All Things Reform

Changes are being made at All Things Reform- check out the new Political Activist Calendar site now!

2009-06-13T13:14:00.008-05:00

Things are changing here at All Things Reform. Due to the sheer number of events and awards taking place throughout the year, we will devote most of our energies to just the Political Activist Calendar. It's new address is http://politicalactivistcalendar.blogspot.com.

The Calendar is specifically suited for the average political activist and non-profit. There is a timeliness value of having a Google Calendar constantly updated online; there you will find events and awards for both your political and technology interests. Most entries are national (USA) and international in scope.

Thank you for sharing for the past three years all of the news reports from the world of government reform here at ATR. All Things Reform will remain open for its large residual value in our lists of databases and organizations in the lefhand sidebar. Remember, you can still search the blog post archives, and the Custom Google Search for reform organizations in the sidebar; the comprehensive list of blog post labels (tags) will also stay.

Again, the All Things Reform Political Activist Calendar will be constantly updated; we plan to add information to it over time as the only post on its site. Google Friends and Comments features are already in place in its sidebar to communicate and collaborate with other event goers. Now, join your family, friends and colleagues at the Political Activist Calendar!

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Landmark U.S. Supreme Court case affirms justice recusal from major supporters before their courts

2009-06-08T18:18:00.010-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: Brennan Center for Justice

Press Release – 06/08/09

For Immediate Release: Contact: Jeanine Plant-Chirlin, 212-998-6289, Susan Lehman, 212-998-6318

Picture: U.S. Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C. USA

Supreme Court Reverses Decision in Caperton v. Massey
In 5 to 4 Vote, Major Victory for the Rule of Law

New York – Today, in a major victory for the rule of law, the Supreme Court issued a decision in the landmark case of Caperton v. Massey, reversing the decision of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals by a 5 to 4 vote.

"There has been an unprecedented flood of money into judicial elections in the states," said Susan Liss, Director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice. "And this decision makes clear that campaign contributions must not be permitted to undermine the impartiality of the courts."

"This is a major victory for the rule of law," stated James Sample, Counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice. "The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the fundamental principle that money should not influence the courts, and that justice should not be for sale."

This landmark case brought together an unlikely set of allies who supported Caperton in his bid for an impartial tribunal. The strange bedfellows included former state Supreme Court justices, corporations like Wal-Mart and Lockheed Martin, and advocates for fair courts like the Brennan Center for Justice and the Campaign Legal Center.

"The remarkable coalition supporting Caperton's position speaks to the considerable effect the outcome will have on our judicial system—and the widely recognized need to ensure that the courts continue to dispense fair and impartial justice," Liss observed.

In Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., the Supreme Court grappled with the question whether the fundamental right to a fair hearing before a neutral arbiter required disqualification of a judge in a case where one party to litigation had given extraordinary campaign contributions to the judge while the party's case was pending. Against a backdrop of a dramatic rise of special interest spending in judicial elections nationwide, former Solicitor General Theodore Olson argued before the Supreme Court on March 3 that the Constitution's due-process clause required a West Virginia Judge to recuse himself from a lawsuit involving an executive who spent $3 million to elect the judge. Those expenditures, which came at the same time the court was considering the executive's case, were more than all other contributions to the judge's election, combined.

Emphasizing that a "fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process," the Supreme Court ruled that the constitution required recusal under the circumstances of the case. Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court, and was joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer. Chief Judge Roberts issued a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito, and Justice Scalia also filed a dissenting opinion.

Background materials on the case, including all the amicus briefs filed, can be found here. The Brennan Center's amicus brief can be found here.

For more information or to set up an interview with James Sample, please contact Jeanine Plant-Chirlin at 212-998-6289 or jeanine.plant-chirlin@nyu.edu, Susan Lehman at 212-998-6318 or susan.lehman@nyu.edu. You can also contact James Sample directly at 406- 690-3947.

###

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Parties and contributions to congressmember-connected non-profits are unethical legislation influences

2009-06-08T13:14:00.010-05:00

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: USA Today

Lobbyists unlimited in honoring lawmakers

By Fredreka Schouten and Paul Overberg, USA TODAY

Picture: U.S. Center Edward Kennedy (D-MA) speaking about healthcare.

WASHINGTON — On a mild evening last September, Citigroup lobbyists mingled with South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn at a rooftop reception — complete with miniature putting greens — as the company hosted a party to honor the third most powerful Democrat in the House and raise money for one of his favorite golf charities.

HONORARY EXPENSES: Who paid what?

FAVORITE CAUSES: A sampling of Congress members

MORE: Special-interest money helped pay for lawmakers' portraits

Health insurers and hospitals, meanwhile, are donating millions to help build an institute in Boston to celebrate the career of Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who is attempting to overhaul the nation's health care system.

Despite a ban on gifts to lawmakers and limits on campaign contributions, lobbyists and groups that employ them can spend unlimited money to honor members of Congress or donate to non-profits connected to them or their relatives. The public — until now — had little insight into the scope of this largely hidden world of special-interest influence.

Under ethics rules passed in 2007, lobbyists for the first time last year had to report any payment made for an event or to a group connected to a lawmaker and other top federal officials.

USA TODAY undertook the first comprehensive analysis of the lobbying reports and found 2,759 payments, totaling $35.8 million, were made in 2008. The money went to honor 534 current and former lawmakers, almost 250 other federal officials and more than 100 groups, many of which count lawmakers among their members.

The total cost is roughly equivalent to what the U.S. government spends to operate Yellowstone National Park each year.

Most of the money — about $28 million — went to non-profit groups, some with direct ties to members of Congress. In two cases, USA TODAY found, the donations to non-profits associated with a member of Congress came in response to a personal appeal for funds from the lawmaker.

"It's another example of the many pockets of a politician's coat," says Ellen Miller of the Sunlight Foundation, a watchdog group. The spending amounts to an "end-run" around campaign-finance laws "that are designed to limit the appearance of undue influence," she says.

