Rhyme Time: EPA to Take on BPA

 

On Monday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unveiled an action plan for addressing bisphenol-A (BPA), a common chemical found in a variety of hard plastics and the lining of food can containers.

Among other things, the agency said it would add BPA to its list of “chemicals of concern,” look more closely at BPA’s presence in the environment, and require manufacturers submit information on health impacts.

Studies have linked BPA exposure to heart disease, developmental disorders, and other health problems. Environmental and consumer advocates have for years been pushing regulators to set standards for BPA’s use and exposure but, so far, none exist.

EPA looks to be pacing the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which in January announced that it had “some concern” about BPA but would not regulate the substance. Like FDA, EPA’s plan takes positive rhetorical steps, but pledges little in the way of action.

Still, EPA’s willingness to put BPA on its agenda, and its multi-pronged approach to assessing exposure pathways and health effects, is a good sign. Here is a bit of the release from the Environmental Working Group, an active advocate for BPA awareness and regulation:

“BPA is now under investigation at both the FDA and the EPA,” said Environmental Working Group’s Richard Wiles, EWG’s co-founder and Senior VP for Policy and Communications. “It’s a clear indication that this notorious and ubiquitous toxic chemical, found in virtually everyone’s body, has top officials in the Obama administration concerned.” 
(Matthew Madia 03/31/10; 0 comments)

Deficit Commission Gridlock Set to Begin April 27

 

According to a Bureau of National Affairs article (subscription required) from earlier today, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, co-chairs of the 18-member panel created by President Obama to devise strategies for reducing the nation's debt and deficits, have sent a letter to members informing them that the panel's first meeting will commence April 27. Formally known as the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (NCFRR?), the panel has a disastrously devised procedural process that is likely to produce either gridlock or, at best, water downed recommendations.

Gridlock

One of the more disheartening aspects of the commission is the members that Republican leaders have chosen to ensconce on the panel. Having watched congressional members like Sens. Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) (AKA, Dr. No), and Reps. Paul Ryan (R-WI) (of Budget Road Map fame) and Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) distort tax and budget issues during the health care reform debate to a point of foolishness, I'm not expecting much from them over discussions of the debt and deficits. With that said, who knows, maybe once the members get behind closed doors and roll up their shirtsleeves, they'll actually be able to come to a compromise over taxes and spending.

Of course, with midterm elections coming up in November, there's the possibility that we'll start seeing leaks in the press after the commission starts to meet – either from Democrats blasting Republicans over refusing to consider anything but spending cuts, or from Republicans slamming Democrats over proposed tax hikes. If that happens, watch the panel come to a screeching halt, and say goodbye to the slim chance the commission had of producing anything resembling worthwhile recommendations.

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

(Gary Therkildsen 03/31/10; 0 comments)

Pettiness Creates Bad Tax Policy

 

Earlier this month, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) introduced legislation that would require the government to fire federal workers who fail to pay their taxes, and prevent the government from hiring those with "seriously delinquent tax debts." According to Chaffetz, his proposal is perfectly in keeping with President Obama's recent effort to prevent tax delinquent companies from winning government contracts. Chaffetz's reasoning, however, is grossly oversimplified, and his bill, which is resultantly flawed, looks like a knee-jerk attempt at retribution for the private sector.

My tax policies leave this much to be desired

The claim that tax delinquent federal employees, like tax delinquent contractors, shouldn't be able to earn taxpayer dollars might sound reasonable – except for the fact that President Obama's initiative aims not only to recoup back taxes and make companies tax compliant, but also to root out waste, fraud and abuse within government contracting.

Companies that fail to pay their taxes are more likely to fall short of basic contract requirements. Research by the Center for American Progress Action Fund on the poor treatment of employees by some contractors found a correlation between a contractor's "failure to adhere to basic labor standards and wasteful practices and sometimes even a correlation between this failure and illegal activity." I could be wrong, but I don't think there's any evidence pointing to a correlation between federal employees who fail to pay their taxes and poor work output or criminal activity.

Additionally, to summarily dismiss a worker if the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) places a notice of federal tax lien (NFTL) on the employee's assets is problematic to say the least. In a recent hearing on the National Taxpayer Advocate's (NTA) 2009 Annual Report, NTA Nina Olson testified that the federal government's application of NFTLs is abusive and in desperate need of reform.

