OMB Watch | Promoting open government, accountability, and citizen participation since 1983

Strong Coal Ash Rules Sought at Public Hearing

Witnesses from across the country yesterday urged the EPA to set strong public health standards for coal ash. In an all-day hearing in Arlington, VA, environmental and public health advocates and members of the general public asked EPA to regulate coal ash, a toxic byproduct of coal combustion that can contain arsenic, lead, and other toxics, as a hazardous waste.

“The number of people who attended the hearing today, and the distance they travelled to do so shows just how far the problem of toxic coal ash stretches,” Lyndsay Moseley from the Sierra Club said yesterday. “We need EPA to enact federally enforceable protections and to do so before more people are exposed to this toxic mess.”

In June, EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for coal ash that presented two regulatory options. The first option would designate coal ash as a hazardous waste, requiring special handling, transportation, disposal, and any potential reuse. The second would regulate coal ash in a way typically only used to control less toxic wastes such as household garbage – an option that would limit EPA's responsibility and authority over coal ash management.

Regulating coal ash as hazardous waste might help prevent some of the horror stories presented at the hearing and elsewhere. When coal ash escapes from currently unregulated ponds, impoundments, and landfills, it contaminates water supplies and threatens communities with cancers and other health problems.

A new report from the Environmental Integrity Project identifies 39 coal ash disposal sites that have contaminated water. The 39 are in addition to the 31 sites the group identified in a February report and 67 damage cases reported by EPA. From the newest report:

At every one of the 35 sites with groundwater monitoring wells, on-site test results show that concentrations of heavy metals like arsenic or lead exceed federal health-based standards for drinking water. For example, arsenic levels were above the 10 microgram per liter “maximum contaminant level” (MCL) at 26 of 35 sites, with concentrations reaching as high as 3,419 micrograms (over 341 times the standard) at the Hatfield’s Ferry site in Pennsylvania.

The Arlington hearing was the first of seven EPA will hold to discuss coal ash regulation. Find out more about how you can sign up to speak or submit comments to the agency.

(Matthew Madia 08/31/10; 0 comments)

Waging War via PowerPoint

The tools we use, including information systems, shape our decision-making. (Consider the law of the instrument: "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.") But every tool has limitations.

Military lecture in front of a slide presentation

The NATO command in Afghanistan last week fired a staff officer for publicly criticizing the military's use of Microsoft's presentation software PowerPoint.

Lawrence Sellin, an Army Reserve colonel and commentator for United Press International, was fired from his position at the International Security Assistance Force just days after UPI published his rebuke of the military's information practices:

For headquarters staff, war consists largely of the endless tinkering with PowerPoint slides to conform with the idiosyncrasies of cognitively challenged generals in order to spoon-feed them information. ...

Each day is guided by the "battle rhythm" which is a series of PowerPoint briefings and meetings with PowerPoint presentations. It doesn't matter how inane or useless the briefing or meeting might be.

The military's PowerPoint use has been criticized before. Marine Corps Gen. James N. Mattis put it bluntly: "PowerPoint makes us stupid."

PowerPoint abuse is a common experience in a number of contexts. But in the military, the stakes are much higher than mere annoyance.

Overreliance on any tool, without being cognizant of its limits, can introduce flaws into the final analysis. For instance, a 2009 study concluded that overreliance on and misuse of spreadsheets played a role in the financial crisis,

centred around the fact that they were one of the principal technologies used in the Credit Derivatives marketplace. This market grew very quickly due to the ease with which it was possible to design and promulgate opaque financial instruments based on large spreadsheets with critical flaws in their key assumptions. Their secondary rôle is centred around their ubiquitous use ...

Neglecting the limitations of any information system can lead to flawed decision-making. Monocultures are especially dangerous, because they inbreed the system's weaknesses.

A hallmark of transparency is that people have a right to know how the government made a decision. When even military leaders are concerned that their procedures may be inadequate, the public has reason to worry. If the military is planning the war via PowerPoint, we ought to know about it.

Image by Angelica Golindano for the U.S. Army. In the public domain.

(Gavin Baker 08/31/10; 1 comment)

It's the Lack of Jobs that Causes Unemployment

Last week, in a post on the how dreadful the job market is, I mentioned that "some" argue that the 99-week limit on Unemployment Insurance is actually creating unemployment. One of those "some" is Robert Barro, an economics professor at Harvard University and a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, who articulates this claim in a Wall Street Journal op-ed (where else?) yesterday.

