Kevin Tarr wrote:
>Has the number of government employees gone down? (I don't know, can't find
>any real numbers.) I would consider this a truer reflection of Gore making
>the government smaller and more efficient. I see that farther down you
>advocate national health care. Adding 10% of the GDP WON'T make the
>government smaller.
I searced using hotbot and the key words
"federal government employees historical" and found at
http://ssdc.ucsd.edu/gpogate/budget00/hist.html
the following table:
Federal civilian employees
Year per 1000 Americans
1962 13.3
1963 13.2
1964 12.9
1965 12.8
1966 13.9
1967 14.9
1968 15.0
1969 15.0
1970 14.4
1971 13.9
1972 13.4
1973 13.1
1974 13.3
1975 13.2
1976 13.0
1977 12.9
1978 12.9
1979 12.5
1980 12.4
1981 12.2
1982 11.9
1983 12.0
1984 12.1
1985 12.6
1986 12.3
1987 12.5
1988 12.5
1989 12.4
1990 12.3
1991 12.1
1992 11.8
1993 11.4
1994 11.2
1995 10.9
1996 10.5
1997 10.2
1998 10.1
The number of Federal employees per 1000 Americans has gone down, even while
the percentage of Americans in the work force has gone up. The government
has become much more efficient at what it does. Gore has every right in the
world to claim responsibility for the improvement over the last 8 years
because he was given that task by the president back in �93.
The Clinton plan for health insurance would not have involved adding 10% to
the Federal budget. It was a private/public hybrid. Further, government
programs do not require much in the way of direct government bureaucracy.
The overhead on Social Security is only about 3%, for example.
>Personally I'd like a candidate who would pledge to really reducing
>the government, as in eliminating cabinet posts and whole departments but
>that would be political suicide.
What would you eliminate?
> Like with Brin the true facts are misrepresented here. With Bush
>EVERYBODY gets a real tax cut. The 'rich' pay more so they get more >back.
But, what is absolutely key to Bush's plan is the elimination of the estate
tax. Not just exempting the first couple of million instead of the present
600k, but eliminating it. I believe that accounts for 1 trillion of Bush�s
package. And, the repeal of the estate tax undoes what I remember as over
100 years of tax policy in the US. IIRC, the estate tax existed from the
founding of the country as a means of keeping landed gentry from taking
hold.
>How heartless of the 'rich' to expect fairness out of an unfair system.
>Since we are talking about the future surplus, let's point out that Gore
>can't pay down the Debt because he's spending the money on other programs.
In what sense is the idea of taxing the rich at a significantly higher rate
than the poor unfair? It is an expression of social obligations. I believe
that we have a responsibility to the society that we live in. And, I
believe that of those that have been given much, much should be expected. I
write that as someone who has been given a great deal.
As it stands now, the rich have a tremendous leg up on everyone else. Even
with the present tax structure, the best predictor of future wealth is
present wealth. Income mobility in the US is really fairly low,
> If the plan works then why is everybody talking about it? Because
>it's a horrible mess and has been since FDR started it. The idea was a good
>one but now everyone has their hand out asking 'where's mine?' Both parties
>have included the SSN money in budget calculations and stealing the money
>to
>be paid back later. Yes the money was originally supposed to go out as it
>came in, the money I pay in today is to help an elderly or disabled person
>today. But for years it has been obvious that the system would collapse
>under it's own weight, that I can't put enough money in today to support
>someone today.
The problem that we have is that, if we let younger workers opt out of SS,
then the middle aged workers like me are going to lose out or we will have
to devote virtually the entire budget to SS and Medicare. It is a difficult
situation, I�ll agree with that, but I don�t see Bush�s plan addressing the
problem. Also, his plan will decrease the leveling effect of SS on economic
swings.
>That's why it needs changed. If back when it started the
>money coming in was untouched, except for what was needed, and invested in
>secure bonds then there would be no problem.
You need to remember that borrowing from SS to fund the federal government
didn�t really start in earnest until around 1980.
>
>I don't care how selfish this sounds, I have to look after me and
>mine. If I'm paying for something that I will never get any benefit from
>then you can bet your bippy I don't want to pay anymore.
Well there are many people who feel as you do. But, I am strongly opposed
to that viewpoint. If we all only do things for selfish reasons, then the
only social structure we will have is the rule of the strong over the weak.
> As a reverse of the last issue: where's the problem? Again everyone
>has their hand out. I want free health care! I want free drugs! I want to
>be
>just like the British or Canadians! (who come here for health care). The
>best health plan for this country would be to outlaw fast food and make
>exercise MANDATORY. I hate the HMO's and insurance companies but let the
> >government 'run the show?' Better the devil(s) I know then the one I
>don't.
But, we have spent at 2x the average of Western countries on medical care
without any measurable advantage in longevity or infant mortality. (I think
that number may have gone down for a bit. There is no doubt that we have
the best care money can buy. But I have friends that work in free clinics,
and the horrible health problems that could have been solved fairly cheaply
is another fact of life here.
> This is where the confusion comes in. You want everything to be
>diverse and color-blind except when you need to prove a point. 'That
>country
>club only has 11% minority membership when the local population is 12%.
>They're bigots!' If the best people for the jobs are 60 year old white men
>then let them do their work. Go sell your racial fears somewhere else.
Why are you opposed to measurement? Your example is within statistical
significance. But there are many cases that are not within statistical
significance. Let me give you a clear example of discrimination from where
I worked. In �87, Baker Hughes laid off 25 people. All were over 55. Out
of about 200 remaining people, only 2 were over 55.
To me, that is a clear case of discrimination against the older workers.
The probability of that just being random chance is rather small. The
chance that these workers, who had all survived three previous layoffs,
having all been in the rankings of valued employees that had them laid off
all at once in the fourth layoff is very low. But, at the time, the
official word from management was that it was just coincidence that all the
folks laid off were older. And, there is no way to prove on a case by case
basis that there was discrimination.
Do you think my use of statistical analysis in this case is valid? Do you
think that we shouldn�t measure? I don�t really understand where you are
coming from, except that you seem to have a strong suspicion of statistical
analysis.
Dan'm Traeki Ring of Crystallized Knowledge.
Known for calculating, but not known for shutting up
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
