All Things Reform: March 2009

Saturday, March 28, 2009

Analysis: How will the federal government handle a much larger national debt after big economic stimulus spending?

US Capitol, Washington, DC, USA. Image via Wikipedia

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: Public Agenda

As the projections for the national debt keep going worse and worse, a lot of people are probably wondering one thing: Can we really get away with this?

"This" is the federal government's strategy of spending huge amounts of money to keep the economy going, despite the fact that the federal budget was in pretty bad shape to begin with. The independent Congressional Budget Office now projects that the federal deficit will be $1.7 trillion this year, and that if President Obama's budget plans are enacted, we'll add $9.3 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. That's $4.8 trillion more than previously estimated.

Scott Bittle, in a blog posting, notes that despite fierce argument over the specifics, there's still a bipartisan consensus in Washington that the government has to borrow and spend to stimulate the economy, because nobody else will - the private sector is effectively sidelined as long as credit markets are "frozen," unwilling to lend because of all the bad debt that's already out there.

But in addition to the fight in Washington, this is also starting to make people overseas nervous. China, the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt, is starting to send none-too-subtle signals about how the U.S. manages its money, The new president of the European Union was even blunter this morning, calling American policy "the way to hell." All this will likely lead to an extremely uncomfortable session with world leaders next week on how to deal with the global financial crisis.

So can we spend like crazy now, pile up the national debt, and yet still recover later? For some possible answers to this compelling question, see our full story "The Budget: Can We Pull This Off?" and FacingUp.org, our web site dedicated to the looming problems of the budget deficit and national debt.

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

White House Chief of Staff Emanuel's corrupt stint as a director at Freddie Mac

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: Judicial Watch

From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

Rahm Emanuel's High-Paying, Do-Nothing Tenure at Freddie Mac

March 27, 2009

Tom Fitton

Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is not known as a shrinking violet. He's been described as rude, crude, aggressive, mean-spirited, dogmatic and loquacious. Passive, quiet, inconspicuous? Not so much.

So how is it that Emanuel served on the Board of mortgage lending giant Freddie Mac for 14 months without making any noticeable mark, while at the same time reaping huge financial rewards? And why did the normally obtrusive Emanuel keep his lips zipped when presented with an illegal accounting scheme designed to defraud Freddie Mac investors?

These are questions The Chicago Tribune has been asking lately. And here's what The Tribune found out:

Before its portfolio of bad loans helped trigger the current housing crisis, mortgage giant Freddie Mac was the focus of a major accounting scandal that led to a management shake-up, huge fines and scalding condemnation of passive directors by a top federal regulator.

One of those allegedly asleep-at-the-switch board members was Chicago's Rahm Emanuel—now chief of staff to President Barack Obama—who made at least $320,000 for a 14-month stint at Freddie Mac that required little effort.

"Little effort" may be an understatement. The Freddie Mac board does most of its work in committees. According to the Tribune, there is no documented evidence Emanuel even served on a committee.

But it gets worse.

On Emanuel's watch, Freddie Mac hatched an accounting scheme – reviewed by the board –to defraud investors by artificially inflating the value of the company in order to pay out big bonuses to executives. The company was also slapped with a $3.8 million fine by the Federal Election Commission for using corporate funds to bankroll political fundraisers. In fact, after Emanuel finished his 14-month stint at Freddie, the company held one of these illegal fundraisers on his behalf!

And this is the man we're supposed to trust operating the levers of power at the Obama White House?

Of course, Judicial Watch is trying to dig up as much information as possible on the political corruption that enabled Fannie and Freddie (and their congressional co-conspirators) to operate above the law.

In fact, one Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request relates directly to the political fundraising scheme that resulted in the FEC fine referenced above. On December 18, 2008, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request with the Treasury Department regarding political contributions and political contribution policies at Fannie and Freddie.

We are looking into the deliberate campaign by these two agencies to buy political protection on Capitol Hill (mostly from liberals) so that they could continue on their reckless programs to hustle "subprime" mortgages to unqualified homebuyers.

I'll continue to keep you posted on further developments.

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Help and hold accountable the Obama administration's economic recovery efforts

US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: OMB Watch

Government transformation through transparency

More than $8 trillion is being spent to rescue the financial sector and stimulate the economy. Who’s getting it? How is it being spent? Is the Recovery Act money saving or creating jobs and what kind of jobs? Is the bailout money generating new loans, and if so, who is getting them?

