Federal spending is stable over time

Federal Employment and Compensation

• Several comments stress that job stability is a core “benefit” of federal employment that compensates for lower nominal pay and helps attract competent staff versus more volatile private-sector jobs.
• Recent mass firings are seen as destroying that implicit promise, which may force the government to raise pay in future to remain competitive, offsetting any near‑term savings.
• There’s debate about whether federal workers are actually underpaid. One figure cited is an average of ~$106k plus strong benefits, with notes about which categories of workers are excluded and how pay compares when broken down by education level.
• Consensus: federal pay may lag high tech but is not clearly below private sector overall.

Drivers of Deficits: Spending vs Taxes

• Many argue that, relative to GDP, federal spending has been broadly stable for decades; the persistent deficit stems from insufficient revenue.
• Repeated tax cuts (notably early 2000s and post‑2017) plus wars and crises (Iraq, GFC, COVID) are blamed for pushing deficits higher, contrary to promises that cuts would “pay for themselves.”
• Others push back, pointing to IRS data showing inflation‑adjusted revenue rising in recent decades and tying dips and spikes to business cycles rather than just tax policy.

How to Fix It: Tax the Rich or Cut Spending?

• One camp advocates substantial tax increases on billionaires, multimillionaires, high earners, and large estates, plus possibly reversing recent tax cuts and modestly trimming defense. Goal: close several hundred billion of the annual gap.
• Critics argue even confiscating all billionaire wealth would fund less than a year of spending, so higher taxes on the ultra‑rich alone can’t solve the problem; they call for “massive” spending cuts.
• There’s a side debate on broad‑based versus highly progressive taxation, with Europe cited as an example of heavier taxation on the middle as well as the rich.

Debt Sustainability and Metrics

• Some frame federal debt as “delayed taxation” and focus on debt‑to‑GDP and interest‑to‑GDP ratios, noting that borrowing in one’s own currency and economic growth can make ongoing deficits manageable.
• Others see current debt levels as inherently unsustainable and an unfair burden on future generations.

Ideology, Parties, and Institutional Damage

• Several comments describe “spending out of control” rhetoric and large layoffs as ideological tools: cut taxes, drive up deficits, then use the debt as justification for shrinking or privatizing government.
• There’s concern about politicized purges of the civil service and about propaganda overwhelming data‑driven budget analysis.