Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Per capita government employment

Expand Messages
  • Tim Condon
    NEED SOME DATA I m considering the idea of a per capita employment cap for government employees as a way of stemming the growth of government in the Free
    Message 1 of 7 , Apr 22 9:05 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      NEED SOME DATA

      I'm considering the idea of a per capita employment cap for government
      employees as a way of stemming the growth of government in the Free State.
      Most attacks on the seemingly unstoppable growth of government in the past
      have been through either tax caps or spending caps. I'm unaware of any state
      that has a government employee cap tied to state population. One of the data
      points that the Free State Project used prior to voting on the state was
      that of government employees per capita. But I need a series of figures, for
      any state that has them, and/or for the federal government. That is, what
      was per capital government employment prior to 1932 when Roosevelt was
      elected? What was it in 1960 when Kennedy was elected? What was it in 1980
      when Reagan was elected? What was it in 2000 when Bush was elected? And what
      are the current figures?

      Instead of the spending caps and taxing caps, both of which are inevitably
      breached when the government constituencies get large and loud enough, a per
      capital government employment cap would prevent the constituencies
      themselves from growing. Plus it attacks the socialists at the heart of
      their plan, i.e. to have as many people dependent upon government money as
      possible, and to constantly fight to increase that number.

      Can any direct me to where I can find out the above information?

      Timothy Condon
      12 Liberty Lane
      Grafton, NH 03240
      Email tim@...


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jason P Sorens
      Hi Tim-- The Bureau of Labor Statistics (www.bls.gov) collects data on state and local government employment in their Employment and Wages statistics division.
      Message 2 of 7 , Apr 22 10:57 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Tim--

        The Bureau of Labor Statistics (www.bls.gov) collects data on state
        and local government employment in their Employment and Wages
        statistics division. I'm sure their data online don't go back as far
        as 1932, and probably not even 1960, but those data might be available
        in annual print publications such as the Statistical Abstract of the
        United States.

        Best,
        Jason

        > I'm considering the idea of a per capita employment cap for government
        > employees as a way of stemming the growth of government in the Free
        State.
        > Most attacks on the seemingly unstoppable growth of government in
        the past
        > have been through either tax caps or spending caps. I'm unaware of
        any state
        > that has a government employee cap tied to state population. One of
        the data
        > points that the Free State Project used prior to voting on the state was
        > that of government employees per capita. But I need a series of
        figures, for
        > any state that has them, and/or for the federal government. That is,
        what
        > was per capital government employment prior to 1932 when Roosevelt was
        > elected? What was it in 1960 when Kennedy was elected? What was it
        in 1980
        > when Reagan was elected? What was it in 2000 when Bush was elected?
        And what
        > are the current figures?
        >
        > Instead of the spending caps and taxing caps, both of which are
        inevitably
        > breached when the government constituencies get large and loud
        enough, a per
        > capital government employment cap would prevent the constituencies
        > themselves from growing. Plus it attacks the socialists at the heart of
        > their plan, i.e. to have as many people dependent upon government
        money as
        > possible, and to constantly fight to increase that number.
        >
        > Can any direct me to where I can find out the above information?
        >
        > Timothy Condon
        > 12 Liberty Lane
        > Grafton, NH 03240
        > Email tim@...
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • Gary Snyder
        Doesn t address government contracts. If the government is capped in its hiring capacity, it ll simply dole out contracts and accomplish the same thing. Gary
        Message 3 of 7 , Apr 22 2:39 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Doesn't address government contracts. If the government is capped in its hiring
          capacity, it'll simply dole out contracts and accomplish the same thing.

          Gary

          Tim Condon <tim@...> wrote:
          NEED SOME DATA

          I'm considering the idea of a per capita employment cap for government
          employees as a way of stemming the growth of government in the Free State.
          Most attacks on the seemingly unstoppable growth of government in the past
          have been through either tax caps or spending caps. I'm unaware of any state
          that has a government employee cap tied to state population. One of the data
          points that the Free State Project used prior to voting on the state was
          that of government employees per capita. But I need a series of figures, for
          any state that has them, and/or for the federal government. That is, what
          was per capital government employment prior to 1932 when Roosevelt was
          elected? What was it in 1960 when Kennedy was elected? What was it in 1980
          when Reagan was elected? What was it in 2000 when Bush was elected? And what
          are the current figures?

