Federal Payroll to Hit Record 2.15 Million

Tuesday, 02 Feb 2010 07:58 AM

By: Stephen Dinan

The era of big government has returned with a vengeance, in the form of the largest federal work force in modern history.

The Obama administration says the government will grow to 2.15 million employees this year, topping 2 million for the first time since President Clinton declared that "the era of big government is over" and joined forces with a Republican-led Congress in the 1990s to pare back the federal work force.

Most of the increases are on the civilian side, which will grow by 153,000 workers, to 1.43 million people, in fiscal 2010.

The expansion could provide more ammunition to those arguing that the government is trying to do too much under President Obama.

"I'm shocked that the 'tea party' hasn't focused on it yet, and the Obama administration only has a thin sliver of time to deal more directly with it, I believe," said Paul C. Light, who studies the federal bureaucracy as a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a professor at New York University. "When you talk about big government, you're talking about a big employer."

The new figures are contained in the budget that Mr. Obama sent Monday to Congress.

Mr. Obama says the civilian work force will drop by 80,000 next year, mostly because of a reduction in U.S. census workers added in 2010 but then dropped in 2011 after the national population count is finished. That still leaves 1.35 million civilian federal employees on the payroll in 2011.

From 1981 through 2008, the civilian work force remained at about 1.1 million to 1.2 million, with a low of 1.07 million in 1986 and a high of more than 1.2 million in 1993 and in 2008. In 2009, the number jumped to 1.28 million.

Including both the civilian and defense sectors, the federal government will employ 2.15 million people in 2010 and 2.11 million in 2011, excluding Postal Service workers.

The administration says 79 percent of the increases in recent years are from departments related to the war on terrorism: Justice, Defense, Homeland Security, State and Veterans Affairs.

After years of decline at the end of the Cold War, the Defense Department is restaffing. Mr. Obama estimated that the Pentagon will have 720,000 employees this year and 757,000 employees next year - up from a low of 649,000 in 2003.

The data also show that the Department of Homeland Security will grow by 7,000 a year in 2010 and 2011, and the Veterans Affairs Department will grow by 12,000 in 2010 and an additional 4,000 in 2011.

Peter R. Orszag, Mr. Obama's budget director, also said more people have been hired to oversee outside contracts.

"Over the past eight or nine years, those contracts have doubled in size. The acquisition work force has stayed constant. It's not too hard to figure out that oversight of those contracts has not kept pace with what it should be," Mr. Orszag said.

Even as the total number of federal employees rises, the ratio of employees to Americans has declined steadily, from one employee for every 78 residents in 1953 to one employee for every 110 residents in 1988 to one employee for every 155 residents in 2008.

The federal work force is older than the private-sector work force, which Mr. Light said raises the possibility of reducing the total number through retirements.

About 31 percent of the private work force is 50 or older, while 46 percent of the federal work force is 50 or older.

Mr. Obama is in a situation similar to that of Mr. Clinton, who took office when the budget deficit was at a record high and government bureaucracy was expanding, even though the Pentagon was shedding workers with the end of the Cold War.

Mr. Clinton in 1996 declared that "the era of big government is over" and took steps to work with Congress to control spending and cut the work force, which already had been trending lower.

As he left office in 2000, Mr. Clinton boasted that his administration had helped cut 377,000 government jobs, leaving the smallest civilian federal work force since 1960.

Mr. Obama, though, appears to be accepting a larger federal work force.

The administration has called for federal workers to get a 1.4 percent pay raise next year, which Mr. Orszag said, "frankly, I think to a lot of Americans, sounds pretty good."

The American Federation of Government Employees, the union that represents many government workers, said it was combing through the budget and did not have a comment.

Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC

(02-02-2010 09:04 AM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  The era of big government has returned with a vengeance, in the form of the largest federal work force in modern history.

I'm calling it ...



Returned? Please. When did it ever go away?

Obama is merely "one-upping" the shrub. This spin crap is killing me.

First the Dems are all over the Shrub, now the GOP is all over Obama.

You know what, GROW A PAIR. For chrissakes, somebody, someone ... ANYONE in ANY FRIGGIN' PARTY ... DEMAND

DEMAND
DEMAND
DEMAND

an across the board 10% cut in headcount in all federal agencies. Then DEMAND a 10% across the board paycut in all federal agencies.

