This morning, the New York Times published a fantastic article by Scott Shane and Ron Nixon about how contractors are taking over huge parts of the federal government. The article, "In Washington, Contractors Take On Biggest Role Ever," is the first in a series of articles by the Times that will investigate government contracting. And rightly so. Outsourcing of government jobs, services, and product development has more than doubled in the last 6 years - a staggering growth rate. The article in today's paper shows, contrary to popular belief, that contractors often end up costing the government more money than it would otherwise spend, with inflated hourly wages ($104 per hour in one example from the article), poor performance and management, and little oversight or accountability from government employees. Scott and Nixon profile problems at the General Services Administration and the Department of Homeland Security, among other agencies, as case examples of following poor contracting practices and making wasteful decisions that have squandered billions of taxpayer dollars while enriching private companies. In fact, one study cited in the article concluded the explosion of contracting "poses a threat to the government's long-term ability to perform its mission" and could "undermine the integrity of the government's decision making." The entire article is worth reading and does a great job summarizing some major concerns about the current contracting environment. I'm looking forward to the rest of the articles in the series and my only hope at this point is that every member of Congress will read the articles as well.

When asked by Senate Budget Committee Chair Kent Conrad (D-ND) to analyze the massive growth in war spending, CBO could point to general expensing areas of supplemental budget requests, but because of lack of detail in such requests, it could not provide a detailed accounting. However, CBO did find a slew of expenses, like acquiring next-generation aircraft, that the Defense Department would undertake in the absence of the wars. When federal agencies request funding during the normal appropriations process, they submit what are known as "budget justification" documents, which explain an agency's budget request in quite some detail (see e.g., the Education Dept.'s FY 2008 budget request justification materials). However, the emergency supplemental requests made by the administration for war spending do not include similarly detailed documents. Although the detail in such documents improved in 2007, specific data on war spending for earlier years is simply not available, severely limiting the ability of CBO to analyze and report on war spending. The supplemental budget requests submitted between 2002 and 2006 contained little detailed information on war expenses. DoD provided detailed justification materials for its regular budget request but did not submit similarly detailed information for its war-related expenses. In February 2007, DoD expanded the quantity of justification material submitted with its requests for war funding. In addition to providing more informative summary material, it prepared budget justification materials for each appropriation, similar to those provided for the regular budget....[B]ecause similarly detailed information is not available for 2005 or for earlier years, a detailed analysis of the changing patterns of spending is impossible.

ThinkProgress notes that a government-run website that aggregates government-produced economic data is shutting down because of budgetary constraints. The website in question, EconomicIndicators.gov, is a nifty tool for the public not especially versed in economics navigating the various federal agencies that report economic data.