Curious..............

[auburnatl1 6,189]

17 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Nevertheless, Reagan actually increased the size of government, although at a slightly lower rate than the previous president. 

"The number of federal civilian employees increased 4.2% during Reagan's eight years, compared to 6.5% during the preceding eight years." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

 

On the other hand, Bill Clinton reduced the size of the government workforce with the "Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994". https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PPP-1994-book1/pdf/PPP-1994-book1-doc-pg561.pdf

""The big downsizing happened during the Clinton years as part of reinventing government," Kettl said. "And that ended up reducing the size of government significantly. But during the [George W.] Bush administration there was an increase in employment, especially because of TSA. So there is a paradox there." https://www.federaltimes.com/management/2016/01/08/5-shifts-that-transformed-federal-service/

 

And even Obama had a reform based agenda focused on "Performance Based Budgeting" (PBB) https://spp.umd.edu/sites/default/files/2021-10/Obama Administration PBB.pdf

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/proper-size-governments

 

My only point is that Reagan - and Republicans - are not uniquely the 'be all/end all' when it comes to reducing the size of government and/or increasing it's efficiency.

 

Gingrich had a lot to do with Clinton’s metamorphosis - but I understand your point.

Anyway, those republicans went extinct from the maga meteor strike. Now we get to argue instead about transgender and light colors on bridges.

[aubiefifty 18,260]

3 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

You

my apologies sir i usuLLY SAVE THE WORST COMMENTS FOR YOU BRO...can i call you bro? grins

[cbo 8,796]

3 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

The heart of the disagreement.

I understand that line of thinking and somewhat agree with it. 

The problem is it can lead to "solutions" like privatizing prisons and doubling the number of prisoners, as Reagan did during his term. 

[auburnatl1 6,189]

2 minutes ago, cbo said:

I understand that line of thinking and somewhat agree with it. 

The problem is it can lead to "solutions" like privatizing prisons and doubling the number of prisoners, as Reagan did during his term. 

Thats a much more interesting discussion than teachers going after our kids penises. The role/balance of free market and the gov.

 

 

[cbo 8,796]

26 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Thats a much more interesting discussion than teachers going after our kids penises. The role/balance of free market and the gov.

 

 

Who'd have guessed I would agree this often with a Republican?

[auburnatl1 6,189]

1 hour ago, cbo said:

Who'd have guessed I would agree this often with a Republican?

I’ve been slowly  working on you for years😇Btw I switched to independent in 2016 (we won’t tell anyone about our anti-freeze phase).

Edited June 7 by auburnatl1

[cbo 8,796]

3 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

I’ve been slowly  working on you for years😇Btw I switched to independent in 2016 (we won’t tell anyone about our anti-freeze phase).

Shhhh ... don't get me kicked out of here. 

[DKW 86 7,910]

On 6/5/2024 at 12:18 PM, aubiefifty said:

how many of you that think biden has declined so bad he should step down when mr raygun could not tell you his own name and nancy had to answer all the questions. so tell me what the difference? i have yet to hear a repub say a word about poor ol ronnie. why is that?

They both should have stepped down. We do not need another Willson Situation where instead of the VP taking over, the WH was run by the wife and his ADM and Advisors.

[Mims44 2,009]

On 6/6/2024 at 4:09 PM, homersapien said:

Nevertheless, Reagan actually increased the size of government, although at a slightly lower rate than the previous president. 

"The number of federal civilian employees increased 4.2% during Reagan's eight years, compared to 6.5% during the preceding eight years." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

 

On the other hand, Bill Clinton reduced the size of the government workforce with the "Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994". https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PPP-1994-book1/pdf/PPP-1994-book1-doc-pg561.pdf

""The big downsizing happened during the Clinton years as part of reinventing government," Kettl said. "And that ended up reducing the size of government significantly. But during the [George W.] Bush administration there was an increase in employment, especially because of TSA. So there is a paradox there." https://www.federaltimes.com/management/2016/01/08/5-shifts-that-transformed-federal-service/

 

And even Obama had a reform based agenda focused on "Performance Based Budgeting" (PBB) https://spp.umd.edu/sites/default/files/2021-10/Obama Administration PBB.pdf

https://www.fraserinstitute.org/article/proper-size-governments

 

My only point is that Reagan - and Republicans - are not uniquely the 'be all/end all' when it comes to reducing the size of government and/or increasing it's efficiency.

 

I am not read up enough to say with any confidence that this is the norm... BUT;

My time in the federal government, whenever there was a 'reduction'.... it just meant more contractors. And every time I'm aware of it actually cost more. They let go of a bunch of GS 5-7-9-11s and hire a contract team capable of paying every member GS 13 pay.

But on paper it looks like a "reduction of government"

 

not partisan at all... just something I've noticed.

And if given the choice, I'd rather they hire federal employees over more contracts.