Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Credo Mobile

HOME

ABOUT US

OUR ISSUES

Information & Access

Nonprofit Advocacy

Regulatory Policy


PRESS ROOM

ACTION CENTER

PUBLICATIONS

THE WATCHER

OUR BLOGS


SIGN UP

Receive news, updates, and alerts!

DONATE

Help support our work


OTHER SITES

FedSpending.org

RTK NET

NPAction

Working Group on Community Right-to-Know

Citizens for Sensible Safeguards

Open the Government

OMB Watch Logo

Demanding a federal budget that is fair, responsible, and meets our nation's priorities

Home :  Federal Budget & Tax : 
Federal Budget & Tax:      News     Blog     Background    



Friday, June 29, 2007

Emanuel Amendment Voted Down

The Emanuel amendment to the Financial Services/General Government appropriations bill, which would have defunded part of the Office of Vice President, failed by a vote of 209 to 217 (roll call). The amendment was an attempt to get the OVP to comply with a request for information regarding the US attorneys scandal (See this Think Progress post for more).

Correction: Vice President Cheney's claim was about classified material, which, under an executive order, a National Archives offices oversees (link).



Posted by Matt Lewis, 12:34:31 PM



Thursday, June 28, 2007

Proxy Wars, Pt. II: DOD Authorization Bill

Congressional Democrats, still smarting from their perceived capitulation in May to President Bush on ending the war on Iraq, are serving notice that their next stand will come during the debate next month on H.R. 1585, the half-a-trillion-dollar Defense Department FY 2008 reauthorization bill.

According to Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), chair of the Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) H.R. 1585 will feature "timelines, parameters, accountability, and a pathway" to remove U.S. fighting men and women from Iraq.

Democrats, noting that Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) appear ready to pull the plug on the war in September, risk losing the high ground in the debate on how to end the war.

Their advantage in the polls on the question of which party Americans trust more regarding Iraq is narrrowing. In a mid-April poll, 58 percent said they trusted the Democrats to do a better job of handling situation in Iraq as opposed to 33 percent who trust Bush more. In early June, their advantage had narrowed to 51-38.

Senate Democrats may be spoiling for a proxy fight.



Posted by Dana Chasin, 06:44:37 PM



Funding for IRS is Important

The House will soon pass the Financial Services/General Government appropriations (HR 2829). Its total funding should comes under the Presidents request, though the President has threatened a veto anyway, conditional on including provisions regarding abortion and Cuba.

The media will probably focus on the fact that the bill may defund the OVP's office- in response to the OVP's clumsy claims, which we covered in the Watcher, that it is not a part of the executive branch, and therefore is not subject to disclosure requirements that apply to that branch.

But the bill (markup summary) also takes productive steps on eliminating bad IRS programs. It would defund the program to outsource tax collection. It would increase funding for tax preparation services for low-income people, which President Bush proposed to cut. It would make it more difficult to privatize other government work.

And the bill should be important to anyone interested in social policy, because it funds the IRS. The funding the IRS gets has a strong influence on how much in taxes it collects. Money actually collected, of course, pays for social programs that advocates may be interested in expanding. This is why we fight to protect things like the estate tax- this is why it is important to get more funding for the IRS.

This bill's funding for IRS tax enforcement activities is the same as the President's request- which was a step in the right direction, but not enough.

UPDATE: Strike what I wrote about the private debt collection program. Earlier today, Republicans stripped out the language that would have limited the program.



Posted by Matt Lewis, 02:16:22 PM



Approps Update

Yesterday, the House approved a $27.6 Interior-Environment appropriations bill. Meanwhile, the White House shakes its fist at Congress threatening to veto the Interior-Environment bill, because the bill would breach the $933 billion discretionary spending cap requested by the president.


(click to enlarge)


Posted by Craig Jennings, 11:15:31 AM



Conrad: Appropriations Deal Needed for Nussle Confirmation

Sen. Conrad says he wants to play hardball on the budget. He says he's going to hold off on holding the Senate's confirmation hearings for Jim Nussle, President Bush's nominee for OMB director, until they find common ground on discretionary spending. From the Washington Post:

"We will not be setting a time for the hearing until there have been further discussions," said Conrad (D-N.D.), whose committee is one of two Senate panels that must vote on the nomination of former Iowa congressman Jim Nussle (R). "There needs to be a serious discussion here about how we conclude the business of the country in some serious and responsible way."

Good for him. Let's hope they can end this ridiculous fight over budget peanuts, without cuts to vital programs.



Posted by Matt Lewis, 10:17:44 AM



Tuesday, June 26, 2007

Emanuel Proposes Defunding Part of the OVP

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) is leading a charge to cut funding for the Office of Vice President, in response to arguments the OVP has made that it isn't subject to disclosure requirements that apply to the executive branch. Emmanuel's amendment is such that unless the OVP complies with the requirements, it will lose the funding it gets in the appropriations bill that funds the President's administration, and will only get funding through the appropriations bill that funds legislative branch activities.

