During today’s round table on ABC, Rand Paul seemed shocked at my claim that government employment is down under Obama. Of course, it is.Oh, is it? Well, then someone ought to tell the U.S. Office of Personnel Management because they tell a different story:
Federal Personnel (Executive Branch):
2008: 2,692,000
2010 (latest data): 2,776,000 For a increase of 84,000 employees.
Total Federal Personnel:
2008: 4,206,000
2010: 4,443,000 For an increase of 237,000 employees.
I'm still looking for the decrease here Paulie. But, that's right, Krugman cannot be bothered looking up the real numbers because he is too busy blaming Bush:
But maybe he’s thinking of the fact that since govt employment rose under Bush, we’re still at higher absolute levels than we were a decade ago.Well, let's look at the Bush numbers, shall we?
Federal Personnel (Executive Branch):
1999: 2,687,000
2008: 2,692,000 For an increase of 5000 employees in 8 years.
So Bush increased the Executive Branch by an average of 625 employee per year. The Obama number? 42,000 per year.
Total Federal Personnel:
1999: 4,135,000
2008: 4,206,000 For a total growth of 71,000, or 8875 per year. The Obama number? 118,500 per year.
So, how does Krugman get his numbers? Well, by lying. Krugman adds in all of the local and state government jobs lost since the start of 2009 because of the horrible Obama economy, and portrays them perversely as evidence of Obama's penny pinching ways. So, your local government had to lay off teachers because property tax revenues have plummeted? Well, says Krugman, you can thank Obama. And, hey, all you protestors in Wisconsin! According to Krugman you've got it all wrong. Scott Walker isn't to blame. Any changes in state spending and hiring are all Obama's doing!
I'm sorry, but in the real world President Obama controls the Federal government and its hiring practices. The Federal government has increased since Obama came to office and at a rate many times that of President Bush. President Obama has nothing to do with whether your local government has to lay off its librarians, except in the generic sense of being to blame for the state of the so-called recovery that has put state and local governments in the bind they are in.
I'm sure Paul's hesitation when confronted with the Krugman statement on the Sunday talk shows was caused by his not being able to believe that A) Anyone could make as stupid or dishonest an argument as Paul Krugman has made, or B) That there could be anyone so stupid as to believe it.
3 comments:
Icon,
Why do you use 2008 and 1999? Obama was not inaugurated president until 2009 and Bush until 2001. I would think that a "professor of political philosophy" would know such things, but I guess I would be wrong. Perhaps you should take a Pol.Sci. 100 class. If you knew a bit -- really quite a bit but I'm trying to be charitable -- more about political science and history your posts would not be so foolish.
I used 1999 because they didn't include Census hires (while 2000 did) which were (supposedly) such a big deal. Just trying to have a like for like comparison. (I then went back and compared the Census years as well, so all bases were covered.)
Plus, are you seriously saying I shouldn't use the base of 2008 to measure the increase? What number am I supposed to compare it with? Zero? So If I take over a company tomorrow that has 5 employees and during the first year I hire 100 more, then in the second year I hire 2 more, I could argue I only increased the workforce by 2?
On what planet does that make sense?
Post a Comment