LEADING IN THE NEW CONGRESS

 

[Published on Newmax]

The Republican Congress has a small window of opportunity to redefine the political landscape.

Will Republicans repeat history or make history?

Remember 2011?  Republicans won an historic number of seats in 2010 only to become disappointingly ineffective.  A thundering herd of elephants birthed mice.

Republicans will need to overcome several challenges. 

First, most media will declare the “end of days” and breathlessly report the coming “Republican apocalypse” in detail.  They will demonize every incoming Republican with cherry-picked “facts” and an endless array of fiction. 

Second, Republicans will not be unified.  They rarely are.  Conservatives should remember that just because Members of Congress are “R”s they are not necessarily “ours”.  There are moderate and liberal Republicans, along with swamp dwellers, timid souls, and special interest conflicted.

Republicans, even with a slim majority, can make a difference if they achieve four major goals: Expose; End; Equip; Endure.

EXPOSE

Congress has a fundamental duty to conduct oversight and hold those in power accountable. 

This begins with Congress itself.  Republican leaders must immediately demand that January 6, 2021, videos from all 1,800 Capitol Hill cameras are preserved.  Any cameras “not working on that day”, and “lost" or “damaged” videos, must be fully explained and documented.

On January 6, 2023, Congress embraces transparency by releasing all January 6 videos from all cameras unedited or redacted.  Let Americans see for themselves what happened.

To follow-up, Congress then identifies law enforcement shown on Capitol security and news videos helping protesters by unlocking and opening doors, removing security barriers, waving them to the Capitol, or standing-by passively.  Each law enforcement officer should be individually brought behind closed doors and asked, under oath, “who told you to do that?” 

Those who “were following orders’ will be asked, “whose orders?”  Their superiors are brought forward and asked the same questions.  Congressional Q&A continues until top law enforcement officials either assert they initiated rules of engagement themselves or identify orders from specifically named elected officials.  These communications would then be released to the public.

There are countless Biden abominations that deserve investigation.  Republicans must heed the lessons from their ineffectual pursuit of Obama scandals.  Subpoenas will be ignored, documents will be withheld, slow walked, or become “missing”, witnesses will refuse to testify, lie, or obfuscate.

The gold standard remains the 1973 Watergate Committee.  They began with the lowest level people and worked their way up to the top.  Questions were asked and Members waited for answers instead of launching into finger waving monologues.  Public hearings are theatrical events. Republicans need to manage the plot, characters, and answers beforehand and build a narrative.  The truth is out there but is nearly impossible to uncover in a timely enough manner to matter.

Nonpartisan oversight should also occur, using hundreds of reports published by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the 72 Department and Agency Inspectors General.  Americans need to repeatedly hear about the mindboggling expanse of waste, fraud, and abuse that is endemic in the Federal Government.  This validates the next Republican President’s reform agenda.

END

Republicans will end new Biden initiatives and reduce his ability for mischief. They can defund programs, positions, and people.  They can turn campaign promises into reality by introducing legislation addressing voter priorities.

Justification through hearings and legislation will reveal and debunk the underlying dogma that is driving the Biden agendas for climate change and wokism.  Deindustrializing America is foundational to Biden’s assault on energy independence.  Showcasing silenced experts on these matters is vital.

Biden will veto everything Republicans do, and they will not have the votes to override. Republicans can counter by thinking well ahead of these predictable moves. Biden vetoes will become opportunities to contrast Republican voter-endorsed solutions with how Biden’s policies destroy America. This builds the case for change in 2024.

EQUIP

Republicans used the last two years of President Jimmy Carter to pave the way for the Reagan Revolution.  The next two years can equip the next Republican President with ideas and actions that will define the political landscape for 2024 and beyond. Through hearings, legislation, and floor speeches, they can build a mandate for the next Republican President to “hit the ground running”.   This change agenda will generate Leftist attacks, providing insights for Republican counter measures when they are reintroduced in 2025. 

ENDURE

The Washington, DC swamp is far deeper and extensive than anyone ever realized.  Republicans who cannot be bought-off or scared-off will be relentlessly savaged.  Democrats are known for locking arms and never breaking ranks.  Republicans shoot their wounded, even ones with minor injuries.  Time to think strategically and prepare for future battles 

To save America we must think past one election, one hearing, or one piece of legislation. 

It took years for the Left to gain the upper hand.  

It will take years to end their reign.

Scot Faulkner served as Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives and helped lead Speaker Newt Gingrich's Congressional Transition in 1994. He was Director of Personnel for the 1980 Reagan Campaign and served on the Presidential Transition team.  He currently advises corporations on implementing strategic change.

TRUMPING THE ESTABLISHMENT

[Also published in http://www.newsmax.com/ScotFaulkner/lobbyist-politicians/2016/08/31/id/746090/]

The Washington Establishment has a visceral hatred for Trump because he promises to put them out of business.

