Confused woozies and enabling libertarians feel their liberty or the economy threatened by "growing" government. Gordon's man, Robert Samuelson sees social security and medicare as the main reason for "bigger" government.
Of course social security and medicare expenditures are increasing. There has been considerable growth of population. In fact, as a percentage of population government seems to have been shrinking for quite a while.
There may be better sets of numbers but these may provide for a start
Federal Government Employment Levels Through the Years (including the U.S. Postal Service)
Executive Branch civilians Total U.S. population Executive Branch employees per 1,000 population
1962 (Kennedy) 2.48 million 186.5 million 13.3
1964 (Johnson) 2.47 million 191.8 million 12.9
1970 (Nixon) 2.94 million* 205 million 14.4
1975 (Ford) 2.84 million 215.9 million 13.2
1978 (Carter) 2.87 million 222.5 million 12.9
1982 (Reagan) 2.77 million 232.1 million 11.9
1990 (Bush) 3.06 million* 249.6 million 12.3
1994 (Clinton) 2.9 million 263.1 million 11.1
2002 (Bush) 2.63 million 287.8 million 9.1
2010 (Obama) 2.65 million+ 310.3 million+ 8.4+
SOURCE: Office of Management and Budget. *= Figure includes temporary Census Bureau workers. += Estimates by OMB and U.S. Census Bureau.
Confused woozies and enabling libertarians feel their liberty or the economy threatened by "growing" government. Gordon's man, Robert Samuelson sees social security and medicare as the main reason for "bigger" government.
Of course social security and medicare expenditures are increasing. There has been considerable growth of population. In fact, as a percentage of population government seems to have been shrinking for quite a while.
There may be better sets of numbers but these may provide for a start
Federal Government Employment Levels Through the Years (including the U.S. Postal Service)
Executive Branch civilians Total U.S. population Executive Branch employees per 1,000 population
1962 (Kennedy) 2.48 million 186.5 million 13.3
1964 (Johnson) 2.47 million 191.8 million 12.9
1970 (Nixon) 2.94 million* 205 million 14.4
1975 (Ford) 2.84 million 215.9 million 13.2
1978 (Carter) 2.87 million 222.5 million 12.9
1982 (Reagan) 2.77 million 232.1 million 11.9
1990 (Bush) 3.06 million* 249.6 million 12.3
1994 (Clinton) 2.9 million 263.1 million 11.1
2002 (Bush) 2.63 million 287.8 million 9.1
2010 (Obama) 2.65 million+ 310.3 million+ 8.4+
SOURCE: Office of Management and Budget. *= Figure includes temporary Census Bureau workers. += Estimates by OMB and U.S. Census Bureau.
I haven't read all of the mini-threads here but I was not involved in any conversation about the % of workers that are employed by the public sector. I don't see any connection between that and debt/GDP trends.
Last edited by Gordon B; July-25th-2011 at 12:06 PM.
I haven't read all of the mini-threads here but I was not involved in any conversation about the % of workers that are employed by the public sector. I don't see any connection between that and debt/GDP trends.
There isn't any connection Gordon. I take it that you are like me in that you are worried about the total amount of money the federal government spends in relation to the population of this country.
That, coupled with the scope of the federal government is what most people are worried about.
Not how many people deliver mail.
Apparently Uli doesn't seem to comprehend this.
Last edited by Jeffrey Wozniak; July-25th-2011 at 12:17 PM.
I haven't read all of the mini-threads here but I was not involved in any conversation about the % of workers that are employed by the public sector. I don't see any connection between that and debt/GDP trends.
That wasn't Uli's point. The point -- as Uli explicitly stated -- the nutcakes "feel their liberty or the economy threatened by "growing" government."
The point is that in terms of employees or expenditures the federal government isn't growing.
Government spending today as a percentage of GDP is higher than is has ever been since the end of WW II, which is the opposite of what you were trying to put forth.
All the things the federal government has it's hand in. All the areas of everyday life where the government is involved.
From rules and regulations regarding business (which helps existing big businesses) to telling people what kind of light bulbs they can buy to forcing you to purchase health insurance to now bailing out businesses and banks and who knows what else.
This concerns the average voter very much, especially those who would prefer a democratic republic that was the original idea at the founding of this country. A country that favors capitalism, free markets and the pursuit of life, liberty and property (property is no longer yours when the government decides it can get more tax money out of a strip mall on your land than it can from you yourself living there).
This is the antithesis of what a free society is and why the silent majority is now finally rising up and making their voices heard (known as the nutjob Tea Party people to the extreme left).
Last edited by Jeffrey Wozniak; July-25th-2011 at 05:21 PM.
Tell me, Wozie...just exactly what should the role of government be?
