With all the action recently on the financial sector bailout, it almost slipped our notice that Congress has finalized the FY 2009 appropriations process, at least through March 6 of next year. Last week, on Wednesday (Sept. 24), the House passed its package of three appropriations bills (Defense, Homeland Security, and Military Construction-VA), along with a continuing resolution (CR) that will cover all the other sections of the government until March 6, 2009. The vote was 370-58. The Senate passed the House proposal over the weekend on Saturday by a vote of 78-12.

The CR was put together and passed in less than a week, with little transparency or time to review specific provisions, earmarks, and funding levels. The bill level-funds most government programs outside of the three individual security bills that were included and a few select programs and priorities in need of more immediate funding. These include the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which received a $5.1 billion increase. This is more than double the $2.5 billion appropriated in FY 2008 and finally brings the program up to its authorized funding level. There is also $22.9 billion in emergency funding for disaster relief and $7.5 billion to support a $25 billion loan to the U.S. auto industry.

Even though this was the result of the appropriations process that everyone was expecting for most of this year, the result that Democratic leaders themselves had announced early on as a deliberate strategy, it is still pretty disappointing. In fact, it might be more disappointing because it was pre-ordained by Reid, Pelosi, and others on the Hill early on this year. Congress is supposed to pass appropriations bills on time. In fact, it is their primary responsibility. They have repeatedly failed to do this over the last decade regardless of circumstances, regardless of who controls Congress, and this year we've reached the point where they aren't even trying anymore. How can we expect them to enact a solution to the financial sector crisis if they can't even complete their basic job responsibilities?

Congressional leaders were left scratching their heads, contemplating what to do next after the House failed, by a vote of 205-228 to approve a $700 billion plan to buy up troubled financial assets that are purportedly threatening the financial markets.

CQ Politics reports that although the House voted to adjourn, they will return Thursday to continue working on assuaging the angst of financial markets. Calling the issue "much too important to simply let fail," Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson vowed to return to working out a plan to bailout Wall Street. However, legislators have been at best vague in spelling out what to expect in the next few days. As Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said, "stay tuned."

Members of the House Democratic Leadership, from left, House Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Democratic Caucus Chair Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill. and House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C. meet reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Monday, Sept. 29, 2008. (AP Photo/Lawrence Jackson)

This post is an updated version of our previous post on a summary of the $700 billion Wall Street bailout plan that the House rejected (205-228) this afternoon.

Size: Up to $700 billion
• $250 billion would be immediately available to Treasury to buy up troubled assets
• Another $100 billion would be available to Treasury "upon report to Congress"
• The final $350 billion would be available upon request of the presidentt, which Congress could reject within 15 days . The rejection could then be vetoed by the president.

Mechanics
• The government could purchase mortgage-backed securities and other troubled assets and their derivatives. With support from the Fed, it could also purchase other troubled assets from investment, commercial, and smaller community banks, credit unions, pension funds, and local governments.

Taxpayer Protection
• Firms participating in the bailout would be required to grant the government warrants to obtain nonvoting shares of stock, if the firm becomes profitable.
• Participating firms would be subject to executive pay restrictions, implemented through the tax code. The plan would also bar firms from giving "golden parachutes" to executives leaving participating firms for reasons other than retirement
• The Treasury Secretary would have the authority to establish an insurance fund not unlike the FDIC to guarantee troubled assets; premiums would be paid for by private firms
• If, after five years, the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget agree that the government has not profited from the sale of troubled assets, the president must submit to Congress a plan to recuperate the cost of the plan from the financial industry

Foreclosure Protection
• Treasury can encourage mortgage servicers to modify troubled mortgages
• Requires federal entities that own mortgages to develop a plan to mitigate the foreclosure rate
• Relaxes requirements for eligibility for the Hope for Homeowners program

Oversight and Transparency
• A bipartisan oversight board appointed by members of both parties in Congress would be created
• An inspector general would monitor Treasury decisions, and the Government Accountability Office would regularly audit the program
• Treasury would be required to make transactions made through the troubled asset program available publicly online
• There would be conflict-of-interest rules for firms hired by the Treasury to help run the program
• There would be judicial review of Treasury decisions

Executive Power Enhancement
• An affirmation of the SEC head to suspend mark-to-market accounting, thus allowing firms to report asset values different from what the market believes them to be
• Allows Treasury Secretary to suspend federal contracting rules

