The Federal Diary column in the Washington Post this week asked each of the presidential candidates a series of questions related to the federal workforce. Both columns are worth a quick read if you want to learn more about the candidates (see McCain and Obama), but I wanted to highlight one question in particular. Joe Davidson asked each candidate, "Federal labor leaders complain that outside contractors perform jobs that should be done by government employees. Do you favor any suspension of contracting out activities? Do you favor legislation that would prohibit the IRS from using appropriated funds to hire private tax collectors?" Below are their responses.

McCain:

If programs have a good record, and serve a vital national purpose that the private sector can't, they will receive continued funding. But I will not subordinate my commitment to the American people to ensure their tax dollars are spent wisely to the demands of labor leaders looking to swell the ranks of federal government unions.

I will make every aspect of government purchases and performance transparent. Information on every step of contracts and grants will be posted on the Internet in plain and simple English. We're not going to hide anything behind accounting tricks and bureaucratic doubletalk. Nor will I allow other procurement tricks that divert funds from national priorities. I will expand the use of fixed-price contracts to enforce discipline in the procurement process and ensure that clearly defined requirements are fulfilled, realistic schedules are kept, and costs don't exceed the promised price.

Too often, contractors underbid to 'buy into' a market with little expectation of delivering on schedule and within budget. At the same time, the government's cost estimates are often unrealistic. Fixed-price contracts based on realistic cost estimates with clear, consistent requirements will ensure that the contractor pays for cost overruns, not the taxpayers. We must also limit sole-source contracting and make cost discipline a priority using market competition to keep costs down and innovation up.

Obama:

Sen. Obama is concerned by the rising number of government contractors that are often unaccountable and frequently less efficient than government workers. As president, Obama will restore effective oversight of the government-contracting process and reduce our nation's increasing dependence on private contractors in sensitive or inherently governmental functions. Obama will eliminate the Bush administration's ideological bias towards outsourcing of government services and abandon initiatives, like the inefficient use of private bill collectors to collect federal taxes, that are a demonstrated waste of taxpayer money.

OMB Watch is a 501(c)(3) and does not participate in activities that support or oppose candidates for public office. This information is presented solely for informational purposes.

Taxpayer for Common Sense, the scrappy nonprofit that is fast becoming the go-to resource for all things earmarks, released a new analysis earlier this week showing that earmark levels have dropped slightly in the FY 2009 appropriations bills compared to last year. From the TCS report:

During this election year, lawmakers are showing slight restraint in writing the earmarks in the FY 2009 spending bills, according to an analysis by Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS) (click here for the new database). The House has increased the number and value of earmarks at about the same rate. The Senate has cut earmarks by 16% in the spending bills in terms of total dollars. The analysis is based on all the bills that have passed full committee and are awaiting action in both chambers.

The appropriations bills are not complete yet (far from it) and TCS warns that lots could change. In fact, they state the FY 2009 spending bills may end up with more earmarks because of how the bills are likely to be enacted:

The slight progress made on reducing the total costs of earmarks will be eliminated the longer we wait to pass the 2009 spending bills. The most likely scenario is a major omnibus spending bill during the first days of the 111th Congress. So any earmark reductions we are seeing in August are likely to be negated by an avalanche of earmarks that always accompanies major omnibus spending bills.

At least legislators running for re-election can say with a straight face they are trying to reduce earmarks. I suppose that's better than them claiming that cutting earmarks saves any money. It doesn't

The OMB Watch Fiscal Policy Program is looking for an intern for the fall of 2008. Yup, that's right. This is your chance to get in on the ground floor at one of the most dynamic nonprofit watchdog groups in Washington, DC. We're looking for energetic undergraduate or graduate students who have excellent writing, critical thinking, and communications skills, and who are dedicated to public policy and government accountability (see current intern Josh at right for example).

The internship is unpaid, but you'll have the chance to gain first hand experiences and take on significant responsibilities related to a number of different aspects of policy analysis in DC. Plus, you'll get a chance to write for the BudgetBlog - what could be better?

Interested? Learn more about the position and how to apply.