The money came from companies, trade associations and labor groups that lobby Congress and the government on a range of issues, from seeking a share of last year's $700 billion financial bailout package to trying to shape the debate on climate change.

The donations cover various activities — from a golf tournament that raises money for a lawmaker's non-profit to gifts to the alma mater of a powerful House committee chairman.

"You can still have a gala or something or the other for a charity and earn some favor with members of Congress, which is what the gift ban was put in place to avoid," says Dan Danner, CEO of the National Federation of Independent Business and a veteran Washington lobbyist.

The spending demonstrates the subtle ways that special-interest groups try to sway lawmakers, without making "something as crass as a payoff," says Kenneth Gross, a former Federal Election Commission official.

He credits Congress for mandating the disclosure of the gifts and giving the public another view of the relationships between lobbyists and lawmakers.

[...]

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Six-word poem: Debts

2009-06-08T12:44:00.000-05:00

Debts
by David Weller

Government debt isn't like, personal; right?

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Democratic Congressional candidate Adriel Hampton is strongly for reform, Government 2.0

2009-06-07T11:06:00.013-05:00

I just had the pleasure of interviewing Adriel Hampton- he is running a reform candidacy for the upcoming 2009 Special Election for U.S. Congress, CA-10 (a San Francisco area district). A Democrat, he is presently running a "insurgent campaign"- and it has been close to the people; in addition to government reform issues, he has been working for greater "Gov 2.0". Adriel can be reached at his campaign web site.

ATR: Welcome, and thank you for your valuable time in answering a few questions on your 'reform' candidacy for U.S. Congress, and on your work in social media.

ATR: As you know, All Things Reform follows the latest happenings in the world of government reform (and a bit of poetry!); including 'Government 2.0', what could you bring to Washington on these issues?

Adriel: David, I can say unequivocally that I am the candidate in the CA-10 race who understands the promise of Gov 2.0 for really moving our government and our economy forward. I am running because of my strong concern that our political elite is greatly out of touch with the economic and cultural realities of everyday folks in the San Francisco East Bay, and I believe that reform under the 2.0 rubric is essential to making our government people-focused again. I believe wide-scale tech-based and cultural reforms in government - along with single-payer or public option health care, which I strongly support - will help revolutionize our economy and our politics.

ATR: What current reform legislation in Congress is most important to you and why?

Adriel: Health care reform is the single most important legislation in Congress right now, and we must have a public option in the final product. Guaranteed health care for all will allow the transformation of our economy from one tied to a dying industrial base into an America fueled by small business and innovation (and smooth the transition from autos and heavy infrastructure to a "green" economy). I support HR 676, although I am open to private options in addition to single-payer - anyone who pays their taxes for the national safety net should also be able to deal with specialty insurance if desired. I am also very interested in HR 1207, and support more Congressional oversight of the Federal Reserve.

ATR: I follow your multiple accounts on Twitter right now for your Special Election campaign... how do you use the service, and what other social networking services do you use thus far? Why do you feel they are very important in a congressional campaign for office?

Adriel: In addition to Twitter, I use Facebook and LinkedIn. I have a number of other accounts as well, but mainly as placeholders for the content from Twitter. I was heavily immersed in social networking for community building and activism before the opportunity came to run for an open Congressional seat, and I've tried not to change my style too much. I believe that the openness of social networking, especially the anarchic/democratic nature of Twitter, represents the style of leadership, transparency and collaboration I want to see in government (Rep. John Culberson is a good example of keeping that style, from a conservative viewpoint, while in office). In addition to modeling reform and opening up more as a person, Twitter (and to a lesser extent, Facebook) has helped me to recruit a number of very talented volunteers locally and from around the country, and to have debates on issues in advance of in-the-flesh-life. Social networking has helped me be a better-prepared candidate. And let me just say, zero-cost communications is changing everything.

ATR: It's interesting that you note in your campaign as your being an "insurgent" congressional candidate. You are running as a major party candidate in the Democratic Party; why do you fashion your campaign in this manner? How does your campaign compare to all of your competitors in this and in other respects?

Adriel: If I was the only Democrat in a heavily Democratic district, I certainly would not be the insurgent! However, I am running against a field of well-known professional politicians, including my Lt. Governor, a State Senator, and my Assemblywoman (I was the first to announce my intentions). I am the Democratic candidate who lives in below-market-rate housing (for moderate income families only), is pro-peace, anti-Drug War, pro-EFCA and anti-Taft-Hartley, and I am running my own campaign. All of my opponents, in addition to their careers as Sacramento politicians, are running heavily managed campaigns. I'm about reaching people directly and bringing back "government of the people, by the people, for the people."
Running in a field of professional politicians also makes it difficult to raise money, so I'm asking folks who agree with what I'm trying to do to pitch in $5-20 at ActBlue.

ATR: Thanks again for your interesting, modern campaign's insights. Good luck, and i look forward to following you on Twitter and elsewhere!

Adriel: Thank you!

Adriel Hampton is a journalist, Gov 2.0 and new media strategist, public servant, and licensed private investigator. He is running for U.S. Congress in the 2009 special election for California's 10th District. He has pledged to vote against funding for expansion of the Iraq and Afghan wars.

David Weller
All Things Reform

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Haiku poem: The Environment

2009-06-05T19:28:00.004-05:00

The Environment
by David Weller

oil leaks onto land
roils the royalty owners,
spoiling monthly checks

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

'Good Government' non-profit coalitions watchdog the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

2009-06-02T14:20:00.007-05:00

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: Coalition for an Accountable Recovery and STAR Coalition

Picture: U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.

The Coalition for an Accountable Recovery was formed to promote accountability policies for both government agencies and companies that contract with or benefit from recovery spending. Seizing 21st technology tools and precedents from states and cities, taxpayers deserve transparency and accountability in all new recovery efforts.

