Even in the U.S. House of Representatives, which has approved hundreds of billions of dollars of deficit spending in the past year, spending is becoming an issue. Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., acknowledged "spending fatigue."

Despite the growing worries over spending, President Barack Obama is asking Congress to quickly approve another $50 billion package to go to the states, with about $23 billion dedicated to preventing "massive layoffs of teachers, police and firefighters."

Obama's proposal for billions more in spending, which means billions more in borrowing, can be seen as yet another stimulus bill. Despite its billing as a jobs creator and infrastructure investment in "shovel ready" road projects, a large portion of the $787 billion stimulus bill passed last year went to states to plug budget gaps, support increased Medicaid spending and also to provide additional money to school districts to avoid teacher or staff layoffs.

But before any additional taxpayer dollars are passed on to schools, states or cities to prevent layoffs of public employees, Obama should talk to Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City.

During his campaign for president, Obama met with Bloomberg several times, possibly to talk about Bloomberg's effectiveness as a nonpartisan problem solver.

It's time for Obama to talk with Bloomberg again, this time about the mayor's recent announcement involving teachers in New York City. Bloomberg, who like mayors in a few major U.S. cities has control over public education, announced that he plans to eliminate all raises for teachers and administrators for the next two years. The move, according to Bloomberg, will help city schools avoid laying off 4,400 teachers.

This same approach should be applied nationally. Any money approved by Congress as additional stimulus money to avoid layoffs of teachers, police or firefighters should come with strings that say no additional federal aid unless all scheduled raises are canceled.

Such a plan might sound harsh to the affected teachers, police or firefighters, but consider the alternative.

Most Americans in the private sector have gone years without pay raises. Why should teachers or other public employees be exempt? Most Americans also are contributing more for their employer-provided health care. Why should teachers and other public employees be different?

At at time when budgets are tight, tough decisions have to be made, and Bloomberg is offering the rest of the country, including Obama and Congress, a reasonable approach to help, if not solve, the situation.

Responding to the Bloomberg report on a newspaper website, one person wrote, "I would gladly give up my raise to keep my job."

Another person responded, saying, "Sounds like the right thing to do. And much better than the previous union plan of throwing younger teachers under the bus."

A third response said, "Welcome to reality, government employees. Teachers, firemen and police — no more automatic raises. No more guaranteed job for life for mediocre or poor performance. No more retiring in the prime of life with a pension for life."

Freezing wages of public employees for a few years will probably not solve the budget crisis faced by states and school districts. But, it's a reasonable first step.

If teachers and their unions really are concerned about education and children in the classroom, then giving up raises to avoid mass layoffs seems like an obvious solution.

Obama should follow Bloomberg's lead and say that public employee pay freezes, possibly even modest pay cuts, will be required before states, cities or school districts receive any additional stimulus money from taxpayers.