Widgetized Section
Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone
Big Government? Obama Has 273,000 Fewer Federal Employees Than Reagan
Every single Republican today talks about being a Reagan conservative. This is a conservative that believes in small government, reducing federal spending and ultimately runs a lean and mean government. They talk about this stuff in campaigns, but in practice they failed miserably.
In fact HISTORICALLY, it is has been Democratic presidents who have reduced the size of the federal government. The Republicans have lied to the people so much that I believe the current crop somehow BELIEVES the history as they have been told, rather than researching the facts for themselves. This may be a stretch, but I am trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.
According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which tracks the number of employees per year, the data shows that the “conservatives” for small government are really just big government conservatives. I know that is an oxymoron, but numbers don’t lie.
Let’s start with President Carter.
On December 31st 1976 (Not Carter’s term yet), total nonmilitary personnel was 2,883,000. By December 31st 1980 the end of his term (minus a month), the total in nonmilitary personnel was 2,875,000.
Federal government nonmilitary employees shrunk by 8,000 employees under Carter.
On January 21st, 1981, President Reagan started with 2,875,000 nonmilitary federal employees.
By the end of Reagan’s terms the total number of nonmilitary federal employees was 3,113,000. That is an INCREASE of 238,000
Let’s move on to President George H.W. Bush.
On January 20th, 1989, total federal nonmilitary employment was 3,113,000
by the end of his only term, President George H.W. Bush had 3,083,000 federal nonmilitary employees on the books. That is a REDUCTION of 30,000 employees.
President Bill Clinton came into office with 3,083,000 and by the END of his TWO TERMS he reduced the number of Federal employees to 2,703,000. That is a reduction of 380,000 federal employees.
Now finally, President George W. Bush came into office with 2,703,000 nonmilitary employees and by the time his terms were through, the total nonmilitary federal employees on the books were 2,756,000, which is an INCREASE of 53,000 employees.
The small government, lean and mean political party, seems to be the Democratic Party. President Clinton reduced the size of the federal government’s nonmilitary employees by OVER 10%.
The “so called” small government President Reagan INCREASED the nonmilitary size of government by almost 10%.
In fact, Democratic president Bill Clinton reduced the size of the federal government employee size to PRE- REAGAN levels.
Clinton left office with 2,703,000 and Reagan started his term in 1981 with 2,875,000
The Reagan conservatives, in fact the entire GOP TODAY are trying to frame President Obama as a big government liberal but again, the numbers don’t lie.
By the end of 2010, the United States STILL has less employees on the books than we did back in 1980 even though the population has grown from 226,545,805 to approximately 330,000,000 in 2010.
TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 1980 — 2,875,000
TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 2010 — 2,840,000
We have 35,000 less nonmilitary employees under President Obama than we had 30 years ago.
So it comes to mind that those who claim to be Reagan small government conservatives and blame Democrats for growing government are either lying to the American people or are themselves willfully ignorant.
Related Posts :
This is a huge reason for the stubborn unemployment! President Obama doesn't have the benefit of adding ...
Over the weekend I put on my econ hat and started digging into the jobs numbers of President Obama and t ...
President Obama's latest increase in his approval rating has put him on at the same level as Bill Clinto ...
The elections of 2010 focused of jobs, the GOP ran on a lack luster economic recovery from the Republica ...
Obama is slowing the growth in spending better than any other President in 60 years! The growth in the f ...
64 Responses to Big Government? Obama Has 273,000 Fewer Federal Employees Than Reagan
Public Service Advertisements
Hrafnkell Haraldsson
Aug. 24th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Wee done, Ray! But this violates their ideology and therefore cannot be true.
novenator
Aug. 24th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
The same was true about President Jimmy Carter. The man reduced the size of government, shrunk the number of federal employees, and paid down the national debt. Then Reagan and the conservatives come stormfronting in bitching about the size of government, the number of federal employees, and the national debt. After they won the election, what did they do? Proceed to balloon all 3.
Never trust a conservative. It is in their nature to lie. That’s why they are called “cons.”
nuisance
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Simply saying there were more employees = bigger government isn’t necessarily true. You’re not taking into account the overstepping regulations Dems love to implement like the recent regulations passed about goat herding. Despite being Liberal, you just love to tell others how to live (along with the bible thumpers).
Sarah Jones
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 5:14 pm
I’m sure you don’t mean to be trying to move the goal post, but it is the Republicans who scream about govt employees, and have been rather loudly since jan 2010 so it’s sort of hard to deny that this is one of their main staples of “small government”.