See here and here for more- Emmanuel's amendment, which he said would be voted on this Wednesday or Thurday, has stirred up parts of the blogosphere.

And for more, see the third part of the Washington Post's series on Vice President Dick Cheney, where his influence on tax and budget issues is detailed.

Cheney is reported to be a believer in the dynamic affect of tax cuts- that tax cuts actually don't lead to decreases in revenue, because they boost the economy so much that the tax base increases dramatically. But a 2006 study by the Treasury Department- which was probably requested by Cheney- shows that the "dynamic" affect of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts is marginal.



Posted by Matt Lewis, 11:39:56 AM



President Follows Shining Path to $933 Bn.
Threatens Veto of Interior-Environment Bill

Yesterday, the administration issued its third veto threat of the appropriations season, this time against H.R. 2643, the House's $27.6 billion Interior-Environment Bill. Again, yesterday's Statement of Administration Policy reflects the administration's aggregate $933 billion discretionary spending topline approach to vetoing spending bills as they make their way through Congress:

H.R. 2643 exceeds the President's requests for programs funded in this bill by $2 billion, part of the $22 billion increase above the President's request for FY 2008 appropriations. The Administration asked that Congress demonstrate a path to live within the President's topline and cover the excess spending in this bill through reductions elsewhere. Because Congress has failed to demonstrate such a path, if H.R. 2643 were presented to the President, he would veto the bill.

Perhaps it was once hard to make out, but at this point, the route to the $933 billion discretionary aggregate topline that the president is asking Congress to follow is a shining path, illuminated by spending bills exceeding his requests by $2 billion or more, destined to be vetoed.



Posted by Dana Chasin, 11:13:50 AM



Friday, June 22, 2007

Korb: $60 billion in Defense Waste

Lawrence Korb, former Reagan administration official and fellow at the Center for American Progress, has a good report out on $60 billion of annual waste in the defense budget.

It might seem paradoxical to call for reducing the size of the annual defense budget in the midst of war, as we did the last two years, and are doing again this year. Some might even call it unpatriotic or isolationist. But the fact is, even as our troops are deployed, the Pentagon is wasting tens of billions of dollars annually. Furthermore, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not being funded by the regular annual defense budget. The costs of these wars are being paid for in supplemental appropriations that are considered separately from the defense budget that we analyze in this report.



Posted by Matt Lewis, 01:51:56 PM



Wednesday, June 20, 2007

What is the President Smoking? Part II

Following up on my post yesterday about the president's weekly radio address and his pharmaceutical preferences, I came across this article today in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel detailing the struggles of Florida's HIV treatment programs:

Every week, Oakland Park HIV patient Peter Giraldo goes for acupuncture and therapeutic massage to lessen severe nerve pain in his extremities caused by his medications and diabetes.

But the therapies will vanish next month, and other services used by thousands of South Florida HIV/AIDS patients will shrink dramatically as a result of federal budget cuts now coming to a head, county health officials said. Substance abuse treatment, nutritional counseling and other programs stand to be cut.

For a second straight year, local HIV budget planners said they are struggling to stretch declining grants from the federal Ryan White Program.

I wonder if Peter Giraldo thinks the president is being disingenuous when he says during his radio address that he is meeting the urgent needs of the country?





Posted by Adam Hughes, 04:09:14 PM



Speculating on the Nussle Appointment

So Jim Nussle will be taking over at OMB in August. Congressional Democrats have already begun to romanticize their relationship with current OMB director Rob Portman, probably a sign that they aren't looking forward to working with Nussle.

"I very much regret [the departure]," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who has sparred with Portman over budgetary issues. "Rob Portman was someone of credibility and decency, someone I felt I could work with."

Portman may have worked well with Congress behind the scenes. But he drank deeply of the kool aid they serve at the White House, the one that makes you say tax cuts for the wealthy are good for everyone and domestic programs need to be cut or privatized. And so will Nussle, who by all accounts is a party loyalist and fiercely anti-government. The rhetoric from the White House probably won't be changing anytime soon.

More importantly, how will Nussle's appointment affect policy? Ironically, the President may be softening his stance. When Portman announced that he would be stepping down, he both assured that the President's threats to veto appropriations were real, at the same time that he seemed to introduce a rationale for not vetoing bills that exceed Presidential requests. CongressDaily ($):

While Portman said Bush would stand his ground, he did say the president would be flexible on how money is appropriated, as long as the total is within his overall discretionary spending limit.