Similarly, as Colleen Kelly, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, pointed out at a hearing on the Chaffetz bill, "[t]here are currently rules in place that allow employees to be disciplined and even terminated for serious tax delinquency" and terminating a federal employee for receiving an NFTL "would deprive them of the right of due process."

Lastly, contractors don't necessarily rely on government contracts for subsistence, whereas federal workers likely rely on their job as their sole source of income. To sever that source of income because the IRS has placed an NFTL on an employee's assets is counterproductive to the federal government's ultimate goal of collecting the money owed it.

I know that Rep. Chaffetz probably gets angry when he thinks about how "good" federal workers have it, what with their high pay and non-bureaucratic work environment and all, but firing employees for receiving an NFTL simply because the government bans tax delinquent contractors is less than smart tax policy, it's just petty.

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

(Gary Therkildsen 03/30/10; 0 comments)

Recovery Act Website: $6.8 million. Moving Towards a Transparent Government? Priceless

 

Here's a little news tidbit from the Recovery Board: in his latest "Chairman's Corner" post, Recovery Board Chairman Earl Devaney disclosed that the website Recovery.gov has thus far cost $6.8 million. This is out of a $9.5 million contract with Smartronix, a Maryland IT company, meaning that the Board has about another $2.7 million left in its contract. After that, the Board has the option of extending the contract through 2014, for about another $9 million. Now, $6.8 million isn't exactly cheap, but for creating a website to show a brand new type of reporting in an extremely compressed time frame, it's not too bad.

Devaney divulged this information while addressing a variety of rumors and myths about the Board. In particular, he was trying to dispel the rumor that the current Recovery.gov cost $18 million, which in reality is the cost of the entire extended contract, not the just the website we see today. The other myths and rumors Devaney addresses are less newsworthy, including the "phantom" congressional districts myth (awards just had incorrect ZIP codes) and whether the Board allocates Recovery funds (it does not; that's what Congress and the federal agencies are for). But it's still a good example of how a non-partisan, independent government agency can try to fight pervasive rumors and spread the truth, without becoming overly politicized.

(Sam Rosen-Amy 03/30/10; 1 comment)

AU Asks IRS to Investigate Florida Church for Electioneering Against Gay Mayoral Candidate

 

Americans United for Separation of Church and State asked the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to investigate a Florida church for improper electioneering. Americans United filed the complaint against Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida, as a result of the church posting a sign on its property that read, "No Homo Mayor," in an apparent attempt to deter people from voting for Craig Lowe, an openly gay Gainesville mayoral candidate.

Rev. Barry Lynn, Executive Director of Americans United, said in a press release that the "church freely admits that it intended to intervene in the election in violation of federal tax law. I urge the IRS to act promptly."

Also, while it is not mentioned in Americans United's IRS letter, Wayne Sapp, a pastor at Dove World Outreach Center, is shown in a video (warning: offensive content included) using derogatory language to encourage people to vote against the gay mayoral candidate in a rant that is clearly directed at Lowe. In the video, Sapp said that his church called 100 churches and said they want to rally and protest "against any homosexual running for office" in Gainesville.

Alachua County (Florida) officials visited the church on Wednesday to investigate whether it should lose its state and local tax exemption due to its for-profit business. "The leaders of Dove World Outreach Center also own TS and Company -- a for-profit, limited-liability corporation that sells furniture through eBay -- and both the church and the company operate at a 20-acre site on Northwest 37th Street, according to Alachua County and state records. Dove World's land and two buildings are valued at $1,651,200 but aren't taxed because churches are exempt under state law," according to the Gainesville Sun.

(Lateefah Williams* 03/26/10; 0 comments)

USDA to Require Warnings for Meat and Poultry Contamination

 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has proposed requiring companies to alert the government if contaminated or mislabeled meat or poultry products escape into the market. USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) published a notice of proposed rulemaking yesterday. The proposal is open for public comment until May 24.

“If this proposed rule becomes final, the required information concerning the type of product will need to include the product name, any code or lot numbers on the individual packages or cases, and the type and size of the packages.”

