Comments about ‘Government expansion’

Looking at the whole production process in detail is long overdue, particularly by economists. You might find it interesting tha Karl Marx was even more severe than you in defining productive labor - according to him only people who actually make things or raise crops constitute productive labor. All other labor is "unproductive" including academics and newspaper publishers. This doesn't mean what you do is worthless, only that people who make things are the key.

There are so many things inherently wrong with this essay that it's hard to know where to start in correcting it.

"The report makes note of how this has declined in recent years, down from 17.3 percent in 2009. In 2011, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a loss of 280,000 government jobs."

So there continues to be a downward trend but you feel it necessary to raise the issue as though things were moving the other way. Why this approach? Why now? I think we all know.

"...it's a safe assumption that school teachers, professors at public colleges and administrators, as well as others in private-sector jobs supported by government contracts answered no."

Why would you make that assumption? And why would you make any "assumption", rather than relying on facts, when you are trying to present a credible argument?

"Recently, Bloomberg Business Week reported that private sector jobs increased only 1.1 percent in the entire decade ending in 2009, making it the lowest decade of job growth since the Great Depression... Manufacturing...lost more than 5 million jobs."

More evidence of the disasterous decade prior to this one.

Clearly, this essay was meant to discredit the direction the current adminstration is taking but the facts in evidence don't support the premise of the argument. Government jobs are decreasing and now, after a decade of poor performance, private sector jobs are returning (over 2 million jobs since September of 2010.)

"In 2011, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a loss of 280,000 government jobs."

"Conservative activists often target the growth in the federal government"

Someone tell me what constitutes "growth in federal government"? Isn't the number of Govt jobs a great indicator?

According to this article, it appears that our govt is shrinking.

Also, did anyone notice that the Reddest of the Red states (Utah) came in 36th on % of govt workers, while Penn (a blue state) came in first?

As usual, some would rather be outraged by lies than satisfied with the truth.

This article is very misleading. The growth in federal government has actually been slightly declining since the '60's. The per capita rate of federal employees has been dropping steadily over the past 50 years! What this article fails to mention is that the rise in government employees has been on a LOCAL level.
Salt Lake Valley is a good example, look at all of the little cities within the valley that have their own policemen, firemen, sewer and water districts, schools, government staffs etc.
If the writers are worried about the increase in government employees they should make it clear that the perceived problem is on the city, county, and state levels.

Government jobs don't create wealth?, translation: government jobs don't benefit society.

Lets examine this.

If not, get rid of government jobs.

Get rid of police, fire protection, national defense.

Get rid of laws to ensure workplaces are safe, and the government employees who enforce those laws. Read history and why these laws were instituted. If history is any guide, we can entrust our safety to employeers can't we?

Get rid of the social security administration, food stamps, unemployment benefits and the government workers who help to make these programs possible. Food stamps and unemployment benefits are a form of insurance, so if insurance doesn't benefit society, lets get rid of all private insurance too while we are at it. Since social security doesn't benefit, let people eat cake, i.e. let them tie their security to the ups and downs of the stock market. If they become disabled, let thier families rely on charity.

Lets get rid of teachers, most of whom are government workers, having an educated society doesn't benefit anyone, so who bother paying the teachers?

It was Lennon and later Joseph Goebbels who said "A lie repeated often enough becomes truth". The far right has practiced and then fallen for this tactic hook line and sinker.

You are absolutely wrong that government spending does not create wealth. You have just made a wearisome, and false, political argument. The economic activity, seed capital, jobs and other benefits of government spending is no different than what goes on in the private sector. It is just the entity engaging in those activities. I'm fine with a factual argument, but one that is philosophical or based on public opinion polls is not worthy of an honest and serious discussion. I am deeply disappointed that this editorial is so political rather than factual. It is just dead wrong.

Although it is a common right-wing mantra, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of Economics to say "government doesn't create wealth." Wealth is created whenever people create value. For example, if the value of the U.S. highway system is more than what it cost to build, then building the highway system created wealth. The difference is, the value of the highway system is enjoyed by a broad spectrum of people, not the least of which are the wealthy business people who rely upon our infrastructure for their businesses.

Likewise, schools, fire departments, garbage men, policy officers, and emergency services all create value that are broadly enjoyed by society.

The worst use of tax dollars is our obscene military budget. Government contractors make hundreds of billions every year from this. When making these fortunes, these mercenaries weren't "creating wealth." They were sucking money out of tax payers to create things without real value to society.

So DN if a govt. borrows a dollar, and gives it to an employee, and that employee uses the dollar to purchase a new car..that dollar..the employee..and the govt. didn't help create wealth? Wrong.

This essay is absolutely correct. The left wing extremists are determined to expand government until it encompases every aspect of American life. The plan is to enlarge their own power by increasing the size of government.

The Founding Fathers absolutely did not intend for the government to intrude into the private spheres of health care and retirement benefits. Indeed, the Fathers established this Country on the principle that a man must work to provide for himself and his family. The Fathers knew that great harm is the inevitable result of the government using tax dollars to finance the lifestyles of a lazy, indolent population.

