Sacrifice Should be Shared

The big news in Washington these days is all about raising the debt ceiling. Naturally, this leads to discussions of the federal deficit. How did we get into this mess?

When President Clinton left office we had a thriving economy and a federal budget surplus. We were actually reducing the deficit. But under the Bush administration we had two wars that were kept off the budget. This kept the cost from the focus of the American people. But that was not all. About half the run up in the deficit was brought about by the Bush era tax cuts. Most of us enjoyed this lighter burden to some extent. But, if not for these matters, the United States would not be in the financial mess we are in today.

Recognizing the deficit chickens were coming home to roost, President Obama insisted on including the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the budget. He wanted this financial cost to be laid out in black and white as clearly as the life cost was already laid out in blood. The President should be commended for this openness even if it has not led to a cost savings.

Outside of the defense industry, none of us has enjoyed any particular benefit from war. However, most Americans with an income have enjoyed the benefits of the Bush era tax cuts. Obviously, some have benefitted more than others. The more taxes we saved, the more benefit we personally enjoyed even while the deficit grew ever higher.

Because most all of us enjoyed some benefit, it is reasonable to expect that we will all need to share some sacrifice in bringing the deficit back down. But that sacrifice should be proportionate.

In the present discussions taking place in Washington, one of the groups being singled out for a particularly disproportionate sacrifice is that of federal employees.

As a group, federal employees do NOT enjoy the highest incomes in the nation. Therefore, they were not the ones to enjoy the greatest benefit from the Bush tax cuts. Yet they are being singled out to make some of the greatest sacrifices.

Currently, federal employees are under a mandated two year pay freeze. Inflation erodes their incomes, but this two year pay freeze could be considered a reasonable sacrifice. We all should expect to endure some pain.

However, some in Congress are pushing to extend this federal employee pay freeze to five years regardless of what happens to inflation in the meantime.

But that is not all. Some in Congress are pushing hard to require federal employees pay a greater proportion of their retirement contributions out of pocket with no increase in retirement benefits. This would amount to about a six percent pay cut on top of the pay freeze they are already experiencing.

The most recent twist to come out of this distorted burdening of federal employees is to change the calculation of the retirement benefit. Currently, it is based on the average income of the last three years of earnings prior to retirement. Generally those will be the years of highest earnings. To lower the retirement benefit, some are pushing to change this to an average of the last five years of earnings.

In summary, many in Congress are wanting to mandate that federal employees endure a five year pay freeze, a six percent pay cut, and a lower retirement benefit while still allowing those persons whose tax breaks contributed the most to the federal deficit to continue to enjoy them.

This is not right! Our public servants don't deserve this kind of abuse. If everyone were being asked to endure a 6% higher tax rate, then it could be considered a shared sacrifice. This piling on attack on people who serve the American people is seriously distorted and should not be tolerated.

That's Wade's two cents!

Wade Houston
July 11, 2011