Why does the Washington Establishment hate Donald Trump? It is not because of his positions on immigration or trade.  Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot advocated similar stands in 1992 and they did not generate the obsessive hatred being displayed in 2016.

Trump has declared war on the Establishment itself.  In his June 16, 2015 Presidential announcement Trump asserted:

“So I’ve watched the politicians. I’ve dealt with them all my life…They will never make America great again. They don’t even have a chance. They’re controlled fully by the lobbyists, by the donors, and by the special interests…it’s destroying our country. We have to stop, and it has to stop now.”

The Washington Establishment sees Trump as serious about them being the primary impediment to making America “great again”.  Trump sees the Establishment as lining their pockets, and their friends’ pockets, as beneficiaries of the status quo.  As long as nothing changes, the Establishment will have their mansions, limousines, VIP tables, and ego trips.

There is much at stake.

Think of Washington, DC as a mass of “cookie jars” each containing delicious treats.  There are those who control the cookie jars, those who want the cookie jars, and those who can get the cookie jars.  Officially, these treats are distributed based on legislative mandates, open competition, and documented needs.  In fact, the treats are almost always handed out to friends, and friends of friends.  Friends can be purchased.  It is Washington, D.C.’s “golden rule” – those with the gold rule.

Welcome to “crony capitalism”.  Someone knowing someone who can hand out favors has been around since the first tribes shared the first harvest.  The term “lobbyist” came from favor seekers hanging out in the lobby of Washington, DC’s Willard Hotel during the Grant Administration in the 1870s.  In 1905, George Washington Plunkett, a ward boss in the Tammany Hall political machine, coined what could be the motto of Washington, D.C. – “What is the Constitution among friends?”

Today, things have gotten way out of hand.  Spending for Washington lobbyists has tripled since 1998 to over $3.22 billion a year.  $24 million is spent for lobbyists each day Congress is in session. 

Campaign fundraising is another dimension of how the Establishment stays in power.  Over $750 million has been raised for House races and $520 million for Senate races this election cycle. Leaders of Political Action Committees (PACs), and individual bundlers who raise funds, dominate this ultimate game of “pay for play”.

Those brokering power become gatekeepers for funding and favors throughout the Federal Government. This power comes from a truism overlooked by everyone in the media – all discretionary federal money is earmarked.  The popular myth is that earmarks vanished once the Republicans banned them when they returned to power in 2011.  They only banned legislative earmarks, and there are still ways to work around that system.  The President, and his appointees, earmark funds as standard operating procedure.  Even career bureaucrats play favorites. 

Favorites can be based on institutional, Administration, and ideological biases.  Favoritism can also go to the highest bidder.  This is federal money flowing out the door as grants, programs, contracts, buildings, leases, and employment.  Other “treats” to be dispensed include regulatory relief, tax waivers, and subsidies. Favoritism is rarely purchased with money directly changing hands, that kind of corruption occurs more in state and local government.  Washington level corruption is true “quid pro quo”.

The Washington Establishment swaps favors more insidiously.  How many times does a military officer get a major position with a defense contractor years after he favored them with a multi-million dollar contract?  A Reagan aide granted a building height waiver near the White House and quadrupled his salary when hired by the developer.  Grant and contract officers obtain slots at prestigious colleges and prep schools for their children for making the “right” choices or being a little lax on oversight.  Bush era National Park officials refused to prosecute the destruction of park land in exchange for Redskins tickets.  Everyone has their price, save for those true public servants.

Trump promises to smash the cookie jars and end the reign of the Establishment. 

Normal Americans are rallying around Trump.  They are enraged at the lies and duplicity of those in power.  Many see a reason to vote for the first time since Reagan. They want November 8, 2016 to be America’s “Bastille Day” marking the end of Washington, DC’s arrogant and unaccountable ruling class.

Billions of dollars are at stake.  Perks, prestige, and power are at stake.  The future of representative government is at stake. Is it any wonder that the Establishment is doing everything and anything to stop Trump?

[Scot Faulkner served as the first Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S, House of Representatives and on Reagan’s White House Staff.  He advises global corporations and governments on strategic change and leadership.]

A Revolutionary Transition Plan for Trump

[Published in http://www.newsmax.com/ScotFaulkner/convention-republican/2016/07/25/id/740303/]

Donald Trump is calling for a revolution in the way Washington operates. His Republican Convention speech declared ferreting out waste and cutting costs a major priority for his first hundred days. This will require thorough preparation, like a successful military campaign, before the first “shots” are fired.

A new American President faces the challenge of assuring both continuity and change.  The institution of the Executive Branch must remain intact. The direction and focus of the Executive Branch must quickly and thoroughly reflect the will of the electorate.

Trump can set the stage for “Making America Great Again” by making sure his Presidential Transition uses “CPR”.