A contribution to OMB Watch now will help us stay on the beat to ensure the Obama administration answers these types of questions.

The Obama administration has done a remarkable job in creating Recovery.gov and moving money to the states and localities since the Recovery Act was signed into law. Moreover, President Obama has put into motion the beginnings of policies that bring an unprecedented presumption of openness in the way government operates.

Notwithstanding the positive first steps by President Obama, Recovery.gov has not yet lived up to its potential. It is will take a concerted effort from across political lines to build a truly transparent and accountable government.

In this video, I share with you three strategies needed to transform government: changing policies, improving technology, and replacing the culture of secrecy in government with one that prizes disclosure.

OMB Watch, with more than 25 years of experience and expertise, has stepped forward to both help and hold accountable the new administration. Engaging people and organizations across the ideological spectrum, we have two new projects:

Bailout Watch is a partnership with six other organizations that is researching, investigating, and analyzing the federal government's financial bailout activities. Everything we learn will be published so that you will see it, too. Soon we will be reaching out to you to build a broader coalition that reminds the federal government and Wall Street that the bailout should help all Americans, not just wealthy traders and businesses.

The Coalition for an Accountable Recovery (CAR) is comprised of more than 30 organizations to promote transparency and accountability policies and practices for national and state government agencies and contractors that benefit from recovery spending. You can join CAR by signing up online.

Give todayfor a transformed tomorrow through transparency!

Truly Yours, Gary's Signature Gary D. Bass OMB Watch, Executive Director

P.S. A gift of $25.00 or more will help CAR and Bailout Watch work for you!

[Original OMB Watch article accepts comments]

Premier Election Systems' electronic voting machines have an erase button!

Image via Wikipedia

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: Progressive States Network

New Revelations Provide More Evidence Paperless Voting Not Safe

Recent revelations about electronic voting machines highlight the maddening lack of security in paperless elections, and emphasize why paper ballot voting with robust post-election audits are a basic requirement for secure elections.

The Premier "Delete" Button, Discarding Votes Made Easy: The California Secretary of State's Office recently completed their investigation on the cause of almost 200 lost votes in the 2008 general election in Humboldt County. Faulty software from Premier Election Solutions (formerly Diebold) was to blame, as it was in Ohio. Both California and Ohio are suing Premier over the botched product. Premier originally denied there were any flaws in its software, alternately blaming the issue on user error and anti-virus software, but has now acknowledged they are at fault.

The investigation, however, uncovered an even more troubling problem - the machines used in Humboldt County and elsewhere had an erase button that allowed the machine's audit logs to be "zeroed out" with the touch of a button. Not only does such a capability fatally undermine the security of these machines, they were built in such a way that votes could be deleted without election workers noticing they had done so. Premier was even made aware of the insanity of including such a function in their machines. An e-mail from one of the system's developers stated that "adding a Clear button is easy, but there are too many reasons why doing that is a bad idea."

The report on this fiasco by the Sec. of State sums up the scope and depth of the problem this way: "The Clear buttons ... allow inadvertent or malicious destruction of critical audit trail records in all Gems version 1.18.19 jurisdictions, risking the accuracy and integrity of elections conducted using this voting system. Five years after the company recognized the need to remove the Clear buttons from the GEMS audit log screens, not only Humboldt, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties in California but jurisdictions in other parts of the country, including several counties in Texas and Florida, continue to use Gems version 1.18.19...."

Friday, March 27, 2009

Big money campaign donors reminded to personally lobby US Senator Landrieu against EFCA bill

US Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA). Image via Wikipedia

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: National Journal

Vitter Pushes Biz Leaders To Lobby Landrieu Against EFCA

On Call has obtained audio of Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) urging business leaders on a conference call earlier this week to push his colleague, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), to oppose the Employee Free Choice Act (H.R.800), known as card check. The bill would make it easier for unions to organize.

Vitter: "Mary was just reelected last fall, and she had some significant business support. Probably everybody on this call knows somebody who helped Mary, wrote a big check, helped in some overt way. Those business folks need to be the first ones to call her personally and remind her how they helped and explain how devastating this bill would be to Louisiana businesses."

