The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has released a report from leading economists and budget experts criticing a recent paper from the Brookings Institute and the Heritage Foundation called "Taking Back Our Fiscal Future." From the CBPP press release:

Sixteen leading economists and budget experts issued a major critique today of a recent proposal to address future federal budget deficits through radical changes in budget procedures for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

These experts, who include a Nobel Laureate in economics, two former Office of Management and Budget Directors, and a former Deputy Director of the Congressional Budget Office, agree that the nation faces large, persistent budget deficits that would ultimately risk significant damage to the economy. They also concur that policymakers should begin now to make the tough choices needed to avert such deficits.

But they believe the methods set forth in "Taking Back Our Fiscal Future" (TBOFF), a recent proposal by some analysts at the Brookings Institution, the Heritage Foundation, and other groups, are misguided. Instead, they believe policymakers should begin the hard work of building consensus on specific spending and tax measures that would start reducing longterm deficits, and they recommend a series of such measures.

So, the Brookings/Heritage paper was signed by 16 "longtime federal budget and policy experts" and now CBPP has released their own report from another 16 prominent and expert folks. Seems like the right-of-centrists and left-of-centrists are gearing up for what could be major reforms to fundamental federal government supports and programs in 2009. Should be quite a fight - stay tuned.

Reports:
CBPP: A Balanced Approach to Restoring Fiscal Responsibility
Brookings/Heritage: Taking Back Our Fiscal Future

Commentary:
Matthew Yglesias (The Atlantic): Fiscal Sanity How?
Matthew Yglesias (The Atlantic): Leninism's Return
Robert Kuttner (The American Prospect): Sensible Budget Wonks Strike Back Against Conservatives
Mark Schmidt (The American Prospect): "Leninist Strategy" 2.0
Matt Lewis (Inclusionist): A Better Way on Long-Term Deficits
Diane Lim Rogers (EconomistMom): But Really, Fiscal Responsibility Is Easier Under a Benevolent Dictatorship

Things just keep getting worse and worse for the FY 2009 appropriations bills. First, House Appropriations Committee members get all hot and bothered with each other and refuse to continue to work on appropriations bills. Then, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) casts doubt that any appropriations bills will be passed by the House this year.

And now, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has speculated he believes Congress won't enact any bills until long after President Bush starts working on his presidential library. The Hill reported today that Reid

expects Congress will not pass any annual spending bills this year, saying lawmakers will likely postpone that responsibility until President Bush is out of office.

So no appropriations bills this year. That gives Congress only about 6 or so weeks left of work this year. Quite the haul. That should give them enough time to pass another (yes, another) supplemental appropriations bill. Senate Appropriations Chair Robert Byrd (D-WV) announced today his committee would mark up a second supplemental bill on July 22.

ugh...

The Hill reports today about some border-line shady behavior from Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) related to his earmark requests in the 2005 transportation bill. Turns out the earmark request Kanjorski submitted to build a parking garage at, of all places, the Kanjorski Cetner (pictured above) did not meet federal guidelines. From The Hill:

The Department of Transportation is refusing to move forward on an earmark backed by Rep. Paul Kanjorski (Pa.), the rare House Democrat facing a tough reelection this fall.

Transportation (DoT) is blocking funds to build a $5.6 million parking garage to the Kanjorski Center, which was constructed to attract economic development in the city of Nanticoke in Kanjorski's Eastern Pennsylvania district. Kanjorski's earmark for the project was included in the 2005 transportation bill.

DoT contends the garage does not meet federal rules intended to spur the use of public transportation. Those rules allow federal funds for parking garages only if they are connected to other public transportation facilities outside a business area with a population of 50,000 or more, or if it serves high-occupancy vehicles (HOVs) and public mass transportation passengers.

Turns out this isn't an isolated incident for Kanjorski. The Department of Transportation has "taken exception to more than 20" of his transportation earmarks over the last couple of years. And local leaders and Democratic party officials aren't that happy with some of the optics of Kanjorski's ties to the beneficiaries of his earmark requests.

But Kanjorski's family ties to some of the groups that have benefited from his earmarks have stirred criticism and animosity among local Democratic officials.

While I'm hoping that recent transparency reforms and a continued focus on developing a more accountable government will eventually bear fruit, this looks like more politics as usual.

The Hill: Big earmark headache for Rep. Kanjorski

The Senate Energy-Water Appropriations Subcommittee has approved its version of the FY 2009 Energy-Water funding bill. The $33.2 billion measure would provide $1.9 billion more than President Bush's request to the Department of Energy, Bureau of Reclamation, and the Army Corps of Engineers.

