This morning, the Bureau of Economic Analyses released the latest economic growth data. In the second quarter of this year, the gross domestic product (GDP) shrank at annul rate of 1.0 percent. While this represents a slowing of the free-fall rate of economic contraction we saw in Q1 (6.4 percent), the economy has quite a ways to go before job losses become gains and wages begin ticking upward. This improvement, though, does beg the question "Is the Recovery Act working?"

While there are certainly a number of reasons for the recent improvement in GDP (negative) growth, a look at the numbers behind the number, reveals that growth in both federal, state, and local government expenditures contributed 1.12 percentage points of growth. And as states and localities see falling revenue and increased consumption of public services, the Recovery Act aid going to these governments is no doubt mitigating cuts in vital services like health care, child care, education, and public safety.

And while personal consumption declined at annual rate of 0.88 percent, it could have been much worse. Center for Economic and Policy Research's Dean Baker:

The tax cuts and benefit increases in the stimulus, which began to kick in at the start of the quarter, almost certainly prevented consumption from falling more than it otherwise would have. Consumption fell at a 1.2 percent annual rate in the second quarter. As a result of the tax cuts and benefit increases, disposable personal income rose at a 4.6 percent annual rate in the quarter, even as wage income fell at more than a 5.0 percent annual rate.

(click to enlarge)

In his “In the Loop” column in today’s Washington Post, Al Kamen reports that Department of Transportation officials are unhappy with the new version of Regulations.gov, the federally run website that allows users to comment on proposed regulations. (I blogged about the redesign here.)

Kamen obtained an email from Esta Rosenberg, chief of the U.S. Air Carrier Licensing Division in the Office of International Aviation, sent to frequent commenters on aviation issues. Rosenberg says Regulations.gov "has been redesigned and is even more difficult to use." She advised commenters to duplicate their online comments by sending DOT a paper version. That’s not exactly a vote of confidence in the new site.

I’m not sure what would lead DOT to believe that comments won’t be getting through. There are certainly some functional problems with the site. Some of those problems have existed for years, and some are new. (For example, search result pages no longer display the date a document was posted – an unfortunate omission of a crucial bit of information.) But why would a largely aesthetic design change alter the ability of the website, and the underlying Federal Docket Management System, to receive and store comments?

Either way, the site has lots of room for improvement. This most recent redesign includes both steps forward and steps backwards.

In 2008, the American Bar Association released a report recommending an overhaul of Regulations.gov and e-rulemaking – the term used for online participation in agency regulatory decisions. The report calls for the government to establish both an interagency working group and an advisory committee made up of citizens and experts that could recommend reforms from a user’s perspective and test changes to Regulations.gov. Considering the largely negative reaction to the revised site, this design change could have benefited from the input of those panels.

Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 (H.R. 2749) by a vote of 283-142. The bill was crafted in response to a raft of foodborne illness outbreaks, tied mostly to produce and nuts, that exposed regulatory vulnerabilities at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The bill would shift the focus of federal food safety efforts by placing a greater emphasis on the prevention of foodborne illness outbreaks, which sicken millions of Americans – and kill thousands – each year. Washington Post reporter Lyndsey Layton writes, “It places significant responsibilities on farmers and food processors to prevent contamination – a departure from the country's reactive tradition, which has relied on government inspectors to catch tainted food after the fact.”

Here is a rundown of some of the major provisions in the bill.

Preventing contamination

Facilities would have to identify hazards that could potentially adulterate food that is grown, housed or processed in said facility. Once the hazards are identified, facilities would have to implement “preventive controls” (e.g. sanitation, hygiene training, and/or various best practices).

The bill would also require FDA to set food safety standards that would prevent illness outbreaks connected to specific pathogens or stemming from specific foods.

Recall authority and enforcement

The lowest hanging fruit Congress is reaching for is a provision that gives FDA mandatory recall authority. Currently, FDA works with producers or retailers to recover dangerous food, but the recalls are voluntary. If a particular firm does not want to announce a recall, that’s tough toenails for consumers.

The bill would boost FDA’s enforcement authority in other ways by compelling farms and facilities to turn over their records and by allowing the agency to dole out larger fines.

User-fee-funded inspections

The bill would require food-handling facilities (manufacturers, processors, importers, and warehouses, but not farms) to register with the FDA and pay $500 a year to fund more frequent inspections. FDA would then inspect high risk facilities every six months to one year and low risk facilities every 18 months to three years. The bill would also establish a “dedicated foreign inspectorate” to keep tabs on overseas facilities.

Traceability

The bill would create a system to help investigators and regulators more quickly identify the source of a foodborne illness outbreak. Last summer’s salmonella outbreak underscored the need for better traceability: the source of the outbreak was not identified for months after initially being misidentified. A traceability system should allow FDA “to identify each person who grows, produces, manufactures, processes, packs, transports, holds, or sells such food in as short a timeframe as practicable but no longer than 2 business days.”

The traceability system would have to be established by FDA regulation. Before writing those regulations, the bill would require FDA to identify tracing technologies, conduct a feasibility study and a cost-benefit analysis, hold two public meetings, and pilot the system.

For a more in depth analysis of the bill, check out this update from Food and Water Watch. Although it has not been updated since the bill was reported out of the House committee, it is still accurate and quite useful.

Consumer groups, and some industry groups like the Grocery Manufacturers of America, support the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009. Their support will be critical to Senate passage. The Senate is expected to consider food safety legislation after the summer recess, which begins this weekend.

Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, lauded the House passage of the bill: "FDA has been operating under the same law for 70 years and can do little more than respond to outbreaks after the fact. This bill gives the FDA more authority and real enforcement teeth to help prevent more outbreaks, illnesses, and deaths."

The websites of U.S. senators are a poor place to look if you are interested in their views on climate change, according to a recent analysis. Although websites are one of a politician's best ways to present their views and educate and engage their constituents about important issues, many of the nation's senators fail to do so, based on a review of websites by Grist, the environmental news outlet.

Grist combed through 99 Senate websites (Minnesota's new Sen. Franken missed out) looking for the members' views on – or even just a mention of – several climate and energy related topics. For example, just by having a webpage for energy, environment, or climate issues, a senator earned 3 points (out of a possible total of 25). If climate change is at all mentioned, he or she wins 3 points. Several senators failed to even get that far. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) got zero points, as did Illinois' Roland Burris (D) and Mississippi's Thad Cochran (R). McConnell does, however, have a link to last April's Hillbilly Days.

It is odd that what is viewed as either a serious national security threat or the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the nation would get so little attention on the websites of those with significant power to do something about it. (Speaking of hoaxes – the website of infamous climate change denier Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) scored in the top five – the Senator's views on climate are crystal clear and there for all to see.)

One theory is that by keeping constituents – and fellow senators – in the dark about their positions, senators increase their leverage. According to John Wonderlich, policy director at the Sunlight Foundation, 

"There's an incentive to not have a clear position," he said. "For a senator whose vote is going to be courted, it's in their interest to be a little bit coy, because their vote becomes a bargaining chip ... It's all about jockeying for clout within your caucus, or trying to get a committee seat, or trying to secure support for some other measure."

 Plus, it's harder to hold your senators accountable when you do not know where they stand on major policy questions.

The Congressional Management Foundation has been reviewing congressional websites for years. Their most recent report is the 2007 Gold Mouse Report, which presented awards to congressional websites, including a gold medal to Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), who received a D (8 out of 25 points) from Grist for his website's climate transparency.

The U.S. and the United Nations agreed that climate change was a big problem back in 1992, and the problem has only gotten bigger since then. It's past time for senators from the planet's biggest contributor to climate change to let us know where they stand.