Interesting post, although I would point out that 1999-2002 includes two years under Clinton and two under Bush. Additionally, 1990-2002 includes 5 years under a Republican Administration and 8 years under a Democratic one.

This looks like a bi-partisan problem.

And it is just this sort of problem that makes me question the efficacy of supporting a Democrat for president in 2004 (I haven't made a decision on this either way).

It's great that since Bush is the president you use this to attack him. But doesn't the data suggest that Clinton facilitated this same problem? Would a Dean/Kerry/Gephardt/Lieberman etc. Administration radically change this trend? Or even alter it? I don't know, but it seems some (perhaps MOST) of this anger and criticism should also be thrown Clinton's way.

Today many Democrats, liberals and progressives are crying out against Bush's policies that are extensions of policies begun under Clinton (or policies continued under him from Reagan/Bush). This leaves me wondering, where was the outrage then?

My hope is that if the Dems win in 2004 that the criticism won't be muted because it's "our guy" in the White House. A bad policy is a bad policy regardless of party label, and we on the left should have the courage to say so.

For more on this subject, including how Bush is using his privatization policies to reward his donors who then funnel the money back into Republican campaign coffers, check out "Welcome to the Machine" by Nicholas Confessore in the July-August Washington Monthly.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0307.confessore.html

As a former GAO auditor, and one who has audited privitization movements, I know that the urge to contract out is bi-partisan. The first real surge was with Reagan. Total government employment increased, just the federal numbers fell. My audit work indicated that rarely did contracting out make finalcial sense (private profit margins and higher managerial salaries overcome any efficiencies held out). The widespread prejudice against federal employees fueled the drive to hold down federal employment. As the work still needed to be done, contracting enjoyed a heyday. Little attention is paid to inherently governmental functions, which are required to be held by federal employees. This current spate of contracting in the military is ugly.
Americans are insulated from sacrifice and service, while accepting ongoing financial sacrifices for our children.
Lamar White

As a former GAO auditor, and one who has audited privitization movements, I know that the urge to contract out is bi-partisan. The first real surge was with Reagan. Total government employment increased, just the federal numbers fell. My audit work indicated that rarely did contracting out make finalcial sense (private profit margins and higher managerial salaries overcome any efficiencies held out). The widespread prejudice against federal employees fueled the drive to hold down federal employment. As the work still needed to be done, contracting enjoyed a heyday. Little attention is paid to inherently governmental functions, which are required to be held by federal employees. This current spate of contracting in the military is ugly.
Americans are insulated from sacrifice and service, while accepting ongoing financial sacrifices for our children.
Lamar White