+++++++

STAR Coalition is a network of groups working at the state and local levels to ensure that the implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is transparent, accountable, fair and effective.

We want stimulus spending to address vital social needs and benefit those most harmed by the failed economic policies of the past.

We believe that active civic engagement-enabled by full transparency-is the only way to achieve true accountability.

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

President Obama broadens and hones lobbying restrictions for Economic Stimulus funds

2009-06-01T16:45:00.007-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: Democracy 21

Democracy 21 Applauds Revisions by Obama Administration In Lobbying Rules for Stimulus Funds

Statement of Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer

Democracy 21 Press Release, June 1, 2009, http://www.democracy21.org/

Democracy 21 applauds the steps taken by the Obama Administration on Friday, May 29, 2008 to revise the lobbying rules it established on March 20, 2009 to govern the distribution of stimulus funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act).

The revisions carry forward the President’s stated goals of challenging special interest influence in Washington and increasing government transparency, combining public disclosure with the power of the Internet to quickly provide information to citizens.

The revised rules both broaden and narrow the coverage of it March 20 lobbying rules regarding stimulus funds. The revisions expand the coverage of the prohibition on oral communications by registered lobbyists about stimulus funds to apply to communications from all persons, not just registered lobbyists. They also focus the application of the prohibition on oral communications on the key period after competitive grant applications have been submitted and before grants have been awarded.

During this competitive bidding stage all communications initiated by anyone other than an agency official must be submitted in writing and will be posted on the Internet.

The revised rules serve to expand the information that will be provided to the public on the Internet about efforts to influence decisions about competitive grant applications submitted for stimulus funds.

At the same time, the revised rules narrow the original restriction on oral communications about stimulus funds to cover the period when competitive grant applications are under consideration.

The Obama Administration’s lobbying rules for the distribution of funds under the Recovery Act are precedent setting transparency reforms and open the door to similar kinds of rules be adopted for other activities conducted by the Executive Branch.

The initial Executive Branch lobbying rules for the stimulus package adopted on March 20, 2009 were intended to help "ensure the responsible distribution of funds for the Act's purposes and to provide public transparency and accountability of expenditures."

The unprecedented rules were established as a sixty-day pilot project, providing the Administration with the opportunity to review how the rules were working and to make appropriate adjustments. The revised rules announced on May 29, 2009 followed the expiration of the trial period and build on the lobbying rules adopted in March.

The original lobbying rules required Executive Branch departments and agencies to publicly post all written communications received from registered lobbyists concerning the commitment, obligation, or expenditure of funds under the Recovery Act for particular projects, applications, or applicants. These provisions continue in effect.

The rules also prohibited oral comminucations from registered lobbyists to Executive Branch officials concerning particular projects, applications, or applicants for funding under the Recovery Act, but allowed them in the case of communications to discuss general Recovery Act policies. In such cases where oral communications were allowed, the Executive Branch official receiving the communication was required to expeditiously post a summary of the communication received from the registered lobbyist by the deparment or agency involved. These rules have been both expanded in terms of the people being covered and narrowed in terms of the period to which they apply.

# # #

Capital Bits and Pieces Vol. VII, No. 53 Released: Monday, June 1, 2009

Contact: Kristen Hagan
202-429-2008
khagan@democracy21.org

For the latest reform news and to access previous reports, releases, and analysis from Democracy 21, visit http://www.democracy21.org/ .

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

A proportional voting system (Proportional Representation) arguably improves the makeup of the U.S. House and the Voting Rights Act

2009-06-01T00:37:00.007-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: FairVote

Proportional Voting Seen to Solve Problems in the U.S. and Abroad

The FairVote Reformer, May, 2009
Picture: A cumulative voting ballot.

Proportional voting systems have found their way into national discussions surrounding ways to improve the makeup of the U.S. House and the Voting Rights Act. The New Republic's Jeffrey Rosen spotlighted cumulative voting as a potentially helpful voting system for racial minorities, while prominent blogger Matthew Yglesias cited multiple-member districts elected via choice voting (also called the single transferable vote) as a means to reduce polarization in Congress. A Los Angeles Times editorial noted that a "cutting edge" proposal for proportional representation is in the growing call for a state constitutional convention in California - you can see more about proportional voting's place in California debate at the New America Foundation website.

Internationally, proportional voting failed to reach the 60% winning threshold in British Columbia, but is gaining strong support in the British parliament in tandem with instant runoff voting, and forms of proportional voting will be used by every European nation in next month's elections to the European parliament. The Philippines has made strong moves toward proportional voting, while Zimbabwe's Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai is advocating for a major restructuring of his country's government, modeling it after South Africa's parliamentary system with proportional voting for its National Assembly.

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Amend the US Constitution to require that, when vacancies occur, senators be elected by the people instead of the Governor

2009-06-01T00:01:00.008-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: FairVote

No more appointed senators

By David Segal
Published May 14th 2009 in Baltimore Sun
Picture: U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI).

Where are they now?

Just three months ago, America was introduced to four newly appointed Senators - two of whom had never even run for office. They've receded from the fore of our consciousness over the months since, but they're still out there, doing the business of the people who elected the people who appointed them.

Senators Russ Feingold and John McCainare pushing an amendment to the Constitution to require that senators be elected by the people whom they are meant to represent. The 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, removed the appointment of senators from the purview of state legislatures, mandating popular elections, excepting for gubernatorial appointments when vacancies occur. It's time to close this loophole - and Maryland's Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin, who sits on the Constitution subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee - can play a critical role in doing so.

Americans were rightfully dismayed by the political jockeying, and in some cases apparent outright corruption, that swirled around their ascension during the fall and winter. Now the appointees are laser-focused on consolidating the power that was handed to them. But their low popular support yields diminished legitimacy, making it harder to be taken seriously by their colleagues and to work effectively on behalf of their constituents.

