In today ledger, politicians have a spending problem, Pat Boone is outraged, blogs unite against pork, and more...

The Hawaii Reporter runs an op-ed by FreedomWorks' Matt Kibbe, which attacks Congress for its spending habits:

The federal government's budget problem isn't the economic activity that tax cuts have stimulated. The real budget problem lies with politicians who can't stop spending. America does not have a revenue problem. Politicians have a spending problem.

In the past five years, nondefense discretionary spending has increased at an unprecedented pace. According to a recent study by the Cato Institute, discretionary spending during President Bush's first term rose an average of 8 percent each year. This is quadruple the rate of discretionary-spending increases under President Reagan and higher than under any president in the past 40 years. Annual federal spending is now approaching $3 trillion.

In a column, entertainer and senior advocate Pat Boone ridicules projects like the Bridge to Nowhere and other egregious earmarks:

It's [the "Bridge to Nowhere"] definitely not OK with me. Nor is the half million dollars approved by our Congress to investigate the effects of cow flatulence on global warming. Nor the thousands, yes thousands of other equally outrageous and inexcusable "pork " projects – 9,963 to be exact – identified and listed by the 2006 Citizens Against Government Waste annual "Pig Book" report! And that figure actually represents a 29 percent decrease from the previous year's total, which was 13,997 "pork" chops whose cost added up to $27.3 billion. And though the number of this year's intended thefts was less – the total projected cost was an all-time record high, a 6.2 percent increase to $29 billion!

One anti-spending effort gaining momentum is Andy Roth's blog campaign against pork. The Beltway Blogroll called it "A Call to Porkbusting Arms":

The Club For Growth is recruiting an army of Internet militiamen to do battle with the almighty Uncle Sam over how much pork the federal government should have in its diet…

Roth is using the chart to incite bloggers against pork. "If you are a blogger, find your local congressman and blog about him," Roth said. "We have the votes; we have the members on record. Now we just need to put some sunlight on the situation. ... Let's fill this list up by blogging about every House member from Honolulu to Maine and from North Dakota down to Texas!"

Instapundit is keeping score of Roth's success, and the Club for Growth blog reports that 85 blogs are writing about 168 politicians.

Meanwhile, FCW.com reports that the Defense Department is strapped for cash as it tries to both modernize its military and fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan:

The Army’s funding problems are having a deep impact on current and future operations, according to the testimony of senior Army officials who say congressional tactics and rising war costs are depleting the mission readiness of units. Those issues are forcing postponement of needed efforts to replace wornout equipment and modernize the armed forces.

The problems are due to decreases in appropriations:

On July 20, the Senate marked up its version of the bill, which would give the Defense Department $453.6 billion. That amount includes a $50 billion bridge fund for ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it is $9 billion less than President Bush’s budget request and $5 billion less than the version the House passed last month.

Congress usually ends up giving extra money later, but Heritage's Baker Spring explains why this is dangerous:

The Army is paying a price for congressional budget tactics, said Baker Spring, a defense analyst and fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Congress will cut DOD’s base budget and use emergency supplement bills to hide personal projects, Spring said. Congress uses those methods to get around spending caps, which are not present in the supplemental spending bills, he said. Congress’ use of legislative approaches that delay the process does have a real cost, he added. “When you do that, you’re really hurting the military.” Spring said that core defense programs, including research, development and acquisition, are not likely to be restored in a supplemental budget. Technology and modernization programs, therefore, suffer permanent damage, he added.

Posted by J. Lawrence Scholer at 04:04 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Washington Post reports on the progress of the federal spending database championed by Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Barack Obama (D-IL), although only the most die-hard broadsheet readers will find it on page D-4. According to the Post,

If large banks can monitor individual credit card transactions, certainly the Office of Management and Budget could set up a Web site for federal spending, said Alan E. Webber, senior analyst at Forrester Research Inc. of Cambridge, Mass. "It would be a huge undertaking, but it would be feasible."

But whether it would be politically feasible is something else entirely. "The lobbyists are not going to want this to come out," Webber said.

The opposition of lobbyists will surprise no one. The point of giving voters access to the spending authorized by their representatives is to allow a complete picture of the appropriations process, including questions of undue influence on legislators. That threatens to turn political ties between lobbyists and politicians into liabilities instead of assets and therefore to discourage earmarks to favored contributors.

One of the political obstacles in getting passage of the full database will be the inclusion of federal contracts. The House version exempts these contracts. Federal contractors have pressed for this exemption:

A narrower bill, sponsored in the House by Thomas M. Davis III(R-Va.) and Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), passed in June. It focuses exclusively on grants.…

Politically, though, the bill could run into problems, as many large companies with federal contracts might not want certain information made easily accessible.
"Vendors don't want their competitors to know what they're doing and what they're winning," Webber said.

This objection seems too silly to let pass. Many federal contractors are publicly-held corporations, which will wind up promoting the acquisition of federal contractors to attract investors and to keep current stockholders happy. They will certainly have to show the income and cost in their annual reports. Once the contract has been awarded, the proprietary interest in secrecy has ended in any case. Businesses keep their bids secret, not the contracts they win.

Federal contractors object to the creation of the new database because a large number of federal contracts already have exposure through the GSA’s Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation. However, the database does not have complete information, and it has compatibility issues with other databases. The Coburn bill would require all federal spending to be entered into one database, in one format, and be open to the public in a searchable website.

Businesses usually prefer maximum efficiency. When they argue against it, one has to wonder why.

(via Mark Tapscott)

Posted by Ed Morrissey at 03:12 PM in Captain Ed , Federal Spending | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In his most recent "Legislative Lowdown" column, Heritage's Mike Franc looks at what a minimum wage increase would mean for workers in terms of welfare benefits.

A family of four with an annual household income of $11,000 (equivalent to what a full-time minimum-wage job yields) could qualify for $33,000 in supplemental welfare benefits. Kennedy’s plan would, assuming no loss of employment, boost that family’s yearly paycheck to $15,000. But, due to the way benefits phase out as incomes rise, that family’s benefit package would decline to $7,000. Thus, total annual income—earned income plus welfare benefits—would actually fall by $3,000.

So a family would be worse off--to say nothing of the effects on incentives to work.

Posted by J. Lawrence Scholer at 10:29 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In today's ledger, the Metro bail-out earns a congressman a well-deserved distinction, bloggers against pork, the Ending Earmarks Express heads to Alaska, and more...

Mark Tapscott reports that the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs approved the "Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act," a bill that would create an online database for federal spending. Dr. Coburn, a sponsor of this legislation, commented:

Passing this bill will help end the culture of secrecy in Washington and restore some measure of the public's confidence in government. Technology has made it possible, like never before, to fulfill our founders' vision of enabling all citizens to understand our nation's finances, investigate abuses and hold elected officials accountable.