This CPR is a form of management resuscitation.  It stands for CURATE, PREPARE, RECRUIT. These are co-equal activities that are critical for launching a dramatic new direction for the federal government and America.

CURATE means turning a mountain of information into action.  By collecting, sorting, analyzing, and prioritizing critical information Trump’s Presidential Transition can make sure they can govern from day one.

The federal government is vast. During every second policies, programs, personnel, contracts, grants, expenditures, treaties, and law are in motion.  These activities can range from first drafts of proposals yet to be considered, all the way through final implementation and codification.  They mostly happen in Washington, DC, but also occur in government field offices throughout America, and U.S. Missions around the globe. Much of this activity is not public. 

An incoming President must conduct a scavenger hunt of epic proportions to find everything that matters.  The outgoing Administration, and much of the remaining career structure, will do everything possible to make sure the scavenger hunt fails. This will include lying and misdirection. 

The only way a Transition can succeed is to gather outsiders who are relentless in their search for information.  They must also be able to determine what is real and when to probe deeper.  These outsiders must depend on insiders among career personnel who support the incoming Administration, as well as government professionals who will do the right thing out of loyalty to America and its institutions.

PREPARE is all about making sure the right people are in the right place to do the right thing the moment the new President is sworn-in.  This means halting everything found through the scavenger hunt.  Trump’s Administration will want to change course quickly and completely.  It is imperative to halt and roll back the legacy of the outgoing Administration in every way and everywhere possible - policies, programs, personnel, contracts, grants, expenditures, treaties, and law.

One key preparation is security clearances.  In 1980, Reagan’s team was fast tracked for clearances by FBI and Secret Service officials who loathed the Carter Administration. Many clearances were processed starting in September 1980.  Reagan’s transition planning team also combed the Legislative Branch and government contractors for people who already held appropriate clearances.  The result was legions of Reaganites able to access secure information starting within weeks of the election and legions more ready to take office the day after the Inaugural.

RECRUIT is the importance of finding the right people to do the right things.  People equal policy.  The first waves of political appointees invade the Executive Branch.  In some cases they will be greeted as liberators.  In other cases they will face bureaucratic combat on a room to room, program by program scale.  In all cases the new appointees must be competent and committed.  Only true believers committed, heart and soul, to implementing the new agenda need apply.

Curated information, prepared teams, top notch committed recruits form a seamless interdisciplinary capability for the new President to act quickly and decisively. 

 

FIFTY SHADES OF REPUBLICAN

The Republican Party is coming apart at the seams.

The fratricidal chaos that reigned during the government shut down is the culmination of years of factional strife, internal contradictions, and huge egos.

The Republicans' elephant symbol should be replaced with a more accurate rendering of its current woes: Sybil.

“Sybil” was the main character in a 1973 best selling book about multiple personality disorder. Sybil manifested sixteen personalities, each dissociated from her central personality. That is today’s Republican Party and conservative movement in a nut shell.

Each Republican manifestation is based upon a separate reality. Within each reality there are leaders, acolytes, and rabid supporters. Those residing within each reality dwell in an echo chamber of self-affirmation that constantly asserts they are the only ones capable of saving America and their movement from the forces of darkness. Each reality opposes the others assuming any alternative reality to their own at best diminishes their ability to prevail, and at worst, poses a clear and present danger to their existence and that of our nation.

Political parties are coalitions of like minded interests, coalesced around a core of fundamental beliefs, clustered together in order to benefit from an overarching organization focused on electoral success. The Republican Party of 2013 is none of these.

The Republican ship no longer has a rudder – a credible universally acceptable leader. Worse, this Republican ship no longer has a keel – a philosophical grounding that prevents it from being capsized by even the smallest ripple on the political seas.

Today’s Republican Party is being torn asunder by contradictory forces at war with each other and with the broader populace. Libertarians who want virtually no government are at war with Fundamentalist TheoCons who want a huge government to patrol neighborhoods enforcing biblical imperatives relating to sex and belief. Isolationists who want to pull back from the world and construct a literal as well as figurative wall around America are at war with NeoCons who are in denial about America’s failures in Afghanistan and Iraq while seeking other places to intervene. Fiscal hawks who have spent decades seeking ways to rein-in Washington’s spending binge are at war with the Tea Party who want to shut the government down no matter what the results. Wall Street and Main Street Republicans, who hate regulation but work within the system to lessen its effects, are fighting Tea Party activists, who echo “Occupy Wall Street” conspiracies about crony capitalism.

What happens next? Is the GOP of 2013 becoming the Whig Party of the 1850s? Will the Tea Party fizzle out or prevail over a crumbling Republican establishment? While doctrinaire liberals are dancing a Conga Line hoping for an end of Reaganism that will usher in a new era of rampant government growth and spending, other Americans are legitimately worried about not having a viable opposition voice.

