Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal workforce increased substantially under Bush
Scripps Howard News Service ^ | Jan. 22, 2004 | THOMAS HARGROVE

Posted on 01/26/2004 7:19:37 PM PST by Anthem

WASHINGTON -- Big government is back.

Since President Bush took office, the federal government's domestic civilian workforce has increased by more than 79,000 jobs, nearly a 5 percent increase. And the number of government workers paid at least $130,000 annually has tripled.

Much of the increase came with the creation of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security two years ago. But the nation's war on terrorism does not account for all of the rise. The Department of Health and Human Services, for example, has added 1,445 employees since President Bill Clinton left office.

"We are seeing a general growth in the size of government. That is just a fact," said Bob Moffit, former deputy assistant health secretary during the Reagan administration and now a scholar at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "And the increases did not all go to Homeland Security. The rise in federal discretionary spending, frankly, has been breathtaking."

A study of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management records by Scripps Howard News Service has found that the domestic federal workforce grew from 1,697,753 people in September 2000 to 1,777,217 in September 2003, the most recent information available. That is an increase of 79,464 people, more than the population of Dubuque, Iowa, and nearly identical to the seating capacity of Giants Stadium.

Federal workers paid $130,000 annually _ the highest wage category reported in personnel records _ rose from 6,249 people receiving at least $812 million in 2000 to at least 21,178 people earning more than $2.7 billion. Both the number of top-wage earners and their aggregate salaries more than tripled in three years.

The White House on Thursday defended the increases.

"As the president made clear in the State of the Union message, we must continue to give Homeland Security and law enforcement every tool they need to defend us," said Erin Healy, assistant White House press secretary. "That includes the need for passenger screeners, customs inspectors and border patrol officers dedicated to keeping America safe from terrorist attacks."

The study found the largest component of federal expansion is attributable to the creation of Homeland Security, with 152,741 employees. Most of its workers _ like the U.S. Coast Guard _ were transferred to Homeland Security from other federal agencies. The largest single source of new jobs came with the creation of the Transportation Security Administration employing 59,106 people, most of whom work at airports and other domestic entry ports.

But many other departments have also enjoyed substantial gains, including 10,623 new jobs at the Veterans Affairs Department, 6,501 positions at Agriculture, 1,649 new jobs at the State Department and 3,562 additional workers at the Interior Department. Even the departments of Labor and Housing and Urban Development _ federal agencies historically disliked by many conservatives _ grew slightly in the last three years.

Other departments showed apparent declines, but the wholesale transfer of many federal agencies to Homeland Security accounted for most of the reductions.

Congressional Republicans said they are disturbed by the federal workforce increases and the likely $500 billion budget deficit next fiscal year.

"I think it's very difficult for Republicans to maintain the mantle, or be able to claim the mantle, of fiscal conservatism," said Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo. "Some say it's because of the war that we have to spend more. I say, it's because of the war that we have to look at all the other things we do and cut back."

The growth of federal employment under Bush reversed a general trend in government downsizing that occurred under former President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s and under former President Bill Clinton during the 1990s.

"During the Reagan administration, there was a decided emphasis on scaling back the size of the domestic institutions of government," Moffit said. "Reagan wanted to make the federal workforce more competitive with the private sector."

Moffit said Reagan cut about 100,000 jobs and Clinton, who campaigned on a pledge to reinvent government, cut another 300,000 positions. Previous studies by Scripps Howard found that Clinton presided over the largest decline in federal jobs in modern times, but that many of the cuts were among low-paid, blue-collar positions. Hundreds of thousands of jobs were "outsourced" under federal contracts.

"The federal government is now contracting out more than it did at the end of the Cold War; everything from fence painting and lawn mowing at defense bases to management analysis and computer programming," said Paul Light, a federal workforce expert at the Brookings Institution.

Light said he is aware of the recent rise in the direct federal payroll, but warned the Scripps Howard study significantly understates the true public sector-related job growth in the last three years. Many more jobs were created through private contracts signed by the Bush administration, he said.

"The federal government has added more than 1 million jobs to the indirect, or off-budget, payroll," Light said.

The Scripps Howard study found that federal jobs growth has occurred unevenly throughout the nation. The largest increase occurred in Florida with 10,788 new federal positions, the District of Columbia with 6,135 new jobs and Texas with 5,860 new jobs.