Porkbusters lists the bill's growing number of supporters:

Among the growing list of co-sponsors of the bill are senators John McCain, R-AZ, Tom Carper, D-DE, Hillary Clinton, D-NY, Rick Santorum, R-PA, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-TN. Committee Chairman Susan Collins, R-ME, also supports the measure and promised backers last week of a quick mark-up session today, followed by a quick reporting to the Senate floor. The goal is to get the Senate version approved on the Unanimous Consent calendar.

An NRO editorial was optimistic about how the bill could improve federal spending:

Staffers on Capitol Hill are calling the proposed database a “Google-like tool for federal accountability.” For the first time, it would shed some light on which companies and organizations are receiving federal money, and how much they are getting. A tool like this is a dream come true for budget hawks…

Passage of a practical database bill would be an important victory in the battle to control federal spending. It would bring about a systematic, strategic advantage—rather than just an isolated triumph—for proponents of spending cuts. While it isn’t enough by itself to restore sensible spending to Washington, it would strongly encourage lawmakers to exercise integrity in their oversight of the federal purse. Let the sunlight in.

Below in the Policy Blog, Ed Morrissey writes of the building momentum behind the legislation.

BNA explains how the bill would work:

The new Web site called for under Coburn's bill would be set up and maintained under the direction of the Office of Management and Budget for free public use. It would contain the name of each entity, besides a federal agency, that receives federal funding, though it would not required disclosure of any classified, national security information. The bill would also require the Web site to list:

-an itemized breakdown of each transaction, including funding agency, program source, and a description of the purpose of each funding action;
-the location of the funded entity and the project involved; and
-"any other relevant information."

Today's Washington Post reports on the lobbying and ethics reforms that were spurred by the Abramoff scandals earlier this year:

Congress may adjourn this year without agreeing on legislation to tighten restrictions on lobbyists' dealings with lawmakers. The House has not yet named negotiators to work with the Senate to devise a compromise package, even though its bill passed May 3. "It's on life support," Jan W. Baran, a leading Republican ethics lawyer, said of the final bill.

The legislation's potential demise is surprising, given the urgency that lawmakers of both parties placed on its passage seven months ago.

But, some congressmen are promising to enact earmark reforms as soon as Congress returns from August recess:

As a backup, senior House and Senate Republicans are working on separate resolutions that would alter congressional rules rather than rewrite lobbying regulations or ethics statutes -- a more difficult task. Their priority would be to require lawmakers for the first time to fully disclose all of the narrowly focused appropriations and tax breaks that they sponsor. These so-called earmarks, which critics deride as pork-barrel spending, have been at the center of several controversies over the past two years.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R.-CA), Majority Leader John Boehner (R.-OH) and Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R.-IL) announced they would move on earmark reform when the return from recess. Here’s part of their press release:

If the House and Senate have not produced a final lobbying and ethics reform conference report by the time we return from our August district work period in September, the House will move to immediately adopt and implement a comprehensive earmark reform rules change independent of the ongoing lobbying and ethics reform discussions to ensure these new rules apply to all spending and tax measures that will go to the President's desk this fall.

Americans for Prosperity commended Hastert, Dreier and Boehner for their efforts:

“The members of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation applaud today’s announcement that the House plans to move forward on earmark reform so this fall’s spending bills will receive the added scrutiny they deserve. This is a step in the right direction for all taxpayers, and it should make it less likely that outrageous pork-barrel earmarks for teapot museums or bribe-offering defense contractors will slip through undetected.

“At the same time, Congressional leaders must be careful to not allow a House rules change become an excuse to stop working on comprehensive and permanent earmark reform that will apply to all Congressional spending bills.”

Rep. Tom Davis’s recent earmark--$1.5 billion for the D.C. Metro—has earned him a special distinction. Citizens Against Government Waste just named him Porker of the Month:

The public transportation system of only one metropolitan area should not be funded at the exclusion of others. The national debt stands at $8.4 trillion and the War on Terror has no end in sight. Pedestrian and bike improvements for Metro stations simply do not take precedence over genuine priorities and will further exacerbate Congress’ out-of-control spending. If WMATA needs repairs and improvements, it should be paid for by passenger fares, local governments, and competitively awarded federal grants. WMATA can also cut costs with market-based reforms implemented through competitive contracting programs. […] The $1.5 billion rewards Metro for past mismanagement and will give it less incentive to straighten up its practices.

The Club for Growth’s Andy Roth points out a story in today's Washington Post that investigates Davis's ties to ICG, a consulting firm that advises clients on how to get government contracts. The firm's president is Davis' close friend.

ICG's relationship with Davis has played out on a number of levels. The firm has arranged for clients to meet with Davis in his congressional office. Upson has set up dinners and receptions with the lawmaker for his clients. And ICG has arranged for clients to testify before Davis's committee. In one case, Upson's team wrote the testimony. Some of those clients, who pay ICG about $8,000 per month, have told The Washington Post that their testimony was a part of marketing strategies developed by ICG to bolster the clients' "clout" and "visibility" on Capitol Hill and with government contracting officials.

Meanwhile, Roth is moving forward in his campaign to use blogs to investigate every Congressman's record on pork. Earlier in the week Roth posted every House Member’s voting record on Jeff Flake’s amendments to strip earmarks.

In another grassroots effort to stop earmarks, the AFP's Ending Earmark Express is heading to Alaska:

One year after taxpayer outrage exploded over the $223 million Alaska earmark known as the “Bridge to Nowhere,” the Americans for Prosperity Foundation’s nationwide Ending Earmarks Express, a road tour of lawmakers’ wasteful pet projects, will visit the proposed site of the infamous bridge in Ketchikan, Alaska, on August 16.

Posted by J. Lawrence Scholer at 02:23 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The federal spending database proposed by Senator Tom Coburn has built enough momentum to pass out of committee on a unanimous vote. S. 2590 will come to the Senate floor in this session, and it has a healthy bipartisan cadre of support. Eighteen senators have co-sponsored S. 2590, including Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), Tom Carper (D-DE), Susan Collins (R-ME), Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (R-AZ), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), John Kerry (D-MA) and George Allen (R-VA). Since both caucus leaders have added themselves as co-sponsors, we can expect this to get addressed quickly with little organized opposition.

The only obstacle appears to be a difference in the already passed House version, which excludes federal contracts from the database. The House, however, may be coming around to the Senate view. Mark Tapscott reports that Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA), the author of the House version, has told Congressional Quarterly that he will reconsider his previous opposition to adding federal contracts to the database:

Davis said he has softened his opposition to including contracts and does not expect that conference negotiations, should it come to that, would be difficult. ‘It’s technically harder to do, but I’m not opposed to it,' Davis said.