So who could oppose electing our senators? Several so-called conservatives have lined up against the proposal - and some even against the 17th Amendment itself: They assert that state governments should decide how senators should be selected.

States can indeed take action right now, but despite this winter's mass outcry, legislation requiring that Senate vacancies be filled by special election has been introduced in just a handful of states this year, and it's already clear that only a few of these bills stand a chance of passing.

What happened in Annapolis this year illustrates why: Del. Saqib Ali introduced legislation to require special elections, but to avoid stepping on the toes of the powerful, it was written to not take effect until 2015 - when Gov. Martin O'Malley will presumably have left office. Even so, the proposal went nowhere.

States in which the legislature is dominated by the same party as the governor - especially those with relatively stable political dynamics - are unlikely to perceive an urgency to act on the Senate vacancy issue; the party that rules the legislature is hesitant to strip authority from a governor of the same party.

In states where power is shared by Democratsand Republicans, the parties have competing interests that complicate the vacancy issue, hurting chances of passage. Indeed, passage is likely only in states with the most unusual of political dynamics: a legislature controlled by a super-majority of one party but a governor of the opposite political affiliation.

Rhode Island, where I live, is the exception that proves this rule: Democrats hold 90 percent of legislative seats and the governor is a relatively unpopular Republican. Versions of Senate vacancy legislation need to be reconciled after having already passed the House and Senate; a likely gubernatorial veto would be easily overridden. (Governors have no role in ratifying constitutional amendments, so the threat of vetoes would be removed under Mr. Feingold's proposal.)

A national movement, and national branding of the push as a "good government" effort, would lessen the appearance that action or inaction by a given legislature would serve as a referendum on any particular governor or on any particular appointed senator. Passage by only 38 states would, once and for all, put an end to this vestige of the oligarchical politics of a century gone by.

The basic legitimacy of our system of governance requires that senators be chosen by the people. Senator Cardin should use his privileged position to aggressively push Senator Feingold's amendment.

David Segal is an analyst for Takoma Park-based FairVote and a Rhode Island state representative. His e-mail is segal@fairvote.org.

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Research with DataFerrett, a free data mining and extraction tool developed by the U.S. Census Bureau

2009-05-30T23:03:00.004-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: FGI- Free Government Information

US Census Bureau's DataFerret

Submitted by justgrimes on Sat, 2009-05-30

DataFerrett (Federated Electronic Research, Review, Extraction, and Tabulation Tool) is a free data mining and extraction tool developed by the U.S. Census Bureau that allows users to search, browse, combine, tabulate, recode, and analyze statistical data from a network of online data libraries. The DataFerret software can be downloaded from the website or ran in the browser via a java applet.

Some material to read before getting started:
DataFerret Brochure
Getting Starting with DataFerrett Tour
DataFerret User Guide

Available data sets included:

American Community Survey (ACS)
American Housing Survey (AHS)
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS)
Consumer Expenditure Survey (CES)
County Business Patterns (CBP)
Current Population Survey (CPS)
Decennial Census of Population and Housing
Harvard-MIT Data Center Collection
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA)
Local Employment Dynamics (LED)
National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS)
National Center for Health Statistics Mortality (MORT)
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (HANES)
National Health Interview Survey (NHIS)
National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS)
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife (FHWAR)
Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE)
Social Security Administration (SSA)
Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP)
Survey of Program Dynamics (SPD)

DataFerret is a wonderful tool for exploring and analyzing data. Enjoy!

(found via Open Access News)

Taxpayers are getting less back than promised from economic bailout, with inadequate transparency with the program

2009-05-29T18:13:00.008-05:00

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: TCS- Taxpayers for Common Sense

Stressed Out by the Bailout

Volume XIV No. 22: May 29, 2009
Picture: Former CEOs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before Congress.

Cha-Ching! That’s the sound you’ve heard over the last several months as about 600 companies walked away from the federal cash register, their pockets stuffed with wads of cash. We’ve never been too thrilled with how the economic bailout has been implemented, but now, eight months in, more problems are emerging. Taxpayers are getting less back than promised, transparency has barely increased and the program seems to be turning into a revolving loan fund without Congressional scrutiny.

Since the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was created in the fall, about $600 billion has been committed to supporting the financial sector, leaving about $100 billion to go. Throw in the money promised to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the price tag hits $1.1 trillion. And we’re not even counting the Fed’s commitment to shore up financial institutions.

Most of the TARP money is going to banks through the Capital Purchase Program (CPP), under which banks receive money in exchange for preferred stock, theoretically enabling them to maintain or increase lending.

As more and more eyes scrutinize the way the bailout dollars are being used, many concerns arise. First, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that Treasury paid $356 billion more to banks than the value of assets received in exchange – a 51% subsidy rate.

Treasury recently completed a series of “stress tests” on 19 of the country’s largest banks to determine whether TARP was indeed helping them avoiding shutting down. While Treasury’s view of the test results was optimistic, the banks could lose $599 billion by the end of 2010 under the worst case scenario. Also, Treasury is requiring 10 of the banks to raise billions in additional capital to shore up their balance sheets. But by requiring banks to bolster their capital cushions, some banks may reduce lending – the opposite of the Bailout’s goal. And for those banks unable to meet the capital goals, Uncle Sam may become their owner.

Other banks are considering getting out of the TARP game altogether, and some have already bought back their stock and warrants. Initially the public was led to believe that we might actually profit from TARP investments after the economic dust settled. But it looks like Treasury is content with taxpayers swallowing all of that $356 billion overpayment. Warrants that were part of most of the TARP deals represent the Treasury’s potential for profit. A warrant holder has the right to purchase a company’s stock, and can thus profit in the future if that stock is sold at a higher price. In one recent example Old National Bancorp bought back all of its preferred stock from Treasury and negotiated a $1.2 million buyback of its warrants. But a separate analysis put the potential value of those warrants at $6.9 million.

