The election seems to becoming the
Goldilocks story. Romney, now that is has picked Ryan as his running mate, has
made the Republican line definite, though not new: the government is too big.
It is a popular line and the public responds well to it.
This implication then is that Democrats
want a government that is too big; a hard line to sell. However, is the an
accurate phrase for Democrats?
Goldilocks found the third bed which was
just right. To me this means that we get the question wrong to begin with. The
real question is just how big government needs to be in order to accomplish it
work as public servants to the American people.
If you look at the numbers the size of the
government has been decreasing in size over the past 3 decades or more. The
highest number of government employees was in 1968 – 6,639,000. In 2010 there
were 4,443,000 government employees. [figures from the U.s. Office of Personnel
Management. This includes ] Shouldn’t this make the Republicans happy? Or do
they just want to ride this horse into the ground?
There are things we want the government to
do though we rarely list them. But the government needs to develop the nation’s
infrastructure so businesses and individuals alike can flourish. Government
needs to make sure we have an educated populace to make responsible citizens
who make intelligent choices. The government needs to provide social safety nets
for those who are in need. The government needs to provide security for folk in
their retirement years. The government needs to insure that all its citizens
get needed health care. The government needs to implement business guidelines
and restrictions so they don’t get out of control and make an unfair playing
field for all. The government needs to control banking practices that are fair
and equitable. The government needs to be able stimulate the economy when
needed and to put the brakes on the economy when it is needed. The government
needs to do all these things and more and most people realize it. And yet they
will call for less government.
As Goldilocks would say we need a
government that is just the right size to get its work done. Certainly we
should be concerned about waste and abuse, but we need to keep the bigger
picture in mind as to what the government should be doing rather than what it
should not be doing.
Historical Federal Workforce Tables
Total Government Employment Since 1962 1
(numbers in thousands)
|
Year
|
Executive
branch civilians (thousands)
|
Uniformed
military personnel (thousands)
|
Legislative
and judicial branch personnel (thousands)
|
Total
Federal personnel (thousands)
|
|
1962
|
2,485
|
2,840
|
30
|
5,354
|
|
1963 2
|
2,498
|
2,732
|
30
|
5,260
|
|
1964 2
|
2,470
|
2,719
|
31
|
5,220
|
|
1965
|
2,496
|
2,687
|
32
|
5,215
|
|
1966
|
2,726
|
3,129
|
33
|
5,888
|
|
1967
|
2,968
|
3,413
|
34
|
6,416
|
|
1968
|
3,020
|
3,584
|
35
|
6,639
|
|
1969 3
|
3,040
|
3,499
|
36
|
6,575
|
|
1970 4
|
2,944
|
3,104
|
38
|
6,085
|
|
1971 4
|
2,883
|
2,752
|
40
|
5,675
|
|
1972
|
2,823
|
2,360
|
42
|
5,225
|
|
1973
|
2,781
|
2,289
|
44
|
5,113
|
|
1974
|
2,847
|
2,198
|
46
|
5,091
|
|
1975
|
2,848
|
2,164
|
49
|
5,061
|
|
1976
|
2,833
|
2,119
|
50
|
5,002
|
|
1977
|
2,840
|
2,112
|
53
|
5,005
|
|
1978
|
2,875
|
2,099
|
55
|
5,028
|
|
1979
|
2,823
|
2,063
|
53
|
4,939
|
|
1980 4
|
2,821
|
2,090
|
55
|
4,965
|
|
1981 4
|
2,806
|
2,122
|
54
|
4,982
|
|
1982
|
2,770
|
2,147
|
55
|
4,972
|
|
1983
|
2,820
|
2,163
|
56
|
5,039
|
|
1984
|
2,854
|
2,178
|
56
|
5,088
|
|
1985
|
3,008
|
2,190
|
58
|
5,256
|
|
1986
|
2,966
|
2,206
|
55
|
5,228
|
|
1987
|
3,030
|
2,213
|
58
|
5,301
|
|
1988
|
3,054
|
2,176
|
59
|
5,289
|
|
1989
|
3,064
|
2,168
|
60
|
5,292
|
|
1990 4
|
3,067
|
2,106
|
61
|
5,234
|
|
1991 4
|
3,048
|
2,040
|
64
|
5,152
|
|
1992
|
3,017
|
1,848
|
66
|
4,931
|
|
1993
|
2,947
|
1,744
|
66
|
4,758
|
|
1994
|
2,908
|
1,648
|
63
|
4,620
|
|
1995
|
2,858
|
1,555
|
62
|
4,475
|
|
1996
|
2,786
|
1,507
|
61
|
4,354
|
|
1997
|
2,725
|
1,439
|
62
|
4,226
|
|
1998
|
2,727
|
1,407
|
62
|
4,196
|
|
1999
|
2,687
|
1,386
|
63
|
4,135
|
|
2000 4
|
2,639
|
1,426
|
63
|
4,129
|
|
2001 4
|
2,640
|
1,428
|
64
|
4,132
|
|
2002
|
2,630
|
1,456
|
66
|
4,152
|
|
2003
|
2,666
|
1,478
|
65
|
4,210
|
|
2004
|
2,650
|
1,473
|
64
|
4,187
|
|
2005
|
2,636
|
1,436
|
65
|
4,138
|
|
2006
|
2,637
|
1,432
|
63
|
4,133
|
|
2007
|
2,636
|
1,427
|
63
|
4,127
|
|
2008
|
2,692
|
1,450
|
64
|
4,206
|
|
2009
|
2,774
|
1,591
|
66
|
4,430
|
|
2010 4
|
2,776
|
1,602
|
64
|
4,443
|
Notes:
1.