More rational voices within the conservative and Republican movements need to unite around core principles that are relevant and compelling for the 21st Century. Start with the rule of law, holding government accountable at all levels, demanding transparency in all public processes, and consistent adherence to ethics and integrity by all officials and public sector functions. Upon this foundation, add that government should be the solution of last resort, after personal actions and collective efforts of the private sector and local community fail to address challenges and societal ills. When a government role is warranted, it must be designed and implemented to successfully meet tangible and measurable objectives using public resources in the most cost effective ways possible.

Within this framework Republicans should rationally engage in a civil discourse on where the Party’s center of gravity should reside on strategic issues. Embedded in this discourse should be a new toleration of differences among reasonable people. No one agrees 100 percent with another person, not even spouses and siblings - so why demand purity and mindless adherence?

The strategic issues that will frame a new Republic Party and potentially form a winning coalition movement include, but may not be limited to:

[1] The role of government. There will always be a public sector in America. Republicans traditionally buy into the 300+ year old concept of a social contract whereby individuals freely give up some freedoms and delegate some decisions to live and prosper in an ordered world. This is as basic as stopping at a stop sign, paying for trash collection, agreeing to litigate disputes in courts of law, and electing representatives to address policy issues. How much government, where it should reside (local, state, federal), the role of public input and accountability, the appropriate structure for public action (regulation, tax policy, public program), and its costs are areas where reasonable disagreements will occur and where there is no one right answer to apply to every locale or issue.

[2] The role of America in the world. America is part of an increasingly complex and linked global community. Since World War II, America has been its leader – economically, politically, and militarily. Since the collapse of the Soviet Empire and the rise of the information age, the world has evolved into many centers of economic and civic vitality. Some countries, like the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), are willing to challenge America’s hegemony. In some industries and some regions, America is no longer the leader or even competitive. Internally, these variables harm economic opportunity and job creation. Externally, it is about free and fair trade as well as about who becomes the first responder to tyranny or disaster should America reduce its global reach. These are reasonable areas for discussion. America needs a competitive strategy for the 21st Century and it needs realistic “rules of thumb” that guide split second decisions when terrorism or other unforeseen events suddenly disrupt our existence.

[3] Healthcare. It is truly unfortunate that the debate over healthcare started in the partisan sphere. Providing health services to a work force that is increasingly without employer provided benefits is important, but the discussion should have first centered on standards of care and caregiving. Americans are aging. This means that health issues are shifting from shock/trauma acute care to long term care of chronic conditions (like diabetes, congestive heart failure, and Alzheimer’s). How to support the role of families in care giving? How to allow for using successful treatments that are traditional in many parts of the world, but viewed as alternative or nontraditional in an American healthcare system dominated by pharmaceutical and insurance companies? How to promote technology-enabled remote care and wellness to supplement or supplant office and hospital visits? Baby boomers are confronting these issues every day as their parents live into their 80s and 90s. Facilitating a sincere nonpartisan dialogue on this multitude of heartfelt issues would be a most positive addition to public policy.

In addition to Republicans returning to sane and productive input on strategic policy issues, they must begin holding their leaders, and leader wannabes, to established standards of leadership. Everyone has an ego, especially leaders, but true leaders rise above and think beyond themselves. Can anyone imagine Ronald Reagan doing a reality television show? Can anyone imagine Barry Goldwater making every speech and media appearance about himself? Would William F. Buckley have ignored facts to win a rhetorical point? Republicans lack anyone even remotely approaching these giants of modern conservatism – and that is the problem. It is time for Republicans to shun cults of personality and demand leaders who think first about what is best for America, and promote the 300+ year philosophical foundations of conservatism, over their personal fundraising and campaigning.

The Republicans’ multiple personality disorder will not be cured overnight. These suggestions form a good course of treatment. The first step must be for the warring factions to realize what they are doing to themselves, their movement, and their country.

9,528 Opportunities Ignored

America should be having a serious discussion on the size and cost of our Federal Government, and what to do about a debt burden that has already sailed our nation off the fiscal cliff. Instead, disinformation has buried what little integrity is left among the participants.

Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) recently spoke on the Senate floor: "I am not going to keep cutting the discretionary budget, which by the way is not out of control, despite what you hear on Fox News."

There are many reasons why Senator Landrieu is wrong. In fact, there are 9,528 reasons. That is the approximate number of audits and investigations conducted by career employees during 2012 on federal programs, projects, agencies, and contracts. The General Accountability Office (GAO) issued 768 reports, which contained 1,807 recommendations for operational improvement. One can also glean from public documents approximately 8,760 audits and investigations conducted by the 73 Inspector General Offices among the cabinet departments and independent agencies of the Executive Branch.