"Davis has taken the brunt of the criticism for excluding federal contracts because his Virginia district receives so many. The 11th District ranked 17th among House districts in federal contracts received in fiscal 2004 and 2005, according to [Gary Bass of OMB Watch]. Blunt’s district ranks relatively low in both contracts and grants.

The difference between the two versions is significant, both substantively and politically. While a database of federal grants would beat no database at all, it would exclude a great deal of spending in the federal budget, essentially painting an incomplete picture of the budget. A grants-only would not have exposed the earmark abuses involving Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, for instance, who directed federal dollars specifically to contractors with illicit arrangements for his benefit.

Politically, it would undermine the entire project. The broad coalition supporting this endeavor will fall apart under Davis’ approach. We do not often see James Dobson’s Focus on the Family on the same side as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, nor Taxpayers for Common Sense allied with Greenpeace. Liberals want to expose waste in federal contracts that benefit the private sector, while conservatives want to cut out needless grants for pet causes of fringe groups. Without both, it would be almost impossible to get Congress to pass a bill that forces transparency on their appropriation processes.

Readers can help keep interest high in the project by helping to name the new federal spending database. Visit this website to cast your vote.

Posted by Ed Morrissey at 10:47 AM in Captain Ed , Federal Spending | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Business managers responsible for budgets often review planned spending on a monthly basis to spot and eliminate unnecessary spending. Taxpayers might believe that a similar mechanism would exist for a federal budget that now tops two trillion dollars, but they would be wrong. Congress has no formal mechanism of budgetary review that allows members to force votes to trim wasteful spending at any time after the federal budget gets signed into law.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) wants to change that with his Cut the Unnecessary Tab (CUT) resolution. This resolution would make any unspent federal funding vulnerable to a recorded vote for rescission at the beginning of each fiscal quarter. Any Member of the House could offer an amendment to these quarterly rescission bills that revokes the appropriation for any program in the approved budget. That would force House members to go on record supporting or opposing each specific program.

How much of an effect will this have on spending? Perhaps not much initially, but it does have the potential to put some brakes on the sillier line items in the budget once they get exposure in CUT reviews. Budget hawks will have four opportunities every year to propose elimination of programs they see as superfluous or incompetent. If enough of these programs get eliminated, it could start a new paradigm for the campaign trail-- incumbents could outline all of the money their rescissions saved, while challengers could highlight the programs they would try to eliminate if elected.

Heritage's Alison Acosta Fraser notes the potential for incremental improvement in proposals like CUT:

This is another in a series of small steps to control spending that Congress is considering. All proposals like CUT would do some good in the short term if they were adopted and then seriously used to their full effect. Steps like these could create momentum towards reining in the huge growth in the federal budget. Members of Congress should be encouraged to come up with innovative ideas to tame the federal budget and then to follow through with them. Hopefully this would encourage them to tackle larger spending issues like the future exploding spending on entitlements.

CUT may not solve the gargantuan problem of budget bloat. It does, however, give Congress a tool that individual Members can use to shame the chamber into commonsense rescissions. No longer would any congressman have the excuse that one individual acting alone has no options to reform the federal government.

Posted by Ed Morrissey at 09:37 AM in Captain Ed , Federal Spending | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Chicago's city council has passed a minimum wage law that would double the cost of labor for large businesses. Targeted at “box stores” like Wal-Mart and Target, the “living wage” legislation would increase the minimum wage in the city from $6.50 per hour to $10 per hour plus $3 in benefits.

Just like Maryland's pointless health care law targeted at Wal-Mart (overturned by the courts last week), the bill will cause large businesses to cut payrolls, reduce their operations in the city and reconsider future investments in Chicago. A Wal-Mart spokesman has already said the company would “redirect our focus on our suburban strategy,” which hurts not just urban consumers but urban workers as well. This law is aimed squarely as those it is intended to help, the urban poor, who will face the double blow of lost jobs and higher prices.

Posted by Nathaniel Ward at 04:24 PM in Economy , Markets | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In today's ledger, Washington's love affair with pork, the long history of the bridge to nowhere, bizarre Alaskan project proposals, and more...

This morning, the Fredericksburg, Virginia, Free-Lance Star published an editorial calling for "Evangelical Zeal against Congressional Pork." It notes the recent economic good news, but asks:

Why, then, are so many folks riled about the economy--including a good chunk of the GOP rank and file? To paraphrase famed Democratic strategist James Carville, "It's the pork, stupid." All the economic good news in the world can't hide the spending sprees of this 109th Congress, nor what those sprees have wrought: a ballooning national debt that hangs over the nation like the Sword of Damocles….

Nearly every legislator, of both major parties, loves pork, adding fancy new projects to the budget, keeping alive dubious district or state programs, or blindly throwing money into venerable endeavors that need financial overhaul.

The editorial cites a Heritage study:

In its recent "Third-Quarter Report Card for Congress," the estimable Heritage Foundation gives basically failing marks to both House and Senate for their fiscal habits. Heritage notes that by the end of this fiscal year, federal spending will have soared 45 percent since 2001. What's more, says the report, defense spending accounts for roughly a quarter of that eruption: The war on terror shouldn't give political cover to spendaholics.

The Christian Science Monitor reports on the prevalence of pork on the Hill:

Committee chairs dole out earmarks to members of both parties, ensuring that the practice prevails. Lawmakers campaign and raise donations on a pledge of obtaining them. Many K Street lobby shop solicit business on their record of delivering earmarks for clients….

Defending the practice, some lawmakers say they are in a better position to know what is good for their districts or states than some government bureaucrat. But critics say it can be hard to avoid the appearance of corruption.

"Are they spending tax dollars in the public's best interest or are they paying off cronies and campaign contributors?" asks Ed Frank of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation. "The only way for members to avoid that question is to avoid earmarks."

In another article in the CSM, Yereth Rosen explains the controversy over and the rather long history of the "bridge to nowhere." It turns out that Alaska has long embraced big and unnecessary projects. Alaskan officials at some point have proposed to:

• Drop hydrogen bombs to carve out a deepwater port off northwest Alaska.
  
• Erect a domed city near Mount McKinley.
  
• Gouge a Bering Strait railroad tunnel to Russia.
  
• Hook up a water pipeline to California.
  

"We live in a grand state, and it inspires grand thinking, which can be a good thing until you take it to extremes. And then it gets a little ridiculous," says bridge opponent Emily Ferry, coordinator of the Alaska Transportation Priorities Project in Juneau.

In an interview with The Hill, lobbyist William Ferguson of the Ferguson Group defends the process of earmarking:

“People insinuate that this is a wasteful process, but we go through a very thoughtful process before we initiate a request,” Ferguson says. He says that the federal government used to spend more money on local government before the age of the earmarks, only through grant and loan programs that have since ended.