We agree that Treasury shouldn’t be in the business of playing the stock market. But allowing other private investors to bid on the warrants would result in a fairer valuation without increasing risks to taxpayers.

Treasury Secretary Geithner now wants to recycle the returned cash and give it to banks that are not yet participating in the program – TARP II. Sequels are rarely better. We’ve argued for months that one of the biggest problems with the first bailout was the failure of Congress and Treasury to lay out clear, measurable goals. Before recycling the dough, Congress should force Treasury to come back to the table and tell taxpayers just how we are benefitting from the money already doled out and explain TARP’s effectiveness in shoring up the economy. We can’t afford a rerun of the same mistakes.

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

FEC withholding public documents on own closed enforcement actions

2009-05-29T12:47:00.007-05:00

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: Campaign Legal Center

Why Is the FEC Withholding Documents From the Public in Violation of Its Own Regulations and Policy Statement?

Posted May 29, 2009 by Paul S. Ryan
Picture: President Obama signs Executive Orders for open government.

Yesterday, the CLC sent two letters to the FEC concerning the Commission’s refusal to disclose documents pertaining to closed enforcement actions—documents that the FEC’s regulations and “Statement of Policy Regarding Disclosure of Closed Enforcement and Related Files” require the Commission to make public. Not only does the Commission’s withholding of these documents violate its own regulations and written policy, but also flies in the face of a commitment issued by President Obama on his first day in office to an “unprecedented level of openness in Government.”

The first letter to the Commission was a formal appeal of a decision by the FEC Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Service Center denying a CLC FOIA request for a General Counsel’s Report and the Factual and Legal Analyses written by the Commission Office of General Counsel in an connection with a complaint filed against the Romney for President Committee and one of his supporters, Kem Gardner (MUR 5937). The complaint alleged that Gardner made an illegal in-kind contribution—and that the Romney Committee accepted an illegal in-kind contribution—when Gardner paid $150,000 to charter an airplane and flew 150 people from Utah to Boston to “dial for dollars” at a Romney fundraising event. The Commission deadlocked 3-3 on whether to find reason to believe that federal law was broken and to commence an investigation, so the Commission closed the file in the matter. The Commission never made public the General Counsel’s Report or the Factual and Legal Analyses and explicitly rejected the CLC’s FOIA request for these documents.

The second letter was sent jointly by the CLC and Democracy 21, noting that in recent months, and with unprecedented frequency, the Commission has been closing enforcement actions after failing by a vote of 3-3 to pass motions related to such actions and has failed to make public General Counsel’s Reports and Factual and Legal Analyses with respect to many of these closed enforcement actions. We requested that the Commission make public all General Counsel’s Reports and Factual and Legal Analyses in closed enforcement actions.

This second, more general letter was prompted by the denial of our March FOIA request in the Romney matter. The CLC has five more similar FOIA requests pending at the FEC and the denial of our request in the Romney matter gives us little hope that the outcome will be different in our other pending requests. The six FOIA requests filed by the CLC this year pertain to only a fraction of the closed enforcement actions in which General Counsels Reports and Factual and Legal Analyses have been withheld from the public by the Commission. And, given that the Commission’s regulations and Statement of Policy require that these documents be made public, FOIA requests should not even be necessary to obtain these documents. For these reasons, we decided to make a more general appeal to the Commission with respect to the disclosure of these documents in all closed enforcement actions.

In denying our FOIA request in the Romney matter, the FOIA Service Center determined that “the agency is precluded from providing this information as it deals with predecisional documents that are covered under the deliberative process privilege under FOIA Exemption 5," citing 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5) for its position.

For the reasons detailed in our two letters to the Commission, the FOIA Service Center’s determination was erroneous with respect to the Romney matter and, to the extent this is the rationale being relied upon by the Commission to withhold documents in the other closed enforcement actions, it is similarly erroneous.

Our letters cite Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit Court precedent making clear that FOIA Exemption 5 is not mandatory. It does not preclude the Commission from providing General Counsel’s Reports and FLAs to the public but, instead, provides federal agencies with the option of asserting a privilege and withholding “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). Even if this exemption is available under FOIA, the Commission is free as a matter of law and policy to publicly disclose General Counsel’s Reports and Factual and Legal Analyses.

Indeed, as our letters further explain, the Commission has adopted regulations and a policy statement that require the Commission to disclose General Counsel’s Reports and Factual and Legal Analyses. This is therefore not a discretionary matter—the Commission and its staff must follow the Commission’s own regulations and policy until they are changed. The Commission’s regulations state that:

[T]he Commission shall make the following materials available for public inspection and copying: . . . Opinions of Commissioners rendered in enforcement cases, General Counsel’s Reports and non-exempt 2 U.S.C. 437g investigatory materials shall be placed on the public record of the Agency no later than 30 days from the date on which all respondents are notified that the Commission has voted to close such an enforcement file[.]

11 C.F.R. § 4.4(a) (emphasis added). Further, the Commission’s “Statement of Policy Regarding Disclosure of Closed Enforcement and Related Files” clearly states:

With respect to enforcement matters, the Commission will place the following categories of documents on the public record:

. . . .

3. General Counsel’s Reports that recommend dismissal, reason to believe, no reason to believe, no action at this time, probable cause to believe, no probable cause to believe, no further action, or acceptance of a conciliation agreement;

4. Notification of reason to believe findings (including Factual and Legal Analysis);

. . . .

The Commission is placing the foregoing categories of documents on the public record in all matters it closes on or after January 1, 2004.

68 Fed. Reg. at 70427 (emphasis added).

If the Commission would like to withhold General Counsel’s Reports and Factual and Legal Analyses under FOIA Exemption 5, it must open a rulemaking with notice and comment to change the existing regulations, and follow its procedures for amending or withdrawing the policy statement which currently governs this issue. Until then, the Commission’s existing rules and policies require such documents to be disclosed.