For the love of God, STOP this partisan bullsh*t and DO SOMETHING.

And by something, I don't mean blaming the other d*mn party!

Good grief.

I am not so concerned as to the size of the governement payroll, as I am with the people on the governement payroll making bad decisions.

You can have a tiny payroll and still make monumentally poor decisions.......

(02-02-2010 11:19 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I am not so concerned as to the size of the governement payroll, as I am with the people on the governement payroll making bad decisions.

You can have a tiny payroll and still make monumentally poor decisions.......

Fair enough. I've seen enough in the past decade or so to figure we're going to get a raft of bad decisions regardless of which party is in control. So why not get the same crappy decisions with a smaller, less-expensive government?

(02-02-2010 10:17 AM)BGSUalum1987 Wrote:  an across the board 10% cut in headcount in all federal agencies. Then DEMAND a 10% across the board paycut in all federal agencies.

You're right. It never did go away. The gov't employees just turned into contractors...which probably cost even more than civil servants.

But, you're wrong demanding a 10% cut in headcount...35% is my recommendation.

(02-02-2010 11:19 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I am not so concerned as to the size of the governement payroll, as I am with the people on the governement payroll making bad decisions.

You can have a tiny payroll and still make monumentally poor decisions.......

The only decisions most of these new people are making is what time to set their alarms so that they don't sleep past closing time. It is the decisions by the political appointees that are killing us.

(02-02-2010 11:47 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  You're right. It never did go away. The gov't employees just turned into contractors...which probably cost even more than civil servants.

Not hardly. There are a ton of benefits associated with a GS job, benefits that I don't have. Also, I can be canned in a heartbeat whereas it just about takes an act of congress to get rid of a civil servant.

Life is good.

Quote:The number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession, according to a USA TODAY analysis of federal salary data.

Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months — and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.

Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time — in pay and hiring — during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector.

The highest-paid federal employees are doing best of all on salary increases. Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009, the most recent figure available.

When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/new...titialskip

[/quote]

(02-02-2010 01:06 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Life is good.

Quote:The number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession, according to a USA TODAY analysis of federal salary data.

Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months — and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.

Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time — in pay and hiring — during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector.

The highest-paid federal employees are doing best of all on salary increases. Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009, the most recent figure available.

When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/new...titialskip

I know, the insanity continues.

(02-02-2010 11:58 AM)Rebel Wrote:  

(02-02-2010 11:47 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  You're right. It never did go away. The gov't employees just turned into contractors...which probably cost even more than civil servants.

Not hardly. There are a ton of benefits associated with a GS job, benefits that I don't have.

Like what? I was a gov't contractor for a lot of years too. They have TSP, you probably have a 401K. Their sick leave is probably better too. But, that's not a lot.

Typically, a contractor gets paid more for his work, and that doesn't count the G&A and OH expenses that get tacked on to the contract. GS-track employees don't have all of those expenses.

And a lot of contractors are career employees. It's not that much different except for the getting fired aspect that you mentioned. But, if you keep your head down and do an adequate job, you can keep a contractor position for a looooong time.

The biggest issue in contractors versus staff is that contractors are only paid for the job. When the job is done, their expense goes away. The government employee is on the clock long past "the project".

I'm not being snarky here... this is exactly why you outsource and pay higher hourly costs... because you pay for fewer hours by outsourcing. Also, overhead goes beyond simple salary and retirement benefits... How about E&O insurance, office space, Workman's comp insurance etc.

$2,150,000

Do you realize that expense, in percentage form compared to the total federal budget, is kinda like what your company may spend on envelopes as a percentage of gross?

No talk of the budget crisis can be taken seriously unless it starts and ends with medicare, medicaid, social security, and two wars (with warmongering going on in 3 other nations).

(02-02-2010 06:33 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  $2,150,000

Do you realize that expense, in percentage form compared to the total federal budget, is kinda like what your company may spend on envelopes as a percentage of gross?

No talk of the budget crisis can be taken seriously unless it starts and ends with medicare, medicaid, social security, and two wars (with warmongering going on in 3 other nations).

That would be 2.15 million Federal employees.

(02-02-2010 06:36 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(02-02-2010 06:33 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  $2,150,000

Do you realize that expense, in percentage form compared to the total federal budget, is kinda like what your company may spend on envelopes as a percentage of gross?