Three states have suffered declines: Indiana with a reduction of 1,031 civilian federal jobs, Ohio with 363 fewer jobs and a 117-job decline in Mississippi.

The creation of the Transportation Security Administration fueled much of the government growth. But these jobs have been distributed very unevenly throughout the nation since they occur mostly at major airports.

The biggest TSA winners were Florida with 6,514 Transportation Security Administration posts followed by California with 5,902, Texas with 4,930, Virginia with 3,898 and New York with 3,763.


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: civilianworkforce; federalemployees
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last
Interesting strategery.
1 posted on 01/26/2004 7:19:37 PM PST by Anthem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Anthem
Moffit said Reagan cut about 100,000 jobs and Clinton, who campaigned on a pledge to reinvent government, cut another 300,000 positions.

This smells fishy. From what I understand, the federal employees union had a boon during the Klinton years. I bet that this 300k number is all because of military, defenses, and intelligence cuts - thus leading to 911.

2 posted on 01/26/2004 7:26:30 PM PST by KC_Conspirator (This space for rent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator
This smells fishy. From what I understand, the federal employees union had a boon during the Klinton years. I bet that this 300k number is all because of military, defenses, and intelligence cuts - thus leading to 911.

Bingo. In addition it would be interesting to know if these increases are due to increased FTEs or agencies getting closer to their manpower allocations.

3 posted on 01/26/2004 7:31:38 PM PST by gov_bean_ counter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator
This guy Hargrove is a Greenie, and I don't think it'sby accident that he doesn't provide links for his data
4 posted on 01/26/2004 7:35:48 PM PST by MJY1288 (WITHOUT DOUBLE STANDARDS, LIBERALS WOULDN'T HAVE ANY !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator
Clinton was scum, but some of his "New Democrats" agenda was somewhat fiscally "conservative". The welfare reform act that he "reluctantly" signed is an example. The military cuts began under Bush I, who cut defense spending sharply in '92 (the graph literally falls like a market crash would look).

Here are the average annual real increases in domestic discretionary spending:

LBJ: 4.3%
Nixon: 6.8%
Ford: 8.0%
Carter: 2.0%
Reagan: -1.3%
Bush I: 4.0%
Clinton: 2.5%
Bush II: 8.2%

5 posted on 01/26/2004 7:37:59 PM PST by Anthem (Voting is one thing... but culture trumps any campaign. What are you doing for the culture?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter
When a lefty is complaining about the size of Government, everyone's Radar should go up. The Feds did hire a bunch new border guards (1900) I believe. A bunch of Air Marshalls and the people who train them, and took over Airport screeners as well.

hard to believe this guys numbers, and especially since he highlighted Florida and Texas

6 posted on 01/26/2004 7:42:36 PM PST by MJY1288 (WITHOUT DOUBLE STANDARDS, LIBERALS WOULDN'T HAVE ANY !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Anthem
Do you have a link for those stats? I believe that figure for Bush includes the 2001 Budget that Clinton signed that had 15.2% of discretionary spending. I raed somewhere that the three Budgets Bush has signed had 5.2%, 4.0% and 3.9% respectively
7 posted on 01/26/2004 7:45:50 PM PST by MJY1288 (WITHOUT DOUBLE STANDARDS, LIBERALS WOULDN'T HAVE ANY !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
Some once posted here that Reagan believed that taxes should be cut and spending increased to create a hugh deficit that would force a shrinkage in the size of government.....whatever all that means.
8 posted on 01/26/2004 7:52:05 PM PST by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Anthem
Well, Klinton actually increased the number of government workers and then ran around telling people he shrunk government ("The era of big government is over"), when in fact he was just referring to cutting national defense. Klinton's spending was out of control until the GOP won Congress in 94', back in the days when we still were fiscally responsible.
9 posted on 01/26/2004 7:58:34 PM PST by KC_Conspirator (This space for rent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Anthem
"The largest single source of new jobs came with the creation of the Transportation Security Administration employing 59,106 people, most of whom work at airports and other domestic entry ports."