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Federal employee travel credit card abuse "in the millions of dollars" each year

2009-05-28T12:27:00.012-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: POGO- Project on Government Oversight

Taxpayers are Victims of Continued Government Charge Card Abuse

Contact: Scott Amey, 202-347-1122 or Marthena Cowart, 202-347-3958

[In a bureaucracy the size of our federal government, we can expect, during peace time and prosperity, daily small financial abuses from many of its employees. However, in the time of wars and skyrocketing national debt, credit card abuse during the George W Bush administration is shameful. -ATR]

A recent Congressional Research Service (CRS) report obtained by the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) highlights long-standing systemic weaknesses and mismanagement in federal credit card spending.

CRS’s report details abuses in the federal government travel card program that are costing the government and taxpayers “millions of dollars annually.” Travel cards are used by government officials for airline, hotel, and related travel expenses. CRS looked at Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Inspector General (IG) travel card reports, and found that:

Improper or unauthorized charges included $3,700 for laser eye surgery, reimbursement of nearly $10,000 for tickets that an official didn’t purchase, a first-class trip to Hawaii, and numerous upgrades to premium-class accommodations.
Agencies failed to recover millions of dollars in unused tickets – the Department of Defense had $100 million in unused tickets from 1997 to 2003.
Delinquent travel card payments prevented the government from receiving maximum potential rebates from card vendors.
Travel card spending increased from $4.39 million in FY 1999 to $8.28 million in FY 2008.

“A private travel agency would be out of business running this kind of operation,” declared Scott Amey, POGO’s General Counsel. “This report summarizes problems with individual transactions and, more importantly, with government agencies that aren’t safeguarding taxpayer dollars. Immediate improvements are needed, including improved oversight of all transactions, increased penalties for misuse, and enhanced processes to take full advantage of the benefits that travel cards were expected to bring.”

Legislation is pending in the Senate (S. 942) and House (H.R. 2189) that will add taxpayer protections for government travel cards and purchase cards (used for supplies and services).

Obama's campaign and presidential Five Day Pledge for public input of bills sent to him needs clarification

2009-05-26T18:34:00.008-05:00

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: Sunlight Foundation

Searching for Clarity in the Five Day Pledge

By John Wonderlich on 05/26/09 @ 5:07 pm

Picture: White House press secretary Robert Gibbs (R) with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

Today’s Washington Times has a review of President Obama’s pledge to post legislation online before signing it, where Press Secretary Gibbs is paraphrased:

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said the clock starts ticking when a
link is posted to bills when they are in their final version, such as a
conference report, even if they haven’t passed Congress.

Here’s (I believe) the exchange from Friday:

Q Robert, on the signings today, I’m wondering, the President had pledged
to put bills up on the Web for five days before he signed legislation. And is
that just pretty much out the window?

MR. BURTON: It’s been five days.

MR. GIBBS: I think we posted conference reports several days in
advance. I can get you the exact days.

Q The conference reports?

MR. GIBBS: The conference reports that after they’ve voted on become
the gross legislation that’s delivered here that the President ultimately signs
that becomes public law.

Q So you’re — is that a finalized version of it that went out or
–

MR. GIBBS: Well, a conference report, as you know, is an unamendable
piece of legislation that has to be approved by both Houses, language has to be
simultaneous, it gets sent down here, and we sign it. So if a conference report
is — if something is delineated as a conference report or if there’s not a
conference committee and there’s a separate piece of legislation, if the Senate
passes a bill — if the House and Senate pass different versions of a bill and
the House agrees to accede to the Senate version, then the Senate version might
be put up before the House votes on it. Once they vote on it, both Houses have
passed identical legislation, and it comes down here.

Q So it’s effectively a finalized version. It just hasn’t –

MR. GIBBS: It’s not effectively — it legally is, yes.

Q Okay.

Compare that to this post from WhiteHouse.gov from January 20th:

One significant addition to WhiteHouse.gov reflects a campaign promise from the
President: we will publish all non-emergency legislation to the website for five
days, and allow the public to review and comment before the President signs it.

The only other update from the White House has come in this post, which says:

The President remains committed to bringing more transparency to government, and in this spirit the White House will continue to publish legislation expected to
come to his desk online for public comment as it moves through Congress.

A little clarity would go a long way here. The White House will either start to fulfill campaign promise, whether it’s meaningful or not, or they won’t. The least acceptable choice, though, is to continue to redefine online, or bill.

For a clearer version of the pledge, here’s the version Politifact cites:

“Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the
public has the opportunity to review them,” Obama’s campaign Web site states .
“As president, Obama will not sign any nonemergency bill without giving the
American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House Web site for five days.”

That’s pretty clear. Posting a link from WhiteHouse.gov to THOMAS of a conference report that is expected to pass doesn’t cut it.

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Haiku poem: Service

2009-05-23T22:01:00.002-05:00

Service

the world is once served
when people have the right to
serve their government

by David Weller

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Haiku poem: Transparency

2009-05-21T22:24:00.002-05:00

Transparency
by David Weller

the light of day makes
government data public,
who makes it info

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Landmark affirmative vote in House committee moves climate change legislation forward

2009-05-21T20:19:00.006-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: Environmental Defense Fund

[Due to the sheer gravity of current climate legislation, which in fact may be more important than our nation's financial deliberations, I have brought to your attention the climate bill's latest news. It is from EDF, a sober and experienced advocacy org. for climate policy that partners with businesses, governments and communities to find practical solutions. -ATR]

Breaking News: Historic Climate Vote. Now What?

Dear [friend],

You just changed history. Thank you.

Moments ago, the House Energy and Commerce Committee reported out a bill to reduce America's global warming pollution by 83% by 2050. This landmark vote sets the stage for full House action and provides a crucial roadmap for Senate action.

Keep the champagne on ice though -- we're a long, long way from our goal, to send a bill for President Obama's signature this year.

And to help us seize this momentum for climate action, an anonymous donor has agreed match your climate action donation dollar-for-dollar.

