Not really, from my experience in public sector employment, it tends to trail the general private sector by about a year or 2. Further, the varying levels of government tend to trail the one above it by a year or two. So for example, even though the national economy collapsed in 2008, it wasn't until 2010 that Pennsylvania did its first round of massive lay offs followed by another big round in 2011.

That seems about right.

January to January change in employment

Year...Private..Public.. Diff
2003...-0.5%....1.2%...-1.7%
2004....0.2%...-0.4%....0.6%
2005....1.7%....0.9%....0.8%
2006....2.3%....0.5%....1.8%
2007....1.6%....1.1%....0.4%
2008....0.5%....1.3%...-0.7%
2009...-4.0%....0.9%...-4.9%
2010...-3.8%...-0.4%...-3.3%
2011....1.3%...-1.0%....2.3%
2012....2.1%...-1.2%....3.3%

The 2011 and 2012 public sector reduction has got to be related to the Republicans taking control of the House.

How much of the increase from 2003 - 2008 in public sector employment is attributable to the wars and growt of homeland security? Maybe more than 100% of it.

ray

The 2011 and 2012 public sector reduction has got to be related to the Republicans taking control of the House.

Why?
What legislation passed congress that would suggest the house had an impact

The rule in US politics of late, is that you attack your opponent in areas of eprceived strength. When you knock out the underpinnings of the perception of strength, you generally weaken the candidate.

Paraphrasing from a recent Dem commenter from Massachussetts:
Romney is a failed one term governor. When he was governor of my state we were 47th in job creation and his tax legislation was largely bait and switch. he didn`t even boterh running for re-election he was so far behind in the polls.
Today, with a Democrat in the state house our unemployment rate is amongst the lowest in the country at 6.5%

Now, if this is the kind of thing Romney has to face on a daily basis, justifying his record as a governor, how does the public perception that he holds an advantage over Obama in handling the economy hold up.
Steve, when i say Obama hasn`t started campaigning, you may feel he`s been stumping everywhere.... But you`ve got to know that the money hasn`t started to fill the airwaves. At the moment Obama has a cash advantage over Romney... That money is goint to be used to go after Romney on his currently perceived strength.
And by the way, Romney is behind anywhere from 11 to 24 percentage points in Massachussetts. Where they know his record of governance first hand...

rickyp wrote:ray

The 2011 and 2012 public sector reduction has got to be related to the Republicans taking control of the House.

Why?
What legislation passed congress that would suggest the house had an impact

That's exactly my point.

Ray Jay wrote:The 2011 and 2012 public sector reduction has got to be related to the Republicans taking control of the House.

Correlation is not causation.

Perhaps Ray Jay is saying it is the fact that legislatoins were not passed?

I think it's worth pointing out that ARJ was showing that it was State action in Pa that cut a lot of public jobs. It's also worth pointing out that even with a Congressional majority in 2011 and 2012, the impact would not have been immediate - it's notable that public jobs were going down before then.

A lot of the stimulus bill funding went to protect state employees (teachers and police). With the Republican majority there wasn't an additional stimulus bill to help fund state deficits.

Ah, so if crime goes up, we know who cut the policing bills...

rickyp wrote:The rule in US politics of late, is that you attack your opponent in areas of eprceived strength. When you knock out the underpinnings of the perception of strength, you generally weaken the candidate.

The Republicans will search in vain for Obama's underpinnings of the perception of his strength (catchy phrase by the way).

Paraphrasing from a recent Dem commenter from Massachussetts:
Romney is a failed one term governor. When he was governor of my state we were 47th in job creation and his tax legislation was largely bait and switch. he didn`t even boterh running for re-election he was so far behind in the polls.
Today, with a Democrat in the state house our unemployment rate is amongst the lowest in the country at 6.5%

This is really ill-informed.

Our current governor got reelected. You know how? By raising sales taxes and tolls, and killing jobs. You know why that "worked?"

Because this State is overwhelmingly Democratic. It is a testimony to Romney's conservative governance that the socialist proletariat did not approve.

Now, if this is the kind of thing Romney has to face on a daily basis, justifying his record as a governor, how does the public perception that he holds an advantage over Obama in handling the economy hold up.

Um, because Obama makes Roscoe the Rooster look like an economic genius?

Is Obama running on his record or attacking his opponent? Is he running around bragging about Obamacare? Boasting about the stunning effectiveness of his Stimulus?

Steve, when i say Obama hasn`t started campaigning, you may feel he`s been stumping everywhere.... But you`ve got to know that the money hasn`t started to fill the airwaves.

If he had, that would be great, because even Obama the Mighty fundraiser, utilizing the likes of misogynist Bill Maher and criminal Jon Corzine, can't afford to "fill the airwaves" from now until November.

At the moment Obama has a cash advantage over Romney..

Ricky, are you going to change your moniker to "Captain Obvious?"

Let's see. Romney hasn't really finished his primary yet. Obama had no opposition. Hmmm, who should have more money? Obama is the incumbent; Romney the challenger. Who should have more money?

If Romney had more money at this point, Obama would be behind by 30 in the polls.

And by the way, Romney is behind anywhere from 11 to 24 percentage points in Massachussetts. Where they know his record of governance first hand...

Yeah. Do you know how ignorant your statement is? Do you know anything about MA's politics? Anything?

If Romney was up in MA, Obama would be down 20-25 points nationally. If Obama has to spend any time or money in MA, he's already lost.

I don't care if you change your name officially or not, you have become "Captain Obvious."

danivon wrote:Ah, so if crime goes up, we know who cut the policing bills...

^Ridiculous.

Other than the FBI and a few, relatively small agencies, police work is funded at the State and local levels. That President Obama has tried to nationalize the funding of this and teachers is his economic foolishness and not the way things ought to be.

Why, other than dogma is a greater degree of national police funding not 'the way thing ought to be?'. And, if States are cutting back, what is so desperately wrong with helping them to not cut back on one of the essentials of governance - policing and civil protection?

A lot of state funding is going towards pensions and health care for retirees. Generous promises were made, but were never funded because state and local budgeting does not require accounting for these future costts (whereas in the private sector you must acciount for it). This overhang promised by politicians (who are often now retired with generous retirement plans) is crowding out state funding for much else. There are only a few state politicians who have had the courage to deal with this.