Every one of these 9,528 efforts found waste, fraud, and abuse. Every one of these reports identified opportunities for improving operations and made specific recommendations. The Department of Labor’s Inspector General’s Office conducted 66 audits that identified $2.4 billion in waste. The office also opened 585 investigative cases, obtaining 633 indictments and 433 convictions. They also recovered $398 million that had been criminally diverted. There is similar documentation of mismanagement, inefficiency, and ineffectiveness within every report issued by the GAO and the 73 Inspectors Generals. In 2012, these reports documented over $650 billion in waste. That translates into at least $6.5 trillion in possible spending cuts, over the next ten years, without harming one legitimate beneficiary of government services.

It is time for every politician and pundit to admit that there is definitely “room for improvement” in the way the federal government manages our tax dollars. Tragically for America, very few of these 9,528 reports receive any public airing in Congress. Liberals do not want to admit there is “room for improvement” because that will pull the rug out from under their argument for more taxes. Conservatives do not want to admit there is “room for improvement” because that will pull the rug out from under their argument for ideological cuts. Conservatives would also have to admit that there is more than $100 billion wasted annually in the Defense Department. This waste has nothing to do with keeping America safe, in fact, it degrades our safety.

Everyone should be upset that even one penny of tax dollars is misspent. That goes for whether you love a program/project or hate it. Unfortunately, no politician or pundit is willing to rise above their partisan mud-wrestling to think about our country. In rare situations the level of corruption and dysfunction created a bipartisan mandate for strategic change. This happened at the General Services Administration in the early 1980s when years of multi-million dollar criminal activity, and 48 convictions, allowed for a top to bottom rethinking of the agency. The result reduced staff by 20,000 and saved $3 billion. This also happened in the House of Representatives in the mid-1990s when high profile scandals, and the first change in party control in forty years, allowed for a fundamental reinventing of Congressional operations. The result cut support staff by 48%, established financial integrity, and saved $148 million.

Times have become too partisan to start with strategically rethinking Executive functions and management. It would be horrendous to wait for epic scandal or corruption to trigger another brief moment of bipartisan cooperation. What we are left with is cajoling everyone to admit there is “room for improvement”. Senators and Congressmen have 9,528 reports, generated by objective, nonpolitical, professionals to guide where and how to cut waste. Once the recommendations are implemented, and the management improvements are in place, they can debate whether to reallocate the savings. In the meantime, America’s debt bomb will be partially defused without harming programs, services, or recipients.

Can we all agree that this would be a great way for Congress to spend the next two years?

Wasted Days and Wasted Nights

By Scot Faulkner & Jonathan Riehl

How did you spend the last 806 days?

If you were a Congressional Republican prior to your Williamsburg retreat, you were doing nothing. Nothing productive, at any rate. You spent this time ceding the political landscape to President Obama and the Democrats in Congress. Your are waiting for an Inaugural Address to respond to, while allowing tone-deaf and clueless pollsters and lobbyists to speak for the Party.

Since decisively winning the November 2, 2010 elections, Republicans in Congress, and their acolytes in the conservative media, have made sure to miss 806 days of opportunity to define themselves and communicate a compelling alternative platform. This is not a choice; it is a reflection of political reality: They have no platform. Because they have no coherent idea of who they are. The American people sense this. Increasingly, moderates and centrists are abandoning them because of it.

The recent Pew Survey shows Americans disapprove of Republican Congressional leadership by 66% while only 19% approved. That is a staggering 47 point negative. Gallup’s survey is equally bad with 25% approving and 67% disapproving for a 42 point negative gap.

These dreadful scores are only part of the problem. During the last 806 days President Obama and Congressional Democrats have framed the Fiscal Cliff/Debt Ceiling/Budget battle in ways highly favorable to their cause while painting Republicans into a microscopic corner. This is smart rhetorical strategy, to be sure.

Politics often comes down to defining the terms of the battle, something both parties have excelled at during different moments in history. The Democrats are the current masters of rhetoric. Democrats, even radicals, are now called “Progressives”. Government spending is now called “investment,” thanks to a spin factory gem from Bill Clinton. Spending cuts of any magnitude are dismissed as damaging to America’s economic recovery. There is also the unchallenged assertion that there have already been more than enough budget cuts, but no where near enough tax increases.

Our current Republicans tilt at windmills and straw men, assailing the “Main Stream Media” (which excludes, of course, the most popular cable network, Fox News) for their rout in the budget battle. They continue to embrace the parallel universe of Fox and conservative Talk Radio asserting that these “news” outlets are being drowned out by the “mainstream.” Never has Orwellian double-talk been more obvious -- or harmful to political discourse.

During the last 806 days, Republicans have been annoyingly vague about government waste and the need to cut spending. They trumpet their ideology, but ideology is not governance -- and Americans continue to see the President as more competent in that task. The problem is that the GOP never issued a meaningful indictment or offered a prosecution brief. Just saying there is waste does not make it so. Endlessly repeated talking points about “limited government” do not inspire, do not confer confidence, and do not offer hope to a still struggling nation.

