# Obama freezes federal worker pay for 2 years **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 29, 2010, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301 "2010-11-29T17:43:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/141 "2010-11-30T19:53:59Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Keeping in mind that the estimated budget deficit for 2010 is [$1.3 trillion](http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/taxes/federal-budget-deficit-below-expectations/19675849/). > > So, all we need to do is apply all of the increased revenue to reducing the deficit, and we are well over 5% of the way there. > > Wonderful - now we can talk about the other 94.5% or so. > > Regards, > Shodan So you’re okay with allowing the tax rates to revert? Good. The real problem is that the tax rates for the wealthiest Americans are as big a cut in the deficit as you can find easily. Get the easy ones out of the way first and then work on the tough ones. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/142 "2010-11-30T19:55:48Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Yeah, that’s what I was thinking as well. I mean, 5% is nice and all (assuming it doesn’t have any negative effects on the economy or recovery or whatever), but…well, it’s hardly a panacea that some seem to be thinking it is. It’s like the 2 year freeze on salaries…it’s more for public consumption than an actual ‘fix’ for our problems. > > -XT Please list the other 700 billion cuts you have for comparison. No one is saying it’s gonna solve everything, but it is a necessary component of the overall program. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/143 "2010-11-30T19:59:29Z")
$700 billion in cuts over 10 years? I’m pretty sure this wouldn’t be very difficult to do. Or did you mean something else? -XT ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/144 "2010-11-30T20:04:02Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Well, the full $3.2T isn’t politically plausible since that would mean killing the tax cuts for the middle class as well. You could kill the tax cuts on the top brackets and that would be politically feasible, but I’m not sure how much removing the middle class taxes from the equation affects the balance. > > The $10T mostly comes from the fact that we’re spending money we don’t have. We’re essentially planning on spending 26% of GDP on the Federal budget. Historically we’ve spent about 20% of GDP on the Federal budget (over the past 50 years) and government receipts have average about 18% of GDP over that same time period. So we’ve had an ‘averaged’ 2% deficit over 50 years (which actually isn’t really bad or difficult to finance), receipts are a bit low but are projected to be back over 18% but with spending up to a peace time high of 26% of GDP I’m not really sure what happens long term to fix the problem. > > The truth of the matter is we aren’t just bringing less in than we’ve historically brought in, we’re only a little bit off our historical % of GDP in government receipts. We’re dramatically over the average % of GDP in spending. Some countries spend as much as we do on a percentage basis, but they bring in a lot more money on a percentage basis as well. > > We honestly need to make the sort of decisions Canada did to shrink spending and increase receipts, or we need to make the sort of decisions other countries have made and increase receipts–to levels never before seen in American history. In essence we either need to reduce spending while making moderate increases in government receipts, or we need to become a very high tax country. Otherwise in 30 years or so we could be in _real_ trouble. (The trouble we’re in now is only real to the people who are in a constant state of doomsaying–it’s trouble but nothing compared to what it could be.) > > There was also a good point made about stabilizing government receipts. The rich are by far the most volatile earners of all the tax brackets. You can’t saddle your receipts on their incomes, because they fluctuate far more (on both a % of total income and in raw amount) than middle and lower class tax payers. > > For the record I think the wealthiest need to see a higher amount of their money paid in tax, but that’s mostly just a general feeling about fiscal appropriateness. I don’t think it’s going to come anywhere close to getting us out of the massive hole we’re in. Another good argument for raising the top rates back to where they used to be in the Clinton era is I don’t believe any studies have ever shown a very strong link between lower taxes for the wealthy and higher economic prosperity. > > This makes intrinsic sense to me for several reason: > > 1. The wealthy are high spenders no matter what. If you’re a multi-millionaire you buy expensive stuff regardless of whether you’re paying 15% or 50% of your income in tax. Multi-millionaires in Finland and Sweden have luxury toys just like ours do. So it’s actually a strong argument that lower taxes on the wealthy aren’t good at stimulating the economy because _they do not impact behavior_. Lower taxes on the middle class show direct increases in consumer spending, you don’t see that as much with the wealthy because they already spend a lot as consumers, whether they are taxed a lot or just a little. Essentially their wealth makes their consumer spending relatively _inelastic_ and actually means trying to manipulate their tax burden to increase consumer spending doesn’t make much sense. > > 2. Wealthy businessmen by and large do not make business decisions based on their personal income tax rate. If a business entity (be it a sole proprietorship, company or et cetera) is profitable and in a position to hire new employees, they will generally only do so when there is a clear business need that would lead to the company making more money through new business or would enable the company to operate more efficiently. Businessmen