What you need to know
Although it is essential in a healthy democracy to work across party lines, achieving bipartisan consensus is not necessary for enacting a budget this year, as Republicans control the levers of power. However, over the last generation, substantial deficit reduction has generally involved bipartisan coalitions in Congress. In our final brief on deficit reduction, we discuss the principal bipartisan effort currently underway, that of the Problem Solvers Caucus.
- Over the last generation, enacting substantial deficit reduction in Congress usually requires a bipartisan approach.
- In this brief, we discuss the work of the Problem Solvers Caucus to construct such a proposal.
- Our other recent briefs on deficit reduction are an Introduction, Republican Party proposals, and Democratic Party proposals.
What is the Problem Solvers Caucus?
The Problem Solvers Caucus is a bipartisan collection of Congressional members established in 2017, with balanced representation equally between Republicans and Democrats. One suggestion from the group is to establish an independent fiscal commission similar to the 1990s-era Defense Secretary’s Commission on Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC).
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
The Commission on BRAC was chartered by the Department of Defense on May 3, 1988 towards the end of the Cold War when it became apparent that the U.S. had more military bases and facilities than needed to support a smaller military force. The purpose of the Commission on BRAC was to recommend military installations within the U.S., its commonwealths, territories and possessions for realignment and closure. Base closures are politically difficult choices for elected officials, as military bases bring employment and spending to the communities they are located in. Importantly, members of the House and Senate were not allowed to alter the list (add or remove bases). Their only option was to disapprove the list by majority vote – if they did not, the realignment and closures would be implemented.
There were five rounds of BRAC deliberations between 1988 and 2005. None of the recommendations were disapproved by Congress. Overall, dozens of bases were closed with annual savings of over $12 billion as of the early 2000s.
A BRAC Approach to Deficit Reduction
The Problem Solvers Caucus has proposed a BRAC-like process to develop a proposal for deficit reduction. (A similar idea was made by Representative Bill Huizenga (R-MI), the Fiscal Commission Act of 2023.) Their proposal does not specify all the details, but the idea would be to name a commission composed of legislators (equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats) and outside experts. The commission would develop a long-term plan to reduce federal deficits through spending cuts and tax increases. Depending on the commission’s mandate, all programs could be subject to cuts, or some (like Social Security) could be excluded.
The most important aspect of a BRAC-like plan would be the details of congressional consideration. One possibility mirrors the original BRAC process: the proposal would go into effect unless a majority of House members and Senators disapproved. The proposal could also be considered as an ordinary legislative proposal, meaning that it would require majority support from the House and Senate to go into effect.
An Example: The Super Committee
There is one historical example of a BRAC-like deficit reduction commission. In 2011, the Budget Control Act created the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, commonly called the Super Committee. The committee's objective was to achieve a minimum deficit reduction of $1.5 trillion from 2012 to 2021. The Super Committee comprised twelve members from the House and Senate, with an equal split of six Republicans and six Democrats. Seven votes were required to approve a deficit reduction proposal.
While the Super Committee’s recommendations required congressional approval, the Act also mandated a sequester, $1.2 trillion in across-the-board spending cuts if the Super Committee failed to produce a proposal or if Congress failed to approve it. The only programs exempted from the sequester were Social Security, Medicaid, some federal welfare programs, and interest on the national debt.
In the end, the members of the Super Committee could not reach a consensus, and no proposal was reported to Congress. The sequester took effect, capping spending on most government spending from 2013 until 2021.
The Take Away
The Problem Solvers Caucus is one of the few groups in Congress working towards a bipartisan deficit reduction plan.
The BRAC experience offers a model for developing a proposal for deficit reduction.
Based on the Super Committee experience, one key element to a successful deficit reduction commission will be some form of guaranteed spending cuts that take effect if no bipartisan deal is reached.
Enjoying this content? Support our mission through financial support.
Further reading
Congressional Budget Office. (2025). The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2025 to 2035. Retrieved February 10, 2025, from https://tinyurl.com/42kr8das
Problem Solvers Caucus. (n.d.). PSC debt ceiling framework. U.S. House of Representatives. Retrieved February 5, 2025, from https://tinyurl.com/d966rf3e
Sprunt, B., & Walsh, D. (2025, February 19). Trump backs House's approach to budget plans to implement his agenda. NPR. Retrieved February 21, 2025, from https://tinyurl.com/z72zjspb
Sources
Problem Solvers Caucus. (2025). Caucus members. U.S. House of Representatives. Retrieved February 5, 2025, from https://tinyurl.com/58a5rfer
Problem Solvers Caucus (2023) Debt and Deficit Working Group. https://tinyurl.com/mrrrtjzk, accessed 2/26/25
United States Congress. (2011). S.365 - Budget Control Act of 2011. 112th Congress. Retrieved February 5, 2025, from https://tinyurl.com/ycyzhj8f
Contributors
Ralph Fernando (Intern) is an Economics and Mathematics student at Indiana University Bloomington. He will graduate in May 2025 and plans to attend graduate school to pursue a Ph.D. in Economics.
Lindsey Cormack (Content Lead) is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Stevens Institute of Technology and the Director of the Diplomacy Lab. She received her PhD from New York University. Her research explores congressional communication, civic education, and electoral systems. Lindsey is the creator of DCInbox, a comprehensive digital archive of Congress-to-constituent e-newsletters, and the author of How to Raise a Citizen (And Why It’s Up to You to Do It) and Congress and U.S. Veterans: From the GI Bill to the VA Crisis. Her work has been featured in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Bloomberg Businessweek, Big Think, and more. With a drive for connecting academic insights to real-world challenges, she collaborates with schools, communities, and parent groups to enhance civic participation and understanding.
William Bianco (Research Director) is Professor of Political Science at Indiana University and Founding Director of the Indiana Political Analytics Workshop. He received his PhD from the University of Rochester. His teaching focuses on first-year students and the Introduction to American Government class, emphasizing quantitative literacy. He is the co-author of American Politics Today, an introductory textbook published by W. W. Norton, now in its 8th edition, and authored a second textbook, American Politics: Strategy and Choice. His research program is on American politics, including Trust: Representatives and Constituents and numerous articles. He was also the PI or Co-PI for seven National Science Foundation grants and a current grant from the Russell Sage Foundation on the sources of inequalities in federal COVID assistance programs. His op-eds have been published in the Washington Post, the Indianapolis Star, Newsday, and other venues.