The unemployment-insurance program involves a balance between compassion--providing for persons temporarily without work--and efficiency. The loss in efficiency results partly because the program subsidizes unemployment, causing insufficient job-search, job-acceptance and levels of employment. A further inefficiency concerns the distortions from the increases in taxes required to pay for the program.

Barro sums it all by saying that if it weren't for this overly generous safety net, the unemployment rate would be 6.8% instead of today's 9.5%.

But, as Bob Williams at the Tax Policy Center notes, a new study by two researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco paints a totally different picture.

Research by Rob Valletta and Katherine Kuan at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco suggests that the effect of extended benefits would be much smaller than Barro’s estimate, probably less than half a percentage point. They found only small differences between how quickly job losers (who qualify for unemployment benefits) and job quitters (who don’t) find new jobs, suggesting that duration of benefits has only a small effect on today’s high unemployment rate.

Valletta's and Kuan's study also conveniently makes sense when you consider that for every job opening there are five potential applicants.

(via Daniel Indiviglio at The Atlantic, click to enlarge)

(Craig Jennings 08/31/10; 0 comments)

FEC Approves Coordination Rule

With a 5-1 vote, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) approved a rule on coordinated communications, to regulate messages that are the "functional equivalent of express advocacy" for or against candidates. This "functional equivalent" language comes from the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Wisconsin Right to Life Inc. v. FEC. A separate provision was voted down and would have covered all messages that "promote, support, attack or oppose" candidates. The final rule does not include a proposed safe harbor for communications where federal candidates endorse or solicit support for 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations, and the policies of those organizations.

The FEC's coordination rule address when spending on political communications by outside groups is considered coordinated with a candidate, and therefore subject to certain restrictions. Messages that are deemed independent of a campaign are not subject to FEC rules. BNA Money and Politics ($$) reports; "It remained unclear, however, how much real guidance the FEC rule would provide to political groups in determining whether and how their spending will be subject to FEC regulation."

Commissioners could not agree on examples of messages that would be regulated under the new rule. "FEC commissioners acknowledged that the agency could be sued yet again over the so-called coordination rule, which has been challenged three times since it was written to implement the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act."

The FEC also approved a rule to define regulated federal election activity. The new rule requires the use of hard money for voter registration activity in federal elections which is "encouraging or urging" a group of potential voters to register and vote. Both rulemakings were required by a 2008 federal appeals court decision in Shays v. FEC (Shays III).

(Amanda Adams* 08/27/10; 5 comments)

Is Standard Coding Just Around the Corner?

It wasn't three weeks ago that Earl Devaney, head of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency (RAT) Board, told Congress that conducting oversight of Recovery Act funds was unnecessarily burdensome due to the lack of a standardized coding system for government contracts, and now the procurement regulating arm of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has proposed a solution.

Last week, Federal Computer Week reported on OMB's Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Councils issuing a proposed rule in the Federal Register to standardize the use of unique procurement instrument identifiers (PIID) across government. A PIID is a series of alpha and alphanumeric characters that provide a unique identifier to a government contract.

FAR currently requires agencies to use a PIID that "is unique, Governmentwide [sic], and will remain so for at least 20 years from the date of contract award" when reporting to the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS), the government's clearinghouse for all contracts over $3,000.

The current regulations, however, do "not clearly articulate the specific policies and procedures necessary to ensure standardization of contract data beyond FPDS," which "causes numerous issues" within government contracting and financial systems, and results "in duplication, errors, and discrepancies." These problems only increase "for [multiple-award] contract vehicles ... used by more than one agency."

These duplications, errors, and discrepancies bring into question the contract data provided to end users, including government employees, contractors, and the public, who may receive "duplicate, overlapping, or conflicting information from the different Federal [sic] agencies."

The new rule would extend "the requirement for using PIIDs to all solicitations, contracts, and related procurement instruments" across the federal government, and to all contract actions, including actions "shared with supporting procurement, finance, logistics, and reporting systems," i.e. FPDS, and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), which feeds the soon-to-be-public Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS).

Much of this effort to standardize, as the notice states, comes from the exacting reporting requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA), which created USASpending.gov, and the Recovery Act, which has been a watershed for transparency in government spending.