          Instead of the spending caps and taxing caps, both of which are inevitably
          breached when the government constituencies get large and loud enough, a per
          capital government employment cap would prevent the constituencies
          themselves from growing. Plus it attacks the socialists at the heart of
          their plan, i.e. to have as many people dependent upon government money as
          possible, and to constantly fight to increase that number.

          Can any direct me to where I can find out the above information?

          Timothy Condon
          12 Liberty Lane
          Grafton, NH 03240
          Email tim@...

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






          ---------------------------------
          Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Tim Condon
          That may be, Gary, but private contractors don t establish a permanent phalanx of direct, unionized government employees demanding more money and more
          Message 4 of 7 , Apr 22 6:54 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            That may be, Gary, but private contractors don't establish a permanent
            phalanx of direct, unionized government employees demanding more money and
            more power...and willing to go out on the streets to make it a reality.
            ---Tim Condon



            On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Gary Snyder <gsnyder15@...> wrote:

            > Doesn't address government contracts. If the government is capped in its
            > hiring
            > capacity, it'll simply dole out contracts and accomplish the same thing.
            >
            > Gary
            >
            > Tim Condon <tim@...> wrote:
            > NEED SOME DATA
            >
            > I'm considering the idea of a per capita employment cap for government
            > employees as a way of stemming the growth of government in the Free State.
            > Most attacks on the seemingly unstoppable growth of government in the past
            > have been through either tax caps or spending caps. I'm unaware of any
            > state
            > that has a government employee cap tied to state population. One of the
            > data
            > points that the Free State Project used prior to voting on the state was
            > that of government employees per capita. But I need a series of figures,
            > for
            > any state that has them, and/or for the federal government. That is, what
            > was per capital government employment prior to 1932 when Roosevelt was
            > elected? What was it in 1960 when Kennedy was elected? What was it in 1980
            > when Reagan was elected? What was it in 2000 when Bush was elected? And
            > what
            > are the current figures?
            >
            > Instead of the spending caps and taxing caps, both of which are inevitably
            > breached when the government constituencies get large and loud enough, a
            > per
            > capital government employment cap would prevent the constituencies
            > themselves from growing. Plus it attacks the socialists at the heart of
            > their plan, i.e. to have as many people dependent upon government money as
            > possible, and to constantly fight to increase that number.
            >
            > Can any direct me to where I can find out the above information?
            >
            > Timothy Condon
            > 12 Liberty Lane
            > Grafton, NH 03240
            > Email tim@...
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > ---------------------------------
            > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
            > now.
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
            >
            > ------------------------------------
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Gary Snyder
            Correct, their establish[ment] instead consists of an army of lobbyists demanding the same thing. Gary Tim Condon wrote: That may be,
            Message 5 of 7 , Apr 23 11:32 PM
            • 0 Attachment
              Correct, their "establish[ment]" instead consists of an army of lobbyists
              demanding the same thing.

              Gary

              Tim Condon <tim@...> wrote:
              That may be, Gary, but private contractors don't establish a permanent
              phalanx of direct, unionized government employees demanding more money and
              more power...and willing to go out on the streets to make it a reality.
              ---Tim Condon

              On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Gary Snyder <gsnyder15@...> wrote:

              > Doesn't address government contracts. If the government is capped in its
              > hiring
              > capacity, it'll simply dole out contracts and accomplish the same thing.
              >
              > Gary
              >
              > Tim Condon <tim@...> wrote:
              > NEED SOME DATA
              >
              > I'm considering the idea of a per capita employment cap for government
              > employees as a way of stemming the growth of government in the Free State.
              > Most attacks on the seemingly unstoppable growth of government in the past
              > have been through either tax caps or spending caps. I'm unaware of any
              > state
              > that has a government employee cap tied to state population. One of the
              > data
              > points that the Free State Project used prior to voting on the state was
              > that of government employees per capita. But I need a series of figures,
              > for
              > any state that has them, and/or for the federal government. That is, what
              > was per capital government employment prior to 1932 when Roosevelt was
              > elected? What was it in 1960 when Kennedy was elected? What was it in 1980
              > when Reagan was elected? What was it in 2000 when Bush was elected? And
              > what
              > are the current figures?
              >
              > Instead of the spending caps and taxing caps, both of which are inevitably
              > breached when the government constituencies get large and loud enough, a
              > per
              > capital government employment cap would prevent the constituencies
              > themselves from growing. Plus it attacks the socialists at the heart of
              > their plan, i.e. to have as many people dependent upon government money as
              > possible, and to constantly fight to increase that number.
              >
              > Can any direct me to where I can find out the above information?
              >
              > Timothy Condon
              > 12 Liberty Lane
              > Grafton, NH 03240
              > Email tim@...
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > ---------------------------------
              > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it
              > now.
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