Vitter's position against EFCA is known, but Landrieu is on the fence -- and someone whom advocates of the bill hope to woo to their cause.

"Senator Landrieu is carefully reviewing the issue," Landrieu spokeswoman Stephanie Allen said in a statement. "She understands that it is a heated debate and wants to make an informed decision. Part of that process is actively meeting with interested groups on both sides."

Vitter's office responded to an inquiry with an emailed statement that did not address the senator's suggestion that business donors specifically lobby Landrieu.

"When asked by Louisianans concerned about what they could do to raise their objections to card check, Sen. Vitter encouraged them to contact Congress to let them know where they stand, and that includes Sen. Landrieu," said Vitter Communications Director Joel DiGrado.

Vitter, meanwhile, could face a primary challenge from LA Secretary of State Jay Dardenne (R), who said this week that he is considering a 2010 bid against the embattled incumbent. The behind-the-scenes lobbying against card check might be Vitter's effort at courting business support -- and donations -- while also spurning labor. A pitch to the right, in essence, with a primary challenge looming.

But should it be Vitter's business to suggest to Landrieu's donors that they advise her to vote against the legislation?

(JENNIFER SKALKA)

[Original National Journal article accepts comments]

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Find your Representative's staff salary data for 2008

Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) arrives to testify about the House page scandal Oct. 24, 2006. Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: LegiStorm

LegiStorm completes 2008 salary data from House

March 26, 2009

The salaries are in. The pay figures for staff members from the House of Representatives’ fourth quarter of 2008 are now available on LegiStorm, having been entered from the thick disbursement records released by the House of Representatives.

This data period is critical because it is the time when Santa Claus brings goodies to dedicated staff in the way of annual bonuses. Bonuses are not a universal perquisite on the Hill but they are a common way for members to reward staff who have merited them. This assumes that members have budgeted well and have sufficient funds available in their annual allotment, known as the Member’s Representational Allowance.

The latest collection of salary data is a window into one of the fiercest fought elections in modern times. Elections can affect how congressional staffers are paid, both in legal and not-so-legal ways. For example, staff members often take leave to work on campaigns, whether their bosses’ or those of others. The pay records can reflect those absences.

And sometimes, staffers receive compensation from the campaigns but volunteers on a campaign usually vastly outnumber the paid staff. Therefore, campaign work is often a volunteer or grossly underpaid activity.

Occasionally, members of Congress reward aides with bonuses, even if unconsciously, for their special dedication to the campaign. Since federal law prohibits the use of tax dollars to subsidize campaigns, such a use of bonuses would be improper.

Also controversial is the payment of large bonuses by members of Congress who are departing. With no more concern about getting re-elected, members can be quite generous with taxpayer money toward their staff.

Expect to hear more about fourth-quarter pay in our blog in the coming days.
The House releases books containing all of its expenses, including salaries, each quarter. The Senate releases them every six months. Therefore, we will not have the Senate data for another three months.

Jock Friedly
President & Founder

[Original LegiStorm article accepts comments]

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

US Election Assistance Commission very selective in reporting of CIA analysis of electronic voting machines

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: The Examiner

U.S. Election Assistance Commission snubs CIA analyst's warning about electronic voting machines

March 25, 3:59 PM

U.S. Election Assistance Commission seal

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission was created to oversee federal elections and regulate the electronic voting machine industry. Slow to the task and led by holdovers from the abandoned National Association of State Election Directors oversight scheme, the EAC has inched along developing a bureaucratic infrastructure to address the problems of electronic voting machines.

The main problem with the software driven devices used in electronic voting machines is that they can be hacked by undetectable malicious code or in simple language, the machines cannot be trusted.

Academic studies are piling up against the various voting machine manufacturers over the security and reliability of the machines. In February the EAC arranged for a cyber-security specialist at the Central Intelligence Agency to give them a heads-up about hacking.

The EAC website has posted Steve Stigall's CIA resume for all the public to read. The EAC also posted a summary of his remarks. However, what the EAC did not post were Stigall's dire warnings about the dangers of the voting machines.

What the EAC told us.

Steve Stigall started working for the CIA in 1985. Stigall's early analytic career at the spy agency was focused on Soviet strategic missile forces. "Since 1995 he has specialized in foreign computer threats. In 2000 Mr. Stigall was inducted into CIA's Senior Analytic Service."

