You may not have heard much about it for all the chatter lately about health care reform, Haiti and Massachusetts politics, but a key vote comes up today on Capitol Hill. It calls for the creation of a bipartisan deficit-busting commission to make recommendations for drastic budget cuts and, if necessary, tax hikes.

This commission could make painfully draconian proposals, including in the sensitive area of federal entitlements. They would then be subject to an up-or-down vote by Congress — and with no tinkering, no amendments by lawmakers, pretty much like Base Realignment and Closure votes of the past involving military installations.

Yes, it’s pitiful that our Congress lacks willpower to pursue fiscal discipline through ordinary steps. And the recommendations could be scary. Liberals fear many beloved social programs could be gutted; conservatives predict it’ll mean higher taxes.

Maybe. Still, we believe this may be the only solution in combating a problem as lethal as any enemy we face — increasingly unrestrained spending that threatens to heap burdens on coming generations and endanger our way of life.

Proposed by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., and ranking member Judd Gregg, R-N.H., this deficit commission could be our only hope in an age of gridlock. We fear that neither Republicans nor Democrats have the right stuff to cut the budget significantly on their own.

We saw members of both parties scamper for cover back when President George W. Bush, to his credit, proposed Social Security reform. We’re not saying we necessarily supported his specific recommendations, but the fact he grasped the gravity of the situation was a step forward.

Conrad and Gregg — two of the Senate’s most prominent fiscal hawks — balked at President Barack Obama’s idea of a presidential deficit commission on the grounds that it wouldn’t have the teeth a legislatively charged commission would. They’re right. Obama and incoming conservative Republican Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts both now support the latter. As proposed, this fiscal commission would be composed of eight Democrats and eight Republicans chosen by Congress, plus two members from the White House.

We’re not surprised that some liberals oppose this legislation, demanded by fiscal hawks in exchange for hiking the national debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion this week. But the fact some conservative groups oppose the Conrad-Gregg commission is disheartening. Their argument that commission findings might well raise our taxes suggests they’re actually afraid to confront this problem head-on.

We agree with U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who says he would like to have a vote on the commission’s findings before the fall elections, not after, and would like the commission to be structured so it proposes budget cuts before resorting to recommendations for tax increases. But those conditions shouldn’t be do-or-die deal-breakers.

One more point: If such a deficit-busting commission does its job properly and can put all politics aside, Congress and the American people will be faced with hard decisions. If Republicans, Democrats and political independents all respond by expressing outrage and indignation — well, then take comfort. It might just mean that this commission is dealing with hard realities.

This is a debate we all must have in earnest, especially after the rampant spending of the past decade, condoned by leaders of both political parties. Americans need to know how much all these various programs cost — and weigh whether they’re worth our continued support in the form of higher taxes.

Keeping our heads in the sand about the problem except to grouse and express outrage during an election season is no solution.