But that also means early Democratic increases in the veterans spending bill, which Bush appears likely to swallow, will have to be paid for elsewhere.

"We're not going to try to micromanage the process," Portman said. "If Congress can come up with a top line of $933 [billion] -- which is a 6.9 percent increase from 2007, which is triple inflation or more -- then we will be happy to work with them. But until we see a path to the top line, we will be forced to veto many of these bills as they come through the process."

One way to read this is that the President is promising only one veto- the last bill to make it through the appropriations process, which if large enough would bring total discretionary spending over the President's request. But that bill will probably be for the Department of Defense. Would Bush veto it?

Indeed, Nussle's appointment gives the appearance of being tough on government spending. But playing up that appearance may be a way for the White House to back away from actually being tough- the thinking being that if someone as crazy as Nussle carries the message that vetoes won't go out, hardliners wouldn't get as mad.

That could just be wishful thinking- the next few months will show who's for real and who's not.



Posted by Matt Lewis, 11:18:03 AM



Tuesday, June 19, 2007

What is the President Smoking?

I stumbled across a copy of the president's weekly radio address this morning and, for the life of me, can't figure out what Mr. Bush is smoking. The address summarized Bush's record on fiscal policy, stating outrageous claims like the president's tax cuts were a success, that Bush has enacted fiscal discipline in Washington, and that government spending imperils economic growth. These statements are all pretty much wrong, but the worst part of the speech was this:

Over the past three years, we have met the urgent needs of our Nation while holding the growth of annual domestic spending close to one percent - well below the rate of inflation...By keeping taxes low and restraining Federal spending, we can meet my plan to have a balanced budget by 2012.

Let's take a look at how well the president has met the urgent needs of our nation. Just recently, we've come across the following reports:

  • New Hampshire may have to cut food and other assistance for the elderly;
  • Hunger in America could be significantly curtailed if we'd only invest a little more;
  • Backdoor cuts to Medicaid have drawn the ire of state Medicaid directors. Michigan is one state that has cut its Medicaid program;
  • Delays and insufficient funding in the FY 06 spending bills threatened cuts to veterans health care, the Social Security Administration, the Food Safety and Inspection Service, the Small Business Administration, the FBI and DEA, Amtrak, and low-income housing programs - all of which have been operating on shoestring budgets over the past several years;
  • The Walter Reed scandals appear to be a budget issue at its core with privatization of government services pursued to save money over delivering quality services;
  • A growing number of sinkholes are increasingly becoming a problem around the country - mostly due to underfunded or neglected federal wastewater management programs;
  • The Food and Drug Administration has largely blamed budget cuts and a lack of resources for their poor responses to recent food safety problems;
  • The Center for Disease Control stated last week they lacked funding to put a plan in place to respond to a large tuberculosis outbreak;
  • The president's own Millennium Challenge program, which provides funding to foster the development of poor countries, was running $400 million to $1 billion behind in January, 2007;
  • Even funding for Iraq reconstruction has been insufficient and mismanaged;

Unfortunately, this is just the tip of the iceberg of unmet needs around the country the president doesn't even seem to be aware of. What's more, the president has presided over the largest increase in the national debt in history, as it has increased from $5.95 trillion to close to $9 trillion during his presidency. At this point, it's a little late for him to be shooting for a balanced budget in 2012 - 3 years after he leaves the White House. I'm afraid the damage has already been done.





Posted by Adam Hughes, 02:07:57 PM



Friday, June 15, 2007

Approps Update: House Passes Homeland Security

CQ($)

The [Homeland Security appropriations] legislation which passed 268-150 included Republican amendments adding funds for border fencing at the expense of the Homeland Security secretary's administrative budgets and a ban on funding implementation of new passport requirements for Western Hemisphere travelers.

[...]

Overall, the bill would provide $37.4 billion to the Homeland Security Department in fiscal 2008. Of that, $36.25 billion would be discretionary spending, $2.1 billion, or 6 percent, more than President Bush requested, and $4.3 billion, or 14 percent, more than in fiscal 2007.

The bill would allocate $8.8 billion for customs and border protection and $6.6 billion for the Transportation Security Administration, both slightly more than the amount requested, and $8.4 billion for the Coast Guard, slightly less than requested.

But the Federal Emergency Management Agency would receive $7.4 billion, 41 percent more than requested and 20 percent more than its fiscal 2007 funding. The measure also would provide $950 million for state and local grants, about triple the amount requested, and $800 million for port and rail security grants, about double Bush's request.



Posted by Craig Jennings, 04:07:28 PM



Approps Tracking

To keep you up to date on the status of the appropriations process, we'll update and post the following chart indicating the status of each of the 12 federal spending bills.