Not Included
• The package does not have language that would allow bankruptcy judges adjust mortgage rates or principal
• No profits from the scheme would flow to an affordable housing trust fund

Media reports and a press release from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) indicate that Congressional leaders and the White House have agreed to a package of measures designed to prevent a financial market meltdown. An official announcement of agreement is expected tonight, and final details of the plan remain unsettled. Here are the package's main provisions:

Size: Up to $700 billion
• $250 billion would be immediately available to Treasury to buy up troubled assets
• Another $100 billion would be available to Treasury "upon report to Congress"
• The final $350 billion would be available upon request of the president. Media reports, however, are inconsistent on this. Some are reporting says that the money would be available "only upon action by Congress," while others say it would be available upon presidential request, which Congress could reject. The rejection could then be vetoed.

Mechanics
• The government could purchase mortgage-backed securities and other troubled assets from investment, commercial, and smaller community banks, credit unions, pension funds, and local governments.

Taxpayer Protection
• Firms participating in the bailout would be required to grant the government warrants to obtain nonvoting shares of stock.
• Participating firms would be subject to executive pay restrictions, although the details remain vague
• The Treasury Secretary would have the authority to establish an insurance fund not unlike the FDIC to guarantee troubled assets; premiums would be paid for by private firms
• A fee may be imposed upon the banking industry to pay for the bailout if the government loses money on the purchase of these toxic assets. Reports on this provisions vary, an no details have been announced

Foreclosure Protection
• Treasury can renegotiate mortgages purchased by the federal government with borrowers
• A "tax holiday" for homeowners facing foreclosure will be extended

Oversight and Transparency
• A bipartisan oversight board appointed by members of both parties in Congress would be created
• An inspector general would monitor Treasury decisions, and the Government Accountability Office would regularly audit the program
• Treasury would be required to make transactions made through the troubled asset program available publicly online
• There would be conflict-of-interest rules for firms hired by the Treasury to help run the program
• There would be judicial review of Treasury decisions

Not Included
• The package does not have language that would allow bankruptcy judges adjust mortgage rates or principal
• No profits from the scheme would flow to an affordable housing trust fund

This information has been compiled from the following news sources:
The Wall Street Journal
The New York Times
The Washington Post
McClatchy Newspapers
Congressional Quarterly ($)

The House Appropriations Committee is circulating this morning an economic stimulus proposal (summary and bill text) they hope will be debated by the full House later this afternoon (nothing like the last minute). Chairman David Obey (D-WI) writes about the need for this legislation in the summary:

84,000 Americans lost their jobs last month and the number of unemployed Americans is the highest it has been since 1992. The economy has lost jobs for eight straight months, with 605,000 American jobs lost this year.

Congress responded quickly to the White House's call for a financial rescue package. The White House should join Congress in putting together a solid package for Main Street. Today the House will take up legislation to boost our economy, create jobs, and help provide additional relief to families who are struggling.

The House stimulus package consistents of blocks of spending on infrastructure (public housing, transit, schools, and water and sewer), energy development (electric grid moderinization, advanced vehicle battery technology, and renewable energy development) and human needs (unemployment benefits extension, job training, health care, and food assistance). The full cost of the House package is reported to be around $50 billion or a bit more.

Of course, Obey (and others who have been calling for this type of package) are right. If Wall Street was not literally melting before our eyes, the quickly deteriorating economy would be the top issue in the news. As Andrew Samwick reminded us yesterday blogging over at Capital Gains and Games, traditional economic indicators are really not doing very well, with demand for workers and manufactured products decreasing.

The Senate is working on a similar package, and Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) and Appropriations Committee Chairman Robert Byrd (D-WV) have announced the Senate's will be $56.2 billion. The bill would "extend unemployment insurance benefits for seven weeks, address high food costs and energy prices, create jobs, promote education and job training, and aid small businesses." A detailed summary of the bill is available.

House Stimilus Summary
House Stimulus Bill Text

Senate summary

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) has released a statement calling for a special Inspector General to oversee whatever program is put in place at the Treasury Department to bailout failing Wall Street banks and investment houses. Baucus's letter is signed by 32 other Senators and really makes a lot of sense, which is something we don't often say about Sen. Baucus's proposals.

So hats off to Baucus! Let's hope this proposals is integrated into the final plan being developed.