Describing a "growing potential for cyber vote fraud" the EAC summarized Stigall's remarks.

"An analysis of foreign countries' experience with computerizing their election systems has revealed challenges to the electronic safeguarding of increasingly computer-dependent elections. This presentation, while not addressing US-specific approaches, offers insights for policymakers in this country who seek to enhance the role of computers and computer networks in the electoral process."

What the EAC didn't tell us.

McClatchy Newspapers has obtained a transcript of Stigall's warning to the EAC which they kept from the official website and have not shared with 'policymakers' in any public manner.

Stigall told the EAC that the CIA had reported apparent vote-rigging in Venezuela, Macedonia and Ukraine. The news report was of "disturbing lessons for the United States" where Stigall warned of five entry points where a "malicious actor" could "make bad things happen."

Stigall told the EAC that any voting machine connected to the internet could be hacked and that machines not hooked up could be hacked wirelessly if the machine had a wireless card embedded in its hardware.

Stigall said that most web-based ballot systems were proven to be insecure. The CIA began studying foreign voting systems after concluding that foreigners might try to hack American elections to alter the outcome.

Stigall suggested that even an audit of the Venezuelan alleged-rigging may have been fixed. The CIA focused on Venezuela for study in part because Smartmatic, a Venezuela-connected company, owned Sequoia Voting Systems until 2007. The machines with a foreign connection were in use in 16 states and the District of Columbia raising concern at the CIA.

Stigall explained that in the country of Georgia people who died in the 1700's were added to the electronic voter registry. While in Macedonia the number of Albanians' purged from electronic voting lists amounted to "voter genocide".

According to the McClatchy story, Stigall asked the EAC not identify him yet the Commission posted his resume anyway.

[Original Examiner article accepts comments]

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Washington must be clear about what taxpayers deserve in return for their investments to the finance industry

Image by MatthewBradley via Flickr

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: Taxpayers for Common Sense

Congress Strikes Out

Volume XIV No. 12 - March 20, 2009

The recent contortions Congress and the Administration are going through over lucrative bonuses to executives at American International Group (AIG) are a predictable result of the failure of Congress and the Department of Treasury to be clear about what taxpayers deserve in return for their investments. And unless lawmakers and the Administration step up to the plate it won’t be the last of the outrages.

If there is any recipient of bailout funds with whom Treasury should have laid down clear, unambiguous standards, it’s AIG. After a $182.5 billion investment taxpayers own roughly eighty percent of the company. Further, AIG just reported a $61 billion loss for its most recent financial quarter.

For the last week we have heard a litany about how the $165 million in bonus payouts were contractually obligated. But contracts can be renegotiated, revised and rewritten, particularly when there is a major change in circumstances. Say … for example … the federal government provides a significant cash injection into a company. Hmm, sounds kinda like AIG. But Treasury did not suggest AIG alter bonus contracts as a condition of their receiving a massive public investment. Strike one.

Not only did Treasury fail to demand the renegotiation of these contracts, but Congress may have added an extra hurdle to making changes. A last-minute addition to the stimulus bill purported to limit future bonus payments but may have actually added legal protection to those already paid. Strike two.

Now there are efforts to create a special tax scheme to claw back some of the bonus payments. Politically seductive as that may be, micro-targeting the tax code to punish specific contracts is the wrong way to make tax policy. Strike three.

Congress and the Administration screwed up and they need to take their lumps and learn from their mistakes. The “Good Cop” routine has failed.

Instead of pleading with executives to do what is in the national interest, those executives need to be given a dose of tough medicine. If you want our money, you’ll have to become a good citizen. Otherwise, you are not going have a job. Every step of the way, Congress and the administration have given the financial industries flexibility to respond to this crisis. The failure to set clear, tough standards has left us with little ability to hold banks accountable.

As Bob Dylan sings, “steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king.” The kings of AIG and other Wall Street titans are working hard to abscond with as much taxpayer money as possible, while refusing to take any responsibility for the financial mess that is bringing the U.S. and world economy to its knees. AIG is the most glaring and stupefying example of questionable spending. But hundreds of other financial institutions and a couple of major car companies have also received billions from taxpayers. The outrage of AIG bonuses – small potatoes in dollar terms – should reinvigorate Congress and the Administration to do their constitutionally appointed duties and hold recipients of taxpayer dollars accountable.

