The New York Times has an HUGELY IMPORTANT story on Page one for Sunday.
WASHINGTON -- Without a public debate or formal policy decision, federal contractors have become a virtual fourth branch of government. On the rise for decades, spending on federal contracts has soared during the Bush administration, to about $400 billion last year from $207 billion in 2000, fueled by the war in Iraq, domestic security and Hurricane Katrina, but also by a philosophy that encourages outsourcing almost everything government does.
More from the NY Times:
Contractors still build ships and satellites, but they also collect income taxes and work up agency budgets, fly pilotless spy aircraft and take the minutes at policy meetings on the war. They sit next to federal employees at nearly every agency; far more people work under contracts than are directly employed by the government.
The Times goes on to point out some of the obvious risks associated with turning over VAST areas of government to private contractors:
-- Competition, intended to produce savings, appears to have sharply eroded. Fewer than half of all "contract actions" --new contracts and payments against existing contracts -- are now subject to full and open competition.
-- The most secret and politically delicate government jobs, like intelligence collection and budget preparation, are increasingly contracted out, despite regulations forbidding the outsourcing of "inherently governmental" work.
-- Agencies are crippled in their ability to seek low prices, supervise contractors and intervene when work goes off course because the number of government workers overseeing contracts has remained level as spending has shot up.
-- The most successful contractors are not necessarily those doing the best work, but those that have mastered the skill of selling to Uncle Sam. The top 20 service contractors have spent nearly $300 million since 2000 on lobbying and have donated $23 million to political campaigns.
One of the most important issues raised is that contracting usually leads to less public scrutiny, as government programs are hidden behind closed corporate doors. Companies, unlike agencies, are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.