While Republicans remain unfocused, the Democrats have created a multimedia echo chamber that has established memes relating to fairness and collective action. Republicans, on the other hand, offer nothing but confrontational bluster. Their weak, ineffective, and mostly nonexistent defense has left them marginalized and demonized. The entire body politic suffers as a result; Democracy only functions when robust factions confront each other in rational discourse. The authors here have differing political views on important matters, but are of one mind on this central point.

Republicans could have made a difference. Starting on November 3, 2010, they could have been building their case.   Every time a Republican was in front of a camera or microphone they could have issued compelling examples about non-performing government contractors getting billions in bonuses, about hundreds of billions more sitting unused in countless agency accounts, or cited any one of the thousands of reports documenting waste published by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the 73 Inspector General offices.  This would have put forward a viable vision of governance that differs from the status quo. This is complicated, of course, because the status quo is not just the last four years, but also the eight under Republicans who grew government and spent America into oblivion.

Perhaps this is what the psychologists call cognitive dissonance -- Republicans are now mostly unwilling to hold hearings on government spending or mismanagement, because many of them blindly supported Bush-era spending boondoggles both foreign and domestic. Bereft of principle, and caught in hypocrisy of their own making, Republicans have little to stand on. The GOP did not even hold hearings on Senator Tom Coburn’s annual Waste Report, a longtime staple of reasonable oversight. Only CSPAN’s BookTV gave Coburn a proper forum to discuss his exhaustive and highly credible research on government waste.

Reestablishing Republican relevance must include atoning for embracing wasteful spending during the Bush era. In one amazing example of “Bush party line”, Republicans on the House Oversight panel minimized $6 billion in hundred dollar bills vanishing from the Bagdad Airport while Democrats raised concerns about the money being stolen and possibly funding terrorism. Republicans lose credibility when they are more concerned about who is doing damaging things instead of the damaging thing itself. Waste is waste; corruption is corruption; no matter who is doing it. To say anything different is abandoning your moral core.

Republicans met in Williamsburg to develop a strategy for the coming budget battles, and unfortunately it looks like more showmanship instead of statesmanship. They should have spent this time finding their minds and souls.

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.

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.

Inside Baseball

There are daily reminders why Americans hold their Congress in such low regard. Today’s example comes from a “dust-up” between Representative Nick Rahall (D-WV) and the Secretary of Interior. It is all outlined in the June 19 issue of The Washington Post.

The National Park Foundation decided to hold a reception celebrating National Parks. Unilever underwrote the festivities. The “dust-up” occurred when the announced venue was the Capitol Hill Club, the national Republican club situated across from the Cannon House Office Building.

On April 21, Rahall wrote Interior Secretary Kirk Kempthorne decrying the partisan venue. National Park Director, Mary Bomar, responded to Rahall on May 30, defending the location.

This is the kind of “inside baseball” that fills an average day in our nation’s Capital. Minor slights over protocol can derail major policy initiatives. Personal feuds can sink compromises. Egos get in the way of the peoples’ business.

The case of Rep. Rahall, taking the time to engage over a reception’s venue, and the media’s reporting, gives us a glimpse into a strange parallel universe where such things matter.

Over the last four years the Bush Administration has been gutting the National Park Service under the guise of a management review called “Core Operations” (see my February 15, 2008 blog – “National Treasures"). Entire park units have been closed, major education programs have been curtailed, and priceless national treasures have been put at risk. Yet, not one hearing or public letter from Rep. Rahall on the wanton and fundamental destruction of one of the major agencies under his committee's jurisdiction.

This is one more reason why there is so much disdain for Congress. Real things happen, that affect real Americans, and nothing is said or done. The priority and zeal is for making an issue out of the trivial. The only value of these minor issues is to placate the ego of some official or provide an opportunity for some pedantic partisan cheap shot. Shame on Congress, for wallowing in non-issues to the detriment of those that really matter. Shame on The Washington Post, for covering such stories while ignoring the real world.

Lobbying’s Seven Deadly Sins

Many people ask me about my assailing Washington lobbyists. They also challenge me on whether there are any “good” lobbyists.

There have always been people who have acted as intermediaries between those in power and the general populace. This role has been filled by squires to knights, and courtiers to kings. During the Administration of President Grant these intermediaries mixed and mingled in the grand lobby of the Willard Hotel in Washington, DC and thus became known as “lobbyists”.

Lobbyists serve an important role. Not everyone can spend the time learning the Byzantine ways of our nation’s capital. Therefore, citizens, companies, and interest groups hire people who can craft legislation, testimony, and strategies to successfully promote a point of view. At the same time public officials seek out these very same lobbyists to help distill vast quantities of often conflicting information and advocacy arguments.

As government gets more complex and more pervasive citizens, those outside of Washington power circles increasingly require help from those who are part of these Washington power circles.

This is where things can go astray and democracy can be undermined.

First, lobbying is a business. That means those with the financial resources will gather more and better lobbyists than those who lack those resources. This marketplace for influence can undermine just causes in favor corrupt ones. Dictators have more money than revolutionaries, corporations have more resources than consumers, Lobbyists follow the money, and therefore, justice and morality take a back seat. I have many friends who tried lobbying and left the profession because it made them feel “unclean”. “The deserving can’t pay and the undeserving can,” explained one former lobbyist.

Second, lobbying is self-perpetuating. Lobbying is all about reaction. The trick is to do enough for a client to solve their immediate problem, but not enough to prevent future problems. If a problem goes away permanently, so does the client and the fees. Therefore, lobbyists seek remissions not cures for their clients.

Third, lobbying promotes more government. Even industry lobbyists rather seek special exemptions and subsidies over dismantling regulations. In 1979, Chrysler sought a government bailout, instead of using its crisis as a catalyst for regulatory reform. When conservatives raised this issue with the Chrysler lobbyists they just scoffed at the idea of regulatory reform over government relief.

Fourth, lobbying can be antidemocratic. Many lobbyists are hired to thwart the implementation of laws passed by Congress. I know one lobbyist who spent twenty years hampering the implementation of unleaded gasoline just so their company could extent their profits.

Fifth, lobbying is hidden. No matter how much Congress and the media talk about disclosure and ethics there is no way the public will ever know what really happens. Washington, DC is a very small town. There is no more than one or two degrees of separation between those who make decisions and those influencing those decisions. The power elite belongs to the same clubs, gyms, private schools, churches, or live in the same neighborhoods, and even the same condominiums. Such informal interactions happen constantly. So no matter how much a former official is banned from direct lobbying, they can be lobbying a colleague when they sit next to each other at a theatrical or sporting event.

Sixth, lobbying is ultimately about favoritism. The object of lobbying is to grant special treatment beyond what is officially allowed. There are certainly many lobbyists who promote issue oriented causes where their role is to strategically influence the legislative and regulatory process. These might be considered the “good lobbyists” as they give a voice to thousands of citizens in the Washington power circles. However, for every “good” lobbyist there are dozens of lobbyists who use government for individual interests against the general good.

Seventh, lobbying is addictive. Elected representatives approach lobbying like a drug addict. Some can take “one puff” and leave it alone, but most are hooked from the start. The more lobbyists assist an elected representative, the less likely that representative will want to hear from the electorate. The longer they are in Washington, elected representatives make a wonderful show of listening to their constituents, but actually key off of lobbyists, and then mask their true actions from the public. Lobbyists are more “user friendly” than sorting out what the electorate wants. Lobbyists can provide countless perks, many of them totally hidden from the public.

There is actually a term for this – “silver bullets”. These are special favors, include getting a child into a private school, making sure the representative or their spouse is appointed as a trustee to prestigious foundation, or promising a job with a corporation or with the lobby firm after they leave office. The “prid pro quo” can never be proven.

Lobbying may be a “necessary evil”. It will be part of government and Washington for the foreseeable future. We need to find ways to foster its the good side while effectively restricting its many abuses.

Political Hams & Hotdogs

The following was published in The Washington Times

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/aug/8/political-hams-and-hot-dogs/

The latest polls show Americans' confidence in Congress at an all-time low. Gallup's 14 percent rating is 4 points below the 18 percent that ended the Democratic Party's 40-year hold on Congress in 1994, and 5 points below the 19 percent that drove the GOP from power in 2006.

These indicate starkly that both parties disappoint Americans. This new low transcends specific issues, like the Iraq war. Gallup began tracking confidence in Congress in May 1973. That means Congress weathered the Vietnam War, Watergate, recessions and gas lines while maintaining higher voter confidence. The new low underscores major institutional weaknesses in how Congress conducts itself in the 21st century.

It has long been said that, "No man should see how laws or sausages are made." In my years of performance consulting I have, in fact, seen sausages made. At the world's leading hot dog factories, you see prime cuts of meat being processed in a clean and efficient environment operated by dedicated professionals devoted to quality assurance. I devour hot dogs knowing the integrity of these producers' brands is at stake with every bite.

It is, therefore, dismaying that Congress does not share the same concern about brand integrity as hot dog producers. Instead of a sausage factory, the House projects the image of a huge freshman dorm on a college campus. Everyone is adjusting to living away from home for the first time. Just like college freshmen, they mess around all term and then pull all-nighters to get the minimal work done. Occasionally, they even seek extensions. Look at the end of any congressional session. After many recesses House members will stay in round the clock to complete their work, and then pass a continuing resolution to avoid approving a real budget.

Just like a freshman dorm, the House is a mix: party animals, druggies, slackers, social climbers, jocks, idealists, activists and scholars. During my years as a House staffer and as its chief administrative officer, I encountered nearly half of members and staff displaying some form of addictive behavior including ego, power, greed, sex, drugs and alcohol.

