Kerry says 1.6 m private sector jobs lost under Bush-but 600k new gov jobs

[papau]

as Bush hires all his friends, and the folks his friends wanted to fires o as to cut payroll, or forces Fed roles down to States and towns so they hire more. Is Kerry being fair not to mention the increase in gov employment (Federal, State, and local)under Bush?

From the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4476259,00.html
"For instance, they claim job losses under Bush total 1.6 million. But the Democrat's advisers only count private-sector jobs, ignoring the hundreds of thousands of government jobs created under Bush."

[NMDemDist2]

1. Bush is still in the hole, and your taxes pay for that swelled govt

payroll

[dennis4868]

2. whatever happened......

when there was a time when the repubs would be embarrsed to admit that they added hundred of thousands of jobs in the government....the smaller the government, the better was the way to go, right?

[seabeyond]

3. contractors in iraq?:

[MidwestTransplant]

4. I would love to hear Bush come out and defend himself by pointing to the

biggest expansion of the Fed. Govt. in ages.

[Catfight]

5. Yeah, that'd piss of his base that claims smaller governing. n/t

[punpirate]

6. I think they're mistaken about job figures excluding gov. jobs...

... and the raw fact is that states and municipalities have been cutting services--and jobs--because the Federal tax cuts have also reduced state revenues.

I honestly don't know where they've gotten the figure of 600K + government jobs. Federal employment has been reasonably stable at around 2.1 million jobs.

On edit, perhaps the writer of the article assumes that there was a huge employment increase because of the Homeland Security Dept., but that mostly entailed shuffling existing jobs around. About the only definitive increase to come under that act was the inclusion of airport screeners as Federal employees--and that's definitely not 600K people, if you've been in an airport lately.

And, on further edit, the number of 1.6 million is questionable. Cumulatively, through the end of 2003, the number was actually closer to 2.6 million, and some writers have been mentally subtracting job gains posted by the administration to come up with that current number, when, in fact, the numbers have been jiggered by the administration, and that subtraction doesn't include the proviso that 150,000 jobs per month are necessary just to accommodate people just entering the workforce for the first time.

What's the referenced article?

[papau]

7. link is above - 600 K new "public sector jobs" is from DOL - I renamed

them Gov jobs.

I am not sure if it is 99% or 98% or whatever % gov jobs in the new "Public Sector (a Guardian term)" jobs - but until I hear otherwise, I think saying 600,000 new gov jobs is 1000 times more accurate than the usual GOP statement that the media then treats as truth. At least the DOL does not use the term Public Sector - and says that for Gov jobs the seasonally adjusted employment under Bush went from 20828 in Jan 2001 to 21544 - or 616000 new gov jobs - which is a rather close agreement to the Guardian article

Series Id: CES9000000001Seasonally AdjustedSuper Sector: GovernmentIndustry: GovernmentNAICS Code: N/AData Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 20569 20596 20729 20798 21147 20891 20862 20845 20755 20747 20765 20798
2001 20828 20901 20943 20988 21033 21115 21167 21241 21262 21286 21336 21347
2002 21371 21398 21437 21446 21509 21525 21488 21584 21579 21592 21593 21595
2003 21618 21625 21616 21597 21541 21567 21561 21580 21539 21560 21544 21544
2004 21527 21539 21553 21572 21544 21528 21541(p) 21565(p)