• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House falsely claims recent ‘dramatic expansion of the federal workforce’

poweRob

poweRob

USMC 1988-1996
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
83,522
Reaction score
57,985
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
The truth... it alludes this administration right out of the gates. Mr. "Alternative Facts" guy has now spewed this whopper:

White House falsely claims recent ‘dramatic expansion of the federal workforce’

White House spokesman Sean Spicer was only a few minutes into his press conference Monday afternoon before he made a statement that appears unsupported by the facts.

Listing three executive orders signed by President Trump on Monday morning, Spicer said the president “issued a memorandum outlining executive branch hiring … that counters the dramatic expansion of the federal workforce in recent years … in particular it prevents filling vacant positions and creating new positions except where necessary to meet national or public security responsibilities.”

The order, he said, does not apply to military personnel and “ensures that the American taxpayer gets effective and efficient government.”

It is an article of Republican faith since the New Deal that Democrats have expanded the federal workforce, but statistics do not bear this out, at least in recent years. According to this chart from the Office of Personnel Management, federal civilian employment was 2.094 million in 2009, President Barack Obama’s first year in office, and 2.079 million in 2014, the most recent year reported. Excluding the Department of Defense, the workforce remained almost exactly steady at 1.357 million.​
 
federal civilian employment was 2.094 million in 2009, President Barack Obama’s first year in office, and 2.079 million in 2014

Hmmmm.....that certainly doesn't look like a "dramatic expansion of the federal workforce" to me.
 
poweRob said:
The truth... it alludes this administration right out of the gates. Mr. "Alternative Facts" guy has now spewed this whopper:

White House falsely claims recent ‘dramatic expansion of the federal workforce’

White House spokesman Sean Spicer was only a few minutes into his press conference Monday afternoon before he made a statement that appears unsupported by the facts.

Listing three executive orders signed by President Trump on Monday morning, Spicer said the president “issued a memorandum outlining executive branch hiring … that counters the dramatic expansion of the federal workforce in recent years … in particular it prevents filling vacant positions and creating new positions except where necessary to meet national or public security responsibilities.”

The order, he said, does not apply to military personnel and “ensures that the American taxpayer gets effective and efficient government.”

It is an article of Republican faith since the New Deal that Democrats have expanded the federal workforce, but statistics do not bear this out, at least in recent years. According to this chart from the Office of Personnel Management, federal civilian employment was 2.094 million in 2009, President Barack Obama’s first year in office, and 2.079 million in 2014, the most recent year reported. Excluding the Department of Defense, the workforce remained almost exactly steady at 1.357 million.​
Click to expand...

The Federal work force didn't decrease recently.

Federal workers hit record number, but growth slows under Obama - Washington Times
 
tres borrachos said:
federal civilian employment was 2.094 million in 2009, President Barack Obama’s first year in office, and 2.079 million in 2014

Hmmmm.....that certainly doesn't look like a "dramatic expansion of the federal workforce" to me.
Click to expand...

They must teach you math where you are from. I guess not for some others. :lol:
 
humbolt said:
It looks to me as if the workforce is about the same as it was in 2008. That includes the Executive, Military, Legislative and Judicial branches. Costs have dramatically increased over time however, as post number 4 indicates.

Federal Employees Earn 50% More Than The Private Workforce | The Huffington Post
Click to expand...
Well, I believe much of the gulf between the federal and civilian employees is not necessarily an excessive increase in federal compensation, but is the relative lack of increase (stagnation) in private compensation.

With the near death of private sector unionism, and the corps running Congress, there's really no one at bat for American workers.

But your point is valid: Why should federal employees receive compensation beyond that of the civilian work force?

However, there is one caveat to the stats above though. It may be possible the gov hires more specialized employees on average, than the private community at large. With their higher prevailing wages, they might be skewing the stats.
 
tres borrachos said:
federal civilian employment was 2.094 million in 2009, President Barack Obama’s first year in office, and 2.079 million in 2014

Hmmmm.....that certainly doesn't look like a "dramatic expansion of the federal workforce" to me.
Click to expand...

Maybe the "expansion" refers to waistlines? I'm sure they are fatter than they were in 2009.
 
Chomsky said:
Well, I believe much of the gulf between the federal and civilian employees is not necessarily an excessive increase in federal compensation, but is the relative lack of increase (stagnation) in private compensation.

With the near death of private sector unionism, and the corps running Congress, there's really no one at bat for American workers.

But your point is valid: Why should federal employees receive compensation beyond that of the civilian work force?

However, there is one caveat to the stats above though. It may be possible the gov hires more specialized employees on average, than the private community at large. With their higher prevailing wages, they might be skewing the stats.
Click to expand...

The Veterans Administration preferentially hires veterans. There's a few good reasons for that. They have a familiarity with the military that the average civilian will find difficult to understand, among other reasons. I have no objection to paying these people, and others like them in other agencies - those that have a working familiarity with the issues before them coming out of the gate. However, I don't think private wages are so depressed that doubling, or nearly so, the private rate in the public sector is completely justified. I'd like to see it more in line with reality.

Now, when we start talking about cutting salaries for people, I cringe. It's not an easy thing to do. I prefer than such things be done very gradually, with reductions in increases rather than outright severe cuts. I also much prefer cutting by attrition, with the older, more highly paid heading to retirement. It's a better way to go.

I have several friends who are architects and engineers. I've seen some of their cohorts told to clean out their desks and be gone by the end of the day. Cutting the overhead, and they were deemed superfluous. Hopefully we aren't headed in that direction. There's a right way and a wrong way to do such things.
 
