Even as it is still getting up and running, the President’s fiscal commission faces pressure to take certain options off the table and to produce early recommendations before this fall’s election. To succeed, the commission must resist such pressure.

The fiscal problems facing the government are so large that the commission cannot afford to leave any stone unturned. Immediately ruling out tax increases or exempting some programs from review would result in accusations of favoritism, undermining the panel’s public credibility.

Many conservatives argue that the commission should only focus on spending reductions. The AARP, meanwhile, has issued a press release headed “Take Social Security Off the Table for Deficit Reduction; Long Term Solvency of Program Should be Addressed Separately.”

Budget experts have wisely advised the commission to carefully consider all the options. President Obama emphasized the same theme last week, saying “everything has to be on the table.” Fortunately, the leaders of the commission have said they intend to take that approach.

A group of House Democrats has suggested “interim” recommendations before the November elections so they could “be a part of various federal, state and local campaigns around the country.” Some Republicans had already suggested that the commission issue recommendations before the elections; John Boehner, the GOP leader in the House, sent commission leaders a letter in March asking that the final recommendations be released on Oct. 1.

Advocates of a bipartisan fiscal commission, however, have long warned that its work could be easily derailed by election-year politics. Issuing recommendations on difficult policy choices shortly before the election would present an irresistible target for political demagoguery.

The House has passed a bill to strengthen requirements for federal agencies to audit, report and review improper payments. The Office of Management and Budget estimates such payments cost the government $98 billion or more last year.

Generally, these are payments that should have not have been made or were made for incorrect amounts. For several years the Government Accountability Office and other agencies have warned policymakers about the negative impact that improper payments have on the federal budget.

Provisions in the House bill approved last week (HR 3393) strengthen an agency’s obligations to report improper payments and require reviews every three years. These are positive steps. Their value goes beyond dollars saved; reducing waste is a crucial step in restoring public trust in government. Otherwise the public will remain skeptical that broader reforms in popular entitlement programs or tax increases are necessary. A similar bill was approved by the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee last July but has not been passed by the full Senate.