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) director Peter Orszag testifying before House Budget Committee on Wednesday:

At this time, given the lack of specificity regarding how the program would be implemented and even what asset classes would be purchased, CBO cannot provide a meaningful estimate of the ultimate net cost of the Administration's proposal. The Secretary would have the authority to purchase virtually any asset, at any price, and sell it at any future date; the lack of specificity regarding how that authority would be implemented makes it impossible at this point to provide a quantitative analysis of the net cost to the federal government.

That's no way to run a government. Let's hope that whatever plan Congress comes up with that it gives the CBO at least a vague notion of how much a Wall Street bailout is going to cost.

Image by Flickr user Criterion used under a Creative Commons license

Not sure how many of you are reading The Watcher, our bi-monthly newsletter that has interesting commentary, analysis, and insights into key government accountability issues of the day, but you should sign up for it if you don't currently get it (sign up here). Anyway, earlier this week we ran an article in the most recent issue on the Senate's passage of the FY 2009 Defense Authorization bill, which included a number of long overdue contracting reforms.

While our coverage was not incorrect, we certainly omitted some details on many of these reforms that we probably should have included (not a strike out per se, just a swing and a miss). So, to help us out, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), the original sponsor of many of these reforms, has posted a helpful summary of the Clean Contracting Act. This legislation, which was originally introduced in 2006, would:

[E]nhance competition in contracting, limit the use of abuse-prone contracts, start the effort to rebuild the federal acquisition workforce, strengthen important anti-fraud measures, and increase transparency in federal contracting.

These are solid reforms that should have been in place a long time ago, and Waxman and other congressional champions of a more responsible and efficient procurement system should be commended. But the work isn't finished yet. Waxman laments in his statement:

My only regret is that some of the other key reforms passed by the House were not included in the final version of the legislation. I am disappointed that the House and Senate compromise does not include a ban on private interrogators in U.S. military detention facilities or mandate congressional approval for any security pact with Iraq that is negotiated by the President.

Summary of Clean Contracting Act
Waxman's Statement on the Act

Quick update following up on my earlier post about Congress' progress during this final potentially final week of the session. The House has passed the CR/Omnibus/Emergency gigantic package of spending items this afternoon, 370-58.

The House is currently working on voting on some of the tax bills I jumped into earlier, most of which will have to be sent back to the Senate either because of changes in offsets or due to minor differences. More to come tomorrow.

Budget afficionado Stan Collender says that a $700 billion Wall Street bailout will define the budget and, ultimately, the next president's spending priorities for several years.

That would increase the deficit to $1 trillion or more. (My apologies for the italics, but it's hard not to use them in this situation.) If what's left of the $700 billion is spent in 2010 and activities in Iraq and Afghanistan continue that year, the deficit for two consecutive years could be close to that level.

[...]

But it's also hard to see how the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which expire at the end of 2010, get extended as easily or completely as they might have before. In fact, nothing else that might be considered in the next few years has the potential to reduce the dramatically increased deficit by as much as quickly as scaling back on these cuts or letting them expire.

Some provisions, like marriage penalty relief and the $1,000-per-child tax credit, might still be a slam dunk. But others, like the top marginal tax rate, capital gains, dividends, estate and gift taxes, and small business expensing, are clearly in jeopardy now.

I don't know, Stan. One should never underestimate the appetite Republicans have for tax cuts. In their world, there's never a bad time for a tax cut. From a BNA email:

A group of House Republicans proposed Sept. 23 temporarily suspending the capital gains tax as a way to coax capital back into sluggish lending markets and offset the cost of a proposed government bailout of the U.S. financial system.

"We have a liquidity crisis and this would bring as much as a trillion dollars in capital sitting on the sidelines, we believe, back into the market," Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), chairman of the Republican Study Committee, told reporters at a press conference.

At least Hensarling just skipped the "tax custs pay for themselves" nonsense and went straight for a bold new baseless assertion.

It strains the imagination to believe that investors are "sitting on the sidelines" because the capital gains tax rate is too high. They didn't seem to mind it in the late 90s when capital gains rates were nearly twice what they are today and the stock market saw a 34% increase from 1997 to 2000. It is my understanding, however, that the stock market has been declining the past year, which means the average investor has been paying nothing in capital gains taxes. In fact, because investors can claim capital losses as an income tax deduction, they have an incentive to gamble on the market as their actual losses will be reduced by the amount their income taxes are reduced. Cutting the cap gains rate to zero might induce even more people to wait until market conditions improve, because the average investor would see his tax bill increase.

