Tea Party Now Covering News for Washington Post

[n2doc]

By Jonathan Chait

The Washington Post’s lead Sunday news story is one of the weirdest, and most weirdly biased, news articles I’ve ever read in my life. The point of the story — headlined “After six budget showdowns, big government is mostly unchanged” — is that the federal government is too big, and we may think it’s getting smaller, but it’s not, really.

There are actually two points to the story. One is that government is not shrinking, or at least not shrinking very quickly. This point is clearly false. The author employs crude, badly deployed statistics, such as the shocking fact that the government is now spending $3.455 trillion a year, which is admittedly lower than in 2010, but “it is not down by that much. Back then, the government spent a whopping $3.457 trillion.”

Is that really “not down by much”? Given that some growth is required every year merely to keep pace with higher costs and a growing population, a cut in unadjusted dollar terms over three years is actually a lot. Government spending has actually dropped by 2 percentage points of gross domestic product since 2010. That’s a very fast drop, especially given the backdrop of an economy coping with the vast fallout from the largest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Indeed, the consensus of the macroeconomic forecasting field is that rapid government cutbacks are hampering the recovery, and thus prolonging the enormous human misery of high unemployment, though that consensus does not appear anywhere in the story.
The story proceeds to report that the federal workforce is not shrinking by much:

Measured another way — not in dollars, but in people — the government has about 4.1 million employees today, military and civilian. That’s more than the populations of 24 states.

Back in 2010, it had 4.3 million employees. More than the populations of 24 states.

Another way to put that fact would be that the federal workforce has declined by 4.65 percent over three years. Still another way to put it would be that, over the last several years, the federal workforce as a percentage of the population has continued its historic decline:



more

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/08/tea-party-now-covering-news-for-washington-post.html

[Benton D Struckcheon]

1. We needed to win the 2010 Congressionals

Merely doing that would have added hundreds of thousands, possibly more, jobs by now. What's going on now is completely crazy.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

3. Not likely

They've gerrymandered things to the point Boner and Cantor could eat live dogs on TV, and Dipshit, Texas is still going to vote for Louis Gohmert.

[Scuba]

4. A huge turnout of female voters could tip the scales.

And the teabillies are doing everything in their power to motivate women to vote.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. How about offering some figures about the gerrymandered areas rather than rhetoric?

Your post seems to say 'stay home, all is lost' and I personally do not agree with you. Texas and many other places will vote Republican, that does not mean they always win the House. So actual numbers of gerrymandered districts, population changes since lines were drawn, all of that please!

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

7. Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan are just a few blue states where we've been royally fucked

This is a great article about what those shitheads in the legislatures did.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/22/1201551/-Did-Gerrymandering-Cost-Dems-the-House-A-33-State-Look-at-Alternative-Non-Partisan-Maps#

No one should stay at home, not saying that at all, so drop it. But these fuckers have been waiting for this shit for a long time and they know what they are doing. I'm telling you not get your hopes up because the house (like a casino) is stacked against us.

[KharmaTrain]

8. That Gets Fixed On The State Level...

...the problem is the Democrats are getting beaten like a drum in state legislative races that are the ones who create the gerrymandered districts and have pushed the most draconian laws in a half century. It's crucial to retake legislatures...especially in blue states...to stem any further damage to voting rights, women's health and reproductive rights, union busting and so on. Democrats need to focus on the local level...rather than fantasize about 2016 or re-fight past elections...

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

9. I agree

We are looking at another several years until the next census before we can change things up top. We need to win the executive and legislative branches on a state level first, but I imagine the same chicanery is going on there too.

[KharmaTrain]

10. Yes And No...

...I've long been critical of the Democratic party for neglecting the lower races for the big ticket ones. Dr. Dean had the right idea with his 50 state approach but it was shitcanned after he left the DNC. Wasserman-Schultz has been useless on the state level whereas for the past 30 years the rushpublicans have worked hard to win those elections. The current crop of teabaggers didn't show up overnight, they worked their way up from school boards through organizations in areas where Democrats didn't even bother to set up shop.

Unfortunately I don't see a lot of improvement happening for next year. If you have a well organized party and campaign operation, you don't concern yourself with chicanery...you win elections. The rushpublicans continue to alienate all types of voting blocs...it's a shame the Democrats are assuming rather than working for their votes...

[msongs]

2. it is now the Amazon.com Post, propaganda arm of the bezos empire nt

[kelliekat44]

6. We were giving the WP the benefit of the doubt. But we cancelled our subscription yesterday. nt

[tavernier]

11. I'm presently reading Robert Caro's book

volumes on LBJ. He tells a very detailed story of how this man had the unique and amazing talent and third-eye knowledge to achieve power and control over congress; and use it to break log jams and pass legislation that was regarded as impassable. We just don't have that kind of talent these days.