« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

US Census Data Show’s Perry increased Texas Government twice as much as the federal government grew over a similar period

By: chrysostom15 (Diary)  |  December 15th, 2011 at 03:10 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Source: http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/01stltx.txt; http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/10stltx.txt

Facts: Texas had 1,209,448 full time equivalent employees in state and local government in 2001.  In 2010, that number increased to 1,452,324 — a 20% increase in the number of state and local public employees.  In 2001, their salary was $3,307,060,535; in 2010 it was $5,344,915,131 – a 62% increase in salaries.

If we only look at state-level employees (and exclude local), there remains an increase from 284,371 to 306,398 (8% increase) employees, with salary increases from $827,697,576 to $1,328,253,453 (a 60% increase).  Again, Perry increased the size of government in Texas, increasing the number of federal workers.

Sources: http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/01fedfun.txt; http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/09fedfun.pdf

Meanwhile, in the federal government there were 2,697,602 employees in 2011, and in 2009 (last year with data) there are 2,823,777 an increase of 4.6% and with salaries from $11,369,841,107 in 2001 to $15,105,511,892 in 2009 an increase of 33%.

In other words — Texas increased its number of state employees — and their pay — twice as much as did the federal government.

 

Perry is far less fiscally conservative than Bush was, and has grown the size of Texas government far more than the growth in the federal government over the last decade.  Furthermore, much of the spending increase in the federal government during that time was military; Texas was a different story.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Ann_W

    Watch out– you’re going to get slammed here on RickperryState.

    • californiagold

      n/t

  • gekster

    What percent population of the whole US to Texas when factoring in the increase.

    What part of he increase were local, as compared to state, which Perry doesn’t have control of.

    What increase of state employees did Perry have a direct hand in.

    Figure in those numbers first, then write your hit piece.

    • chrysostom15

      Using your method, here are the numbers. Nationally, the population grew by 9.7% National employees grew 4.6%; so this would mean we CUT the number of federal workers — population growth included — by 5.1%. Federal salaries have decreased as compared to inflation .

      So, using your method, it would appears that the federal government has been shrinking — I guess your guy Perry doesn’t get that, since he keeps saying that the federal government is getting bigger.

      Meanwhile, taking your numbers, Texas government grew the same size as did its population, whereas the federal government was reduced by 5%…still, once again, the federal government shrunk more/grew less than Texas.

      Anyway,Perry’s plan is to freeze federal hiring and salaries. NOT to make them equal to inflation and population growth. Therefore the numbers here must be compared to what he says he will do.

      • gekster

        You didn’t answer the questions.

        What part of he increase were local, as compared to state, which Perry doesn?t have control of.

        What increase of state employees did Perry have a direct hand in.

        • chrysostom15

          At the state level, salaries for state employees increased 60%….my exact wording in the original post addressing your state v local complaint was:

          ——
          If we only look at state-level employees (and exclude local), there remains an increase from 284,371 to 306,398 (8% increase) employees, with salary increases from $827,697,576 to $1,328,253,453 (a 60% increase). Again, Perry increased the size of government in Texas, increasing the number of federal workers.
          —–

          Secondly, Perry goes have say over increases at the local level. Texas–like many other states — determins what taxes its localities can impose. It is pure non-sense to suggest that local spending in any state cannot be limited by the state. Any state can ban or limit spending of any locality within that state. Texas does that. So, increases in state + local are the right measure.

          • chrysostom15

            It is just growing. In fact, it is growing at a faster pace than the federal government over the last decade. If you consider things like population growth — the federal government is shrinking and Texas is staying level. If you do not, Texas is growing faster than the federal government.

            The bottom line is the same. Perry is claiming that federal spending is out of control and that he can cut is as president. He has specific plans to freeze federal hiring and salaries. That is not consistant with his record as governor.

            Tax burden rose while he was governor; and compared to the federal government, the size of the texas state and local government increased.

            Yes, taxes are still lower in Texas than in most states; but they are higher under Perry than they were under Bush.

          • avagreen

            As a Perry “supporter”, I’m sure you are aware of this.

  • izoneguy

    In 2001 – Texas had 1,209,448 state employees
    In 2001 – The population of Texas was 20,851,820

    In 2010 – Texas had 1,452,324 state employees
    In 2010 – The population of Texas was 25,145,561

    Both 17% Increases – the number of employees was reflected
    by the states population.

    Actually –

    in 2001 each state employee served 17.2 Texans
    in 2010 each state employee served 17.3 Texans

    • gekster

      The diarist conveniently left that bit of information out.

      • chrysostom15

        Perry’s plan is to freeze federal salaries and not allow any new hires for the federal government. It is not to freeze salaries at the rate of inflation or cap hiring to equal to population growth.

        I added in above the population growth v government growth data (as did another poster), which shows that Texas still increased its government faster than did the federal government.

        And lest not forget that much of the federal government increase was defense — Texas growth was for domestic issues.