In particular, freshman members and almost all staff can get away with anything, and do. The national media have no interest in the addictions of these small fry. They, therefore, develop an air of invincibility and unaccountability that carries them through their careers. Their lifestyle choices may only catch up with them if they aspire to a major policy position.

This dysfunction was borne out by the dozens of members attending the drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs I managed, and the documents I signed each week relating to legal actions against them. These documents, as many as 50 a week, included bankruptcies, garnishment of wages and court orders relating to not paying alimony and child support.

Recently, the House of Representatives passed its legislative branch appropriations. House members spent an hour discussing the naming of the overblown Capitol Visitor's Center, debating whether culinary school students should practice in the Members' Dining Room and bickering over turf with the House Administration Committee. There was also much posturing over how "green" to make the House's operations.

There was no mention of finding ways to open Congress to the public. Official House Web sites reveal virtually no movement toward new technologies to expand citizen engagement. Where are the podcasts of hearings? Where are the blogs for oversight? It is impossible to e-mail some committee staffs. Many members block e-mails from outside their districts. How is a concerned citizen to gain the attention of a national advocate on their particular issue?

The answer to these questions is the same since the Continental Congress. You can write a letter to a member or work through a lobbyist. I once wrote a member about preserving a Civil War battlefield and got inundated with letters on veterans' benefits.

Members are not listening or paying attention to what is happening. Congress has not learned a thing from the voter rebellions of 1994 and 2006. It is not just time for new blood and third parties but to rethink how we make representative government work in the 21st century.

Building a Better Budget

This was published in The Washington Times

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/feb/5/20070205-101459-5025r/

Every American is affected by the federal budget, but only a chosen few can do anything about it. As Congress and the administration begin their yearly struggle over spending, it is time to explore new ways to build a better budget.

Government remains the most inefficient method of addressing public problems. My 30-plus years reviewing and administering federal spending have shown American taxpayers receive an average of 24 cents of tangible value out of every public dollar spent. That means 76 percent of federal funds disappear into inefficient and ineffective operations, inflated overhead costs, poor administration, questionable procurements, and an array of fraud and abuse.

The exposure of the mind-boggling wastes of public funds in rebuilding New Orleans and Iraq are mere tips of the iceberg of what really happens with our tax dollars. The main beneficiaries of this 76 percent are unaccountable officials, lobbyists and contractors. Politicians also benefit by issuing news releases showing how much more money is being spent to address a particular issue. These same politicians rarely follow up to see if the money has actually done any good.

The first step in making government more efficient and accountable is giving everyone timely and meaningful information on the federal budget. While some small incremental steps have been taken in this direction, they all suffer from after-the-fact reporting procedures that allow public officials to still game the system. Real reform means anyone could search and review the entire federal budget. Real reform means an accounting system for the federal government that is up to private sector standards, including automatic data capture of all transactions and the real time, or monthly, display of those transactions in meaningful and understandable formats. No more funny money, accounting games and hidden boondoggles.

Such a system is possible, but the governing elite of Washington refuses to do it. Think of what would happen if everyone became his own Government Accountability Office (GAO). Conservatives would pore over welfare and regulatory spending. Liberals would pore over defense spending. The media, the blogs and the Congress would unleash millions of citizen “deputy sheriffs,” auditors and investigative reporters demanding the enforcement of legislative mandates and exposing waste, fraud and abuse. There would be a revolution in the way government operated, as everyone would be able to find out and expose how public funds are squandered with impunity.

The American people should also have the right to fully participate in the budget process in a meaningful way. This means more than just writing their Members and watching lobbyists swarm the Appropriations Committees. It is time to have a national referendum on spending.

Many have mused how people get mad about government on April 15 because it is tax day, but have no way to vent their frustrations until Election Day in November. What if there was a way to merge the two days in a unique way?

Tax day is the one day we all feel the impact of the federal government. Imagine if tax day also became budget day? The Internal Revenue Service could provide everyone with a budget form that listed all major federal programs. Each taxpayer would be given a hypothetical $100,000 to allocate for these programs. Details about minimum allocations and the expansiveness of the program list would need to be worked out. The budget forms would be submitted with the tax returns. In essence, there would be a nationwide referendum on spending every April 15.

The allocations would be totaled and the percentages of that total would be applied to the actual federal budget moving through the Congress. For the first few years this public input would be only advisory. As the kinks were worked out and people became savvier about how to allocate their $100,000, the advisory referendum could evolve into actually directing the spending priorities of the federal government.

For example, require a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress to allocate more or less funds than were allocated by the referendum for a particular line item. National disaster assistance and declared wars could be exempted.

Over time, the April 15 “Budget Day” spending referendum would become as important as Election Day. Instead of spending their time swaying 435 House and 100 Senate members, the special interests and federal agencies would have to persuade the 132 million people who file tax returns. This would revolutionize the way government operates and fully engage everyone in how our money is spent.