Each column represents a gatekeeper in both chambers for each bill - the responsible appropriations subcommittee, the full appropriations committee, and the full chamber. A green box indicates that the respective body has approved the bill and is awaiting approval of the next body. The number in each box is the dollar amount in billions that the body has appropriated.



Posted by Craig Jennings, 11:36:45 AM



President Drops Veto Threat, Seeks Offsets on Mil Con
But Senate Appropriations Omits Offsets in 28-1 Vote

As we surmised last week, President Bush has dropped his long-standing threat to veto any FY 2008 appropriations bills that exceed the amounts he has requested, agreeing to sign a Military Construction-VA bill that provides $4 billion more than he has sought, so long as the $4 billion difference is accompanied by "reductions in other appropriations bills to offset this increase," according to Wednesday's Statement of Administration Policy on the bill.

But the Senate Appropriations Committee took no heed of the Statement, approving the bill yesterday 28-1. The Senate version of the bill is identical to the House bill. The House Appropriations vote last week was 56-0. The full House may vote on the bill as early as today.

The preponderance of the proposed increase goes toward veterans' health care, specifically research into and the treatment of traumatic brain injuries and stress disorders. NPR reported this morning that 40 percent of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from severe psychological problems.



Posted by Dana Chasin, 11:30:30 AM



Thursday, June 14, 2007

ECAP Statement on Veto-Sustaining House Republicans

The ECAP Coalition issued a statement on the 147 House Republicans who think it's smart to cozy up to the President and his severe budget:

147 House Republicans Cave to Pressure from Right-Wingers to Support Bush Veto and Cut Funding for Americans in Need

Congress Has a Clear Choice: Stand with the President's Cuts to Health and Education, or Support America's Hardworking Families

WASHINGTON, DC — According to press reports this morning, 147 Republican Members of Congress have caved to political pressure from the GOP leadership and special interests and signed a "Republican Study Committee" letter pledging to support a Presidential veto of any appropriations bill that increase spending on health care, education, and other critical needs for lower- and middle-income families. By signing the right-wing "Republican Study Committee" letter, Members of Congress were pledging to sustain a veto of appropriations measures sight unseen. Congress passed a budget last month that begins to reverse six years of misguided priorities in previous Republican budgets, but the White House has threatened to veto any domestic spending above the President's requested levels, claiming that these much needed and overdue increases would be too expensive. But the fact is that the President's budget would spend far more on tax cuts for millionaires than it would save from all of the cuts to domestic discretionary programs[i].



More on ECAP Statement...

Posted by Matt Lewis, 06:18:57 PM



Bush's Veto Threats Amount to a Hill of Beans

The veto threats of FY 2008 spending bills are coming fast and furious from the White House. The third such threat of the week was issued yesterday:

  • H.R. 2641 —- The Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

The Bill's Particulars: Making its way through the House is a bill to provide for Army Corps of Engineers and TVA funding, nuclear waste disposal, and expansion of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The cost of the bill is $31.6 billion for FY 2008. The president has asked for $30.5 billion. But OMB notes that H.R. 2641 "exceeds the President's requests for programs funded in this bill by $1.1 billion [and] would lead to spending and tax increases that put economic growth and a balanced budget at risk" [emph. added].

Budget Context:The veto threat includes this language:

The Democratic Budget Resolution and subsequent spending allocations adopted by the House Appropriations Committee exceed the President's discretionary spending topline by $22 billion, causing a 9 percent increase in FY 2008 discretionary spending.

The President has proposed [a] discretionary spending total of not more than $933 billion in FY 2008, which is a $60 billion increase over the FY 2007 enacted level.

The president's rash of threats to veto eight of the 12 spending bills this year is apparently motivated by this fact: the president is holding rigidly to a seven percent increase, while the Congress recklessly proposes an increase of nine percent.

The difference is less than the rate of inflation, $20 billion in a $13 trillion economy, but apparently enough to "put economic growth and a balanced budget at risk."



Posted by Dana Chasin, 05:46:52 PM



Senate Appropriations Releases its 302(b) Allocations

This afternoon, the Senate Appropriations Committee released the list of FY 2008 discretionary spending caps allocated to each of its subcommittees of jurisdiction, under Budget Act section 302(b). The House Appropriations announced its own 302(b) allocations on June 5.

The agreed-upon Budget Resolution set the overall discretionary cap for FY 2008 at $953.1 billion, $20 billion -- or two percent -- above President Bush's requests. The House and Senate sub-allocations are virtually identical. In no case do the two sets of allocations differ by more than a few hundred million dollars, except for Labor-HHS; the House calls for a $151.1 billion Labor-HHS cap and the Senate calls for $149.2 billion.

The close parallel in 302 (b) allocations is intentionally designed to avoid protected conference committee negotiations.