No talk of the budget crisis can be taken seriously unless it starts and ends with medicare, medicaid, social security, and two wars (with warmongering going on in 3 other nations).

That would be 2.15 million Federal employees.

Even if they're all making $100K a year, that's still $215,000,000,000. Far far less than all previously cited examples. And shame on he misleading title.

Actually 16% are making 170k or more. Only you were misled, it is stated quite clearly. Hellofalot more thanfrigging envelopes. Least we forget, federal employees produce about what a company might spend on envelopes.

(02-02-2010 07:23 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-02-2010 06:36 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(02-02-2010 06:33 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  $2,150,000

Do you realize that expense, in percentage form compared to the total federal budget, is kinda like what your company may spend on envelopes as a percentage of gross?

No talk of the budget crisis can be taken seriously unless it starts and ends with medicare, medicaid, social security, and two wars (with warmongering going on in 3 other nations).

That would be 2.15 million Federal employees.

Even if they're all making $100K a year, that's still $215,000,000,000. Far far less than all previously cited examples. And shame on he misleading title.

How is it misleading? I would think he wouldn't have posted something about a paltry 2.15 million dollars.

...also, 215 billion? Is a little bit of money.

Quote:The era of big government has returned with a vengeance, in the form of the largest federal work force in modern history.

The Obama administration says the government will grow to 2.15 million employees this year, topping 2 million for the first time since President Clinton declared that "the era of big government is over" and joined forces with a Republican-led Congress in the 1990s to pare back the federal work force.

Just a little help for GTS who couldn't be bothered with reading the article above.

(02-02-2010 06:33 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  $2,150,000

Do you realize that expense, in percentage form compared to the total federal budget, is kinda like what your company may spend on envelopes as a percentage of gross?

No talk of the budget crisis can be taken seriously unless it starts and ends with medicare, medicaid, social security, and two wars (with warmongering going on in 3 other nations).

You're missing the point. It's federal employees who push those expensive regulations for medicare, medicaid, social security, etc.

If you want to reshape the gov't's negative impact on the economy, you have to do three things:

Reduce regulations
Reduce the staffs of people who create and impose those regulations
Reduce taxes

Those are the three legs to the stool. Don't discount any one of them.

(02-02-2010 07:23 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(02-02-2010 06:36 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(02-02-2010 06:33 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  $2,150,000

Do you realize that expense, in percentage form compared to the total federal budget, is kinda like what your company may spend on envelopes as a percentage of gross?

No talk of the budget crisis can be taken seriously unless it starts and ends with medicare, medicaid, social security, and two wars (with warmongering going on in 3 other nations).

That would be 2.15 million Federal employees.

Even if they're all making $100K a year, that's still $215,000,000,000. Far far less than all previously cited examples. And shame on he misleading title.

Not sure I'm getting your point GTS. Are you OKAY with an all-time high in Federal employment and big increases in their salaries at a time when the rest of the country is being asked/forced to tighten their belts?

Whether its 215billion or some other figure, it's real money

(02-02-2010 08:10 PM)Rebel Wrote:  How is it misleading? I would think he wouldn't have posted something about a paltry 2.15 million dollars.

...also, 215 billion? Is a little bit of money.

(02-02-2010 08:20 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Just a little help for GTS who couldn't be bothered with reading the article above.

pay·roll
Pronunciation: \ˈpā-ˌrōl\
Function: noun
Date: 1740
the sum necessary for distribution to those on a payroll; also : the money to be distributed

That's how it's misleading. That's the only way I've ever heard payroll used. The way it's used there could be better replaced by "employees" or "work force".

(02-02-2010 09:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Not sure I'm getting your point GTS. Are you OKAY with an all-time high in Federal employment and big increases in their salaries at a time when the rest of the country is being asked/forced to tighten their belts?

Whether its 215billion or some other figure, it's real money

It's like being all concerned about losing weight -- so you get angry over the calorie content in Coke (federal payroll) and switch to Diet Coke. Never mind the 4 large combos from Burger King (medicare, medicaid, social security, wars) every day ....

Should the federal government employee RADICALLY fewer people at RADICALLY lower wages? Abso-friggin-lutely. But you're not going after the source of the problem. Even is the average federal employee makes $500K ... you're still not talking about the real big time major league drains of money. It's like getting pumped up about going to go beat San Jose State in college football. Can we please get excited when we're taking down a ranked team instead? kthnxbai.