who run a profitable business that say, needs a new guy in the mail room, aren’t going to say “don’t hire any new mail room guys” because their _personal_ income tax went down. > > 3. Higher tax rates disincentive the wealthy drawing huge incomes in forms that are traditionally taxable. This is actually a good thing and an argument for higher tax rates. I think economically the economy as a whole is _better off_ when a super rich person draws a lower salary. Some people point to compensation packages as being carefully designed to make sure top earners never have to pay the top marginal rate. This is absolutely true, and I’d argue that the very process of skirting the top marginal rate actually means that person’s assets are in a form that are more economically productive in the long run than the wealthy having more liquid cash in their hands. I think it also forces more executives to have larger ownership stakes in the companies they manage, and more closely tie their personal wealth to the success or failure of the company. Also good things. Tax receipts from the wealthy is very cyclical but when you have our debt and borrowing capacity, you can handle the cycles. What you can’t handle is a long term structural deficit that exceeds economic growth. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/145 "2010-11-30T20:06:54Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > So you’re okay with allowing the tax rates to revert? Good. Not so fast. Spending cuts first. I said that earlier. Pay attention. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/146 "2010-11-30T20:07:47Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > It’s politically plausible because all it requires is for Congress to do nothing. > > And even though that is somewhat unlikely in this instance, it is still, sadly, more likely than serious cuts to entitlement spending. > > Which is not to say I’m advocating it. As I said above, I think means-testing Social Security, adding reasonable cost-saving measure to VA benefits, increasing the FICA cap, and other tough but realistic entitlement reforms are a better course. Social security reform is nice, but remove the FICA cap and you are almost there. Medicare is the problem. Like any scarce commodity, medicare needs to be rationed and if we have removed the market mechanism for rationing goods (because we do not believe taht this particular good should be distributed based on ability to pay), we need to ration it on some other basis. Death panels have a bad name but that in effect is what we need. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/147 "2010-11-30T20:09:06Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > You mis-attributed the quote. I fixed that. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/148 "2010-11-30T20:11:18Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > Obama is a horrible politician. I think he is better than a republican, and some of his ideas are ok, but he is a horrible politician and negotiator. > > He manages to enrage his enemies while supplicating to them, then disappointing his supporters until they give up. What a shitty politician. He is a good public speaker though. But that doesn’t matter anymore. The thing about negotiating is that you have to be ready to walk away from the table. If the other side knows you are going to keep negotiating until you reach an agreement, they will just hold out until you give them everything they want. Obama has no line in the sand and teh Republicans know it. Why the heck would they ever comromise on anything meaningful. ---
**Author:** ![Paranoid\_Randroid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/paranoid_randroid/32/18_2.png) [@Paranoid\_Randroid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paranoid_Randroid)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/149 "2010-11-30T20:15:24Z")
As far as I can tell, very few posters in this thread have even addressed the matter of _why_ we should expect tax increases to be more or less productive than spending cuts. Before **Shodan** and **Diogenes the Cynic** go seven or eight more pages making bare assertions about the nature of economic reality, I would appreciate if each would take a moment to _support_ his opinion. From where I’m standing, a return to responsibility will require both changes in taxation and decreases in federal spending – and I do not see why we must exhaust one before trying the other. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/150 "2010-11-30T20:21:53Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > I am always delighted to pay my fair share for protection of property rights and my freedom. > > Is that what the bulk of my taxes go towards? If you don’t know the answer it’s easily enough cited, if need be. In the last normal budget we had (no stimulus/tarp), federal income taxes were about 1.3 trillion The defense/security budget was 1.1 trillion. right now the entitlements pretty much pay for themselves (there is a looming problem but we still get more social security revenue than we spend in social security payments and the medicare trust fund still has money in it so we aren’t spending incoem tax dollars on the entitlements yet). Discretionary non-defense/security is about 350 billion. So where do YOU think we spend most of your tax dollars? Or are we counting FICA too? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/151 "2010-11-30T20:39:44Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > Interesting. But wrong, as usual. > > This chart shows that federal receipts measured in constant 2005 dollars rose from $1.991 trillion in 2001 (at the start of the Bush tax cuts) to $2.524 trillion in 2008. > > [http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200](http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200) > > That’s an increase in real dollars of 27 percent. As usual? When have I ever been wrong about taxes? Look at tax receipts in 2001. Now look at tax receipts in 2002. Tax receipts dropped 140 billion dollars. In 2003 they dropped another 70 billion. If you are saying that tax receipts were higher in 2008 than they were in 2001, then sure. But did you really think I was saying that taxes dropped and kept dropping every year for all eternity. Over time as the economy grows tax recipts will increase. For example, between 1993 to 2000 tax receipts went up from 1.25 trillion to 2 trillion. > [@](#): > > There weren’t population figures available for those years, because there wasn’t a census, but there is no way the US population grew by 27 percent between 2001 and 2008. > > That means that the federal government receipts increased _in constant dollars\*\*on a per capita basis_ between 2001 and 2008. Most people compare tax revenue to GDP not to the census. > [@](#): > > So no…nobody “gave” anybody anything. The federal government actually took more from it’s citizenry. Much more. But still not enough. > [@](#): > > Unfortunately, they spent much, much much more. And continue to do so. We have a spending problem. We do not have a revenue problem. We have both a spending problem AND a revenue problem. We can’t cut our way out of this deficit. > [@](#): > > Sorry to confuse the issue with some facts. Now, we return to our regularly-scheduled class warfare and victimization narrative. Your facts are highly distorted by the prism throuigh which you see the world. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/152 "2010-11-30T20:47:11Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > Interesting. But wrong, as usual. > > This chart shows that federal receipts measured in constant 2005 dollars rose from $1.991 trillion in 2001 (at the start of the Bush tax cuts) to $2.524 trillion in 2008. > > [http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200](http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200) Ermm the column you are talking about shows that 2001 receipts were $2215 billion and 2008 receipts were $2285 billion. Are you sure that I’m the one that is usually wrong? Did you seriously think I meant that taxes went down and then stayed down forever? tax receipts grow with the economy as well as the tax rate. If you look at the years immediately following the tax cuts tax receipts dropped from $1991 to $1782 in nominal dollars and from $2215 to $1901 in 2005 dollars. Are you sure that I’m the one that is usually wrong? > [@](#): > > That’s an increase in real dollars of 27 percent. There weren’t population figures available for those years, because there wasn’t a census, but there is no way the US population grew by 27 percent between 2001 and 2008. Most people compare tax receipts to GDP not the census, there is a reason for that. > [@](#): > > That means that the federal government receipts increased _in constant dollars\*\*on a per capita basis_ between 2001 and 2008. You still sure about that? > [@](#): > > So no…nobody “gave” anybody anything. The federal government actually took more from it’s citizenry. Much more. Whatever they “took” was not enough. the federal income tax is structurally insufficient to achieve a balanced budget. > [@](#): > > Unfortunately, they spent much, much much more. And continue to do so. We have a spending problem. We do not have a revenue problem. We have both but noone is proposing that we make the stimulus permanent. there is one party that is proposing that we make these historically low tax rates permanent. > [@](#): > > Sorry to confuse the issue with some facts. Now, we return to our regularly-scheduled class warfare and victimization narrative. Your facts are distorted by the prism through which you see the world. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/153 "2010-11-30T20:51:55Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Not so fast. > > Spending cuts first. I said that earlier. Pay attention. > > Regards, > Shodan I wasn’t sure if you had come to reason. Ever the optimist I suppose. Do them both at the same time, is what a reasonable person would suggest. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/154 "2010-11-30T20:52:16Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > I’m not sure how I feel about Obama’s announcement. > > On one hand, I think it’s really bad for the Federal Employees. > > On the other hand, I can look around at my coworkers, typically multiple-degreed scientists, engineers, or both, who not only have had no raise or bonus for 2 years, but some had a 5-10% pay cut. And our company has already announced “no raises” for next year, despite making record profits. And _almost_ all of my clients, representing some highly skilled workers in scores of companies, have either had no raise or a pay cut. > > Never mind all the ones laid off…perhaps 1/5 of all my key clients lost their job in the last two years. > > Therefore, I have trouble finding any more or less sympathy than for anyone else hit by the Great Recession. I think the federal employee response to that is “what sort of raises and bonuses did you get when times were fat?” With that said, the federal employees I have talked to seem to be more upset with the subtext rather than the 1% raise they didn’t get this year. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/155 "2010-11-30T21:08:48Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Do them both at the same time, is what a reasonable person would suggest. And yet you have not suggested a single significant cut, instead spending all your time talking only about increasing taxes, which will not address the issue. This is the sort of thing to be careful about when talking with liberals. You jumped immediately to trying to get me to agree with the tax hikes you want, ignoring the 90%+ of the problem. If the Democrats were going to do anything about the deficit, they would have done it when they controlled Congress. They didn’t, because they weren’t. Fortunately, the GOP now controls one of the houses, and, as mentioned, it already has had a good effect on Obama (although not on the other left-wing fat heads in the Dems). That’s fine, they were never serious about anything beyond more tax-and-spend and grow-the-deficit. All that stuff about Keynesianism was bullshit - they certainly wanted to grow the deficit during recession, but had no intention of restoring it to surplus. That’s what the Tea Partiers are for. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/156 "2010-11-30T21:15:46Z")