Posted by Dana Chasin, 04:32:48 PM



Show Me The List

I'm a little confused. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) has list of 147 Republican Congresspersons who have pledged to vote to sustain any presidential veto of FY 2008 spending bills.

House Republicans have done an impressive job of ruining their fiscal credibility with voters, and it won't be easy making amends. Today, however, they are taking one step toward redemption when Texan Jeb Hensarling announces that he's gathered signatures from 147 House GOP Members promising to sustain vetoes of any spending bill that exceeds President Bush's budget requests.

I'm really at a loss to explain why Hensarling would wave this list around and make promises about 147 Republicans, because he's going to look awfully silly when Congress overrides any spending bill veto. Either Hensarling will have to eat crow and admit he was full of it, or he will have point to a number of his Republican collegues who failed to make good on their commitments.

And based on this reporting from CongressDaily PM ($) yesterday, it seems that Hensarling is in fact "rounding upwards" the number of veto-sustainers, or the promised sustainers are already showing their, ummm, "flexibility."

OMB Director Portman had previously told reporters even the popular military housing and veterans' funding bill could be subject to a veto threat, as the White House attempts to take a hard line over the $23 billion overall spending increase...But veterans' health is an even more sensitive and emotional issue politically, and GOP aides said Bush would not have the votes to sustain a veto in either chamber.

So, is Hensarling being totally straight with us, or are certain Republican representatives already losing their resolve? There's really only one way to figure this out: Show me that list, Hensarling!



Posted by Craig Jennings, 12:40:43 PM



Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Appropriations Action in Congress Today
News and Analysis

Military Construction/VA Bill -- The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies adopted by voice vote the draft $109.2 billion spending bill, $4 billion more than President Bush's request. The full Appropriations Committee is expected take up the bill Thursday.
  • Analysis: Although the Bush Administration had threatened to veto the bill on the grounds that it provides greater spending than the president had requested, it has not issued a Statement of Administration Policy repeating this threat, indicating that, as some Bush aides have conceded, the administration probably cannot sustain a veto -- most of the spending increase in the bill supports popular Veterans health programs.

Homeland Security Bill -- Debate on the $36.3 billion Homeland Security bill continued into the wee hours this morning. Narrowly edging out the administration's initial request by $2.1 billion, the bill drew a formal Statement of Administration Policy veto threat from the president yesterday, condeming it for "an irresponsible and excessive level of spending."
  • Analysis: The increased spending in the bill is for improvements in aviation security, port and border security, and grant programs for first responders and interoperable communications, as recommended by the 9/11 Commission. The bill contains no earmarks, but Republicans say they still have about 100 amendments barring an assortment of hypothetical earmarks. Expect outrage expressed in New York accents.

Full Senate Appropriations Committee mark-ups on the above bills were scheduled to begin today.



Posted by Dana Chasin, 06:17:34 PM



Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Bush to Veto "Irresponsible and Excessive" Homeland Security Bill

As H.R. 2638, the $36.3 billion Homeland Security bill, headed for debate on the House floor today, it met with a stern veto threat from the administration because "it includes an irresponsible and excessive level of spending." The administration had requested $34.2 billion.

During the six fiscal years of the Bush presidency thus far, six years of GOP control of Congress, the national debt has increased by approximately 3 trillion dollars to almost $9 trillion.



Posted by Dana Chasin, 06:41:16 PM



The Benefits of Cultural Exchange

I just got back from a trip to Spain, and I thought I'd share a few of the things that made it hard to come back. Or rather things that, were they also in America, it would have been much easier to come back.

  • Fast Trains
    Spain has very fast trains. Seems like the benefits are pretty self-explanatory, but I just thought I'd mention that being on an extremely fast train is really fun, all practicality aside.
  • Holidays
    Spain seems to have lots of holidays. By my count, there were two holidays during the week or so I was there. If I spoke better Spanish, I'd tell you what they were about, but I don't, so all I really know is that they got parades, concerts, lots of social events, and maybe even a day off work.
  • No homelessness
    I was in the biggest cities in Spain- Madrid, Seville, and Barcelona, and in total I saw two people sleeping on the street. I don't know how they did it, but it seems like the whole country's doing something right.
  • Public social space.
    Spanish cities have lots of big squares where everyone hangs out. Cafes have seating inside the squares, and stores are clustered around them, with big fountains or statues in the middle. Streets would be closed to car traffic, and people would get to walk through them at night. Beaches seemed like they were completely open to the public, and you didn't have to pay for them.

All of these things probably have something to do with public policy. They're basic quality of living issues, and they would seem to foster a greater sense of community. And they make Spain a nice place to take a vacation.



Posted by Matt Lewis, 11:22:48 AM



Friday, June 08, 2007

Appropriations Agenda, Part II: The Senate

Following the flurry of initial appropriations activity in the House this week, the Senate will swing into action next week. [Note: the House and Senate 302(b) allocations for FY 2008 are identical.]