Update: Oops. Capital losses are offset gains, and in the event of net capital losses, they are deducted from income. So, the capital gains tax rate does not affect net capital losses, just gains.

Image by Flickr user sea_bass used under a Creative Commons license

With all the news of the massive Wall Street bailout, I've heard really nothing about how this $700 billion gamble is supposed to be paid for (other than more borrowing, which is to say paid for by later). And what I have read, makes me real nervous. In a "dear colleague" letter, former chair of the Republican Study Committe Rep. Mike Pense (R-IN) pleads with colleagues (MS Word doc) to avoid raising revenue or the national debt.

If Congress decides to spend nearly 1 trillion dollars on a corporate bailout, it must find budget savings to prevent that cost from being passed along to the American people.

[...]

[Republicans] should demand consideration of free market alternatives to massive government spending and we should fight to pay for the solution through budget cuts and reform instead of more debt or taxes.

Surely Rep. Pense knows that the entire FY 2009 discretionary budget is $1.01 trillion. Of that, $350 billion funds non-defense, domestic discretionary programs. I don't know what Pense has in mind, but there simply isn't $700 billion to be found in "budget savings" that would prevent an increase in the national debt.

Just a little perspective on the size of this bailout.

Image by Flickr user dharma communications used under a Creative Commons license.

House Democratic leaders have announced some details of a potential continuing resolution (CR) that would keep the federal government operating for half a year from the start of the FY 2009 fiscal year on October 1 through March of 2009. With none of the appropriations bills enacted into law and only eight days before the start of the fiscal year, passage of a CR is almost guaranteed. CongressDaily reported this afternoon some of the details of the plan:

According to a draft version of the CR, House Democrats would fund most federal government programs at FY08 levels until March 6 unless Congress acts before that. The draft also includes $5.1 billion for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. House Democratic leaders had previously discussed including the funding in an economic stimulus package valued at about $50 billion. The package also includes $25 billion in loan guarantees for the U.S. auto industry that was authorized in legislation enacted last year.

You can read a discussion draft of the proposed continuing resolution.

Update: 9.23.08, 4:00 pm
CongressDaily is reporting ($) this afternoon that the House will take up the proposed CR legislation on Wednesday this week. More details to come tomorrow.

As Wall Street collapses under the weight of its greed, bad luck, and basic stupidity, the Free Market^TM crusaders of the Bush White House have come out of the pro-regulation, big-government closet. This morning, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said that the federal government will ride to the rescue of the investors in distress. And everyone seems to agree: Wall Street must be given a handout hand up.

Matthew Yglesias notices the asymmetry of concern:

It'd be absurd for the government to be moving hundreds of billions of dollars around amidst an economic crisis while doing nothing for, say, janitors who get laid off from Lehman Brothers. The problems to worry about here are in the "real" economy. Propping up the financial sector can help accomplish that, but we also need to prop up normal people trying to pay the bills and weather the storm.

And Isaiah J. Poole at Campaign for America's Future reminds us that providing aid to working or out-of-work families benefits more than just those families.

This stimulus effort was resisted by the White House and by congressional conservatives, one of whom—House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo.—groused that "bailing out the states on their Medicaid problems or providing $25 billion worth of infrastructure spending are not stimulative and everyone knows that."

"Everyone knows that?" No. What "everyone knows" is that when ordinary people have good jobs—whether they are created by private investment or public investment—they are able to buy the houses, cars and other goods and services that help keep the economy afloat. In particular, a program of spending public dollars on a range of job-producing activities—from fixing roads and bridges to "greening" our public buildings with renewable energy and conservation—would go a long way toward stabilizing the faltering middle class of this country. What "everyone knows," or ought to realize, is that doing nothing to interrupt the falling dominoes of spending cutbacks at the federal, state and local levels is a recipe for continued economic erosion.

Image by Flickr user oblivion9999 used under a Creative Commons license

If anything, the meltdown on Wall Street has shown that executive compensation and performance are hardly related. After spending the past year further running their firm into the ground and onto the auction block, Merrill Lynch CEO John Thain and two of its executives could walk away with almost $200 million in compensation as they exit the building. Thain's predecessor, Stan O'Neal who started Merrill Lynch on the road to serfdom took his personal belongings from his office and $160 million when left the firm. Richard Fuld, who steered Lehman Brothers into bankruptcy this week will see a $22 million retirement package.

