Our liberal and progressive friends in the Delaware blogosphere (and I am NOT being facetious with this comment) have always held up the progressive income tax as the foundation of an equitable society: those who make more should pay a higher percentage.
They attack regressive taxes like Social Security or gas taxes that take a disproportionate amount of income from the people who have the least income, while affecting the rich not at all.
So here's my question: why isn't Governor Markell's 8-10% across-the-board salary/benefits cut for State employees considered as a regressive tax?
If the governor were truly a progressive in the political sense of the word (and as all his supporters expected him to be), why doesn't the State employee salary/benefit cut list look something like this (please note: not a serious chart for research purposes, just an illustration):
Employees making under $35K: no cut
Employees making from $36-$50K: 3% cut
Employees making from $51-75K: 5% cut
Employees making from $76-100K: 8% cut
Employees making from $101-150K: 12% cut
Employes making above $150K: 16%
Why shouldn't the managers, supervisors, etc., who could not find ways to cut their budgets other than by cutting the salaries of their lowest-paid employees, be asked to accept a greater share of the burden?
And why shouldn't everybody in the State in the legislature, in the cabinet, and as the directors of all these agencies not be required to take at least a 15% pay cut until they can manage their agencies more effectively?
I'd be able to make some difficult choices, but then I'd never get elected.