Mr Person said:
But, the claim that Obama expanded the number of public employees regards numbers of employees not costs of their employment.
Click to expand...

Yes. I think I mentioned that the number didn't increase - just the cost, and that costs have been rising since the late 1990's or early 2000's.
 
Redress said:
So you agree the White House was wrong to say the federal workforce "dramatically expanded"?
Click to expand...

Wrong? No. Exagerating? Maybe...a little.
 
Redress said:
So to you, being inaccurate is not the same as being wrong.
Click to expand...

Using the word, "dramatic", isn't inaccurate; it's an adjective being based on an opinion. I've already that the Federal work force reached a record level. Wouldn't a record level be, "dramatic"? Or, ate we going to around in circles for 40 posts arguing about what constitutes, "dramatic". 40 posts on that would be dramatic; wouldn't you think?
 
tres borrachos said:
federal civilian employment was 2.094 million in 2009, President Barack Obama’s first year in office, and 2.079 million in 2014

Hmmmm.....that certainly doesn't look like a "dramatic expansion of the federal workforce" to me.
Click to expand...

#alternative facts
 
apdst said:
Using the word, "dramatic", isn't inaccurate; it's an adjective being based on an opinion. I've already that the Federal work force reached a record level. Wouldn't a record level be, "dramatic"? Or, ate we going to around in circles for 40 posts arguing about what constitutes, "dramatic". 40 posts on that would be dramatic; wouldn't you think?
Click to expand...

Problem is the word "increase" is actually wrong entirely. It decreased. You know, the opposite of increase.

You can dance around all you want, but under no stretch of imagination or definition does "dramatic increase" equate to "decrease."
 
If the media was as meticulous in fact checking Obama as they seem to be Trump the country wouldn't have been surprised when they found out Obama's administration sold guns to drug cartels, or when the healthcare site kept crashing, or when people lost their insurance after being told they wouldn't, or finding out the government spies on it's citizens and allies regularly, or drone bombing reporters and doctors without borders hospitals.


I wish the media would do more in holding politicians accountable and ask the hard hitting investigative questions. Just not so obvious in their biases on who they question and who gets softballs, free passes, and debate questions
 
OpportunityCost said:
They certainly seem to be paying them better.
Click to expand...

Some people forget that Congress passes the budget. And the President has more control over pay. So when the Republican Congress limited spending increases sufficiently Obama had a choice between hiring more employees to paying the ones he had better. And he must have chosen better pay. And got rewarded by Washington D.C voting 94% Democratic.
 
Eric7216 said:
Some people forget that Congress passes the budget. And the President has more control over pay. So when the Republican Congress limited spending increases sufficiently Obama had a choice between hiring more employees to paying the ones he had better. And he must have chosen better pay. And got rewarded by Washington D.C voting 94% Democratic.
Click to expand...

Its not just him although the ramping was somewhat. Since 2000 Federal worker pay has essentially doubled. Worker pay, not so much. That's not a problem, that's greed and graft.
 
Yes, it is misleading. However, you are being misleading as well. Congress controls the budget. And since the last FY controlled by a Democratic Congress, inflation adjusted spending has been going down. Inflation adjusted spending spiked during the 4 years that Democrats controlled Congress. It seems odd that we are currently spending more (inflation adjusted) than we were in 2008 when we had the "worst recession since the great depression" and 2 wars.
And you need to also consider the possibility that the federal government is hiring more contract workers. Government can grow and still show no increase in direct employees. I can't find data on this but it is a consideration.
 
Chillfolks said:
If the media was as meticulous in fact checking Obama as they seem to be Trump the country wouldn't have been surprised when they found out Obama's administration sold guns to drug cartels, or when the healthcare site kept crashing, or when people lost their insurance after being told they wouldn't, or finding out the government spies on it's citizens and allies regularly, or drone bombing reporters and doctors without borders hospitals.


I wish the media would do more in holding politicians accountable and ask the hard hitting investigative questions. Just not so obvious in their biases on who they question and who gets softballs, free passes, and debate questions
Click to expand...

Funny watching you guys tell us in one thread that Trump is president... get over it! Then when we talk about trump you do off-topic deflections to Obama and the past.
 
poweRob said:
The truth... it alludes this administration right out of the gates. Mr. "Alternative Facts" guy has now spewed this whopper:

White House falsely claims recent ‘dramatic expansion of the federal workforce’

White House spokesman Sean Spicer was only a few minutes into his press conference Monday afternoon before he made a statement that appears unsupported by the facts.

Listing three executive orders signed by President Trump on Monday morning, Spicer said the president “issued a memorandum outlining executive branch hiring … that counters the dramatic expansion of the federal workforce in recent years … in particular it prevents filling vacant positions and creating new positions except where necessary to meet national or public security responsibilities.”

The order, he said, does not apply to military personnel and “ensures that the American taxpayer gets effective and efficient government.”

It is an article of Republican faith since the New Deal that Democrats have expanded the federal workforce, but statistics do not bear this out, at least in recent years. According to this chart from the Office of Personnel Management, federal civilian employment was 2.094 million in 2009, President Barack Obama’s first year in office, and 2.079 million in 2014, the most recent year reported. Excluding the Department of Defense, the workforce remained almost exactly steady at 1.357 million.​
Click to expand...



"alternate facts" indeed.

U.S. GAO - Federal Workforce: Recent Trends in Federal Civilian Employment and Compensation

You can't take out "DOD personnel" simply because it disproves your position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom