LEFT ATTEMPTING TO STOP TRUMP APPOINTMENTS

 

[Published in Sunday Guardian of India]

Washington, DC.

President-Elect Donald Trump’s Cabinet Level Appointees are facing an array of personal and political attacks from Democrats and media commentators.

Defense Secretary-Designate Pete Hegseth is accused of sexual assault during a 2017 speaking engagement.  Hegseth’s attorney is threatening to sue the accuser.  There have also been rumors of his heavy drinking.

Trump posted a strong affirmation of his support for Hegseth on Truth Social.

“Pete is a WINNER, there is nothing that can be done to change that.”

There had been speculation that Hegseth’s nomination may be withdrawn and alternative candidates, including Florida Governor Ron Desantis and Senator Joni Ernst, have been floated.

The Hegseth attacks echo the charges leveled against Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee, Brent Kavanaugh in 2018.  During his Senate Confirmation, Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault and heavy drinking while in college.  Three days of emotional hearings led to Kavanaugh being confirmed by the Senate on a 50-48 vote (two Senators were absent).

Kash Patel, Trump’s Director-Designate to head the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is also drawing fire from Democrats and the media.  In his case, they criticize his lack of management experience and record of criticizing corruption and bias within the FBI.

Trump’s selection of nontraditional nominees is consistent with his pledge to “Drain the Swamp” and implement revolutionary change in the way the Federal Government operates. 

The Washington elites, in Congress, the media, academia, bureaucracy, and government contractors are afraid Trump will succeed.  Ending decades of unaccountable spending, regulatory overreach, and self-serving decisions are top priorities for Trump and his team.

People are Policy

A new President can select 8,167 people to help run the Executive Branch of the U.S. Federal Government.  This includes White House staff and heads of Agencies and Cabinet Departments. 

Approximately 1,093 require Senate confirmation, including various Advisory Boards and Regulatory Commissions.

Democrats hope by stopping, or at least delaying, Senate approvals they will hamper Trump’s ability to implement real change.

Democrats and their media allies are hoping their accusations will peel-away support among Republican Senators.  Republicans will have a 53-47 majority in the Senate when it convenes in January 2025.  Trump’s nominees can only lose three Republicans and still win confirmation.

Two Republican Senators, Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), regularly break with their colleagues to oppose Trump.  This is ironic as they both supported Biden’s controversial Cabinet picks – Attorney General Merrick Garland and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.  They also supported transgender leftist Rachel Levine as Assistant Secretary for Health.

Trump’s unwavering support for his nominees and the willingness of his nominees to confront their attackers could be the winning combination as confirmation hearings begin in January 2025.

 

OUR DERELICT CONGRESS

Published in Newsmax
#DEEPSWAMP #RINOgator



Republicans on Capitol Hill are doing everything possible to lose their majorities in 2018.  They always seemed uneasy in the Majority.  They may get their wish and have the voters return them to a permanent Minority.

Senate Republican Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, recently railed against President Trump about “excessive expectations” and not knowing the “reality of lawmaking”.

Is it “excessive” to think the Senate and House should pass a Budget Resolution?  Every previous Congress passed one by April.  The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 mandates Congress pass an overall Budget Resolution to guide Appropriations.  This year’s budget resolution was introduced on July 21, with no action scheduled. Republicans have majorities in both Chambers, what is the hold up?

Is it “excessive” to think the Senate and House should pass eleven Appropriation Bills to fund the government?  Up through 2014, the House passed all eleven bills by July.  Since the Republicans took the Senate in 2015, only a few Appropriation bills even passed the House.  Not one has passed the House in 2017.   Hearings haven’t even been scheduled.

Is it “excessive” to think the Congress should spend time actually working?  The House met for only eight days in April, twelve days in May, and will not meet in August. Worse, in 2017, House votes are scheduled to start at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesdays, and none are scheduled on Fridays.  This means most House Members only work two and a half days a week.  They can fly in Tuesday afternoon and leave Thursday night without being recorded as absent on the other days.  So in July there were only nine days of actual voting.  The same nine days of voting are scheduled for September, even though there is a firm end of month deadline for funding the government past September 30, 2017. 

Is it “excessive” to expect Members of Congress to work for citizens and not for themselves?  When Members are “in session”, they spend up to four hours every day making political fundraising calls out of the Republican and Democrat national headquarters near the Capitol.  Instead of participating in debate, attending hearings, and listening to constituents, Members are sitting in cubicles, wearing headsets, and making calls to shake down donors for campaign money.

Does the “reality of lawmaking” include casting fake votes for use in direct mail fundraising?  That is what happened in 2015 when Senators Alexander, Capito, Heller, McCain, Murkowski, and Portman voted for a straight repeal of Obamacare.  They knew President Obama would veto the legislation, their votes were used in campaign ads and fundraising.  These six Senators voted against a straight repeal of Obamacare in July 2017, because they knew President Trump would sign the bill.  When do votes reflect real policy instead of fake propaganda acts?

Does the “reality of lawmaking” include crippling President Trump’s ability to have his team running the Executive Branch?  Since Trump was sworn-in, Republicans and the conservative media blamed Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats for holding up Presidential appointments.  However, on the last day before the Senate left for their August Recess, Republicans unanimously invoked a procedure that prevented Trump from naming Recess Appointments.  This has never before been used against a Party’s own President.  Why didn’t Senate Republicans negotiate with Trump allowing him to Recess Appoint key nominees stalled in the confirmation process?  This act of treachery shows Senate Republicans truly want Trump to fail.

If they were in the military, Capitol Hill Republicans would have been Court Martialed for dereliction of duty.  Their actions, and inactions, are the very definition of dereliction: 

United States Code Title 10, Section 892, Article 92 - Member who is derelict has willfully refused to perform his duties or has incapacitated himself in such a way that he cannot perform his duties…Article 92 also applies to members whose acts or omissions rise to the level of criminally negligent behavior. 

Why are Congressional Republicans so determined to obliterate themselves and their Party?  

Americans deserve better.

Stopping Obama's Usurpation of Advice & Consent

This also appears at: http://www.constitutingamerica.org/blog/stopping-the-usurpation-of-advise-and-consent-guest-essayist-scot-faulkner/; https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/stopping-obamas-usurpation-advice-consent-scot-faulkner?trk=mp-reader-card


June 28, 2014 is an historic day in thwarting Presidential over-reach. On that day the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled President Obama’s recess appointments unconstitutional. NLRB versus Noel Canning, ET AL was a rare instance when the Judicial Branch acted as referee and reset the balance of power between the Executive and Legislative Branches.


The case centered on Noel Canning challenging a February 8, 2012 National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision on the grounds that its quorum only existed with the presence of invalid recess appointments. Noel Canning’s attorney argued that Obama’s ap­pointments were invalid because the 3-day adjournment between Congressional sessions was not long enough to trigger the Recess Ap­pointments Clause.


On January 25, 2013, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck the first blow against President Obama’s over reach by unanimously agreeing with Canning and ruling that the three recess appointments to the NLRB on January 4, 2012 were unconstitutional.


The Appeals Court asserted that the circumstance that would allow a President to make “Recess Appointments” under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution did not exist, because the Congress was in Pro Forma Session, not in a formal recess.


The Constitutional Convention of 1787 established two coequal chambers within the Legislative Branch.  One aspect of this balance is that:
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting. [Article 1, Section 5, Clause 4]


The formal end of a Congress is when the Legislative Branch adjourns “Sine Die” (from the Latin “without day”) meaning “without assigning a day for a further meeting or hearing”.  The Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution also sets a formal start and end time for each Congress.


The most complex consequence of Clause 4 relates to when Congress takes a recess and when it adjourns. A recess is a temporary halt to activity on the floor. Everything stops, and when the recess ends, the chamber resumes from where it left off. A recess might last 10 minutes or it might last weeks. The length of time does not matter. An adjournment is a formal end to business in the chamber, and upon return the chamber does not resume from where it left off. Just like a recess an adjournment can be for one minute or for three weeks.


Any formal break in Legislative Branch activity opens the door for a President to take certain actions. This includes making appointments which require Senate confirmation. Congressional leaders of both parties have devised ways to avoid inadvertently unleashing Presidential activism.


The Congress can take a break from legislative activity, and still avoid a formal recess or adjournment, by meeting in a “pro forma” session. Pro forma means “for the sake of formality”. In recent years pro forma sessions have prevented Presidents from making recess appointments, and in the case of President George W. Bush in 2008, deprived him calling a special session to reauthorize the Protect America Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.


As long as a Member convenes either the House or Senate to formally open and close a session there is no recess or adjournment. Members sometimes compete to see how fast they can conduct a pro forma session. The record is currently held by Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island who completed the task in 12 seconds.


Obama’s January 2012 appointments were designed to dramatically expand his appointment authority by asserting his recess-appointment power as a “safety valve” against Senatorial “intransigence.” [1]
The Supreme Court unanimously declared the President lacked the authority to make those appointments. [2]


Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court and quoted from the Federal Papers,  ”the need to secure Senate approval provides “an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to preventing the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity.” [3]


Breyer further wrote, “If a Sen­ate recess is so short that it does not require the consent of the House, it is too short to trigger the Recess Appoint­ments Clause. See Art. I, §5, cl. 4. And a recess lasting less than 10 days is presumptively too short as well”. [4] He dismissed the counter arguments of Obama’s Solicitor General as not, “either legally or practically appropriate”. [5]


Justice Scalia wrote a Concurrence that went further in assailing Obama’s attempt to nullify the Senate’s role in the appointment process [6].  Scalia exposed Obama’s “untenably broad interpretation” of Presidential power. [7] He also defined the Senate’s role in advice and consent on Presidential appointments “as a critical protection against “‘despotism,’ Freytag, 501 U. S., at 883”. [8]


The Concurrent Opinion was unprecedented in raising serious concerns over President Obama’s “aggrandizing the Presidency beyond its constitutional bounds and undermining respect for the separation of powers”. [9] It also challenged Obama’s rationale, “I can conceive of no sane constitutional theory…requiring us to defer to the views of the Executive Branch”. [10]


Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito stood firm against Obama’s power grab by embracing the founding principles of America, “the limitation upon the President’s appointment power is there not for the benefit of the Senate, but for the protection of the people”. [11]


Scot Faulkner served as Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives and as a Member of the Reagan White House Staff.  He earned a Master’s Degree in Public Administration from American University, and a Bachelor’s Degree in Government from Lawrence University


NOTES:
[1] Tr. of Oral Arg. 21; page 74. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1281_mc8p.pdf
[2] NLRB versus Noel Canning, ET AL; No. 12–1281. Argued January 13, 2014—Decided June 26, 2014; 573 U. S. ____ (2014); 705 F. 3d 490, affirmed; Page 41.
[3] Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 76, p. 513 (J. Cooke ed. 1961).
[4] NLRB versus Noel Canning, ET AL; No. 12–1281. 573 U. S. ____ (2014); page 26.
[5] Ibid; page 43.
[6] Ibid; page 60. Scalia jointed by Justices Thomas, Roberts, and Alito.
[7] Ibid; page 61.
[8] Ibid; page 70.
[9] Ibid; page 108.
[10] Ibid; page 106.
[11] Ibid; page 107.

Home Alone

This also appears at http://www.constitutingamerica.org/blog/congress-communication-breakdown-guest-essayist-scot-faulkner/


The world where House and Senate Chambers are packed with Members attentively listening to their colleagues ended long before films like “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” and “Advise and Consent” paid it homage.


The Legislative Branch was intended to be the shining ideal of ordered debate and civil discourse. 


Thomas Jefferson eloquently spoke of this noble mission, “Congress is the great commanding theater of this nation. It is the place where laws are made.” [1]


Originally, the Chambers themselves were designed to foster the exchange of ideas and the forging of national policy through intellectual inquiry. [2]


Today both Houses of the Legislative Branch are pale reflections of these ideals.  Members of the House of Representatives and Senate trade prepackaged partisan barbs to empty chambers. 


“Congress is changing as an institution, and what you see is more and more members gearing their speeches as sound bites or YouTube clips,” said Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation.  [3]


What happened to the institution where, “members quoted Shakespeare on the floor and really engaged in debate and talked to each other and tried to reason back and forth?” [4]


Blame the size and complexity of the Federal Government.


The conflict between legislative business occurring at center stage versus behind the scenes started in the Continental Congress.  Even during the formative stages of America, there were committees that met away from the Chamber to prepare legislation for consideration.


These committees were temporary in nature.  Ad hoc committees were established within the House and Senate for a particular purpose and ended when they completed their task.  Selecting committee membership was a function of the entire body.  Committee members were usually the sponsors of specific bills and resolutions. These temporary committees were formed with one week deadlines for reporting back to the parent chamber.  Members of the House and Senate actually spent the majority of their time collectively in the “committee of the whole” to conduct legislative business. [5]


The first permanent, or “standing committee”, was the House’s Committee on Ways and Means in 1801. It took until 1816 before the Senate created its first standing committees.  Even with standing committees; committee chairs and members acted as limited adjuncts to the full House and Senate. [6]


The rise of Andrew Jackson and “Jacksonian Democrats” ushered in modern political parties. 


Partisan alignments seeped into the workings of the Legislative Branch.  By 1846 Members began to sit together in the Senate chamber according to party affiliation.  That same year saw the shift to committee assignments based upon recommendations of political party caucuses. [7]


Even with the rise of partisanship and standing committees, legislation was primarily handled by Members conducting learned debate in Chambers packed with colleagues and the public.


Congressional debates mattered and the future of America was being discussed and shaped every day the House and Senate were in session. The leaders of Washington society eagerly attended these sessions. The public filled the Senate’s “Ladies’ Gallery” and even sat on couches along the walls of the Senate Floor. [8]


America was growing and the strategic issue of slavery expanding westward dominated legislative debate. The issues were large and larger than life political leaders rose to voice concerns on behalf of the various regions of the United States.


The years 1810 through 1859, were a period known as the “Golden Age” of the Senate.  During this time three of the greatest senators and orators in American history served there: Henry Clay (Kentucky) articulating the views and concerns of the West, Daniel Webster (Massachusetts) representing the North, and John C. Calhoun (South Carolina) representing the South.


During these years America’s political leaders debated and resolved major issues on the Floors of the House and Senate.  These included the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the nullification debate of 1830 (Haynes-Webster debates), and the Compromise of1850. “Washington's elite gathered to watch the impassioned oratory and the great compromises that took place in this Chamber.” [9]


”On any given day, you’d find most of the senators at their desks in the chamber … writing, listening, debating, laughing, sleeping, franking mail. They were all present. No doubt, this was conducive to debate and resulted in some great discussions and arguments. The crowded Chamber also provided a great show for the visitors in the gallery.” [10]


There was power in oratory. The debates among Clay, Webster, Calhoun, and others mattered. These debates over America’s future became touch stones of our nation’s civic culture. For example, Daniel Webster’s speeches were so famous, “that his reply “Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!” to Senator Robert Hayne in a debate in 1830 was memorized by schoolboys and was on the lips of Northern soldiers as they charged forward in the Civil War.” [11]


The “Golden Age” made the House and Senate Chambers center stage in the Legislative Branch and in the nation. However, other forces were at work to pull power and attention away from this national forum.


Government was growing slowly, but incessantly. By 1856 the complexities of government, and its legislation, required major committees to hire clerical staff. For another fifty years House and Senate Members made do with cramped quarters in the ever expanding Capitol Building. The House of Representatives met in its new chamber on December 16, 1857, and the Senate first met in its new chamber on January 4, 1859. [12] During this time Members attended full sessions of the House and Senate in part because there was no other place for them to work. [13]


This fundamentally changed in the 20th Century. The Russell Senate Office Building opened in 1909.


The Cannon House Office Building opened in 1908. Members began to spend more time in their offices or attending committee meetings. The role of the House and Senate Chambers diminished to a place for voting instead of debating. Eventually, six office buildings would be filled with Members and their staffs.


Another blow to the stature of Chamber debate was the surge in executive branch activism under the Progressives (Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson), Democrats (Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson), and ultimately Presidents of both parties.


Big government forever changed the role of the Legislative Branch. Members had to confront more than legislation. Their offices became “mini-embassies” representing and advising their constituents on navigating the ever growing morass of government programs and agencies.


Members soon realized that power resided in minutiae rather than big issues. By specializing in niche issues and becoming experts on micro-matters they became brokers for legislative processes.


Unblocking choke points meant cutting deals with their colleagues and special interests. Members helping district and special interests to navigate the increasingly complex government labyrinth were rewarded with votes and donations. The road to power and riches ceased to be in front of the scenes, and settled into the dark recesses behind the scenes.


Efforts were made to reverse this undemocratic trend. In 1946, Congress tried to winnow down and streamline the hundreds of committees that blossomed during the New Deal and World War II. [14] Instead, The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 expanded staffs and institutionalized Member focus away from Floor debate. [15]


The number of committee meetings grew as government grew. During the 85th Congress (1957-1958) there were 3,750 House meetings and 2,748 Senate meetings.  By the 95th Congress (1977-1978) it was 7,896 House meetings and 3,960 Senate meetings. [16] Members had to pick and choose which meetings to attend, trading time for their staff, constituents, lobbyists, and donors.  Hearing rooms became just as empty as their parent Chamber.


Social media and fundraising have joined the competition for Members’ over stretched attention.  Lost in this cacophony is Jefferson’s ideal of civil discourse.  The towering figures of the Golden Age are now just names on statues that Members pass on their way to Chambers where they quickly vote and leave.


[Scot Faulkner served as the first Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives.]


FOOTNOTES
[1] http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/congress/educators/
[2] Richard Chenowerth, “The Most Beautiful Room in the World; Latrobe, Jefferson, and the First Capitol”; The Capitol Dome, Fall 2014; p. 24-39.
[3] http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/22/news/la-pn-study-congress-sounding-increasingly-like-teenagers-20120521
[4] Ibid
[5] http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Committees.htm
[6] “The Committee System.” Boundless Political Science. Boundless, 25 Jan. 2015. https://www.boundless.com/political-science/textbooks/boundless-political-science-textbook/congress-11/organization-of-congress-77/the-committee-system-426-4995/ 
[7] http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/VP_John_Calhoun.htm
[8] http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/VP_Daniel_Tompkins.htm
[9] http://www.clotureclub.com/2012/10/old-senate-chamber-history-and-facts/
[10] Betty K. Koed; “The Ten Most Important Things to Know About the U.S. Senate”; United States Senate Historical Office. http://www.dirksencenter.org/print_expert_tenthingssenate.htm
[11] Craig R. Smith, “Daniel Webster and the Oratory of Civil Religion”; January 30, 2005; University of Missouri Press.
[12] http://www.aoc.gov/history-us-capitol-building
[13] Joanna Hallac; “Old Senate Chamber” https://uschs.wordpress.com/tag/dr-william-thornton/
[14] The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (PL 601 79th Congress); https://bulk.resource.org/gao.gov/79-601/00001E13.pdf
[15] George B. Galloway; “The Operation of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946”; The American Political Science Review, Vol. 45, No. 1, (Mar., 1951), pp. 41-68 American Political Science Association; page 56; http://people.brandeis.edu/~woll/gallowaylegreorgact46.pdf
[16] Norman J. Ornstein, Thomas E. Mann, Michael J. Malbin, Andrew Rugg and Raffaela Wakeman Vital Statistics on Congress Data on the U.S. Congress – A Joint Effort from Brookings and the American Enterprise Institute ; July 2013 http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2013/07/vital-statistics-congress-mann-ornstein

Congressional Kairos: The Time Has Fully Come

Guest Columnist: Donald G. Mutersbaugh, Sr.

[Editor’s Note: The 2014 Elections should be very straight forward as history favors the opposition party during off-year elections in a President’s second term. Some trends already point in that direction: http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/195889-expanded-2014-senate-map-boosts-gop-confidence. However, Republicans have seized defeat from the jaws of victory in both 2010 and 2012 with “kooky” Senate candidates and highly divisive primaries. The GOP is already proving its own worst enemy http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140119/OPINION01/301190003. As usual, Don’s article is a thoughtful assessment of the current situation.]

This is going to be a tough pill to swallow. I believe that the Republican Party does not stand a chance of winning any seats in the upcoming Senate elections – unless it makes substantial changes – soon. I will just present excerpts from a variety of articles and sources. Does anyone else see trouble if there is no change?

As of December 31, 2013 a Real Clear Politics poll – an average of seven other national polls – show that 13.1% approve of Congress and 81.0% disapprove. Good or bad for Republicans? You be the judge. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html

From Gallup Politics dated December 11, 2013: “Americans continue to see the Democratic and Republican parties unfavorably, as a year marred by high-profile policy failures for both parties comes to a close. The Republican Party's favorability has improved slightly to 32% from an all-time low of 28% in October during the government shutdown, while 61% now view the GOP unfavorably. The Democratic Party -- on the defensive recently for the flawed rollout of the healthcare website -- maintains a favorable rating of 42%. But a majority of Americans, 53%, now see the party unfavorably, up from 49% in October.” http://www.gallup.com/poll/166202/democratic-party-maintains-favorability-edge-gop.aspx

From Gallup Politics dated January 8, 2014: “Forty-two percent of Americans, on average, identified as political independents in 2013, the highest Gallup has measured since it began conducting interviews by telephone 25 years ago. Meanwhile, Republican identification fell to 25%, the lowest over that time span. At 31%, Democratic identification is unchanged from the last four years but down from 36% in 2008.” http://www.gallup.com/poll/166763/record-high-americans-identify-independents.aspx 

The article continues in the next two paragraphs:

“Americans are increasingly declaring independence from the political parties. It is not uncommon for the percentage of independents to rise in a non-election year, as 2013 was. Still, the general trend in recent years, including the 2012 election year, has been toward greater percentages of Americans identifying with neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party, although most still admit to leaning toward one of the parties.” 

And,“The increased independence adds a greater level of unpredictability to this year's congressional midterm elections. Because U.S. voters are less anchored to the parties than ever before, it's not clear what kind of appeals may be most effective to winning votes. But with Americans increasingly eschewing party labels for themselves, candidates who are less closely aligned to their party or its prevailing doctrine may benefit.”

From the Center for Responsive Politics: Let's look at Senate reelection rates. In 2008 it was 83%; 2010 it was 84%; in 2012 it was 91%. “Senate races still overwhelmingly favor the incumbent, but not by as reliable a margin as House races. Big swings in the national mood can sometimes topple long time office-holders, as happened with the Reagan revolution in 1980. Even so, years like that are an exception.” http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php?cycle=2012

This analysis, done by Larry J. Sabato, for Politico Magazine, highlights my concerns:

“Ultimately, the 2014 battle for the Senate, which Democrats now hold 55-45, is close. It will be an enormous shock if Republicans do not gain seats and at least reduce the margin of Democratic control. If the GOP can restrain its cannibalistic instincts and tendency to nominate flawed candidates[emphasis mine], then to retake the Senate it need only match the post-World War II average gain of six seats for the party out of power in the White House in the sixth year of two-term administrations. At this point, I’d set the over/under on Republican gains in the Senate at 3.5, and I’d take the over—meaning a net gain of four or more Senate seats for the GOP. If Republicans end up dipping under, they will have had their third consecutive underperformance in Senate contests. On the contrary, if even a modest-sized wave develops for Republicans next fall, the third time could be the charm for the GOP’s goal of a Senate takeover.

“The ebb and flow of politics is one of the few constants throughout American history, and 2014 will be no exception. The GOP fared well in 2002 and 2004, then it was the Democrats’ turn in 2006 and 2008. Since then, the back-and-forth cycle has speeded up, with Republicans winning handsomely in 2010 and Democrats in 2012. In the quick “surge and decline” politics of our highly polarized era, the early bet has to be on Republicans to do well in 2014—despite themselves [emphasis mine].” http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/midterm-elections-republicans-really-could-win-2014-101802.html#ixzz2pqQqq03b

From a previous post by me on Citizen Oversight on February 25, 2013 on the statistical possibility of a Republican takeover of the Senate: “Now, to the interesting part; consider the following statistics. When there is a Democratic President and a Republican Senate, the Republicans controlled 52 seats and the Democrats controlled 47 seats (vacancies cause the unequal numbers). When there is a Republican President and a Democratic Senate, the Democrats controlled 55 seats and the Republicans controlled 43 seats. In the 113^th Congress (2013- 2015), with a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate, the Republicans control 45 seats and the Democrats control 55 seats (the two independents are considered Democrats for this analysis). But this brings up an interesting question: since the Republicans are statistically projected to win in 2014, how will this occur since they will need to keep the existing numbers and win at least six more seats?

“To answer this question, I did some research and found the following discussion of extreme interest: Twenty-one of the 35 seats up for election are now held by Democrats. Moreover, most [sic] the states that will be casting ballots for the Senate in 2014 are Republican leaning: 7 of the 21 Democratic-held seats are in states carried by the former Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, while just one of the Republican seats is in a state won by President Obama.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/can-republicans-win-the-senate-in-2014/#more-38683

“I would encourage everyone to read the complete analysis by Nate Silver. It is excellent! He continues:

“Are the conditions favorable enough to make Republicans odds-on favorites to gain six seats and win the Senate majority? Not quite. Six seats are a lot to gain, and Republicans are at risk of nominating subpar candidates in a number of races. But it would not take all that much to tip the balance toward them….

“Summing up the possibilities across all 35 Senate races yields a net gain of four to five seats for Republicans, just short of the six they would need to win back the majority.

“However, the margin of error on the calculation is very high at this early stage…. If Republicans swept all the “lean” and “tossup” races, they would gain a net of eight seats from Democrats, giving them a 53-to-47 majority in the 114th Congress. If Democrats swept instead, they would lose just one seat and would hold a 54-to-46 majority. Considering the uncertainty in the landscape, estimates from betting markets that Democrats have about a 63 percent chance of holding their majority appear to be roughly reasonable.

“It is more than just a little bit exciting to see Political Hysteresis at work projecting a 53 to 47 Republican majority when one of the greatest American statisticians and psephologists, Nate Silver, opens the door to the possibility of a Republican win in 2014 – by the same numbers!”

http://citizenoversight.blogspot.com/2013/02/political-hysteresis-part-deux.html

[The Cook Political Report published this chart on December 19, 2013: http://cookpolitical.com/senate/charts/race-ratings for specific projections.]

I really do not like opening my analysis with so many quotes from other sources, but the facts are the facts; and after reading several articles, the above analysis prevailed in all of them. The conservative base is necessary for the survival of the Republican Party; trying to broaden the Party’s image by changing the messaging further dilutes the Democratic-Republican differentiation that exists now. These and other issues are dividing the Party; but how can the Party ever hope to win elections when it can’t even agree on the critical platform planks that the Republican candidates need to promote and defend?

Given this scenario, to bring all of the groups into a big tent coalition without alienating the conservative core of the Republican Party will be a very difficult task. I would even go so far as to say that it could not occur before the election season begins. So from my perspective, I would like to suggest the following: the Republican Party needs a big ticket, one that all Americans can agree on; and an issue so great that it would transcend all political positions. May I suggest term limits for Congress?

The Heritage Foundation states: “Term Limits: The Only Way to Clean Up Congress”: “Such substantial public support suggests widespread distaste for careerism in politics, as well as a conviction that continual infusion of fresh blood into the federal legislature will be good for both the Congress and the country. 

Support for term limits extends to significant majorities of diverse demographic groups: polls show that majorities of men, women, blacks, whites, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents all favor term limits, typically by 60 percent or better…. Term limits are a vital political reform that would bring new perspectives to Congress, mandate frequent legislative turnover, and diminish incentives for wasteful election-related federal spending that currently flourish in a careerist congressional culture.” 

[http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1994/08/bg994nbsp-term-limitsnbsp-the-only-way]

I would suggest that the Republican Party reframe the debate to not say “What is good for the Republican Party?” Rather, what the message should say is “What is good for the American people?” The Republicans should have this as their central theme for each of their candidates: “If elected, I will bring all of the powers of this office into play to enact legislation that will create term limits for Congress.” If presented sincerely, I cannot help to believe that it would attract voters from all political spectrums, thereby marginalizing the debate on some other issues where the Republican Party is viewed unfavorably.

It is inevitable that term limits will be implemented. If it is not legislated as an amendment, it is inevitable that an Article V Constitutional convention will be called. Wikipedia summarizes this as follows: “Depending upon whether or not rescissions between 1988 and 2010 in some of states that had previously petitioned for such a Convention during the 1970s and 1980s are in fact valid, then Ohio's 2013 petition is either the 19th or the 33rd. If Ohio's 2013 petition is deemed to be the 33rd, then the Nation is currently again just one state shy of an Article V Convention being triggered.” 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution 

Why not take the initiative and do term limits now? If a full-blown Article V Convention is called, Pandora's Box will be reopened – and I'm sure that the Law of Unintended Consequences will prevail if the entire Constitution is put on the drawing board to be reworked.

I would recommend that everybody read The Heritage Foundation article cited above. It was written in 1994; but the analysis and conclusions reached then – are even more obvious today. The author's conclusion from this study: “It is difficult to overstate the extent to which term limits would change Congress. They are supported by large majorities of most American demographic groups; they are opposed primarily by incumbent politicians and the special interest groups which depend on them. Term limits would ameliorate many of America's most serious political problems by counterbalancing incumbent advantages, ensuring congressional turnover, securing independent congressional judgment, and reducing election-related incentives for wasteful government spending. Perhaps most important, Congress would acquire a sense of its own fragility and temporariness, possibly even coming to learn that it would acquire more legitimacy as an institution by doing better work on fewer tasks.” [Ibid]

The idea that the RNC will have as its centerpiece campaign slogans which are anti-Obamacare, and the advertisements will probably work – but not all the way. People are tired of the negativity that the Republican Party pushes; but by this fall, we, the people, will have “read” and “lived” through this monstrosity. So provide a constant reminder of its failure; but provide some original thinking so the electorate can see that we want to build as well as tear down. I would be very surprised if embracing term limits did not electrify the electorate and cause that tremendous, independent base to gravitate towards the Republicans.

_______________________________________________________

Donald G. Mutersbaugh, Sr. earned his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Maryland and his Master of Business Administration degree from Mary Washington College. He is the former Associate Administrator of Information Resources for the U.S House of Representatives under Speaker Newt Gingrich.

Congress Heal Thyself

Thank you, Senator Tom Coburn, for once again shining light on how much of our tax dollars are wasted.

Senator Coburn’s has now turned his flood lights on Congress itself. The U.S. Senate remains mired in the 19th Century - providing taxpayer subsidized services to its Members and staff. Millions of dollars are spent underwriting substandard consumer services with no end or accountability in sight.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/30/should-congress-take-haircut-senator-says-barbershop-other-perks-ripe-for/

The same situation existed in the U.S. House of Representatives until the revolution of the 104th Congress (1995-1997). In the first few months of 1995, the newly created Office of the Chief Administrative Officer led the way in privatizing and downsizing everything possible in House operations.

Opening of Privatized House Beauty Parlor - October 17, 1995

There is a good reason to have personal services located within the buildings of Capitol Hill. Nearly 20,000 employees work, sometimes 24-7, to support the Congressional process. Long hours make it very difficult to schedule personal mail runs, haircuts, shoe repair & shines, and meals. Thousands of “captive customers”, along with 3 million tourists a year, should be “manna from heaven” for enterprising vendors. However, until the election of 1994, these vendor operations were composed of highly prized patronage positions. Members from both parties carved-up these petty fiefdoms and brokered positions for votes and kickbacks. Mistresses and dysfunctional nephews were stashed in these ever more bloated and subsidized services.

The network of unaccountable, corrupt, and wasteful services institutionalized a kleptocracy that found increasingly ingenious ways to steal public funds. This culture began to fall apart as the thievery and sexual misconduct became too much for many of its protectors. One scandal after another erupted in the early 1990s, leading to the downfall of the forty-year rule by the Democrats in the House.

Incoming Republican leaders, including Newt Gingrich, John Boehner, Jim Nussle, and Ron Packard, knew that they had limited time to end these abuses before their cynical colleagues created their own version of the kleptocracy. The early months of 1995 witnessed a vicious internal struggle as Republican kleptomaniac wannabes battled with reformers over privatization, downsizing, and accountability. Thankfully for America, the reformers won. House services were forever changed. Bloated operations that wasted millions turned into private operations paying 4+% of their gross sales back to the House. Along with it came a business-based culture focused on service excellence and profit. In the process $184 million was saved in less than 18 months, of which $36 million was reprogrammed to create a 21st Century “CyberCongress”.

Opening of Privatized House Shoe Repair and Shine Services - October 2, 1995

These radical changes were supported by many reform-minded Democrats, like Rep. Steny Hoyer. Hoyer had led a similar effort during his tenure as President of the Maryland State Senate. The impacts of ongoing savings, improved services, and accountability were so overwhelming positive that Speaker Nancy Pelosi not only embraced them, but consulted with the former Republican CAO’s team on how to continue the reform process. When Speaker Boehner took the helm, he enthusiastically continued the business focused operations.

So what happened in the U.S. Senate? Nothing! It took until 2008 for the Senate to finally vote to privatize its food services - ending over $2 million in annual waste. Now Senator Coburn is blowing the whistle on the Senate’s barber shops, beauty parlors, and other wasteful and subsidized service operations.

Media scrutiny is also ratcheting-up http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/supercuts_707691.html.

Unfortunately, these are only voices in the wilderness as Senate Leaders and key managers dither while our tax dollars burn.

Political Hysteresis: Part Deux

[Guest Contributor - Donald G. Mutersbaugh, Sr.]

In a previous blog titled “The Great Republican Hope: Political Hysteresis” (citizenoversight.blogspot.org, February 11, 2013), I presented the possibility that by just looking at the statistical relationships between Republican and Democratic presidencies over the years produced the possibility that a Republican would win the presidency in 2016. I began thinking about possible relationships between Democratic and Republican control of the Senate over the years. I decided to go back and analyze the data from 1861 to present regarding which party controlled the Senate. I once again have good news to report to the Republican Party: it may be their turn recapture control of the Senate in 2014 – at least statistically.

I previously decided to call this behavior Political Hysteresis: the tendency of an electoral outcome to vary about the central tendency of moderation based upon past and current candidates for the office of President. I am extending this definition now to include candidates for the Senate as a cohort analyzed by party (i.e., the Democrats and the Republicans). Granted, it is the candidate’s position and the Party's platform that drive the election. However, I would like to reiterate a simpler reason: hysteresis. “Hysteresis is the dependence of a system not only on its current environment but also on its past environment….To predict its future development, either its internal state or its history must be known.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hystersis]

Consider the following summary detailing which party was actually in control:

 
The matrix shows that Republicans have an average of 9 years of continuous term control; Democrats average 8 years (black is a correct prediction; red is an incorrect prediction). If you start in 1861 and add the average of 9 years to the ending year of control, you can correctly predict the Republicans in control subsequently 5 times, or 56%; using 8 years, you can correctly predict the Democrats in control subsequently 6 times, or 67%. (Note: I used ending years to predict the beginning year of control.)

However, if you start in 1861 and come forward in nine year increments, as a statistical projection, the Republicans will win in 2014 (i.e., 1861, 1870, 1879…2014). Unfortunately, the prediction accuracy is only slightly over 50%. The good news is that the Democratic prediction accuracy is 67%; it correctly predicted that the Democrats would win in 2013 (i.e., in 8 year increments 1869, 1877, 1885…2013) – but not in 2014! (Note: The years are slightly overlapping which produces 2013 vs. 2012.)

Now, to the interesting part; consider the following statistics. When there is a Democratic President and a Republican Senate, the Republicans controlled 52 seats and the Democrats controlled 47 seats (vacancies cause the unequal numbers). When there is a Republican President and a Democratic Senate, the Democrats controlled 55 seats and the Republicans controlled 43 seats. In the 113th Congress (2013- 2015), with a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate, the Republicans control 45 seats and the Democrats control 55 seats (the two independents are considered Democrats for this analysis). But this brings up an interesting question: since the Republicans are statistically projected to win in 2014, how will this occur since they will need to keep the existing numbers and win at least six more seats?

To answer this question, I did some research and found the following discussion of extreme interest: Twenty-one of the 35 seats up for election are now held by Democrats. Moreover, most [sic] the states that will be casting ballots for the Senate in 2014 are Republican leaning: 7 of the 21 Democratic-held seats are in states carried by the former Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, while just one of the Republican seats is in a state won by President Obama.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/can-republicans-win-the-senate-in-2014/#more-38683

I would encourage everyone to read the complete analysis by Nate Silver. It is excellent! He continues:

Are the conditions favorable enough to make Republicans odds-on favorites to gain six seats and win the Senate majority? Not quite. Six seats are a lot to gain, and Republicans are at risk of nominating subpar candidates in a number of races. But it would not take all that much to tip the balance toward them….

Summing up the possibilities across all 35 Senate races yields a net gain of four to five seats for Republicans, just short of the six they would need to win back the majority.

However, the margin of error on the calculation is very high at this early stage…. If Republicans swept all the “lean” and “tossup” races, they would gain a net of eight seats from Democrats, giving them a 53-to-47 majority in the 114th Congress. If Democrats swept instead, they would lose just one seat and would hold a 54-to-46 majority. Considering the uncertainty in the landscape, estimates from betting markets that Democrats have about a 63 percent chance of holding their majority appear to be roughly reasonable.

It is more than just a little bit exciting to see Political Hysteresis at work projecting a 53 to 47 Republican majority when one of the greatest American statisticians and psephologists, Nate Silver, opens the door to the possibility of a Republican win in 2014 – by the same numbers!

FUBAR

[Overly complex ways to do simple things - by Rube Goldberg]

In the summer of 2011, Republicans and Democrats finally realized that the structural flaws in America’s fiscal management had to be addressed sooner rather than later. They created a fictional “fiscal cliff” that would deliver horrendously real consequences if all sides of the issue did not rise to the challenge. Instead of ushering in serious bi-partisan analysis and action, it accelerated and amplified the partisanship, exposing the fundamental dysfunctions of both political parties and of the Legislative and Executive Branches.

Just hours before the debacle of “Plan B” in the House, ABC-Australia reported on the realities and fantasies of the fiscal cliff. What follows is the transcript of their report.  The audio file can be heard at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-21/republicans-try-to-pass-plan-b-on-fiscal-cliff/4440368

EMILY BOURKE: To the United States now, where there's been furious last minute political wrangling over the so-called fiscal cliff and the mix of tax hikes and spending cuts.

As the clock ticks down towards the year-end deadline, Republicans have crafted a back-up plan in case a broader agreement can't be reached with the White House.

The Republican-dominated House of Representatives has passed a bill to cut domestic spending but after an abrupt recess, the Republicans decided to postpone a vote on tax breaks, having failed to get the numbers.

But it appears the Republican effort will be futile with Democrats in the Senate and the president vowing to block a Republican plan either way.

From Washington, Kim Landers reports.

KIM LANDERS: A few days ago a deal seemed possible.

President Barack Obama and House Republican speaker John Boehner continued to talk about how to avoid steep tax increases and spending cuts - the so-called fiscal cliff which is designed to reduce the federal deficit.

But now the two sides are further apart than ever before, openly trading political blows in the media all day.

JOHN BOEHNER: President Obama and Senate Democrats haven't done much of anything. Their plan B is just slow-walk us over the fiscal cliff and for weeks the White House said that if I moved on rates, that they would make substantial concessions on spending cuts and entitlement reforms. I did my part, they've done nothing.

KIM LANDERS: Jay Carney is the White House spokesman.

JAY CARNEY: But what we know about this exercise and we have seen this movie before is that when there was the opportunity for a compromise on something big and significant, the Republican leadership walked away and pursued something that was irrelevant to the rest of America.

KIM LANDERS: Late today, the Republican-dominated House of Representatives narrowly passed a bill to cut domestic spending.

But even before the votes were taken, the Democrat-dominated Senate was signalling that the measures would fail in the Upper House.

Dick Durbin is a Democratic senator from Illinois.

DICK DURBIN: Remember the closing scene in Thelma and Louise? Rather than face the reality of what lies ahead, they hit the gas. That's what we're hearing from speaker Boehner now, hit the gas and go over the cliff.

KIM LANDERS: Scot Faulkner is the former chief administrator of the US House of Representatives. He's highly doubtful that a deal can be struck before the end of the year.

SCOT FAULKNER: Both sides have dug themselves so deep into their trenches that you are not going to see a deal until after the first of the year and a new Congress comes in and the problem is that both sides really don't think the fiscal cliff is going to happen no matter how much they posture to the public and they both think the other side is going to give more ground and nobody is going to give more ground.

KIM LANDERS: Many government agencies are already preparing their employees for the impact of the looming budget cuts.

The US defence secretary Leon Panetta says uniformed military personnel will be exempt. But he's told civilian Pentagon employees that while no workers will face immediate unpaid leave after January the 1st, furloughs might ultimately be necessary.

Scot Faulkner explains why neither Republicans nor Democrats want to give ground.

SCOT FAULKNER: They're still thinking in terms of campaign mode, no-one is thinking in terms of governing.

KIM LANDERS: And can you suggest a reason why?

SCOT FAULKNER: They've not thought in terms of governing for over 12 years. You have, everybody is playing to their partisan audiences and in America you have very strong partisan newspapers, very strong partisan radio stations and cable television news stations and as long as their particular audience is cheering them on, no one is going to give ground and no one is going to shift from campaign mode into a governing mode.

KIM LANDERS: The impact of going over the so-called fiscal cliff has already been outlined.

According to the projections from the Congressional Budget Office, gross domestic product will drop by 0.5 per cent next year.

That contraction in the economy will cause unemployment to rise to 9.1 per cent in the fourth quarter of 2013.

But the agency estimates that after next year, economic growth will pick up and the labour market will strengthen with unemployment shrinking to 5.5 per cent by 2018.

SCOT FAULKNER: What will happen is that the first time that thing hits, one of those indicators hit recession, the recession zone, you will then have a scramble for everyone to first blame everyone else and then say okay, what can we do about this and so I think it's going to take an economic shock to finally get the political system working, even if it is only superficially.

KIM LANDERS: Scot Faulkner believes there is still time to strike a deal before the end of the year but even if that happens, he thinks it'll be a bandaid solution.

SCOT FAULKNER: At this point if they try to do anything, it's going to be either kick the can down the road hoping something else will happen or it will be very superficial. I mean they'll announce it as the coming of the new age but it'll be very superficial and not solve any of the fundamental issues facing America.

KIM LANDERS: The president is due to head to Hawaii for his Christmas holiday soon. It's unclear if the stalemate over the fiscal cliff is going to play havoc with those plans.

This is Kim Landers in Washington for The World Today.

Raising Revenue Responsibly

This article was published on the History News Network

 http://hnn.us/articles/how-solve-fiscal-cliff-problem-responsibly

There are three legs to the stool of Federal Fiscal Solvency - Cut spending, entitlement reform, and revenue generation. Few of the Washington power players are realistically discussing any of these, but revenue has generated the most polarized rhetoric.

All our lives are impacted by the way our Federal Government raises the $2.9 trillion it needs to function. That is why it is important that any revenue element of a “Fiscal Cliff” deal is weighed not only for the amount, but for its “tax incidence”.

“Tax incidence” charts the various ways government amasses its revenue and how these ways impact individuals, industries, demographics, and “geographics”. Our current “progressive rate” income tax system and the strategic reform proposals of the flat tax, fair tax, and Value Added Tax (VAT) all generate significantly different impacts on our individual spending habits and our overall national economy.

Tax policy punishes or promotes economic activity either with intended or unintended consequences. Government tax policy has become social policy, resulting in an amazingly complex and voluminous tax code. The federal tax code is over 5.6 million words or 3,458 pages – seven times longer than the Bible, depending on the edition. Each page, sentence, phrase, and punctuation of this Tax Code, and its countless regulations, instructions, and manuals, determine winners and losers within the economy. These regulations are further subject to equally voluminous interpretation through administrative and judicial rulings.

There are nearly an infinite number of ways individuals, companies, and an array of other entities, can navigate this tax landscape. Lost in this morass is the original intent for many of these pathways and how they are supposed to positively guide economic behavior while raising desired revenue.

Democrats obsess over raising tax rates on the wealthy, and Republicans remain vague about “tax reform”. Thankfully, one person has conducted a detailed review of the Federal Tax Code and found $992 billion in possible tax saving/new revenue over the next ten years – without raising tax rates.

In July 2011, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) issued his “Back in Black” report. http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/?p=deficit-reduction

“Back in Black” is a 624-page detailed, line by line, analysis of how the Federal Government can cut waste, achieve operational efficiency, and find the revenue needed to get out of debt.

Coburn’s final section (pages 558-624) addresses how decades of tax policy decisions have created a multitude of opportunities for special interests to avoid taxes, or obtain tax incentives and subsidies, while harming the general populace (pushing the tax burden onto others and driving up the debt).

Reviewing some of Senator Coburn’s examples of how our tax code runs amok is instructive and sobering. Coburn’s ideas represent the most economically neutral opportunities for new revenue and should be part of any strategic “Fiscal Cliff” agreement.

Subsidizing millionaires - Individuals with over a million dollars in income benefit from more than $7 billion in tax relief annually through the mortgage interest deduction. Under current law, homeowners can deduct the interest paid on home mortgages for primary residences and vacation homes loans of up to $1 million, resulting in lost federal revenue of nearly $88 billion. Even a yacht can be considered a second residence—as long as the luxury boat has a “sleeping, cooking, and toilet facility” and an individual lives in it for at least two weeks a year.

Subsidizing foreigner gamblers - Americans must pay taxes on their winnings at horse and dog tracks in the United States, but not foreigners. This deprives the Federal Government of $30 million over the next ten years.

Subsidizing Hollywood – In order to encourage Hollywood to produce feature films and television programs in the United States, entertainment companies may deduct up to $15 million in certain costs associated with the production of television episodes and movies where at least 75 percent of the compensation costs are for work performed on U.S. soil. Allowing Hollywood to benefit from this accelerated cost recovery results in federal revenue losses of at least $30 million a year.

Allowing fraud - Within the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC), individuals without a valid Social Security Number (SSN) claim $1.780 billion a year, or $17.8 billion over ten years. Congress has not provided the IRS with adequate authority to deny these fraudulent claimants.

No documented impact – The 1993 Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) is supposed to hold every federal activity accountable for actually achieving intended results. GPRA is routinely ignored, not only for federal expenditures, but for tax expenditures. Two examples are Empowerment Zones (EZs) and Renewal Communities (RCs). EZs and RCs are federally designated poverty or distressed areas where businesses and local governments receive federal grants and tax incentives in exchange for locating and developing in these zones. Nearly $1.8 billion in grant incentives provided to EZs and RCs have been allocated since 1993. However, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Inspector General at Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) have not found any tangible improvement in community outcomes.

Bailouts without end - The IRS has excluded major Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) recipients from certain tax obligations for potentially the next 20 years. These TARP recipients may avoid paying more than $90 billion combined in taxes because of this special tax treatment. This includes AIG, which has accumulated over $25.6 billion in carry-forwards and other tax-deferred assets; New GM, which will avoid as much as $45.4 billion in taxes because of the Treasury Department‘s exemptions; and Citi, which will use $23.2 billion in carry-forwards and other credit carryovers in just one year.

Malfeasance - The Internal Revenue Service found nearly 100,000 civilian federal employees were delinquent on their federal income taxes, owing over $1 billion in unpaid federal income taxes. The federal government has also failed to collect more than $62 billion in penalties owed by swindlers, criminals and others cited for violating federal laws and regulations and this amount has increased dramatically.

It is truly sad that none of these issues were discussed during the 2012 campaign. Republicans, in particular, could have avoided being branded as coddling millionaires. Each side is equally guilty of over politicizing these serious management and economic issues. The fact that Senator Coburn’s published report has remained in the policy wilderness for the last seventeen months is unconscionable.

Fiscal Flim Flam

The following appeared in the Washington Examiner

http://washingtonexaminer.com/congress-white-house-budget-trickery-now-backfiring/article/2514965

The only way the real fiscal cliff can be addressed is for everyone in Washington, D.C., to stop talking about the fake one. Here's the reality: The bomb is about to explode in the hands of its own maker. There is no disaster looming, only one created by the same Congress and the same president who are now voicing dire warnings about sequestration. The coming demise of federal programs is a manufactured problem, designed to meet the partisan needs of each side of the current debate.

Congress and the White House assert that $1.2 trillion must be cut from the federal budget over the next 10 years. This multiyear effort commences on Jan. 1, 2013, with $50 billion in cuts from the Defense Department and $70 billion from discretionary domestic programs. Everyone in Washington, D.C., including the pundits, has been creating increasingly apocalyptic visions of what will happen should these cuts occur.

It never had to be this way. There is currently $2 trillion in unexpended balances arrayed throughout the federal government for the current fiscal year. According to both the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office, $687 billion of these balances are completely unobligated.

Again, in 2012, the Government Accountability Office, or GAO, and the 73 department and agency inspector general offices identified more than $650 billion in annual, ongoing waste. The vast majority of these findings, and the actions recommended to address them, have never been acted upon by either the executive or legislative branches.

Finally, there's the federal government's legendary and perpetually unaddressed inefficiency. Large private corporations, like Walmart, have at most five layers of management between their front line service personnel and top executives. The federal government has upwards of 23 layers.

Given these three facts, why are our political leaders saying that federal spending cannot be cut, and that they must have more of our earnings and wealth to make ends meet?

The sequestration cuts are a bogeyman, specifically designed to inflict as much damage as possible on American citizens. For example, 53 percent of the sequestration cuts within the Department of Education are within the Elementary & Secondary Education Act programs -- funds sent to states to supplement the salaries and hiring of teachers. The sequestration cuts 60.9 percent of these funds. That is why so many politicians and pundits are predicting massive teacher layoffs. Meanwhile, the sequestration targets only 4 percent of the Department of Education's headquarters budget. The bureaucrats wouldn't be missed, but they are safe. The teachers will be missed, and they are ground zero for cuts.

What should have been a serious management exercise has become a race to see who can paint the worst scenario should budget talks fail. Democrats cite the collapse of social services and education, while Republicans predict massive layoffs of defense contractors and the hollowing out of our military. Both sides predict chaos in the economy leading to a second recession.

Democrats won the election, so they are now in the best position to use this crisis that both parties manufactured. They are setting off a stampede for more tax revenue that Congress will probably just spend away anyway. Had Republicans won, they would probably be calling for ideologically focused spending cuts (like public broadcasting) to prevent the ruin of the military.

Congress and the White House designed the sequestration to wreak destruction on government services and the economy as a way to create a false sense of urgency for a substantive budget solution. Their plan, if it was a plan, has backfired.

Life after the Super Committee

My column regarding the Super Committee and what Congress can do now was published in the

New York Daily News on November 28, 2011.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/fight-cut-debt-target-rampant-federal-waste-article-1.982076

The Congressional supercommittee’s failure to eliminate $1.2 trillion in federal debt has launched a new round of “blamestorming” as both Republicans and Democrats brace for the automatic cuts that are set to begin in 2013.

Some perspective and focus are desperately needed. For while indiscriminate cutting may be unwise, it is simply mythical to insist, as some do, that there isn’t room to massively reduce the size of government.

To the contrary, Washington’s fiscal garden is overgrown from decades of negligence. In recent decades political gamesmanship from across the political spectrum has led our federal government to decline into a weed-infested jungle. The way back to proper public horticulture is not new taxes, which would only fertilize the culture of waste and dysfunction. It is also not through heavy handed cuts, as a general herbicide would kill even the fruit bearing plants.

The first step is to identify the weeds. The Government Accountability Office and 73 inspector general offices are filled with investigators and accountants who identify waste, fraud and abuse. Their exhaustive reports track to specific programs, offices and contracts and treasury account numbers — and identify billions of dollars in cost-cutting opportunities.

Yet they are routinely ignored. As a result of this neglect, the amount of documented waste has remained at a consistent 20% of the federal appropriated budget since first complied by the Grace Commission in the 1980s.

President Obama’s proposed appropriated outlays for FY 2012 are $1.34 trillion. That means $268 billion a year is potential waste. Ten years of eradicating waste and sustaining cost avoidance would result in $2.68 trillion in savings, more than double the savings mandated in this summer’s debt deal.

Instead of partisan bickering, our elected officials should review these GAO/IG reports and listen to the staff who wrote them. They should conduct “sweat the details” management reviews. Waste is waste no matter which party’s flag flies over the executive branch.

Simultaneously, Congress should do something it has not done in years, whether under Republican or Democratic control: conduct aggressive oversight and link funding to functionality. Zero-based budgeting has existed since 1969. Sunset provisions have been built into legislation since the 1970s. The Government Performance and Results Act, which holds programs and agencies accountable for actually doing something of value, was enacted in 1993. Eliminating programs and offices based upon audit findings can happen if the will is there.

America’s overgrown fiscal garden is also filled with a bloated bureaucracy. Walmart, the world’s largest corporation, has just five layers of management between its checkout clerks and the CEO. There are 12 layers of managers between a park ranger and the Secretary of Interior. There are 21 layers of management between the person handling TRICARE medical benefits and the Secretary of Defense.

The entrenched interests of Washington, including turf-conscious Members of Congress, play a cynical game of eliminating frontline service personnel and services instead of wiping out the many layers of people whose sole purposes are attending useless meetings and writing unread reports.

The front line is where voters feel pain. When the cry goes up, federal officials say, “see — that is why we can’t touch this program.” It’s a fallacy.

During my time in Washington, we proved budget cutting is possible. At the General Services Administration, a reform team cross-walked Inspector General reports to dysfunctional programs and offices, applied private sector logic to eradicating management layers and linked attrition, retirements and a hiring freeze to reduce the GSA’s workforce from 34,000 to 20,000 in three years. This was a 41% reduction — yet system integrity, processing time, and operational efficiency skyrocketed.

As Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives, we reduced 12 layers of managers down to two and reduced my operations staff by 47.5% in 15 months. Again, services improved along with efficiency.

In each case, real sustainable management reform required hard work, not just issuing news releases. Like a gardener who gets his or her hands dirty by handling individual plants and pulling weeds, legislative and executive branch officials need to do the mundane, but vital, tasks of actually understanding operations and management.
The reason they do not do this is that it is laborious, not glamorous. Our current political culture does not reward results. Maybe enough voters will finally change this culture in November 2012.

[Faulkner served in executive appointments during the Reagan administration and as chief administrative officer of the U.S. House of Representatives.]

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/fight-cut-debt-target-rampant-federal-waste-article-1.982076#ixzz283pmTzKg

Running On Empty

Congress is stumbling towards one of its longest summer recesses. The Republicans, for the first time since losing the 2006 elections, are finally acting like a viable opposition party. Their issue is forcing a vote on offshore drilling. Speaker Pelosi is stalling any real action until her pollsters and operatives find a way for Democrats to respond to consumer pain at the pump while not alienating environmentalists.

Once again Washington politicians want Americans to turn to them for leadership, but hope empty rhetoric will suffice. They top Marie Antoinette – it is now “let them eat symbols” instead of “let them eat cake”.

Policy avoidance would be enough for Americans to dislike and distrust Congress. However, members from both parties are also proving they have not lost their appetite for graft and corruption. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) is Chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee. He has admitted to raising $12.2 million from companies and individuals, associated with his committee, for the “Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service”. He has also used his power to earmark tax dollars for his Center. Many of the “gifts” look like back door donations that skirt federal election and tax laws. This sordid paper trail was even too much for The Washington Post, which launched its own investigation and has bluntly editorialized about the whole matter not passing “the smell test”.

Not to be outdone, Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) was indicted by a federal grand jury on seven counts of making false statements to conceal lobbyist gifts. It is the first criminal charges filed against a sitting Senator in fifteen years (when fellow Republican David Durenberger was indicted). This complex web of transactions and undocumented improvements to Stevens’ vacation home are part of a larger FBI probe into corruption within the Alaska state government. In 2006, the FBI raided the offices of six Republican state senators looking for evidence of bribes from the Veco Company. It is no wonder they attracted FBI attention. The six state senators had unfortunately called themselves the “Corrupt Bastards Club or Caucus” to the point of creating coffee mugs and baseball caps emblazoned with “CBC”. Equally unfortunate for Senator Stevens, his son, Ben Stevens was a member of the CBC.

Corruption, dysfunction, issue avoidance, and empty rhetoric have become the framework within which Congress operates. It is dismaying that the Democrat-led institution took less time to lose its way than when it was led by the Republicans. Americans deserve better. We have ninety-seven days before the November elections to demand better.

Saving the Senate

The Senate is back in session after its Independence Day Recess. They returned to their dismal stalemate on major issues, which has been the hallmark of this Congress.

There are just twenty-one legislative days until the August Recess. Then everyone’s attention turns to the Summer Olympics and the National Party Conventions. When the Senate reconvenes on September 8 it will meet for probably twenty more days before everyone leaves for the final weeks of campaigning.

The entrenched partisanship is unlikely to allow anything of substance to move through the Senate, except possibly a continuing resolution to keep the government operating through the election. Therefore, our tax dollars and political energies will be spent watching the Senate cloak its dysfunction with mountains of rhetoric. Neither side wants to cooperate or compromise as everyone assumes they will be in a better political position with a new President.

There is a better way.

The Senate has a unique opportunity to show political leadership. For the first time in American history the two major party nominees are both serving Senators. The only other time anything close to this has happened was when numerous people ran (or stood) for the Presidency with multiple and weak party affiliations prior to the Civil War.

The Senate could host a series of major debates between McCain and Obama. Under Senate rules the two candidates could spend hours, even days, debating each other. They could even give mock “state of the union” addresses with the other delivering a rebuttal. These could be done with each one alternating between giving a standard 45-minute address and the other giving a 15-minute rebuttal every week. The rotation could be decided by a coin toss.

The other option is to take legislation from the calendar and give McCain and Obama as many hours as they want to discuss these major issues in detail. Other Senators could also set-up forums where they could take on a major issue each day or week and discuss what they would do in the next Congress. In all of these scenarios, CSPAN and the major networks would cover such sessions gavel to gavel. The stage is already set and the rules are already in place. No games, just real debate.

In all cases voters will have an opportunity to watch the Senate do what it historically does best – discuss major national issues in an open forum. This could revolutionize the campaign process and do a great service toward informing voters of where everyone stands.

To make this happen the Senate leadership would have to agree on ways to expedite the passage of minor bills, like naming Post Offices. This could be done by grouping them into omnibus packages. Currently these bills serve as time wasters as Senators maneuver behind the scenes on major issues. As there is no hope for major action, let’s move beyond parliamentary games and bring real issues to the forefront in real ways.