CongressDaily is reporting ($) that a few members of the House of Representatives are forming the "Smart Contracting Caucus" to pursue what Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) called "thoughtful federal procurement reform." But Dan Friedman at CongressDaily isn't buying the spin:

Davis was a contracting lawyer and is the House's top backer of government contractors concentrated in his suburban Virginia district. He has long pushed to make contracting with federal agencies simpler for businesses. Since the 2006 election, Davis has negotiated with House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman and other Democrats to remove provisions from several House-passed contracting reform bills after they drew particularly vocal industry opposition. With Davis leaving Congress this year, the caucus appears in part an effort to institutionalize his role.

While I like that folks in Congress are paying more attention to the horrific problems we have in the federal procurement system (here's the latest), I'm not sure if Davis is the best person to be heading up this caucus. Considering his opposition at one point to legislation to prevent companies that owe federal taxes from being considered for government contracts, his original support of a spending transparency bill that did not disclose contracts data, and his support of the largest corporations regardless of whether they have broken federal contracting laws, it's probably good he won't be around next year. If he was, they would probably have to rename it the "Fighting Contractor Abuse" Caucus.

Federal budget sensei Stan Collender reads this WaPo story on the mismanagement of $15 billion Iraqi reconstruction funds and wonders if something more than incompetence isn't at work.

The Pentagon's own inspector general confirmed that this lack of concern for procedural safeguards was blatant and commonplace. That makes it hard to come to any conclusion other than that they were ignored rather than expedited or poorly executed.

It's also hard to come to any conclusion other than that the spending of taxpayer funds in Iraq bordered on, or actually was, simple and straightforward corruption.

Given the magnitude of the spending involved, Iraq may be the Bush administration's contribution to the biggest public corruption scandals of all time like Boss Tweed in New York, James Michael Curley in Boston, and Teapot Dome.

An op-ed in today's Washington Post, Fallout from a Bailout, examining the consequence of the Federal Reserve bailout of Bear, Stearns in March, breathlessly exclaims, "The world has changed because of a few snap decisions made one weekend in March."

Maybe it takes someone with the unique perspective and insight of a former director of the Division of Monetary Affairs at the Federal Reserve Board to appreciate and alert us to this global cataclysm: "the Fed's action tipped the political balance toward providing direct subsidies to households having trouble meeting their mortgage payments."

Dreadful. Author Vincent Reinhart is right in this one narrow respect: the Fed's action in March may have helped clarify how politically untenable in Congress the Bush administration's laissez-faire approach to the mortgage crisis was. His question, "Given that the government has provided funds to an investment bank, do you think government aid should also be given to households failing to meet their mortgage obligations?" became a no-brainer.

Whether the Fed's move really portends the ideological consequence Reinhart seems to fear is debatable. But once denizens of Club Fed stop hyperventilating, they probably should consider this question before debate begins in earnest on absurdly long-overdue and inevitable financial institution regulatory reform: should Bear-style Fed intervention with fiscal policy consequences (putting taxpayers on the line for the Bear bailout) be sanctioned going forward, and, if so, does that argue for an oversight and advice-and-consent role for Congress?

This may be the central question emerging from the Bear bailout. If the Fed wants license formally to expand its mission and effect fiscal policy, we will need to bear in mind that, as the late Sen. William Proxmire famously noted, "the Fed is a creature of Congress."

Our friend Wesley Snipes looks like he is running out of options to avoid going to jail on June 3 for believing he was exempt from paying taxes (oh, and actually not paying taxes too). The Associated Press reports:

Wesley Snipes must surrender to prison authorities June 3 if he isn't granted bail to appeal three federal tax convictions, defense lawyers said in a court filing. Snipes' attorneys plan to argue before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the trial judge erred in several ways before and after his February conviction. U.S. District Judge William Terrell Hodges last month sentenced Snipes to three years in prison.

To be granted freedom during the appeal, the 45-year-old actor must prove that he has a substantial issue to raise and isn't a flight risk. His attorneys argue that Hodges gave the jury bad instructions and should have granted them an expanded pretrial hearing on their request to move the proceedings.

Prosecutors said Snipes had no major issues to raise and has demonstrated he could flee. In a Monday filing, U.S. Attorney Robert O'Neill said Snipes told the probation office he had less than $10,000 in liquid assets, but the actor surprised the government by producing $5 million in payment for back taxes at his sentencing.

(h/t TaxProf Blog)

The U.S. Senate is moving to restrict public access to a new contractor misconduct database, part of a new proposal being spearheaded by the Project on Government Oversight and Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO). Apparently there is bipartisan objection to the proposal within the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Scott Amey at POGO has the rundown:

Now, I can see, at worst, allowing certain information to be stored in a "government only" section of the database. But throwing a blanket of secrecy over the entire database is absurd. A large percentage of the cases included in the proposed responsibility databases are already publicly available in SEC filings and DOJ or agency press releases.

This doesn't sit well with POGO and an eclectic list of 32 other groups that support an open and transparent government. Hopefully, Congress will decide that the public deserves to see scofflaws' rap sheets. The public should have access to a government sponsored comprehensive list of contractors (similar to POGO's Federal Contractor Misconduct Database) that defrauded the government, violated laws and regulations, had poor work performance, or had their contracts terminated for default.

Also see this good article from this morning on the issue from Robert Brodsky at GovExec.com.

Posted by Adam Hughes, 05:37:16 PM



Jackson May Not Have Been Only Bad Apple at HUD

Carol Leonnig at the Washington Post wrote a great article over the weekend that gets further into the weeds on contracting problems at the Department of Housing and Urban Development under former Sec. Jackson. Leonnig profiles three small businesses that received huge jumps in the size of federal contracts they received over the last five or so years, often times despite objections of career contracting officers. It appears awarding contracts as political favors might have extended well beyond Jackson to many other high ranking officials at HUD:

Federal investigators are still sorting through HUD contract awards to friends of Secretary Alphonso Jackson, who resigned last month amid a criminal probe. But some career staff members and agency observers say problems in the agency's contracting process run much deeper than Jackson and involve officials who promoted certain companies while rebuffing concerns about their performance and qualifications.