Please donate now to double your support for full House and Senate action this year.

This historic action comes at a critical moment. A new study from MIT warns that global warming could be "twice as severe as previous estimates indicate." (USA Today, 5/21/09)

Standing between us and ultimate victory is an army of right-wing ideologues and old school oil, coal and gas interests -- who have unleashed a torrent of fake science, scare-mongering statistics, and propaganda designed to stop climate progress in Washington.

They've made their intentions only too clear. In a leaked strategy memo, opposition leaders are urging their rank and file to unite in opposition while offering no climate alternative of their own.

And the big polluters and their well-paid lobbyists are expected to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to defeat this bill.

By one estimate, there are more than 2,000 paid lobbyists in Washington working to stop climate action.

We're at a make-or-break moment.

Your donation right now will go twice as far to help us ramp up our campaign efforts to continue our fight. With your support, we'll be able to target more districts, buy more ad time, and do more on-the-ground field work.

Now that the bill has made its way out of Committee, the wrangling over votes -- especially in swing districts -- begins in earnest. Our National Climate Campaign Director Steve Cochran tells me that the full House could vote on this bill within the month, giving us precious little time to ramp up.

That's why the opponents of progress are pulling out all the stops to confuse and scare the public right now. And it's why you and I must raise our voices as never before.

Please make a donation today to take advantage of our dollar-for-dollar match to support climate legislation.

Your donation will never make a bigger difference than it will today.One way or another, we are making history in 2009. Whether this becomes the year we changed America's direction or the one in which we lost one of our last great opportunities to act is up to us.

Please join me.

Sincerely,
David Yarnold
President, Environmental Defense Action Fund

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Submit federal transparency and open government recommendations

2009-05-21T12:08:00.007-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: Office of Science and Technology Policy

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY

Executive Office of the President; Transparency and Open Government

SUMMARY: The President's January 21, 2009, memorandum entitled, Transparency and Open Government, directed the Chief Technology Officer, in coordination with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the General Services Administration (GSA), to develop a set of recommendations that will inform an Open Government Directive. This directive will be issued by OMB and will instruct executive departments and agencies on specific actions to implement the principles set forth in the President's memorandum. Members of the public are invited to participate in the process of developing recommendations via email or the White House Web site at http://www.whitehouse.gov/open offering comments, ideas, and proposals about possible initiatives and about how to increase openness and transparency in government.

DATES: Comments must be received by June 19, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments by one of the following methods:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/open.
E-mail: opengov@ostp.gov.
Mail: Office of Science and Technology Policy, Attn: Open Government Recommendations, 725 17th Street, Washington, DC 20502.

Comments submitted in response to this notice could be made available to the public online or by alternative means. For this reason, please do not include in your comments information of a confidential nature, such as sensitive personal information or proprietary information. If you submit an e-mail comment, your e-mail address will be captured automatically and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Office of Science and Technology Policy, Attn: Open Government, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20502.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [...]

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Security bill for the Internet squelches speech, curtails liberties down to the individual user

2009-05-20T21:39:00.008-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Barr Code: Cyber bill squelches speech, curtails liberty

6:00 am May 20, 2009, by Bob Barr

Picture: US Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME)

The Internet — arguably the most empowering and important innovation of the modern era — is in danger of being stifled by the heavy hand of government control. Legislation now pending in the U.S. Senate would give the president, the Department of Commerce and other federal bureaucracies absolute power to define the Internet’s usage and to close it down at will.

While the “Cybersecurity Act of 2009” so far has only a few sponsors, it appears on a fast track for hearings, mark-up and passage.

This cybersecurity bill presents itself as a necessary and carefully considered response to a legitimate problem — the lack of adequate security measures for national security programs and infrastructure sectors. It is, however, a cyber-wolf in sheep’s clothing. As introduced by Democrat Jay Rockefeller and Republican Olympia Snowe, the legislation’s scope and power to reach every corner of the vast Internet system — including individual, private Internet usage — raises extremely troubling privacy and censorship concerns.

When coupled with provisions in the little-known International Cybercrime Treaty ratified by the Senate in 2006 under pressure from the Bush administration, enactment of the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 presents the very real possibility of direct interference by other nations and international organizations in domestic Internet use.

As with most pieces of bad legislation, this one starts with high-sounding “findings” that mask and divert focus from its actual effects. The preliminary section, for example, correctly states that “failure to protect cyberspace” constitutes a serious national security problem, and that a cyber attack on our national power grid, for example, could be devastating.

However, rather than focus solutions to these problems on areas properly within the scope of the federal government the legislation sweeps so broadly as to grant the federal government virtually unfettered and unreviewable power over every aspect of the Internet, from the most complex national security segment to the smallest individual user.First, the bill defines the operative term, “cyber,” to include: “any process, program, or protocol relating to the use of the Internet or … transmission … via the Internet,” and “any matter relating to, or involving the use of, computers or computer networks.”

The bill incorporates within the unwieldy term “federal government and United States critical infrastructure information systems,” the following : all “state, local, and nongovernmental information systems … designated by the President as critical .”It is easy to understand the concern of many Internet users and network administrators, especially when considered in the context of the actual powers the act proposes to give the federal government.

The president is empowered to declare a “cybersecurity emergency” (not defined in the bill) and “order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from” any of the defined networks! Even in the absence of declaring a so-called cybersecurity emergency, the president can order the shutdown of any of the defined networks whenever he decides doing so would be “in the interest of national security.”

The bill grants deeply troubling powers over private-sector use of the Internet that should bother every user and purveyor of Internet services. Such concerns are heightened when considering that the 2006 Cybercrime Treaty requires U.S. law enforcement agencies to grant to foreign governments that have likewise adopted the treaty, access to an Internet service provider’s customer use records.

If signed into law, the 2009 Cybersecurity Act would constitute the second half of a one-two punch effectively neutering the Internet.