> [@What\_the](#): > > I thought you traded security for lack of accountability… nope got that wrong, that is the definition of security. > > And now you have to pay a little something for your healthcare and its going up…give me a fucking break! > > Please don’t take it personally… and convince me that the government workforce as a whole is deserving of my sympathy. If you think government jobs are so awesome, then go out and get a federal job. I don’t think government workers are looking for sympathy. Most federal workers who have posted in this threaad seem to be OK with the pay freeze despite the fact that the trade-off they made when they took the federal position was to sacrifice money for security. ---
**Author:** ![Dinsdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/97f17d/32.png) [@Dinsdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dinsdale)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/157 "2010-11-30T21:26:00Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > And yet you have not suggested a single significant cut, … Nor have you. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/158 "2010-11-30T21:28:36Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If the Democrats were going to do anything about the deficit, they would have done it when they controlled Congress. Because the Republicans have such a winning track record of fiscal responsibility. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/159 "2010-11-30T21:29:39Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I think the federal employee response to that is “what sort of raises and bonuses did you get when times were fat?” > > With that said, the federal employees I have talked to seem to be more upset with the subtext rather than the 1% raise they didn’t get this year. I wouldn’t have minded in the least if Obama had traded two years worth of COLAs and my next step increase for something worthwhile, for instance, the last two votes needed for passage of the DREAM or DISCLOSE Acts. I don’t mind being used as a bargaining chip, but I’m pissed at having become a political giveaway. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301/160 "2010-11-30T21:32:38Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Couple problems here - [ol][li]You mis-attributed the quote. [\*]I realize the temptation to brush aside instances of Obama breaking his word, but they are directly relevant to the case. He promised not to raise taxes, and lied. How then should I believe him if he claims he will make spending cuts? I already mentioned that Obama claimed hundreds of billions in waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare, and didn’t cut them out. [/ol][/li]And if they do, they will be doing more to address the problems of the deficit than the Democrats who want to raise taxes will do. Very sorry about the quote - multi-quoting and editing often trips me up, I’ll work harder at getting it right. Thanks for fixing it **Marley**. As to your claim that cigarette taxes and tanning booth taxes prove Obama is a liar about spending cuts, well, I’ll just say I disagree. Obama just proposed one spending cut. He has routinely called for others. > [@](#): > > What I would like is to prevent both sides from doing this - the GOP needs to push spending cuts, and not change the subject to maintaining taxes at their current level, and Democrats don’t get to change the subject to raising taxes until after the necessary spending cuts have been made. I see no reason why one should come before the other. Especially when you consider that the Democrats acknowledge the need for austerity measures (at least to some degree) while the GOP is steadfast in opposition to any tax increase. Sorry, but I see very little reason to believe the “we’ll increase taxes later” promise from a party that has such a bad record when it comes to deficits (at least for the last 15 years). > [@](#): > > We haven’t needed one - the deficit has not reached disastrous proportions until the Dems took over Congress and especially when Obama took office. Madness. Medicare Part D alone is a much larger unfunded liability than the stimulus. So were the tax cuts. The idea that the deficit is the Democrats fault is ludicrous. > [@](#): > > That’s nice - what spending cuts do you propose? I already proposed some up-thread. Index SS differently (basically a benifits cut) with a phased-in 2-year increase in the retirement age. DoD budget freeze pending a review of actual security needs. Elimination or reduction of farm subsidies. I’m not sure if you view tax deductions a tax increase or a spending cut (likely the former, if I had to guess), but I would consider phasing out the home mortgage interest deduction, since I think it distorts the housing market. There are dozens of others I’d consider as well. I also think that successful implementation of health-care reform could do more for the deficit than anything else, since Medicare projections are the largest budget-buster. I have no problem with attacking the spending side (hell, I was a Republican in the 90s), but magical thinking with regard to taxation drives me crazy. As does the militant “no tax raises ever” rhetoric. What are your suggestions, **Shodan**? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/obama-freezes-federal-worker-pay-for-2-years/562301.md?page=9)