        • acat

          My wages have been capped by the economy for at least 2 years now. Meanwhile, theirs have kept on going up, COLA’d every year.

          In this economy, I really don’t see a problem with wanting to freeze – in *real* terms – their wages.

          Mew

    • quill67

      Thanks Izo. Another way of saying it is that there are fewer state employees per person in Texas now than in 2001.

      Chysostom, the Texas economy grew and added people. This means that it needed more employees to meet the need AND had to pay them more. You see a growing economy means that state governments have to compete for workers from the private sector.

      If you want to make the case that Texas does not need so many workers then you have to come up with facts and numbers that support your point. Try this:
      Find some state, X, and find out how many government workers (state and local together because in some states functions are performed by state workers and in others they are performed by local workers. Of course, it evey gets more complicated because some states contract out work to private sector companies while others have state/local workers perform these tasks.)

      Therefore, the best way to examine this issue is by looking at taxes per citizen per year compared to average income per worker. This is done because cost of living may be very different and the need for certain government functions may also increase. For example, Houston will have more fire fighters because of the oil refineries that it serves.

  • lineholder

    Are the years represented for federal numbers backwards? Because if they aren’t, the numbers you’ve displayed indicate a decrease in federal employment, not an increase.

    BLS data does show a decrease in federal employees between 2009 and 2011. At least, the last time I checked, which was probably a month ago, that is what was indicated. That’s why I asked.

    • chrysostom15

      Although if we did numbers through today, it would show a significantly smaller federal workforce; and a slightly larger texas state and local workforce. (with the state part a big smaller and local part a bit bigger)

  • avagreen

    I’m not sure where this one comes from, but the numbers are these (and can be found by selecting government employment from the data wizard at this link http://www.bls.gov/sae/data.htm):

    Counting from the beginning of the recession (December 2007) the Texas public sector has grown 3.8%, or a little under 70,000 employees. This is faster than normal employment, but it’s not off the charts.

    Given that the Texas economy has grown so much and private sector jobs have grown so much, that doesn’t strike me as an unsustainable growth in the public sector.

    But, just in case you’re really worried about it, you can lay your fears to rest because in the last year the Texas public sector has shrunk by 26,000 jobs. In the last 12 months, Texas lost 31,300 federal employees, trimmed 3,800 state jobs, and increased local government jobs by 8,400 jobs.

    (To be fair, this was partially driven by the role Texas employees played in the census, which inflated federal job numbers this time last year. Since the census numbers stabilized, federal employment has been at about break-even.)

    http://www.politicalmathblog.com/?p=1590

    • chrysostom15

      Notice how, even in your numbers, the federal government is cutting 31,300 jobs in Texas; and Texasis cutting 3,900 state jobs; meanwhile, at the local level, Texas is adding 8,400 jobs.

      Perry talks like a government-cutter, and governs like a big-government tax and spender.

      • gekster

        “meanwhile, at the local level, Texas is adding 8,400 jobs”.

        How does Perry control the local level.

        • tyman

          it stands to reason that with Texas’ explosive population growth, the local municipalities would have to hire more workers (from people in planning and development, to law enforcement, etc.).

          Regarding the pay. There has to be more to it than just saying “Shazam! that’s a big increase”. I think these “increases” would have been a problem for him getting re-elected last year.

          Everything else aside, there IS a reason why people are moving to Texas and their economy is still growing, contrary to the rest of the country.

          I remember the debate where Ron Paul tried to say that his taxes in Texas went up. Ron Paul was confused…it was his property and local taxes that went up: nothing that Perry did.

          Everything has a context, and statistics that are taken out of context can make them say anything you want. Jesus was a horse thief if you take the Bible out of context.

          • avagreen

            Somewhere I read that the increase in state employees was the result of hiring more teachers.
            …..Teachers who were bi-lingual d/t the need to educate the children which are among the 1.6 million illegals in Texas, which Texas is under the Federal guidelines to…….educate.

            Here is an article that speaks to that:
            http://www.educationcenters.com/news/education-career/more-minority-teachers-needed-for-texas-students-502.php

            I also know that a large number of ads for employees in Texas now require/prefer someone who is bi-lingual, especially the non-profits such as MHMR, abuse centers, etc.
            Stands to reason the increase in needed bi-lingual teachers would swell the state numbers.

          • Menlo

            and there is lots of it.

            State variations in taxes and politics don’t play much role in major decisions like that, and they don’t have that much to do with the economy (which is not especially great in Texas, relative to the population).

          • retire05

            they move to Texas in seek of a job.

            Cheap land is no lure if you don’t have a job to pay for that land. So you cannot say that 1,000 people per week are all moving to Texas to access cheap land. You can get cheap land in North Dakota and Wyoming, so why are those states not seeing the influx in population like Texas?

            And land in Texas, except for perhaps remote areas in the Pan Handle, is not as cheap it it once was. Even in rural areas that are within a few hours driving time of a major city, is now going for $6,000/acre and up from there.