There needs to be a means through which the infrastructure is maintained, the military remains strong, emergency services are provided, police and fire are available, health, public safety from crime, education, laws are upheld, the court system is intact and the common good is secured for all Americans, the US Constitution and the unalienable rights therein are protected and a governing body, a Democracy, is cultivated and managed via a shared burden of revenues and societal obligation.
I mean, unless you are advocating anarchy there needs to be order in a civilized society, don't you think?
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Wozniak
All the things the federal government has it's hand in. All the areas of everyday life where the government is involved.
From rules and regulations regarding business (which helps existing big businesses) to telling people what kind of light bulbs they can buy to forcing you to purchase health insurance to now bailing out businesses and banks and who knows what else.
This concerns the average voter very much, especially those who would prefer a democratic republic that was the original idea at the founding of this country. A country that favors capitalism, free markets and the pursuit of life, liberty and property (property is no longer yours when the government decides it can get more tax money out of a strip mall on your land than it can from you yourself living there).
This is the antithesis of what a free society is and why the silent majority is now finally rising up and making their voices heard (known as the nutjob Tea Party people to the extreme left).
Some problems here, may I?
#1 Strip malls allow for more taxes because there are more businesses there than "you yourself living there". Business taxes, property taxes and sales taxes which are not paid by one individual. The strip mall is owned by individuals/companies who rent out the space to those businesses. Poor comparison.
#2 The "silent majority" is so Jerry Falwell and Dick Nixon. Nutjobs and extremists are more to the point.
#3 There is no such thing as a "democratic republic". Our form of government is a Democracy. Our country is a republic. Not the same thing.
#4 As outlined above, government does not exist solely and wholly for the purpose of profit making for businesses. People live here, too.
#5 This is a free society. How else might one explain your ability to post such nonsense on a BBS?
Last edited by GoodSpeak; July-25th-2011 at 05:51 PM.
You think light bulbs are an indicator of freedom?
I know that being able to choose the one you want to use in your own house is.
I know that the govenment forcing the elimination of the tried and true light bulb in favor of one that is far more dangerous to human beings, more expensive, yet could possibly save you money on your energy bill in the long run is not freedom.
I know that being able to choose the one you want to use in your own house is.
I know that the govenment forcing the elimination of the tried and true light bulb in favor of one that is far more dangerous to human beings, more expensive, yet could possibly save you money on your energy bill in the long run is not freedom.
I haven't read all of the mini-threads here but I was not involved in any conversation about the % of workers that are employed by the public sector. I don't see any connection between that and debt/GDP trends.
In the article by Samuelson you linked to in the "Republicans in the News thread" he sez that the main causes of bigger government are Social Security and Medicare. You obviously see a connection between Social Security/Medicare expenditures and debt/GDP trends. Clearly the expenditures for SS and medicare are growing. So is presumably income thru FICA taxes. I am well aware that there may be a gap in the growth of the two sides because of changeing demographics. But that's a compeletly different discussion than "bigger government",imho So you tell me why the fact that these programs are growing (quite frankly not surprisingly given the fact that the population grew about 50% since 1990) is cause for "bigger government.".
I know that being able to choose the one you want to use in your own house is.
I know that the govenment forcing the elimination of the tried and true light bulb in favor of one that is far more dangerous to human beings, more expensive, yet could possibly save you money on your energy bill in the long run is not freedom.
It's pure stupidity.
Yeah, me and my neighbors are dropping like flies from our CFL bulbs. We should've known it was all a scheme by the feds to take away our liberty and god-given freedom to use more electricity than absolutely necessary.
I know that being able to choose the one you want to use in your own house is.
I know that the govenment forcing the elimination of the tried and true light bulb in favor of one that is far more dangerous to human beings, more expensive, yet could possibly save you money on your energy bill in the long run is not freedom.
It's pure stupidity.
Another lie.
First of all, the law does not ban incandescent A-line light bulbs, nor does it mandate the use of CFLs. It simply sets new standards in efficiency for light bulbs.
Last edited by rollhead; July-25th-2011 at 11:33 PM.
SOURCE: Office of Management and Budget. *= Figure includes temporary Census Bureau workers. += Estimates by OMB and U.S. Census Bureau.
I presume that these numbers don't include the number of private contractors who work for the federal government. That number has skyrocketed since the Clinton administration when he and Gore "Reinvented Government," -- a shell game under which the administration shrunk the number of government workers in a charade to make taxpayers think that government was being streamlined.
Paul Light at NYU has done a lot of research on this. The 2+ million "government workers" under Obama only include civil service workers. There are another 10 million who are either contractors or paid by federal grants, which doesn't include the military or state and local workers who do federal work under federal mandates. The figure then rises to 14 million or above when you add those numbers in.
Last edited by rollhead; July-26th-2011 at 11:43 AM.
