Government gone wild

Actually it is misleading, it leads one to think the federal government has expanded totally uncontrolled in the number of employees. When in reality the federal workforce has remained fairly consistent around 4.1 to 4.4 million employees for the last 10 years.

The figures also include the number of service members in the military and the number of employees of Congress. Taking out the military and congressional staff the numbers would be 2.6 to 2.8 million for the last 10 years.

The totals represented in the report must be for all government employees. Everybody from the garbage men on the city payroll to the fireman, teachers, LEO's all the way to the state governors and legislatures.
 
Actually it is misleading, it leads one to think the federal government has expanded totally uncontrolled in the number of employees. When in reality the federal workforce has remained fairly consistent around 4.1 to 4.4 million employees for the last 10 years.

The figures also include the number of service members in the military and the number of employees of Congress. Taking out the military and congressional staff the numbers would be 2.6 to 2.8 million for the last 10 years.

The totals represented in the report must be for all government employees. Everybody from the garbage men on the city payroll to the fireman, teachers, LEO's all the way to the state governors and legislatures.
 
Misleading in some respects...


While the numbers of government employees have remained fairly constant for several decades, and are in fact down a bit at present, if you look at the number of government employees over the last 10 years, he's probably correct on the increase there.

Federal Employment Chart - Historical Data

Numbers are up 7.5% from 2000 to 2010, and the 2000 and 2001 numbers include temporary census employees as well. Remove those temporary employees, tack on the 5000+ IRS employees added to initially implement Obamacare, and you're probably looking at close to 15% percent by the end of 2012, early 2013.

While Federal Numbers are expected to remain about the same at present, expenditures are going up as a result of Pay Raises for Federal Employees.

Federal employees to receive pay raise during election year.


And all of that don't sound too bad until you look at the little chart on that page that shows you how much the government is taking in, and how much it if spending!

Federal Budget Chart

 
Originally Posted By: Rocky1Misleading in some respects...

Numbers are up 7.5% from 2000 to 2010, and the 2000 and 2001 numbers include temporary census employees as well. Remove those temporary employees, tack on the 5000+ IRS employees added to initially implement Obamacare, and you're probably looking at close to 15% percent by the end of 2012, early 2013.


If the increase from 2000 to 2010 is about 137,000, and that is about a 7% increase, how can an additional 5000 be 15%? Talk about misleading.
 
Originally Posted By: dogcatcherOriginally Posted By: Rocky1Misleading in some respects...

Numbers are up 7.5% from 2000 to 2010, and the 2000 and 2001 numbers include temporary census employees as well. Remove those temporary employees, tack on the 5000+ IRS employees added to initially implement Obamacare, and you're probably looking at close to 15% percent by the end of 2012, early 2013.


If the increase from 2000 to 2010 is about 137,000, and that is about a 7% increase, how can an additional 5000 be 15%? Talk about misleading.


Quote:Numbers are up 7.5% from 2000 to 2010, and the 2000 and 2001 numbers include temporary census employees as well. Remove those temporary employees, tack on the 5000+ IRS employees added to initially implement Obamacare, and you're probably looking at close to 15% percent by the end of 2012, early 2013.


Who's misleading who? I plainly stated that if you TOOK OUT THE TEMPORARY CENSUS EMPLOYEES and ADDED IN THE ADDITIONAL IRS EMPLOYEES, that it would probably be close to 15%. Since you seem to want to get into a pissin match about it however, the census employs in excess of a half million temporary employees at the height of their data collection, and that would be a far greater increase than 15% if you removed them all from 2000 numbers, in fact it would be an increase of nearly 30% from 2000 to 2010, and that doesn't include the 5000 additional IRS employees.

I however don't have the data to determine what specific number of census employees were used in the number of Federal Employees in that chart, so I based my assumption on an average or low number for census employees, assuming that the census employment high should reflect a significant spike in the Federal Employment numbers for 2000 - 2001 otherwise. And, the chart seems to reflect a insignificant deviation from employees the years before and after those 2 years in question. If you can provide me with the precise number of employees that were considered temporary in that chart, since the footnote clearly indicates those people were factored in, I'll be more than happy to do math accurately enough to meet your satisfaction.
 
The census employees are included in the chart, I did not delete or add them, and have no clue as to why you want to.

From your link
Quote:Includes temporary employees for the decennial census.

The increase from 2000 to 2010 was 137,000 federal employees, that inlcudes the census and all other federal employees. By your computation that was 7%, then you claim add in the 5000 new IRS employees would make it over 15%. No way!
 
Originally Posted By: dogcatcherThe census employees are included in the chart, I did not delete or add them, and have no clue as to why you want to.

From your link
Quote:Includes temporary employees for the decennial census.

The increase from 2000 to 2010 was 137,000 federal employees, that inlcudes the census and all other federal employees. By your computation that was 7%, then you claim add in the 5000 new IRS employees would make it over 15%. No way!


