http://www.ombwatch.org Blogs by various OMBWatch analysts en-gb Friday, May 9, 2008 http://www.ombwatch.org/article/blogs/entry/4976 The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), an Arizona nonprofit, has started an effort to encourage ministers to "use their pulpits to preach about election candidates this September." 501(c)(3) nonprofits, including churches, are prohibited from endorsing or publicly opposing political candidates or intervening in candidates' elections. The group would like if one sermon prompts an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) investigation that becomes a court battle, leading towards an outcome ruling the tax provision unconstitutional. The ADF press release states; "The new initiative will equip, protect, and defend pastors who wish to exercise their First Amendment right to openly discuss the positions of political candidates and other moral and social issues from the pulpit. Participating pastors across the country will deliver a sermon along these lines in their own churches Sept. 28." The Wall Street Journal reports; "Alliance fund staff hopes 40 or 50 houses of worship will take part in the action, including clerics from liberal-leaning congregations. About 80 ministers have expressed interest, including one Catholic priest, says Erik Stanley, the Alliance's senior legal counsel." Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) responded with a press release denouncing the initiative, saying the "Religious Right group's plan to ask churches to violate federal tax law on electioneering is deplorable." Friday, May 9, 2008 http://www.ombwatch.org/article/blogs/entry/4975 Leaders of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Susan Collins (R-ME), have introduced a report titled "Violent Islamist Extremism, the Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorism Threat," based on hearings held by the Committee that looked into violent homegrown terrorism. They warn, "that the threat of homegrown terrorism is on the rise, aided by the Internet's capacity to spread the core recruitment and training message of violent Islamist terrorist groups." Prior to the release of the report, OMB Watch along with many other groups sent a memorandum urging the committee to "tread lightly and carefully in this area, and to make every effort to preserve free speech and association rights." Legislation to address the problem, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (S. 1959) is stalled in the Senate. The memo describes numerous concerns including the free speech implications and the unease of singling out of one religious group. Our memo states; "If the Internet is a focus of efforts to stop 'homegrown terrorism' it should be because it can be a tremendous tool for dissemination of vast amounts of material that could counter the messages of the terrorists. The Internet, and the free speech it facilitates, can be an antidote to terrorism." The American Civil Liberties Union issued a press release, which quoted Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office; "Though the need to prevent criminal acts of violence is unquestionable, targeting communities based on religious beliefs is unacceptable and unproductive. We will only end up stigmatizing the Islamic community and creating a nation of Islamophobes. We should not be legislating against thought and we should certainly not be regulating religious or unpopular thought. " To read our coalition letter click here. And see this related article "Study Commission or Thought Police?" 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/4973 According to BNA Money and Politics ($$), "Senator John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) is distributing draft legislation meant to advance efforts to reform the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). "For months, lawmakers have been at odds over how to update FISA. A major area of contention has been whether to include language granting retroactive immunity to phone carriers accused of illegally facilitating warrantless wiretapping." Rockefeller is the author of the Senate-approved version (S. 2248) which includes retroactive immunity provisions. In response to news that such a "deal" has been taking place, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has sent out an action alert asking that you write to the U.S. House of Representatives opposing any efforts to grant retroactive telecom immunity in any upcoming FISA legislation. Meanwhile, as the FISA stalemate continues, Representative Heather Wilson (R-NM) tried to attach the Senate-passed bill with retroactive legal immunity for telecommunications companies. Her amendment narrowly failed, 11-10. Click here and write to your representative opposing telecom immunity! Friday, May 9, 2008 http://www.ombwatch.org/article/blogs/entry/4972 Indiana's primary was Tuesday May 6 and news reports detailed accounts of nuns and students who were unable to vote. The effects of the Supreme Court decision were also felt outside of Indiana in various state legislatures. In Kansas, lawmakers approved a voter ID measure similar to Indiana's law. It would not go into effect until 2010, and some expect a veto from Governor Kathleen Sebelius. And in Missouri under a proposed constitutional amendment, voters could decide whether to enact a similar photo ID requirement for voting. These events illustrate why voter education and poll-worker training should be expanded under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Voting should be made easier rather than harder. A compelling editorial in the New York Times titled, "Voting Rights Are Too Important to Leave to the States," recommends that Congress "set minimum voting rights standards that would apply nationwide and ensure that all eligible Americans could vote." Congress should also regulate voter challenges at the polls. Parties and candidates often use bad-faith challenges as a dirty trick — to intimidate voters or to slow down voting in certain neighborhoods. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, has a good bill that would require challengers who are not election officials to sign an affidavit stating why they believe a specific voter is not eligible. 