Yes, and I gave you the data source as well:
http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/ExecutiveBranchSince1940.asp
From the same agency as your data source. Mine is the more detailed table. In accounts for changes in DoD vs. civilian agency staffing. Yours just mixes them together so that any ‘peace dividend’ from the end of the Cold War becomes invisible. Any staffing decrease from having a much smaller military was far overtaken by padded staffing in civilian agencies. I have shown this repeatedly. You choose not to recognize this fact and in stead play rhetorical games or cast aspersions on me.
Again, you are trying to attack the arguer rather than the argument. That’s utterly pathetic. I’m not here to play bigger wee wee games about background and qualifications. I’m debating facts and arguments. Since you are losing in those areas, you appear to have acted in desperation to change the topic. I am not going to stoop to your level and start attacking your background or making assertions about you. I don’t need to.
If you want to go back and thrash out what the FDR regime was doing to the federal work force, fine, but that's not what the discussion was about.
Again, your evasiveness suggests some good reasons to not discuss this with you. All you will do is keep changing the base.
But back in 1940 I think we had less than 150 million people. We now have 300+ million people.
The federal bureaucracy has shrunk relative to the population over that period of time.
Anyone can look at the numbers and see the difference.
Now, how do you explain WWII? Should we have avoided that war lest the bureaucracy grow?