Comments are due by Oct. 18, and the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP), which houses the FAR Councils, could offer a final proposed rule as soon as early next year.

Image by Flickr user Zoltan Papp used under a Creative Commons license.

(Gary Therkildsen 08/26/10; 0 comments)

The Recovery Act Failed! Or Not

If one were to listen to most conservative politicians and pundits these days, you'd come away with the impression that the Recovery Act has failed. It hasn't created any jobs and it hasn't helped the economy, so the narrative goes. For instance, here are a few quotes from the past couple weeks:

"All this 'stimulus' spending has gotten us nowhere." -House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH)

"[The stimulus] is simply not working." -Greta Van Susteren

"Everyone understands it was a payoff, not a jobs-creator." -Charles Krauthammer

"More people believe that Elvis Presley is alive than the stimulus created jobs." -Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)

"[The Recovery Act] increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 2.0 million to 4.8 million compared with what would have occurred otherwise." -Congressional Budget Office

Whoops, sorry, that last one was actually a quote from the CBO's new report on the Act's effects on the economy. The independent, non-partisan institution reported that, contrary to what many seem to think, the Recovery Act raised real GDP by between 1.7 and 4.5 percent, lowered unemployment by between .7 and 1.8 percentage points, and increased the number of people employed by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million. And that was just looking at what happened between April and June 2010.

In other words, the Recovery Act hasn't failed; on the contrary, it's had an immense effect on the nation's economy. The fact that we're still plagued by high unemployment and a faltering economy indicates that the Act wasn't nearly big enough, not that it hasn't worked.

Oh, and for those keeping score at home, the CBO report also revised downwards the cost of the Recovery Act. The total price tag will be about $814 billion, down from the CBO's earlier estimate of $867 billion.

Image by Flickr user calamity1 used under a Creative Commons license.

(Sam Rosen-Amy 08/26/10; 2 comments)

Report Urges the IRS to Improve Enforcement and Oversight of 527s

The Treasury Department's Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) released a report calling on the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to improve oversight of 527 tax-exempt political organizations that do not file timely or complete reports. According to the findings, one out of every four report that was reviewed in the audit had incomplete or missing contributor or recipient information. By aggressively fining groups for filing late or incomplete forms, the IRS could collect $5.3 million. The report states an "assessment of taxes and penalties for incomplete filings, when appropriate, could lead to increased accountability and disclosure by political organizations. Improvement in the notice process could also assist political organizations in complying with their responsibilities."

Meanwhile, RollCall($$) reports; "For the first time in eight years, donors are pouring more unregulated money into GOP-affiliated groups known as 527s than their Democratic counterparts, according to the latest filings with the IRS."

(Amanda Adams* 08/25/10; 0 comments)

Tell EPA to Protect Communities from Toxic Coal Ash

OMB Watch is asking you to tell the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set strong public health and environmental standards for coal ash, a toxic waste resulting from coal combustion.

Over the past few months, OMB Watch has told you about EPA’s efforts to regulate coal ash and the obstacles the agency has faced at the White House and with powerful industry interests. EPA proposed standards for coal ash regulation in June, but not before the White House convened dozens of meetings between EPA and industry representatives opposed to coal ash regulation. Those industries are pushing for weaker standards, calling on the EPA to put their profits ahead of your health and well-being.

Industry had its chance to comment – now it’s your turn.

EPA needs to hear from you that coal ash should be regulated as a hazardous waste to protect you and your family. The agency will hold seven public hearings across the country during the next five weeks. Citizens like you can sign up to voice concern about coal ash and urge EPA to set standards protective of public health and the environment. For information on times and locations of the hearings and to sign up for a guaranteed speaking spot, click here. You can also submit written comments to EPA until Nov. 19.

BACKGROUND

Coal ash is a dangerous byproduct of coal combustion and can contain arsenic, lead, chromium, and other heavy metals. Reports link exposure to the toxic components in coal ash to cancer and other health problems. The toxins in coal ash can leach from landfills and surface impoundments into rivers, lakes, or streams, risking contamination your drinking water. New calls for regulation of coal ash began in 2008 after an impoundment in Kingston, TN, failed, releasing 5.4 million cubic yards of coal ash that buried a community.

In its June 21 notice, EPA proposed two options for regulating coal ash. The first option would designate coal ash as a hazardous waste, requiring special handling, transportation, disposal, and any potential reuse. The second would regulate coal ash in a way typically only used to control less toxic wastes such as household garbage – an option that would limit EPA's responsibility and authority over coal ash management.

The choice is clear: EPA must choose the first, stronger option to ensure that communities are protected. In addition to holding hearings, EPA is accepting written comments on its options until Nov. 19. The environmental group Earthjustice is asking citizens to tell EPA to choose the first option and to set tough standards protective of public health and the environment. Visit Earthjustice’s website at action.earthjustice.org/campaign/coalash_0710 to file your comments with EPA.

Please take this opportunity to participate in the regulatory process and to make your voice heard.

Photo credit: Coal ash spill photo by Brian Stansberry, used under a Creative Commons license.

(Matthew Madia 08/25/10; 0 comments)

Administration Targets High-Risk IT Projects

The Obama administration released yesterday a list of 26 mission-critical information technology (IT) projects that will receive immediate attention from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) because they "have experienced problems such as significant cost increases or schedule delays." This reassessment process of IT projects, which is part of the administration's reform-minded 2012 budget process and their larger Accountable Government Initiative, seeks to set the programs straight before they waste any more taxpayer funds.

I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.

When the administration released its FY 2012 budget guidance in June, it specified that agencies would have to "complete a review of their IT investment portfolios prior to submitting their" budget requests. The review had to include the identification of "high-risk projects" and "plans for re-scoping such projects."

After receiving the reviews, administration officials sat down with "chief information officers, project managers and other officials in each department" to finalize the list. Officials identified the 26 projects, "which span 15 departments and would cost $30 billion for completion," because they exhibited "significant cost or schedule variations from the baseline, [failed] to meet mission objectives, [required] frequent revisions of the baseline, and [lacked] clear agency sponsorship."

The technology horror stories in government that spurred this effort are well known. Since coming into power, the Obama administration and its officials have frequently lamented the IT gap between the public and private sectors. When announcing the administration's intention to release the high-risk IT list, Federal Chief Information Officer Vivek Kundra noted the impossibility of sending "an e-mail message systemwide to all employees" of the Interior Department "because the IT systems are segregated."

While the administration has only suspended one project on the list – the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) Retirement Systems Modernization program, an effort 23 years in the making – Kundra noted that a project that fails the reassessment process of "accountability sessions, improvement plans, and specific deliverables," might be terminated.

Image by Flickr user Lori and The Bell Jar used under a Creative Commons license.

(Gary Therkildsen 08/24/10; 2 comments)

Advocates Call for Transparency in Development Aid

Experts from around the world are meeting this week in London to advocate for transparency in development efforts. The Conference on Transparency, Free Flow of Information and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) is being held in advance of next month's UN Summit to review progress toward the Goals.

Established by the UN General Assembly's 2000 Millennium Declaration, the MDGs establish targets for global development by 2015 on topics such as poverty, education, maternal health, and environmental sustainability. The Obama administration has committed to the MDGs and in July released its strategy for meeting the Goals.

Transparency is essential to ensure that U.S. development funds are well-managed – and that they reach their destination, improving living conditions for people in the poorest parts of the world. Experts have noted that even if development projects are adequately funded, good governance is necessary to ensure those resources are actually applied toward their crucial purposes. As human rights group Article 19 notes in a fact sheet:

Increased transparency in the allocation of aid and spending of money enables an informed citizenry to hold decision-makers to account, reducing corruption and inefficiency, and promoting better governance and wider participation.

Before the transparency conference, several organizations sent a letter to the ambassadors organizing the UN Summit, urging that transparency's role in achieving the Goals be recognized and outlining steps to be taken:

There should be a clear and unequivocal commitment on the part of the international community to access to information and transparency as essential to the achievement of the MDGs ... (emphasis in original)

The U.S. strategy includes several transparency elements, as outlined by Publish What You Fund, including the development of an Aid Dashboard to monitor U.S. aid. However, the U.S. has yet to join the International Aid Transparency Initiative, which is establishing common international standards.

Both at home and abroad, federal spending requires transparency so taxpayers can demand accountability. The U.S. should increase transparency in its own foreign aid, and lead the call for transparency at the UN Summit on the Millennium Development Goals.