Another Cat Food Commission?

For the fourth time in 45 years, Congress is considering the use of a secretive, closed door commission or committee to determine Social Security’s fate.

It started with the National Commission on Social Security Reform (Greenspan Commission), established by a 12/16/81 Reagan Executive Order. After meeting for a year, the seven members of Congress and eight outside experts named by the President and the House and Senate Majority Leaders were deadlocked. With the Trust Funds being weeks from being tapped out, at best, a small group of seven elected and eight non-elected individuals quickly crafted a plan that was adopted by the Commission and approved by Congress and the President. The amendments to the Social Security Act were signed into law in April 1983. They very gradually raised the age for unreduced retirement benefits from 65 to 67, increased the payroll tax, and introduced taxation of benefits for those with higher incomes.

Subsequent accelerating income inequality, coupled with the cap on earnings subject to the payroll tax, meant that the rich were not paying their fair share, and that more would need to be done in the future. The drop in union membership from 22% in 1973 to 10% today is a big factor.

Next came the 2010 National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility (Simpson-Bowles), called the “Cat Food Commission” by progressives, who feared that more poor seniors would have to resort to eating cat food if Social Security benefits were cut. Retired Senator Alan Simpson characterized opponents of benefit cuts as “greedy geezers." This effort was driven more by ideology than need, as the Trust Funds were sufficient to pay full benefits for years to come. Meetings consisting of 12 members of Congress and six private citizens commenced on 4/27/10. Agreement to a package to be fast tracked through Congress required the support of 14 of the 18 Commission members. On 12/01/10, they reported that 11 of the members voted for a plan to increase the retirement age and to reduce cost-of-living increases. We dodged a bullet.

Also in President Obama’s first term, the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (“Supercommittee”) was formed in August 2011. There were three Senators from each party, and three House of Representative members from each party. Only seven “yes” votes from the 12 participants would be needed to advance a fast-track bill to Congress. Floor votes would then have been expedited, with no amendments or Senate filibuster allowed. No agreement was reached by the 11/21/11 due date. Co-chair Patty Murray was our champion.

Now we have the Fiscal Commission Act (H.R. 3289/S. 4012) threatening Social Security in the upcoming “lame duck” Congress. The House bill was introduced 5/8/25, and has 20 Democrat cosponsors and 22 Republicans. The Senate bill was submitted on 3/5/26, with nine cosponsors, including four Democrats.

If the legislation is passed, 12 lawmakers and four non-voting private sector experts would be appointed within 14 days. The “experts” could not be elected officials or Federal government officers or employees. The Senate Majority Leader and Minority Leader, and the House Speaker and House Minority Leader, would each appoint three lawmakers and one expert.

A vote on a plan from the Commission would be required by 11/13/26, following no more than 60 days of deliberations, unless the Commission agrees to extend deliberations to 4/23/27. Congressional committees would be allowed just five days to review the plan, after which they must refer it to the House and Senate without amendments. Committees that fail to meet the time frames would be “discharged” from consideration. The plan would be considered by the House and Senate for no more than 30 days after receipt of the plan. Such consideration would be fast-tracked and not allow amendments. The plan would be made public 24 hours after agreement is reached, or after additional views are submitted. All points of order against the bill would be waived, except for two hours of debate, equally divided between the proponent and an opponent. The Senate Majority Leader could move the bill to a vote within two days, or any member could do so if he does not. Procedural rules of the Senate could be appealed, but without debate.

The Senate has 53 Republicans, and 45 Democrats (with two Independents who caucus with them). The House has 218 Republicans (with one Independent caucusing with them) and 214 Democrats. Considering the makeup of this lame duck Congress, the propensity of outgoing lawmakers to vote for bills without regard for what voters want, and the level of support for a Commission among Democrats, I am very concerned, and you should be, too. The lame duck session runs from 11/9/26 - 1/3/27.

Please call your US Representative and Senators, and ask that they oppose the Fiscal Commission Act (H.R. 3289/S. 4012) bill, and address Social Security funding by considering legislation that:

1. asks the wealthy to pay their fair share;

2. does not involve benefit cuts, such as raising the retirement age; and

3. is considered in an open, public way, in committees and on the floor.

   
   

Pending bills, like the Sanders SS Expansion Act and the Larson 2100 Act, will not pass before the lame duck session ends, and will have to be reintroduced.