Budget

Drudge is pushing this headline today:

Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million employees...

It goes to a Washington Times story talking about the increasing workforce of the U.S. government – not a bad thing with unemployment where it’s at. But let’s take a look at where these numbers are coming from:

Mr. Obama says the civilian work force will drop by 80,000 next year, mostly because of a reduction in U.S. census workers added in 2010 but then dropped in 2011 after the national population count is finished. That still leaves 1.35 million civilian federal employees on the payroll in 2011.

From 1981 through 2008, the civilian work force remained at about 1.1 million to 1.2 million, with a low of 1.07 million in 1986 and a high of more than 1.2 million in 1993 and in 2008. In 2009, the number jumped to 1.28 million.

Including both the civilian and defense sectors, the federal government will employ 2.15 million people in 2010 and 2.11 million in 2011, excluding Postal Service workers.

So there really hasn’t been that big of a jump in the size of government, well except for defense, which is about 79% of the increase. Will the right start demanding that we make cuts there? Haha yeah right. Let’s take a closer look at these defense numbers:

After years of decline at the end of the Cold War, the Defense Department is restaffing. Mr. Obama estimated that the Pentagon will have 720,000 employees this year and 757,000 employees next year - up from a low of 649,000 in 2003.

The data also show that the Department of Homeland Security will grow by 7,000 a year in 2010 and 2011, and the Veterans Affairs Department will grow by 12,000 in 2010 and an additional 4,000 in 2011.

One thing that blows my mind there is that we have to keep hiring more and more people to oversee these contractors. It really seems like it would be cheaper to do away with contractors and hire the people directly.

The Washington Times also speaks truth here, but I believe their intent is a little out of context:

Mr. Obama is in a situation similar to that of Mr. Clinton, who took office when the budget deficit was at a record high and government bureaucracy was expanding, even though the Pentagon was shedding workers with the end of the Cold War

So Obama and Clinton share the same experience entering office. What else do they share? Could it be the fact that they inherited those deficits and huge jumps in government bureaucracy from Republican administrations. Nah that wouldn’t be the case. We are talking about the party of “fiscal responsibility” and “small government” after all. I also just saw a pink unicorn running past my window.

John McCain blasted off a campaign email last night that stated the following:

During his first year in office, President Obama and Congressional Democrats have amassed a $12.4 trillion deficit that is growing each day.

A trillion dollars a month? Wow that’s amazing for a party that hasn’t accomplished that much due to Republican obstructionism. So we need to mark that as a flat out lie.

But it gets even better. This is from Media Matter’s fact check:

In fact, the FY 2009 deficit, which totaled $1.4 trillion, was already estimated to be $1.2 trillion when Obama came into office and "virtually the entire deficit over the next ten years" are due either to policies implemented under President Bush or to the recession, which began during Bush's tenure, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Now what big policy implemented under Bush would have raised it so much? Maybe TARP – the bank bailout. And yes this would be the very same bank bailout that McCain suspended his campaign to go to Washington and help make sure it passed.

I would much rather see some tea bagger win McCain’s seat than him get sent back for another term. This guy isn’t just a hypocrite – he’s a flat out liar.

(h/t Cesca)

This really seems like a game of politics to me:

resident Barack Obama will call in his State of the Union address for a three-year freeze on spending for many domestic programs as part of his strategy to rein in the deficit, administration officials said.

The proposal, which wouldn’t affect spending on national security, would save an estimated $250 billion over a decade and reduce the deficit by $10 billion to $15 billion in 2011, according to the two officials, who briefed reporters on the plan. Last year’s budget shortfall was a record $1.4 trillion.

Obama will unveil the plan in his address to a joint session of Congress tomorrow night and include it in the fiscal year 2011 budget he’s set to deliver to lawmakers Feb. 1, the officials said.

Then you got the Republicans questioning the move:

A spokesman for House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio was critical of Obama’s plan. “Given Washington Democrats’ unprecedented spending binge, this is like announcing you’re going on a diet after winning a pie-eating contest,” the spokesman, Michael Steel, said yesterday.

Well if that isn’t the pot calling the kettle black. It’s the same thing as when Republicans go on that health care will cost more than a trillion dollars over the next ten years, yet the Bush  tax cuts they love so much cost more than double that. Oh and those tax cuts were supposed to make our economy so much stronger – right? Yeah we see where that left us.

Adding… A look at history reveals something interesting. Clinton came into office with a recession, passed on to him after 12 years of Republican rule. Obama came into office with a recession, passed on to him after 8 years of Republican rule. Can we honestly trust the Republicans when it comes to fiscal responsibility?

That number is 20% of the House Republicans, and also the number who voted against the Republican version of the budget. I wonder if Michael Steele will look for people to take these detractors out in primaries?

NOT! Rep. Paul Ryan ended up admitting that the GOP budget will run up the deficit “a lot”.

“A lot”. On the day before their budget is to be released, this is the kind of hard hitting numbers we saw last week when the Republicans were supposed to release their budget. I guess the GOP line item will look something like this:

• Tax reductions for those making over $250,000 – ALOT
• Money for healthcare – Not so much
• Military spending – ALOT
• Stem Cell Funding – SQUAT

What is really amazing is that Paul Ryan is the one who came up with this budget, and he can’t even give any numbers. That really sounds like the leadership of a party that wants to regain power. Well maybe in some banana republic.