Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe costs of a shrinking government
The costs of a shrinking government
By Steve Benen
President Obama spoke at SUNY Albany yesterday, sketching out an economic to-do list for Congress, and raised an important point that generally goes overlooked: when it comes to the recovery, "one of the biggest drags on our economy" has been public-sector layoffs.
It's maddening in large part because so much of the global economic crisis was hard to control, but this aspect -- public-sector employment -- was easy. It was within Washington's power to prevent the layoffs of teachers, firefighters, and police officers, and Democrats did that for a while in 2009, but as stimulus funds ran out, mass layoffs began. Republicans were given an opportunity to save these jobs, but they refused, arguing hat the economy would improve if more public-sector workers were unemployed.
We're left to wonder what could have been, but we have some ideas. The Wall Street Journal ran an important piece the other day, noting that the national unemployment rate would be 7.1% right now -- a full point lower than it is now -- if the government hadn't laid off so many public-sector workers. TPM's Brian Beutler published this great chart this morning:
There's no great mystery here. The right doesn't like it, and Republicans prefer to pretend the facts are wrong, but there's one key difference between our weak economic recovery and a more robust one: our government is shrinking at the worst possible time.
- more -
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/09/11616488-the-costs-of-a-shrinking-government
By Steve Benen
President Obama spoke at SUNY Albany yesterday, sketching out an economic to-do list for Congress, and raised an important point that generally goes overlooked: when it comes to the recovery, "one of the biggest drags on our economy" has been public-sector layoffs.
" A)fter there was a recession under Ronald Reagan, government employment went way up. It went up after the recessions under the first George Bush and the second George Bush. So each time there was a recession with a Republican President, we compensated by making sure that government didn't see a drastic reduction in employment.
"The only time government employment has gone down during a recession has been under me. So I make that point just so you don't buy into this whole bloated government argument that you hear."
"The only time government employment has gone down during a recession has been under me. So I make that point just so you don't buy into this whole bloated government argument that you hear."
It's maddening in large part because so much of the global economic crisis was hard to control, but this aspect -- public-sector employment -- was easy. It was within Washington's power to prevent the layoffs of teachers, firefighters, and police officers, and Democrats did that for a while in 2009, but as stimulus funds ran out, mass layoffs began. Republicans were given an opportunity to save these jobs, but they refused, arguing hat the economy would improve if more public-sector workers were unemployed.
We're left to wonder what could have been, but we have some ideas. The Wall Street Journal ran an important piece the other day, noting that the national unemployment rate would be 7.1% right now -- a full point lower than it is now -- if the government hadn't laid off so many public-sector workers. TPM's Brian Beutler published this great chart this morning:
There's no great mystery here. The right doesn't like it, and Republicans prefer to pretend the facts are wrong, but there's one key difference between our weak economic recovery and a more robust one: our government is shrinking at the worst possible time.
- more -
http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/09/11616488-the-costs-of-a-shrinking-government
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
4 replies, 1194 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The costs of a shrinking government (Original Post)
ProSense
May 2012
OP
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)1. So is it time for austerity or not?
Or is this a pre-Nov-6th vs. post-Nov-6th situation?
I need to make decisions around pea futures.
Very subtle stuff.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)2. Haven't
"I need to make decisions around pea futures. "
...you posted often that you're doing very well?
Those of us actually counting peas want real support.
Maybe it's time to help unseat the Republicans who are sabotaging the economy and destroying American lives.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)3. Still getting the peas quote wrong I see.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)4. Kick! n/t