Hopefully, the ignorant masses will wake up in time to see what the left is doing before it is too late. The citizens of America cannot afford to sit around and let the left turn this Country into just another European-style post-Christian welfare state. America deserves a far better fate than that.

My father was a career Navy man (WWII vet) who had a second career working for a city. He was one of the most productive, hard-working men I've ever known. My first husband served in the U.S. Marines (Viet Nam vet) for eight years and ended up retiring from Federal Civil Service. His work was valuable to national security. My current husband and I are retired college professors. We helped to educate young people for a variety of useful occupations. Every one of us worked in "government" jobs. Those jobs put food on the table, provided health insurance, and gave us the dignity of meaningful work. Friends and family in the private sector were much more likely to be laid off; their pension plans were often less stable. As for creating wealth -- we who were paid by some sort of government bought houses and cars,went on vacations, etc. Every president since Nixon has frozen or kept to a minimum white-collar federal pay increases, as a sign of fiscal responsibility. Our government is shrinking. I, too, wonder (not) why this article (propaganda) is being published here and now.

JCS - Congratualtions on getting every conservative talking point into one long sentence.

"The plan is to enlarge their own (the liberals) power by increasing the size of government."

The only problem with this statement is that, according to the essay that you are praising, the government is continuing a slow, but steady reduction in size. So logically speaking, your argument has no teeth.

"A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress's generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner."

"Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult" by Mike Lofgren

(Mike Lofgren retired on June 17 2011 after 28 years as a Congressional staffer. He served 16 years as a professional staff member on the Republican side of both the House and Senate Budget Committees.)

re John Charity Spring
Back Home in Davis County, UT

"Indeed, the Fathers established this Country on the principle that a man must work to provide for himself and his family".

-------

That would be news to the slaves many of them held.

And while everyone agrees that able bodied people should work and take primary responsibility for their upkeep, the founders never did believe that people should rely on only what they earn. If so why did they put into the constitution the words that ... congress has authority to tax to promote the general welfare? i.e.

Federal taxes can and do (in accordance with the constitution) promote, ... education, national defense, ensure against hunger, pay for research to stem disease, help ensure that Americans can have at least a miminal retirement, etc etc ...

None are so blind as those who WILL NOT see.

By repeating a lie often enough, you can fool some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

"The Founding Fathers absolutely did not intend for the government to intrude into the private spheres of health care and retirement benefits." And just what health care and retirement benefits would those have been in 1790? Leedching, and early death?

"The plan is to enlarge their own power by increasing the size of government." Did you miss the part in the article where it said that the size of government has gone down, especially at the federal level? I suppose that just show how incompent the President really is..can't even make his own plans for government domination work.

@ JCS, to say "The Fathers knew that great harm is the inevitable result of the government using tax dollars to finance the lifestyles of a lazy, indolent population" is one of the funniest things I have seen on these pages. Where in all the writings of the Founding Fathers is this discussed? Talk about making things up.

Are you ready for a math "story problem"? How many non-government workers does it take to pay for each government worker?

Let's pull a number out of the air and assume that the average non-government worker makes $40,000 (with perks) per year. (I'm sure that the real number is probably closer to $20,000, given the fact that many non-government workers work at or near minimum wage at McDonalds and other low-skill jobs.)

Let's assume that the average government worker makes $50,000 per year with perks, including health insurance, retirement, vacation, car allowance, etc.

Finally, let's assume that the non-government workers pay 15% income taxes (probably closer to 5%).

Each non-government worker would generate $6,000 in taxes.

It would take the total taxes of 8.3 non-government workers to pay the wages of one government worker.

Given those assumptions, we can have no more than 12% government workers, even if ALL taxes went to their wages.

Have some fun. Run your own numbers. But, be sure to ask yourself how we're going to pay for anything except the wages of government workers.

"But in the real world, everyone knows that government investments in the national highway system, medical and other scientific research, and other programs unquestionably add to growth. And there are times when government spending can provide macroeconomic stimulus, which the C.B.O. has repeatedly documented, to the consternation of Republicans."

(Bruce Bartlett economist in Reagan Administration and Treasury official in HW Bush Administration)

Government expansion creates public wealth and private well being. That makes for a better world than a corporate run government of greed and one percent of haves and 99 percent of have nots.

"Unlike most private sector jobs, government jobs do not create wealth,..." ~ DN Editorial

===============

STOP the Press!

You had me at the very 1st line.
In fact - that one line had me so outraged, I could hardly read the rest of the article.

What a bunch of melarky.

99.9999% of Americans learned to read, write and do math from DO NOTHING Government jobs.

The remaining 0.00001% learned in a private, Catholic, or foreign school.

I suppose the Deseret News thinks an ignorant, uneducated population ceates the wealthiest societies.

Chalk another one up for American-Somalia.

The federal government employment sector has grown by 145,000 jobs since Obama took office.
The number of federal employees earning more than 100k numbers over 600k.

So, based on the article, state and local employment has been the sector shrinking, NOT federal government.
Those numbers sound consistent with what I've seen.
State and local governments MUST balance their budget.
The feds. have no need to do that. They just put their expansion and ridiculous salaries on the nations credit card.