year deadlines or address our burdensome debt are not incentive enough for many legislators to think beyond their next election. Rather than vote for potentially unpopular funding cuts or higher taxes, it is usually easiest to kick the can down the road. To help bolster “the better angels,” the reform-minded may want to use some of the ideas presented below. Moreover, lawmakers aren’t alone in needing accountability; federal agencies and the more than 2,000 programs government employees administer also benefit from regular, robust oversight.
Address Over-Budget and Behind-Schedule Projects
| Past bills have had bipartisan support | |
| Bills have been previously introduced |
Although “over budget” and “behind schedule” are common phrases in the federal government, there is no broad, federal-level tracking related to this problem. One recommendation, the bipartisan “Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act,” would require the Office of Management and Budget to create and publish an annual report on projects that are more than 5 years behind schedule and/or $1 billion or more over budget.
More Information
Bills
- 119: Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act (S. 766/H.R. 1722)
Appropriations Cost Transparency
| Past bills have had bipartisan support | |
| Bills have been previously introduced |
The 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, which established the current budget process, exempts bills from the Appropriations Committees from CBO cost estimates, which differs from how other bills’ financial impacts are assessed. The CBO does, however, produce budget authority estimates and other financial information for appropriators and their staff, as well as “interested parties,” as they prepare appropriations bills. Critically, though, this data is not necessarily made available to members of Congress who are not on the committees, nor is it publicly available. Ending this anachronistic exemption would help make such information about appropriations readily accessible.
More Information
- Strengthening the Congressional Budget Office
- Press Release: Grothman Introduces Appropriations Transparency Act
Bills
- 118: Appropriations Transparency Act (H.R. 7584)
Cost Estimates Improvement Act
| Past bills have had bipartisan support | |
| Bills have been previously introduced |
The CBO’s cost estimates, which provide data on how proposed legislation could affect revenue, direct spending, deficits, and the long-term budget outlook, are a vital tool for understanding the fiscal impact of legislation. But they only tell part of the story, as the cost of interest on the debt (if any) is not included in the estimates. As the price of our interminable borrowing rises, the interest costs of new legislation are a significant portion of its true cost estimate. It is essential that lawmakers and the public see the full financial picture when they make these important decisions.
More Information
- Bipartisan Bill Would Require the Congressional Budget Office to Disclose the Full Cost of Proposals
- Cost Estimate of the Cost Estimate Improvement Act
Bills
- 119: Cost Estimates Improvement Act (H.R. 991)
Debt-Limit Changes
| Past bills have had bipartisan support | |
| Bills have been previously introduced |
As currently enacted, the debt limit is designed to restrain the accumulation of debt up to a certain limit or within a specified timeframe, until such a time when the U.S. Treasury exhausts its authority to borrow funds. At the very least, it does periodically call attention to our compulsive spending habits and creates a short-term panic as to how the debt limit will be resolved (at which point, members of Congress take what some consider to be a very uncomfortable vote to raise the debt limit). Some tradeoffs or reforms have been enacted as a result of debt-ceiling negotiations in the past, but our current debt is a testament to the limitations of the debt limit as a reliable curb on overspending. Because it is unlikely that Congress would fail to raise the debt limit in some form and risk economic disruptions or hardship, the debt limit has increasingly become a kind of political game of chicken with each party waiting to see who will blink first. This creates a toxic atmosphere for legislating, with little incentive for any party or congress member to compromise.
Instead, avoiding this uncomfortable vote could be used as a reward for enacting and enforcing a bipartisan budget or keeping spending within agreed-upon limits.
More Information
- Q&A: Everything You Should Know About the Debt Ceiling
- A debt limit deal with something for everyone
Bills
- 116: Bipartisan Congressional Budget Reform Act (S. 2765)
No Budget, No Pay
| Past bills have had bipartisan support | |
| Bills have been previously introduced |
“No Budget, No Pay” (NBNP) and other similar restrictions strive to incentivize congress members to come to an agreement on a concurrent budget resolution and appropriations. If passed, NBNP would prohibit lawmakers from receiving paychecks if Congress were to miss the September 30 fiscal year deadline for funding the government. Similar bills follow the same logic but limit other actions that members like to take, like traveling home to districts and fundraising.
