Spoken Like a True Dyed In the Blue Statist...
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth
Ever hear of or read Mother Jones? Well I just did, and as near as I can figure she must be Woodrow Wilson's or Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Mother. I say this because she sure as hell is pro statist and pumped up for growing the government bureaucracy.
The article is short so it is being reproduced here in full. This site appreciates Mother Jones candor in expressing the statist credo and the desire on the part of the left for an ever larger and more intrusive presence in our daily affairs and lives.
So, there is is folks. Do whatever you will with it. Me, I'm thinking, why not just jump on the public bandwagon and enjoy the scenery and the ride. I mean, why the hell not? Right?
Via: Memeorandum
Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth
Ever hear of or read Mother Jones? Well I just did, and as near as I can figure she must be Woodrow Wilson's or Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Mother. I say this because she sure as hell is pro statist and pumped up for growing the government bureaucracy.
The article is short so it is being reproduced here in full. This site appreciates Mother Jones candor in expressing the statist credo and the desire on the part of the left for an ever larger and more intrusive presence in our daily affairs and lives.
January's job numbers were fairly dismal, but the bad cheer wasn't equally spread. Private sector employment, as usual, increased—by 142,000 jobs last month. At the same time, public sector employment declined. Government employment at all levels was down 29,000 in January.
Aside from the brief census blip in early 2010, this has been the usual state of affairs for the past four years, ever since the recession officially ended. The chart below shows public and private sector employment indexed to 100 at the end of the recession. Private sector employment is up 6.8 percent. Public sector employment is down 3.4 percent. And that's during a period when population grew 2.3 percent. On a per capita basis, government employment has declined more than 5 percent since 2009, and it's still declining.
This is the price of austerity. If public sector employment had been growing normally during this period, we'd have about a million more jobs than we do now and the unemployment rate would probably be below 6 percent. We are our own worst enemies.
So, there is is folks. Do whatever you will with it. Me, I'm thinking, why not just jump on the public bandwagon and enjoy the scenery and the ride. I mean, why the hell not? Right?
Via: Memeorandum
It's a fact, Les. Whether you like it or not, whether you think it's a good idea or not, it is indeed a fact.
ReplyDeleteJMJ
Yes, it is a fact. If one thinks only in the moment, the immediate, and ignores the long range ramifications of a growing bureaucracy and bureaucratic BS.
ReplyDeleteFor those who desire the ever encroaching statist bureaucracy feeling big brother is the answer, the savior of the common man (whatever the f**k that means) there is no response that makes sense. There is no argument they will consider. Big Bro and a growing bureaucracy is the only way.
Les, why do you libertarians always go straight to that old "bureaucrat" bogeyman?
DeleteMost of these job losses have been at the local and state level. We're talking about fewer teachers, cops, all sorts of contract services and labor, etc. In the Red States, the cuts have been particularly deep. Our development as a nation is being stifled for the sleaziest scumbags while sycophant ideologues happily sing along. All over the country, states and localities have raced to the bottom of the tax, regulation, and development barrel to attract these scumbags and their scumbag businesses and "jobs." Teachers are useful, Les. Scumbag corporations who don't give a rats ass about their community should not be doing better off than decent hardworking Americans who actually care about their country and fellow Americans.
JMJ
RN: And growing it is. Did you catch where MoJo called this austerity? A situation of federal spending soaring ever higher and higher out of control? click here.
ReplyDeleteWhatever the price of austerity is, this situation has nothing to do with it.
Les, they also completely ignored the much greater debt that would be the cost of needlessly employing a million more government "workers" in make-busy work... a misguided welfare program.
The " Private sector employment is up 6.8 percent" claim is strange and not true at all, considering the fact that the size of the workforce, that is, employment has on a strong decrease for several years.
I'm not talking about teachers, law enforcement, fire fighters, etc.
ReplyDeleteHowever I realize that that's the first federal monies that get cut. Why? To scare people and protect other unnecessary expenditures and regs. from cuts.
So it goes...
Again, the cuts are coming mainly from the state and local level. The federal government doesn't spend all that much on all this anyway. Yet another myth of the right debunked that goes ignored in all this.
DeleteJMJ
Oke Dokey jmj.
DeleteCarry on...
PS: Links are neat..
