More Union Jobs = More Union Dues

Would I be cynical to suggest that the reason the Democrats want more stimulus funds to pour into public sector jobs is because these "teachers and first responders" they say they will hire will increase the rolls of public sector unions? More union members mean more union dues, and a nice chunk of those union dues get laundered back into political campaigns to elect Democrat politicians who promise more goodies to public employees. At least Harry Reid is honest about who they propose to help, and it is not private sector jobs.

Leadership: Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid thinks the private sector is "doing just fine" and that it's government that needs help. Now we see what the Democrats' priority is: big government, not people.

Responding Wednesday from the Senate floor to a question about a new Democrat plan to raise taxes on working Americans to pay for another $35 billion bailout for the states and public employee unions, Reid said:

"It's very clear that private-sector jobs have been doing just fine; it's the public-sector jobs where we've lost huge numbers, and that's what this legislation is all about."

No, we're not making this up. The comment is utterly wrong, of course, and underscores Democrats' cluelessness and insensitivity to the damage they've inflicted on the private economy since taking power in 2006.

Government data — available on the Web to all, including Reid — show 6.257 million private-sector jobs lost since the recession began in December 2007. That's a 5.4% decline. By comparison, government employment at all levels — state, local and federal — over that same period has fallen by about 392,000, or just 1.75%. If you look just at Reid's employer, the federal government, the number of jobs actually increased by 63,000 since 2007 — a 2.29% gain.

So who's suffering here?

Overall, the private sector has lost 16 jobs for every job lost in government since 2007. Even if you correct for the relative difference in the size of the two job markets (see chart above), the private sector has still lost three times more jobs than the public sector.

Is this surprising? It shouldn't be. The federal government's $840 billion stimulus effort was almost entirely aimed at bolstering government, and bailing out industries and unions that support Democrats.

Reid's remarks reflect his party's dishonest complaints about "austerity" and "draconian cuts" in federal spending. As new data show, federal spending jumped 5% in 2011. Some austerity.

This why the typical household in the Washington metro area — where government is the No. 1 employer — earned $84,523 last year, or 69% higher than the national median of $50,046. Federal employees took home $126,000 — two and a half times the U.S. median.

Big government is now America's growth industry. For Washington Democrats, that's fine — they believe government, not the private sector, creates jobs. But Reid should be ashamed for suggesting that, at a time of 9%-plus unemployment, our bloated federal, state and local governments have suffered most.

It's simply untrue. Worse, it can only detract from the debate we need to have: How to undo the damage from yet another failed Democratic Keynesian experiment.

Ellen Sauerbrey