Defenders of obscene executive pay have told us time and time again that that all that money is necessary attract the top talent necessary to run these massive corporations. But never mind all that, the Free Market_TM crusaders of the Bush White House have come out of the pro-regulation, big-government closet with a plan to rescue Wall Street from itself. And with the bailout, economist Dean Baker sees an opportunity.

While we don't want a chain reaction of banking collapses on Wall Street, the public should get something in exchange for Bernanke's generosity. Specifically, he can demand a cap on executive compensation (all compensation) of $2 million a year, in exchange for getting bailed out. For any bank that is not on board, Bernanke could make an explicit promise to their creditors — if the bank goes under, you will get zero from the Fed.

[...]

The explosion of the financial sector over the last three decades has led to a proliferation of complex financial instruments, many of which are not even understood by the companies who sell them, as we have painfully discovered.

The best way to bring the sector into line is with a modest financial transactions tax. Such taxes have long existed in other countries. For example, the United Kingdom charges a tax of 0.25 percent on the purchase or sale of share of stock. This is not a big deal to someone who holds their shares for ten years, but it could be a considerable cost for the folks who buy stocks in the morning that they sell in the afternoon.

These are certainly interesting ideas that could prove useful in putting Wall Street to work for Main Street instead of enriching just the investor class. While these specific ideas may have their own problems, Baker is making a very important point: we should use this opportunity to bring Wall Street back into the social contract of economic and social institutions working hand-in-hand.

Image by Flickr user Bobcatnorth used under a Creative Commons license

Earlier this week, we highlighted two hearings in the House of Representatives that were focusing on issues of waste, fraud, and abuse and federal contracting. Our friends over at the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) have had their A-game this week. They not only testified at one of those hearings, but have provided some excellent previews, commentaries, analysis and reports, and summaries on the hearings this week. All of the POGO materials are worth at least glancing through, if not reading thoroughly.

I also wanted to share POGO's perspective on the passage of the contractor responsibility misconduct database this week as part of the defense authorization bill in the Senate. POGO has championed this proposal from the beginning and long ago created a prototype of the database for the public.

POGO regularly harps on the deficiencies of the proposed database, but it's still a positive accomplishment. The database would only include defense contractors and would be accessible only to Department of Defense procurement officials and Congress. The database may be made available to other government officials at the discretion of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, but it's off-limits to the public. It would also include only instances involving the award or performance of contracts, and only those occurring in the most recent 5-year period.

Kudos to POGO for being on top of their game this week.

It looks like the end of the current congressional session is in sight, maybe. While legislators had an insurmountable work load to complete in the three weeks of work in September, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) still hopes to adjourn the Senate a week from tomorrow (Sept. 26). Reid is hoping the Senate can still finish quite a lot in the next 6 days, including energy legislation, a tax cut extension bill (with an Alternative Minimum Tax patch), a new economic stimulus package, and some number of appropriations bills and a continuing resolution. The Senate might begin consideration of a compromise tax package as early as this afternoon.

The Senate did successfully pass the Defense Authorization bill last night by a 88-8 vote. The authorization bill has been delayed for months, mostly due to a conflict over earmarks being listed in the committee report language for the bill, but not the legislative text of the bill. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) attempted to offer an amendment to effectively strike the $5 billion worth of earmarks in the committee report, but his amendment was not considered. Sen. John Warner (R-VA) attempted to strike a compromise between DeMint and Armed Service Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) by offering an amendment that would require the final bill produced by a House-Senate conference committee list the earmarks in the legislative text of the bill. Neither DeMint's or Warner's amendments were considered, along with almost 100 other amendments that were introduced.

The authorization bill also contains some contracting reform provisions that OMB Watch been following throughout 2008, including a contractor misconduct database first proposed by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO). While the database is structured to be publicly available in the House version of the authorization bill, the Senate has restricted access to the database just to government personnel.

The House and Senate will need to quickly find compromises to various differences in the two versions as congressional leaders hope to send a final bill to the President before the target adjournment date of Sept. 26. We'll post additional information about the contracting reforms and the earmarking conflict as they become available during the House-Senate conference.

This past weekend, the Federal Reserve Bank decided to suspend a rule intended to prevent the poor decisions of investment banks from affecting your savings account (and ultimately all taxpayers). The worrisome move will allow depository institutions (retail banks like those at which people have savings and checking accounts) to lend money to investment banks (banks like the now defunct Lehman Brothers that are in the business of providing capital to other investors) owned by the same company. The upshot is that the federally insured funds in your savings and checking accounts may now be used to bail out investment banks now scrambling to avoid bankruptcy. Or, as investment commentator Nate Weisshaar puts it: "...the money in my Bank of America savings account can now be used to shore up liquidity for some dodgy real estate portfolio that helped pull Merrill under."

Funds in depository institutions are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which means that the money you have in your checking account cannot be lost should your bank go bankrupt. Should your bank fail, a FDIC-managed fund is used to ensure that you lose no money. This fund is financed by FDIC-member banks, so when a bank fails there is no loss of federal funds. However, when multiple banks fail at the same time, the fund may not have enough money to cover all of its guarantees, forcing Congress has to step in and appropriate funds to make up the difference. This is what happened in the late 1990s with the savings and loan crisis, which ultimately cost taxpayers about $163 billion (in 2008 dollars). The Fed's move over the weekend has increased the probability that Congress will have to step in to shore up the finances of the FDIC.

And thanks to a slew of bank failures this year, the FDIC fund is now running a dangerously low levels.

Additional failures of large banks or savings and loans companies seem likely, and that could overwhelm the FDIC's insurance fund, said Brian Bethune, U.S. economist at consulting firm Global Insight.

"We've got a ... retail bank run forming in this country," said Christopher Whalen, senior vice president and managing director of Institutional Risk Analytics.

[...]

But fear is growing on Main Street as well as Wall Street about the likelihood of multiple bank failures and the strain that would put on the FDIC.

The fund...is at $45.2 billion — the lowest level since 2003. At the same time, the number of troubled banks is at a five-year high.

FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair has not ruled out the possibility of going to the Treasury for a short-term loan at some point. But she has said she does not expect the FDIC to take the more drastic action of using a separate $30 billion credit line with Treasury — something that has never been done.

The FDIC's fund is currently below the minimum set by Congress in a 2006 law. The failure of IndyMac Bank in July cost $8.9 billion.

Just as the FDIC is becoming strapped for cash and as the nation's largest thrift (Washington Mutual) teeters on the brink of insolvency, the Fed has made it easier for the financial system cancer to spread to the federal budget deficit.

Image by Flickr user Andrew Stawarz used under a Creative Commons license.

We'll be shutting down the BudgetBrigade a bit early today to head off to OMB Watch's 25th Anniversary celebration. Yup, that's right. OMBW is 25 years young this year and we're primed and ready for our quarter life crisis! We're taking some time to celebrate tonight with friends and supporters and remember 25 years of fighting for a more transparent and accountable federal government.

While we are looking back over some of our accomplishments of the last quarter century (and honoring the unsung work of some of our public sector colleagues), we are also looking forward to the challenges we'll face over the next 25 years and beyond.

You will be a key part of overcoming those future challenges, just as you've been crucial to our past accomplishments. Your involvement, along with hundreds of thousands of people just like you has helped to make us the success we are today. So thank you for your commitment to the open and accountable ideals that have helped guide OMBW over the past 25 years.

And if you want to help make sure those ideals continue to be realized, consider making a small donation to OMB Watch in honor of our 25th birthday. Your contribution will join with hundreds of others who want to ensure we are able to continue our mission and the important work we do everyday.

The Washington Post has an article this morning that details severe contracting problems at the Department of Homeland Security. The Post describes the agency's efforts to oversee $15 billion in contracts over the last six years as having "failed."

The contracts wound up over-budget, delayed or canceled after millions of dollars had already been spent, according to figures and documents prepared by the House Committee on Homeland Security. A panel of experts is to testify today before the House Subcommittee on Management, Investigations and Oversight on how to fix problems with the DHS acquisitions process.

The experts are expected to discuss a number of high-profile screw-ups at DHS, including the Coast Guard's Deepwater program (ships were built and then scrapped), Boeing's border protection fence, which we've skewered numerous times (over budget, behind schedule, doesn't work), a program to track visitors entry and exit from the U.S. called US VISIT (behind schedule, not being managed well), and some contracts related to Hurricane Katrina (mismanaged, wasted funds).

You can watch the hearing, scheduled for this afternoon at 2:00 pm (EST), on the web by following the link at the bottom of the committee web page.

I should also mention that the full committee hearing held last week on the virtual border fence contract in the House Homeland Security Committee will be finished tomorrow at 10:00 am (EST).

Yesterday (Wed.), the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee approved the $487.7 billion FY 2009 Defense Appropriations bill. The defense spending bill is passed every year, despite Congress's chronic inability to approve the other 11 individual annual spending bills, so it's no surprise to see this one advance.

With less than three weeks remaining in the fiscal year, here's how close Congress is to passing the legislation necessary to keep the federal government operating past Sept. 30.

I came across another delay in a federal contracting effort to report today. Seems the Department of Defense, and more specifically Secretary Robert Gates, feels it will not have sufficient time to complete the re-competition for the contract to build the next generation of mid-air refueling tankers. Gates announced this morning during testimony before the House Armed Services Committee that DoD has decided to cancel the competition and leave the issue for the incoming administration to figure out.

At first my reaction was this was just another example of the Bush administration pushing off their screw-ups onto someone else. But after thinking about it for a while, I think I'm changing my mind. Gates described the tanker contract issue as "enormously complex and emotional" and given the energy of the election season, trying to move forward on this contract in 2008 would probably only make things worse.

Part of the reason I think this is that self-interested politicians keep sticking their noses into this issue where they don't belong. The latest is House member Rick Larsen (D-WA), who decided he was qualified enough to judge that the postponement was "great news" and a "step in the right direction." Now maybe Larsen has previous experience as a contracting officer, defense analyst, or refueling tanker pilot (these details are not apparent from his website bio). Not surprisingly, Larsen's district is home to Boeing's enormous Everett aircraft assembly plant, the main company in the team who lost the initial competition for the tanker. Gee, I wonder if that is impacting his perspective on this issue?

The last thing we need is for the contracting process to become even more political than it already is. While Larsen is a member of the House Armed Services Committee, contract competitions are the perview of the executive branch, not Congress and Larsen and other politicians should stay out of a process that is already too political. Gates wisely decided that because the keen interest of politicians in this contract in an election year would only make the competition less fair, the right decision is to postpone.

Yesterday I ripped into folks over at the Professional Services Council (a contractor front group) for implying that current contracting woes had nothing to do with the contractors themselves. Then this morning I come across an update on the SBInet program - which is supposed to establish a virtual fence along the southern border of the United States to monitor illegal crossings. The program continues to be behind schedule and over budget. Big surprise.

We blogged back in April about how the program was behind schedule and over budget, citing two other reports from June 2007 and February 2008 that showed the program was not going well. In fact, the Customs and Border Protection office decided to scrap a part of the program being handled by Boeing called Project 28 after $20 million had been spent on a system that didn't work.

The House Homeland Security committee held a hearing yesterday to explore why the virtual border fence has not become a reality. Two representatives from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) testified that the SBInet program is pretty much a disaster. From GAO director of information technology architecture and system issues Randolph Hite's testimony:

Important aspects of SBInet remain ambiguous and in a continued state of flux, making it unclear and uncertain what technology capabilities will be delivered and when, where, and how they will be delivered. For example, the scope and timing of planned SBInet deployments and capabilities have continued to be delayed without becoming more specific.

Ouch. Not a lot of grey area there. GAO's Richard Stana, director of homeland security and justice issues, also testified that time lines for the program had slipped, in some cases by up to three years, and the cost of the pedestrian fence has increased from about $4 million per mile to $7.5 million per mile! Wow! Now that's what I call wasteful spending.

Elizabeth Newell wrote an good summary last week in Government Executive magazine of the state of a handful of reforms to the federal contracting process that have been stalled in the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.

With time running out in this congressional session, a number of sweeping contracting reform bills are languishing on the back burner. Several significant pieces of acquisition legislation are stuck in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and their authors are attaching provisions to other bills in a last-ditch effort to address federal acquisition issues.

We've seen this strategy pay off already this year, as the article goes on to note. At the end of June, two contracting reforms were enacted as part of the latest war supplemental spending bill, and back in May, another reform passed as part of the HEART Act, a bill to give tax cuts to veterans. I'm hoping it pays off again in September (although Neil Gordon writing over on POGO's blog isn't very optimistic).

