Unemployment Rate Drops! But There's A Catch...

[nathanm]

I'm sorry, I should have said "new permanent program requiring new bureaucracy on an ongoing basis."

Almost all of that is just extra money for already existing programs, like say the extra SBA funding. Several of the things on that list are money that goes to contractors, also, like the broadband inventory. The government isn't conducting a survey of broadband speed and penetration itself, and it's administered through FCC using existing staff. At least some of the education related stuff is the same: additional funding for programs already in progress.

I use those particular examples because I'm already familiar with them.

[Gaspar]

Heiron,

And. . .we're back.  Lets just rack it up as Bush's fault and continue to ignore the problem.  Sweet!



You forgot to get "war for oil" in there.

Nathan,
There is no such thing as a temporary government program.
Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. – Milton Friedman

[Conan71]

I'm sorry, I should have said "new permanent program requiring new bureaucracy on an ongoing basis."

Almost all of that is just extra money for already existing programs, like say the extra SBA funding. Several of the things on that list are money that goes to contractors, also, like the broadband inventory. The government isn't conducting a survey of broadband speed and penetration itself, and it's administered through FCC using existing staff. At least some of the education related stuff is the same: additional funding for programs already in progress.

I use those particular examples because I'm already familiar with them.

You are incredibly naive.  The government creates multiple new bureaucracies to oversee funding and compliance with an ever-increasing multitude of regulations.  People are hired to create thousands of pages of manuals and reports which virtually no one will ever read.  People are hired to manage other people, and people are hired to manage them. 

Government multiplies every single time it increases what it is spending.  The administrative costs of programs are always significant.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Bush is biggest part of the problem, since the biggest part of the debt was his.  Even with the Obama debt so far.  Obama will overtake soon, but for now, it is still Baby Bush.  And yes, the big chunk of residuals we are dealing with ARE from Bush, no matter what revisionist history would want you to believe.  And you full well know that.

Followed by Reagan and Bush I.  Clinton was neutral on the debt - 1/2 in, 1/2 out of the game.

As far as Federal govt. employment, well here is the break down - of about 2 million who work for the government, the biggest single chunk at 652,000 is the military.  Followed by Veterans Affairs at 280,000.  That's 932,000 or about one half.  Add in that wonderful new creation - brought to you by Baby Bush - of Homeland Security at 171,000, well you can certainly see where well over half of the big bloated government problem is, can't you?

Justice and Treasury are about another 200,000.

Education is 4,000.  HUD is 9,000.  So if we completely eliminate them, it wouldn't mean a thing.  There is a bigger swing in census counters than that by about 35,000.

If you are going to cut, it would logically make sense to cut in the areas with the biggest possible impact, so would you recommend maybe 50% cut in military?  That would take us down about 15% on employee count.

http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm

So where do you want to cut??

[Gaspar]

LOL!  Not in numbers of people Heroin, in dollars.  Training plus pay for a soldier is nothing compared to pay and benefits for our bureaucrats.

A strong military is 100% necessary.  The department necessary for administering the grant for socially conscious puppet shows in Minnesota (yes, really from the stimulus), or the cost to operate the new GPS-equipped helicopter to hunt for radioactive rabbit droppings at the Hanford nuclear reservation in Washington state (also real).  Is in my humble opinion a waste.

[nathanm]

LOL!  Not in numbers of people Heroin, in dollars.  Training plus pay for a soldier is nothing compared to pay and benefits for our bureaucrats.

I think you ought to look at where the money goes. The death and taxes graphic is a handy overview.

Also, I take it you don't think it's important to contain the radioactive contamination at Hanford at Hanford? Or that said helicopter might have other uses in homeland security?

[Gaspar]

I think you ought to look at where the money goes. The death and taxes graphic is a handy overview.

Also, I take it you don't think it's important to contain the radioactive contamination at Hanford at Hanford? Or that said helicopter might have other uses in homeland security?