Sally
Aug. 24th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
This is good information to have and share. Of course, they will deny it. They can’t be wrong about St. Ronnie.
Kimbutgar
Aug. 24th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Fake news won’t report this though. So the dummies will continue with their false talking points to the ignorant masses.
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 24th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
let’s see now, our taxes are lower now than they were during Reagan’s term, and now we find that today we have less federal employees that we did during Reagan’s time.
Does anyone know what that new sheriff of rock Ridge is up to?
Does the tea party know they are full of liars? Does the GOP know they are full of liars? Does it matter if they know because they’re not going to change in any case.
And if Obama is smart by the time his second term and its he better have one hell of a lot less in the military as well. Were going to need a lot more people that home making three cents an hour to keep this country running
Brown cow
Aug. 24th, 2011 at 7:52 pm
Reagan also had all the solar panels that Carter had installed ripped out. Which part of that action was “common sense conservativism”?
Chris
Aug. 24th, 2011 at 11:25 pm
If the federal government were run by a private corporation there would be half the number of employees while delivering improved levels of service to the citizenry. The real question we should be asking is with the tremendous improvements in productivity, technology and efficiency the world has experienced over the past 30 years, why does the Federal Government still have roughly the same number of employees it did 30 years ago? The second answer to lies in the “Peace Dividend” cashed in by Clinton. The closure of hundreds of military bases resulted in the loss of thousands of civilian federal employees, not considered part of the military per se, but still closely aligned with the defense budget. It is disingenuous to throw out a gross statistic and then draw a convienient conclusion without backing it up with details.
corey
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 6:55 am
If the government was ran by a corporation, it would be seeking profits above all else, to the exclusion of providing for the general welfare and the common defense.
We know corporations always seek to cut whatever corners they can.
And the government has roughly the same number of employees because the population of the US has grown considerably. So, they are serving many more people, with the same number of employees. Pretty efficient.
The founding fathers chartered a constitutional republic, not a corporation.
Lance
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 7:05 pm
If the federal government were run by for-profit corporations, nothing would get done because there would be no immediate profit in it for them.
Karen
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 12:32 am
How is this a fair comparison of Reagan to Obama when Reagan was president for 8 years and Obama has only been in for 2 and a half?
Nice try, but it doesn’t work.
Sarah Jones
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 12:48 am
Well, you’re right, Reagan had an extra 6 years to trim the fat and he failed to do so, so that makes Obama faster to get things done as well. Good point.
Jon
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 3:22 am
Typical liberal tactic… Change the definition of something to suit their purpose, and ignore the reality of what the debate is really all about. Since when did anyone say “big government” had anything to do with the number of employees? It’s about spending, nimrods. Spending is what defines a government as being big or small. Less spending=smaller government. More spending=bigger government. Democrats=spend more money. Republicans=spend less money. Nice try, but just go back to sleep. We’ll wake you when a republican gets elected in 2012 and the economy gets back on track because of it. :)
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 8:19 am
more employees = more spending – more spending = bigger government. by your own words
Since when did anyone say big government had anything to do with the number of employees? Did you graduate second grade? I think you’re going to want to read your post over again when you drop back in and then go look at yourself in the mirror and wonder where you went wrong. Republicans equal spend less money? Where have you been the last 11 years? Not spending money is something that just occurred to the Republicans with the tea party showed up and threatened their reelection
Kathy
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 8:32 am
And why is it that you have to call people names and be insulting? Typical tactic for your side, when you have no rational challenge.
Slezell
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 2:06 pm
Actually, Reagan requested $10 billion more in spending during his term than the Democratically controlled congress would approve. So if its about spending, Jon, you should really be more careful about who you call nimrod.
zfacts.com/p/57.html
FairNBalanced
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 2:24 pm
What recent evidence do you have that Republican’s will boost the economy? Bush was in office for 8 years and ran the deficit up from $4T surplus to $4T deficit. Not to mention tons of American jobs lost. Here is some evidence about Reagan and you choose to ignore it. Republican are known as the party of “Don’t confuse me with the facts”.
mark
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
While I understand your reasoning it was the bush administration that started 2 wars and instead of funding them cut revenue thereby increasing the debt.
Both parties have contributed to the us debt
JIm
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 6:18 pm
President Obama and the Democrats have been more successful at cutting the fat from the budget than President Bush ever was. It’s the other way around, Democrats spend less and Republicans actually spend more, just look at the previous administration — billion dollar surpluses to a record $1.4 trillion deficit for the 2009 budget.
www.washingtontimes.com/n...