More Information
Bills
- 118: No Budget, No Pay Act (S. 89)
No Pay for Congress During Default or Shutdown Act
| Past bills have had bipartisan support | |
| Bills have been previously introduced |
Avoiding defaults and government shutdowns is a basic responsibility of Congress, and voters should expect their legislators to fulfill this minimum job requirement. Like other accountability measures that target congress members’ wallets to spur action (e.g., “No Budget, No Pay”), this bipartisan bill would prevent Senators and Representatives from being paid for the days the federal government is in default (exceeding our debt limit) or in a shutdown because of a lack of appropriations. The bill would also take special steps to comply with constitutional limits on changing congress members' pay.
Bills
- 119: No Pay for Congress During Default or Shutdown Act (H.R. 1973)
Stress Tests
| Past bills have had bipartisan support | |
| Bills have been previously introduced |
Traumatic national and global events like pandemics, financial crises, wars, and extreme weather events all impose a major toll on our economy and the federal budget. Although we can’t anticipate the specifics of catastrophic events, it’s essential that we be as prepared as possible for them. One way to prepare is to regularly conduct stress tests. States, banks, and private sector companies run these types of tests to assess the emergency-readiness of their systems.
Current proposals would require the U.S. Department of the Treasury and Office of Management and Budget, in conjunction with the Government Accountability Office, to evaluate how the U.S.’s financial systems would respond to various crises like an economic recession or depression, natural disaster, global pandemic, or cyber-attack, among others.
More Information
- Bipartisan Lawmakers Introduce Fiscal Contingency Preparedness Act
- State Budget Stress Tests Help Policymakers Set Savings Targets
- Stress Tests: Building Budget Resilience in an Ever-Changing World
- Federal Fiscal Stress Testing: A Common-Sense Step Toward Resilience
Bills
- 119: Fiscal Contingency Preparedness Act (S. 2492/H.R. 4642)
- 118: RESILIENCE Act of 2024 (S. 5225)
Unauthorized Appropriations
| Past bills have had bipartisan support | |
| Bills have been previously introduced |
When experts or legislators complain that much of the federal budget is on “autopilot,” they are typically referring to mandatory spending, such as Social Security and Medicare, that comprise about 63 percent of total federal outlays. But that’s not the only part of the budget on autopilot. For fiscal year 2023, the Congressional Budget Office identified $510 billion in appropriations associated with 428 expired authorizations—which equates to about one-third of the discretionary outlays that year. Reauthorizing programs on a regular basis and, if warranted, ending expired or underperforming programs is an essential part of the oversight process and Congress’s constitutional role: the power of the purse. As the federal government’s reach has extended, conducting effective oversight has slipped, unable to keep up with the rate of growth and leaving unauthorized spending to pile up with little scrutiny. Maintaining a consistent schedule of authorization and review of current programs will help ensure programmatic goals are achieved, spot potential problems to be resolved, and prevent unnecessary duplication.
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) has consistently advocated for eliminating these “zombie” programs by creating a three-year pathway to reauthorization or a tapered wind-down for unauthorized programs.
More Information
Bills
- 118: Unauthorized Spending Accountability Act (H.R. 1518)
Accounting Reforms
Lawmakers could make better budget-related decisions if they received better information from the Congressional Budget Office, Joint Economic Committee, Joint Committee on Taxation, GAO, and other cost-assessment bodies.
More Comprehensive Accounting
| Past bills have had bipartisan support | |
| Bills have been previously introduced |
The accounting standards used by the federal government do not provide a comprehensive picture of our financial status, leaving massive unfunded liabilities, such as Social Security and Medicare, off the books. If these and other anticipated costs were included in our federal debt, it would more than double from $35 trillion to nearly $80 trillion.
Moreover, future obligations related to entitlements aren’t the only extra costs that are not being fully considered. Proposed legislation and Congressional Budget Office estimates for new programs or spending hikes do not include the cost of interest on the debt we would have to take on to fund that additional spending. The total, long-term price of new spending could be far more than the initial price tag. In addition, the Congressional Budget Office sometimes lacks access to critical data from certain federal agencies, which means their spending reports can be underestimates. Just as important, we tend not to fully comprehend future costs that might result as a consequence of current governmental actions. An example of this might be military engagements that are likely to lead to increased utilization of Veterans Affairs medical and disability programs.