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/4968 Yet another report showing the Crandall Canyon mine collapse could have been prevented was released today. The House Education and Labor Committee, led by Rep. George Miller (D-CA), released the report after months of investigation. The disaster at the Crandall Canyon mine in Utah killed six miners and three rescue workers in August 2007. The report, like two other reports released in March, finds that both the mine's operator and the Mine Safety and Health Administration are to blame. In March 2007, four months before the disaster, a different collapse, or bump, occurred at a nearby part of Crandall Canyon mine. According to the report, officials managing mine operations and officials at Murray Energy, the mine's owner, new of the March incident but failed to report it to federal regulators — a direct violation of federal rules. The report states, "It is quite possible that, had MSHA known the full severity of the March bump," MSHA would not have allowed the mine to continue operations. But MSHA still bears responsibility. MSHA was informally made aware of the March bump, but claims the mine's operators "downplayed" its significance. Regardless, MSHA foolishly approved (under intense pressure from the mine's operators) a plan for the company to conduct retreat mining at Crandall Canyon. Retreat mining is a dangerous technique in which miners remove support pillars in order to intentionally collapse areas of the mine no longer in use. Because the mine's officials ignored federal law, Miller has referred them to the Justice Department for further investigation: Last month, I sent a criminal referral to the Department of Justice, recommending that it investigate whether the mine's general manager, Laine W. Adair, individually or in conspiracy with others, willfully concealed or covered a material fact or made materially false representations in a matter under the jurisdiction of the executive branch, specifically MSHA… Visit the committee's website to download the report and learn more. 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/4964 BNA Money and Politics ($$) reports that registered lobbyists will soon have to start reporting their political and charitable contributions, "and to swear that they have not violated congressional gift rules." The new form will be known as LD-203 and will be available in June. The first reports are due July 30. "Yet, the congressional officials in charge of implementing the new disclosure system have provided no guidance, forms, or even computer passwords that thousands of lobbyists will need to comply with the new disclosure system required by the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007." This reporting will apply not only to lobbying firms and organizations with in-house lobbyists; individual lobbyists also will have to report their campaign contributions and payments to charities linked to officials. Lobbying organizations and individual lobbyists will use the new forms to report their contributions, as well as payments for events honoring government officials, or charitable contributions to entities linked to members of Congress. Wednesday, May 7, 2008 http://www.ombwatch.org/article/blogs/entry/4963 President Bush announced the nomination of three new members for the Federal Election Commission (FEC) which could possibly resolve the current impasse facing the six member agency. An inability to confirm nominees has left the FEC without a quorum, and with only two commissioners, "the agency [is] paralyzed in the midst of a heated presidential campaign." And the nominees include Democrat Cynthia Bauerly and Republicans Donald McGahn and Caroline Hunter. Ellen Weintraub would remain on the commission as a holdover and the nomination of Steven Walther also is pending before the Senate. Opposition to the controversial nomination of Hans von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department official, has continued the FEC stalemate and President Bush refuses to remove his nomination. However, according to the New York Times, "Republican officials were now willing to allow each of the nominees to be voted upon separately" David Mason, the current Republican chairman, was not renominated. A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said; "A full commission was virtually assured if the White House maintained its own Republican nomination of David Mason, who was cleared for confirmation. By abandoning Mr. Mason and instead sticking by Mr. von Spakovsky, the White House has abandoned experience and independence for partisan loyalty. That is the White House's choice. It is a regrettable one. Nonetheless, we will work towards the confirmation of the remaining nominees and expect to defeat Mr. von Spakovsky." As Bob Bauer notes, "It is not hard, on these facts, to make out the politics." Mason indicated previously that John McCain may not be eligible to withdraw from the presidential primary public financing system. The situation is described with this blog's title, "Throwing FEC Commissioner Mason Under the Bus to Help Senator McCain?" which predicts, "that Republicans ultimately allow separate votes. They need the FEC to approve Sen. McCain's expected request for public financing in the general election portion of the campaign. They need that more than the Democrats now need a functioning FEC." 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/4960 Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on administrative law held a hearing to investigate how the Bush administration has used rulemaking practices to advance the Unitary Executive Theory . President Bush and his minions use the Unitary Executive Theory to claim the president has complete control over the conduct of the executive branch, and that he is accountable to no one in exerting said control. Bush's penchant for issuing signing statements and his refusal to accept congressional input in his conduct of the war in Iraq are two examples of this theory. Federal agency rulemakings also provide an opportunity for Bush to apply the Unitary Executive Theory. Time and time again, the Bush White House has foisted upon agencies decisions that ignore the plain language of federal statutes (for example, EPA's recent revision to the national air quality standard for ozone). After such decisions are made, the White House routinely invokes executive privilege in order to escape the oversight powers of Congress and extend itself beyond the grasp of public accountability. What's really galling is that, instead of being frank about opposing public protections on their face, the Bush White House frequently attempts to alter the substantive considerations that inform regulatory decisions. In other words, officials inside White House offices, such as OMB, meddle with science in an attempt to legitimize their political opinions. Rick Melberth, OMB Watch's director of regulatory policy, testified at the hearing, and summed up the problem: The application of the unitary theory as it is practiced in this administration and framed in executive branch directives gives the president, and a cadre of employees that represent the president, control over the substantive decision making of agencies. As a result, politics is injected and elevated into decisions where science and rational judgment should prevail. Political appointees have greater control over the substance of regulations; politics supersedes scientific and technical information that is critical to protecting our environment and health and safety at home and in the workplace. ... When the president has the ability to override this statutory delegation of authority, the balance of power between Congress and the Presidency is altered. There is the perception, if not the reality, that special interests are favored heavily over the needs of the public. This process does not lead to better rules and public protections. When the president makes a substantive regulatory decision based on political considerations, scientifically-based protective standards are vitiated. 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.