The fiscal challenges facing our country have become increasingly clear over the past 18 months. As I highlighted in last week’s column, our mounting level of debt has serious consequences. As a result of the federal government’s continued spending binge, our national debt is $12 trillion and counting. 

As shocking as that is to many, there are still those in Washington who want to spend even more. The Democrats’ massive health care proposal appears to be on life support, but the President renewed his call for a government takeover during his State of the Union address. Taxpayers should not assume that they are off the hook for the $3 trillion health care bill just yet.

                         Spending Restraint Needed Now
It is no wonder that Americans across the country are outraged. In Washington, nearly everyone agrees that our growing federal debt needs to be brought under control. However, there is not broad consensus on how to rein in spending and to what degree.

The President recently announced a very modest approach to dealing with this problem.  He has proposed a “freeze” on non-defense spending at current levels – which are up 24 percent from last year. The three-year spending freeze would affect only about one-sixth of the federal budget and would exclude our most expensive entitlements: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. These programs must be put on a sound footing for current and future generations. In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Edward P. Lazear, former chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors, called this plan “optical rather than substantive.”

                                   An Aggressive Approach
A different approach is needed if we are serious about addressing our nation’s fiscal woes. The Senate recently debated a plan that is both substantive and aggressive. Senators Kent Conrad and Judd Gregg, the chairman and ranking Republican of the Senate Budget Committee, together proposed the establishment of a debt reduction commission. The panel would be tasked with addressing the underlying problems of out of control government spending and growing deficits. This task force would consist of 8 Republican and 8 Democrat members of Congress, appointed by Congressional leaders of both parties, and two representatives appointed by the President. The commission would make recommendations to Congress on ways to reduce the debt, such as through reform of entitlement programs. Congress would be required to give these recommendations an up-or-down vote. It is worth noting that the Conrad-Gregg commission is modeled after the military base-closure process, which has been successful in forcing Congress to make hard choices on a bipartisan basis. 

This was a tough debate and a close call because both sides of the argument had merit. In the end, I came down on the side of establishing the commission, which I view as a bold approach to one of our greatest long-term challenges. Opponents of the debt reduction task force cited concerns about Congressional authority being overridden by bureaucrats. While I understand this fear, I believe it is diminished by the fact that members of Congress would sit on the commission and work to represent the views and priorities of each side of the aisle. For example, Republican leaders in the House and Senate would appoint members of our party who would defend against tax hikes and advocate for fiscal discipline.

                                   A Bipartisan Approach
A bipartisan approach is also essential. Even with a 60-vote majority in the Senate, Democrats were unable to pass controversial initiatives in 2009. Clearly, both parties must have a seat at the table if Congress wants to get anything done. The Conrad-Gregg proposal would require a broad consensus at every stage of the commission’s process. For a recommendation to reach the House or Senate floors, 14 of the 18 task force members would have to support it. Before that recommendation could be sent to the President to be signed into law, a three-fifths majority vote in both the House and Senate would be required to pass it.

Finally, I voted to give this approach a chance because I believe it could give Congress the impetus to make hard decisions that are in the best interests of the country. There simply has not been the political will to take on the tough fiscal challenges we face. What is considered a challenge today will be a crisis tomorrow. We must seriously consider all options to address the uncontrollable growth of the federal debt. I believe the Conrad-Gregg proposal is the most promising and workable solution that has been presented thus far.

###