If you thought such reporting was already required, you’d be wrong. While selling adulterated meat and poultry products is illegal, withholding information from the FSIS in the event contaminated products enter commerce is not. The proposed rule would not change companies’ incentive structure (the threat of legal action takes care of that) but it would impart a little common sense in order to better enable regulators to prevent unnecessary risks to consumers.

Under the proposed rule, companies would be required to notify FSIS “within 48 hours of learning or determining that an adulterated or misbranded product received by or originating from the establishment has entered commerce.” FSIS is specifically asking commenters whether 48 hours is an appropriate length of time.

The 2008 Farm Bill requires FSIS to adopt a mandatory reporting regulation. USDA says it is also developing the rule in response to the recommendations of President Obama’s Food Safety Working Group (more on that here).

One lingering question for me as I read through the proposed rule: As far as I can tell, the proposal is silent on public access to the information that establishments would be required to submit to FSIS. Under what circumstances would FSIS promote this information on its website, and how quickly would it do so?

(Matthew Madia 03/26/10; 0 comments)

CAP's New Tool Will Break It Down for You

 

The Center for American Progress has put up a neat interactive federal budget chart.

Click on the slices of the federal budget pie to see where non-defense discretionary dollars actually go. At the finest level of detail, you can click to read brief descriptions of what these programs really do. The percentages indicate the share of total federal funding that goes to that particular slice. Take a look around and decide for yourself if slashing non-defense discretionary spending is really as painless as some say it is. You might be surprised at what you find.

Images are stills from CAP's interactive chart.



(Craig Jennings 03/26/10; 0 comments)

Disclosure Requirements Endure After SpeechNow.org Case Decided

 

In SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, a federal appeals court unanimously struck down limits on contributions to independent political groups that want to spend money in support or opposition to candidates. The court ruled as unconstitutional the $5,000 annual limit on donations from individuals to groups like SpeechNow.org.

SpeechNow.org challenged the constitutionality of restrictions on independent campaign spending in 2008 after the Federal Election Commission (FEC) said the group would have register as a political committee and follow reporting and funding requirements. The group wanted to run campaign ads in favor of "pro-free speech" candidates.

The court decided that because the opinion in the Citizens United case affirmed that the government has no anti-corruption interest in limiting independent expenditures, there was no reason to limit the donations to the groups that engage in such spending. The FEC argued that the case did not apply because it involved spending limits and not contribution limits.

However, the court ruled that SpeechNow.org still has to register with the FEC as a political committee and comply with the financial reporting requirements, including disclosing its donors. The opinion states that, "the public has an interest in knowing who is speaking about a candidate and who is funding that speech, no matter whether the contributions were made towards administrative expenses or independent expenditures."

The ruling is the first major application of the Citizens United case and broadens its impact. The Washington Post reports that SpeechNow.org group is considering whether to appeal the disclosure requirement ruling to the Supreme Court.

In another campaign finance case decided today (March 26), the Republican National Committee (RNC) lost its challenge to the "soft money" provisions in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). The law prohibits political parties from accepting unlimited contributions from individuals, companies and unions.

The court said it does not have the authority to overturn the Supreme Court ruling in McConnell v. FEC, which upheld the ban on soft money fundraising by national party committees. The RNC wanted to raise soft money for state elections, congressional redistricting, and other activities outside of federal elections. The RNC will likely appeal the case to the Supreme Court.

(Amanda Adams* 03/26/10; 0 comments)

EPA Moves to Expand Greenhouse Gas Registry

 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed several changes to its greenhouse gas (GHG) registry, a new mandatory program requiring thousands of facilities economy-wide to monitor and report their emissions of global warming gases. EPA is proposing to add oil and natural gas facilities and facilities that inject carbon dioxide (CO2) underground for storage, along with other facilities. EPA also wants to collect additional data from all covered businesses to get a better understanding of emissions at the corporate level and within whole industry sectors, not just by facility. Overall the changes would strengthen the registry and provide the agency and the public with crucial additional information needed to design policies to mitigate climate change and hold polluters accountable.

After Congress required EPA to design a system for mandatory reporting of GHG emissions, the EPA finalized a mandatory reporting rule in Oct. 2009. By requiring the largest emitters of GHG from a broad section of the economy to monitor and report their pollution, policymakers and the public are provided an invaluable information tool. Current and future climate change policies, shareholder actions, decision-making by businesses and individuals, and basic corporate and government accountability all depend on this registry. We must know who is polluting and how much.
 
