Government Executive's Robert Brodsky, who's been investigating and reporting on the internal machinations of DCAA, has obtained a series of internal DCAA memos. One of the memos betray a DCAA in "duck-and-cover mode" working to recover from a slew of criticisms leveled at the agency in the past month.
In late July, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report affirming allegations by employees that agency managers worked to issue audit findings favorable to several contractors despite lack of supporting evidence for the findings. The GAO report also noted that DCAA managers harassed and threatened auditors to discourage them from cooperating with GAO. A few weeks after the GAO report, GovExec reported the concerns of a dozen former DCAA employees that the agency subjugated audit quality to performance measurement metrics.
According to several agency officials, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity, the [Government Executive] article quickly circulated in DCAA offices and headquarters, causing concern among supervisors.
"Upper management is seriously scared right now," said one DCAA employee, who spoke on his cell phone for fear that the agency would check his office line. "Everyone is in duck-and-cover mode."
...
In the first [memo], issued on Aug. 6, [DCAA Director April] Stephenson announced that August, already almost one week old, had been designated as audit quality month.
"To recognize this initiative, we request that each office hold a stand down-day this month in which audit quality is discussed as a group," the memo stated. "The regional director or deputy regional director will participate in these conferences to further emphasize expectations and answer questions or concerns on audit quality."
One hopes that Stephenson is making a serious effort to right the listing agency, rather than throwing up some window dressing for the public (and congressional) consumption.
(Craig Jennings 08/15/08; 0 comments)
The Bush administration announced yesterday that it will not enforce new requirements that would have made it more difficult for states to enroll children in the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). USA Today reports that the administration will not be taking "compliance action" at this time on regulations that would have forced states to wait until children are uninsured for one year before being covered by SCHIP and also require states to enroll 95 percent of extremely low-income children in the state before expanding health care coverage to only somewhat low-income families:
The directive was aimed at 15 states that extended health insurance to children in families with incomes above 250% of the federal poverty level — $44,000 for a family of three.
Many governors and Democratic lawmakers criticized the administration's new guidelines as impossible to meet. They said the final result would be that more children would go without health coverage as states rein in their programs.
With the deadline fast approaching, the administration made clear that states were under no immediate threat of losing federal funding.
We commented at the end of July about how Democrats in Congress really dropped the ball in using the Congressional Review Act to impede the Bush administration's efforts to keep kids from having health care. Fortunately, at least for the time being, it looks like they are off the hook.
(Matthew Madia 08/15/08; 0 comments)The Voter Rights Protection Project, which was recently launched by the Campaign Legal Center, provides legal documents to help protect the right to vote. According to the Campaign Legal Center, the Project provides "generic drafts of potential court filings to individuals, organizations, and political parties who must resort to the courts to protect the fundamental rights of citizens to vote." The templates are publicly available, and information about the Project has been sent to the leaders of both major political parties, as well as to the campaigns of the presumptive presidential nominees for both major political parties.
The template will enable individuals, advocacy groups, political parties, and candidates to seek legal recourse for any problems that occur either prior to or during the election.
"When things go wrong on Election Day, as they sometimes do, citizens deserve legal recourse to ensure their voting rights are protected and their votes are counted," said J. Gerald Hebert, Executive Director and Director of Litigation for the Campaign Legal Center.
Interested parties can access the templates on the Campaign Legal Center's website in September. They can also send them via email upon request.
(Lateefah Williams 08/15/08; 0 comments)
I posted on Tuesday this week about a new report from the Government Accountability Office that shows a significant number of corporations are playing fast and loose with their U.S. tax liabilities. Giving further evidence that the BudgetBlog is where it is at, I got a call from a reporter (Carolyn Said) at the San Francisco Chronicle within ten minutes of posting my blog. She was working on a story about the GAO report. I was quoted in her well-written story (see Most U.S. firms paid no taxes over 7-year span) as were many other fine analysts and experts.
One quote in particular was from William Ahern, spokesman for The Tax Foundation, a Washington, DC nonpartisan tax research group with a conservative perspective on taxes. Mr. Ahern said that there was nothing wrong with corporations employing armies of accountants and lawyers to exploit every possible tax loophole. Specifically, he said:
In that respect, they are just like individuals. Don't we all fill out our tax returns as aggressively as we know how and take every deduction and credit we're entitled to, even if they're unprincipled, even if they're in the tax code only because Congress thinks we will appreciate them for subsidizing us?
Now my disagreements with some of the perspectives of the fine folks at The Tax Foundation aside, I couldn't agree with Mr. Ahern more when he says corporations can behave just as illegally opportunistically as individuals. In fact, sometimes they work together. Case in point is an AP story that also appeared in the San Fran Chronicle a few weeks ago (mea culpa from the Budget Brigade for missing this story). Seems the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations issued a report in July identifying two European banks of assisting wealthy Americans evade U.S. taxes. The two banks, UBS of Switzerland and LGT of Liechtenstein, are part of a larger infrastructure that "aggressively" evades U.S. tax laws, either by exploiting loopholes or just by outright cheating - to the tune of $100 billion annually. Yup, that's $100,000,000,000 each year!
The gut-wrenching horror of this entire situation is that we don't need to figure out whether individuals or corporations are to blame. They both are! These banks are exploiting excessively secretive international finance laws, "aggressively" recruiting wealthy Americans to go to pretty much any lengths to intentionally break U.S. tax laws, and our fellow citizens are going along with it. Patriotism just isn't what it used to be. (btw, you can read the subcommittee report, see documents from a subcommittee hearing on the issue, and even watch archived footage (real player format) of the hearing.)
In case that hasn't made you lose your appetite completely, this will. Ellen Miller at the Sunlight Foundation points us to a Washington Post story from last week that details the large increase in political contributions from UBS's PAC and top executives, and other key figures of the Senate investigation, during the 2008 election cycle. Ellen Miller:
The Post article states that officials with the banks have given more than $2 million this year, $98,000 in June alone, to congressional and presidential campaigns. USB spends close to $1 million a year on lobbying and is traditionally a big campaign giver. But so far this cycle the Swiss bank's contributions have surpassed what it gave in the whole 2006 election cycle. The Post quotes a bank spokesperson as saying the bank's giving is in no way related to the Senate investigation. The article didn't say, however, whether it was said with a straight face.
No, thanks. No dessert for me. I'm full.
(Adam Hughes 08/15/08; 0 comments)
I'm going to reproduce the following post by Think Progress's Matthew Ygelsias, because he's right on about the effectiveness of government per se: some agencies/departments carry out their mission better than others.
One of Megan McArdle's correspondents rants against the evils of the DC Department of Motor Vehicles before snarking " I can't wait for the government to take over our healthcare system."
A common enough sentiment. But look — the government already runs a fleet of air craft carriers. Worse! The government's taken over our national monetary policy — mistakes can plunge the country into recession or a destructive cycle of inflation. And as if that's not enough, they run a vast arsenal of nuclear warheads capable of destroying the entire planet. Which is just to say that if it's not conceivable that there could be a well-managed government agency, then we're all doomed irrespective of what happens with health care. But in fact if you look across the country or around the world, you see some highly effective public agencies and some highly dysfunctional ones. Obviously, you wouldn't want the health care system run like the worst of those agencies, but that's hardly to say that a highly effective government health care agency would be impossible to achieve.
Simply because an entity is a governmental entity guarantees neither success nor failure. However, one advantage that governmental entities do have over private entities is that the former, by definition, are subject to the demands of citizens for better execution.
(Craig Jennings 08/14/08; 0 comments)The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released data for inflation and real earnings this morning, while the Labor Department reported on unemployment insurance claims for the past week.
| Inflation: Consumer prices continue their steep advance as prices jumped 0.8 percent in July, pushing the annualized rate to 10.6 percent (yikes!). The jump in consumer prices was largely driven by food and energy, and when those items are subtracted inflation clocks in a high, but not scary, 3.5 percent. BLS Release: Consumer Price Index: July 2008 Commentary: Dean Baker at CEPR |
![]() |
| Real Earnings: Workers' pay took a hit in July as real average weekly earnings fell by 0.8 percent. The 0.3 percent increase in average hourly earnings couldn't keep up with the 0.3 decrease in aerage weekly hours and the 0.9 percent in prices. BLS Release: Real Earnings in July 2008 |
![]() |
| Unemployment Insurance Claims: Last week, 450,000 workers claimed unemployment insurance for the first time -- 10,000 fewer than the previous week. The four-week moving average of initial jobless claims rose to 440,500, an increase of 19,500 from the previous week's revised average of 421,000. Workers who continue to collect unemployment insurance advanced to 3,417,000, an increase of 114,000 from the previous week. Department of Labor Release: Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims Report Commentary: Andrew Samwick at Capital Gains and Games |
![]() |
Today, as promised, President Bush signed into law the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (H.R. 4040). You can read a summary of the bill's major provisions here.
Kudos to the president and to Congress for creating far-reaching reforms that are protective of consumers and will empower the Consumer Product Safety Commission to adequately police the marketplace.
While news surrounding the act is finished (thank goodness, after an excruciatingly long debate and congressional gestation), government officials must take many more steps before the intended changes are realized. Congress must follow through on its pledge to increase agency resources by passing appropriations bills, and the Executive Branch must write and enforce the new rules the act requires.
(Matthew Madia 08/14/08; 0 comments)A Sept. 10 hearing is scheduled for the Real Truth About Obama Inc.'s (RTAO) lawsuit. RTAO is requesting that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is prohibited from enforcing reporting requirements for independent political groups. The rules being challenged could require a group to disclose its finances, limit contributions to $5,000 per contributor and ban corporate and union money if the group is considered by the FEC to be a "political committee."
The RTAO lawsuit references a Department of Justice letter to Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer that said DOJ would "vigorously pursue instances where individuals knowingly and intentionally violate clear commands" of the Federal Election Campaign Act.
According to BNA Money and Politics ($$), the FEC is questioning the assignment of U.S. District Judge James Spencer, a federal judge who has ruled against campaign finance regulations in the past. A motion filed by FEC lawyers details that the plaintiffs had intentionally sought Judge Spencer's assignment to the case and suggested that the case be reassigned through a random process.
Specifically, "a case brought by the Virginia Society for Human Life (VSHL) in 2000, in which the judge ruled against an FEC regulation defining 'express advocacy' more broadly than a few 'magic words' referring to elections. [. . .] RTAO cited the VSHL matter as a 'related case,' apparently helping to ensure that. The FEC indicated that VSHL, a case decided seven years ago involving questions that have been subject to subsequent litigation and rulings by the Supreme Court, could not properly be viewed as 'related' to a new case."
(Amanda Adams 08/14/08; 0 comments)
The OMB Watch Fiscal Policy Program is looking for an intern for the fall of 2008. Yup, that's right. This is your chance to get in on the ground floor at one of the most dynamic nonprofit watchdog groups in Washington, DC. We're looking for energetic undergraduate or graduate students who have excellent writing, critical thinking, and communications skills, and who are dedicated to public policy and government accountability (see current intern Josh at right for example).
The internship is unpaid, but you'll have the chance to gain first hand experiences and take on significant responsibilities related to a number of different aspects of policy analysis in DC. Plus, you'll get a chance to write for the BudgetBlog - what could be better?
Interested? Learn more about the position and how to apply.
(Adam Hughes 08/13/08; 0 comments)BNA Money and Politics ($$) reports on some findings from the new database of lobbyist campaign contributions as required by the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. "Lobbyists and the organizations they work for have disclosed nearly 100,000 contributions and other payments linked to members of Congress and other top officials under a new reporting system required by last year's lobbying and ethics reform law."
"Only a little more that 2,700 of the reported transactions involved 'honorary' payments, meeting expenses, and contributions to presidential library funds, which were not previously required to be disclosed. One researcher, Craig Holman of the watchdog group Public Citizen, said he has used the new database to calculate a total of $26 million just in direct campaign contributions by individual lobbyists to lawmakers over the first half of this year."
In doing a search on the House site, I found 97,662 disclosed contributions from both individual lobbyists and political action committees controlled by lobbyists or lobbying organizations, to candidates and political committees regulated under the Federal Election Campaign Act.
Attorney Kenneth Gross of the firm Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom said the reports being filed under the new law are "of mild interest but contain no great revelations." Particularly interesting are the reports regarding money contributed by political action committees controlled by lobbyists and lobbying organizations, Gross suggested. Although the contributions themselves were required to be reported before, the link between this PAC money and particular lobbying interests was not necessarily known.
"The confusion over requirements did lead some organizations to report large payments honoring members of Congress, which may have been misleading." The new Senate site is here and the House site is here.
(Amanda Adams 08/13/08; 0 comments)