            The draw is jobs, primarily, and the low cost of taxes and cost of living. People can move from Detroit and live much better on less money in San Antonio or Houston (if they like big towns). Ironically, Austin is the highest cost of living city in Texas.

          • Menlo

            Unemployment rates aren’t lower in Texas than the rest of the nation.

            In Texas, it’s the larger cities and surrounding areas that have so much cheap land. Where I live, housing prices really have not changed much at all over the past quarter century, despite a more than sixfold increase in population. The land has to be cheap and plentiful because supply and demand would otherwise prevent so many people from being able to afford to move to the same place. However, there is no room for all the unsightly enormous vans and SUVs everyone seems to own ten of.

            Places like North Dakota and Wyoming don’t have any people either, so it’s a bit different.

        • chrysostom15

          1- Texas takes its citizens (and guests) and then gives that money to localities for many local activities such as education

          2- Texas passes laws to determine what taxes its localities can impose to supplement this money

          So, all the jobs and spending at the local level in Texas are either based on money directly given from Texas to the locality, or money that Texas approves to allow the localities to tax their citizens.

          In other words, there is no difference.

          • avagreen

            What does “Texas takes its citizens (and guests) and then gives that money to localities”……..mean?

            As a Perry “supporter”, I’m sure you will want to have the opportunity to explain this.

          • chrysostom15

            I ment “taxes”

            Texas taxes its citizens and guests and then gives the money to localities.

            It means that the localities get money from the state of Texas to spent for local programs/education/etc. Texas could reduce the size of local government either by 1- reducing this money given to localities, or 2- reducing the amount that Texas allows localities to tax

          • avagreen

            unless you think that Perry personally goes to each locality and hires the teachers, firefighters, police, etc. that each locality needs in order to function.

            The state merely provides the monies needed for the localities to function. The localities do the spending……..out of Perry’s hands, sorry. Additionally, you can speak to the legislature, which has the budgetary powers in Texas, not the Governor
            And, I’m just as sure rain (that we’re not receiving) this next year, the spending will be explosive d/t the fact that every county in Texas but one has had wildfires destroy property, burn up firefighting equipment ($300 a tire), along with the drought that has decimated crops/cattle.
            http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/08/news/economy/damages_texas_wildfires/index.htm

            The fact that we can function and still be among the lowest per capita debt-wise is a plus, not a minus.

            But, I’m just as sure as Perry “supporter” you are aware of this.

          • texashistorian

            Function largely on property taxes which are set and collected by , wait for it, local government. Nothing Perry can do. State monies that are dispersed are block granted, as Avagreen points out, not controlled from the governor’s mansion.

          • WA_Cowboy

            in 2000

            and what is it in 2010

            tie the two to inflation and I’m sure you’ll find numbers that are roughly the same.

            when a state adds 5 million in population, of course the local government is going to grow. TEachers, police, firefighters, city councils, administrators.

            your numbers don’t seem to account for population growth.

  • retire05

    according to my BLS figures, Texas has a total of 1,066,927 local government employees in 2010, of which 697,577 are in the educational system. The other roughly 370,000 include fire fighters, police officers, municipal utility workers, city hall employees, and state agency like the Department of Public Safety, etc. On a state level in 2010, there were 284,371 employees, of which 101,308 were in the education sector, including the state university system.

    Now, according to the U.S. debt clock, there are over 4,000,000 federal workers, none of which are involved in local/state education systems. The number of government workers is mostly represented by the educational systems in Texas.

    Now, if I use your figure of 1,452,324 state/local employees with a salary of $5,344,915,131 that comes to an average of $3,680.25/year.

    Can you explain such a low annual salary?

    Property taxes in Texas are set by a county commissioner’s court, although there are state limits on the rate per $100 that county appraisal districts are allowed to charge. Sales tax has two levels, state @ 6.25% and county and local which can increase sales tax to 8.25% maximum. There is NO state/local income tax in Texas. My property taxes (which include school and county road) total less than $2,300/yr for a home valued around $225,000.00 Considering that is all the state tax I pay, outside of sales tax which is in every town and hamlet in the U.S., I think I am being treated fairly by the state.

    Perhaps you would like to tell us what state you live in so we can compare your tax burden to those of us Texans?

  • Menlo

    I did read recently that Texas has more state employees per capita than California. Perhaps someone could set the record straight on that one if that is not correct. However, it would seem Texas state employees are not as generously paid.

    You can go here to compare any of the state and federal spending statistics and probably manage to find some piece of data to make a case for any possible political view.

    Generally, I prefer to measure “government” qualitatively rather than quantitatively. Whether it’s big or small, what matters to me is not so much how much government has but what it does with what it has.

  • gator_hoo

    Did so by cutting state spending, actual cuts, not cuts from rate of growth.

    As always, the real question is: who among the current nominees do you really trust more to check federal spending?

  • Flagstaff

    It seems to quote some date yet it provides no context at all.

    I know there are plenty of Texans who don’t like Perry, Usually they’re more direct than this.