There are simply too many moving parts for one panel to handle. For example, one much-discussed way to boost revenue is to limit total income tax deductions — but that approach would not distinguish between deductions that were good tax policy ideas and ones that should be sharply cut back or eliminated, an enormous task in itself.

And even if a deal comes together, grand bargains reached by sitting members of Congress are likely to be revised and further watered down just as the sequester will not happen as it was legislated last August. Members of Congress are concerned with the good of the country, as they see it, and the election and re-election of themselves and members of their parties. The presence of both concerns complicates deal making and may prevent it completely.

What we need, instead, is a set of narrowly targeted commissions, each with a clearly articulated task and the ability to require a no-amendments, up-or-down vote — and all without sitting members of Congress. Like the base-closure commissions, the panels could include former members of Congress, tax and budget experts, and representatives from the business and public-interest community.

We could create, for example, one commission to design a plan to restore balance to Social Security, one to review income tax deductions, one to review tax expenditures that target single industries and one to consider smaller programs for possible closure or merger.

Such commissions would do more than just avoid politically driven compromise. The members would look not at pointlessly large total spending and tax numbers, but specific types of spending on specific programs. Real progress on an array of programs will impress voters and the bond market more than vague promises about future budget balance that may have little credibility.

Some might worry that this approach risks creating “smoke-filled rooms,” in which unelected officials decide the fate of the nation. But with Congress setting the goals of the commissions and having the final say, this is no less part of the democratic process than leaving the details of the design of bridges and tunnels to engineers. And concern about the up-or-down vote will keep the commissions connected to political reality.

Let’s put aside, for now, the fight over more or less government, and work for better government. We shouldn’t try to settle the very real concern about the long-term debt trajectory all at once. Doing so would probably fail, and it might even leave us worse off.