It's been 48 days since the Super Committee's last public meeting on Sept. 8 (and over a month passed between the Super Committee's second and third public hearings). For those of us who have been watching the Super Committee since day one, eagerly awaiting information on the specifics of its proposal for cutting $1.5 trillion dollars from the federal deficit, 48 days of radio silence not only has us on edge, it also has us questioning the Super Committee's commitment to transparency and the democratic process.

In early August, when President Obama signed the Budget Control Act of 2011 (aka the debt ceiling deal) into law, he also approved the creation of a 12-member Super Committee charged with finding $1.5 trillion in cuts over the next 10 years. In response, OMB Watch joined other public interest groups in demanding transparency from the Super Committee. We created SuperCommitteeWatch.org as a clearinghouse for information about the committee and its pending deficit-reduction proposal, and we wrote up a list of specific transparency asks. We asked for access to:

• Live and archived webcasts of all meetings and hearings
• Witness lists and hearing agendas
• Proposals and supporting documentation
• A means to collect and aggregate public feedback and reactions to the proposals being considered

Despite the requests of the open government community, we've seen only one public meeting and three public hearings (the third held yesterday). While we acknowledge that the Super Committee has taken initiative by archiving videos of the hearings on their official website, we can't help but feel disappointed at what little effort they've made thus far to include the American people in their decision-making process. Considering the effect the final proposal will have on the lives of Americans nationwide, we think the nation deserves Super Committee transparency on a much larger scale.

Reporters at The New York Times attempted on Tuesday to give us a progress report on the Super Committee's activities. Most of what they managed to uncover, however, were vague references to an apparent stalemate between parties from anonymous sources.

With a Nov. 23 deadline looming over them, the Super Committee is in need of a solution to their apparent stalemate. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) told The New York Times that the members of the Super Committee are "no more autonomous than your left thumb. They need some guidance from the White House and from the leadership of Congress."

Here's an idea – how about some guidance from the American people? The Los Angeles Times reported that the Super Committee has received more than 180,000 recommendations from "lawmakers, advocacy groups and ordinary Americans." We'd like to know exactly what these recommendations are, who is making them, and whether or not the committee is taking them into account as they work toward a deficit-reduction plan.

We urge the Super Committee to make public these recommendations, as well as more of its meetings between now and Nov. 23. Let the American people weigh in on what revenue options or spending cuts they'd like to see. Allow them to actively participate in the decisions that will, no doubt, have a huge impact on their lives. Restore some credibility to our democracy. Help the American people participate in their own governance.

If you're interested in getting involved, our colleagues at the Sunlight Foundation have organized a great way for you to have your voice heard. Join them as they "Haunt the House" on October 31. They'll be heading to Super Committee members' offices all around the country to remind them who they work for, and they want you to be there!

The Super Committee has 27 days until its final proposal is due. Let's hope these next 27 days are more transparent than the last 48.

In the past week, the East Coast saw two natural disasters, both of which were thankfully much less destructive than they otherwise could've been. These disasters do, however, remind us that the federal government plays major roles in preparation, information dissemination, emergency response, and recovery aid for natural disasters and provide people with the assistance they need and expect when catastrophe strikes.

On Tuesday (Aug.23), an earthquake shook the eastern seaboard. The epicenter was some 80 miles south of DC, but it was felt from North Carolina to Boston. It was the most powerful earthquake to strike the region in a 100 years, yet no one was killed and total damage was very light. Thanks to the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) National Earthquake Information Center, I learned-along with a host of other anxious people on the sidewalks of Connecticut Avenue, within minutes, that I had just experienced a 5.8 magnitude earthquake, not a terrorist attack, so calm prevailed. And when the quake struck, the North Anna nuclear power station, located close to the epicenter, shut down almost immediately. Soon after, inspectors from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) were at the plant looking for possible damage.

A few days later, Hurricane Irene made landfall on North Carolina and bounced up the East Cost all the way to Vermont. Because the National Weather Service's National Hurricane Center has access to satellites, radar, aircraft, scientists, and dedicated civil servants, residents in the path of the storm had plenty of time to evacuate. During the storm, the USGS was measuring tidal surges to help measure damage, and the Coast Guard was standing by for rescue missions.

Irene was, unfortunately, a lot more destructive than the earthquake. Thirty-two lives have been lost and damage stretches all the way up the coast from North Carolina to Vermont, where severe flooding is likely to cause continued damage. Estimates for damage are -- so far -- around $7 billion. In the wake of this disaster, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Small Business Administration will help families and businesses affected by the storm to recover. The Farm Service Agency will help farmers whose crops were destroyed. And the USGS will test water in affected areas for pesticides and other dangers, like E. coli.

The events of the last week have demonstrated that without the services of these federal agencies, we'd have seen more lives lost. For those communities impacted by the disasters, the road to recovery would be a lot longer. Yet deficit hysteria and government shrinking conservatives are putting these kinds of public protections and services at risk. The steep budget cuts required by the debt ceiling deal have yet to take effect, but the FY 2011 budget cuts are already being felt. There have been nine disasters with losses greater than $1 billion so far in 2011, representing a total loss of $35 billion. FEMA's disaster relief fund has dwindled, causing that agency to suspend some aid for the Joplin, MO tornado recovery. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Administrator Jane Lubchenco recently noted that funding reductions could delay the replacement of a weather satellite, which would "result in some degradation in hurricane track and intensity forecasts in the important 3-5 day coastal evacuation planning period."

