The tax cuts vs. the pay freeze

By Ezra Klein

The pay freeze for federal workers will raise about $60 billion over 10 years. It's necessary, the president said, because these are times "where all of us are called on to make some sacrifices."

Contrast that with the tax cuts for income over $250,000, which benefit workers doing much better than the average federal employee and cost about $700 billion over 10 years.

Nor do the secondary effects favor the freeze. Holding federal pay does the Democrats few favors: It splits their base, reduces the regulatory talent available to work on financial reform and the new health-care law, drains some stimulative money out of the economy, and insofar as it scores the president some points with the public, does so by reaffirming the public's (largely untrue) belief that federal workers are overpaid -- a belief that continually hurts Democrats.

On the other side, going after the tax cuts for income over $250,000 is popular among the country, popular with Obama's base, much more important for the deficit, and difficult for the Republicans to oppose. One option would've been for the White House to announce a freeze on federal pay and a veto threat against tax cuts for the wealthy at the same time, grouping the two under the "sacrifice" theme. But they didn't.