Hm, this is rather extraordinary, especially when one considers that the nation has LOST a net 2.7 million jobs since Bush took office. This article says he's added over a million jobs to the federal gov't (whether through federal contractors or directly). The implication is that private-sector job loss may have been even greater than the 2.7 million figure implies.<br><br>
This is, of course, beside the point that Bush, as a so-called "conservative," is supposed to be opposed to Big Government and all that it entails.
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">According to the report, the federal work force grew in all areas except for the civil service as the Bush administration strived to limit the visibility of an expanding government by shifting work to contractors and grant recipients.</td>
But if you asked MOTS *who* supported run-away govt, would they say Clinton or Bush. Clinton had one of the most streamlined govt workforces since the depression. Bush just wants to spend all the $$$ so there is never a chance of adequate social services, because our children's children will be paying off this war and his other poor monetary choices.<br><br>