Comment: Let's not ignore the elephant in the room.

(See in situ)


Let's not ignore the elephant in the room.

Krugman caught Rand a little off balance by changing terminology. Has government expanded under Obama? It depends upon how you define "expanded". Has Federal spending expanded? Yes. But Krugman decided he would define it as the number of direct government employees at all levels of government. How can statistics be compared when they are not clearly defined? Not a problem to Krugman, when he plots his little gotcha moments.

But the elephant in the room remains unaddressed. How many indirect employees are there of the Federal government? How many contractors? How many sub-contractors? Heck, the Federal government farms out a large portion of the military these days to contractors. Just because the Federal government has obfuscated it's spending by contracting out a good portion of it's work does not change the fact that government is indeed growing. The money is being spent, and it doesn't matter how the payroll is broken down, except for that fact that contracting adds an additional middle man to take a cut.