The current mark-up schedule in the Senate Appropriations Committee is as follows:

  • Tuesday, June 12:

    • Military Construction-VA ($65 billion; $4 billion over the president's request) -- subcommittee mark-up
    • Homeland Security ($36 billion; $2 billion over) -- subcommittee committee mark-up
  • Thursday, June 14:

    • Military Construction-VA -- full committee mark-up
    • Homeland Security -- full committee committee mark-up


Posted by Dana Chasin, 11:43:59 AM



Thursday, June 07, 2007

Approps Update

The House Appropriations Committee got down to business this week and approved four bills for full floor consideration. You will note that all of them exceed the president's request. Given OMB Director Rob Portman's warning that he will recomend that the president veto any bill over the president's request, the veto pen might run out of ink before all spending bills are completed.

Appropriations Bills Approved by Appropriations Committee (billions of dollars)
BillAppropriatedAmount Over President's Request
Energy & Water31.61.2
Homeland Security36.32.1
Interior & Environment27.61.9
Military Construction & Veterans Affairs109.24

Also: Dana has some interesting stuff to say about the Military Construction & VA bill



Posted by Craig Jennings, 05:08:57 PM



Military Construction-VA Bill to Test GOP Veto Threats

There's nothing unusual about a 56-0 vote committee vote to approve the FY 2008 Military Construction-Veterans Affairs spending bill, as occurred yesterday when the House Appropriations Committee OK'ed the $109 billion measure, $4 billion above the president's request -- $2.5 billion of which goes to politically unassailable funding for veterans' health care. Only a little more unusual is holding a roll call vote where the bill has unanimous support.

Getting all 29 committee Republicans on record in support, however, raises questions about the wisdom and efficacy of the administration's unremitting threats to veto all spending bills that exceed Bush's original request. As House Appropriations chair Rep. David Obey (D-WI) explained delicately:

I wanted to demonstrate that if they do that, Congress will hand them their head. The fact is it is not credible for the White House to claim that they're going to veto that bill.

The 56-0 vote flies in the face of a House GOP gambit to block any veto override efforts by Congress. House Defense Appropriations ranking member Bill Young (R-FL) has bad news

I don't see that bill getting vetoed. If it does, I see it getting overridden.

for his GOP colleagues and President Bush, who sound like born-again deficit hawks, veterans' health be danged.



Posted by Dana Chasin, 03:55:02 PM



Monthly Budget Review: June, 2007
CBO's Monthly Budget Review has been released:
The federal government incurred a deficit of $152 billion during the first eight months of fiscal year 2007, CBO estimates, $75 billion less than the shortfall recorded through May of last year. In comparison with receipts collected during the same period in 2006, revenues have risen by about 8 percent; outlays have grown by less than 3 percent. CBO expects that the government will end 2007 with a deficit of between $150 billion and $200 billion.


Posted by Craig Jennings, 09:19:41 AM



Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Federal Budget Cuts Could Hurt New Hampshire

New Hampshire government officials are worried that proposed federal budget cuts to programs for the elderly might hinder their efforts to provide low-cost meals and other programs. The Bush budget proposed to cut those types of programs under the Older Americans Act by 6 percent this year.

The Seacoast Online reports:

Health officials say cuts to meal services would be particularly troubling for seniors in New Hampshire. Last year, more than 1 million meals were delivered to needy seniors in their homes. About 400,000 more lunches, plus the occasional breakfast, were served at senior centers throughout the state.





Posted by Adam Hughes, 11:11:52 AM



Tuesday, June 05, 2007

Appropriations Agenda, Part I
On Your Mark-Up, Get Set, Go

The FY 08 appropriations process moves into the fast lane this week, with a busy month for spending bills expected.

Before Memorial Day, House Appropriations subcommittees OK'ed a Homeland Security bill ($36.3 billion; $2 billion over Bush's request) and a Military Construction-VA measure ($64.7 billion; $4 billion over). The current appropriations schedule for this week, with action expected only on the House Appropriations side, is as follows:

  • Today, June 5:
    • State, Foreign Operations ($35 billion; $1 billion under) -- subcommittee mark-up
    • Financial Services $21 billion; $1 billion under) -- subcommittee mark-up
    • Homeland Security ($36 billion; $2 billion over) -- full committee mark-up
  • Wednesday, June 6:
    • Energy-Water $32 billion; $1 billion under) -- full committee mark-up
    • Military Construction-VA ($65 billion; $4 billion over) -- full committee mark-up
    • Legislative Branch ($4 billion; marginally under) -- subcommittee mark-up
  • Thursday, June 7:
    • Interior & Environment ($28 billion, $2 billion over) -- full committee mark-up

Forward calendar: Subcommittees are slated to mark up the Commerce-Justice-Science ($53 billion; $2 billion over) and Transportation bills June 11, with Agriculture ($19 billion; $1 billion over) to follow on June 12.