Let us know what you think.

[Original TCS article accepts comments]

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Monday, March 23, 2009

Contact your US Senators to oppose inclusion of language like the Foxx amendment in S. 277

US Rep. Virginia Foxx R-NC. Image via Wikipedia

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: OMB Watch

March 23, 2009

Action Needed ASAP to Protect Nonprofit Advocacy Rights!

Please circulate this to others.

Today, the Senate is set to take up the Serve America Act (S. 277). S. 277 amends the National and Community Service Act of 1990 and will create two new service-learning programs.

Unfortunately, the House-passed version of the bill, the GIVE Act (H.R. 1388), includes a "poison pill" amendment sponsored by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) that would have far-reaching, negative consequences for nonprofit advocacy. The amendment contains outrageous language that restricts National Service fund recipients from using private funds for lobbying; endorsing or supporting events that endorse or oppose legislation; engaging in selected nonpartisan voter engagement activities; organizing or engaging in petitions, protests, boycotts, or strikes; providing or promoting abortions or referrals; or influencing union organizing.

Click here to tell your senators to oppose any attempt to include language like the Foxx amendment in S. 277.

Additionally, an organization cannot receive National Service funds under the Foxx amendment if it "co-locates" with an organization that engages in most of the listed activities. There is no definition of "co-located on the same premises," and this vagueness could ensnare organizations located in the same office building as the offending group, even if the organizations are not related or connected in any other way.

Finally, if an organization (or co-located organization) is indicted — not necessarily convicted — for voter fraud, it is ineligible for National Service programs. Given the recent history of politically motivated voter fraud prosecutions, this language is especially troubling.

The First Amendment protects against speech restrictions, such as those in the Foxx amendment. While the Foxx amendment appears to be unconstitutional, we cannot wait for lawsuits and court decisions to protect the rights of nonprofits and their constituents. We must act now!

Please contact your senators immediately and tell them to oppose any attempt to include language like the Foxx amendment in S. 277. Click here to send an e-mail to your senators (with a copy to the White House), or call you senators immediately (Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121).

The Senate is poised to move quickly on this legislation — action on the bill could occur early this week. Please act now!

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Federal certification test for vote-counting accuracy cannot determine the error rate of the equipment

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: VotersUnite!

Federal Certification Test for Vote-Counting Accuracy Cannot Determine the Error Rate of the Equipment

by Ellen Theisen. March 21, 2009

We live in a world of complex computerized systems -- medical equipment such as MRIs and CAT scans; flight control software; an automotive fuel injection system; the databases that store, retrieve, and collate data. All these systems undergo stringent testing.

The primary purpose of any testing of computerized systems is to show either that the system works as designed or that it doesn’t. If the system does not work as designed, then the test results are expected to provide information on the nature, and perhaps the cause, of the defective behavior.

Using these criteria, this report evaluates one specific test -- a test designed to confirm or refute that a specific computerized vote-counting system meets the accuracy level required by federal law. The details that follow contain many numbers and many technical details, but the discussion centers on a single, simple question: did the test, which was approved by the federal agency tasked with certifying voting equipment, provide evidence that the accuracy requirement was met, or did the test provide evidence that the accuracy requirement was not met?

As the author demonstrates in this specific instance, the answer is: the test provided neither. The test, which was designed by a federally-accredited test lab for the sole purpose of testing the accuracy of the vote-counting equipment, cannot prove whether or not the system accurately counts votes, nor can the test yield any measure of the accuracy rate.

The author wants the reader to understand that such testing provides false assurance that a federally-certified vote-counting machine meets the accuracy requirements of federal law.

Read the report (pdf)

Improper mortgage deals from Countrywide benefited congressmembers

US Senator Chris Dodd. Image via Wikipedia

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: Docuticker

Report Revealing New VIPs Shows How Countrywide Used Mortgage Deals to Buy Influence, Block Reforms

Source: U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (GOP)

An Oversight and Government Reform Committee Republican report Countrywide Financial Corporation’s infamous VIP and Friends of Angelo Program offers new insight into the inner workings of Countrywide’s efforts to buy friends in critical government and industry positions affecting the company’s business interests.