              ---------------------------------
              Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Tim Condon
              (FURTHER DISCUSSION: A PER CAPITA GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE LIMITATION...) ... thing. ... Tim Condon wrote: That may be, Gary, but private
              Message 6 of 7 , Apr 25 7:02 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                (FURTHER DISCUSSION: A PER CAPITA GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE LIMITATION...)

                On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Gary Snyder <gsnyder15@...> wrote:

                > Doesn't address government contracts. If the government is capped in its
                > hiring capacity, it'll simply dole out contracts and accomplish the same
                thing.
                >--- Gary


                Tim Condon <tim@...> wrote:
                That may be, Gary, but private contractors don't establish a
                permanent
                phalanx of direct, unionized government employees demanding more money and
                more power...and willing to go out on the streets to make it a reality.
                ---Tim Condon


                On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 2:32 AM, Gary Snyder <gsnyder15@...> wrote:

                Correct, their "establish[ment]" instead consists of an army of lobbyists
                demanding the same thing. ---Gary


                TIM CONDON NOW RESPONDS TO HIS FRIEND GARY, AT SOME LENGTH:

                Lobbyists are not unionized. Lobbyists are not "feet-on-the-street."
                Lobbyists are not the shock-troops that public employees and their unions
                are. And lobbyists tend to cluster in Washington, DC and state capitols
                only.

                In my estimation, the premier issue that has faced all human beings since
                the beginning of civilization is how to restrain some groups (usually thugs
                and criminals) from amassing ever more power, declaring themselves
                "governments," and living off of the productive efforts of all human beings
                who are not part of the resulting "government class." The Founding Fathers
                made a valiant and largely effective effort to solve this problem in 1787
                with the U.S. Constitution. It was effective for about 150 years (nothing to
                dismiss lightly), until about 1936 under Roosevelt, when the Constitutional
                plan started to unravel and the walls were breached. By 30 years later, in
                1965, the break in the walls had become critical, enabling a
                government-growth tsunami. This process of the growth of government is
                driven by one thing: Ever more people becoming dependent upon government for
                their financial sustenance. It includes welfare and social security
                recipients, but most of all what is driving it is employment at all levels
                of government, local, state, and federal. Long-term welfare recipients
                cannot be depended upon to go "into the streets" to make demands for ever
                more money. For the most part they are (thankfully) either unwilling or
                unable. Social security recipients make a huge political constituency, but
                they are overwhelmingly elderly, and also cannot be depended upon to do the
                work "on the streets" necessary to create conditions for continued political
                victories which ratchet up demand for government taxing, spending, and
                power. The single most important constituency to continually expand
                government power at all levels is through unionized (and thus disciplined
                and organized) government employees. They have the most direct interest in
                continued government growth. They are generally younger, more educated, more
                energetic, and more aware of what conditions need to be created and what
                political victories must be won to benefit themselves and their families.

                The above dynamic was exactly why Sen. Tom Daschle fought tenaciously (and
                successfully) against President George W. Bush to make sure that the latest
                huge new federal bureaucracy, "Homeland Security," would be federal
                employees instead of privately contracted companies, as was originally
                favored by Bush (probably because he was so advised by those who understood
                the problem). But Bush had no real understanding of the stakes, and probably
                no great desire to prevent further government growth anyway. His tepid
                objections were easily defeated by Daschle and the Democrats, who knew
                exactly what they were fighting for. The same dynamic is behind the
                insistent and continued Democrat demands for amnesty for illegal aliens:
                They see future welfare recipients, voters, and even feet-on-the-street
                political activists who will support the continued growth of government
                taxing and spending.

