CHART: States That Cut The Most Spending Have Lost The Most

There’s a new cult of economic thought sweeping the nation — or at least many Republican (and even some Democratic) political circles. Its adherents cling to the erroneous belief that sharp government spending cuts will revitalize economic growth and create much needed new jobs

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) is an ardent follower of this Cut-Grow cult, as are a number of high profile governors. For instance, Gov. John Kasich (R-OH) declared, “We’re going to have to reduce spending…to create a platform for economic growth.” When Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) delivered his budget to the state Legislature he argued, “We must continue to cut government spending” to create jobs and prosperity for New Jersey families. Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) vowed his budget “lays [the] foundation to create jobs.”

Now these Republicans want the American public to drink a giant glass of their Cut-Grow Kool-Aid. But the data actually show the opposite of their claims to be true: steep spending cuts are hampering economic recovery in some states, while other states that resisted cuts or increased spending are now seeing declining unemployment rates, faster private-sector job creation, and stronger economic growth.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/0 ... ding-jobs/

Reminds me in the late '80's when we in the military were told to "do more with less".

It is an interesting chart. Says too me that gov't size relative to the economy is significant enough that reducing spending, reduces public jobs. So the job trend shows in the data. I guess we could print money and have everyone work for the government, 0% unemployment.

Duh! Captain Obvious.

When you are spending 40% more than you are taking in, cutting back will hurt you in the short term. But long term, staying within your budget only makes sense.

And right now when you are borrowing money at 1% and have a bad economy, it might make sense to pump up the volume of spending in a effort to prime the pump of the economy, but eventually we could be like Greece, having to pay 9% or more to get banks to loan to us.

So- What we should do is spend even more - and keep spending.

Idiots!

Joe wrote: It is an interesting chart. Says too me that gov't size relative to the economy is significant enough that reducing spending, reduces public jobs.

The people who want to pare down government and eliminate agencies seem to forget all those government employees would go on unemployment... I doubt the private sector could absorb them.

WayneH wrote:

Joe wrote: It is an interesting chart. Says too me that gov't size relative to the economy is significant enough that reducing spending, reduces public jobs.

The people who want to pare down government and eliminate agencies seem to forget all those government employees would go on unemployment... I doubt the private sector could absorb them.

Long term, the private sector could and would absorb them. Short term is the problem. Gradual cuts would probably be the best, since attrition could play a major role in cutting the government workforce.

Any solutions will cause pain for some.

Cutting government spending will cause great pain to government employees now, but make all of us happier in the long run.

Increasing government spending or maintinaing the current spend-fest will be painful for all of us in the long run.

Long term, the private sector could and would absorb them. Short term is the problem. Gradual cuts would probably be the best, since attrition could play a major role in cutting the government workforce.

No - I don't agree.

Cut it all now.

I don't care how many government jobs are lost, the government should never have grown that big to begin with. Government must now pare back to the level it can afford- just like the private sector is forced to do. We should not ever keep a bigger government for the sake of a government employee.

Government jobs do not add economic activity- or help an economy, in the end it hurts the economy because those dollars must be taken from the private economy where they are used most efficiently.

Massive cuts are neede now- to prepare our financial condition for the economy to prosper in the future. Gradual cuts only prolong the situation into years of bad economic conditions.

WayneH wrote:

Joe wrote: It is an interesting chart. Says too me that gov't size relative to the economy is significant enough that reducing spending, reduces public jobs.

The people who want to pare down government and eliminate agencies seem to forget all those government employees would go on unemployment... I doubt the private sector could absorb them.

Cut 5% per year of employees and try not to rehire would be less of a shock. And follow New Zealand's plan and try to move as much as possible to the private sector. Example, the USDA's SWAT team, hire Blackwater instead for when you actually need them.

And each municipality could hire their own water inspectors. And the airlines could hire their own flight safety people. And large food processors could hire their own food inspectors. What could possibly go wrong?