Republicans in the United States Congress claim that they want to reduce the federal deficit.
They applaud President Barrack Obama's proposal to freeze the wages of federal employees for two years. This would save about six billion dollars over the two years. "Long overdue," is the way some of them describe the proposal.
This proposal, if it were to be adopted by the Congress, would freeze the wages of every federal employee, even those making the lowest wages - clerks and secretaries and maintenance people.
At the same time, the Republicans in Congress are determined to give a tax cut to everyone making $250,000 a year or more. I can't be sure, but I'm willing to bet few, if any, federal employees make $250,000 a year from their federal salaries. Frankly, few employees of anyone make that much.
This proposal, if it were to be adopted by the Congress, would increase the federal deficit by about 700 billion dollars over ten years.
So, Republicans, who claim to be concerned about the federal deficit, are willing to hurt the lowest paid federal employees to save six billion, but they're willing to add 700 billion to the deficit to help the richest Americans.
Go figure.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
For several years now the Democrats have been insisting that George Bush's tax cuts benefited only the rich. Now they're saying they want to extend those that benefit the middle class. How can they extend tax cuts that they claimed didn't exist? Do you consider that hypocritical?
ReplyDeleteJames, I think it would be in order to freeze the wages, after all, they denied a cost of living increase for Social Insecurity, yet didn't they also just give themselves a raise, or was I hallucinating again?
ReplyDeleteaka denali
Anonymous: I don't think that you are correct when you say that Democrats have been insisting that George Bush's tax cuts benefited only the rich. I think what Democrats have been pointing out, correctly, is that the vast majority of the benefit from "George Bush's tax cuts," as you call them, went to the wealthiest Americans. That, I believe, is an indisputable fact. So, no, I don't think pointing out the obvious is hypocritical, and I don't think anyone has been suggesting the extension of tax cuts that they claimed didn't exist.
ReplyDeleteYou have an interesting way of framing the question, but, unfortunately, your framing of the question does not appear to be true.
Denali: First, by calling the program "Social Insecurity," you use language which inhibits debate, rather than advances it. You attempt, with your wording, to frame your argument in a way to which it cannot be responded without tacit acceptance of your implication. I won't do that.
Second, even changing the words "Social Insecurity" to the correct title of the program, Social Security, I still don't follow your reasoning. I don't know if "they" just gave themselves a raise. I assume you are talking about the U.S. Congress, but it was the executive branch, not the legislative branch, which proposed the freezing of the wages of federal employees. Beyond that, even if your argument followed logically, (i.e., that the same people who proposed freezing the wages of federal employees had just given themselves raises), it would seem to mitigate in favor or my position: that giving yourself a raise as a government employee and freezing the wages of other government employees was hypocritical.
Finally, I'm not sure how the benefits under Social Security, which is essentially a federally operated annuity, would relate to the wisdom vel non of freezing the wages of employees. They are not the same thing, and not even the same type of thing.