1.) The 137,000 federal employees difference that you reference in the chart is only a part of the picture as a whole, because that is only Executive Branch Civilian Employees. There was also an increase in Military Employees, and Legislative Branch Employees resulting in an overal increase of 314,000 federal employees from 2000 to 2010. That is a 7% increase, the 137,000 Executive Branch Employees was only a 5% increase in that division of government.

2.) I deducted the Census Employees because, if current federal employee numbers have remained constant or have increased since 2010, as the video suggested they have, those employees would not be employed in 2012. Meaning there has been a substantial increase in the number of Federal Employees in the last 2 years, if the numbers reflected in the video were correct.

If you dig deeper into that situation... http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/10fedfun.pdf

The numbers seen on the Census Bureau website for 2010 reflect 3 million plus total Federal Executive Branch Employees, only 2.5 million plus of those are regular full time employees. Therefore one would have to assume the above referenced chart factors in the part time Census Bureau Employees on a Full Time Equivalency (FTE) basis. Wherein one would assume you would have to lose an FTE of roughly 270,000 federal jobs to the census after 2011. And, if that many jobs have been added since 2010, therein holding the total number of federal employees constant, with the loss of Census Bureau Employees, that is effectively a 6.5% increase in the number of federal jobs, without increasing the number of employees, because we should have seen a decrease to that effect, that has not transpired.

The Census Bureau data, at the above referenced link, also suggests that the Department of Homeland Security is responsible for an increase of 185,000 plus federal jobs, as of its inception beginning in 2003, however unless all other departments have lost employees during that time, those numbers are not reflected on the previous chart either. The census numbers would appear to make sense for Executive Branch Employees, as described in the last paragraph, however the census data would suggest there is an additional 185,000 federal employees in the Department of Homeland Security, that are unaccounted for in the previously referenced chart. That is an additional 4.4% as well.

It's all merely speculation without the actual numbers for 2012 federal employees regardless, but I would venture to guess that the video is maybe not that far off.



 
You are making a lot of speculations. But you are still not going to make a 5000 increase in employees be an almost 8% increase in the total number of employees.

The Legislative and judicial branch personnel was 64,000 in 2010, a 1000 person increase in 10 years.

The military increased 166,000 in the same 10 years. Considering how spread out all over the world they are, that is a minimal increase.

As to the increase in Homeland Security, the census claims they were already included. Or did I miss that they were not included? Or is that some speculation on your part?

As to your speculation of the census, it is noted on the bottom of the page you first posted that the census employees were included. Or did they lie to us and you found out?
 
Well so far, we know that 5000+ jobs will go to the IRS "Enforcement Division", as that was dictated in the 2400 pages of Obamacare. As best I recall there was 1300 or so hired immediatey in an administrative capacity, to try to help everyone understand the law, and help gear up for it. After which there was supposed to be an additional force of 5000 hired for enforcement. They will be there to collect the taxes owed for lack of health care insurance.

Then if the latest agenda passes through congress, taxing IRA's, 401Ks, etc., and employer supplied benefits, i.e. Health Care Insurance, it will probably take a couple hundred to 2 - 3 thousand more, to try to explain to everyone why the federal government mandated health care be provided by the small business owners, and then elected to tax the employees it if is provided by the employer.
 
There was about 5000 to be hired, not 5000 and then another 5000. It may happen, but try sticking to current known facts not misleading speculation.

You can justify anything if you use "facts" pulled out the air, but just like the major networks it doesn't hold water, or in this case it sits on the hen house floor......

"if" it might happen, again, "if" is not facts, just more hen house material. You sound like a politician, trying to preach the future with fairy tales.
 
Originally Posted By: dogcatcherYou are making a lot of speculations. But you are still not going to make a 5000 increase in employees be an almost 8% increase in the total number of employees.


I'm not trying to make those 5000 employees an 8% increase, they are but a small fraction of the 8%.


Originally Posted By: dogcatcherThe Legislative and judicial branch personnel was 64,000 in 2010, a 1000 person increase in 10 years.

You got that part right!


Originally Posted By: dogcatcherThe military increased 166,000 in the same 10 years. Considering how spread out all over the world they are, that is a minimal increase.

You got that part right too!


Originally Posted By: dogcatcherAs to the increase in Homeland Security, the census claims they were already included. Or did I miss that they were not included? Or is that some speculation on your part?


Oh really... Where precisely does it state on that page that the Department of Homeland Security is included in the list of Federal Employees? It has it's own little section set aside at the bottom, calculated all separately, and there is nothing anywhere on the page that suggests it is included anywhere, in the numbers of the top section of that page.


Originally Posted By: dogcatcherAs to your speculation of the census, it is noted on the bottom of the page you first posted that the census employees were included. Or did they lie to us and you found out?


Are they taking census, this year... NO!
Does the census bureau have all it's temporary part time door knockers hired this year... NO!
Does that mean that census employees are included this year... NO!


I'm not sure what part of the English Language it is, that you are having a problem understanding so I'm going to say this one more time, after which I'm going to go explain it to the fence posts in my front yard, because I am relatively certain they will grasp this quicker than you are...