It's been a slow day here at the Budget Brigade, so I thought I'd bring your attention to the lastest round of quarterly "scores" agencies receive on the President's Management Agenda (PMA) scorecard. These scores measure the implementation of the PMA, or how well the major agencies are "executing the five government-wide management initiatives." Robert Brodsky from Government Executive Magazine has a rundown of the latest scores, which are not too good:

Many federal agencies have taken a step backward on the Bush administration's five major management initiatives, according to quarterly grades released on Thursday by the Office of Management and Budget.

There were 14 downgrades on the status section of OMB's management score card for the third quarter of 2008, which ended June 30. And there were only six instances in which grades improved.

The problems were limited to two areas of the President's Management Agenda: human capital and electronic government.

Clay Johnson, OMB's Deputy Director for Management, cautioned that the "scores" shouldn't be seen as "scores," but as opportunities for improvement.

"The score cards aren't about compliance or getting to a score -- it's about results that agencies are producing," Johnson said. "So, a dip in a score shouldn't always be viewed in the negative, but as a way to [make] progress and improve effectiveness."

Hmmmm...

P.S. For all you home-gamers out there, the administration's "competitive sourcing" initiative has been renamed to the new and improved Commercial Services Management initiative. Same waste of money, great new name.

Most of the popular/mainstream commentaries about Congress is that they don't their jobs - that they need to do more for the American people. We certainly have been highly critical of Congress for repeatedly not getting enough work done during the year by repeatedly failing to pass the most basic legislation that is required of them - the annual budget resolution and appropriations bills (see here, here, and here).

Which is why a post by Jim Harper over on Cato's blog caught my eye the other day. According to Harper, Congress introduced its 10,000th bill on July 30, right before they skipped town for the August recess. The 110th Congress is on pace to break the all-time record for number of bills introduced (10,537) set by the 109th Congress from 2005-2006.

The current Congress is on pace to easily beat the record 10,537 bills introduced in the 109th Congress. In the 109th (2005-2006), the 10,000th bill was introduced on September 18th, well after the August recess.

The number of bills introduced in each Congress has been rapidly increasing over the last twelve years. In the 104th Congress (1995-1996), there were 6,542 bills introduced. In the 105th (1997-1998), 7,529. The 106th (1999-2000), 107th (2001-2002), and 108th (2003-2004) saw bill introductions in the high 8,000s, and in the 109th (2005-2006), the number of bills first pierced through 10,000.

So, if I'm doing my math right, and I like to think I am, the number of bills introduced by Congress has increased 61 percent since the 104th Congress in 1995/1996. Yet there haven't been any additional members of Congress over that period - it's still 535 (plus 5 territorial representatives). So, one way of looking at it is that our legislators have increased their output from 12.11 bills per session to 19.51 bills per session. Talk about getting your money's worth for all you political contributors out there.

Yet the timeliness and quality of the bills Congress actually enacts has sharply decreased during that time. Congress hasn't enacted all of the annual appropriations bills on time since 1994 and as a country we're in more debt now than ever before, having added $4.23 trillion to the national debt in just the last 8 years. It seems this is a situation where less really is more.

Lurita Doan is back in the news. I know, I can't believe it either. But wait until you hear why and what she is saying now. It seems she is headlining a 15-minute segment on Federal News Radio (1050 AM in DC) where she will share her views on, get this, government leadership. I'm not making this up. That's like having Jack Abramoff lecture on ethical/legal congressional fundraising tactics. The segment, entitled "Leadership Matters," will run at 7:28 am on Tuesday mornings, according to this Federal Times article from last week.

Doan's got a snappy new photo (at least I think it is new) up on the Federal News Radio Leadership Matters website and she's gotten through two segments so far, both of which have some unbelievable jewels that I would be remiss if I didn't ridicule.

The first commentary was on business "guru" Peter Drucker and how to institute cuts to government programs, I mean management reform. The first thing about this commentary is that it seems Doan really believes government is a business. While there at least could be an argument that the General Services Administration, the agency she used to run, should be structured like a business, government is not a business. It isn't. Citizens are not "customers." And pretending these things are true and assuming you can apply successful business practices to government and things will work just fine isn't a good idea. For example, Doan says:

But with a little more Drucker, leaders at all levels can see the wisdom of taking the harder road of moving resources, both financial and human capital, to where they can bring the most value, to redeploy these resources to programs that offer the biggest possible value to American taxpayers, and terminating programs that have continued for years even thought they no longer deliver the originally promised results.

