Jeremy Scahill, an investigative journalist and contributor to The Nation, blogged this morning about a discovery he made in a recent Department of Defense (DOD) Inspector General's (IG) report. The DOD IG found, in what Scahill mockingly referred to as "a not shocking revelation," that "private contractors working for U.S. Special Forces have been allowed to 'perform inherently governmental functions.'"

Scahill quotes directly from page 20 of the report:

Specifically, management and contracting personnel allowed contractors to administer task orders, determine what supplies or services the Government required, and approve contractual documents. The contractors performing inherently governmental functions did not identify themselves as contractors. For example, in 3 of 46 task orders, valued at approximately $18 million, contractors working for the Special Operations Forces Support Activity signed contractual documents as a Special Operations Forces Support Activity representative. In addition, contracting personnel took direction and implemented contract changes from contractors working for their customers. These conditions occurred because the Special Operations Forces Support Activity lacked internal controls and standard operating procedures on the performance of inherently governmental functions. As a result, Special Operations Forces Support Activity may not have correctly administered and protected the best interests of the Government for approximately $82 million in task orders issued under the Special Operations Forces Support Activity contracts.

Quickly changing, dangerous combat environments that provide little supervision – which U.S. Special Forces normally operate within – create the perfect setting for private security contractors to perform inherently governmental functions. Unfortunately, as Scahill notes, this happens all too often during both regular and special combat operations.

That is exactly why OMB Watch recently collaborated with CREDO Action to spur public participation in the comment process of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) proposed reform of inherently governmental guidelines.

It isn't enough to simply have the government say they will provide better oversight of contractors in sensitive environments, like war zones. Any tasks that put contractors in a position to execute inherently governmental functions, such as armed security, prison operations, interrogation functions, or, as in the case above, special operations support, which allowed contractors to oversee other contractors and administer task orders, should be explicitly excluded from outsourcing.

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

As Congress gears up for its annual budget process, parochial-minded members are drawing their customary battle lines around administration-targeted programs. One of those is the C-17 transport plane, which the Pentagon has been trying to kill for several years because it deems the military to have ample airlift capacity. Last week, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch highlighted a press conference held by four congressional Missourians who, claiming to know better than the Pentagon, declared that they were going to fight the plane's proposed cancellation.

According to the Post-Dispatch's Bill Lambrecht, the press conference was something to behold for those looking for bipartisanship on Capitol Hill.

The four members – Sens. Kit Bond (R-MO) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO), and Reps. Todd Akin (R-MO) and Russ Carnahan (D-MO) – first praised the Navy's recent decision to pursue a multi-year contract for up to 124 F/A-18 Super Hornets. The Boeing Co. produces the Super Hornet in St. Louis, and, as Lambrecht notes, "the agreement avoids the yearly scrap for appropriations and gives security to thousands of St. Louisans who work on the line."

Not satisfied with the defense contracting jobs obtained through the Navy contract, though, the foursome also declared a coordination of "efforts on behalf of Boeing Co. aircraft" throughout the country. One of the planes that the members specifically picked out for love and support was the C-17 Globemaster III.

But the Pentagon has been saying for several years now that the military's airlift capability is more than adequate and that the purchase of additional C-17s is unneeded and wasteful. With notions of fiscal responsibility ringing through the halls of Congress, the purchase of additional C-17s is at the very least hypocritical and at worst is spending limited resources on things we don't need.

Before his recent speech on the gusher that is defense spending at the Eisenhower Presidential Library in Abilene, Kansas, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told reporters:

One of the members of Congress, I'm told, said, 'Well, why is $3 billion for the alternative engine such a big deal when we've got a trillion-dollar deficit?' I would submit that's one of the reasons we have a trillion-dollar deficit, is that kind of thinking.

The C-17 is no different.

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

After the House Administration Committee marked up the DISCLOSE Act last week, the House Rules committee is scheduled to meet tomorrow (May 27) to report a rule that would send the bill to the floor. H.R. 5175 may be slated for floor action on Friday, May 28, just before the congressional recess begins.

Nevertheless, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce promises to work to prevent the bill from passing and predicts it will not move in the Senate. During a press briefing, Bruce Josten the Chamber of Commerce executive vice president for government affairs said, "It is a job-protection bill for incumbent lawmakers in Washington."

Josten denounced the DISCLOSE Act as politically motivated and indicated that it could hinder the Chamber's plans to sponsor political ads in the upcoming congressional elections. He also suggested that the group may challenge the bill in court if it is enacted. Josten was joined by the group's attorney Eugene Scalia of the firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher. Scalia, the son of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, said that bill will chill free speech.

The Chamber also continues to argue that the DISCLOSE Act favors unions. The Hill quotes Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) spokesman Doug Thornell defending the bill. "The Disclose Act treats labor unions and corporations the same, plain and simple. The ban on political expenditures by federal contractors, for example, includes any entity that has a contract with the federal government, whether it is a corporation or a labor union."

Picking up the thread from yesterday, I want to expand a bit on this term "fiscal responsibility" that is bandied about so often. "Fiscal responsibility" is not simply setting arbitrary limits on federal spending for the sake of reducing the federal budget deficit. Rather, it is an assessment of the current economic and fiscal environments and a determination of an equitable deployment of national resources.

Representatives and senators should acknowledge that there are 10.7 million Americans without jobs right now and millions more working part-time because they have to. Government spending not only funds programs that provide much-needed assistance to the millions of individuals and families that have fallen victim to the baleful economy, but it provides a boost to consumer demand, which is preventing further job losses. In short: yes, deficits can be good things, and fiscal responsibility requires that this be acknowledged. Congress and the president are in fact fiscally irresponsible, not because there is a large deficit, but because they are failing to deploy national resources to put Americans back to work

Fiscal responsibility also means that all mechanisms to reduce the federal budget deficit be considered and be chosen by their propensity to impact the physical and financial security of those who will be impacted by them. This means that cutting cash outlays for non-security discretionary spending should be judged against cutting cash-outlays for security discretionary spending; cutting tax expenditures should be balanced against raising tax rates; reducing aid to states should be measured with respect to aid to individuals; and any combination of federal expenditures or revenues should be weighed against any other combination of federal expenditures or revenues. In this view, setting arbitrary discretionary spending caps or asking for a tool designed to cut only discretionary spending widely misses the mark.

Lastly, fiscal responsibility means clearly defining the objectives of fiscal policy and having a reason to believe whether or not the prescribed policy will have the desired effects. The fact is even if today's federal budget deficit magically disappeared, the long-term fiscal imbalances caused by the rapid growth of health care costs would remain. As these costs outpace the growth of the economy, Medicare and Medicaid will continue to consume ever-larger portions of the federal budget.

Conflating the various budget challenges (current, short- to medium-term deficits; long term debt; Social Security financing; or Medicare and Medicaid financing) is an irresponsible way to begin to address these issues, because different problems have different solutions. Misrepresenting the impact of tax rates on GDP growth and the unemployment is reckless, as it throws up roadblocks to implementing efficient fiscal policies. Suggesting that a two-percent annual reduction in discretionary spending is a tonic for the federal budget deficit is beguiling. Etc.

Unless these criteria are met by our elected officials, our federal budget will continue to steer us away from security and prosperity.

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