At the time EPA's reporting rule was finalized, however, the agency refrained from including several key industries, preferring instead to collect more public comments and do more analyses before adding them to the program. This week the agency acted on several of the remaining industries, including oil and natural gas systems.
 
Oil and natural gas systems include onshore and offshore wells, along with certain processing plants, storage, and distribution systems. This proposed addition would add an estimated 351 million tons CO2e to the registry. ("CO2e" means carbon dioxide equivalent, a unit of measure that relates the global warming potential of all the greenhouse gases.)
 
EPA also proposes requiring all covered facilities to report their corporate parent and to describe their primary and other related industries. EPA is choosing to have each facility select from a standard list of industry classifications known as the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). These are worthy additions. It certainly is not too much to ask that a facility report who owns it, even if there are multiple owners each owning different percentages. Accountability requires that investors, government, and the public know who are responsible. The inclusion of the NAICS code greatly improves the ability of researchers to analyze and use the information.
 
The agency is also proposing requiring facilities that inject CO2 underground to report the net amount that goes underground. Many hope that such CO2 injections, known as geologic sequestration, will allow major polluters such as coal-burning power plants to capture the CO2 before it leaves their smokestacks and permanently store it in geologic formations deep underground, ostensibly rendering it harmless from a climate change perspective. The oil and gas industry has for decades injected CO2 underground in order to force out the last drops of fossil fuel (these facilities will also have to report). However, widespread use of this practice for carbon sequestration is still years in the future. Nevertheless, EPA wants to be sure to have the data in order to evaluate how well it works.
 
The final proposed expansion announced this week would require the reporting of fluorinated GHGs, which are the most potent global warming gases and include hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), by the largest emitters of these gases.
 
The proposed thresholds for reporting for all of the added sources is 25,000 tons of CO2e, the same threshold that is applied to the other polluters. However, these late additions get a one-year extension; they do not have to report their emissions until 2012.
 
More Actions Anticipated
 
At the time the original mandatory reporting rule was issued, EPA also postponed designing a plan to deal with information that companies claim are trade secrets. Businesses are notorious for inappropriately labeling all sorts of information as "classified business information" (CBI) in an attempt to hide information about their activities and products that should be publically disclosed. The CBI label is intended for legitimate business information that would hurt a company's bottom line if disclosed to competitors. EPA still needs to clarify how it will prevent businesses from abusing the CBI privilege and make sure the public has access to all the information to which we are entitled.
 
We are also hoping that before too long the agency will begin taking public comments on the design of the electronic reporting system. The architecture of the system will play a significant role in the overall usefulness of the registry, influencing what kinds of analyses can be done, how well the data can be linked to other types of information, and how easily the public can use the information.
 
EPA is expected to propose rules adding additional sectors to the registry, such as ethanol production, underground coal mines, wastewater treatment, suppliers of coal, magnesium production, industrial landfills, and food processing. Food processing plants, for example, release millions of tons of methane every year from their onsite wastewater treatment plants and landfills. Foolishly, Congress effectively banned EPA from gathering pollution data from manure management systems at factory farms, which are major methane and nitrous oxide emitters.
 
Public comments will be accepted as soon as the agency officially publishes the proposed rules. Public hearings are already scheduled in Washington, DC on April 19 for the addition of the oil and gas and carbon sequestration facilities, and on April 20 for the reporting of fluorinated GHGs.
 
(Brian Turnbaugh* 03/25/10; 2 comments)

Recovery Board to Amend Two-Time Loser List

 

Responding to a smart ProPublica article from a couple weeks ago, the Recovery Board will be removing 79 of 389 awards from the "two-time loser" list, which documents Recovery Act recipients who twice failed to report on their use of Recovery Act funds. Turns out these 79 reports were in fact filed for one or both of the two reporting quarters.

I'm not sure if they've posted the updated document yet, as the Board isn't great about labeling version numbers, but it will be available at the bottom of this page on Recovery.gov.

And while the Board's fixing the list, hopefully they'll post it in a form other than PDF. The recipient reports are available in both XML and CSV, so why can't all the other data sets be available in those formats too?

(Sam Rosen-Amy 03/25/10; 0 comments)