One feature I'd love to see added is a summary or way to total earmarks data by sponsor. In order to see who requested or sponsored an earmark, you currently have to drill down a long way in the database - sometimes four or five levels. Adding up the total amounts of earmarks secured by legislator - or by the president - would go a long way to improving accountability for federal spending.

While OMB has done a good job making this kind of data accessible and understandable, we could know a lot more if better data was required to be made public. More importantly, it would be significantly easier to hold our elected leaders accountable if the information was available before debate and voting on appropriations bills took place in Congress. That's what would be required if a provision originally sponsored by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) would be adopted by Congress. DeMint's provision was originally included in a reform package passed by the Senate in early 2007, but it was later dropped in conference.

It's almost assured Congress will not adopt anything like the DeMint amendment this year, but I'm hopeful when the 111th Congress begins in January, better reforms will be adopted that allow the public to weigh in on spending proposals before Congress passes them.

CBO has released its Monthly Budget Review for June. It finds that while the stimulus payments accounted for a $21 billion decline in monthly revenue (compared to last June), June's surplus would still have been lower than last year's when the rebates are accounted for. Details below.

The federal government incurred a deficit of $268 billion for the first nine months of fiscal year 2008, CBO estimates, $148 billion more than the shortfall recorded during the same period in 2007. About $79 billion of that change is due to the distribution to individuals of the tax rebates enacted in the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. Compared with their level in 2007, outlays have risen by more than 6 percent, whereas revenues have declined by about 1 percent.

[...]

The surplus for the month this year was about $51 billion, CBO estimates, $23 billion more than the corresponding figure last year. The increase in the June surplus is largely attributable to certain one-time receipts and to differences in the timing of some payments. Adjusted for those factors, the surplus would have been lower than it was last June, even in the absence of rebate payments, which totaled $28 billion this June.

CBO estimates that net receipts were about $21 billion (or 8 percent) lower this June than they were in June 2007. Nearly all of the decline—$19 billion—can be attributed to payments to individuals of the tax rebates (in addition, an estimated $9 billion of those rebates was recorded as outlays).

CBO: Monthly Budget Review

CQ reports ($) that Congress intends to reverse OMB's decision to stop issuing printed budgets to various government offices.

The committee report accompanying the fiscal 2009 Financial Services appropriations bill, which includes funds for White House operations, instructs OMB to send paper copies of the budget to Capitol Hill next year.

"Committees and Members' offices frequently rely on the printed budget as one of many tools to analyze the president's proposals," the report reads.

The report also complains that the administration's decision "appeared to be a matter of shifting costs to the legislative branch from the executive branch" by requiring congressional offices to buy their own copies of the president's budget.

OMB has responded by saying that printing the budget documents is wasteful -- about 480 trees are felled each year to print the volumes and that printing is simply unnecessary when the documents are available online.

The Fiscal Policy Team and Congress both return to action this week with a number of fiscal policy issues to be tackled during the next five weeks. Below is a rundown of issues coming up soon, with most of the action happening in the Senate:

• Debate continues between Senate Democrats and Republicans over whether to offset the cost of a popular package of tax breaks called the "extenders." The latest development is that Senate Republicans are now challenging Democrats to offset the cost of the package with spending cuts rather than other tax increases. BNA ($)
• The Senate will also resume work on a bill to stave off a cut in payments to Medicare physicians by giving them the same reimbursement levels they had during the first six months of this year. Senate Republicans, who blocked legislation before the July 4 recess by one vote, have agreed to take up the legislation again this week after intense pressure from outside groups, particularly the American Medical Association. AMA Statement, AMA Television Ads
• Legislation to help people hurt by the mortgage crisis was also blocked before the holiday recess by Sen. John Ensign (R-NV), who wanted to have an amendment added to the bill to give tax cuts to encourage the production of renewable energy. The Senate plans to take another crack at that bill this afternoon.
• The appropriations season is well under way in Washington, but not much has been accomplished. With only about 10 weeks left until the start of the new fiscal year, neither the House nor Senate has approved any appropriations bills yet. After a old-fashioned temper-tantrum in the House appropriations committee before the July 4 holiday, prospects for completion of even one appropriations bill by Congress this year seems less and less likely.
• Finally, the Government Accountability Office has a new report out showing the weapons systems currently being developed by the Department of Defense will cost an astronomical $1.6 trillion to complete, of which $335 billion will be needed in the next five years. Yikes! Washington Post

President Bush signed into law today a $257 billion supplemental spending package that will fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan several months into the next president's term and a host of domestic programs. Bush's signature on the bill comes days after the Senate passed the measure Thursday night.

The package appropriates some $162 billion dollars for the wars; $62.8 billion for an expanded GI bill; $8.2 billion for a 13-week unemployment insurance benefit extension; and a bevy of other domestic discretionary spending provisions.