I almost don't know where to being here. This is just too ironic. Let me give it a shot - as Ms. Doan says, nothing happens until you commit to it.

Doan tried to "move resources" to where they can bring the "most value" while at GSA. She interfered twice with contract proceedings while heading up the agency, first to give a no-bid contract to her friend (see here and Washington Post coverage), and then to force the government to continue a contract with Sun Microsystems after evidence had been uncovered that Sun was overcharging the government (see here, here, and this excellent Washington Post coverage).

Doan also tried to "redeploy" resources away from the GSA Inspector General's office, a practically unprecedented move in government, because she was tired of that office launching investigations into her pretty blatant misconduct at GSA Administrator (see here, here and here). After being widely criticized for these actions, Doan fell back on the claim she was simply trying to cut the GSA's budget and save taxpayers money. Is this the type of cuts Doan is thinking of when she recommends the new administration "[put] the responsibility for cutting the budget squarely on the shoulders of each agency head" later in her commentary?

Finally, Doan went so far as to break federal law by attempting to use federal resources (both "financial" and "human") to help elect Republicans to federal office. (see here, here, here, and yet more Washington Post coverage).

None of these decisions were "wise," nor did they "bring the most value" to American taxpayers. Maybe that's why President Bush, of all people, ended up firing Doan with only a few months left in his presidency. You know things are bad when Bush won't stand up for you - case in point - he's still campaigning for indicted Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK).

I'll have to save my reactions to Doan's second commentary for another post - there was just too much to say about the first. One final note. Doan references that there are "barely ten days" to accomplish a more disciplined federal budget at the very end of her commentary. I have no idea what ten days she is talking about here. If you have an idea and can help me out, shoot us an email at budgetblog (at) ombwatch.org.

(h/t to Neil Gordon over at POGO's blog)

OMB Watch released new federal spending data on contracts and assistance spending on FedSpending.org yesterday. The site now has full spending data for federal contracts from FY 2000 through the first two quarters of FY 2008 and federal assistance data (grants, loans, and related spending) from FY 2000 through the first three quarters of FY 2007. The FedSpending.org database currently contains over $18.7 trillion in federal spending dating back to FY 2000. This update also made minor site improvements, including added advanced search functionality and bugs fixes.

The data update also marks an important milestone for FedSpending.org - 10 million searches - which occured at some point around July 1. The site is a bit less than two years old, but in that time, FedSpending.org has grown to process more than 1 million searches from approximately 400,000 unique visitors each month. On July 1, Alexa.com ranked FedSpending.org 32,259 in traffic among websites on the Internet. Yowza!

The site has continued to surpass all of our expectations that we held when we created it. I hope we can continue to make the site useful and relevant for users in the years to come.

FedSpending.org Reaches 10 Millionth Search

The Special Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction (SIGIR) has released a new audit report today concerning the work (or lack thereof) of Parsons Delaware, Inc., a contractor who was doing design and construction work on Iraqi prisons and civil justice infrastructure. Parsons is a major U.S. contractor, having received over $4.1 billion in contracts since 2000, according to the latest data from FedSpending.org.

The SIGIR report was picked up by the Associated Press, so hopefully the disturbing findings will gain wide attention. Here's the breakdown of what the taxpayer received from the $333 million that Parsons and other subcontractors received through May 21, 2008 on the contract, according to the SIGIR report:

Far less was accomplished under this contract than originally planned; only about one-third of the planned projects were completed. Although the failure to complete some of the work is understandable because of its complex nature and the unstable security environment in Iraq, millions of dollars in waste are likely associated with incomplete, terminated and abandoned projects under this contract. However, precise amounts of funds expended for projects that have not been completed are not easily aggregated because of the uncertain future of incomplete projects. Some measure of the funds expended for which there was not a usable facility is suggested by the fact that slightly more than $142 million, or almost 43% of the contract's disbursed funds, were spent on projects that were either terminated or canceled, although a number of projects were subsequently completed. Contract management weaknesses also played a key role in the contract outcomes.