This was required due to 9/11 and is not solely Pres. Bush's fault. Plus, the Democrats insisted they be union and that upped the pay.
10 posted on 01/26/2004 8:01:10 PM PST by RicocheT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Consort
Well it didn't work, Reagan cut taxes and the revenue coming into the Federal Treasury doubled and so did the economy during his 8 years, but the Federal Budget went up 175% because of Congressional spending. So with every Dollar Reagan grew the economy, Congress spent a $1.75
11 posted on 01/26/2004 8:02:18 PM PST by MJY1288 (WITHOUT DOUBLE STANDARDS, LIBERALS WOULDN'T HAVE ANY !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
...Reagan cut taxes and the revenue coming into the Federal Treasury doubled...

Is doubling revenue coming into the Federal Treasury a good thing?

12 posted on 01/26/2004 8:06:11 PM PST by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Consort
Some once posted here that Reagan believed that taxes should be cut and spending increased to create a hugh deficit that would force a shrinkage in the size of government.....whatever all that means.

I heard someone insuate that on TV the other day but I can't remember where. That Bush could be deliberately driving the deficit up to force a crisis. Then like in California with Ahnold you get radical cuts across the board in every program but defense because of the war on terror and commitments abroad.

13 posted on 01/26/2004 8:08:41 PM PST by Naspino (God created the dinosaurs at 03:13. He destroyed them at 16:22.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator
Do you know if the money spent fighting these wars and rebuilding New York City, and compensating the victims of 9/11 families, is part of Discretionary Spending? If so, this explains it.

I find all these articles about discretionary spending being printed in the NYT's and other Liberal Rags in an election year highly suspicious. Not that Bush hasn't signed some big money Bills, but in his defense, the backroom deals that go in Congress to get people to sign on to important legislation should be blamed on Congress. Just look at the pork that has been attached to the past three defense bills, it's shameful

14 posted on 01/26/2004 8:10:45 PM PST by MJY1288 (WITHOUT DOUBLE STANDARDS, LIBERALS WOULDN'T HAVE ANY !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Consort
When the economy grows, so does the flow of money into the federal treasury, it goes hand in hand. When the economy drops so does the Fed Treasury income. With that said, I believe it's best to grow our way out of a deficit, I just wish Congress would believe the same.
15 posted on 01/26/2004 8:14:01 PM PST by MJY1288 (WITHOUT DOUBLE STANDARDS, LIBERALS WOULDN'T HAVE ANY !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Anthem
If you're still around, I would like to know where you got those stats, I've seen you post them several times, but I havn't seen a link. Meanwhile I'll keep searching, hopefully you didn't get them from Hargrove :-)
16 posted on 01/26/2004 8:20:04 PM PST by MJY1288 (WITHOUT DOUBLE STANDARDS, LIBERALS WOULDN'T HAVE ANY !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Anthem
Excluding the Increase due to Homeland Security, the increase that the author of this article is talking about includes not only actual federal employees but also contractors, grantees, etc.

Bush's goal of privitizing 850,000 federal jobs results in a short run increase in the number of people recieving a pay check from the govt since 2 are being paid to do what 1 would normally be doing.

In the long run, the federal employee, who can't be fired, will be subject to attrition or re-assignment resulting in fewer persons being paid by the govt. Additionally, the privitized worker will cost much less than the federal employee.

Bush Plan is an assault on Families

17 posted on 01/26/2004 8:20:52 PM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator
These things being written by Liberals kinda remind me of the fact that Homelessness is never an issue until a Republican is in office
18 posted on 01/26/2004 8:22:18 PM PST by MJY1288 (WITHOUT DOUBLE STANDARDS, LIBERALS WOULDN'T HAVE ANY !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
BTW, That plan is already in motion
19 posted on 01/26/2004 8:23:42 PM PST by MJY1288 (WITHOUT DOUBLE STANDARDS, LIBERALS WOULDN'T HAVE ANY !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
The county I live in controlled all Liquor sales and dilvery, about ten years ago they privatized just the Liquor stores themselves and cut the size of that department by 40% and cut the budget for that dept by 75%
20 posted on 01/26/2004 8:27:19 PM PST by MJY1288 (WITHOUT DOUBLE STANDARDS, LIBERALS WOULDN'T HAVE ANY !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson