American politics - are we all for Big Government? (fun with numbers)

If you are interested in how this November's election will affect the size of the Federal Government, here's a little quiz to help you get your bearings.  The statement below is either True or False; which is it?

Under the Obama Administration, the U.S. Federal Government is bigger than it has ever been before.

What's your answer?  Is the statement True or is it False?

So as to not prolong the agony -- that's a false statement.

Here's another one for you; is it True or False?

Republican Presidents consistently preside over smaller Federal Governments than do Democratic Presidents.

What do you think of that statement?  Is it True or is it False?

It, too, is an incorrect statement; it's false.

At this point, you might be thinking things like this:  (a) What kind of measurements are we talking about here?  (b) What does he mean by "bigger" and "smaller?"  (c) Whatever evidence this guy has must be the result of cherry-picking from some very special circumstances, right?  (d) Is he crazy?!?

All are good questions.

When has the U.S. had "big government?"

The reality that explodes the myths inherent in the political rhetoric about "big government types" versus "small government types" is that the size of the Obama Federal government is pretty much at the mid-point of the ranges that have been the case since 1962 for all Administrations, whether they have been Democrat or Republican.

Over the last half-century, total Federal personnel--not including the military--peaked in 1989 and 1990 at just over 3.1 million.  Those years were during the George H. W. Bush Administration.  1990 was a U.S. Census year, so its employment figure includes the temporary Census employees, but that fact doesn't make any difference to the rankings.  Military personnel are not included in these counts; these are just the civilian Federal employees for all three branches of the Federal Government.

By the way, primary source material here is the Historical Federal Workforce Tables compiled by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  You can see the numbers for yourself by clicking the links as the mood strikes you.

At the other end of the scale, the smallest Federal Government workforce was during the years of 1962 through 1965--Kennedy and Johnson Administrations--when the employment number was right around 2.5 million.

During 2009 and 2010, President Obama presided over a Federal Government that required about 2.8 million employees (including the temporary Census employees during 2010).

So, the two statements posed at the beginning of this essay are False because (1) President George H. W. Bush's Administration required Federal employment that was about 11% greater than under President Barack Obama; and, (2) President Bush is and was a Republican, and President Obama is a Democrat (admittedly, a partisan statement of mere factoids with which the reader during 2012 is already familiar, but potentially of greater importance in years hence in case this blog survives long enough that some future reader might be far enough removed from the peculiarities of late-20th Century and early-21st Century American politics to have forgotten about party affiliations).

To be fair, Federal employment under President George W. Bush was smaller than under President Obama, with numbers that were typically in the range of 2.7 million to 2.8 million, but we're starting to talk about very small differences here.  And, under the Clinton Administrations of 1993 to 2000, Federal employment started at about 3.0 million and trended down from there to about 2.7 million, which is the point at which things were picked up by the Bush Presidency.

Aw, shucks -- what about Reagan?

In 1985, during the Reagan Administration--the icon of small-government adherents--Federal government employment was about 3.1 million.  That's quite a bit larger than during the Obama years cited above.

The notion of the size of the Federal government in relation to the size of the American population has relevance here.  As an example of what could be done for the employment numbers during all of the different Administrations, let's note that in 1985 the total population of the United States was approximately 238 million.  Total U.S. population in 2010 was about 309 million according to that year's Census.

On a per capita basis, President Obama is presiding over a much smaller Federal government than did President Reagan!

It's really pretty simple

To simplify this for those of us with MBAs and other such advanced degrees -- current USA population of 309 million is about 129% of what it was in 1985 (238 million), so adjusting for that population difference means that the Federal employment during that Reagan year would be the same as if Federal employment were over 3.6 million during the Obama Administration (2.8 million Obama Federal employees multiplied by 129%)!

Another way of looking at it is to observe that Federal employment during the Reagan year was about 11% greater in absolute numbers than it was in the Obama year, even though the nation's population was about 23% smaller.

The passage of a quarter century's worth of time has seen the introduction of a huge amount of productivity changes in all forms of employment.  The Federal government--in fact, all levels of American government--has participated in that productivity boom.

Nonetheless, if the size of Federal government is measured by its employment numbers, there is scant evidence to support the notion that Democrats in general, or President Obama in particular, can fill the role of standard-bearer for "Big Government."

Nor would it necessarily be true to say that Ronald Reagan, or either Bush, or Republicans overall are advocates for a big Federal government.  Recent and current political rhetoric would seem to indicate their predisposition to just the opposite; the problem with that rhetoric is that it is not supported by the realities of history.  However, let's be generous here and give them the benefit of the doubt.

Perhaps we all like big government. . .or not

All of this begs the questions:  "Where are all those 'Big Government' types, anyway?  Where did they all go?"

Beats me.  Maybe all of us are for big government, as long as it is doing whatever it is that we want it to do.  Or, maybe we are all in favor of small government, and that's what we have, indeed, and we just don't want to admit that we already have it right in front of us.

Naturally, there are other measures that can be used to compare the size of government from one year to another.  Perhaps all such measures are of equal worth.  It seems, though, that employment must be counted among the most worthy of all the measures, because it is real, live people who are employed--"numbers" are not employed, those employees are genuine people; and, importantly, what they do touches in some way on real people and not just on sterile enumerations of constituencies, and of groups, and of minorities and of majorities.  From beginning to end, and at all points in between, government is ultimately about people.

(Cynics, take note:  you've been baited!)

We have different opinions about the role of government in our lives.  That's been a fact for the United States since the beginnings of the country.  It's such an ingrained part of the American political psyche that it would seem downright weird if it were to ever go away.

But opinions must be evaluated in light of the facts.

The consequence of thinking odd thoughts and having fun with numbers

Almost forgot about the issue of sanity; well, let's keep that for another time.