Posted by Dana Chasin, 03:40:52 PM



Who is the Bush Administration Kidding on PART?

Abstinence education is back in the news as a recent study from Mathematica Policy Research continues to cast significant doubts on the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex education in preventing teen pregnancy, early sexual activity, and sexually transmitted infections. The report, which was commissioned by Congress in 1997, followed 2,057 U.S. teenagers in late elementary and middle school who participated in four abstinence programs, as well as students in the same grades who did not participate in such programs.

While this is a topic that is a bit outside the scope of things we comment on here at the Budget Brigade at OMB Watch, I raise it to compare congressionally mandated studies to evaluate programs and the efforts undertaken by the Bush administration with the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). Congress commissioned this study to compare the impact of abstinence-only programs with a control group of students who did not participate - a helpful comparison in determining if it is the abstinence-only programs that are actually making a difference (and the result has repeatedly been that they do not make a difference).

Let's compare that to the PART's performance measurement evaluations. According to the PART review from 2006 of the "Abstinence Education" program, the way program performance will be measured is through tracking teen pregnancy rates, percentage of teens who report never having had sex and who continue to abstain after participation in a program, percentage of teens who have had sex and then report abstaining following participation in a program, and decreases in percentage of 9-12 grade students who report having had sex.

These are all fine indicators of the level of, well, teen pregnancy and sexual attitudes and actions of teens in the country. Unfortunately, they will not show whether it was the abstinence-only education programs that caused the improvements or goals unless there is a comparison to difference programs or a control group that does not participate in any program.

What's even more appalling than faulty methodology within the PART is the outright fabrications that the administration actually uses PART survey findings to inform its funding priorities. The PART review for the abstinence program references a "forthcoming" Mathematica study (question 4.5) and say it "uses a rigorous experimental design with random assignment of control and experimental group." But when the results of that "rigorous" study were released this past April, Harry Wilson, a top official in the Department of Health and Human Services, told the Washington Post that the study "isn't rigorous enough to show whether or not [abstinence-only] education works." Incredibly enough, Wilson added that the administration has no intention of changing funding priorities in light of the results.

Do I really need to say more about what a sham the PART is?





Posted by Adam Hughes, 11:37:52 AM



Pre-emptive Nutrition-Assistance Would Save Money

A new report commissioned by the Sedexho Foundation estimates the annual costs associated with hunger in America is $90 billion. This estimate excludes government programs for nutrion-assistance - which amount to approximately $53 billion in FY 2006. The report finds that increasing anti-hunger investments by an additional $10 billion to $12 billion a year is cost-effective and could even almost wipe out hunger in America.

The lead author of the report, J. Larry Brown from the Center on Hunger and Poverty at Brandeis University, believes the United States is wasting money by not tackling the issue of hunger head-on:

We ought to debate this, because if we're right, we're spending far more by letting hunger exist than it would cost to end it."

Washington Times: Cost of hunger calculated at $90 billion





Posted by Adam Hughes, 10:00:42 AM



Monday, June 04, 2007

Obey Sets FY08 Approps Spending Caps
8 of 12 of Them Defy Bush's Veto Threats

Tomorrow, the House Appropriations Committee is expected to approve the twelve subcommittee spending allocation caps for FY 08 set out today by Committee chair Rep. David Obey (D-WI). Eight of these twelve exceed the amounts requested by the president last February.

Although Bush has threatened to veto any bill that exceeds his request, the House Appropriations Committee allocation indicates that Democrats are prepared to challenge him on several spending bills, some of which fund highly popular programs and might be politically perilous to veto.

Per Congress Daily ($), these allocations will be as follows (those exceeding the Bush requests are in CAPS below):

  • AGRICULTURE: $18.8 billion; Bush: $17.8 billion; current: $17.7 billion
  • COMMERCE-JUSTICE-SCIENCE: $53.6 billion; Bush: $51.2 billion; current: $50.3 billion
  • Defense: $459.3 billion; Bush: $462.9 billion; current: $419.6 billion
  • ENERGY AND WATER: $31.6 billion; Bush: $30.5 billion; current: $30.3 billion
  • Financial Services and General Govt.: $21 billion; Bush: $21.7 billion; current: $19.5 billion
  • HOMELAND SECURITY: $36.3 billion; Bush: $34.2 billion; current: $31.9 billion
  • INTERIOR-ENVIRONMENT: $27.6 billion; Bush: $25.7 billion; current: $26.4 billion
  • LABOR-HHS: $151.1 billion; Bush: $140.9 billion; current: $144.5 billion
  • Legislative Branch: $4 billion; Bush: $4.3 billion; current: $3.8 billion
  • MILITARY CONSTRUCTION-VA: $64.7 billion; Bush: $60.7 billion; current: $49.8 billion
  • State-Foreign Operations: $34.2 billion; Bush: $34.9 billion; current: $31.3 billion
  • TRANSPORTATION-HUD: $50.7 billion; Bush: $47.96 billion; current: $47.5 billion


Posted by Dana Chasin, 05:45:42 PM



Friday, June 01, 2007

Honey, Did You Pack the Veto Pen?