                The problem identified above is that there exists a "Government Class"
                consisting of all who look to government (at any level) for their
                sustenance. The Government Class feeds off of all who are not part of the
                class, i.e. everyone else (those who are independent, who work, who pay
                taxes, and who support their families and communities). Let's call them the
                "Working Class." The problem for the Working Class is to figure out the best
                way to stop the apparently inevitable growth of government taxing, spending,
                and hiring at all levels driven by the above dynamic. Past attempts have
                involved state constitutional tax limitations (such as Prop. 13 in
                California), statutory spending limitations (such as Gramm-Rudman, which was
                easily pushed aside), and constitutional spending limitations (such as TABOR
                plans, including that which passed in Colorado...which has easily been
                breached by the Government Class in that state).

                In short, neither constitutional nor statutory spending limitations, nor tax
                limitations, have worked. Nor have state constitutional prohibitions against
                state income taxes such as exist in Florida, Texas, and three or four other
                states. State government size and spending in those states have grown
                greatly, although not as fast as in those states that have far more taxing
                powers.

                So what are other potential solutions? What other machinery can be
                constructed to slow, or even stop and eventually reverse the accellerating
                growth of government in America?

                I would like to examine state constitutional limits on government employment
                per capita. That is, state government (and, ideally, local governments also)
                would be prohibited from having more than X number of employees for a given
                population. It could be expressed as a percentage ("the number of state
                government employees may not exceed .1% of the population") or as a ratio
                ("no level of government in this state shall have any more than 1 emloyee
                per 1,000 residents"). Of course, the Government Class would strive to lock
                in the present bloated size of government by measuring what the current
                ratio of government employees to population is. This is why I'd like to
                gather information on the ration of government employees to population in
                America in, say 1860, then 1932, then 1965, then 1980, etc. My guess is that
                a reasonable ratio would be found on one of those earlier years.

                The constitutional imposition of such a limitation would create many
                salutary effects: (1) It would deprive government of disciplined, organized,
                public employee union activists; (2) it would decrease the ostensible "need"
                for ever higher taxes; (3) it would decrease the ostensible "need" for ever
                higher government spending; (4) and it would inevitably decrease the number
                of votes for more government growth, taxing, and spending.

                Such a plan might work...or it might not. However, we know that taxing and
                spending limitations have failed, and usually can't even get passed due to
                the increasing size and power of the Government Class. Per capita employment
                limits might even be an easier "sell" because existing government employees
                would get a larger share of tax monies for themselves. In fact, the proposal
                could be coupled with a carrot for current government employees: If the per
                capital government employment limitation is passed, every government
                employee remaining could be promised a handsome raise. Generous buy-outs of
                existing government employees could also be made part of the plan, in order
                to decrease opposition and effect huge savings into the future.

                One difficulty in passing such a limit would be that existing government
                employees and their unions would create as much pain and disruption to the
                public as possible, passing it off as the natural result of a terrible
                "unworkable" idea. The solution to *that* problem might be to include a free
                hiring-and-firing proposal for government employees (since they are, after
                all, employees of a monopoly, which introduces all kinds of additional
                considerations for the protection of the public and their "customers," the
                taxpayers). Thus, government employee saboteurs and disruptors would be
                allowed to be expeditiously replaced.

                The best case scenario is this: A state constitutional limitation on number
                of government employees at the state level, the county level, the town
                level, and the school district level is put in place. The resulting decrease
                in the number of government employees causes a decrease in agitation and
                activism in favor of taxing and spending at all levels of government in the
                state. As a result, opponents of increased taxing and spending gain power,
                and manage to stem and reverse the tide. With a decrease in taxing and
                spending, the state's economy and standard of living surges. Similar
                limitations are taken up in other states, with similar salutary effects.
                Ultimately a United States Constitutional amendment is passed, with the same
                effect on the national scene that individual states have experienced, led
                by New Hampshire. America then experiences a rebirth of individual and
                economic freedom, resulting in an explosion of work, creativity, invention,
                entrepreneurialism, and growth reaching all the way through the 21st century
                and into the future.

                Call me a dreamer if you want to. That's a common epithet directed at
                Freestaters. Nevertheless, nothing else has worked up to this point. It's
                time to try something new. And it might just work. Not only work, but
                provide a template for freedom and justice into the future.

