Federal job losses

Asked at his weekly news conference about the prospect of federal job cuts should House Republicans succeed with their plan to trim $100 billion in government spending, House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio said Tuesday he believes the government can’t afford to keep so many workers.

“Over the last two years since President Obama has taken office, the federal government has added 200,000 new federal jobs,” Mr. Boehner said. “And if some of those jobs are lost in this, so be it. We’re broke. It’s time for us to get serious about how we’re spending the nation’s money.”

The Democratic National Committee and liberal groups seized on Mr. Boehner’s comments as insensitive.

“If this is the attitude of Speaker John Boehner when it comes to saving existing jobs, it’s no surprise he’s moving forward with draconian spending cuts that will cost even more,” said Jesse Ferguson, a spokesman with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

The Democrats cited a “multiplier effect,” arguing that trimming the job of one federal employee will actually cost the jobs of 1.6 private-sector workers (or whetever formula they choose to apply), as the hypothetical laid-off government worker will no longer need the services of his dry cleaner, lunchtime sandwich maker, etc.

But this “multiplier” theory is absurd on its face.

Governments have no money of their own. Government workers are paid with money levied from private individuals and employers, who then cannot use that money to hire workers in the private sector. The “multiplier” is inverse. Government functions as a parasite on the private economy, sucking wealth which cannot be used twice.

But of greater importance, Mr. Boehner is correct. No one cheers when somebody loses a job. But how are we to trim the size of a massive government we can no longer afford — a government supported with 40 percent borrowed money — without reducing the size of the federal work force?