The lobbyists help choose which projects are likely to get federal money and write up pages of background materials to justify the budget request.

In the Washington Post, E.J. Dionne Jr. explains the lure of pork on the campaign trail:

What's interesting is the extent to which [Sen. George] Allen and other Republican incumbents around the country are talking up how they brought big government's largess to their constituents.

It doesn't matter that they claim to be against that very same big government. Faced this year with a choice between running on their party's record and delivering pork, they'll take pork.

That means that some incumbent Republican senators are acting as if they were seeking reelection for governor -- or even mayor.

Today a Washington Times editorial described two major efforts aimed at reducing at reducing spending and waste:

The Abolishment of Obsolete Agencies and Federal Sunset Act, which is sponsored by Republican Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas, would establish a 12-member bipartisan commission to review all federal agencies at least once every 12 years in order to determine their efficiency and public need. Unless Congress reauthorized the agency, it would automatically be abolished within a year of the commission's report…

The Government Efficiency Act, which is sponsored by Republican Rep. Todd Tiahrt of Kansas, would provide for the establishment of a bipartisan seven-member sunset commission whose proposals would receive fast-track consideration in Congress "to reorganize, consolidate, abolish, expand or transfer federal programs and agencies reviewed by the commission." In addition to discretionary programs funded by the annual appropriations process, the Tiahrt bill authorizes the commission to consider changes in any federal program, including entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Ed Morrissey will be writing on federal spending at The Heritage Foundation's weblog. Bloggers have picked up his latest post about the "Duke" Cunningham story. Porkbusters posted Mark Tapscott's comments:

Ed Morrissey of Captain's Quarters points out a fundamental truth - secrecy in government is sometimes necessary but it is always an opportunity for somebody to do something illegal behind closed doors. Disgraced former congressman Randy Cunningham provides vivid demonstration of this truth.

Posted by J. Lawrence Scholer at 01:45 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Skeptics of subsidized mass transit and federal spending in general have cause for concern, thanks to a massive earmark approved by the House last week and headed for the Senate. Rep. Tom Davis, R-VA, pushed through a $1.5 billion amendment to the Deep Water Energy Resources Act in order to grant matching funds to the Metro, the rail and bus service for the greater D.C. area. What does deep-water energy resources have to do with buses and trains? It’s a good question, one that got past the 242 congressmen who voted for the subsidy, including 82 of Davis’s Republican colleagues. Perhaps the connection comes from the program rarely staying above water financially, as even its client communities cannot seem to find their own funding for the system.

Ronald Utt properly refers to H.R. 3496 as the “biggest pork barrel earmark in history” in his Heritage Webmemo from last week. Utt notes that the representative from Virginia justified this expense by noting the critical nature of the Metro to the operation of the federal government. However, as the Webmemo points out, Davis had other motivations as well:

Metro provides no such service. Unreliable and poorly run, the system is subject to frequent shutdowns and service interruptions due to equipment failure, bad weather, suicides, driver error, and passenger medical emergencies. In mid-June, heavy rain and winds caused a shutdown of two of its five routes, significant delays on the other three, and the complete shutdown of the two commuter rail lines serving suburban Virginia. While some roads in the area were damaged as well, none suffered the kind debilitating closures and interruptions that Metro did. And as for the need to get the federal workforce to the office, a Metro spokeswoman noted that “Because nearly half of Metro’s daily commuters are federal government employees…delays could be less severe if large numbers of them take advantage of the unscheduled leave option and stay home.” In other words, Metro’s service can be improved if federal workers don’t go to work—so much for being an essential service.

Beyond such posturing lies a legislative effort whose origins sprang from an act of constituent service, and chief among the constituents served is the Congressman himself. As originally introduced in July 2005, H.R. 3496 was written to force a resolution of a dispute between Mr. Davis and Metro over its plan to sell 3.75 acres of land it owns beside a rail station to a developer who wanted to incorporate the land into a large, mixed-use development near Mr. Davis’s home. Concerned about traffic congestion and the displacement of suburban charm by urban density, Mr. Davis threatened to do something about it. While most Americans can only complain about encroaching development, Mr. Davis can use his congressional powers to prohibit it, and H.R. 3496 was written to do exactly that. Specifically, Section 4(a) of the bill prohibits Metro from selling the 3.75 acres in question until it has submitted a detailed study of the proposed land sale and planned development to Congress. But as Metro has since sold the land to the developer, this legislative prohibition is pointless, and all that remains of the bill is a massive federal and local bailout of the faltering system.

And what of the constituency that the money will reach? Even the Washington Post notes in a supportive editorial that the states of Maryland and Virginia don’t appear to have much enthusiasm for funding their own public transportation system:

Local governments from New York to Chicago to Los Angeles have money dedicated to their mass-transit systems. Metro on the other hand has to raise fares repeatedly and beg for cash annually. This year both the Virginia and Maryland legislatures declined to provide Metro a dedicated local funding source. Perhaps the lure of $1.5 billion might finally change some minds in Richmond and Annapolis.

Why should taxpayers from around the nation fund local public transportation systems that even the states that run it don’t care to fund? This pork barrel subsidy will cost every American man, woman, and child five dollars – five dollars not to ride a bus in their own neighborhoods. The Post appears to believe that such systems should not operate on their own revenue, but doesn’t explain why it deserves funding from people in Texas, Minnesota, California, Wyoming, and elsewhere.

Metropolitan transit systems should get funding from local or state government, where the people who benefit from such systems can retain responsibility and authority for them. Federal grants such as these remove local responsibility and increase the intrusiveness and power of the Washington bureaucracy – and that incursion makes us all a little less free, as well as five dollars poorer with no benefit to anyone outside of the Metro’s ridership.

Posted by Ed Morrissey at 11:25 AM in Captain Ed , Captain Ed , Federal Spending | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In today's ledger, the line-item veto, money for Metro, and secret earmarks...

The AP reports that the prospects for the legislative line-item veto are dim:

President Bush may be pushing hard for Congress to give him line-item veto power to remove wasteful spending from the bills it passes, but the idea seems to be sinking on Capitol Hill.

Even though lawmakers are increasingly sheepish about the ‘‘pork barrel'' projects the line-item veto is designed to fight, Democrats and some old-school Republicans in the Senate are so resistant to the idea that legislation to grant Bush this authority may not even get a Senate vote.

But, the White House isn’t giving up. According to BNA:

Despite the lack of a decision by Senate leadership on how, or when, to bring up a bill proposing fast-track budget rescission authority for the president, a Bush administration official July 21 told BNA the White House remains optimistic about support in the Senate, where the proposal has stalled.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said 43 of 63 senators now serving, including several Democrats, had supported a previous attempt at a line-item veto in 1996 that was later struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In addition, the official said, 16 senators with no records on the issue had signed on to S. 2381, a bill sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.). That bill was focused only on the line-item issue, and included language suggested by the White House's Office of Management and Budget.