One particular project funded under this contract was the Kahn Bani Sa'ad Corrections Facility, in Diyala Province (pictured above). The U.S. government canceled Parsons' funding for this project after repeated delays in construction and then attempted to finish the prison by using two separate subcontractors in Iraq. When security became too difficult to complete construction in June, 2007, the government walked away, having spent $40 million on a half finished prison that the Iraqi government has no plans to use. The efficiencies of the free market at work.

SIGIR sums up the problems pretty succinctly - not enough oversight and management of the contractors:

The reconstruction projects under this contract were executed in unstable security conditions and were beset by insufficient contract management and oversight personnel. Because of poor security conditions and limited personnel resources, it was difficult for responsible government officials to visit project sites, plan and define project requirements, and oversee contractor performance once construction began. These conditions created a high-risk contracting environment and approaches that ultimately led to a high level of project failure and waste.

The Hill reports today about some border-line shady behavior from Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) related to his earmark requests in the 2005 transportation bill. Turns out the earmark request Kanjorski submitted to build a parking garage at, of all places, the Kanjorski Cetner (pictured above) did not meet federal guidelines. From The Hill:

The Department of Transportation is refusing to move forward on an earmark backed by Rep. Paul Kanjorski (Pa.), the rare House Democrat facing a tough reelection this fall.

Transportation (DoT) is blocking funds to build a $5.6 million parking garage to the Kanjorski Center, which was constructed to attract economic development in the city of Nanticoke in Kanjorski's Eastern Pennsylvania district. Kanjorski's earmark for the project was included in the 2005 transportation bill.

DoT contends the garage does not meet federal rules intended to spur the use of public transportation. Those rules allow federal funds for parking garages only if they are connected to other public transportation facilities outside a business area with a population of 50,000 or more, or if it serves high-occupancy vehicles (HOVs) and public mass transportation passengers.

Turns out this isn't an isolated incident for Kanjorski. The Department of Transportation has "taken exception to more than 20" of his transportation earmarks over the last couple of years. And local leaders and Democratic party officials aren't that happy with some of the optics of Kanjorski's ties to the beneficiaries of his earmark requests.

But Kanjorski's family ties to some of the groups that have benefited from his earmarks have stirred criticism and animosity among local Democratic officials.

While I'm hoping that recent transparency reforms and a continued focus on developing a more accountable government will eventually bear fruit, this looks like more politics as usual.

The Hill: Big earmark headache for Rep. Kanjorski

Happy Fourth of July!
Just wanted to let our loyal BudgetBlog readers know we're going on a short hiatus next week. With Congress heading out of town for a short summer recess and the upcoming Fourth of July holiday next week, the Fiscal Policy team is heading out of town in order to escape the heat for some well-deserved vacation. This means, though, that the BudgetBlog will be dormant next week.

But don't despair. Craig and I will return in one short week on July 7 to continue to bring you all the news, gossip, information, and analysis on federal fiscal policy you've come to expect.

Hope everyone has a safe and festive Independence Day next week - be careful with those fireworks.

Another report of a questionable use of outsourcing appeared today in CongressDaily, this time it's happening over at the State Department. Seems folks over there have modified an existing contract to Computer Sciences Corporation (FedSpending.org profile) to "collect visa information and fingerprints of Mexicans applying for new border crossing cards." The non-competed contract has raised some eyebrows in Congress and among government watchdogs, particularly the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

A State Department official testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Government Management Subcommittee that the contract is just a test program and that the department hopes to initiate a formal competition before the end of the year. But it looks as though that "test program" is just an attempt by the State Department to assess the usefulness of the contract cover their behinds. GAO has not had time to assess the new contracted out work and what impact it will have, and surprise, surprise, neither has the State Department. GAO testified at the same hearing that the State Department has "not developed metrics to measure the success and efficiency of the test program."

So, the State Department is going to determine whether this is a good idea or not by...wait, how are they going to figure that out? Most likely, they have already concluded this outsourcing should happen. My bet is that the test program will lead to a contract for a full program, that Computer Sciences Corp. will undoubtably win, regardless of whether this really is a good deal for taxpayers or might compromise privacy or national security. No worries though - those are just minor details that will unfortunately remain unknown. Sigh...

