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

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
Wed May 9, 2012, 09:56 AM May 2012

The costs of a shrinking government

The costs of a shrinking government

By Steve Benen

President Obama spoke at SUNY Albany yesterday, sketching out an economic to-do list for Congress, and raised an important point that generally goes overlooked: when it comes to the recovery, "one of the biggest drags on our economy" has been public-sector layoffs.

&quot A)fter there was a recession under Ronald Reagan, government employment went way up. It went up after the recessions under the first George Bush and the second George Bush. So each time there was a recession with a Republican President, we compensated by making sure that government didn't see a drastic reduction in employment.

"The only time government employment has gone down during a recession has been under me. So I make that point just so you don't buy into this whole bloated government argument that you hear."

It's maddening in large part because so much of the global economic crisis was hard to control, but this aspect -- public-sector employment -- was easy. It was within Washington's power to prevent the layoffs of teachers, firefighters, and police officers, and Democrats did that for a while in 2009, but as stimulus funds ran out, mass layoffs began. Republicans were given an opportunity to save these jobs, but they refused, arguing hat the economy would improve if more public-sector workers were unemployed.

We're left to wonder what could have been, but we have some ideas. The Wall Street Journal ran an important piece the other day, noting that the national unemployment rate would be 7.1% right now -- a full point lower than it is now -- if the government hadn't laid off so many public-sector workers. TPM's Brian Beutler published this great chart this morning:



There's no great mystery here. The right doesn't like it, and Republicans prefer to pretend the facts are wrong, but there's one key difference between our weak economic recovery and a more robust one: our government is shrinking at the worst possible time.

- more -

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/09/11616488-the-costs-of-a-shrinking-government



4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The costs of a shrinking government (Original Post) ProSense May 2012 OP
So is it time for austerity or not? MannyGoldstein May 2012 #1
Haven't ProSense May 2012 #2
Still getting the peas quote wrong I see. JoePhilly May 2012 #3
Kick! n/t ProSense May 2012 #4
 

MannyGoldstein

(34,589 posts)
1. So is it time for austerity or not?
Wed May 9, 2012, 10:12 AM
May 2012

Or is this a pre-Nov-6th vs. post-Nov-6th situation?

I need to make decisions around pea futures.

Very subtle stuff.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
2. Haven't
Wed May 9, 2012, 10:19 AM
May 2012

"I need to make decisions around pea futures. "

...you posted often that you're doing very well?

Those of us actually counting peas want real support.

Maybe it's time to help unseat the Republicans who are sabotaging the economy and destroying American lives.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The costs of a shrinking ...