Originally Posted By: My Previous PostI deducted the Census Employees because, if current federal employee numbers have remained constant or have increased since 2010, as the video suggested they have, those census employees would not be employed in 2012. Meaning there has been a substantial increase in the number of Federal Employees in the last 2 years, if the numbers reflected in the video were correct.
 
Originally Posted By: dogcatcherThere was about 5000 to be hired, not 5000 and then another 5000. It may happen, but try sticking to current known facts not misleading speculation.

You can justify anything if you use "facts" pulled out the air, but just like the major networks it doesn't hold water, or in this case it sits on the hen house floor......

"if" it might happen, again, "if" is not facts, just more hen house material. You sound like a politician, trying to preach the future with fairy tales. \


http://www.thinkfy.com/content/obamacare%E2%80%99s-irs-army

Quote:ObamaCare’s I.R.S. Army



Submitted by Kevin Wright on February 15, 2011 - 11:32am


President Barack Obama’s first budget proposal since ObamaCare was signed into law contains “an increase of $1.1 billion from 2010”, an increase of 9.4%, to “hire 5,000 new” Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) employees.


“President Barack Obama proposed increasing the budget for the Internal Revenue Service by 9.4 percent to hire more than 5,000 new employees, most of whom would pursue tax cheats.” (Ryan J. Donmoyer, “IRS Would Add 5,000 Employees Under Obama’s Proposal,” Bloomberg, 2/14/11)

“The president’s fiscal 2012 budget released today sets funding for the tax-collection agency at $13.3 billion, an increase of $1.1 billion from 2010, the last time a full appropriation was made for the IRS.” (Ryan J. Donmoyer, “IRS Would Add 5,000 Employees Under Obama’s Proposal,” Bloomberg, 2/14/11)

What does this have to do with ObamaCare? Days before the U.S. House and Senate passed ObamaCare’s final revisions, reconciliations, and motions to concur, Republican Members of the House Ways and Means Committee reported the government takeover of the health care insurance industry would dramatically expand the I.R.S. Specifically, the I.R.S. would need as many as 16,500 new “auditors, agents and other employees” to police the new law, among other things, including:


• “IRS will need up to $10 billion to administer the new health care program this decade;
• “IRS may need to hire as many as 16,500 additional auditors, agents and other employees to investigate and collect billions in new taxes from Americans.” (House Ways & Means Committee, “Ways And Means Republicans’ Report: Democrats’ Health Care Bill Contains Massive Expansion Of IRS’ Power,” Press Release, 3/18/10)

The I.R.S. will be the primary enforcer of ObamaCare’s unconstitutional mandate that all American’s purchase health insurance or face penalty:


“Americans Who Fail To Pay The Penalty For Not Buying Insurance Would Face Legal Action From The Internal Revenue Service, According To The Joint Committee On Taxation.” (Carrie Budoff Brown, “Flout The Mandate Penalty? Face The IRS,” Politico, 9/24/09)

“If You Ignore This Mandate And Don’t Get Health Insurance, You’ll Have To Pay A Tax Penalty To The Federal Government, Beginning In 2014.” (Peter Grier, “Health Care Reform Bill 101: Who Must Buy Insurance?” The Christian Science Monitor, 3/19/10)

“This Fine Starts Fairly Small, But By The Time It Is Fully Phased In, In 2016, It Is Substantial.” (Peter Grier, “Health Care Reform Bill 101: Who Must Buy Insurance?” The Christian Science Monitor, 3/19/10)

“An Insurance-Less Person Would Have To Pony Up Whichever Is Greater: $695 For Each Uninsured Family Member, Up To A Maximum Of $2,085; Or 2.5 Percent Of Household Income.” (Peter Grier, “Health Care Reform Bill 101: Who Must Buy Insurance?” The Christian Science Monitor, 3/19/10)

Democrats and liberal media outlets of course denied and debunked the claim that new I.R.S. agents would be needed to enforce ObamaCare. Here’s FactCheck.org’s take:


“Q: Will the IRS hire 16,500 new agents to enforce the health care law?” (“IRS Expansion,” FactCheck.org, 3/30/10)

“A: No. The law requires the IRS mostly to hand out tax credits, not collect penalties. The claim of 16,500 new agents stems from a partisan analysis based on guesswork and false assumptions, and compounded by outright misrepresentation.” (“IRS Expansion,” FactCheck.org, 3/30/10)

Hmmm. So, Republicans said ObamaCare would create the need for 16,500 new I.R.S. “auditors, agents and other employees” at a cost of $10 billion over the next decade. Liberals and in-the-bag media claimed that wasn’t true. Now Obama’s first budget proposal since he signed ObamaCare into law calls for $1.1 billion in new spending (approximately one-tenth of the $10 billion Republicans forecasted over the next decade) to hire 5,000 new I.R.S. employees (about a third of the prediction).

Must be coincidence, right?



Some of us are aware of the reality.
 
Back
Top