More Information
Bills
- 118: Cost Estimates Improvement Act (H.R. 8341)
- 118: Congressional Budget Office Data Sharing Act (H.R. 7032)
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Transparency
| Past bills have had bipartisan support | |
| Bills have been previously introduced |
Under its current director, the CBO has made significant strides to improve transparency, but more can be done, particularly when it comes to understanding the assumptions and models that the CBO is using to generate scores. When considering large, complicated bills, it can be difficult to anticipate future economic conditions, policy impact, and other variables like global events or natural disasters—all of which can have a significant impact on long-term costs. By better understanding how the CBO has reached certain conclusions, lawmakers can make better policy and budgetary decisions. Likewise, by comparing and contrasting models used by other organizations, agencies, and experts against the CBO’s information, everyone’s predictions could become more accurate over time.
More Information
Bills
- 117: CBO Show Your Work Act (S. 793)
Budget and Spending Reforms
Today’s budgets, when they are even considered, have been reduced to little more than a partisan tool. Transitioning from a messaging document toward a more realistic, fiscally focused plan for long-term sustainability and short-term changes could have positive ramifications that spread far beyond economic goals. A budget with more buy-in and clear, strong guardrails could help avoid the kind of fiscal crises and legislative challenges that create uncertainty and frustration for everyone, from decision-makers to constituents. The status quo is not merely economically unsustainable; it hampers good governance and exacerbates both the political and practical frictions of lawmaking.
Balanced Budget Amendment
| Past bills have had bipartisan support | |
| Bills have been previously introduced |
A balanced budget amendment (BBA) would add an amendment to the Constitution requiring that the federal budget be balanced (i.e., that revenues and outlays be the same) over a certain period, likely with specific exceptions for national security or other emergencies that would require a supermajority for approval to waive the rule. Forty-four states and the District of Columbia require some version of a balanced budget. There are many different proposals with different takes on the substance of the amendment, the process for enactment via the Constitution’s Article V provisions, and the underlying notion of a Constitutional amendment versus other legislative changes.
More Information
- Business Cycle Balanced Budget Amendment: Rather than requiring annual balance, this version smooths out some of the regular economic variability, such as a dip in revenue, over three years for a more predictable, stable budget over time.
- Principles-Based Balanced Budget Amendment: This is a simplified version of a BBA that provides flexibility for congressional enactment.
Bills
- Balanced Budget Amendment: Pros and Cons
- A Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment: Background and Congressional Options
- Balanced Budget Amendment
- Revisiting the Balanced Budget Amendment: Toward Designs Without Defects
- Balanced Budget Requirements: How States Limit Deficit Spending
Small Sample of Many Such Bills:
- 117: Proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (S.J. Res. 42/H.J. Res. 77)
- 118: Proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (S.J. Res. 19/H.J. Res. 80)
- 118: Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States Relative to Balancing the Budget (S.J. Res. 13)
Emergency Spending
| Past bills have had bipartisan support | |
| Bills have been previously introduced |
Emergency spending has been a major contributor to the national debt in recent years. This and other forms of supplemental spending, such as the Overseas Contingency Operations account, are typically not subject to spending limits and often end up being used as a handy workaround for caps rather than as one-time safety nets in response to unforeseen events. And such events aren’t necessarily unforeseen. Hurricanes, droughts, wildfires, floods, and other natural disasters happen with enough regularity that they can be expected in certain areas during certain seasons.
Similarly, the exact nature of an attack or armed conflict might be unforeseen, and the need to establish an immediate response could be understood as an emergency. But repeated supplementals (additional funding within the current fiscal year outside normal appropriations bills) or the utilization of an off-budget account to pay for conflicts that stretch for years can no longer be considered an emergency or, per that off-budget account, a “contingency.” Policymakers have suggested many recommendations for reforming and restraining emergency spending, including:
- Offsetting emergency spending with true “pay-fors”
- Better anticipating potential costs and budgets for events ahead of time, perhaps through the creation of a rainy-day fund, which many states have
- Creating stricter limits as to what defines an emergency
- Increasing the voting threshold for emergency spending
- Limiting emergency spending bills to singular topics to avoid wasteful, unrelated add-ons
- Ending or limiting policies that increase the likelihood of disasters, such as agriculture subsidies that encourage planting in flood- and drought-prone areas or on sensitive lands that serve important protective roles.
