Boehner the budget hawk shifts his course
By Dana Milbank
WashPost
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
"So be it."
That was House Speaker John Boehner's cold answer when asked Tuesday about job losses that would come from his new Republican majority's plans to cut tens of billions of dollars in government spending this year.
"Do you have any sort of estimate on how many jobs will be lost through this?" Pacifica Radio's Leigh Ann Caldwell inquired at a news conference just before the House began its debate on the cuts.
Boehner stood firm in his polished tassel loafers. "Since President Obama has taken office the federal government has added 200,000 new federal jobs, and if some of those jobs are lost in this, so be it," he said.
"Do you have any estimate of how many will?" Caldwell pressed. "And won't that negatively impact the economy?"
"I do not," Boehner replied, moving to the next questioner.
(More here.)
WashPost
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
"So be it."
That was House Speaker John Boehner's cold answer when asked Tuesday about job losses that would come from his new Republican majority's plans to cut tens of billions of dollars in government spending this year.
"Do you have any sort of estimate on how many jobs will be lost through this?" Pacifica Radio's Leigh Ann Caldwell inquired at a news conference just before the House began its debate on the cuts.
Boehner stood firm in his polished tassel loafers. "Since President Obama has taken office the federal government has added 200,000 new federal jobs, and if some of those jobs are lost in this, so be it," he said.
"Do you have any estimate of how many will?" Caldwell pressed. "And won't that negatively impact the economy?"
"I do not," Boehner replied, moving to the next questioner.
(More here.)
Powered by Blogger
4 Comments:
Two points.
#1. Is anybody going to challenge Boehner's claim that the Federal Government added 200,000 workers since Obama took office.
Reviewing Table 1 of the BLS for Government workers - Federal (excluding Post Office).
2,040.8 (January 2009 - preliminary)
2,187.5 (January 2011 - preliminary)
Jeez ... the priests at Cincinnati Moeller High School must not have taught Johnny well ... even if you allowed for rounding, than at best the number would be 150,000 ... but those numbers include the Department of Defense and didn't the Republicans help authorize the increase in troop levels ?
#2. The Republicans proved that they are not serious on including military operations. Yesterday, Jeff Flake (R-AZ) offered an amendment to cut $18,750,000 for unneeded boards and commissions … and he spoke about specifically about the unneeded military boards. Cutting this type of funding was recommend by the Heritage Foundation in a report on how to reform the Defense Department … and was also endorsed by Secretary Robert Gates ... when it came to a vote, it failed ... as only 92 Republicans would support the Republican amendment ...
It's that blotted bureaucracy in the DoD that must be addressed but the Republicans are protecting their friends.
Mac
According to Vox Verax's favorite fact checking website Politifact, the number of federal workers (not including postal workers) in late 2008 was just over 2M workers.
"After Obama took over, the number of federal workers reached 2.2 million in April 2009, then dipped to 2.1 million by June 2009 before inching up to top 2.3 million in April 2010. There was a sizable one-month bump, to 2.7 million federal workers in May 2010, though the non-postal federal workforce dropped to 2.5 million in June 2010 and to less than 2.4 million in July."
So, by the middle of last year the federal worker count was around 2.4M after starting out at a little over 2M when Obama took office. which is about 350K to 400K total since Obama took office. If we take out temporary census workers and account for attrition in the last six months, I would say 200,000 seems pretty reasonable to me, perhaps even understating the actual total...
AS for your second point, this is why I am so critical of both parties. Our government has turned in to a spoil system where the majority ignores the Constitution and just subsidizes its favorite programs. Democrats subsidize government workers and teachers and unions. Republicans subsidize military and farm interests and NASA.
That's what I like about the Tea Party - they don't want to subsidize anything. They want massive cuts on everything. Rand Paul wants to cut $500B this year alone. We need more Rand Paul's and fewer Jeff Flake's and Charles Grassley's
But, all too often, the only thing we hear that Democrats are willing to cut is defense. Democrats do not cut budgets - they never have and they never will. The primary Democrat constituency are those who are 100% dependent on governement for every aspect of their lives. But, the voters fired nearly 700 Democrats at all levels in 2010. The mandate is clear - cut spending, cut spending and cut spending. I think the Republicans will do more to cut the budget than the Democrats could even dream of which means, yes, even cutting defense, which I hope the Republicans will do.
Good Evening, Patrick !
Apparently, I was not the only one that questioned Speaker Boehner’s numbers … just today, Politifact reviewed his assertion and rated it false .
Key points in their evaluation :
BLS calculates two categories that illuminate Boehner’s comment.
-- The first is the overall rise in federal employees between January 2009 and January 2011. The net increase was 58,000.
-- The second is the number of federal employees without counting U.S. Postal Service workers. Over that same two-year period, the increase was 140,800.
-- Further, they inquired via U.S. Office of Personnel Management’s on-line federal workforce data source, "FedScope." In fiscal years 2009 and 2010, respectively, the federal government filled a net 59,995 and 47,062 new permanent, full-time, non-seasonal, non-postal jobs. Combined, that means that federal employment rose by 107,057 jobs -- well short of 200,000.
The conclusion : “All told, we find that Boehner’s 200,000 number is way off. We rate it False.”
I find that politicians like to find a “study” that fits their purpose and then exploit it … much like the discreted Lewin study regarding potential job losses related to healthcare reform to John Kline’s assertion 30,000 jobs to be lost from student loan processing.
Anyone who has been watching the BLS over the past year would know that private sector has gained jobs but all levels of government have been cutting jobs, thus keeping the unemployment rate high.
BTW, did you see that tonight, Ms. Bachmann voted to respond to the complaints about restricting Ducks Unlimited federal grants … the vote wasn’t close failing, 352 - 73 … but I was surprised that someone who preaches fiscal discipline would vote to try rework the program … heck, it was only $50 million, but I guess Ms. Bachmann doesn’t want anyone to say she wouldn’t work with the DU folks … but 352 other Members of Congress did not agree with her.
Oh, they are having a lot of fun votes … voters can begin to see who is just talkers, who feels the need to protect special interests, who needs to attack special interests, and who the “real" fiscal conservatives are. Thus far, Bachmann, Cravaack and Kline cannot make the claim that they are truly fiscal conservatives based on their protectionist votes.
P.S. You will have to explain the claim that Jeff Flake is not fiscally responsible ... he attacked earmark spending while John Kline was still submitting his requests ... and repeatedly the Republicans voted to keep the pork flowing ... I did a study of one year of earmark roll call votes and there were only two that the Republicans voted against ... both were authored by John Murhta and Charles Rangel ... other than that they voted for every one.
There is no debate about Grassley, but I need to see some data on Jeff Flake to change my mind.
FYI : Ezra Klien faults Boehner’s numbers as widely exaggerated but then gets into the real question … where are the jobs being added :
The personnel gains that are happening are happening on the "security" side -- which includes, in this data, the Departments of Treasury, State and Justice, in addition to Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense. According to OMB, "Overall, security agency employment grew by 22 percent from 2001 to 2010. During the same period, employment in non-security agencies as a percent of population fell by 4 percent." And that trend was slated to continue in the coming years: "Seventy percent of the proposed increase in the size of the 2012 Federal workforce occurs in five agencies – the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Department of State."
So the jobs that Boehner is deriding are, broadly speaking, jobs related to the military and homeland security, with perhaps a few more in the Justice and State departments. But the money Boehner is cutting from the government -- which is what his comment is in reference to -- comes from non-security discretionary spending.*
So the new jobs are coming in the part of the budget Boehner is protecting, not the part he's cutting.
Post a Comment
<< Home