Kris
Aug. 26th, 2011 at 7:38 am
Look at Federal spending figures and you will find that spending increased at by far it’s highest rates under Reagan and George W. Bush. I don’t have the figures at the moment, but they’re very easy to find… but it’s not even close. Reagan increased Federal spending by, I believe, 80%, and George W. Bush did so by about 60%. No other President is close… please verify this information, though….
Art Ruben
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 4:10 am
Do you know what sector of the government is responsible for these shifts? It would be interesting to dig down deeper, as I suspect you will find the source to be military related. It is hard to imagine a Democrat cutting any unionized government works other than at gunpoint, Reagan built up the military, Bush I ran the Gulf War. Keep the truth coming!
Human Decency
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 9:22 am
Where do governmental contractors come into play in this equation? I would like to see those numbers spread across each presidency.
Donnie
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 10:39 am
I have to disagree.
www.census.gov/govs/apes/
3,005,778 as of March of 2009
Spooky
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
The footnote in the table the article actually references mentions it is collected from monthly data, not the annual APES.
Either way, the preliminary 2010 data is due any day now (August 30, to be precise). So we’ll find out how accurate it is soon enough anyway.
Donnie
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 11:09 am
P.S. 2009 is the latest data available for the number of Federal employees in the USA.
Charles Dover
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 11:53 am
AHA !!! that table includes Postal Service Employees !!! That is how they skew the figures !!! The number of Postal Service employees has been trending down for decades !!! Which means, of course, that the number of non-postal employees is going up and up, at least as fast as the number of Postal employees decrease !!! All I had to do is to find the table that shows the Postal Service as a separate number. You people need to stop accepting all this propaganda as fact !!!
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 11:58 am
Now all you have to do is find all departments that have gained or lost people for decades and you may have a point.
Geoff Hazel
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
It’s even more interesting if you take the data and go back further. From 1962 to 1968 when the D were in the White house, Govt employment rose from 2,485,000 to 3,020,000. Actually, if you look at the whole chart, govt employment rises and falls between 2,500,000 and 3,000,000, somewhat irrespective of which party controls the White House.
Eykis
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
From 1962-1968 the country was in a mess with riots, civil disobedience and Viet Nam.
Do not forget that Medicare was enacted which required more federal employees.
The Rethugs always lie – always.
WASHINGTON rEPORT
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Obama has been adding to the federal payroll in actual employees.
What the tools here are hoping to ignore is the number of federal contractors has exploded under Obama, and receive a higher rate of pay.
We have never had this many people directly or indirectly working for the government.
Look at the direct employees numbers. The Democrats cannot claim government is adding jobs and simultaneously cutting employees.
Math doesn’t work that way.
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 1:50 pm
federal contractors are not federal employees. Federal contractors employ their own people and make a profit on federal contracts which is what they are in business to do. A good example of that is my girlfriend works for Betchal Jacob’s who in turn works for the DOE. But she does not get paid by the DOE nor is she a DOE employee.
Who is the tool? And you are not disputing the numbers that are given. Every job the government adds is not necessarily a government job.
Troy
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 10:10 pm
Yes, but outsourcing, or “contractors” is part of federal spending. You have to look at the entire picture, not just the part certain people want you to buy into. A far higher total today than in the past and it is being conveniently ignored by the author of the article.
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 11:16 pm
The subject was employees that I responded to. I wait your figures of refuttal
Troy
Aug. 26th, 2011 at 12:07 am
The whole point of the article everyone is commenting on is the size of federal government. When a person explains that counting the number of federal employees between eras Pre 1990′s and today is misleading because of the amount of outsourcing, you respond that they are not the same. The author of this article has therefore misled people (big surprise) to believe the only indicator of the size of government is FTE’s. This is ridiculous. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH! You can do a web research and find dozens of articles in a moment’s notice about the huge increase in the outsourcing that has taken place.
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 26th, 2011 at 12:29 am
You have presented nothing in refuttal except for innuendo. You are saying outsourcing is higher now than under Bush? I am off to bed, but if you want anyone to believe you, show up with figures
Spooky
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 4:19 pm
I love it when the Right-wing lunatic fringe starts spouting out unsubstantiated ‘facts’, then accuse Liberals of being the Kool-aid drinkers.
Hey, let me try that….
Rick Perry claims drinking a fresh cup of santorum every day gives him the strength of 20 men! You silly Liberals! How can you hope to stand against an army of santorum-powered supermen?!?!?!
Wow! How empowering!
