Until a better idea comes along - and so far we haven't heard one - the best plan to pay for New Orleans and Gulf Coast reconstruction is the one being put forth by cost-conscious congressmen such as U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.: offsets in other domestic programs.

They would start by postponing indefinitely the hugely expensive prescription drug program for the elderly slated to get under way the first of the year. It's no longer affordable.

Step two would mandate a 2- or 3-percent, across-the-board cut in all domestic programs. After two devastating hurricanes, what choice do we have?

If there had been no Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Rita would be getting plenty of play as the worst storm of the season: several lives lost; an estimated $5 billion in insurance damages to coastal communities along the Texas-Louisiana border, plus untold billions more in federal relief and rebuilding programs; and a serious body blow to what has been an expanding U.S. economy.

That's a heavy toll, but it's small potatoes compared to Katrina, which killed about 1,000 people and cost insurance companies at least $40 billion. And, of course, the price tag to federal taxpayers for rebuilding New Orleans alone - not including neighboring communities in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama - will be off the charts. Low-end estimates, even before Rita, were $200 billion.

So Congress has been turning its attention to how to pay for what will likely be the largest reconstruction effort in U.S. history. Raising taxes, as Democrats propose, is a non-starter. President Bush's tax cuts have energized the economy, bringing in more federal revenues than during the Clinton era. Hence, raising taxes would likely reduce revenues available for reconstruction.

There's been talk of scrapping the 6,000-or-so earmarks - or as critics call them, "pork" projects - in the just-passed transportation bill, but even if that were done, it would be largely symbolic. Earmarks only amount to about $24 billion, which doesn't even scratch the surface of what's needed.

If they were to spend the entire transportation bill, $286 billion, on Katrina-Rita reconstruction instead, that would at least be a realistic start. But it would also be an unwise, unrealistic policy, because canceling the highway bill ignores all the other infrastructure needs.

Borrowing - i.e., running up the deficit - isn't a good policy, either. It puts future generations in hock to China, the largest buyer of our Treasury notes. Do we really want our children and grandchildren paying off billions in deficit spending by enriching the communists?

President Bush says he wants to pay for hurricane reconstruction with offsets, but he doesn't name them. The plan being urged by Sen. Graham and his fellow cost-cutters does name them. Their proposal is tough medicine, but it is practical and doable. Anyone turning it down should come up with something better. If they can't, then their criticisms are not to be taken seriously.