How does 250,000 more federal government employees sound?

After a generation of reductions in the federal work force, Obama must be feeling lonely. In order to accomplish his transformation of America, he is going to have to find 250,000 people who don't mind high paying jobs with excellent benefits and a health plan most people would kill to have and sign them up to work at federal agencies:

Other shoes are dropping all over the place this week. At The New York Times, columnist David Brooks surveys events since inauguration day and admits that “Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice.” And here in the nation’s capitol, The Washington Post concedes that Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget is “so ambitious, with vast new spending on health care, energy independence, education and services for veterans, that experts say he probably will need to hire tens of thousands of new federal government workers to realize his goals.” Estimates of how many new bureaucrats range between 100,000 and 250,000, but whatever the eventual total, according to the Post, the result is certain “to reverse a generational decline in the size of the government workforce.”
 
Oh really? Where exactly were such people when then-Sen. Barack Obama was compiling a voting record described by the National Journal – not exactly a charter member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy  – as “the most liberal” in the U.S. Senate? What blinded so many otherwise intelligent folks to the obvious facts about Obama’s grossly ambitious health care, energy and environmental plans for vastly expanding the reach and power of the federal government into the daily lives of the American people? Can they really have not known that Obama’s vision inevitably includes record-breaking tax hikes that penetrate far beyond “the rich” deep into the middle class? Or without sending forth swarms of eager, just-hired bureaucrats determined to add thousands of cumbersome new regulations and thereby permanently entrench their programs?

But everyone in the press said he was a "moderate," didn't they? Maybe they meant "moderate radical" or perhaps "moderate revolutionary." Adding a couple of hundred thousand jobs in the federal government during a recession means another quarter million votes for our messiah of hope and change who promised to change politics in Washington.

Actually, he is changing things - sort of. He is reinstituting the idea of the spoils system where his supporters (for the most part as government workers are overwhelmingly Democratic) get rewarded for voting him into office.

Nice work if you can get it.







After a generation of reductions in the federal work force, Obama must be feeling lonely. In order to accomplish his transformation of America, he is going to have to find 250,000 people who don't mind high paying jobs with excellent benefits and a health plan most people would kill to have and sign them up to work at federal agencies:

Other shoes are dropping all over the place this week. At The New York Times, columnist David Brooks surveys events since inauguration day and admits that “Barack Obama is not who we thought he was. His words are responsible; his character is inspiring. But his actions betray a transformational liberalism that should put every centrist on notice.” And here in the nation’s capitol, The Washington Post concedes that Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget is “so ambitious, with vast new spending on health care, energy independence, education and services for veterans, that experts say he probably will need to hire tens of thousands of new federal government workers to realize his goals.” Estimates of how many new bureaucrats range between 100,000 and 250,000, but whatever the eventual total, according to the Post, the result is certain “to reverse a generational decline in the size of the government workforce.”
 
Oh really? Where exactly were such people when then-Sen. Barack Obama was compiling a voting record described by the National Journal – not exactly a charter member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy  – as “the most liberal” in the U.S. Senate? What blinded so many otherwise intelligent folks to the obvious facts about Obama’s grossly ambitious health care, energy and environmental plans for vastly expanding the reach and power of the federal government into the daily lives of the American people? Can they really have not known that Obama’s vision inevitably includes record-breaking tax hikes that penetrate far beyond “the rich” deep into the middle class? Or without sending forth swarms of eager, just-hired bureaucrats determined to add thousands of cumbersome new regulations and thereby permanently entrench their programs?

But everyone in the press said he was a "moderate," didn't they? Maybe they meant "moderate radical" or perhaps "moderate revolutionary." Adding a couple of hundred thousand jobs in the federal government during a recession means another quarter million votes for our messiah of hope and change who promised to change politics in Washington.

Actually, he is changing things - sort of. He is reinstituting the idea of the spoils system where his supporters (for the most part as government workers are overwhelmingly Democratic) get rewarded for voting him into office.

Nice work if you can get it.