For as long as I can recall, Republican politicians in their campaign platforms, speeches, op-eds, and the mouths of their compliant shills in the media have made attacks on "bloated bureaucrats" in the federal government a staple item. On this board, the usual suspects repeat this line ad nauseum. So I thought it would be interesting to see what has happened to the federal payroll over the past 50 years under both Republican and Democratic administrations. As it happens, the federal Office of Personnel Management keeps exact count of those numbers and posts them on its website. Since Yahoo will automatically scrub any post that contains a link, I can't simply direct you there. But here's what you will find if you go there on your own. The BIGGEST INCREASE in executive branch employment (which is 97% of federal non-military employment) came under Ronald Reagan, from 2,821,000 when he took office to 3,054,000 when he left office. The BIGGEST DECLINE in executive branch employment came under Bill Clinton, from 2,947,000 when he took office to 2,637,000 when he left office. Under Dubya, employment rose again from 2,640,000 to 2,692,000. Under Obama, it rose to 2,774,000 in his first year, then declined to 2,756,000 through the end of 2011, which is the latest date for which OPM posts numbers.
A more meaningful analysis looks at federal employment as a percentage of total population. During Reagan's term in office, executive branch employment rose from 1.24% to 1.26% of the population. Under Clinton, executive branch employment declined from 1.14% of population to 1.07% of the population. By year end 2011, it had fallen to 0.88 % of the population.
To sum up, Ronald Reagan, the man who got elected by proclaiming "government is the problem" is the only President in the past 50 years who grew the federal bureaucracy in both absolute and percentage terms. Obama, the supposed "big government liberal" is operating with a federal bureaucracy that is both smaller absolutely and much smaller in percentage terms than the government under the "small government conservative" Reagan.
Maybe you should add in foodstamp and unemployment recipients as federal employees!! Also add the entire medical industry and SS recipients!! HAHA!!! This is why The POTUS will go down in history as the worst pres ever!! It's all a matter of timing, like musical chairs!
Seems conservative posts are still being deleted many more times than the liberal......bias!!!
Maybe you should ask yourself..when did debt become a "real" problem...out of control and what are we doing about it?? Ask also, why doesn't POTUS have a budget now or for the last 4 years.....Could it be, he don't want any attention on the subject...why are they only talking banning guns and amnesty? You at least picked the right subject....wrong side!!
The debt became a problem when Republicans lost the White House in 2008. Up to that point, the Republican mantra, dating back to the Reagan administration, was "deficits don't matter." The only President in 50 years to run a federal budget surplus was Bill Clinton and he did it as a result of passing a tax increase that was opposed by every Republican Senator and passed the Senate only with the tie-breaking vote of the Vice-President. As soon as Dubya entered office, he sponsored tax cut legislation and spending measures that pushed the budget back into the red, where it stayed during his entire term. Republicans voted to raise the debt ceiling for him 7 times in 8 years.
But with Obama in the White House, suddenly, there's a debt problem.
The country is entitled to a serious debate about the level of federal debt, the trends in federal entitlement spending, and similar topics. Marching blindly over the sequester cliff, which the Congress now seems hell-bent on doing, is the exact opposite of the kind of serious conversation that's required. I happen to agree that a public debt equal to 100% of GDP is too high. The meaningful questions are, how to get it lower and how much lower it should go. The GOP robo-response, "Cut taxes" is an abdication of thought.
Oblunder does not need more "people" to grow the handouts from government!! Obummer can waste more of our money by handing it out to food stamp and welfare participants without growing people. That does not mean he is not growing government by creating a welfare state.
Maybe you should ask yourself..when did debt become a "real" problem...out of control and what are we doing about it?? Ask also, why hasn't Obama have a budget......Could it be, he don't want any attention on the subject...why are they only talking banning guns and amnesty? You at least picked the right subject....wrong side!!
Maybe you should add in foodstamp and unemployment recipients as federal employees!! Also add the entire medical industry and SS recipients!! HAHA!!! This is why Obama will go down in history as the worst pres ever!! It's all a matter of timing, like musical chairs!
Almost all complete propoganda as usual. You dont even address the real growth......reagan had a dem congress that kept him from killing govt bureaucracy he wanted to. Not only is almost all your drivel practically false it is very misleading and lacks true facts.
Yahoo keeled my reply to you with data from Forbes recent article on federal employees. You can search the key words for the data:
The Growth Of Government: 1980 To 2012 - Forbes
The federal government exists to serve the population. The number of federal employees needed, should keep pace with the growth in population. However, during the ...
I calcuated federal executive branch employees as a percentage of total population. I deliberately omitted the armed forces, although soldiers, sailors etc. are technically federal employees, because I wanted to address the right-wing complaint about a supposedly bloated federal bureaucracy. And that's also why I omitted state and local government employees.
I get tired of hearing the same old crapola from the GOP about how "government is the problem" when by their actions they make it completely clear they don't believe their own rhetoric. "Government" is not their problem: government policies that threaten their ability to make money any way they want without any form of oversight and with low or non-existent taxation: THAT is their problem.