- Eliminating federally backed insurance coverage for properties that repeatedly flood.
More Information
- The Known Unknowns: Planning for the Next Emergencies
- The High Price of Emergency Spending: What’s the True Cost of Ad-Hoc Disaster Aid?
- R Street Statement for the Record on the Reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program
- Curbing Federal Emergency Spending
- Seven Emergency Spending Reforms Congress Should Consider
Bills
- 116: Budgeting for Disasters Act (S. 1579/H.R. 3217)
- 118: A Bill to Establish the Federal Rainy Day Fund to Control Emergency Spending (S. 718)
- 118: ARTICLE ONE Act (S. 1912/H.R. 3988)
Enforce the Caps Act
| Past bills have had bipartisan support | |
| Bills have been previously introduced |
The 2023 Fiscal Responsibility Act included much-needed discretionary spending caps through FY 2029; however, these were only enforceable through a sequester (across-the-board cuts) through FY 2025. The Enforce the Caps Act would extend this common enforcement mechanism to the FY 2026 to 2029 out years, securing the savings lawmakers promised in 2023.
More Information
Bills
- 119: Enforce the Caps Act (H.R. 4178)
Force of Law
| Past bills have had bipartisan support | |
| Bills have been previously introduced |
Presently, the annual-in-name-only federal budget is a concurrent resolution that is agreed upon by the Senate and the House. It is not signed by the President, and it does not have the force of law. As a result, budgets have become a partisan wish list for political messaging, full of policy items better left to relevant committees that are unlikely to be enacted or garner significant support from colleagues across the aisle. Over time, this has undermined the authority and utility of the budgeting process. If budgets were taken more seriously, these plans and the committees that write them would garner more respect and participation in the process of creating and enacting a budget.
Bills
- 116: Bipartisan Congressional Budget Reform Act (S. 2765)
PAYGO
| Past bills have had bipartisan support | |
| Bills have been previously introduced |
The current federal budget process fosters an environment of unchecked spending and growing deficits, as it allows legislation to be enacted that exceeds the approved budget and adds to the national debt. This lack of fiscal discipline undermines long-term economic stability. An alternative approach is PAYGO (Pay-As-You-Go), which requires that any new spending or tax changes do not increase the federal deficit. Instead, new expenditures must be offset by equivalent savings or revenue increases elsewhere in the budget.
Under PAYGO rules, if new mandatory spending or tax cuts are not fully offset, automatic across-the-board spending cuts (sequestration) can be triggered to eliminate the net deficit increase. This mechanism aims to enforce fiscal discipline and prevent the deficit from growing because of new legislation. PAYGO enforces fiscal responsibility by ensuring that policymakers account for the financial impact of their decisions, promoting a more sustainable budgetary environment.
More Information
Penny Plan
| Past bills have had bipartisan support | |
| Bills have been previously introduced |
The most basic version of the penny plan, which lawmakers have repeatedly introduced over the years in both the House and Senate, would cut 1 percent of federal spending every year until balance is achieved. This plan has the benefit of being both easy to understand and seemingly achievable. Unfortunately, although it sounds perfectly reasonable to save 1 cent out of every dollar, our spending has exploded since the concept was first proposed in 2011, with total outlays nearly doubling. In addition, a 1-penny cut is no longer sufficient to achieve balance in the near term. The latest version of this reform, put forth by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), is a 6-penny plan to balance in 5 years.