Data comes from agency 113 monthly submissions and covers total
end-of-year civilian employment of full-time permanent, temporary, part-time,
and intermittent employees. Executive branch includes the Postal Service, and, beginning
in 1970, includes various disadvantaged youth and worker-trainee programs.
Uniformed Military Personnel data comes from the Department of Defense.
I've seen that chart before. Peculiar, how the
ReplyDeleteFederal workforce increased under Reagan. It has since shrunk by 11%, yet Reagan is considered a 'small gov't guy. The magic of
teflon....
There's a bit of a mistake in this. A huge one, in fact. Your text only refers to government employees, but your numbers and chart refer to federal employees only....
ReplyDeleteThis leads to a really huge error, and makes the numbers you quote off by 300% or more.... as you end up only discussing just a fraction of government employees.
In fact, "There are plenty of workers in state and local governments -- about 19 million"....
which is more than three times the "4,443,000 government employees." figure you give.
I tried to find a source for the figure you gave. This blog post was the first time it came up. Interestingly enough, another blog post appeared right below yours.
This other one didn't leave anything out, and puts the total of government employees at 24,504,567.
With your figure of only 4,443,000 government employees in 2010 in mind, let's check the Census figures from the same year. These are far and away the most accurate indicator of the picture:
Local government employees: 14,273,888
State employees: 5,325,575
Federal employees (CIVILIAN ONLY)" 5,591,706
Note that the accurate census Federal figures only include civilian Federal employees (not including 1.5 million in the armed forces), and even then greatly exceed your 4,443,000.
I wonder this compares to trends over time? It sure is huge today.
I'd like to see a do-over, one that honestly looks at the complete picture instead of only a fraction of it.
There seem to be a variety of figures available.
DeleteYour first link noted:
"To listen to tea partiers and other fiscal hawks, you would think the numbers had doubled over the years, but in fact their proportion of the total workforce has not grown much. And that means the number has grown roughly in line with the population." ..which jives with my calculations of population/gov't job growth.
But the figure I am trying to wrap my head around is 14.6 million Federal contract workers.
Who are they and what do they do? If they are anything like Blackwater (foreign guard service
pay about $150,000/yer) replacing US troops (av $20,000/yer), I see awsome savings....
addendum: the Census totals for all government employees (not including those in the Armed Forces) do come pretty close to the 24 million mentioned in the "CRE" blog. And that is 5 or 6 times higher than the 4.4 million figure.
ReplyDeleteThe "24 million +" figure is also about 4 times higher than the figure for 1968, which was 6,639,000.
What was that about Republicans riding a horse, again?
Ah my friend dmarks. There is no mistake at all. I intentionally only dealt with federal employees as that is the issue that folk like to argue about. States can do what states can do. But the traditional argument has to do with federal employees.
ReplyDeleteIn the article I gave the source for the numbers the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Sorry if you couldn’t find it, it should not be that hard.
The point of the piece was size of government ought to match what we want government to do; often the numbers just gets in the way of seeing the main issue.
Another major point what that government employees has decreased over the years rather than increased as conservatives like to infer. So, what I said is perfectly true, government employees (federal) have decreased over the years rather than increase.
If you want to quibble over total employees including states, then show the differences between those totals between 1968 and today.
Here is the site for the numbers I used http://www.opm.gov/feddata/historicaltables/totalgovernmentsince1962.asp
The state and local employee issue is very much "on the radar", even in Wisconsin... and the numbers are many times more than the federal employees. And yes, I hear people argue about the number of state employees a LOT. And the local ones who get a ton of money for hardly doing anything, along with a massive pension. You yourself have devoted blog posts to issues involving state government in Wisconsin... this is very much on-topic.
ReplyDeleteIt is thus hardly a "quibble" to include all, instead of a fraction of, government employees when looking at this.
The Census again comes to the rescue:
click here.
You will see that the number of federal employees has stayed flat, while the number of state and local has really soared.
The chart stops at 2008. We've already discussed the more resent census numbers (which follow the trend at the end of the chart) as being more than 24 million.
In 1968, it was a little over 12 million. That's definitely a doubling of total government employees since 1968, in the most raw, accurate numbers possible.
Of course, if we want to adjust it, it might be reasonable to adjust by population. Agree? It is 314 million now. It was 200 million in 1968.
The percent of government workers against the general population in 1968 was 6%. Against the general population in 2011, it is 8%.
In terms of percent of population, government employees soared during this periond from 6% to 8%... an increase of about 33% of the group of government employees.
So, as for "Another major point what that government employees has decreased over the years rather than increased as conservatives like to infer", government employees have definitely increased, for sure.