Would you have comparative numbers to substantiate the "downright tiny" comparison claim? In making this comparison, please be sure to account for the ballooned budget deficit already in place by the time that Obama came into office.
Obama inherited deficits from Bush administration http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...obama-inherited-deficits-bush-administration/
Sure. From fiscal years 2001-2007 "Bush" deficits averaged 500b per year. Bush's last year which included bailouts, the deficit rose to 1 trillion. The Feb/2009 stimulus passage (after Obama took office so it's a "hybrid" Bush-Obama budget) caused the deficit to rise to 1.42tr. This year it will be 1.6t, next year 1.3 and then "level off" to 700b in 2013 and 2014. Then, there is a projected rise to 800b for 2015-2018 and back to a trillion by 2020.
And I'd remind folks that the 800b stimulus package introduced by the Bush administration was REJECTED by a majority GOP house vote on 10/03/2008. The bill passed on 2-1 support by Democrats. So contrary to myth, the GOP Congressional delegation VOTED AGAINST these so-called Republican spending measures.
If Bush could have gone another four years, the deficit would be no different today. With the possible exception of the tax breaks for the rich.
The President ranks far, far, far below The House in the budget totum pole. That's why when someone talks about the "Reagan" deficits I laugh my ass off at their stupidity. Anyone who was alive back then knows that a. the Democrats had an even more lopsided majority in the House then than now and b. the budget battles between Congress and the administration were nothing short of epic. Reagan vetoed 39 bills and it took months of negotiating each year to produce budgets with deficits as "small" as they ultimately were. Clearly Bush was no Reagan and Hastert was no Gingrich (the major force behind the "Clinton" era budgets. )
It's A Good Time To Work For Uncle Sam Posted by Declan McCullagh President Obama's call last year for "shared sacrifice" doesn't extend to federal employees, at least based on the details of his administration's 2010 budget released this week. At a time when the official unemployment rate is nearing double digits, and 6.35 million people are receiving unemployment benefits, the U.S. government is on a hiring binge. Executive branch employment â 1.98 million in 2009, excluding the Postal Service and the Defense Department â is set to increase by 15.6 percent for the 2010 fiscal year. Most of that is thanks to the Census Bureau hiring 102,000 temporary workers, but not counting them still yields a net increase of 2 percent in one year. There's little belt-tightening in evidence in Washington, D.C.: Counting benefits, the average pay per federal worker will leap from $72,800 in 2008 to $75,419 next year. Meanwhile, according to Forbes' layoff tracker, there have been 558,087 layoffs since November 2008 at large public companies; even local school districts aren't immune. That's just a sliver of the total unemployed, which government data estimate to be 8.6 percent of the workforce, or an alternate method of reckoning that counts discouraged workers puts at 20 percent. Some of the Feds' hiring increases have been stunning. If you look at the four-year period from 2006 to 2010, the number of Homeland Security employees has grown by 22 percent, the Justice Department has increased by 15 percent, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can claim 25 percent more employees. (These figures assume that Congress adopts Mr. Obama's 2010 budget without significant changes.) A 39-page "dimensions" document accompanying the White House's 1,380-page appendix offers justifications for each new hire. Homeland Security says its new employees will "increase border security." The Agency for International Development wants to improve "the management and stewardship of foreign assistance programs." The Smithsonian Institution wants "additional security guards." And so on. The final evidence that it's a good time to have a .gov e-mail address? Civilian government employees are set to enjoy a 2 percent raise. Not only are private sector workers are struggling to keep their jobs, but their earnings are stagnating and pay cuts are no longer uncommon. http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/12/business/econwatch/entry5007862.shtml
The problem is that the only jobs being saved or created under the Obama admin are more government jobs and it is only helping to exacerbate the problem. Now that all these new government jobs are in place none of them will go away, so we are left with trying to catch up through the private sector. I say we should put a 20 year price freeze on government salaries, or freeze until the private sector is atleast able to catch up, as I know damn well we will never be able to straight up cut their salaries. When you have average government salaries coming in at twice the average of private sector the system is not sustainable, it doesnt take a genius to figure that one out.
Agreed. On average we give our presidents too much credit, and too much blame. Hell, everyone knows it's the secretaries of the world who actually run things. ; )
Good points. Everyone moans that government workers, teachers, police, etc are underpaid, but there is tremendous competition to get those jobs. If they were so terrible, they couldn't fill them. It's even more true for federal government jobs. The hidden issue with them is the benefits are enormous, really gilt-edged compared to what most private sector workers get. Plus, a lot of state and municipal workers can retire on close to full salary (and benefits of course) in their 50's. I think we are looking at real trouble if the government and unioins expect private sector workers to work at shitty jobs into their 70's to support government workers who retired at 55.