One item that continues to garner attention is the $1.5 billion in funding for the D.C. Metro last week. The Washington Post asked whether this “Metro Funding [would] be Pork?” and wrote:

The House of Representatives has agreed to give Metro $1.5 billion over 10 years if Virginia, the District and Maryland match that amount. This would be a pretty clear boon to our Metro system, but a lot of lawmakers and policy types are decrying it as a government giveaway. The Heritage Foundation asks whether it would be the biggest earmark in history.

Obviously, this money would help our commutes. But is it hypocritical to take it and also decry Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere" and other expensive earmarks? Or does the federal government have a special role in funding Metro because it carries so many of its workers?

Finally, investigations into the activities of former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham have revealed how he abused the budget process to get the earmarks he wanted:

An independent investigation has found that imprisoned former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham took advantage of secrecy and badgered congressional aides to help slip items into classified bills that would benefit him and his associates …

Cunningham's case has put a stark spotlight on the oversight of classified _ or "black" _ budgets. Unlike legislation dealing with social and economic issues, intelligence bills and parts of defense bills are written in private, in the name of national security.

Ed Morrissey has more to say on Cunningham and pork below.

Posted by J. Lawrence Scholer at 03:17 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

CNN reported on Sunday evening that Randy “Duke” Cunningham placed many of his corrupt earmarks into classified appropriations bills that funded intelligence and national-security efforts. The independent investigator hired by Reps. Peter Hoekstra and Jane Harman, the chair and ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee respectively, found that Cunningham’s pork received no scrutiny at all due to the level of secrecy in these “black” budgets:

An independent investigation has found that imprisoned former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham took advantage of secrecy and badgered congressional aides to help slip items into classified bills that would benefit him and his associates. The finding comes from Michael Stern, an outside investigator hired by the House Intelligence Committee to look into how Cunningham was able to carry out the scheme. Stern is working with the committee to fix vulnerabilities in the way top-secret legislation is written, said congressional officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the committee still is being briefed on Stern's findings. Cunningham's case has put a stark spotlight on the oversight of classified -- or "black" -- budgets. Unlike legislation dealing with social and economic issues, intelligence bills and parts of defense bills are written in private, in the name of national security.

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, introduced by Senators Tom Coburn (R-OK), Barack Obama (D-IL), Thomas Carper (D-DE) and John McCain (R-AZ), creates an online public database that itemizes federal funding. The bill ensures that the taxpayers will now know how their money is being spent. Every citizen in this country, after all, should have the right to know what organizations and activities are being funded with their hard-earned tax dollars.

However, in the blogosphere era, I can guarantee that an army of analysts from across the political spectrum would soon descend on the website and publish their findings at lightening speed. As my friend Mark Tapscott said in his testimony to the Senate on this bill (quoting me), the passage of this bill would see ten thousand blogs born overnight to analyze the data. We already have the Porkbusters coalition trying to uncover the most egregious examples of pork-barrel politics and petty corruption.

Fans of open government and sunlight should read this CNN story on Cunningham’s modus operandi and realize that without tools such as that provided by S. 2590, we keep the door open for more corruption.

Posted by Ed Morrissey at 09:22 AM in Captain Ed , Federal Spending | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In today's ledger, four appropriations bills pass out of committee, a budget gimmick in defense spending, the line-item veto, and more...

The Senate Appropriations Committee approved a record of four bills yesterday, The Washington Post reports.

The Senate Appropriations Committee approved four bills yesterday, marking the first time in 18 years that the panel has finished its work before the August recess, and leaving plenty of time for Congress to complete a budget by Oct. 1, when the new fiscal year begins.

Despite that momentum, Congress probably will not confront some of the biggest domestic spending issues, including more money for education and health programs, until after the November elections.

Nervous Republican leaders want to avoid a showdown before then between GOP moderates and conservatives. Moderates are seeking more money for health and education programs, while conservatives favor belt-tightening and want to rid the appropriations process of earmarks -- special projects that lawmakers like to insert in spending bills to benefit their home districts.

A big battle is brewing be over a minimum wage provisions in the Labor-HHS-Education bill:

Lawmakers in both parties now say the spending bills may be rolled into one big package after the midterm elections. The most contentious of the bills, and a perennial spending choke point, would fund the departments of Health and Human Services, Education and Labor. In the House, Democrats tacked on a minimum-wage increase, a poison pill for GOP leaders, who oppose a wage increase but worry that political pressures would leave vulnerable rank-and-file Republicans with little choice but to support it.

Among the appropriations approved was defense spending, which fell $9.1 billion dollars short of the President’s request. The AP’s Andrew Taylor reports:

Clashing with President Bush and House conservatives, Senate committees transferred $9 billion from Bush's proposed defense budget Tuesday to domestic programs.

Subcommittees approved bills adding to Bush's budgets for some domestic programs, including Amtrak, health research, and housing for the elderly and disabled. At the same time, the defense panel trimmed the Pentagon's request for KC-130 tanker planes and for the overhaul of Army combat systems.

And Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, acknowledged that "to a certain extent" he is using some of $50 billion that's supposed to go directly for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan to ease cuts to the Pentagon's non-war budget.

The White House is not happy:

Such moves have already provoked a thinly veiled veto threat from the White House, which says they amount to a shell game that ultimately results in using emergency war funding bills to ease the crunch on domestic programs.

The Washington Post explains that Members expect defense to get the money anyway:

Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, the senior Democrat on the panel, predicted that sometime during the fiscal year starting October 1 Congress would end up providing at least some of the $9 billion it has cut from Bush's defense budget.

These kinds of budget gimmicks are taking their toll on the military, which is being forced to cut spending and make difficult decisions, writes the AP.

When Congress took longer than the Pentagon expected to approve an emergency spending bill for war costs last spring, the Army imposed temporary spending cutbacks that it expected to lift once the extra money was approved.

In its announcement Thursday, the Army said it has decided to extend most of those cutbacks until the end of the budget year on Sept. 30. Among the reasons cited: the high costs of war and an expectation that Congress may approve less money for the Army in the 2007 budget than the White House requested.

However, despite the extra domestic spending coming from these cutbacks, some Members want more. According to CongressDaily:

The Senate Appropriations Committee easily approved a $142.8 billion FY07 Labor-HHS spending bill Thursday, even though Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa, felt it was at least $10 billion too small. In a short opening statement, Specter said the shortfalls in spending on various programs ranging from Pell higher education grants to worker training and medical research represented the “disintegration of the federal role” in health, education and worker safety.”