More Information
- "Penny Plan" Puts the Spotlight on Out-of-Control Federal Spending
- Rand Paul’s Six Cents Would Put the Budget on the Right Track
Bills
- 112: One Percent Spending Reduction Act of 2011 (S. 1316/H.R. 1848)
- 118: Concurrent Budget Resolution for Fiscal Years 2024 through 2032 (S.Con.Res.41)
Portfolio Budgeting
| Past bills have had bipartisan support | |
| Bills have been previously introduced |
The current federal budget and appropriations process tries to divide up governing according to spheres of influence and responsibility. For example, the Department of Defense ostensibly oversees defense—or national security. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) does what it says on the label. Annual funding likewise attempts to maintain this kind of logical division of labor.
However, over time, as the federal apparatus has grown and expanded, these lines have become blurred, and duplication has crept in. Housing programs exist outside the confines of HUD. The Department of Energy, in addition to the Department of Defense, is responsible for our nuclear weapons. Programs involving health care, emergencies, social services, and many other policy areas have likewise proliferated across the federal government and budget, leading to redundancy and waste. Further, this fragmentation makes it hard to compare outcomes and to discern if underlying policy goals are being achieved in a cost-effective manner.
An alternative approach is portfolio budgeting, which groups and analyzes related spending into portfolios that reflect common strategic goals. This method cuts across agency and congressional committee boundaries, assessing how effectively resources are used to achieve each goal and identifying alternative policies that could yield better results at lower cost. This change would not impede the annual budget process. Instead, this deep oversight, conducted on a regular basis over many years, would provide essential information to both identify opportunities for spending reductions and improve programmatic outcomes.
More Information
- Portfolio Budgeting: How a new approach to the budget could yield better decisions
- Is It Time to Adopt Portfolio Budgeting?
Bills
- 116: Bipartisan Congressional Budget Reform Act (S. 2765)
Budgeting Process
It is clear that Congress needs a better fiscal budgeting process. In the 50 years since the 1974 Budget Control and Impoundment Act, Congress has only managed to follow its own plan and pass all 12 appropriations bills before the end of the fiscal year (September 30) 4 times. Moreover, as budgeting deadlines are missed, government shutdown threats loom, and unrelated bills are bundled into large “must-pass” packages with little room for debate or input outside of the most powerful appropriators and party leaders. A more collaborative and less onerous process could help reduce the circuitous brinkmanship of current negotiations.
Automatic Continuing Resolution (Auto CR)
| Past bills have had bipartisan support | |
| Bills have been previously introduced |
Under the current budget process, it can be difficult for Congress to complete its work on all 12 appropriations bills before the end of the fiscal year. And as the September 30 deadline draws closer without budget agreements finalized, concerns about a government shutdown begin to take root. To avoid such a major disruption, Congress often opts for a continuing resolution (CR) that keeps funding flat and programs operational under the directives of the prior fiscal year for varying lengths of time.
Each time the CR expires, the threat of a shutdown once again looms. This creates unnecessary uncertainty not only across the government, but also among employees, contractors (some of which are small businesses), those who rely on government services (including veterans), and even global markets. To avoid the damage a shutdown would cause, legislative negotiations tend to be rushed, with massive bills reaching the floor before lawmakers have time to review what they are voting on. Amendments, which consume significant floor time, are dispensed with, leaving legislators outside leadership or the appropriations committees on the sidelines.
An automatic CR could neutralize the toxic brinkmanship of a costly shutdown.
Possible modifications:
- Prevent legislators from returning to their districts until their budget work is complete.
- Ban all other legislative business from chamber floors until a budget agreement is reached.
- Keep funding flat until appropriations are passed, or provide for modest cuts or increases after a certain period of time.
More Information
- GAO report on continuing resolutions and automatic funding approaches
- 2019 Minnesota report on CR that explains the policy and analyzes its effectiveness in other states
Bills
- 118: Prevent Government Shutdowns Act (S. 135/H.R. 5696)
Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations
| Past bills have had bipartisan support | |
| Bills have been previously introduced |
A significant portion of congressional time is usually needed to establish top-line discretionary numbers, via either a concurrent budget resolution or a deeming resolution. Once those numbers are set, the appropriations process can begin in earnest. The next step is to complete all 12 appropriations bills by the end of the fiscal year, though legislators often have to rely on a hodgepodge of continuing resolutions and “buses” of varying sizes and combinations.