RN: the debt problem is made up entirely of massive multi billion dollar spending programs that someone somewhere will defend as "not all that much". And then it's is no wonder that the runaway train rockets toward the broken bridge....picking up steam, if anything.
DeleteLes, who do you think pays for teachers and cops and such?
DeleteJMJ
Don't know jmj, remember, in your opinion O'm one of the stupid ones.
DeleteCarry on..
Really? This is the level we're at here?
DeleteHere we see how this idiotic (re: conservative) strategy failed after the 2001 recession as compared to the 1991 recession: http://stats.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2004/10/art3full.pdf Notice the relationship between government and private sector job growth. Notice also the difference in the numbers of federal, state, and local employment.
Now, check out the same charts on this site: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1078&context=books Note the relationship between private and public sector jobs after the Great Recession.
See a trend here, Les?
JMJ
.
ReplyDelete"For those who desire the ever encroaching statist bureaucracy feeling big brother is the answer, the savior of the common man (whatever the f**k that means) there is no response that makes sense."
Yes. And regulations are killing businesses. Look at poor "Freedom Industries" in WV, "Rancho Feeding Corporation" of northern California, NYC Banksters, and "BP" in Gulf of Mexico, et al - all being forced to live under unenforced and unenforceable government regulations simply to protect the peoples of the earth. Oh the shame of it all. ...
Reminds one of the great line in "The Treasure of Sierra Madre", "Badges. We don't need no stinking badges." -Regulations. We don't need no regulations.- The people don't need no stinking protections. The poor corporations are being killed by regulations.
The growing needs for regulations come from the complexity of modern civil society and life. Along with more and complex regulations come the need for enforcement of regulations. It is this simple. To enforce regulations, society needs to have a trained and professional government work force.
Some may ignorantly try to slight public workers. A professional work force at the DMV, IRS, and/or USDA etc., is needed to make the people's government serve/work for the people.
Can one offer you a drink of contaminated water from WV to wash down the tainted meatloaf from California or the oil-poisoned shrimp cocktail from Texas?
So go ahead. Tell USA how USA needs fewer government people working to protect them.
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
Why Ema, thank you so much for your fine, however typical comment.
ReplyDeleteEPA, OSHA, (public health and safety), I'm just fine with these agencies doing their jobs and enforcing existing regulations that insure public safety and health. Hell you can toss in the FDA if you like.
What I'm talking about is unnecessary, costly regs that simply create layer upon layer of bureaucratic red tape. The kind that generates filing fees, recurring licensing costs, fines, etc. that spurs more regs, fees, fines, and costs to businesses. Bureaucracies must justify their existence and therefore they spend a lot of time and taxpayer dollars doing so...
... and, bureaucrats and the bureaucracy love duplicity.
We shall simply agree to disagree Ema.
Carry on...
Exactly, RN. You get it, Ema doesn't. Hence her reactionary, small C conservative defense of the "status quo" of a bloated, wealthy, and abusive bureaucracy, which is ultimately one more example of the rulers stealing and stomping on the ruled. The worship of power and disdain for the rights of the people by Ema and those similar is ugly, and shows deep contempt for our rights.
DeleteTo your list of "unnecessary" regs, RN, add those put in places by some businesses in order to have the government hound competition out of business. The laws so many states have banning out-of-state insurance companies is a perfect example of this. "Unnecessary and costly", and contrary to the public good. And the fees you mention are a form of tax. One that clobbers small business like a fist to the throat. And big business does mere lip service complaining about it, because these regulations destroy mom-and-pop operators (which some have called "plutocrats" anyway and want wiped out) and strengthen the fat-cats.
Not sure of Mom Jones, but the hue and cry about the growth of federal jobs is unfounded. If we look at the ratio of federal jobs to population, we find it the lowest since 1976 . Further more one cannot help but notice that the pop/govworker ratio
ReplyDeletedecline is even steeper than the noticeable steep rise under President Reagan. Dare we suggest
political cognitive dissonance?
BB: Interesting, but that makes the presupposition that even the 1976 level is of a justified size, and that we should not critically examine waste and "layer upon layer of bureaucratic red tape" which was already a significant problem in 1976. I simply am not ready to accept the high level from that year, not just yet.
ReplyDeleteAnd with the soaring number of public "servants" raking in millions in taxpayer dollars, there is the factor of the huge cost of them which probably wasn't as bad of a problem then.