Do you really mean "civil service," Rollie? I know here in Mass., almost every state worker was stripped of civil service status long ago. Union status will be next, Wisc. gods willing, and, finally, gov't employee status will be lost too--so that no public pensions will have to be paid.
It's an honorable goal, this shrinking of gov't. And if it coincides with the elimination of unions, generally, what it will mean is that fewer Americans will have decent jobs. That's gotta be a good thing, right? YAY!
“The lot of critics is to be remembered by what they failed to understand.”--George Moore
I mean those employees who work for a government agency, are paid by the agency and were hired under the auspices of civil service law.
Today, the vast majority of federal government workers fall outside the purview of civil service law and are basically part of a shadow workforce.
As Paul Light points out, it is impossible to know the true number of people who work for the federal government because priviate contractors consider that number to be "proprietary."
I don't know what goes on in Massachusetts, but there are roughly 160,000 people who work for state agencies in New York state, which is down from 210,000 over the past couple of decades.
It is somewhat easier in New York to determine how many many of those 50,000 former state civil service jobs are being done by private contractors because the union I work for has forced the contractors to make public the number of people they employ.
What I mean is that the vast majority of state workers here, actual employees of state agencies who are eligible for public pensions here, have not been "hired under the auspices of civil service law" here for a very long time. E.g., there are no exams, and the only seniority or "bumping" rights are granted by union contracts. I assume that the elimination of real civil service rights have been disappearing in other states as well.
I've been a Mass. state employee for over 30 years, working first in the State House and then in various capacities at two different agencies, but I have never had either civil service status or been in a union. For the first six years I served at the discretion of one or another legislator or legislative committee, and since then, I've served at the will of the Governor. That means I can be fired without cause at a moment's notice. I often have images of being frog-marched out of my building.
“The lot of critics is to be remembered by what they failed to understand.”--George Moore
There are a lot of ways to circumvent civil service law here as well. There are private contractrors, provisional employees and employees of public authorities. The public authorities in NYS are another way to hide government spending in the shadows.
At least in Massachusetts, you have the Pacheco-Menard Law, which we have tried to get here in NYS.
Do you righties truly believe that without government regulation the air would be cleaner, that automobiles would be safer, that the food we eat would be pure?
Of course you want to control a woman's decision to reproduce, that everyone should be a christian, that only pledged heterosexuals can be married, that wars come ahead of education of our youth and health care for all citizens,?
First of all, the law does not ban incandescent A-line light bulbs, nor does it mandate the use of CFLs. It simply sets new standards in efficiency for light bulbs.
I'm not sure "lie" is the correct word. If the standards are changed such that eventually only CFLs can meet them (and I assume that's what Jeffrey is alluding to), then that's pretty much the same as mandating what type of bulbs you have to use.
I just don't see why a government mandate to use energy efficient light bulbs is the symbol of "the man" keeping us down. We were wasteful for a long time, partially out of ignorance and partially out of profligacy. Now we have to be a little smarter about consumption. It's not a hard concept to understand. Besides, you can always play "young Abe Lincoln" and read by candle light if you hate CFLs so much. It's a free country, see? No absolute right to incandescent light bulbs in the Constitution.
Do you righties truly believe that without government regulation the air would be cleaner, that automobiles would be safer, that the food we eat would be pure?
Of course you want to control a woman's decision to reproduce, that everyone should be a christian, that only pledged heterosexuals can be married, that wars come ahead of education of our youth and health care for all citizens,?
If the government has grown to much, it should be shrunk. If it is inefficient, it should be made more efficient. There should be cost-benefit analysis of how government services are procured and delivered. The civil service system should be maintained to avoid pay-to-play and the appointment of political hacks and incompetents. If there is reason to believe that the private sector can deliver services better than government, then let the private sector deliver it. Yet any change, alteration or evolution should be based on the best data available.
But all of that is a lot different than destroying our system government because of widespread buy-in to the lies of rightwing lunatics and crypto-corporate fascists.
Last edited by rollhead; July-26th-2011 at 12:13 PM.
If the government has grown to much, it should be shrunk. If it is inefficient, it should be made more efficient. There should be cost-benefit analysis of how government services are procured and delivered. The civil service system should be maintained to avoid pay-to-play and the appointment of political hacks and incompetents. If there is reason to believe that the private sector can deliver services better than government, then let the private sector deliver it. Yet any change, alteration or evolution should be based on the best data available.
But all of that is a lot different than destroying our system government because of widespread buy-in to the lies of rightwing lunatics and crypto-corporate fascists.
Here's the problem with privatization: Private companies do business in order to make money, not to make things more efficient. If we think taxes are high now, just wait until privatized education hands Americans yet another arbitrary cost increase.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Uli