Following up on my blog earlier today about the Webb-McCaskill Wartime Contracting Commission finally starting to get off the ground, I came across a great column by Thomas Frank today in the Wall Street Journal (of all places!) continuing the drumbeat for a contracting commission to finally get to the bottom of the rampant shenanigans that have gone on for far too long in Washington.

Frank, who wrote a cultural analysis of American politics in the book "What's the Matter With Kansas?", briefly explores the original of the privatization movement in the U.S. in his latest edition of his column entitled "The Tilting Yard," and calls on conservatives (of all people) to help turn the tide of waste, fraud, and abuse in federal procurement. Frank concludes:

The days when conservatives railed against red tape and shrieked for efficiency in Washington now seem like a lifetime ago. When they finally got the opportunity to put their theory into practice, conservatives contrived instead one of the most wasteful systems ever seen.

It is time for a new Grace Commission, this one examining the sordid history of privatization in all its details.

Frank's column is worth a read: The Tilting Yard: Conservatives and Their Carnival of Fraud

Craig's post yesterday about some short-sighted decisions at OMB to not provide sufficient resources for contractor oversight at the Army got me thinking about the Webb-McCaskill Commission on Wartime Contracting. There hasn't been a ton of news about that commission since it was enacted into law last fall, but just last week seven of the eight commission members were announced.

Four of the members were selected by Democrats in Congress, one was selected by Republicans in Congress, and two by President Bush. The Project on Government Oversight has a full rundown of the commission members selected so far and ample background information on each of them.

OMB Watch is looking forward to the work of the commission. We hope this badly needed oversight body for the broken federal procurement system will be able to continue to bring to light the significant problems with federal contracting, but also develop policy solutions to prevent future abuses.

Breaking news from the Government Accountability Office related to the much-hyped $35 billion refueling tanker contract that the Air Force awarded to a Northrop Grumman/EADS partnership earlier this year (see BudgetBlog coverage here, here, and here). In what is being described as a "stunning" decision, the GAO has upheld a protest of the contract award lodged by Boeing. CongressDaily reports:

In a stunning decision, GAO today announced it has sustained a protest filed by Boeing Co. over the Air Force's decision to award a lucrative contract for aerial refueling tankers to a team led by Northrop Grumman and EADS, the European firm behind Airbus. GAO's decision followed a 100-day review of the Air Force's selection process for the $35 billion program. GAO recommends that the Air Force reopen discussions with the contractors, obtain revised proposals and make a new decision. The service was also asked to reimburse Boeing for the cost of the protest.

I guess it is back to the drawing board for the Air Force.

UPDATE:
More information on the GAO decision is available in this article from The Hill: GAO sides with Boeing.

Unemployment Claims -- June Starts off Much Like May: The number of first-time claims for unemployment insurance rose 25,000 in the week ended June 7 to 384,000 seasonally adjusted, according to the Labor Department's Employment and Training Administration data. The rise follows a decline of 16,000 in the week ended May 31. The unemployment extension bill having passed in the House yesterday (see here), these numbers may have some bearing on the Senate's deliberations. Today's ETA Report.

Earmarks -- Earmark Spending Makes a Comeback: From the front page of today's Wash Post, "Think of a way to spend money on defense, and it could easily be among the hundreds of projects added quietly to the House and Senate spending plans this spring. Many of the earmarks serve as no-bid contracts for the recipients." Earmark spending in the House's defense authorization bill alone soared 29 percent, from $7.7 billion last year to $9.9 billion now. Wash Post Story and Blog.

Taxes -- CBPP on PAYGO and the Extenders: A report issued this week by the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities examines the fiscal implications of the tax extender bills the House and Senate are working on. Conclusion: "Unfortunately, key congressional Republicans are now arguing that any extension of existing tax provisions should be deficit financed, on principle. This claim will make it much tougher for Congress to live up to its pledge of fiscal discipline and could ultimately lead to multi-trillion dollar increases in the national debt." Report.