Buy WILLisms XML Feed Mar. 21, 2005 11:50 AM June 20, 2005 5:36 AM Oct. 31, 2005 12:41 AM Nov. 23, 2005 3:28 PM Nov. 30, 2005 1:33 PM May 12, 2006 6:15 PM Oct. 17, 2006 12:30 AM Dec. 13, 2006 1:01 PM Dec. 18, 2006 6:37 PM Dec. 21, 2006 12:31 PM Dec. 22, 2006 10:22 PM July 25, 2007 4:32 PM May 28, 2008 11:12 PM June 9, 2008 12:25 PM Blogroll Me! July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 March 13, 2008 Due: July 29, 2008 Mar. 14, 2006 Apr. 4, 2008 May 19, 2007 July 9, 2006 July 14, 2006 Powered by Movable Type 3.17 Site Design by Sekimori WILLisms.com June 2008 Book of the Month (certified classy): The WILLisms.com Gift Shop:
This Week's Carnival of Revolutions:
Carnival Home Base:
|
« Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 388 -- GOP Nearly Bottomed Out In 2006. | WILLisms.com | Wednesday Caption Contest: Part 84 » Trivia Tidbit Of The Day: Part 389 -- Shrinking The Federal Government.Smaller Federal Government- Some facts on the size of government: ...total federal employment peaked under President George H.W. Bush at 3.4 million in May 1990. That number, as measured by the BLS, fell to 3 million by the time Bush the Elder left office. President Bill Clinton continued the trend while president, and is one of two Democrats (the other was Harry S. Truman) in the postwar era who presided over a decline in total federal employment. Government jobs also dropped under Republicans Dwight D. Eisenhower and Gerald R. Ford. So, some moderate success at the federal level in preventing bureaucratic bloat. However, much of the downsizing of government throughout the 1990s was due to the false "peace dividend" we thought we could get away with following the Cold War. Still, having fewer federal employees is absolutely imperative for the small government movement. On the other hand, state and local governments have grown substantially over the same time period, often with subsidies from the federal government (for Homeland Security, for example). Nonetheless, bringing the government closer to the people is preferable to growing the leviathan in the District of Columbia. One also wonders whether, as advancing technology has boosted productivity, the shrinkage could have been even greater. Because of "the internets," one or two people can now do the work of a few people. A few people can now do the work of several people. And so on. From the BLS (.pdf): ![]() Unfortunately, a lot of this shrinkage is simply attributable to streamlining at the USPS. Still, fewer federal employees, even after the 9/11 Effect, is the sort of thing that "the base" would have loved to hear about. Unfortunately, because so many Americans believe we are in some sort of job-gushing recession, "we eliminated jobs!" was obviously not the slogan of choice for Republicans in '06.
Previous Trivia Tidbit: Hope For '08 & Beyond. Posted by Will Franklin · 18 December 2006 08:38 PM CommentsIf I remember correctly, the Clinton Administration reduced its spending and employment almost soley in the area of defense. Just after the end of that administration came 9-11 and the wars. It would be super to have a breakdown where government employment has been reduced in last 5 years. Might bring even a brighter response from limited government folks. There are areas where government employment is important and areas where it is an intrusion on state's responsibilites. Posted by: rascompany at December 19, 2006 09:14 PM |