the size of the federal government

[carlfense]

I've heard some people talk about the ever-increasing size of our federal government. Some version of that is repeated so often that I sort of assumed that it was based in fact.

 

I was very wrong.

Bloated Government? Federal Employment at 47-Year Low

 

 

It was the summer of 1966. Lyndon Johnson was in the White House and the Great Society was roaring. In August, the federal government had 2,721,000 employees.

 

Now it is the fall of 2013. There are complaints from Washington about a bloated federal government. Another Democrat, Barack Obama, is president.

 

Now, the federal government employs exactly 2 percent of the people with jobs in this country. In 1966, the figure was more than twice that, 4.3 percent.In September, before the government shutdown, the government had 2,723,000 employees, according to the latest job report, on a seasonally adjusted basis. That is the lowest figure since 1966. Until now, the lowest figure for the current century had been 2,724,000 federal employees in October 2004, when George W. Bush was seeking a second term in the White House.

 

All these figures, by the way, are for civilian jobs. Members of the armed forces are not counted. If they were included, the contrast would be even sharper. In 1966 the Vietnam War was going on, and around 2.6 million people were on active duty. This year the figure is around 1.4 million.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/bloated-government-federal-employment-at-47-year-low/?_r=2

 

Another myth dies.

[BigRedBuster]

Hmmm...interesting.

 

How much of that is an affect from Austerity measures?

[rawhide]

NY Times, really?

 

http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/historical-tables/total-government-employment-since-1962/

[carlfense]

NY Times, really?

 

http://www.opm.gov/p...ent-since-1962/

[rawhide]

I don't buy salsa there either

 

I think some equate debt with size

[carlfense]

Hmmm...interesting.

 

How much of that is an affect from Austerity measures?

I don't know. It just seems to contradict the rhetoric that I've heard about the exploding size of the federal government.

[BigRedBuster]

NY Times, really?

 

http://www.opm.gov/p...ent-since-1962/

 

 

It's interesting that the low point since the 1980s is during the Bush II era. Wouldn't have guessed that.

[BigRedBuster]

Hmmm...interesting.

 

How much of that is an affect from Austerity measures?

I don't know. It just seems to contradict the rhetoric that I've heard about the exploding size of the federal government.

 

 

I believe it's a good trend. However, I don't really remember anyone talking about a "bloated government" as it pertains to total employment. Now, maybe that's a part of it. But, I usually hear it discussed in terms of spending, regulations, influence on our personal lives...etc.

 

Now, admittedly, I was assuming as spending increased, so was employment. But..hey...I had never seen the numbers. I guess it shows that at least as it pertains to man hours, we are getting more done with fewer people. And, that's a good trend.

[carlfense]

The craziness continues. (old article)

It’s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.

 

Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

 

Who knew?

 

So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?

 

It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.

 

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

http://www.forbes.co...s-barack-obama/

[knapplc]

Here we go again! It's all Bush's fault! You liberal left-wingers just won't give up.

 

[Junior]

NY Times, really?

 

http://www.opm.gov/p...ent-since-1962/

 

You have a problem with the New York Times as a source??

[rawhide]

NY Times, really?

 

http://www.opm.gov/p...ent-since-1962/

 

You have a problem with the New York Times as a source??

That particular article YES

[BigRedBuster]

NY Times, really?

 

http://www.opm.gov/p...ent-since-1962/

 

You have a problem with the New York Times as a source??

That particular article YES

 

 

I'm interested in your ideas Rawhide. It appears that your link substantiates what was in the article. Am I reading that wrong?

[Junior]

NY Times, really?

 

http://www.opm.gov/p...ent-since-1962/

 

You have a problem with the New York Times as a source??

That particular article YES

 

Why?

[rawhide]

Bloated Government? Federal Employment at 47-Year Low

By FLOYD NORRIS

It was the summer of 1966. Lyndon Johnson was in the White House and the Great Society was roaring. In August, the federal government had 2,721,000 employees.

Now it is the fall of 2013. There are complaints from Washington about a bloated federal government. Another Democrat, Barack Obama, is president.

 

 

FLOYD NORRIS

 

Notions on high and low finance.

In September, before the government shutdown, the government had 2,723,000 employees, according to the latest job report, on a seasonally adjusted basis. That is the lowest figure since 1966. Until now, the lowest figure for the current century had been 2,724,000 federal employees in October 2004, when George W. Bush was seeking a second term in the White House.

 

His figures don't jive with the OPM. Call it nitpickin' but at least be accurate. The figures are easy enough to obtain even a RN can do it.

 

I'm not arguing that the government is bloated. The number of employees hasn't changed greatly since 1962. But 2,723,000 isn't the lowest figure, per the OPM table.

 

I would argue that there is probably considerable waste and an excess of employees but everyone wants to protect their pie. On the other hand, there probably need to be more staff in agencies that protect the public, not so much from themselves but criminals and poor business practices.