Necessary compromise on the new budget exposes both good and bad

  • Follow Opinion columns

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 became law Dec. 26. The agreement funded the government for 2014 and 2015 and prevented another government shutdown. It provided relief from the most damaging of the sequestration wounds inflicted on government agencies – in particular the Defense Department.

The agreement also showed that Republicans and Democrats in Congress can work together to solve problems. It was a necessary compromise.

BUT THE AGREEMENT did almost nothing to reduce the federal debt. The law will reduce debt by $23 billion over the next 10 years. But according to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal debt will increase by $6.3 trillion.

Do the math. For every $6,300 in new debt there is $23 in debt reduction. This negligible impact is because of Budget Conference Committee Co-Chairman Republican Rep. Paul Ryan’s not allowing revenue increases in the agreement. Co-Chairwoman Democratic Sen. Patty Murray refused to reduce entitlement programs.

With revenues and entitlements off the table, hopes for a ‘“grand bargain” disappeared. The objective became funding the government to avoid a shutdown and to alleviate sequestration damage.

An agreement that met those objectives deserved approval. The co-chairs agreed it was far from perfect, but there was neither time nor political will to make it better.

This is what compromise looks like. No one gets all they want, but the government can function.

Georgia Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson were right to vote for the agreement. Democratic Rep. John Barrow also properly voted for the bill. Georgia Republican House Reps. Jack Kingston, Paul Broun and Phil Gingrey all voted against the agreement. They are competing to replace the retiring Sen. Chambliss, and none wanted to give any of the others ammunition for attack from the uncompromising far right.

WHILE THE COMPROMISE was necessary, it is illuminating to see where budget negotiators cut spending to offset the cost of sequester relief. Two parts of the act are particularly revealing.

Federal civilian employees hired after Jan. 1, 2014 will contribute 4.4 percent of their salary to their pension plans. This is more than five times the contribution for civilian employees hired before Jan. 1, 2013.

Current and future military retirees younger than age 62 will have their cost-of-living increases reduced by 1 percent annually. Older military retirees such as myself will not be affected.

So in the convoluted logic of hyper-partisan politics, new and younger federal employees and working-age military retirees will be penalized, while hedge fund managers, Social Security beneficiaries and most Americans will be untouched. South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said, “Is the choice between keeping the government open and screwing all the military retirees? Is that the right choice?”

IT IS NOT THE right choice, and it is likely that the Congress will change the military provision before it goes into effect. But this has become the reflexive strategy of Congress. Go after the politically weak such as the military and the young, and keep hands off the politically strong, the wealthy and seniors.

A solution that actually will reduce the deficit – and with more fairness – is to reduce the cost of living increases on all federal retirement payments. This includes military, federal civilians and Social Security beneficiaries. In the past in my column, I have proposed such a solution by adopting the chained Consumer Price Index to calculate COLA increases. But this would have an impact on all seniors, and Congress will not confront them.

The new budget agreement is only the latest example of Congress showing its preference for burdening younger citizens with escalating costs and potential Social Security tax increases, while simultaneously saddling them with exploding debt.

It is startling that working-age members of both political parties do not protest their own party voting against their long-term financial interests. Without political engagement, they will continue to be cannon fodder for politicians.

(The writer is a retired U.S. Navy officer. He lives and writes in Savannah.)

Comments (3) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Riverman1
93232
Points
Riverman1 01/12/14 - 05:29 am
6
0
Common Sense Is Far Right To Some

Conant once again throws his lot in with those who want to tax and spend. Because Ryan didn’t allow more taxes, he’s the problem? Because Republicans running for the Senate didn’t vote for the bill since it does little to cut spending except penalize military retirees, they’re far right?

I’d like to sit down one day with Conant and explain to him how a booming free enterprise with low taxes in a nation with little debt actually increases our revenue while giving people jobs and getting them to be proud taxpaying citizens instead of government moochers.

Former Navy officer Conant spent too much time on submarines peering through telescopes that only give you a small portion of the whole picture.

deestafford
31689
Points
deestafford 01/12/14 - 09:07 am
3
0
There is no compromise...

There is no compromise between a mongoose and a cobra. How are you supposed to compromise when you have the left trying to turn the country into a democratic socialistic government and and the right wanting free enterprise, smaller government, lower taxes, less spending, and more individual freedom?

No matter how much money is spent the left always wants more and more. Remember how just a few weeks ago Pelosi was asked about spending cuts and she said, "There are no places to cut spending. The cupboard is bare.''? This is after Obama has given us four years of $1T deficits and more increases on entitlement spending. Now how are you supposed to compromised with a country destroying nut like that?

seenitB4
96837
Points
seenitB4 01/12/14 - 12:19 pm
2
0
Not so fast

I think he is right about this....

A solution that actually will reduce the deficit – and with more fairness – is to reduce the cost of living increases on all federal retirement payments.

Back to Top

Top headlines

Sickness closes all McDuffie County schools

One day after closing an elementary because of excessive absences caused by an outbreak of influenza, strep infection and stomach viruses, the McDuffie County School System has decided to enact an ...
Search Augusta jobs