http://www.ombwatch.org Blogs by various OMBWatch analysts en-gb Friday, May 9, 2008 http://www.ombwatch.org/article/blogs/entry/4974 Just when Democratic House leadership thought it was safe to bring a $183.6* billion war supplemental spending bill to the House floor for a vote, the Blue Dog coalition bares their teeth. We briefly mentioned yesterday that the coalition has expressed their displeasure that an expansion of college benefits for veterans would not be offset. By signaling that they would not support the rules package under which the war supp would be debated, they have induced Democratic leadership to find offsets, thus postponing a vote until at least next week. The provision is question is know in the Senate as the Post 9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 (S. 22), a bill introduced by Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) and cosponsored by 57 senators. The CBO scored the bill as costing $40 million the first year, $680 million the second, and totalling almost $52 billion over ten years. Blue Dogs' insistence on offsetting these costs has drawn the ire of the Out of Iraq Caucus. Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) was incredulous ($). "How can the Blue Dog Coalition possibly say that an expansion of education benefits is too costly when their votes to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to fight in Iraq violate the same pay-as-you-go rules they claim to so deeply respect? It's an inconsistent logic." It might be inconsistent logic, but so go pay-as-you-go rules: They apply only to taxes and mandatory spending programs. College education benefits for veterans is direct spending (subject to PAYGO), while funding the daily operations of the Pentagon during a war is discretionary spending (not subject to PAYGO). Hinchey's comment, though, does highlight an important aspect of fiscal policy -- that all spending and revenue decisions come with trade-offs and tough decisions have to be made. Parliamentary rules aimed to force lawmakers to make those decisions just happen to apply to only certain aspects of fiscal policy. Blue Dogs should be applauded for forcing the rest of Congress to take some responsibility when it comes to spending. However, Hinchey is correct to compare education benefits to war spending, as both represent funds that can be applied to any spending priority, and as such, the decision to spend on either one should come with a decision about who should pay for it or who should see fewer government services. Hopefully (but I'm not optimistic) the Blue Dogs' strict adherence to PAYGO will spread to other quarters -- especially to war spending -- and create a more fiscally responsible Congress. *That's the commonly-used dollar amount in press accounts. That number, however, does not include $11 billion for extended unemployment benefits (over 10 ten years) and $720 million for expanded GI Bill benefits (over 2 years). With those factored in, the bill would be about $200 billion Friday, May 9, 2008 http://www.ombwatch.org/article/blogs/entry/4971 Most of the reasons offered up by President Bush and congressional opponents of the housing crisis plan sponsored by House Financial Services Committee chair Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) have a yellow, off-tone ring to them. You hear that it's a bailout, that it rewards the miscreants who bamboozled homeowners into predatory loans, that it tosses the burden of foreclosure risk onto innocent taxpayers, that the administration has already tried it, that it is already working, that it won't work, that it will work and cost us -- enough reasons to suggest that unreasoned ideological skeevies are at play. All well and good. But while President Bush has the luxury of ideology -- his name will never be on a ballot again -- this is not true of his GOP colleagues in the House and Senate, where election-year concessions to reality regarding the survival of the realty market (see this must-read story in today's NY Times) and of members of Congress themsleves trump adherence to a stubborn, shop-worn, incoherent set of empty shibboleths. But Rep. Steven C. LaTourette (R-OH) wasn't making any quiet concessions yesterday, as he defended his vote, one of 39 from GOP House members, in support of the Frank bill: What's offensive is some of the rhetoric. They say it rewards speculators. No, it doesn't. It's limited to homeowners. They say it's a $300 billion bailout. No, it's not. It costs $1.7 billion. Would I have written the bill the way Chairman Frank did? No, but we're not in charge anymore... People are expecting us to do something. A growing number of GOP congressional incumbents doubt that another veto threat by the president would qualify as "something." Friday, May 9, 2008 http://www.ombwatch.org/article/blogs/entry/4970 Housing -- House Passes Two Key Housing Bills: Yesterday, the House passed the first two bills to clear the chamber addressing the nation's housing sector crisis. The first, the Neighborhood Stabilization Act, which was adopted 239-188, establishes a $15 billion, HUD-administered loan and grant program for the purchase and rehabilitation of vacant, foreclosed homes. The second, an FHA mortgage refinance program providing up to $300 billion in loan guarantees at a cost of $1.7 billion over five years, passed 266-154. Bill Summary. Both bills face veto threats. Farm Bill -- Compromise Reached but Bush Promises Veto: After months of negotiations, congressional leaders announced yesterday that they had concluded a compromise on H.R. 2419, providing a five-year farm policy measure with some reforms, including lowered income threshold for eligibility to receive farm payments and an optional crop revenue program. The final votes will be watched for the possibility of an override of a veto promised by President Bush. Story. Infrastructure -- CBO Chief Doubts Stimulus Value: Peter Orszag, director of the Congressional Budget Office, said yesterday that it was unclear how quickly federal infrastructure projects could provide a boost to the economy, as some lawmakers have suggested, because they can often have lengthy planning and permitting stages. "How quickly, if you're going to spend $100 on this project, what share of that $100 will you get out the door rapidly?" he asked at a joint hearing of the House Budget Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Testimony and Charts. Thursday, May 8, 2008 http://www.ombwatch.org/article/blogs/entry/4969 This afternoon, the House adopted the first in a set of housing-related bills, H.R. 5818, the Neighborhood Stabilization Act, by a vote of 239-188. The bill would establish a $15 billion, HUD-administered loan and grant program for the purchase and rehabilitation of vacant, foreclosed homes with the goal of occupying them as soon as possible. One half of the funds ($7.5 billion) would be for loans; half ($7.5 billion) would be for grants. The bill: allocates the loan and grants based on a state's percentage of foreclosures over the last four calendar quarters and the number of subprime loans delinquent over 90 days. States then allocate funds to government entities or for profit and nonprofit organizations for the purchase, rehabilitation, and resale of housing and the purchase, rehabilitation, and operation of rental housing provides revenues to the federal government from resale or, for rental properties, refinance proceeds. Loans for homeownership properties must be repaid within three years. For rental properties, the maximum loan term is five years. The federal government would receive up to 50 percent of any appreciation an owner realizes at resale targets housing to low-income families and families. Homes must be sold to families with incomes that do not exceed 140 percent of local area median income (AMI). Rental housing must serve families having incomes at or below local AMI For descriptions of the set of housing-related bills, including H.R. 5818, the American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevention Act (H.R. 3221), and Tax Provisions to Expand Refinancing Opportunities and Spur Home Buying (H.R. 5720), click here. Thursday, May 8, 2008 http://www.ombwatch.org/article/blogs/entry/4967 Receipts from tax returns filed by the April 15 deadline were about 6 percent higher than such receipts last year, about what CBO anticipated when it prepared its most recent budget projections in March. Nevertheless, the federal government recorded a deficit of $151 billion for the first seven months of fiscal year 2008, CBO estimates—$70 billion more than the shortfall incurred in the same period last year. ... Because of the large inflow of tax payments due by April 15, the government runs a budget surplus in April. This year, that surplus was $160 billion, CBO estimates, or $17 billion less than the surplus recorded in the same month last year. That reduction was due to the effect of the calendar on the timing of certain outlays. ... Through April, withholding of income and payroll taxes rose by about $49 billion (or nearly 5 percent), reflecting continued increases in wages and salaries. Those receipts grew at a slower rate than the nearly 7 percent increase recorded in both 2006 and 2007. CBO: Monthly Budget Review Thursday, May 8, 2008 http://www.ombwatch.org/article/blogs/entry/4966 The New York Times reports today that the Vallejo (CA) City Council voted unanimously Tuesday night to declare bankruptcy in the face of dwindling tax revenues, the housing market meltdown and a faltering economy. Vallejo has 117,000 residents. Given the steep decrease in property and sales taxes and transfer fees as a result of weakness in the housing market, municipal bankruptcy is "something that one hears about a lot more now," said John Quigley, a professor of economics at University of California, Berkeley. "And in California, you hear about a lot of cities being pushed to this sort of thinking by the housing crisis." "We've been doing more with less forever," said Detective Mat Mustard, vice president of the Vallejo Police Officers Association, which opposed the bankruptcy declaration. "We're going to start losing people. Who wants to work for a company or a city that's bankrupt?" Thursday, May 8, 2008 http://www.ombwatch.org/article/blogs/entry/4965 War Supplemental -- Blue Dogs Hold Line on PAYGO: Frustrating House Democratic leadership efforts to bring to a vote on the $183.6 billion war supplemental spending bill to the House floor today, the Blue Dog coalition is balking at supporting the rules under which the bill would be considered. Their concern is that a measure to increase GI Bill funding violates pay-as-you-go rules, because it would be a new entitlement not be offset by revenue increases or spending decreases. Taxes -- Senate Dems Push Windfall Profits Tax on Big Oil: Yesterday, Senate Democrats unveiled legislation that would levy a new 25 percent tax on major oil-producing companies that do not reinvest their profits in increased capacity or renewable energy technologies and repeal a tax deduction provided to them as manufacturers of oil and gas products. The Consumer-First Energy Act would use the revenues from the 25 percent "Windfall Profits Tax" for new consumer price protections, and renewable energy development and energy efficiency technologies. The repeal of the Section 199 manufacturing tax credit for the five largest oil and gas companies would raise $17 billion over 10 years to pay for the energy independence trust fund. Taxes -- New York Senate Adopts Gas Tax Holiday: The New York State Senate approved a bill yesterday that would create a "summer gas tax holiday" by eliminating three state taxes on motor fuel. The bill would suspend 32 cents per gallon in taxes from Memorial Day through Labor Day. While the bill passed the Republican-controlled Senate by a vote of 46-15, it is expected to die in the Democratic-controlled state Assembly. Sen. Liz Krueger (D), an opponent of the bill, said it was "obviously meant to prey on the desperate need for relief of New York's suffering drivers." Wednesday, May 7, 2008 http://www.ombwatch.org/article/blogs/entry/4962 Since the beginning of the year, when talk of a recession was first heard, Congress has been debating whether or to extend unemployment insurance (UI) benefits by 13 weeks -- as it has done during every single recession, with one exception, for the past 50 years. The principal objection to such a proposal, which Bush opposed in the winter stimulus package is, as the White House press secretary said last month, that the president doesn't believe the extension is needed, "given that the unemployment rate that we have is historically and relatively low at just over 5 percent." (Note that the first bill Bush signed after the election of a GOP Congress in 2003 was -- that's right -- a 13-week unemployment insurance extension... when the rate was 5.8 percent.) But increasingly, the focus of the UI extension debate is shifting away from the unemployment rate to what seems like a more logical barometer of the need for an extension: how long it takes to find a new job. The latest voice to join that chorus is mainstream economics writer Robert Samuelson, opining in today's Washington Post: When benefits were extended in early 2002, the unemployment rate was 5.7 percent. In 1991 the extension occurred at 7 percent. But so what? What's wrong with this argument is that it ignores basic changes in U.S. labor markets. Over the past two decades, American businesses have gradually toughened their hiring and firing policies. In recessions, they resort more to permanent dismissals as opposed to temporary layoffs; in recoveries, they're more cautious in adding new workers. It's harder to find a new job. Average spells of unemployment have slowly lengthened. The increase since 1960 has been about six weeks, estimates economist Gary Burtless of the Brookings Institution. Nearly 1.4 million U.S. workers qualified as long-term jobless at the beginning of the year, more than twice as many as when the recession started in March 2001 -- and more than the 1.3 million who were long-term jobless the last time Congress temporarily extended benefits, in March 2002. In this environment, is the unemployment rate, per se, a logical reason not to extend unemployment benefits? Wednesday, May 7, 2008 http://www.ombwatch.org/article/blogs/entry/4961 Yesterday, we noted that the FBI raided the home and office of Office of Special Counsel Scott Bloch. More news reports on the raids are out today. It appears that raids are part of a grand jury subpoenas related to the OSC's investigation of the use of federal resources for political activities by the White House, including Bloch's investigation of now-fired GSA head Lurita Doan. The participation of the FBI and the grand jury, which is empaneled in Washington, indicates investigators are weighing criminal charges related to the [Office of Personnel Management] IG probe [of allegations by former OSC employees who say Bloch retaliated against them], such as obstruction of justice. But OSC employees said the grand jury subpoenas seek a wide range of information that goes beyond Bloch's deletion of computer files or treatment of agency employees. Investigators have demanded all files on OSC's investigation last year into allegations of improper political activity by Lurita Doan, the former head of the General Services Administration, who was forced to resign last week by the White House. This bit in the CongressDaily (via GovExec) article deserves highlighting: Republicans and other critics also have criticized Bloch for launching a wider investigation into political briefings White House officials conducted across the federal government. They have accused Bloch of trying to use the probe as leverage against possible moves by the White House to force his ouster due to his conduct at OSC. Anyway, here are a couple more articles on the raids: The New York Times, "F.B.I. Raids Office of Special Counsel" McClatchy, "FBI agents sweep office, home of government watchdog" Wednesday, May 7, 2008 http://www.ombwatch.org/article/blogs/entry/4959 But It May Not Turn Out to be a Veto Promise After sending mixed signals for weeks about H.R. 5830, the Frank FHA mortgage refinaince loan guarantee program, President Bush issued a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) opposing a number of provisions in the housing stimulus package (H.R. 3221) being considered on the House floor today and declaring that he would veto the package in its current form. Ironically, the elements in the bill intended to draw bipartisan support are "modernizing" the FHA and more stringent oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) that guarantee the purchase and sale of home mortgages in the secondary market. But the administration statement called the inclusion of FHA modernization and GSE reform "largely symbolic" and said Frank's FHA rescue plan "would force FHA and taxpayers to take on excessive risk, and jeopardize FHA's financial solvency." Yet, even in the worse case, the risk to taxpayers as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office could come to as much as $1.7 billion over five years, or roughly $400 million a year. Since there are over 100 million "tax units" in the U.S. (individuals plus households paying taxes), the Frank plan would, at most, cost the average taxpayer $4 dollars a year. How much of a risk is that against the backdrop of what Princeton Prof. Paul Krugman projects will be $6-7 trillion in home equity value lost in the housing crisis? The SAP may be more of a veto threat than a promise in the end. As Jaret Seiberg, senior vice president at the Stanford Group, a Washington policy research firm told CNN this afternoon, "We see this more as an effort to gain leverage over the final shape of the bill and less about an actual veto. The politics of killing this bill are negative for the Republicans, who very much need to win either Ohio or Florida if they hope to keep the White House in November. Both of those states are suffering severely during the housing mess." Stay tuned. Wednesday, May 7, 2008 http://www.ombwatch.org/article/blogs/entry/4958 The gas tax holiday proposed by Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has been universally panned by experts, economists and elitists of all political stripes. Now comes a novel objection from perhaps the most famous of all pundits, certainly one with a bigger media footprint than all the others who have opined to date. "The gas tax holiday? It doesn't go far enough!" grouses Stephen Colbert. His argument is neatly laid out in a presentation made to "nation," in Stephen Colbert's Gas Tax Holiday. Wednesday, May 7, 2008 http://www.ombwatch.org/article/blogs/entry/4957 Budget -- Conferees Converge on Compromise, per Conrad: Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) said yesterday that FY09 budget resolution negotiators have only one remaining issue to resolve —— the level of discretionary spending for fiscal 2009 —— before reaching an accord. He said said the difference in discretionary spending between the House and Senate fiscal 2009 budget resolutions is about $1.8 billion now, down from a $4 billion gap at the outset. Background on Budget Debate. Housing -- CBO Releases Frank Bill Cost Estimate: The Congressional Budget Office has released its long-awaited cost estimate of H.R. 5830, the FHA Housing Stabilization and Homeownership Retention Act of 2008, the bill introduced by House Financial Services Committee chair Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) to create a voluntary FHA mortgage refinance program. The full House will consider the bill today. CBO's estimate of the bill's five-year cost: $2.7 billion. Supplemental Schedule -- House Vote, Senate Mark-Up Ahead: House Democratic leaders have signaled possible floor action tomorrow on a supplemental appropriations bill that would provide $108.1 billion in fiscal 2008 and $70 billion in 2009 war funding and includes extended unemployment benefits and new education benefits for veterans, upping the price tag above Bush's target. The Senate Appropriations Committee announced plans to mark up its own version of the supplemental tomorrow. CBS News. Tuesday, May 6, 2008 http://www.ombwatch.org/article/blogs/entry/4955 House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and House Appropriations Chair David Obey (D-WI) told lawmakers today that Democratic House leadership will advance a $183.6 billion war supplemental spending bill. It combines the remainder of President Bush's FY 2008 request and his partial FY 2009 request and will fund the wars in Iraq an Afghanistan through the remainder of Bush's term. The bill, which could be voted on early as Thursday, includes several domestic spending provisions: $11 billion (over 10 years) for unemployment insurance expansion $720 million (over 2 year) for expanded GI Bill benefits About $1.3 billion in international food aid A Bush-requested $5.8 billion for New Orleans levy repair To remain under Bush's veto-threatened limit, $3.4 billion less than his request was provided to the military. CQ Politics, Democrats Unveil War Supplemental Plans CQ ($), Democrats Unveil War Supplemental Plans CongressDaily PM ($), Dems Prepare $183.6B Supplemental, May Vote Thursday Tuesday, May 6, 2008 http://www.ombwatch.org/article/blogs/entry/4954 Wow. FBI agents on Tuesday raided the offices of Special Counsel Scott J. Bloch, who oversees protection for federal whistleblowers. The agents seized computers and shut down email service as part of an obstruction of justice probe, NPR has exclusively learned. FBI agents also searched Bloch's home and a Special Counsel field office in Dallas. A grand jury in Washington issued subpoenas for several OSC employees, including Bloch, according to NPR sources who spoke on condition their names not be used. Those developments came about on a Tuesday morning that had seemed no different than any other weekday in the Washington headquarters of the Office of Special Counsel. But at 10 a.m., the OSC's national email system went down, and the FBI arrived. And from TPM Muckraker, a reminder of what Bloch's deal is: To refresh your memory, Bloch's agency is a little known one that is charged with investigating whistleblower complaints, Hatch Act violations, and the like -- but who is himself being investigated for retaliating against whistleblowers and politicizing his office. The Office of Personnel Management's inspector general has been conducting that investigation since 2005. The feds are apparently investigating whether Bloch tried to obstruct that investigation by deleting his hard drive, among other things. To give you an idea how fraught this investigation is with unique issues, Bloch is not only busily investigating the White House for political briefings Karl Rove and his aides made to various agencies, but he's also conducting an investigation of the politicization at the Department of Justice and issues related to the U.S. Attorney firings -- a probe that he complained was being blocked by the DoJ. Of course, he can't do much to block the DoJ investigation of him. We last wrote about Bloch in November, when the WSJ reported that he was being investigated for shredding documents (i.e. "a 'seven-level' wipe [of several office hard drives]: a thorough scrubbing that conforms to Defense Department data-security standards). Tuesday, May 6, 2008 http://www.ombwatch.org/article/blogs/entry/4953 Congressional opposition to the Frank housing bill is coalescing around apparently dubious propositions ($). [Antonia Ferrier, spokeswoman for House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO)] also took aim at the [Rep. Barney] Frank proposal. "This bill perversely rewards those who borrowed more than they could afford — their monthly mortgage payments get reduced with the government footing the bill. How is that fair to the millions of Americans who worked hard and paid their mortgages on time? And who ends up holding the bag if all goes south? No surprise, the American taxpayer." Meanwhile, economist and Fed Chief Ben Bernanke provides an "expert" opinion: "High rates of delinquency and foreclosure can have substantial spillover effects on the housing market, the financial markets and the broader economy," [Federal Reserve Chairman Ben] Bernanke said Monday..."Therefore, doing what we can to avoid preventable foreclosures is not just in the interest of lenders and borrowers. It's in everybody's interest," he said. ... The current housing crises has clobbered some borrowers home prices dropped. That left them with mortgages that are bigger than the value of their home. When that's the primary problem, Bernanke said the best solution may be reducing the amount that the borrower owes on the loan or some other permanent modification to the loan. Fine. Helping distressed homeowners can help everyone. But surely we cannot stand in the way of the the almighty market! That would be disaster. Republican talking points obtained by Roll Call also suggested housing prices must fall further rather than be propped up by a new government program, an argument also made by [Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL)] Shelby. "The correction in the housing market is a necessary reaction to a prolonged period of reckless lending and borrowing practices that helped take housing prices to levels that were simply unsustainable. For the market to stabilize, prices will need to return to levels that ordinary Americans can afford," the talking points read. Or not. Rising foreclosures add to the glut of unsold homes and that put more downward pressure on prices, aggravating the housing slump, he said. More rapid declines in house prices could have an "adverse impact" on the broader economy and the stability of the financial system, [Bernanke] said. Photo by Flickr user msabcmom used under a Creative Commons license Tuesday, May 6, 2008 http://www.ombwatch.org/article/blogs/entry/4950 If you find an email that looks like this in your inbox, delete it! It is a scam. We are top officials of the United States Senate Government who are interested in importation of oil into our country with funds that are presently trapped in the FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION TRUST FUND dedicated to improving transportation. We wish to send this money to overseas accounts in the MIDDLE EAST but cannot due to restrictions in Congress Transportation Equity Act requiring that this money must be spent to build roads, bridges and high speed trains. If you accept we will deliver to your a sum of 30 DOLLARS in the summer 2008 in form of a "GAS TAX HOLIDAY". You will then deliver this money to accounts of our friends in Middle East by taking it to your nearby gasoline station where they have information to forward the money. Please supply your bank account, social security number, address and your vote in DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES AND NOVEMBER GENERAL ELECTION. (h/t Matthew Yglesias) Tuesday, May 6, 2008 http://www.ombwatch.org/article/blogs/entry/4949 By a Lobbying Firm Specializing in Securing Them for Clients "Earmarks, critics say, are a waste of American tax dollars. Critics contend that congressionally-directed spending projects, or earmarks, are merely ways for Members of Congress to bring funding back to their districts for special 'pet projects,' which only benefit a select few. Critics also contend that only those interests represented by a few powerful lawmakers actually benefit from the congressional earmark process." But the critics are wrong, contends the Ferguson Group, a national lobbying firm founded in 1982, with offices now in in Washington, D.C., California, Florida, and North Carolina. 2007 was a bad year for the Ferguson Group, and for America There were no congressional earmarks enacted at all that year. The unfair, anti-democratic consequences were grievous: The fundamental conclusion that can be drawn from FY2007 spending, a non-earmark year, is that funding decisions were less democratic. Federal funding was more widely distributed across the nation to address critical local needs when spending decisions were left in the hands of Congress than compared to when those decisions were left to the Administration. See the Ferguson Group's 21st century version of the Federalist Papers at The Fairness of Congressional Earmarking in American Democracy. Tuesday, May 6, 2008 http://www.ombwatch.org/article/blogs/entry/4948 War Supplemental -- Appropriators Seek Mark-Ups: On both the House and Senate side, senior Appropriations Committee members have asked, or demanded, that mark-ups be held of the president's "emergency" supplemental war funding requests, as is the usual practice. Rep. Jerry Lewis (CA), the ranking House Appropriations Republican: "Never in my 30 years in Congress has there been such an abuse of the processes and rules of the House. We... demand that this polluted, back-door scheme be brought to a halt, and that we return to a proper, fair and transparent appropriations process." Story. Senate Appropriations Committee chair Robert Byrd (D-WV) announced last week that he planned to hold a markup of the supplemental this week. But none has been scheduled yet. Background on Supplemental Procedure. Taxes -- Gas Tax Holiday a Non-Starter in Congress: It's being discussed today in Indianapolis, Hickory, West Lafayette, Raleigh, and Gary, but not in D.C. Per CQ, when Senate Democrats unveil an energy package later this week, it is not expected to contain a gas tax holiday, said a Senate Democratic aide. "It's a nothing burger. It's not even part of the discussions," the aide said. Many economists, including at least four Nobel Prize winners, have called it bad economic policy. GSA's Doan -- 'I Lost the Battle': She fought the law and didn't win. In an interview within a week of her departure from her post as General Services Adinistration chief, Lurita Doan recounts her struggles with the bureaucracy, the media, Congress, and the law. After being fired by the White House last week following a 22-month scandal-plagued tenure at GSA, she concludes: "I am proud that I don't play by the rules of Washington." Interview. Monday, May 5, 2008 http://www.ombwatch.org/article/blogs/entry/4947 Not to Hold an Off-the-Record Vote on, Shhh... Earmarks And revealed, appropriately enough, in the Sunday edition of Chicago Sun Times by Robert Novak, aka, the Prince of Darkness. Read all about it in House GOP Giving up on Earmark Crackdown: A recent secret survey of the House Republican minority by the party's whip organization showed 2-1 opposition to imposing a moratorium on earmarks. House Republican John Boehner, who personally sponsors no earmarks, has indicated the party's position should be based on what GOP House members want. That led to the whip check. Reformers had contemplated calling for a vote on earmarks by a closed-door session of the House Republican Conference, assuming it would be difficult for many members to vote no. But the lopsided outcome of the whip check dissuaded reformers from requesting a vote. Don't tell anyone I told you. Monday, May 5, 2008 http://www.ombwatch.org/article/blogs/entry/4946 On Thursday, May 1, the the President officially requested that Congress appropriate $70 billion in supplemental funding to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Combined with the $108 billion in supplemental funding that Congress is currently mulling to fulfill the remainder of Bush's FY 2008 request, contemplated combined spending package would total $178 billion -- by far the world's biggest supplemental spending bill. (This number omits some $20 billion in domestic spending that Congress has, of late, been considering attaching to the supplemental.) Consider: (click on image to enlarge) While it's true that a few Senators have called for Iraq reconstruction funds to be doled out as loans rather than direct expenditures, the $3 billion in savings would be but a snowflake in the massing $805 billion snowball known as "war spending." However, by and large, Congress has been exceedingly pliant in writing checks to the Executive. Clearly sums this large deserve some debate. It was, after all, a $22 billion sliver of daylight between the president's and Congress's FY 2008 budgets that was subject of reams of press statements not so long ago. Curious then that nearly $1 trillion can be shuttled off to the Pentagon, State, VA, and a few foreign governments without any real debate about the merits of such spending or what tradeoffs might be required to accommodate these vast outlays. UPDATE: Correction -- The wrong state spending data were used on a chart that has since been replaced with the current one. We regret the error.