“This investigation finds that Countrywide embarked in a determined and calculated effort to buy influence – employees openly weighed the political influence of targeted officials when deciding what perks to offer,” said Issa. “Countrywide VIPs in positions of key responsibility didn’t innocently stumble into loans with reduced rates and waived fees – they were recruited into the program personally by high-ranking company officials including former CEO Angelo Mozilo.”

“VIPs weren’t just offered good service. Company policies were thrown in the trash in a rush to offer preferential treatment to VIPs such as Senator Kent Conrad and Senator Chris Dodd. Those who were supposed to oversee the lending practices and relationship between Countrywide and Fannie Mae were actually in bed with them.”

“I have asked Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Edolphus Towns to join me in requesting all Countrywide VIP and lobbying documents from Bank of America so that the full extent of this influence buying operation program can be investigated. Despite our work, questions remain about the ‘Friends of Angelo’ program and the identities of others who likely received improper benefits.”

+ Full Report (PDF; 1 MB)

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Dire Obama budget neglects PAYGO fiscal policy

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: The Concord Coalition

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:	CONTACT: Jonathan DeWald (703) 894-6222
March 20, 2009	communications@concordcoalition.org

Concord Coalition says that new CBO numbers demonstrate the high cost of abandoning PAYGO

WASHINGTON -- With today’s release of a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report estimating that the President’s budget would result in annual deficits averaging more than $900 billion over the next 10 years, The Concord Coalition pointed out that much of the fiscal damage would be caused by abandoning pay-as-you-go rules (PAYGO) for $2.6 trillion of policy decisions --the largest of which would permanently extend most of the tax cuts due to expire over the next two years.

“The deficit and debt numbers in today’s report are truly staggering. We cannot afford to follow the path projected for the President’s budget by CBO. Within 10 years, debt would double and interest costs would be three times higher as a share of the economy. With the baby boomers moving into their retirement years, there is no reason to believe that the numbers would not deteriorate further unless we make some very hard choices. A good place to start would be to enforce PAYGO, not just for new initiatives as the President says he will do, but for existing policies as well. If we don’t, it will be much harder to get back to a more sustainable fiscal course,” said Robert L Bixby, Executive Director of The Concord Coalition.

The CBO report shows that the new official, current-law baseline produces a 10-year deficit of $4.4 trillion. This is $1.3 trillion worse than they forecast in January due to the cost of newly enacted legislation ($1.3 trillion, primarily the recovery package) and a deteriorating revenue base (another loss of $1.3 trillion). Partially offsetting those worsening factors was that lower interest rates and inflation reduce government outlays by $1.4 trillion. Another $140 billion was added to the 10-year deficit due to technical changes. Concord noted that the previous CBO baseline deficit was already $1.5 trillion worse than the current-law baseline the Administration showed in its February budget documents because CBO had already been more pessimistic than the Administration in their economic forecast.

“The biggest single proposal in the Obama budget contributing to the deterioration in the 10-year budget outlook is not spending on bailouts or stimulus or even longer-term health care reform, and not temporary tax cuts that are designed to provide immediate stimulus to the economy at only near-term cost, but rather permanent extension of most of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts – with costs that grow dramatically over time. It explains why the Obama budget, according to CBO projections, will not only fail to make trillion-dollar-plus deficits an extraordinary and temporary phenomenon but will fail to stabilize the public debt as a share of GDP,” said Concord Coalition Chief Economist Diane Lim Rogers.

“President Obama and Congress face a policy choice regarding extension of the expiring tax cuts. In fact, Congress will have to write and pass new legislation, which President Obama will have to sign, in order to keep any of the Bush tax cuts beyond December 31, 2010. They will then become the Obama tax cuts and not the Bush tax cuts, and they will still add nearly $2 trillion to the deficit,” Rogers said.

CBO March Baseline Compared to CBO Estimate of President's Budget

###

The Concord Coalition is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to balanced federal budgets and generationally responsible fiscal policy. Former U.S. Senators Warren Rudman (R-NH) and Bob Kerrey (D-NE) serve as Concord's co-chairs and former Secretary of Commerce Peter Peterson serves as president.

CONTACT:
Jonathan DeWald
(703) 894-6222
communications@concordcoalition.org

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

"Contact Your Reps!," by David Weller

Contact your reps!
It's a few easy steps...