Earlier in the week, NTU played a role in making sure that funds for water resources projects aren’t wasted:

On Wednesday the Senate approved over $12 billion in spending for water resources projects (e.g. $1.1 billion for coastal restoration in Louisiana), but NTU joined with other good-government groups to help pass an amendment that would conduct a peer review of design and cost proposals for projects with a price tag of more than $40 million.

The incredible human and fiscal toll of Hurricane Katrina and other storms last year highlighted the critical need to modernize the nation’s approach to water resources. The total cost of these disasters to federal taxpayers is expected to exceed $100 billion, yet the situation was exacerbated by the advancement of low-priority projects or those with faulty design, construction, or maintenance problems.

The Washington Times reports that waste is a worry to voters.

The depth of voter concern and cynicism about spending and waste are the political equivalent of a black hole. And as political leaders evaluate the potency of issues and contemplate setting agendas, spending restraint probably trumps tax reform in the minds of most Americans….

[V]oters believe more than half of every tax dollar collected by the federal government is wasted (53 cents on average). In fact, voters of all ages and across party lines believe at least half of every dollar is wasted. The issue seems to resonate even more among women (who say on average 59 cents of every dollar are wasted) than among men (who say on average 47 cents of every dollar is wasted).

The White House isn’t giving up on the line-item veto. According to CongressDaily, the White House is pushing to get the necessary 60 votes:

Senate and administration officials described an aggressive effort by OMB Director Portman- the administration point man on the issue- though they said the effort was more “under the radar” than the lobbying he had done for the House-passed line-item bill because of the sensitivity of ongoing talks in the Senate about whether the Gregg package or just the line-item veto would move…

Other White House officials are described as actively involved, including officials from the legislative affairs office and the political shop run by Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove.

But Sen. Gregg isn’t optimistic about the line-item veto provision. According to GovExec:

Senate Budget Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H., all but pronounced the White House's line-item veto proposal dead for the year, telling reporters Wednesday the Bush administration has not worked aggressively enough to round up the votes.

"I think people have gone back to the White House and said, 'Get us 60 votes and we'll take your position a little more seriously,'" Gregg said.

Meanwhile, in the all-but-forgotten category. From CongressDaily:

A district judge has dismissed a California agency’s challenge of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, marking the first federal court decision on the constitutionality of the legislation.

Frank Damrell Jr., a judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, upheld the constitutionality of the law, despite the agency’s assertion it was invalid since the House and Senate approved different conference reports earlier this year.

Posted by J. Lawrence Scholer at 02:18 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Fighting the government spending often resembles Don Quixote’s long-running feud with windmills, but even Miguel de Cervantes could not have imagined the impossibly large task that budget hawks face in the 21st century. Our federal budget has so many spending line items, each of which creates its own constituency and lobbying power, that even those in Congress inclined to break out the red pens find themselves despairing of the task.

Brian Riedl and Michelle Muccio have discovered a better process for House and Senate budget-cutters. Noting that most spending programs fly under the radar of even the most devoted of spending watchdogs, they looked for a legislative model that would allow the budget hawks to overcome the unchallenged lobbying power of the program’s beneficiaries inside and outside of the government bureaucracies. The pair found the model in a Congressional effort that forced one of the biggest government agencies into a series of reductions:

To be effective, a government waste commission must be specifically designed to overcome the special interest logrolling that has protected wasteful spending for years. The proven model for doing this is the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) commission, which has been used to close obsolete military bases since the 1980s. …

Public choice economists, such as Nobel laureate James Buchanan, blame reelection politics for the persistence of outdated federal programs. Imagine that the federal government ran a $300 million program that pays 1,000 people large sums of money for no legitimate purpose. This program, despite its wastefulness, will be defended to the death by its small cadre of recipients and supporters. The rest of the country may consider the program useless and yet not invest time and energy to fight the program because it costs just $1 per American. When the program’s funding comes up, only its supporters will lobby Congress. Even lawmakers who do not have any beneficiaries in their district may support this program in return for other lawmakers’ support of their own projects (in other words, logrolling). Multiply this phenomenon by thousands of federal grants and programs, and it becomes clear why Congress fails to eliminate duplicative, wasteful, outdated, and failed programs—and why Washington now spends $23,760 per household annually.

Riedl and Muccio show that bipartisan commissions and a large scope allow these petty lobbies to get matched by the momentum of the greater savings involved. Instead of allowing Congress to get bogged down into debating each individual base closing, the bipartisan BRAC panel instead compiled a list of recommendations for closures. Under an agreement with both parties, the final reports could not be amended – a condition without which Congress would have never realized any shutdowns or cost savings.

Two separate budget-trimming bills have been proposed in this session of Congress, and while Riedl and Muccio find them well-intentioned, both require improvements along the BRAC model. Read their analysis carefully; the two may have found the best lance for tilting at windmills.

Posted by Ed Morrissey at 12:42 PM in Captain Ed , Federal Spending | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Almost five years have passed since 9/11, which forced our nation into war unexpectedly and required an unpredicted level of funding for wartime efforts. At least, we could not predict the expense during that first budget cycle, already in effect when the terrorists attacked us. Only weeks later, we engaged the enemy in Afghanistan, and that required emergency spending mechanisms to pay the bill for our efforts.

And then we invaded Iraq, and again the government funded our effort through emergency supplementals. By the time we settled into the role of occupation and then administration, Congress and the White House had enough information in the summer of 2003 to put sufficient funding through the normal budgetary process. Nevertheless, we again had to fund the war through supplemental spending bills--and we do so to this day.

Baker Spring and Brian Riedl note that the White House, at least, has tired of this financial sleight-of-hand and the mischief these bills bring:

During consideration of the fiscal year 2006 Supplemental Appropriations bill earlier this year, the Senate in particular attempted to add billions of dollars in domestic spending to a bill that was primarily intended to fund military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. President Bush threatened to veto that bill unless the wasteful domestic spending was removed. Ultimately, the conference report to the bill removed the wasteful spending, and President Bush signed the Supplemental Appropriations bill into law on June 15th. Nevertheless, the delays caused by having to go through the process of removing the wasteful spending undermined orderly management procedures at the Department of Defense. Given the direction that is already being taken for enacting the fiscal year 2007 Defense Appropriations bill, it appears that congressional appropriators have a slow learning curve.

The House gave a half-hearted attempt at honest budgeting for the war, allocating $50 billion specifically for wartime operations. That will almost certainly fall significantly short, and the White House will have to request another supplemental spending bill to keep our efforts on track to defeat our enemies--especially now that war has broken out between Israel and the terrorist group Hezbollah. We can certainly expect another round of shenanigans when the Defense Appropriations bill gets to the floor of both chambers.