Biennial budgeting is an alternative approach that sets spending limits and priorities on a two-year basis. In fact, during the decade of spending caps under the 2011 Budget Control Act, two-year budget deals were often the norm. Knowing the budget numbers for two years at a time improves predictability and planning for federal agencies and other stakeholders, giving them additional time to provide in-depth oversight and reach consensus on appropriations. Biennial appropriations could either be divided so that six bills are taken up in the first year of the two-year cycle and six in the second year, or all 12 could be taken up in year 1, with time provided in year 2 for oversight and planning.
More Information
- CBO: Biennial Budgeting
- Biennial Budgeting: A Tool for Improving Government Fiscal Management and Oversight
Bills
- 112: Biennial Budgeting and Enhanced Oversight Act (S. 211/H.R. 3577)
- 118: Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act (S. 3208)
Comprehensive Federal Budget
| Past bills have had bipartisan support | |
| Bills have been previously introduced |
The current federal budget process—the annual steps of considering a joint budget resolution, potential reconciliation, and subsequent appropriations—primarily addresses discretionary spending, which covers most of the activities of federal agencies like the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice. Unlike mandatory or direct spending, which occur automatically, these funds must be allocated on an annual basis via appropriations.
Despite the many government functions that fall under this discretionary-spending umbrella, it comprises only 27 percent of total federal spending (which also includes interest paid on the debt). This means that the vast majority—nearly three-quarters—of U.S. spending falls outside the budget process and is essentially ignored.
Reforms that call for a comprehensive federal budget would bring all federal spending, along with revenue, under the budget-process umbrella. With greater visibility over all facets of spending, lawmakers and their constituents would have a better understanding, as well as more opportunities for accountability and oversight, of our total fiscal situation.
More Information
- Explainer: Comprehensive Congressional Budgeting Act
Bills
- 118: Comprehensive Congressional Budgeting Act (H.R. 6953)
Debt Brakes or Fiscal Rules
| Past bills have had bipartisan support | |
| Bills have been previously introduced |
Debt brakes and fiscal rules come in many forms, but the most basic element is a statutory or constitutional financial restraint. The International Monetary Fund categorizes these into four major groups: budget balance rules (discussed under the Balanced Budget Amendment), debt rules, expenditure rules, and revenue rules. Major components tend to include a fiscal target, such as a sustainable debt-to-GDP ratio, and automatic stabilizers (either revenue increases, spending cuts, or both). Sweden and Switzerland are known for their strong fiscal rules, which have helped the countries recover from past economic crises and successfully weather recent economic shifts that have rocked other corners of the globe.
More Information
- Better Budget Targets Can Help Congress Balance Near- and Long-Term Needs
- Why Germany Should Preserve Its Debt Brake and the U.S. Should Adopt One
- Would a Swiss “Debt Brake” Work for America? It’s Worth a Shot.
- Fiscal Rules: International Strategies for Managing Government Debt and Deficits
- Responsible Budget Targets Act
Bills
- 118: Responsible Budget Targets Act of 2023 (S. 772)
Fiscal Reform Commission
| Past bills have had bipartisan support | |
| Bills have been previously introduced |
Congress has formed commissions of varying types and with different degrees of success over the years, such as the Joint Select Committee on Budget and Appropriations Process Reform (2017-2018), the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (Simpson-Bowles Commission, 2010), or the National Commission on Social Security Reform (Greenspan Commission, 1981-1983). While those commissions have not always achieved their underlying goals, they have provided a timely, bipartisan forum in which to discuss and debate essential issues, thereby putting a national spotlight on urgent areas of federal fiscal policy. Particularly when Congress has proved unable or unwilling to act, independent commissions have served as an invaluable tool for advancing discourse and potential solutions.
Potential Modifications
- Use Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC)-inspired processes. Decommissioning unneeded military installations after the Cold War proved to be too divisive for Congress to carry out in a timely manner. BRAC entered the picture as an independent commission—connected with neither Congress nor the Pentagon—and considered all relevant information to make nonbiased closure recommendations. Their recommendations, which were often unpopular, were implemented automatically unless Congress passed a joint resolution of disapproval within 45 days. For more information on this approach, visit: The BRAC Commission as a Model for Federal Spending Reform; Not Just Any Fiscal Commission Will Resolve America’s Fiscal Crisis.
