I may be wrong, but it seems like you are agreeing with me.
I am NOT disagreeing with you. But you are missing my point - much of the increased spending recently occurred in an attempt to save the economy from a Great Depression-like event. Clamping down on spending was tried by the Hoover administration last time, and it did not work. People who say stimulus spending and bailouts are failure (Republican political candidates, often) because the economy is stagnant fail to allow for the possibility that things might have been much, much worse without the spending.Are you aware that during BOs tenure unemployment and underemployment is over 16%? And that duringthat same period the Federal Government not only got larger but the number of people making over $100,000 a year increased dramatically? You solve the deficit by spending less not more. The percentage of taxes compared to the GNP is at the highest it's ever been and the solution is to make it higher? Thats what the liberals are saying.
But, even if this spending saved us from greater pain in the short term, the question becomes - will this bite us in the *** down the road? Probably. Pick your poison.
I am currently working (as a contractor) in a federal building. About half the people I see walking around strike me as marginally employable in the private sector. A superficial assessment to be sure, but it agrees with your stats.A recent study actually shows the rate of turnover in Govt jobs is less than 1%. Anything less than 3% is keeping worthless employees.