One small gripe about the article though. Newell quotes Colleen Preston, the executive vice president for public policy with the Professional Services Council (PSC). The PSC is a trade association that represents the interests of government contractors - counting some of the largest government contractors like Lockheed Martin and Boeing as members. Preston's quotes are, well, predictable.

Preston said to some extent the pileup of contracting legislation is an election-year inevitability. The problems the bills seek to address may be real, she said, the solutions may not be what the government really needs.

"The real problem is the acquisition workforce," she said. "Until the government can address that issue, it's not clear anything will make a difference."

I want to move past the strange assertion that the government doesn't need solutions to real problems in federal contracting and cut straight to the bashing that Preston gives government contracting officers. It's so nice for her to come along and explain to us all that the problem is simply the bureaucrats. Oh, now I get it. Problem solved!

I suppose Preston feels the problem isn't related to contractors? Not at all? Really? Contractors never deliver products that don't work, never go over budget, never intentionally charge the government more than they should, never waste resources, and never fall behind schedule? Contractors never break laws or cheat or try to get every advantage and perk to turn a profit? Please.

I take issue with Newell's failure to mention that PSC is an interest group whose purpose is to promote the use and reliability of federal contractors. Knowing that, it becomes obvious that PSC has no interest in exposing its members to public scrutiny or burdensome reforms; better to blame the government for the failures of private contractors.

CongressDaily and CQ are both reporting that Congressional Democratic leadership are signaling that they will attempt to move a second stimulus package before they adjourn for the year.

"The state of the economy is very desperate," Reid said on the floor as he discussed the agenda for the rest of the month before the Senate is expected to adjourn -- possibly for the year. "Since we left here for a recess ...we have only more bad news, which means we should look forward ... during this work period to see if we can do an economic stimulus bill."

Reid cited increasing unemployment and the stubbornly shaky housing market as other reasons for another stimulus.

"And the news of the day -- the federal intervention on Fannie and Freddie -- is but the latest evidence that our economy is in serious trouble," Reid said.

"I don't think rebates will be part of the package,'' he said Tuesday, while stressing what he called a need for more infrastructure spending and assistance to unemployed and low-income Americans.

Hoyer said infrastructure spending will be a major element of any package. He also listed home heating assistance, expanded unemployment benefits to deal with the nation's rising jobless rate and expanded federal help to the states for Medicaid programs.

Hoyer's suggestion, thankfully, has quite a bit in common with the common-sense list of suggestions put forth by the Coalition on Human Needs and the Emergency Campaign for America's Priorities in their Towards Shared Recovery proposal.

Image by Flickr user respres used under a Creative Commons license.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released their Monthly Budget Review on Friday last week, showing lots of red ink for the federal government in FY 2008.

CBO estimates that the federal budget deficit was $486 billion in the first 11 months of the fiscal year, $212 billion more than the shortfall recorded over the same period last year. CBO anticipates that the government will realize a surplus in September, stemming from quarterly payments of estimated income taxes. The result will be a deficit in the vicinity of $400 billion for the fiscal year.

CBO will release a new estimate of the 2008 deficit and updated baseline projections for fiscal years 2009—2018 on September 9 and we'll be sure to post that release on the BudgetBlog.

CBO: Monthly Budget Review

Ellen Miller blogs today over at the Sunlight Foundation about the legacy of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act). The Transparency Act mandated that all federal spending be easily accessible and searchable in the Internet. After the law passed in 2006, the federal government launched USASpending.gov in 2007, which was built on the software platform that powers OMB Watch's FedSpending.org.

Ellen reports the legacy of this federal law is being felt at the state level, all over the country:

Since 2007, 11 states (Hawaii, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Washington) have established, via legislation or executive order, free and searchable Web sites that give access to state spending. And 24 other states are working on it, with more than half introducing spending transparency bills this year. B2G Exchange blog wrote in May that transparency Web sites were the "hottest new trend" in state government.

The original cosponsors of the Transparency Act bill - Barack Obama (D-IL) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) - as well as the hundreds of advocacy groups and transparency organizations, blogs, and regular citizens who helped push this legislation to enactment should be very proud of this legacy. Let's hope it continues to spread.