I understand what the GOP leaders are doing in putting off the
debt ceiling fight until after they bank the gains from the
sequester. I understand them trying to put the onus on the Senate
to pass a budget. I understand these things, and I don’t think they
are awful idea — but I would do something just a bit different. I
would not pass a clean debt ceiling hike for the
equivalent of three months; I would tie it to a very nominal
package of savings, even if only, say, $15 billion over ten years,
if just to establish the principle that cuts belong with debt
ceiling hikes.
But I wouldn’t just put a number on it. The number of the
dollars saved isn’t important. What’s important is the substance of
the savings. The savings should be highly specified. They should be
the sorts of things that will make the Dems look bad if they
disagree.
For instance: Right now, the federal government pays $14 toward
each federal worker’s pension for every $1 the worker contributes.
The private sector norm is $1 to $1 — an even match. Sen. Ron
Johnson reports that an even match would save $133 billion over a
ten-year span. Okay, then, how about being ultra-reasonable and
moving from 14-1 down to 12 1/2-2 1/2? The savings from that tiny
change, asking federal workers to contribute a TINY bit more to
their own retirements, would save about $14 billion over ten years
(by VERY rough extrapolations). Who could object to that?
Likewise, another $10 billion over ten years could be saved on
federal worker health insurance (again, by some rough math of my
own). How? Private sector usually fork over about 60% of the
premiums for each worker’s health insurance, with the workers
providing 40%. (This number is an approximation, from memory,
having checked several slightly conflicting sources about a month
ago.) The federal government, however, provides about 72% of the
premiums for family coverage. How about just cutting that 72% to
66.7%? The difference is less than $40 a month per worker. The
savings, though, would be about $1 billion per year.
Who could object to that?
Or…. whatever. The point is to find REALLY low-hanging fruit,
in terms of savings, and tie it to the debt ceiling. Make sure it
is something that tests well and proves overwhelmingly popular —
just as it proved popular to advocate cutting the “bridge to
nowhere.” Tie such a popular cut — not cutting a popular program,
but popularly cutting a ridiculous specific bit or few bits of
federal largesse — to the debt ceiling hike; get it donw weeks in
advance, and then go about the House’s other business. It’s then up
to Obama to explain why he is putting the government into “default”
rather than agreeing to cut a bridge to nowhere, or whatever.
IF we bank small savings, and then bank more small savings —
not savings from the rate of increase, but real savings, even if
small, from real programs — and then bank some more, each time
there’s a fight, then we serve the taxpayers, built credibility,
and keep Obama on the defensive.
That’s why the debt ceiling hike should not be completely clean.
Mostly clean, maybe…. but not entirely. We do need to establish
the principle of saving taxpayer dollars.
Oh, well….