                WRITTEN BY: ---Tim Condon (Who wishes to thank Gary Snyder for making the
                objections he made above, thus stimulating further thought and sparking this
                discussion.)




                >
                > > Tim Condon <tim@...> wrote:
                > > NEED SOME DATA
                > >
                > > I'm considering the idea of a per capita employment cap for government
                > > employees as a way of stemming the growth of government in the Free
                > State.
                > > Most attacks on the seemingly unstoppable growth of government in the
                > past
                > > have been through either tax caps or spending caps. I'm unaware of any
                > > state that has a government employee cap tied to state population. One of
                > the
                > > data points that the Free State Project used prior to voting on the state
                > was
                > > that of government employees per capita. But I need a series of figures,
                > > for any state that has them, and/or for the federal government. That is,
                > what
                > > was per capital government employment prior to 1932 when Roosevelt was
                > > elected? What was it in 1960 when Kennedy was elected? What was it in
                > 1980
                > > when Reagan was elected? What was it in 2000 when Bush was elected? And
                > > what are the current figures?
                > >
                > > Instead of the spending caps and taxing caps, both of which are
                > inevitably
                > > breached when the government constituencies get large and loud enough, a
                > > per capita government employment cap would prevent the constituencies
                > > themselves from growing. Plus it attacks the socialists at the heart of
                > > their plan, i.e. to have as many people dependent upon government money
                > as
                > > possible, and to constantly fight to increase that number.
                > >
                > > Can any direct me to where I can find out the above information?
                > >
                > > Timothy Condon
                > > 12 Liberty Lane
                > > Grafton, NH 03240
                > > Email tim@...
                >


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Gary Snyder
                ... (snip) Tim, it doesn t matter what you call these entities, and it doesn t matter what form they take. The only thing that matters in this regard is
                Message 7 of 7 , Apr 27 4:32 PM
                • 0 Attachment
                  > TIM CONDON NOW RESPONDS TO HIS FRIEND GARY, AT SOME LENGTH:
                  >
                  > Lobbyists are not unionized. Lobbyists are not "feet-on-the- street."
                  > Lobbyists are not the shock-troops that public employees and their unions
                  > are. And lobbyists tend to cluster in Washington, DC and state capitols
                  > only.

                  (snip)

                  Tim, it doesn't matter what you call these entities, and it doesn't matter what
                  form they take. The only thing that matters in this regard is whether or not
                  the government has the ability (the resources and power) to buy votes. If
                  they have this ability, no amount of capping of its hiring capacity will dent
                  government's cost and scope.

                  The problem with government isn't with where and how it allocates the money
                  it steals. It will always allocate that stolen money to its own end, regardless
                  of whether caps on its hiring capacity are implemented. The problem is that
                  it is sanctioned to steal the money in the first place. If it has (or seizes) that
                  sanction, there will be no shortage of outlets, no shortage of those lining up
                  for a piece of the pie.

                  Gary

                  Tim Condon <tim@...> wrote:
                  (FURTHER DISCUSSION: A PER CAPITA GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE LIMITATION...)

                  On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Gary Snyder <gsnyder15@...> wrote:

                  > Doesn't address government contracts. If the government is capped in its
                  > hiring capacity, it'll simply dole out contracts and accomplish the same
                  thing.
                  >--- Gary

                  Tim Condon <tim@...> wrote:
                  That may be, Gary, but private contractors don't establish a
                  permanent
                  phalanx of direct, unionized government employees demanding more money and
                  more power...and willing to go out on the streets to make it a reality.
                  ---Tim Condon

                  On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 2:32 AM, Gary Snyder <gsnyder15@...> wrote:

                  Correct, their "establish[ment]" instead consists of an army of lobbyists
                  demanding the same thing. ---Gary

                  TIM CONDON NOW RESPONDS TO HIS FRIEND GARY, AT SOME LENGTH:

                  Lobbyists are not unionized. Lobbyists are not "feet-on-the-street."
                  Lobbyists are not the shock-troops that public employees and their unions
                  are. And lobbyists tend to cluster in Washington, DC and state capitols
                  only.