Drew Moore
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
Has Ray Medeiros taken into account the vast increase of outsourcing of Federal Jobs in the very same years?
chademe
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
The headline is wrong. It reads “Obama has 273,000 fewer Federal Employees than Reagan.” But the next to last sentence says “We have 35,000 less nonmilitary employees under President Obama than we had 30 years ago.”
Also, not mentioned in the article is the fact that Obama has 84,000 more than George W. Bush had when he left office. The only reason that the number is lower than Reagan’s is because of the reductions when Clinton was President and there was a Republican Congress.
chademe
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Scratch that first paragraph. I see my mistake. The 2nd paragraph is still correct though.
nuisance
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
Just more crap from the false left/right paradigm. Too many sheep listening to what their masters are telling them. No one wants to think for themselves anymore.
nuisance
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
Sooner or later you run out of other people’s money. That day is rapidly approaching for the Dems & Republicans. You all will believe anything if it supports your political beliefs.
Troy
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 8:09 pm
This analysis does not take into consideration the amount of outsourcing that is now done (which is quite a bit) to the levels of the former administrations. Why don’t you post those numbers. Why are you using 1982 data by the way instead of later in Reagan’s administration. He did not get a lot accomplished by 1982.
When Reagan’s policies were fully put in place, the US economy experienced the largest expansion in history. Tax rates were cut by 2/3rds to 28% (Clinton increased them), inflation went from 13.5% to 4.8%, interest rates dropped from 22% to 11% and continued to drop after he left office. Unemployment went form 7.5% to 5.4%. The Dow jumped from 860 to 2,753. THE most impressive stat: the GDP doubled from 2.7 to 5.4 Trillion. Many economists (even liberal ones) agree that his policies, which were continued by George, Sr. continued our expansion through the 90′s. He was not perfect. Who is. He made mistakes, and not everything was a homerun, and of course Liberals only see the negative.
Melissa Nelson
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 9:56 pm
I have to laugh when people say that liberals only see the negative…when all I hear are comments about what Obama is doing WRONG..how is that not being negative?
Troy
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 10:38 pm
Obama has the mainstream media blubbering over his every move. You need more?! I don’t recall nary a nice word by the liberals and mainstream media in almost all of Bush’s 8 years in office. The guy is becoming nothing more than a blaming machine trying to impose his will by executive order and nothing more. He is a disaster. He has enough applause from ABC, NBC and MSNBC. He did well in the Bin Laden capture and he is very very good at further dividing the country along political lines and classes. Is that enough for you?
Sarah Jones
Aug. 26th, 2011 at 2:41 am
Oh, he divided it- yes, with all of the “I hate white people” signs and the — oh, wait, that wasn’t him. That was the Tea Party with their racist signs and calling him Hitler and a Muslim and all kinds of anything they could muster from their Master. He was the one trying to govern for both sides of the aisle and getting obstructed by the most hated political group in all of America according to latest polls- the tea party.
Ray Medeiros
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 10:34 pm
Troy,
you do realize that 6 out of the 8 years in office tax rates were 50%…why is it…taxes were 15% HIGHER under Reagan , yet the economy grew?
Troy
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 10:43 pm
All rates were not 50%! Maybe some incremental rates were. Major tax cuts began in 1981. Go back and check your facts.
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 11:18 pm
www.ntu.org/tax-basics/hi...
Troy
Aug. 25th, 2011 at 11:52 pm
This is idiotic! Highest incremental tax rates of Carter administration was 70% plus. 20% higher than what Reagan brought them down to. We are comparing Carter moving forward to Reagan, not anything else. The reduction in rates helped, if nothing more, than believing opportunity now existed without being penalized. Can you imagine the upper earners having federal, social security, state, property and sales taxes at what probably amounted to close to a 90% incremental rate. That is asinine. I happen to have some clients from foreign countries with tax systems like that, (check out France for one). You know where their money is? Not in those countries. They are investing in the U.S. of A. and anywhere where investments are the most reasonable to make a buck. Yet even some of these socialist type tax systems have lower capital gains rates and dividend rates. Did you hear of Russia lowering their capital gain rates recently? Where is our liberal media on that? They won’t mention it because they don’t want us to know about it. They have an agenda.
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 26th, 2011 at 12:26 am
The media is not liberal number one, and this country is far more successful when taxes are higher. Strangely, there were far more jobs when taxes were higher. Taxes came down, unemployment went up. Now our taxes are very low and we have very high unemployment. This has to change
Forget about saying socialism, there are no socialist countrys.
Ray Medeiros
Aug. 26th, 2011 at 8:24 am
The TOP marginal income tax rate was 50% for 6 out of 8 years. These are the “so-called” job creators.
