Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

The Straight Story

(48,121 posts)
Sun Jan 15, 2012, 12:53 PM Jan 2012

Big Government? Obama Has 273,000 Fewer Federal Employees Than Reagan

Big Government? Obama Has 273,000 Fewer Federal Employees Than Reagan

Every single Republican today talks about being a Reagan conservative. This is a conservative that believes in small government, reducing federal spending and ultimately runs a lean and mean government. They talk about this stuff in campaigns, but in practice they failed miserably.

In fact HISTORICALLY, it is has been Democratic presidents who have reduced the size of the federal government. The Republicans have lied to the people so much that I believe the current crop somehow BELIEVES the history as they have been told, rather than researching the facts for themselves. This may be a stretch, but I am trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.

According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which tracks the number of employees per year, the data shows that the “conservatives” for small government are really just big government conservatives. I know that is an oxymoron, but numbers don’t lie.

Let’s start with President Carter.

On December 31st 1976 (Not Carter’s term yet), total nonmilitary personnel was 2,883,000. By December 31st 1980 the end of his term (minus a month), the total in nonmilitary personnel was 2,875,000.

Federal government nonmilitary employees shrunk by 8,000 employees under Carter.

http://www.politicususa.com/en/big-government-obama-reagan

12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
7. So is the article saying Obama is more conservative then Ronny?
Sun Jan 15, 2012, 02:32 PM
Jan 2012

Cuz if so...I hear about a million white heads exploding out there right now...

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
9. Conservative in the sense of wanting to conserve the Treasury...
Sun Jan 15, 2012, 03:01 PM
Jan 2012

...for use on something other than payroll, my Friend.

In my typically clumsy way, I wanted to make a point that Democratic presidents used to believe in the power of government to do things to make life better. That requires more than people power, that requires compassion the Republican heart finds so difficult to find and vision that the conservative mind is unable to hold.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
12. I've left the notion of 'Republican' and 'conservative' as being a complete body far behind me.
Sun Jan 15, 2012, 03:36 PM
Jan 2012

The father of all modern conservatives - Edmund Burke - would mock these jokesters and tricksters that claim the title as nothing more then cheap ambulance chasers and pompus bureaucratic garbage collectors. A man, that was strongly for the Union and against British rule. I dare say the word conservative should be taken away from the GOP as a banned word from their vocabulary. If anything...Repukes have learned how to be 'liberal' in their nature on our economy - spend, spend, spend, spend and fuck the future generations. We don't see anything close to a conservative imo in modern politics. Just flim flam artists selling shoddy snake oil to the poor working class.

I knew what you meant Octafish...but can you imagine if Obama ends up with a more conservative record then Reagan (which he will)? It will be something I bring up everytime a relative croons about RWR I can assure you.

bhikkhu

(10,715 posts)
4. Computers have a lot to do with that
Sun Jan 15, 2012, 02:01 PM
Jan 2012

I think many people can recall before the "information age", when most any business depended on teams of clerical workers running adding machines, and teams of switchboard operators to handle communications, and so forth. We had calculators by the 80's, but computing was still fairly labor intensive. Everything has paired-down since then.

One good example is bookkeeping at the shop where I work - 30 years ago, there would have been two full time bookkeepers and a wall of file cabinets; now one guy does the data-entry in his spare time - 30 minutes here and there - and it just takes about an extra hour or two a month to reconcile statements and print the monthly and yearly reports.

Not to argue that government doesn't need more people for many things to be done better, but there have been very real changes in the workplace that make the OP an apples-to-oranges comparison.

BumRushDaShow

(128,816 posts)
6. Not necessarily apples to oranges
Sun Jan 15, 2012, 02:21 PM
Jan 2012

because the "real" numbers are hidden by the number of contractors that have exploded during the same periods. Although IT has made things "faster", the paper certainly hasn't gone away (in fact, at least to me, it has quadrupled). Even with just the electronic portion, management of that data (and the systems that host it) now may "only" require 1 gov't person to oversee, but also requires a whole team of often-offsite contract staff as well (handling upgrades, managing the uptimes, backups, etc 24/7).

Many of the old "pool" equivalents are now contracted-out and appear "off the books" in terms of civil service presence. And these aren't all the "glamor" DOD contractors. There are many support functions, contract IT, contract HR, contract Call Centers, etc, etc.

Some interesting stats/discussion here: http://www.politifact.com/virginia/statements/2011/jan/06/gerry-connolly/rep-gerry-connolly-says-federal-workforce-hasnt-gr/

BumRushDaShow

(128,816 posts)
5. Shrub, from scratch, created the 2nd largest Department in history (DHS)
Sun Jan 15, 2012, 02:06 PM
Jan 2012

while Clinton slashed 250,000 federal jobs during his tenure.

I blame the lamestream media for continuing to shill the repuke crap year after year as if it were factual. They do truly follow the oxymoronic credos that if you say a thing enough times, it "must be true".

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
8. Interesting:
Sun Jan 15, 2012, 02:36 PM
Jan 2012
Now finally, President George W. Bush came into office with 2,703,000 nonmilitary employees and by the time his terms were through, the total nonmilitary federal employees on the books were 2,756,000, which is an INCREASE of 53,000 employees.

The small government, lean and mean political party, seems to be the Democratic Party. President Clinton reduced the size of the federal government’s nonmilitary employees by OVER 10%.

The “so called” small government President Reagan INCREASED the nonmilitary size of government by almost 10%.

That could make a good ad.

 

Liberal_Stalwart71

(20,450 posts)
10. I work for the federal government, and we have seen a record number of retirements. In addition...
Sun Jan 15, 2012, 03:27 PM
Jan 2012

there is a hiring freeze imposed last year and could remain for the next two years or so.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Big Government? Obama Has...