                  In my estimation, the premier issue that has faced all human beings since
                  the beginning of civilization is how to restrain some groups (usually thugs
                  and criminals) from amassing ever more power, declaring themselves
                  "governments," and living off of the productive efforts of all human beings
                  who are not part of the resulting "government class." The Founding Fathers
                  made a valiant and largely effective effort to solve this problem in 1787
                  with the U.S. Constitution. It was effective for about 150 years (nothing to
                  dismiss lightly), until about 1936 under Roosevelt, when the Constitutional
                  plan started to unravel and the walls were breached. By 30 years later, in
                  1965, the break in the walls had become critical, enabling a
                  government-growth tsunami. This process of the growth of government is
                  driven by one thing: Ever more people becoming dependent upon government for
                  their financial sustenance. It includes welfare and social security
                  recipients, but most of all what is driving it is employment at all levels
                  of government, local, state, and federal. Long-term welfare recipients
                  cannot be depended upon to go "into the streets" to make demands for ever
                  more money. For the most part they are (thankfully) either unwilling or
                  unable. Social security recipients make a huge political constituency, but
                  they are overwhelmingly elderly, and also cannot be depended upon to do the
                  work "on the streets" necessary to create conditions for continued political
                  victories which ratchet up demand for government taxing, spending, and
                  power. The single most important constituency to continually expand
                  government power at all levels is through unionized (and thus disciplined
                  and organized) government employees. They have the most direct interest in
                  continued government growth. They are generally younger, more educated, more
                  energetic, and more aware of what conditions need to be created and what
                  political victories must be won to benefit themselves and their families.

                  The above dynamic was exactly why Sen. Tom Daschle fought tenaciously (and
                  successfully) against President George W. Bush to make sure that the latest
                  huge new federal bureaucracy, "Homeland Security," would be federal
                  employees instead of privately contracted companies, as was originally
                  favored by Bush (probably because he was so advised by those who understood
                  the problem). But Bush had no real understanding of the stakes, and probably
                  no great desire to prevent further government growth anyway. His tepid
                  objections were easily defeated by Daschle and the Democrats, who knew
                  exactly what they were fighting for. The same dynamic is behind the
                  insistent and continued Democrat demands for amnesty for illegal aliens:
                  They see future welfare recipients, voters, and even feet-on-the-street
                  political activists who will support the continued growth of government
                  taxing and spending.

                  The problem identified above is that there exists a "Government Class"
                  consisting of all who look to government (at any level) for their
                  sustenance. The Government Class feeds off of all who are not part of the
                  class, i.e. everyone else (those who are independent, who work, who pay
                  taxes, and who support their families and communities). Let's call them the
                  "Working Class." The problem for the Working Class is to figure out the best
                  way to stop the apparently inevitable growth of government taxing, spending,
                  and hiring at all levels driven by the above dynamic. Past attempts have
                  involved state constitutional tax limitations (such as Prop. 13 in
                  California), statutory spending limitations (such as Gramm-Rudman, which was
                  easily pushed aside), and constitutional spending limitations (such as TABOR
                  plans, including that which passed in Colorado...which has easily been
                  breached by the Government Class in that state).

                  In short, neither constitutional nor statutory spending limitations, nor tax
                  limitations, have worked. Nor have state constitutional prohibitions against
                  state income taxes such as exist in Florida, Texas, and three or four other
                  states. State government size and spending in those states have grown
                  greatly, although not as fast as in those states that have far more taxing
                  powers.

                  So what are other potential solutions? What other machinery can be
                  constructed to slow, or even stop and eventually reverse the accellerating
                  growth of government in America?

                  I would like to examine state constitutional limits on government employment
                  per capita. That is, state government (and, ideally, local governments also)
                  would be prohibited from having more than X number of employees for a given
                  population. It could be expressed as a percentage ("the number of state
                  government employees may not exceed .1% of the population") or as a ratio
                  ("no level of government in this state shall have any more than 1 emloyee
                  per 1,000 residents"). Of course, the Government Class would strive to lock
                  in the present bloated size of government by measuring what the current
                  ratio of government employees to population is. This is why I'd like to
                  gather information on the ration of government employees to population in
                  America in, say 1860, then 1932, then 1965, then 1980, etc. My guess is that
                  a reasonable ratio would be found on one of those earlier years.