Ray Medeiros
Aug. 26th, 2011 at 8:27 am
The bottom line is what matter to people…not how much taxes fall, but how much they pay in taxes…and the wealthiest Americans paid 50% of their profits to the federal government.
TODAY the wealthiest American and corporations are KEEPING 15% MORE than they did under Reagan.
Krista Reck
Aug. 26th, 2011 at 9:13 am
If there are so many fewer workers, as the number says, why is so much more money being spent?
Every day, every minute, our government is spending money it doesn’t have.
Where is is going? Do federal employees have advantages the rest of us don’t have?
Being right or wrong isn’t the issue here. We are all going down because we’d rather point the finger at someone else as the problem maker and assume a the problem maker they should fix it.
A government will not long survive if it is seen as a cow to be milked rather than a watchdog to be fed.
Are you ready to plant and harvest your own food, and sew your own clothes? How will you stay warm in Winter?
None of us are entitled to our way of life, and ignoring that brings consequences.
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 26th, 2011 at 9:31 am
The government is spending money to keep the economy afloat. When corporations refuse to, the government must. You should take a few minutes and wonder what this country would be if the government were not spending money
Sarah Jones
Aug. 26th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Um, you do realize where that deficit came from, right? Hint: George W Bush left TWO wars off of the budget completely. President Barack Obama put them ON the budget — you know, so we pay for our bills. While Bush gave tax cuts to the rich and refused to pay for the two wars he started, Obama is trying to clean up his mess by doing the truly fiscally responsible thing of actually putting the wars into the budget.
Troy
Aug. 26th, 2011 at 6:13 pm
The Bush tax cuts benefited the poor. Please stop the liberal spin. Many new credits became available. After these cuts, more of the burden of the country fell on the “rich” than afterwards. Nearly 50% of the country pay NO federal income tax. I prepare tax returns for the rich and poor and have for 20 years. The propoganda you guys perpetuate is sickening.
Taxes were raised from a highest marginal rate of 31% to 39.6% under Clinton. The Bush tax cuts came in a time of a recession and brought the marginal rates to 35%. There is no creed or inherent moral law that tax rates should be set an any particular rate. The capital gains rates were reduced as part of the plan to help stimulate job growth. There are a number of other countries in the civilized world with reduced rates for dividend income. Some other former “socialist” countries like Russia have followed suit to provide such rates to stimulate investment in their countries.
Government revenues increased as a result of those tax cuts. Stop trying to make it seem like Bush was just trying to line the pockets of his buddies. It is such BS!
No true conservative was happy with Bush’s spending. So trying to compare all Bush’s deficits is a ludicrous venture. He made a host of the GOP angry over the spending. What is Obama’s answer? To do it even more. How Ironic. The liberals cried over the stimulus that Bush put into place in the early 2000′s and suggested they did nothing and were wrong to do. Yet those same people, once Obama got into office, were all for it. What hypocrisy.
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 26th, 2011 at 7:04 pm
The liberals were in favor of the stimulus. The red coats were against it
Not one tax drop from Bush stimulated jobs, they did help the poor a little, but helped the very rich enormously more. There is a difference between Obama’s spending and Bush’s. Bush spent for 8 years like a madman, Obama is spending to try and get us out of the Bush 8 years.
Also, the effect on the nations ability to do its jobs was definitely lowered by the tax cuts
Conservative
Aug. 26th, 2011 at 10:12 am
This is interesting, but certainly not consistent evidence, and you still didn’t have the balls to mention how large federal payrolls expanded under Obama.
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 26th, 2011 at 10:36 am
How much have federal payrolls expanded?
William Dearing
Aug. 27th, 2011 at 11:13 pm
Everyone needs to read the article again. One of the arguments was that Obama was not for “big government”. The article states that Dubya left office with 2,756,000 non-military federal employees, and Obama in 2010 had 2,840,000 – an *increase* of 84,000 (about 3%). Notice that the article failed to point this out – inconvenient fact that contradicts the premise.
Shiva (Moderator)
Aug. 27th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
Read the title
David in Green Bay
Aug. 29th, 2011 at 1:00 am
The unfortunate reality for the “author” is that if the employees under Reagan had the automation, computing power, and networking capabilities of today, the same “governing” performed under the Reagan administration could have been performed by probably 1/3 the number of employees. There’s simply no valid comparison on this ground between the two. It’s like comparing the guy with the tractors and combines (Obama) to the guy with a couple mules hooked to a farming implement (Reagan). Sounded good though ;)