A “Progressive” Reform
The money’s running out; the government is on a timeline. Something must be done before going into default.
Of course, the Executive Branch could prioritize spending, fiddle with accounts and still pay the interest on the federal debt as well as pay Social Security recipients — to year’s end. But it looks like the Obama Administration is just as committed to brinksmanship as the (heroic!) Tea Party folks who refuse to raise the debt ceiling.
And now the infamous “Gang of Six” re-emerge with a cockamamie proposal to “solve” the problem, mostly by saying they’ll “cut in the future” but keep mum, for now, what those cuts would be. It’s the typical lily-livered politician’s move.
The worst of the Gang of Six proposal, as fed-spending watchdog Dan Mitchell noticed, is that the alleged spending cuts don’t actually cut spending overall, just (get ready for it…) cut spending over planned increases.
We’ve been hearing this since the Carter era.
Something I haven’t heard from anyone (except my colleagues, of course — nothing from politicians, naturally) is a real cut that could substantially help.
Since the government is running out of money, cut federal wages across the board.
And make the cuts “progressive.”
How? Take any current federal government salary. Exempt the first (say) $60,000. And then cut the remaining salary level above that by (say) 20 percent. The exemption makes the rate cut in effect progressive. The “rich” would face greater income reductions.
Progressives should like that, no?
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.