How many new Bridges to Nowhere will suddenly appear? How many senators and congressmen will earmark funds for local projects with no relation to the war or national defense at all? Supplemental spending bills give Congress more opportunities for pork-barrel antics, attached to spending needed for our safety and security. It holds our men and women in uniform hostage to petty corruption and opportunism.

We need Congress to appropriate honestly for our needs and to do so in a manner that recognizes the temporary nature of our challenges. Congress has the right idea in keeping war spending separate, although these emergency allocations are the wrong mechanism to use. Our needs for the war should get funded separately but as part of the overall planned budget, and emergency allocations should only be used for truly unforeseen situations. If war spending gets rolled into the overall defense budget, it will make it much more difficult to reduce or eliminate that spending when the war comes to a conclusion.

Spring and Riedl have an excellent analysis of the need for Congress to start appropriating honestly for the nation's needs, especially when such operations are so obviously foreseen. It may take a Bush veto to get them on that path.

Posted by Ed Morrissey at 09:25 AM in Captain Ed , Federal Spending | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In today's ledger, S.O.S., the line-item veto, federal funds for Metro, college students against pork and more...

Sen. Judd Gregg is still hopeful he can pass his budget process reform legislation--the Stop Over-Spending bill--before the upcoming recess, reports BNA:

Facing a dwindling amount of time ahead of Congress's August recess, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said July 19 he still hopes to see floor action on his bill to overhaul the budget process, even though he said it could not survive a possible filibuster by Democrats.

"I'm hopeful that people will say 'this is the issue, we do have to do something about it, let's try and do it,' " Gregg told a group of reporters.

In an interview with The Hill, OMB chief Rob Portman discussed on the line-item veto.

Bush has urged senators to take up the narrowly tailored House bill, which steers clear of federal sunset commissions opposed by many Democrats and aims to avoid a constitutional challenge, such as the 1998 Supreme Court decision rescinding then-President Clinton’s line-item authority ….

“When I first got here, the sense was ‘good idea, but it’s going to be very difficult’” to secure bipartisan support, Portman said, yet the House bill passed with 35 Democratic votes. “It’s much more legislative-friendly than the original item veto.”

Bush believes that line-item power “has a chilling effect that will lead to better legislating,” Portman said. “He sees this as an earmark problem he can help with.”

In a different effort to reform how federal spending, the Coburn internet database bill is gaining momentum. Mark Tapscott reports that Hillary Clinton and George Allen have signed on as co-sponsors of the bill:

Sen. George Allen, R-VA, and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, have signed on as co-sponsors of S2590, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. Also Sen. Evan Bayh, D-ID. That may be three of the candidates seeking the White House in 2008.

Even more significant is the promise made during yesterday's hearing by Sen. Susan Collins, R-ME, to move the Coburn-Obama bill through the Committee on Homeland Security as quickly as possible. Collins is chairman of the committee.

Tapscott also posted Coburn’s hearing statement in which Coburn cited the kind of earmarks that would be open to scrutiny if the bill passed:

Federal agencies have access to money and power often without the needed transparency or accountability, and so it is not a mystery why abuses occur. Without the level of transparency called for in the bill, the potential for waste and abuse is enormous. Consider the following examples of outrageous spending we have uncovered:

• Half a million dollars for a Teapot Museum in Sparta, North Carolina;
• Half a million dollars in Defense money for the Arctic Winter Games;
• Half a million dollars for the Museum of Glass in Tacoma, Washington;
• Half a million dollars for the Fort Dupont Ice Arena in Washinton, D.C.;
• More than $2 million for the Appalachain Fruit Laboratory in West Virginia; and
• $5 million for the St. Louis Zoo

Each of these items was buried deep within a report not readily accessible to the public or even to Members of Congress who had to vote on them. The American public should know that its Members of Congress are spending their money on these things.

The Christian Science Monitor reports on the proposal:

After a nearly fruitless long war to rein in wasteful government spending, the Senate's most relentless pork-busters are trying a new tack: unleash the energies - and ire - of 10,000 bloggers.

The answer to budgetary obfuscation, these senators say, is sunlight. They propose to list all federal spending on one easy-to-access website, saying it will be simpler for ordinary citizens to see where tax dollars are going - and to shame lawmakers into being more accountable.

Spending on the troops at a time of war, no problem. But $1.5 million to a liquor store in Los Angeles? Or $1.4 million to a car wash in Anaheim, Calif.? How about $1.1 million to a pizza shop, $1.5 million to a wine institute, and $227,000 to a strawberry commission?

The Hill’s interview with Rob Portman also touched on the problems with emergency supplemental bills:

“I like the idea of minimizing supplementals to the appropriations bill,” he said. “Emergency spending supplementals have the potential for becoming magnets for spending that should be in the normal appropriations process, so I prefer putting all we can in the budget.”

Portman also spoke about entitlement spending and how to push through reforms:

Portman acknowledged that the White House proposal for a bipartisan commission on entitlements was “not warmly received” by Congress and said he remains open to an alternative approach.

“I think one of the keys is engagement and giving members a stake in the process,” he said. “It doesn’t have to be through a commission, by the way. It could be done through the regular legislative process.”

Meanwhile, Tom Davis is pushing ahead with his $1.5 billion funding proposal for the D.C. Metro. The Washington Post says the plan “has a long way to go”:

On Monday, the House narrowly approved legislation that would commit $1.5 billion over 10 years to improve Metro service if the region's governments match the money. The federal funds would come from federal revenue from offshore drilling operations. The District has agreed to provide a portion of its sales tax to Metro, but Maryland and Virginia have not acted.

Conservative groups, including the Club for Growth, say the proposed spending would be wasteful. And some senators might be eyeing the drilling proceeds for their states.

John Taylor, president of the Virginia Institute for Public Policy had some harsh words about the project:

Taylor and other fiscal conservatives said the funding is little more than a subsidy for well-paid Washington commuters.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) was honored yesterday as a “Taxpayer Super Hero” by the watchdog group, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste. Kyl was the only senator to score a perfect 100% on the group’s Congressional Ratings for 2005:

The average for the entire Senate was 46 percent. Since 1989, CCAGW has tracked roll call votes to separate the taxpayer advocates in Congress from those who favor wasteful programs and pork-barrel spending. Sen. Kyl consistently voted to rein in deficit spending, reduce the tax burden, and make government more accountable to taxpayers.

"Talk is cheap," CCAGW President Tom Schatz said. "A member's voting record is the best measure of his or her commitment to fiscal discipline. Sen. Kyl sets the gold standard for voting to ease the burden of a cumbersome, bloated federal government.”
…

"Sen. Kyl thinks beyond the next election. He recognizes the long-term consequences of excessive spending and works to reduce the enormous debt being left to future generations," Schatz continued.