In fact, BB, looking at the "downsizinggovernment.org" site, I find this:
ReplyDelete"In 1973, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA), which boosted subsidies for job training programs and extended the funding for direct government jobs. The PEP program was renamed Public Service Employment (PSE), and it handed out billions of dollars through the 1970s to create jobs in state and local governments and nonprofit organizations.6 Under President Jimmy Carter, the federal government was directly funding more than 700,000 PSE jobs annually."
Which... if true, and yes if (I know it might be a very biased and suspect site) means that the 1976 level was during a time when a massive and perhaps unnecessary "growth spurt" had been underway for a few years.
dmarks, my 2nd link, Trading Economics.Com, takes some tinkering. You can chart to Jan 2014 from any starting date, look at the data in a number of formats, etc. In a nutshell, the
Deleteguv employment/population ratio has averaged 59.2%, peaking in approximately 2000 at
64.32%. I use 'approximately because the x axis delineator is in 12 year increments, so
one has to estimate between the 12 year segments. (like on a sliderule, the archaic analog
computer that got me through physical chemistry) So, I may be off a bit. Essentially I was looking at not total guv employment, but at how it tracks with the size of the population..
Tracking from 1950, there is an uptick around 1970-73 to 58.2% and under Carter it rose to
60%, The first 3 years of the Reagan admin lowered the ratio to 57%, but for whatever reason, it had gone up to 63% when he left office. No doubt federal paychecks have gone up, no argument there. Out here in the mountains, they like privatizing things, but sometimes it just doesn't work. After 10 years of privately run prisons, [as you note 'raking in taxpayer dollars] the state is going back to the old way. (Now if they would do that with homes for the aging) Anyway, the data is there, however we interpret the ups and downs and reasons.
Mary Harris Jones (AKA Mother Jones) was one of those hated community organizers who dared stand up against the "job creators" (instead of bowing down to them as those on the Right believe we all should). As for the "statist credo" RN perceives in the article... I don't see it. Especially given the pop/govworker ration BB-Idaho points out.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I'm unaware of anyone calling mom & pop operators "plutocrats" or wanting them "wiped out". That would be stupid indeed. No more stupid than insisting someone said this when they did not, however.
You wouldn't see it because you look but fail to see Mr. DS.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, it will be most appreciated if you and dmarks take your personal issues elsewhere.
Thank you, the Management.
Those who see personal issues in general comments about a class of people I have found in numbers might have "personal issues" themselves. A form of paranoia. No, that was not at you Les. This time, unlike with the plutocrat message (which applies to a whole sector who defines the term way too broadly, in my view), I am indeed referring to W-Dervish.
DeleteNo one needs to take general comments personally. We all need to be a lot more "thick skinned" in these matters. Jersey excels in that,we can learn from him. He's a Jersey McDuck, as so much of this stuff slides off him like water off a duck's back. As it should for us all.
If W-Dervish has personal issues with me, my email contact remains open. If he addresses me in a courteous fashion, I will deal with it. Otherwise, I shall ignore messages that don't meet standards of conduct.
dmarks... My comment was indeed in direct reference to what appears at least to me to be a running issue between Mr. Sanders and yourself.
DeleteMr. Sanders, or Derve the Swerve as I have come to call him, thoroughly enjoys taking every opportunity to toss out the bait. Ignoring the bait and not responding to it is IMO the prudent course. That and not tossing out bait of your own, which Mr. Sanders always takes.
I hope you get what I'm saying. For dudes like Derv, who are always right even when they are wrong, it is advisable to let him just talk to himself.
As for "letting the water roll off your back", absolutely.
RN: I can see how it can appear to be such a reference. In light of that, I will do better to avoid such references that might trigger tantrums in the future.
DeleteRN: For the record, it will be most appreciated if you and dmarks take your personal issues elsewhere.
DeleteI too meant my comments "in general". And, even though I wasn't directing them specifically at Dennis, it seems his personal issues and paranoia led him to conclude I was. I shall also do better to avoid say things that might cause certain dim witted folks to throw tantrums in the future.
Sincerely, Derv "The Swerve".
1) I have no personal issue with you at all. I simply do not like you or your overriding propensity to never let an issue drop.
Delete2) Point of clarification: This is my site; I set the rules not you Mr. Sanders. You WILL abide by them or NOT be posted. In addition, Should I choose to “take it personal” (which I haven’t), this being my site and all I’ll simply post notice on your site in advance of “taking it personal” so you have fair warning.