- To help ensure that the commission has bipartisan buy-in and credibility, stakeholders can choose commission members of the opposite political party. For more information on this approach, visit: A Simple Idea That Might Help a Fiscal Commission Succeed.
More Information
- Redesigning the Budget Process: A Role for Independent Commissions?
- When and Why Does Congress Create Fiscal Commissions?
- It’s Time for a Bipartisan Fiscal Commission
- Getting to Yes: A History of Why Budget Negotiations Succeed and Why They Fail
- Expert Views: Fiscal Commission
Bills
- 117: Time to Rescue United States Trusts Act of 2021 (TRUST Act) (S. 1295/H.R. 2575)
- 118: Sustainable Budget Act of 2022 (S. 743/H.R.710)
- 118: Fiscal Stability Act of 2023 (S. 3262)
- 119: Fiscal Commission Act (H.R. 3289)
Full Faith and Credit Act
| Past bills have had bipartisan support | |
| Bills have been previously introduced |
Most U.S. citizens do not want the national debt to continue to grow, nor do they want our country to be unable to pay its bills. Federal creditors (which include those who hold mutual or pension funds, banks, states, and local governments—not just the foreign governments people often discuss) expect to earn interest on the debt they hold. Retirees and those receiving disability assistance rely on payments from Social Security. Service members, federal workers, and many others expect to receive their government paychecks promptly. Moreover, a debt limit breach would likely trigger a cascade of anxiety across global markets. This kind of uncertainty is not conducive to thoughtful negotiation and problem-solving.
The “Full Faith and Credit Act” would ensure that, in the event of a debt-ceiling breach, cash flow to vulnerable populations and creditors would be prioritized from incoming tax revenues. Supporters believe that implementing this bill could create a more productive environment for debt-ceiling discussions.
More Information
- The Federal Government Has Borrowed Trillions, But Who Owns All That Debt?
- Could This Law Prevent A US Debt Ceiling Catastrophe?
Bills
- 113: Full Faith and Credit Act (H.R. 807)
- 118: Full Faith and Credit Act (S. 82)
Voter Education Reforms
To ensure that lawmakers take action to correct our perilous financial status, it is essential that constituents share and communicate the country’s financial/budgetary issues as a top priority. Voter engagement could be enhanced by elevating fiscal issues in the public arena and more clearly communicating the impact these issues could have on future generations’ prosperity.
Fiscal State of the Nation
| Past bills have had bipartisan support | |
| Bills have been previously introduced |
This bipartisan resolution would require the head of the Government Accountability Office (GAO)—the Comptroller General of the United States—to appear before a joint hearing of the House and Senate Budget Committees to provide insight into the annual Financial Report of the United States Government on an annual basis. Members of Congress outside the budget committees would also be welcome to participate, and, like most other hearings, this would be open and transmitted to the public.
An annual Fiscal State of the Nation would help provide lawmakers and the public with unbiased information regarding the financial status of the federal government, as well as shine a spotlight on this important issue.
Possible modification: Some versions of Fiscal State of the Nation proposals call for a specialized report to be prepared by the Congressional Budget Office every four years, timed to coincide with the presidential election cycle, to elevate fiscal responsibility as part of the election debate.
More Information
Bills
- 117: Fiscal State of the Nation Resolution (S.Con.Res. 11/H.Con.Res. 44)
Taxpayers’ Itemized Receipt
| Past bills have had bipartisan support | |
| Bills have been previously introduced |
This proposal would provide each voter with an annual statement detailing basic information about the fiscal state of the federal government. One expert explains that the statement might include:
[T]he average annual cost per-family of the spending cuts or tax increases needed to permanently stabilize the debt…how much that cost has changed over the previous year and how the cost will expand if Congress continues to delay reform. […] The annual statement could also show where most tax dollars are spent and list several examples of tax-and-spending packages necessary to stabilize the debt.
Potential modification
- A Third Way proposal from 2011 recommends that taxpayers receive a receipt listing how their specific tax payments were allocated among key budget functions.
More Information
Resources
The following organizations are useful sources for additional information on the budget reforms presented in this analysis.