Chris Chiego at the University of Georgia’s Red and Black proves that students too understand the problems with pork. He writes:

While a few statesmen like Flake have railed against pork, most lawmakers are content to keep the status quo. One claimed that Flake showed “a lack of consideration for all of the hard work that has gone into putting these bills together.” Taxpayers, feel sympathy for these poor congressmen; they spend much time and effort misappropriating our money. Perhaps they need a lobbyist-funded golfing trip to Scotland to get over the stress….

At the polls this November, consider which politicians are looking out for the good of the nation and which ones are only concerned with their next election.

Posted by J. Lawrence Scholer at 03:57 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In today's ledger, the Senate ups funding for Amtrak, the Social Security debate gets re-energized, federal funds for the obese in California, and more...

Yesterday, a Senate subcommittee approved more money for Amtrak, as part of $12.5 billion for the Department of Transportation. BNA reported:

The budget includes $1.4 billion for Amtrak, which is above the House mark of $1.11 billion, and above the president’s request of $900 million. It provides $750 million for capital grants and $650 million in efficiency incentive grants.

In the New York Post, Pat Toomey, president of the Club for Growth, draws from some recent Heritage research in his column on spending. He writes:

According to Heritage Foundation analysts Brian Riedl and Alison Acosta Fraser, the Republican Congress is on track to have increased federal spending by 45 percent just since 2001. The party that won its majority status by campaigning for limited government has now passed the “most expensive education, agriculture, highway and Medicare bills in American history,” according to Heritage.

Patricia Bliss at suggests that individuals need rely on themselves instead of the government. She explains:

A big problem is the government's long-term liabilities - e.g., entitlement promises, especially to seniors. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan testified before Congress, reminding Americans that the U.S. economy faces a great threat in the guise of big deficits stretching far into the future. The onus will fall on our children to pay the debt if we do not act soon. Serious fiscal restraint is necessary.

The country has been down this road before, made changes and got back on track - and it should do so again.

But many individuals are relying on Social Security for a big portion of their retirement income. The message might be to control your own destiny by increasing savings and creating your own surplus.

Students for Saving Social Security's deputy director, Jo Jensen stated, "In recent weeks the President and prominent lawmakers have reaffirmed their commitment to Social Security reform. With this issue coming back to the forefront, Congress needs to know that young Americans care about Social Security reform." National director and co-founder Patrick Wetherille added, "S4 is hopeful that this event will serve as a wake up call to those members of Congress who have chosen to ignore the Social Security crisis."

The event featured Sen. Jim DeMint and Rep. Steve King and Jim Kolbe.

Meanwhile, Congressman Jeff Flake publicized his “Egregious Earmark” of the week today. As blogger ResPublica posts:

This week’s E.E. is $150,000 to “address the obesity problem and promote a healthier lifestyle in Davis, California.” Rep. Flake commented:

“I don’t think this is what taxpayers meant when they asked us to cut fat from the budget.”

A Senate hearing held yesterday discussed Sen. Tom Coburn’s proposed legislation for a single government website to disclose all federal grants and contracts. As the BNA reports:

Witnesses at the Senate hearing suggested that greater transparency was the first step in eliminating waste and corruption that has led to ever-growing numbers of special-project “earmarks” in congressional spending bills….

“It is simply not fiscally responsible for us to continue wasteful and unnecessary spending, while passing along good deals to the special interests and their lobbyists,” [Sen. John] McCain said in his statement to the committee. “The American people have a right to know where their tax dollars are being spent.”

Captain’s Quarters summed up the hearing and commented that “Coburn came across as very determined to see this project through to fruition.”

Posted by J. Lawrence Scholer at 04:10 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Students for Saving Social Security (S4) held an intern-friendly event on the Hill today aimed at getting “their generation” amped up for the next attempt to reform Social Security. A crowd of about 200 filled the meeting room in the Hart Senate Office Building, drawn by a combination of political star power (speakers included Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Reps. Steve King (R-IA) and Jim Kolbe (R-AZ)) and the promise of a free lunch for the first 150 in the room (a very intern-friendly event, no?).

The theme of the event: The current Social Security system is doomed to fail today’s young workers, who can expect to receive only pennies on the dollar of their retirement taxes.

S4 spokesman Jo Jensen stressed that it falls to today’s young people to insist that Congress stop spending their retirement taxes and create a system of personal accounts that will let today’s workers provide a financially secure retirement for themselves.

This theme was echoed by Heritage Foundation Social Security guru David John, as well as speakers from Accuracy in Academia, For Our Grandchildren, FreedomWorks, the Independent Women’s Forum, Americans for Prosperity, and 60 Plus.

The event doubled as a recruitment rally for S4, a non-partisan grassroots network of pro-reform activists with chapters on more than 280 college campuses nationwide. Participants left with background information and talking points about Social Security, as well as political campaign-style stickers. The crowd favorite: a sticker with “Don’t get” written next to a giant picture of a screw. Here is the t-shirt version--very attractive!

Posted by Andrew Grossman at 03:01 PM in Retirement | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

House Majority Leader John Boehner spoke at The Heritage Foundation this afternoon, explaining the majority agenda and the challenges faced by Congress. Intern Christine Mikolajuk files this report:

After talking about national security and immigration, Boehner addressed economic issues and said “[Republicans’] fiscal stewardship speaks for itself,” citing low unemployment and strong economic growth.

He was confident in the Republican Party’s fiscal discipline and explained, “If what we continue to focus on is low taxes and fiscal discipline and allowing economic growth, we can eliminate the deficit.”

He listed some successes towards responsible spending: passing the line-item veto in the House, creating a more fiscally responsible budget, and enacting earmark reforms. These Republican efforts were starkly different from the Democrats’ agenda, including attempts to get $45.2 billion in additional spending over the number agreed to in the budget resolution. He gave the example of Nancy Pelosi, saying “[she] spoke out against earmarks [but] bragged about 500 projects for her own district.”

When Heritage asked about Rep. Tom Davis’s (R.-VA) record-breaking $1.5 billion earmark for the DC Metro that was passed yesterday, Boehner defended it by saying it wasn’t an earmark, just a funding reauthorization that included offsetting measures:

The pay-for was far more straight up and honest than the pay-fors from some “conservative” circles […] It was done the right way.

An NTU intern asked how Boehner could speak about fiscal discipline despite not voting for any of the Flake amendments. His answer:

I’ve never asked for a single earmark or line-item […] I told my constituents it was not my job to rob the Treasury on their behalf. No one has worked harder on earmark reform than me, to get transparency and accountability.

Boehner said earmarks had gone down by one-third on the House side and that Congress was working on finishing lobbying and ethics reforms. Getting involved in a floor fight would not help him be more effective on earmark reforms, he said: he was working by other means.

Posted by Andrew Grossman at 02:56 PM in Federal Spending | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)