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) is demanding that any emergency disaster relief be offset with spending cuts in other areas of the budget. However, shifting funds from transportation programs will degrade our infrastructure, hindering emergency vehicle access. Moving money out of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will slow our response to a flu pandemic. Taking money away from Census will reduce our ability to know who would be hit in a future disaster. Cutting nutrition programs will cause a slow-motion disaster among low-income families. Disaster response rests on a multidimensional platform of public structures. It involves both long-term planning and near-term action, the balance of which must be continuously maintained in order to be effective. Deep funding cuts in these structures weaken our ability to confront the unforeseen and ultimately harm the nation.

The House has just passed (218-210) a plan to increase the debt ceiling. Tommorow, the House is expected to take up two versions of a resolution (H.J. Res. 1 and H.J. Res. 2) that, if approved by both chambers, would be the first step to add a balanced budget amendment to the constitution.

OMB Watch has sent a letter to the House strongly urging all members to vote "no" on this harmful amendment.

July 29, 2011

Dear Representative:

OMB Watch strongly opposes the balanced budget amendments being considered by the House of Representatives, specifically House Joint Resolutions (H.J. Res.) 1 and 2. Enacting such amendments would hinder the government's capacity to confront economic downturns and harm vital social safety net and public protections.

Most economists - even conservative ones - believe that the government plays an important role in moderating the ups and downs of the business cycle, but H.J. Res. 1 and 2 undermine its capacity to help America in difficult times. A super-majority requirement in both houses would allow a small faction to exert power over the wishes of the majority of the Legislature and the will of the American people. This is not the way American democracy is supposed to work.

H.J. Res. 1 and H.J. Res. 2 would also require super majorities of both houses of Congress to increase the debt ceiling even though recent events have shown that even a simple majority of either house cannot agree on the proper course of action, and the nation is perilously close to a default or rating downgrade, which will increase interest rates for everyone. Even with H.J. Res. 2, a small minority could hold Congress hostage and significantly increase the likelihood of a future economy-shattering default, putting the full faith and credit of the nation at risk.

Moreover, both balanced budget amendments include a provision making it easier to cut programs such as Social Security and Medicare than close tax loopholes, despite repeated polls showing Americans want a balanced approach to deficit reduction that includes tax revenue and program cuts, but leaves programs for the elderly and the vulnerable alone.

More than 250 public interest groups have signed a letter in opposition to any balanced budget amendment, arguing it would kill our nascent economic recovery. And reports out today show that economic growth this past quarter was much lower than initially expected, in part due to job loss from cuts in government spending. If a balanced budget amendment were passed, job loss would be even deeper, sending the nation into a double-dip recession.

H.J. Res. 1 and H.J. Res. 2 are irresponsible amendments that will over time erode America's quality of life and its ability to be a world leader. We urge you to oppose it.

For more on the balanced budget amendment, read our analyses here and here.

It has been a whirlwind 8 days since Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) introduced a bill to reform federal spending transparency. On June 13, Issa introduced the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act (DATA Act), held a hearing the next day, and will mark up the bill tomorrow in his Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

A number of organizations, including OMB Watch, that follow federal spending transparency were excited about the bill, even though it was moving at too rapid a pace for such a complex bill. Several organizations, including OMB Watch, gave Issa’s staff mark ups of the bill. The Issa substitute, which will be considered tomorrow, was published earlier today.

The version being marked up tomorrow is a bill that would be a significant setback for spending transparency. Accordingly, OMB Watch opposes the DATA Act as it is currently written. We hope the bill will be improved and that ultimately we can support it.

Here is the main reason why we oppose it. The bill repeals the Coburn-Obama law that created USAspending.gov. In repealing the Coburn-Obama law, the revised Issa bill misses important elements. But even more shocking, the Issa bill sunsets in 7 years. That’s right...no website at all if Congress does not reauthorize it on time!

At the heart of the Issa bill are two elements. First, it converts the Recovery Act Board into a new independent oversight board to deter government-wide waste and fraud. Second, the new board would create at least one new website on government spending. While OMB Watch does not object in principle to this approach, we do object to sunsetting the Issa bill in 7 years. This means that the new board, the website that replaces USAspending, and all the oversight will also expire if not renewed by Congress. That is not how democracy and accountability should work.

OMB Watch has advocated for increased fiscal transparency issues for years and does not oppose this effort lightly. OMB Watch developed FedSpending.org, a website that allows users to more easily review trillions of dollars in federal contract and award data in 2006. The programming from the project was subsequently licensed to the government to serve as the launching point for USASpending.gov. The organization also offered ongoing input to the transparency efforts around the Recovery.gov site.

OMB Watch will develop a more complete analysis of the Issa bill after it is marked up tomorrow. We hope that version of the bill will ensure strong and permanent transparency provisions are protected. Until then, we will continue to oppose the bill.