‘Man up’ or shut up

In the midst of one of their playful pop tunes, They Might Be Giants drops in this line: “I don’t want the world. I just want your half.”

I can’t think of a better slogan for the political polarization plaguing practical policy. It deftly describes the attitude of the two major parties in Congress when it comes to writing sustainable budgets. Compromise? Are you kidding? And get branded a RINO or DINO (Republican/Democrat in Name Only)?

So the lines are drawn. Republicans won’t budge on taxes and defense spending. Democrats won’t make the hard choices on Medicare and Social Security. The conundrum is that in order to get elected these days, candidates must pander to their parties at the expense of productive relationships across the aisle. As a result, anyone who can get elected isn’t well-positioned to lead.

Congress couldn’t even agree on the ground rules for appointing a deficit commission, so President Barack Obama selected one. This bipartisan group is scheduled to release a report in December that will most likely include a combination of some spending cuts, slowed spending growth for major programs, and tax increases.

To get an idea of what a balanced budget would look like in 2020, Esquire magazine commissioned two former Republican senators, Bob Packwood of Oregon and John Danforth of Missouri, and two former Democratic senators, Gary Hart of Colorado and Bill Bradley of New Jersey, to hammer out a compromise in three days. They agreed on a target of government spending at 20 percent of GDP, which hews closely to the historic average since World War II (it was at 21.2 percent when President Ronald Reagan left office, and 18.4 percent when President Bill Clinton departed).

After 72 hours of wrangling over Medicare, Social Security, defense, the tax code, health care inflation and other challenges, they emerged with a budget that puts spending and revenue at 20.8 percent of GDP and leaves a $12 billion surplus in 2020. Plus, Social Security is put on sound footing for another 75 years. Included were the following savings:

• Increase the retirement age for Social Security by one month a year until 2021, at which point it would be 70. For manual laborers, it would be 67. Calculate the cost-of-living adjustments using an inflation index that is deemed better at tracking spending for seniors. Plus, calculate benefits by averaging the highest-paying 38 years, rather than 35 years, of work. Total savings: $86 billion.

• Reverse the “Grow the Army” initiative. Enact the Obama administration’s weapons-systems cuts. Reorganize the military for 21st century challenges. Reduce the presence in Afghanistan and Iraq to 30,000 troops total by 2020. Savings: $309 billion.

• Leave health care reform in place. Establish medical courts to adjudicate malpractice disputes. Savings: $10 billion. (Note: The Congressional Budget Office has already stated the new health care law will reduce the deficit by $30 billion in 10 years.)

• Ban earmarks. Reform farm subsidies. Cut the federal work force by 5 percent. Delay NASA missions to the moon and Mars. Reduce spending on a host of smaller programs. Alter COLAs for federal pensions. Savings: $71 billion.

Total projected savings: $618 billion.

Included were the following revenue proposals:

• Keep tax rates at or near their current levels. Revenue loss: $273 billion.

• Repeal the employer health care tax break and offer a refundable tax credit for individuals to purchase their own coverage. Projected gain: $63 billion.

• Increase the gas tax by $1 a gallon. Gain: $130 billion.

• Limit itemized deductions for high earners. Gain: $57 billion.

• Limit state and local tax deductions. Gain: $12 billion.

• Eliminate biofuels subsidies. Gain: $16 billion.

• All new state and local government workers pay into Social Security. Gain: $21 billion.

Total projected revenue increase: $26 billion.

Can’t have everything. I disagree with some of the choices in that budget exercise, but that’s going to happen with any compromise. The larger point is that leaders from different parties can come together, haggle over the details and produce a sustainable budget without embarking on a second American revolution. Please note that most of the savings come from reduced spending, not tax increases. But those spending reductions are largely taken from the biggest budget items. Any party attempting to go it alone with such cuts would be slaughtered at the next election.

The only way out of the quagmire is through compromise. Anyone who thinks otherwise has a duty to “man up,” as the Mama Grizzlies are fond of saying, and produce their own plan.