                  The constitutional imposition of such a limitation would create many
                  salutary effects: (1) It would deprive government of disciplined, organized,
                  public employee union activists; (2) it would decrease the ostensible "need"
                  for ever higher taxes; (3) it would decrease the ostensible "need" for ever
                  higher government spending; (4) and it would inevitably decrease the number
                  of votes for more government growth, taxing, and spending.

                  Such a plan might work...or it might not. However, we know that taxing and
                  spending limitations have failed, and usually can't even get passed due to
                  the increasing size and power of the Government Class. Per capita employment
                  limits might even be an easier "sell" because existing government employees
                  would get a larger share of tax monies for themselves. In fact, the proposal
                  could be coupled with a carrot for current government employees: If the per
                  capital government employment limitation is passed, every government
                  employee remaining could be promised a handsome raise. Generous buy-outs of
                  existing government employees could also be made part of the plan, in order
                  to decrease opposition and effect huge savings into the future.

                  One difficulty in passing such a limit would be that existing government
                  employees and their unions would create as much pain and disruption to the
                  public as possible, passing it off as the natural result of a terrible
                  "unworkable" idea. The solution to *that* problem might be to include a free
                  hiring-and-firing proposal for government employees (since they are, after
                  all, employees of a monopoly, which introduces all kinds of additional
                  considerations for the protection of the public and their "customers," the
                  taxpayers). Thus, government employee saboteurs and disruptors would be
                  allowed to be expeditiously replaced.

                  The best case scenario is this: A state constitutional limitation on number
                  of government employees at the state level, the county level, the town
                  level, and the school district level is put in place. The resulting decrease
                  in the number of government employees causes a decrease in agitation and
                  activism in favor of taxing and spending at all levels of government in the
                  state. As a result, opponents of increased taxing and spending gain power,
                  and manage to stem and reverse the tide. With a decrease in taxing and
                  spending, the state's economy and standard of living surges. Similar
                  limitations are taken up in other states, with similar salutary effects.
                  Ultimately a United States Constitutional amendment is passed, with the same
                  effect on the national scene that individual states have experienced, led
                  by New Hampshire. America then experiences a rebirth of individual and
                  economic freedom, resulting in an explosion of work, creativity, invention,
                  entrepreneurialism, and growth reaching all the way through the 21st century
                  and into the future.

                  Call me a dreamer if you want to. That's a common epithet directed at
                  Freestaters. Nevertheless, nothing else has worked up to this point. It's
                  time to try something new. And it might just work. Not only work, but
                  provide a template for freedom and justice into the future.

                  WRITTEN BY: ---Tim Condon (Who wishes to thank Gary Snyder for making the
                  objections he made above, thus stimulating further thought and sparking this
                  discussion.)

                  >
                  > > Tim Condon <tim@...> wrote:
                  > > NEED SOME DATA
                  > >
                  > > I'm considering the idea of a per capita employment cap for government
                  > > employees as a way of stemming the growth of government in the Free
                  > State.
                  > > Most attacks on the seemingly unstoppable growth of government in the
                  > past
                  > > have been through either tax caps or spending caps. I'm unaware of any
                  > > state that has a government employee cap tied to state population. One of
                  > the
                  > > data points that the Free State Project used prior to voting on the state
                  > was
                  > > that of government employees per capita. But I need a series of figures,
                  > > for any state that has them, and/or for the federal government. That is,
                  > what
                  > > was per capital government employment prior to 1932 when Roosevelt was
                  > > elected? What was it in 1960 when Kennedy was elected? What was it in
                  > 1980
                  > > when Reagan was elected? What was it in 2000 when Bush was elected? And
                  > > what are the current figures?
                  > >
                  > > Instead of the spending caps and taxing caps, both of which are
                  > inevitably
                  > > breached when the government constituencies get large and loud enough, a
                  > > per capita government employment cap would prevent the constituencies
                  > > themselves from growing. Plus it attacks the socialists at the heart of
                  > > their plan, i.e. to have as many people dependent upon government money
                  > as
                  > > possible, and to constantly fight to increase that number.
                  > >
                  > > Can any direct me to where I can find out the above information?
                  > >
                  > > Timothy Condon
                  > > 12 Liberty Lane
                  > > Grafton, NH 03240
                  > > Email tim@...
                  >

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                  ---------------------------------
                  Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.