Oh, I'm sure all of these programs are extreeeemly important, but are they more important than the economy?  Can the puppets wait a while?  Are radioactive rabbit turds more of a concern than our small businesses?

It's a question of priority.  Why don't we wait until we are flush with cash to spend $1 million on bike lockers in Portland, or spend $1.5billion (with a B) to host a carbon capturing contest. 

It's called Triage, and the priorities of this nation are not the same as the priorities of our president.  You can't be blind to that. 

[Conan71]

Bush is biggest part of the problem, since the biggest part of the debt was his.  Even with the Obama debt so far.  Obama will overtake soon, but for now, it is still Baby Bush.  And yes, the big chunk of residuals we are dealing with ARE from Bush, no matter what revisionist history would want you to believe.  And you full well know that.

Followed by Reagan and Bush I.  Clinton was neutral on the debt - 1/2 in, 1/2 out of the game.

As far as Federal govt. employment, well here is the break down - of about 2 million who work for the government, the biggest single chunk at 652,000 is the military.  Followed by Veterans Affairs at 280,000.  That's 932,000 or about one half.  Add in that wonderful new creation - brought to you by Baby Bush - of Homeland Security at 171,000, well you can certainly see where well over half of the big bloated government problem is, can't you?

Justice and Treasury are about another 200,000.

Education is 4,000.  HUD is 9,000.  So if we completely eliminate them, it wouldn't mean a thing.  There is a bigger swing in census counters than that by about 35,000.

If you are going to cut, it would logically make sense to cut in the areas with the biggest possible impact, so would you recommend maybe 50% cut in military?  That would take us down about 15% on employee count.

http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm

So where do you want to cut??

Try again, from your citation:

With about 2.0 million civilian employees, the Federal Government, excluding the Postal Service, is the Nation's largest employer.

http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs041.htm

This doesn't account for all the contractors doing work for the government either.

[we vs us]

A strong military is 100% necessary.  The department necessary for administering the grant for socially conscious puppet shows in Minnesota (yes, really from the stimulus), or the cost to operate the new GPS-equipped helicopter to hunt for radioactive rabbit droppings at the Hanford nuclear reservation in Washington state (also real).  Is in my humble opinion a waste.

Nice.  I like it.  So military bureaucracy is 100% awesome, while domestic government bureaucracy is 100% evil. 

[custosnox]

I also wonder about the wisdom in cutting the military.  We have been toeing the line with North Korea (though that has been put in the back ground lately), and they have a military equal to or larger than our current military.  Doesn't seem very smart to me to get them pissed at us, then cut our military in half.  We have enemies, and those enemies have large militaries.  Shrinking our military would only work to embolden those who would wish to do us harm.

[nathanm]

I also wonder about the wisdom in cutting the military.  We have been toeing the line with North Korea (though that has been put in the back ground lately), and they have a military equal to or larger than our current military.  Doesn't seem very smart to me to get them pissed at us, then cut our military in half.  We have enemies, and those enemies have large militaries.  Shrinking our military would only work to embolden those who would wish to do us harm.

Unlike countries like North Korea, we have pretty effective force multipliers. That said, if you count our contractors, as we once would have, we probably have a whole lot more people working for the military than the official numbers state.

Of course, our big budgetary issue isn't people, it's the toys. We do things like maintain a Navy two or three times the size of any other nation and have a black budget bigger than the GDP of most countries.

Edited to fix a misstatement, their reserves, which I presume must consist of all the men in their country younger than 45 and active duty combined are what is between two and three times higher than ours. We have 300,000 more active duty personnel than they do.

Edited to add: But thinking about it more, what does it matter? Are they gonna ship all their guys over on boats and invade us? Barring that, the size of our military versus theirs is completely irrelevant as long as we have a few nukes pointed at Kim Jong Il's head.

[custosnox]

Their body count is already something like three times higher than ours. Unlike countries like North Korea, we have pretty effective force multipliers. That said, if you count our contractors, as we once would have, we probably have a whole lot more people working for the military than the official numbers state.