3) DS - I shall also do better to avoid say things that might cause certain dim witted folks to throw tantrums in the future.
That would be fine DS , however, rest assured that I will monitor closely and should I determine your comment inappropriate in any way I will send it the way of spam. You may not like this Mr. Sanders but it is just the way it is, you have no vote.
Sincerely, The Management
As long as this leads to less fights and crapulent festivals.
DeleteSincerely
Dennis "The Menace"
(said with a sort of self-deprecating humor that we really need more of)
29,000 workers in the month of January. Hmmm. That's 29,000 formerly employed people who will not be paying income taxes but will be collecting unemployment, notwithstanding their consumer spending subtracted from the GDP. 29,000 families thrown into financial panic, perhaps a few more foreclosures, a few more bankruptcies, and some divorces thrown in to spice up the pie.
ReplyDeleteI can't imagine you really take pleasure in this!
(0)CT(0)PUS, I not thinking finite or the immediate.
ReplyDeleteOhh, the callous regard for human life, spoken like a true ...
ReplyDeleteYou may feel free to paint me however you wish to fit you're perception(s) of me (0)CT(0)PUS.
ReplyDeletePerception is reality for the perceiver. However, that does not necessarily make it reality in fact.
The public sector is shrinking and the private sector is growing and this a major problem how exactly?
ReplyDelete.
Delete"The public sector is shrinking and the private sector is growing and this a major problem how exactly? "
Can one offer you a drink of chemical contaminated water from WV to wash down the tainted meatloaf from California or the oil-polluted shrimp cocktail from Texas?
The growing needs for regulations come from the complexity of modern civil society and life. Along with more and complex regulations come the need for enforcement of laws, regulations and rules. It is simple. Society absolutely needs to have a trained, professional and well paid civil service government work force to monitor, inspect, and enforce rules, regulations, and laws.
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
Its called a scare tactic, Will. Overpaid and overabundant bureacrats aren't doing their job, and Ema seems tob think that more of the same will prevent these things'
DeleteWe're having state inspections at our facility this week and I have to be honest with you. These folks couldn't run a convalescent home if their livelihood depended on it and when you converse with them the bulk of them make Ema sound like William F. Buckley and Daniel Patrick Moynihan by comparison.......But Ema actually did stumble on to something here. The government creates a bunch of regulations and bureaucracy and because of the unintended consequences of them has to create even more regulations and bureaucracy! And since they obviously aren't spending THEIR money...
DeleteI'm not at all convinced at this point that the consequences are "unintended" Will. Government bureaucracies (government employees) will always act to sustain and when possible perpetuate their existence and eventual growth.
DeleteWill: And the "nomenclutara" division of the ruling elite get richer and richer, and do less and less. I ran into the account of an EPA worker who was pulling in $900,000 and no one could find any record of this person having worked at all in the department for years.
DeleteThe EPA has a vital mission. I think we all agree on that. But giving those in it massive financial reward for doing their job poorly, or not doing it at all, is not vital.
HHS Title 42 employee salaries - 2010
DeleteBase - $101,000
Ave. - $111,000
Median $110,000
5% earned $155,000
So the 900K is misleading dmarks. It happened but is not representative. These cases are egregious, need to be addressed with safegairds against such abuse put in place, but the 900K example is not typical of EPA salaries.
The $900000 for the EPA person was a total over several years, during which there was no record of any work. Not for a single year. Sorry I wasn't more clear.
DeleteThere are roughly 32,000 lawyers working for the Federal government: the average US lawyer makes $137,000 a year. The US also employs MDs, who average $200,000, so
Deletethose types bend the curve a bit. My bro-in-law is head of a regional NOAA fisheries org
with a few thousand employees, a doctorate and a bullet proof vest for the greenpeace on one side and angry commercial fisherman on the other. Gee, maybe he is the $900,000
guy that's hiding out? To be fair, and having worked with DOD civilian types, rest assured,
there is plenty of deadwood.
The inspectors didn't show up today. Lincoln's birthday.
DeleteRN,
ReplyDeleteYou DO take yourself too seriously. What you have in common with microwave popcorn? You're both done in 30 seconds.
1) Really? Like you DON'T?
Delete2) Hm, interesting. And false.
Good day. Carry on...