Only If Part of a Grand Scheme

I am one of those lucky people who receive government services that I could get along without.  However, I expect to surrender my benefits only as a part of a grand scheme to reduce deficits and the size of government and to stabilize and eventually reduce the federal debt ratio.  Such a grand scheme should consider the following components.

Social Security and Medicare.  Social Security and Medicare entitlements are the most worrisome benefits in the budget, because people who enjoy them today are passing the costs onto their grandchildren.  I feel guilty every time I benefit from them, always at a later generation’s expense.

I am willing to forgo all or part of my Social Security annuity or to pay taxes on income above the cap if the program is also changed in other ways too (e.g., raising the minimum age, removing wage escalation) to make it solvent over the 75-year actuarial period.

I would take Congressman Paul Ryan’s plan for vouchers on Medicare, or pay substantially higher part-B premiums, or accept a co-payment program for all services.  Again, I would do so only if the program were modified to reduce the growth of federal health care spending to GDP growth plus one-half to one percent.

Defense and Security.  This is the biggest item in the federal budget.  I will willingly cede whatever security I am being provided by our forces in Afghanistan.  I would also take a downgrade in the security provided me by our troops in other places around the world, excluding Korea.  I am willing to be protected by fewer people with fewer incentives and fewer weapons.

I will also surrender a hefty slice of the security being provided by the Department of Homeland Security.  I can tolerate body scans but not bureaucrats on top of bureaucrats.

Taxes.  I would prefer that no one pay more taxes, but I believe a budget compromise to solve our fiscal crisis, of political necessity, must include some kind of tax component to accompany massive spending reductions.  I’ll be a willing human sacrifice if there is a reasonable ratio of spending cuts to tax increases—at least three to one.

Rather than choose from the array of tax deductions, exemptions, and preferences I receive, I would prefer a cap on total preferences.  I would also accept a total repeal of preferences in exchange for lower rates, as in the Bowles-Simpson Fiscal Commission plan, even if it increases my taxes.

As a last tax offering, I’ll pay more in gas taxes.  In the spirit of full disclosure, I must admit I don’t put on a lot of miles, but I do dial up the thermostat, so I will also accept an energy tax.

Trivia.  Under the heading of discretionary expenditures, our huge federal government spills out myriad trivial benefits.  Other than real safety-net programs, most of them should go.  I enjoy public radio and public television, but I’ll throw them under the bus along with National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities.

I will surrender all of my subsidized mass transit rides, the tax credit on my hybrid vehicle, and the tax credits I might receive if I ever replace the windows in my home.

I’ll pay the full fare to cover costs of visits to arenas, stadia, and sports complexes.

State.  As an out-of-state resident, I don’t get much from Minnesota, but I will throw my legislative pension on the drum.  It now pays me nearly twice as much as I earned, on average, for legislative service.  I don’t believe that eight years of part-time work deserves a pension.

Conclusion.  Each of us believes our own benefits are okay.  Other people should lose benefits or pay more taxes.  The fiscal crisis, however, does not care on whom the burden falls.  What we give up to make a successful solution will be far less unpleasant than the arrival of the crisis.

Bill Frenzel is a former Republican Member of Congress from Minnesota’s 3^rd Congressional District, now with the Brookings Institution, www.brookings.edu.