See some of our problems?
They can help solve them...

Just go to their
web sites, you can't miss,
and say to them, "Please vote for this"!

So, have a constituent request?
Please, be their honored guest!

However, are you getting no reply?
Then, ask future candidates, "Why"?

"Government Openness," by David Weller

government openness,like a sunrise
building a paradise

government openness,
like a Summer shower
building a budding flower

government openness,
like a fair day
building a sweet play

government openness,
like a fresh gust
building a people's trust

Saturday, March 21, 2009

Commission on how best to strengthen the budget process used by federal lawmakers

Ida May Fuller, the first Social Security recipient. Image via Wikipedia

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: The Pew Charitable Trusts

Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform

The Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform will convene the nation’s preeminent fiscal and budget experts to make recommendations for how best to strengthen the budget process used by federal lawmakers. Significant attention to budget reform over the next few years is imperative given the current economic conditions, the tremendous amount of borrowing taking place to help stabilize the economy, and the large and growing promises for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits.

The commission will convene over the next two years to produce recommendations that address a host of shortcomings in current budget rules, concepts and processes.

Subsidyscope.com: Comprehensive data on the financial interventions by the federal government

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: The PEW Charitable Trusts

Project: The Financial Bailout

In recent months, the federal government has intervened in the nation’s economy in unprecedented ways. Those actions have raised citizens’ awareness about the role of subsidies in the economy and heightened concerns about their size and scope. However, it is hard to find comprehensive data on the financial interventions in a single, easy-to-use Web site.

To fill this gap, Subsidyscope – an initiative of The Pew Charitable Trusts – is pulling together data on the financial institutions that are receiving benefits from the various federal programs so users can understand how and where taxpayer dollars are being spent.

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Friday, March 20, 2009

Obama Administration drops phrase "enemy combatants," may release Gitmo prisoners into U.S.

Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building, Washington, DC USA. Image via Wikipedia

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: Judicial Watch

Obama Administration Drops Phrase "Enemy Combatants," May Release Gitmo Prisoners into U.S.

Two recent decisions by the Obama administration significantly reduced the power of the President of the United States to prosecute the war on terror and, in my view, left the United States vulnerable to future terrorist attacks.

First off, the Obama administration ditched the term "enemy combatant," a descriptive category that has a long history and was used to describe captured terrorists after the 9/11 attacks. Here's the story according to Reuters:

"The Obama administration stopped calling Guantanamo inmates 'enemy combatants' on Friday and incorporated international law as its basis for holding the prisoners while it works to close the facility.

"The U.S. Justice Department filed court papers outlining a further legal and linguistic shift from the anti-terrorism policies of Republican President George W. Bush, which drew worldwide condemnation as violations of human rights and international law."

(It should be noted that the "worldwide condemnation" referenced by Reuters was expressed most enthusiastically by terrorist advocates and sympathizers.)

According to the Obama Justice Department "the legal structure for holding the Guantanamo prisoners will now be based on laws passed by Congress and, by extension, international law including the Geneva conventions..." You can read the Justice brief here.

So in other words, it is no longer the Commander in Chief calling the shots on defending the nation from terrorists. Now, it's Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, guided by international law.

The Obama administration, meanwhile, continues to move forward with plans to shut the Guantanamo facility down. And where will the U.S. government release these enemy combatants – or should we call now them "homeless detainees?"

How about the United States? Check this out from Thursday's Wall Street Journal.

"Attorney General Eric Holder said some detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, may end up being released in the U.S. as the Obama administration works with foreign allies to resettle some of the prisoners....For 'people who can be released there are a variety of options that we have and among them is the possibility is that we would release them into this country,' Mr. Holder said."

So here we are -- Guantanamo Bay prisoners may no longer be labeled "enemy combatants." The Obama administration will now rely chiefly on the "authority" of Congress and international law (rather than the constitutional powers of the president) to detain terrorists. Plans to shutdown Guantanamo Bay due to pressure from terrorist advocates are moving forward. And some of these terrorist prisoners will be released into the United States, presumably taking their position in line for some "stimulus" money.

Feel any safer? I don't.

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Saturday, March 28, 2009

Friday, March 27, 2009

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Monday, March 23, 2009

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Saturday, March 21, 2009

Friday, March 20, 2009

Labels (for all blog posts-- since 2004)