Of course, our big budgetary issue isn't people, it's the toys. We do things like maintain a Navy two or three times the size of any other nation and have a black budget bigger than the GDP of most countries.

My point is, we have a number of countries not exactly happy with us (China, North Korea, Iran just to name a few).  We currently have the strongest military in the world between the personell and the tech.  Many on the left complain about this and put if forth as an excess taht should be reduced as if it is the fat of the nation doing nothing but dragging us down.  The problem is that with so many nations already eager to shrug off the constraints placed on them by the US (those damn nuculear sanctions are just horrible /sarcasm) that they would be emboldened to do so if they felt that we no longer held the hand we do.  We may be on top, but it's not exactly by a large margin. 

That being said, I do wonder about the need to keep bases around the world.  I mean honestly, do we really need to keep troops stationed in Germany and Japan?

[Conan71]

I watched some of the air show at Tinker a few weeks ago from my GF's house in MWC and it went through my head more than once about how much it was costing the military to put on the show.  I enjoyed it, but I have to say it seems a bit extravagant at times when we need to be tightening the belt. 

The military is one example of a lot of top-heavy administrative waste.  I believe the actual body count within the Pentagon is 28,000.  There's between 1.4 and 1.5 million active duty and about 800,000 reserves, and about 580,000 civilians working for the various branches.  Out of the totals there's 225,000 or so officers so about one officer for every 6 or 7 enlisted, that's top-heavy "management".  I do believe the civilian count includes the kinds of jobs civvy's do at Tinker AFB maintaining planes and providing facility support and engineering.

There is no doubt waste throughout the military system.  It's a victim of it's own government dysfunction as well.  200 page manuals on how to operate simple pieces of machinery, 50 pages of every bid package which lays out Davis-Bacon wage requirements, bid requirements, and other general regulatory BS which wastes tons of paper and time.

So how do you wean a country off of it's largest single budget allotment?  The military provides millions upon millions of jobs at vendors, contractors, sub-contractors, and community type jobs like housing, retail, and service-oriented industries.  Many very high-paying high-tech jobs are a result of military spending.  I think it's seen as more acceptible because national defense is an expected service of government, not hunting radioactive rabbit poop, nor buying art work, etc.  Cutting military spending is a popular chant for the anti-war crowd, but there's a whole lot more economic realities tied to that which could cause a whole lot of pain.

[nathanm]

My point is, we have a number of countries not exactly happy with us (China, North Korea, Iran just to name a few).  We currently have the strongest military in the world between the personell and the tech.  Many on the left complain about this and put if forth as an excess taht should be reduced as if it is the fat of the nation doing nothing but dragging us down.  The problem is that with so many nations already eager to shrug off the constraints placed on them by the US (those damn nuculear sanctions are just horrible /sarcasm) that they would be emboldened to do so if they felt that we no longer held the hand we do.  We may be on top, but it's not exactly by a large margin. 

That being said, I do wonder about the need to keep bases around the world.  I mean honestly, do we really need to keep troops stationed in Germany and Japan?

By your logic, I think we do.

I don't think we need a massive military to wield significant global power. We do need a lot of high tech stuff, but we don't need one of the largest standing armies in the world. I find it interesting that most of the Founding Fathers thought that standing armies were a bad thing yet here we are about two and a quarter centuries on and we have one of the largest standing armies in the world. If nobody's trying to invade us, we don't need it, beyond a small core of active duty to fulfill our treaty obligations and provide credible deterrence, as well as a relatively large number of reservists who have enough training using our modern weaponry to be immediately effective in battle should we need more.

And Conan, I agree that it's not something that can just be chopped in half overnight (heck, I don't even know for sure that there's that much waste and excess to cut!). The cuts in the 90s worked out kinda sorta reasonably well because the economy was expanding.

[heironymouspasparagus]

At least Conan got it.  That is civilian employees.  Well over half are military, veterans, and homeland lack of security.

So, now we know for sure that Gassy never reads the references....just goes to the canned Rupert Murdoch script.