The federal agencies work with funding that is capped by category and cannot be shifted from one ‘pot’ to another. Funds to pay salaries and benefits cannot be moved to funding to support programs; funds to support construction, maintenance and rehabilitation of facilities are likewise capped; as are funds to support agency programs. There is no flexibility. The problem with this proposal is that it is a one-size-fits-all solution which does not consider what the agencies do, how they are staffed nor what programs they support. I believe that there are numerous agencies that are over staffed and wasteful. I know there are other agencies that are staffed with grossly underpaid federal experts who would effectively be pushed out of career dedicated service by this approach. I had worked with a large group of NASA engineering scientists, many of whom were internationally recognized experts in their field, who have authored numerous text books which are used in graduate engineering courses and are only working as federal employees simply because they are dedicated to resolving long term NASA technical challenges. Several left to assume college professorships and doubled their salary; a couple left for industrial positions and nearly tripled their income. There are many governmental agencies and jobs filled by career professional experts such as these, all of whom work off of a common pay scale. Pushing these people out of the service that they love by some arbitrary one-size-fits-all rule which cuts resource allocations to fund them is wrong. Get some balls and tackle wasteful funding where it truly occurs and protect critical positions and programs where it does not. The ‘easy’ way is not the right way to do this.