Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 9:30 AM ET, 02/15/2011

Federal Budget 2012: 15,000 more federal workers?

By Ed O'Keefe

Despite the focus on cutting back the size and scope of government, the Obama administration's proposed 2012 budget would add about 15,000 employees to the federal payroll when compared to the estimates for the current fiscal year.

The number of government workers would decrease when the 2012 proposal is compared to the 2010 budget. (Remember -- Congress hasn't passed a 2011 budget and is working on legislation to fund the remaining seven months of the fiscal year.)

Take a look at the numbers below, and you'll see where the growth would occur:


The growth is related to new activities in certain agencies, including the Treasury Department, the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, according to Office of Management and Budget Director Jacob J. Lew. "If you look agency by agency, you'll see that it's not a story of broad-based growth. It's in the most cases pretty concentrated," Lew said Monday.

There would be a loss of about 7,000 civilian workers at the Defense Department offset by gains at the departments of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security and Justice in addition to the gains at Treasury, the SEC and CFTC. All other agencies appear flat.

The budget doesn't explain most of the new hires or reductions and department officials didn't discuss employment specifics on Monday. But the budget does mention plans to hire 300 new U.S. Border Patrol agents.

Graphic by Pam Tobey. Staff writer Eric Yoder contributed to this report.

Leave your thoughts in the comments section below

By Ed O'Keefe  | February 15, 2011; 9:30 AM ET
Categories:  Budget, Workplace Issues  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Valentine's Day budget (Video)
Next: Federal Budget 2012: Tell us what you think

Comments

Awesome, more dead wood. I could see adding 15,000 if you cut 60,000 first and then hired some halfway competent people to take their places. It'll never happen though, of course.

Posted by: getjiggly1 | February 15, 2011 10:33 AM | Report abuse

So, getjiggly, what do you do for a living, speaking of dead wood?

Posted by: PZ007 | February 15, 2011 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Let us get real here.
The total of corporate income taxes in the US for 2012 is projected to be only 329 billion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/30-years-spending-priorities-federal-budget-2012/?hpid=artslot

For context, Wall Street compensation in 2010 was 135 billion for only 25 publicly trade finance companies. Exxon alone had profits of 30 billion on revenues of 383 billion. They paid no corporate income taxes in 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704124504576118421859347048.html

And we need to cut corporate income taxes?

Posted by: FoundingMother | February 15, 2011 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Is it me or does it seem the only jobs being produce by this administration is government job, while private sector is loosing more and more jobs?

Posted by: tateofpa | February 15, 2011 12:40 PM | Report abuse

"Nothing is easier than spending the public money. It doesn't appear to belong to anybody." - Calvin Coolidge

Posted by: 2012frank | February 15, 2011 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Increases or decreases tell you nothing about impact on the mission. Defense burns through billions every year in wasteful acquisition projects (hello, Airborne Laser) but also spends billions on fighting Al Qaeda. If you cut or add money, what's the impact? Blanket numbers tel you nothing. Same thing with the number of civil servants -- if you subtract 1.1%, where, exactly, will it hurt? And how much?

Posted by: dragon2eden | February 15, 2011 1:46 PM | Report abuse

At least someone is trying to provide jobs. How's it going for you Republicans?

Posted by: Falling4Ever | February 15, 2011 2:28 PM | Report abuse

"At least someone is trying to provide jobs." Welp - you heard the quote on good intentions. Besides - you'd try to create jobs, too, if you didn't have to pay for them to be hired.

Barack is trying to provide jobs by covering payroll with the US Taxpayer credit card. So much for trying to provide jobs.. then again some of you are clueless in thinking the government actually create jobs.

Barack is only creating jobs for unions.. at taxpayer's expense. Everyone else is expendable unless the DNC can get a vote from you.

Posted by: homersimpson10 | February 15, 2011 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company