Bush adds 79,000 jobs to federal ranks

The Detroit News ^ | Monday, January 26, 2004 | Thomas Hargrove / Scripps Howard News Service

[Willie Green]

WASHINGTON

[waterstraat]

the federal government´s domestic civilian work force has increased by more than 79,000 jobs

Well, that pretty much takes care of only 2 weeks worth of new immigrants who come into this country every two weeks under current immigration quotas.

What about all the rest of the unemployed? What about american citizens who are unemployed?

[OldFriend]

And who insisted that the homeland security workers be on the federal payroll????????????? Huh, huh, huh!

It surely wasn't President Bush, was it?????????

[ConservativeMan55]

Freep this poll until it glows!!!!!

[mercy]

Just saw John Stossel on O'reily. OMG! John Stossel for President! Bush is a dunce. If he wasn't doing a half way good job of killing Islamonazis I wouldn't even bother to vote this year.

[rllngrk33]

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

During the 90's the reduction in the size of government came mostly from Defense.

The federal agency I work for has been under a hiring freeze the past year, so they get waivers to hire the people they need.

[Cautor]

During the 90's the reduction in the size of government came mostly from Defense.

Make that almost entirely from Defense. The three rounds of base realignment and closure or BRAC (1991, 93,95) along with outsourcing initiatives, forced reductions of the defense "acquisition" workforce, and countless other so-called "cost saving reductions," made defense the bill-payer for almost all federal personnel reductions. In fact, the CBO's study of the Apr 1998 DoD report on BRAC savings concluded that 80% of all BRAC savings came from personnel reductions. Given that the next round of BRAC--2005--claims it will equal the same savings as the prior 4 rounds of BRAC (1988, 91, 93, 95), you can look for further, significant, cuts in defense personnel. The recent growth came from the Dumbocrats forcing Bush to make govt. workers out of airport screeners and such.

[Poundstone]

As a non-DOD federal government employee, I fully support the aims and results of the previous BRAC rounds, and hope the new BRAC will continue that tradition.

[baltodog]

I wonder what percentage of employed Americans are employed by city, county, state and federal jobs?

[baltodog]

Right on!! Excellent!!!

Any bases around you?

I fully support the downsizing of any non-DOD federal agencies.

[Cautor]

As a non-DOD federal government employee, I fully support the aims and results of the previous BRAC rounds, and hope the new BRAC will continue that tradition.

I'm not a DoD federal employee myself. Still, since many of the DoD reductions were against the active duty and reserve military, I take it you favor further, major, cuts to our force structure even as we struggle with our current commitments? It would be a shame to cut any of those under-staffed federal departments/agencies like education, HHS, commerce, energy, EPA, IRS, Interior, &c. when you can continue to whack the DoD.

[q_an_a]

as I recall the TSA screeners amounted to half or thirty five percent of that number. Now if it is 30,000 screeners that leaves a growth rate of .05% not a big number.

[Consort]

Darn it, the tax cuts increased revenues to the federal government, enabling them to hire more people. Damn those tax cuts.

[Poundstone]

Well, there are plenty of under-utilized military bases in the U.S., kept open only to appease members of Congress who want to keep jobs in their districts. Cutting the excess-base fat not only doesn't harm our military readiness, it helps it by freeing DOD dollars for better things.

This is pretty much a no-brainer.

[Poundstone]

Well, there are plenty of under-utilized military bases in the U.S., kept open only to appease members of Congress who want to keep jobs in their districts. Cutting the excess-base fat not only doesn't harm our military readiness, it helps it by freeing DOD dollars for better things.

This is pretty much a no-brainer.

[Cautor]

Well, there are plenty of under-utilized military bases in the U.S

Since you have the facts, give us a few examples of same. And even if true, no reason not to greatly reduce the kind of federal agencies/departments I mentioned in my earlier post. BTW, what kind of fed are you?