Happy Fourth of July!
Just wanted to let our loyal BudgetBlog readers know we're going on a short hiatus next week. With Congress heading out of town for a short summer recess and the upcoming Fourth of July holiday next week, the Fiscal Policy team is heading out of town in order to escape the heat for some well-deserved vacation. This means, though, that the BudgetBlog will be dormant next week.

But don't despair. Craig and I will return in one short week on July 7 to continue to bring you all the news, gossip, information, and analysis on federal fiscal policy you've come to expect.

Hope everyone has a safe and festive Independence Day next week - be careful with those fireworks.

It's the end of June, and the temperature is climbing in the District. And I think it's starting to affect the work of our elected leaders.

The House Appropriations Committee abruptly adjourned in chaos Thursday before acting on two big domestic spending bills, after Republicans tried to force the committee to take up a bill covering the Interior Department they believe could be used to lower fuel prices.

...

Tension began soon after the committee began meeting, when Jerry Lewis of California, the panel's senior Republican, asked Obey to give his word that he would bring the Interior spending bill up for a vote the week Congress returns from its July Fourth recess.

Obey declined, and lectured Lewis. "If the gentleman wants to set the agenda of the committee, he needs to go out and get 30 Republicans elected," he said. [This bit does not appear in the free CQ version of the story, but it is on their pay site here - ed. ]

Lewis stood and offered an amendment to strip the text from the Labor-HHS-Education bill and replace it with the Interior spending bill.

When John E. Peterson , R-Pa., tried to offer an amendment to Lewis' amendment, Rep. Norm Dicks , D-Wash., made a motion to adjourn.

Later, Obey spokeswoman issued the following statement:

"It should come as no surprise to anybody that Dave Obey has no patience for B.S.

"Yesterday, Obey announced to the committee that the Interior Appropriations bill was scheduled to be marked up in full committee on July 9th, giving folks a real debate and real votes on issues in that bill."

"Today's plan by republicans to tie the committee in knots with a series of unrelated amendments was just another political stunt, the kind the American people have come to despise. It is B.S. and Obey won't put up with it."

Another report of a questionable use of outsourcing appeared today in CongressDaily, this time it's happening over at the State Department. Seems folks over there have modified an existing contract to Computer Sciences Corporation (FedSpending.org profile) to "collect visa information and fingerprints of Mexicans applying for new border crossing cards." The non-competed contract has raised some eyebrows in Congress and among government watchdogs, particularly the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

A State Department official testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Government Management Subcommittee that the contract is just a test program and that the department hopes to initiate a formal competition before the end of the year. But it looks as though that "test program" is just an attempt by the State Department to assess the usefulness of the contract cover their behinds. GAO has not had time to assess the new contracted out work and what impact it will have, and surprise, surprise, neither has the State Department. GAO testified at the same hearing that the State Department has "not developed metrics to measure the success and efficiency of the test program."

So, the State Department is going to determine whether this is a good idea or not by...wait, how are they going to figure that out? Most likely, they have already concluded this outsourcing should happen. My bet is that the test program will lead to a contract for a full program, that Computer Sciences Corp. will undoubtably win, regardless of whether this really is a good deal for taxpayers or might compromise privacy or national security. No worries though - those are just minor details that will unfortunately remain unknown. Sigh...

Looks like reforms that would bring increased transparency to earmarking in the U.S. Senate will have to wait a little longer. The Senate Republican caucus postponed a vote yesterday on a package of recommendations developed by five GOP senators earlier this year that would increase disclosure of earmark requests and accessibility of earmark language in legislation. The Hill reports:

The conference was scheduled Wednesday to vote on reforms that were first proposed in April by a GOP task force to make the process of inserting pet projects into appropriations bills more transparent. But due to the heavy business awaiting Senate action before the Fourth of July recess, and since some members wanted more time to review the recommendations, the meeting was delayed until next month at the earliest.

The earmark reform debate continues to divide the GOP caucus as Republican appropriators have voiced concerns about some of the reforms proposed by the five-member task force. Indeed many believe the delayed vote was not due to the main reason cited in press reports - a heavy legislative calendar - but because Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is an appropriator and is particularly sensitive to reforms that would curb earmarking.

Even if the GOP adopts the recommendations as written, it will still require a Senate rule change to implement some of the reforms, such as requiring that earmark language appear in the text of legislation and not in accompanying bill reports. It is nice to see transparency reforms continue in the debate in Congress, and people like Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) should be commended for keeping this issue alive. But increasing access to information about earmarking should really be done in a comprehensive way that links earmark information with bill text and background materials and other online information about Congress. This system should be put online in a central place, be searchable, downloadable, and easily understood by average citizens, and the information must be available before Congress considers legislation - not after.