President Bush will not want to leave for weekends in Crawford this summer without his veto pen. Yesterday, his OMB Director Rob Portman renewed his threats to veto any appropriations bill that exceeds the budget request the president submitted to Congress in February.

On May 11, Portman had warned only that the president would veto any spending bill not on a "sustainable path" to complying with the president's $933 billion total discretionary spending limit.

But yesterday Portman suggested that four spending bills expected to be approved by the House Appropriations Committee in the next couple of weeks could be vetoed unless substantial changes are made:

  • homeland security
  • energy and water projects
  • natural resources and the environment
  • veterans' health care

Would Bush really veto a veterans' health care bill marginally larger than his in the middle of a war? Said Portman: "I'd rather not."

But even in Crawford, the pen is mightier than the chainsaw.



Posted by Dana Chasin, 03:43:32 PM



Administration Drops Opposition to Data Collection Program

About a year ago, we reported on the administration's opposition to continued funding of the Survey of Income and Program Participation, or "SIPP." SIPP, you may recall is an ongoing program that ""collect[s] source and amount of income, labor force information, program participation and eligibility data, and general demographic characteristics to measure the effectiveness of existing federal, state, and local programs." It is an indispensable source of data for researchers and policy makers that allows them to asses the effectiveness of government assistance programs.

Yesterday, the administration flip-flopped reversed its stance of the program, and dropped its opposition. There's one tiny catch - Bush has not revised his 2008 budget to include funding for the program, and OMB Director Rob Portman has stated that he would advise the president to veto spending bills that exceed the president's request. The absence of a line item in the president's budget for SIPP could cause its demise.

From a statement by Heather Boushey, Senior Economist, Center for Economic and Policy Research:

The Census Bureau has recently indicated that, without additional funding, it will start a new SIPP panel with only half of the standard number of respondents. This is unacceptable. Interviewing only half as many people would severely limit researchers' ability to examine particular government programs, sub-populations and state-level data. Many government programs, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or child care subsidies, affect only small shares of the U.S. population, so a smaller sample would not provide enough data to properly assess these programs. It would also make it difficult, if not impossible, to assess demographic trends at the state level (such as wealth, childcare usage, etc.), even for larger states like North Carolina or Washington.


Posted by Craig Jennings, 11:17:49 AM




Latest Entries by Theme

All Themes

Appropriations & Spending

Federal Tax Policy

Income/Wealth Inequality

Budget Projections

Government Performance

Estate Tax

State Fiscal Policy

Watcher

Entitlements

Budget Process

Debt & Deficit

Oversight & Enforcement

Transparency

Privatization

Contact Us

Most Recent Entries for Federal Budget & Tax

Bush Signs War Supplemental

BudgetBlog on Hiatus for Holiday: Happy Fourth Everyone!

The Heat Must Be Getting to Them

GAO Report Finds Private Medicare Providers Prefer Profits Over Providing Better Service

Yet Another Example of Questionable Outsourcing

Senate GOP Battling Themselves Over Earmarks

More Support for Ending the Contracting Free-For-All

House Approves Fiscally-Responsible AMT Patch

Contracting Oversight Commission Members Announced

OMB Refuses to Prioritize Army Contractor Oversight

Archived Entries for Appropriations & Spending

June

May

April

March

February

January

December, 2007

November, 2007

October, 2007

September, 2007

August, 2007

July, 2007

June, 2007

May, 2007

April, 2007

March, 2007

February, 2007

January, 2007

December, 2006

November, 2006

October, 2006

September, 2006

August, 2006

July, 2006

June, 2006

May, 2006

April, 2006

March, 2006

February, 2006

January, 2006

December, 2005

November, 2005

October, 2005

September, 2005

August, 2005

July, 2005

June, 2005

May, 2005

April, 2005

March, 2005

February, 2005

January, 2005

December, 2004

November, 2004

October, 2004

September, 2004

August, 2004

July, 2004

June, 2004

May, 2004

April, 2004

March, 2004

February, 2004

January, 2004

December, 2003

November, 2003

September, 2003

August, 2003

July, 2003