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights passes US Senate; President Obama expected to sign identical House bill before Memorial Day

2009-05-20T15:25:00.008-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: U.S. PIRG

Statement: Credit Card Bill passes Senate

Statement of Ed Mierzwinski, Consumer Program Director On Senate Passage of the Credit CARD Act

“U.S. PIRG commends the Senate on overwhelming passage of the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure (CARD) Act, S 414, as introduced by Senator Chris Dodd, Chair of the Senate Banking Committee. While the House has already passed a similar Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights, we expect that the House will simply pass the identical Senate bill so Congress can send a final bill for the President to sign before Memorial Day.

For too long, owning a credit card company has been a license to steal. Over the last few years, the banks increased their use of abusive tactics, such as changing due dates so they could trick consumers into paying late. Worse, they charged a double whammy—a high late fee first and then tripled interest rates to 36% APR or more. Second, they started charging good customers higher rates because they supposedly paid some other creditor late (universal default). But that wasn’t enough, so they started raising the rates of customers who’d been late to no creditor, for no reason at all. That was their biggest mistake. Gouging everyone caused thousands and thousands of Americans who just want a fair deal to contact Congress and even the Federal Reserve.

The Credit Card Act bans nearly all retroactive rate increases on current balances, it prohibits universal default in the first year and it protects college students from unfair marketing of credit cards.

I’ve been in Washington twenty years. For the first 19 we couldn’t even get a committee vote on credit card reform despite these practices.

Due to abusive practices by credit card companies, we are now on the verge of historic credit card reform. Is it everything we want? No, we should also ban raising rates going forward, not just retroactively, and we should ban forced arbitration clauses in credit card contracts and reinstate usury ceilings. But final passage of this historic credit card reform legislation will stop big credit card companies, many of which are feeding at the TARP taxpayer trough, from cheating Americans out of their hard-earned money. That will help working families so that they can become part of our economic recovery, not lurch on a credit card debt treadmill. It’s about time.”

-30-

Posted by Ed Mierzwinski at May 19, 2009 02:01 PM

[Original U.S. PIRG article accepts comments]

Social Security cash flow deficits are projected to begin in 2016

2009-05-18T19:26:00.006-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: The Concord Coalition

WASHINGTON BUDGET REPORT: May 18, 2009

Trustees Report Projects Social Security Deficit in 2016

Last week, the Trustees of the Social Security Trust Funds (Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability) released their annual report. In a nutshell, following is the status of the trust funds, based on the Trustees' findings:

Social Security is a pay-as-you-go program where incoming payroll tax revenue revenues (6.2% each from employers and employees) pay for benefits disbursed to retirees and disabled Americans.
Cash flow deficits are projected to begin in 2016, as opposed to last year's estimate of 2017.
Cash deficits will continue and worsen as the baby-boom generation retires.
The assertion that "social security surpluses" will keep the program solvent until 2037 is misleading, because the surpluses do not actually exist except on paper. The surpluses consist of IOU's from the Treasury Department to the Social Security Trust Funds (Treasury Bonds) and can be redeemed only if taxes are raised, spending is cut, or the Treasury borrows the money.
Dedicated tax income (including taxation of benefits) projected for 2016: $986 billion. Benefit payments projected for 2016: $1,005 billion

Who are the Trustees? Secretary of the Treasury Geithner; Secretary of Labor Solis; Secretary of HHS Sebelius; and Commissioner of Social Security Astrue. The two public trustee positions are vacant.

2009 Social Security Trustees Report

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Medicare Part A Hospital Insurance Trust Fund is already running a cash deficit

2009-05-18T18:55:00.006-05:00

Image via Wikipedia

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: The Concord Coalition

WASHINGTON BUDGET REPORT: May 18, 2009

Trustees Report Shows Medical Hospital Fund Already in the Red

Medicare is a national health insurance entitlement program for Americans 65 and older. The program also covers workers who have become disabled. The program has four parts:

Part A Hospital Insurance, financed primarily by current workers' payroll taxes (1.45% payed by current employers and employees), covers hospital services, post-hospital services, and hospice care.
Part B Supplementary Medical Insurance, financed primarily by general tax revenues (as well as premiums and copayments), provides optional coverage for physician services, outpatient hospital care, home health care and medical equipment.
Part C "Medicare Advantage" provides managed care options for beneficiaries enrolled in Parts A and B.
Part D Prescription Drug Coverage, financed by general tax revenues and premiums, provides optional drug coverage for the elderly and disabled.

HI Trust Fund already running a cash deficit.--The 2009 Trustees Report found that Medicare's Hospital Insurance Trust Fund already paid out more in benefits last year, than it received in cash income.

Moreover, cash deficits will continue to grow due to the rapid increase in health care costs and the retirement of the baby boom generation.

Part A Trust Fund Income in 2008*: $215 billion. Outgo during 2008: $236 billion.

SMI Trust Fund: Medicare Part B and Part D comprise the Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund. However, since general revenues are automatically pumped into this "trust fund" to cover expenditures not paid for by premiums and copayments, it is not a trust fund in any meaningful sense. This stands in contrast to the HI Trust Fund, which is financed by a dedicated revenue source (primarily payroll taxes).

*(Excluding interest from the Treasury, which is simply an intragovernmental transfer)

2009 Medicare Trustees Report

>All Things Reform Mobile: allthingsreform.mofuse.mobi >Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121 (not toll-free) >US House/Senate Mobile: bit.ly/members >Contact your reps tips: bit.ly/dear >Shortened All Things Reform URL: bit.ly/dw

Interact more with the White House with the new Office of Public Engagement

2009-05-18T15:09:00.005-05:00

Image by ~MVI~ via Flickr

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: The White House

Engagement, Women, Health Care, and Yarn

Monday, May 18th, 2009 at 1:12 pm

Posted by Christina M. Tchen, Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement

Welcome to the Office of Public Engagement! Those of you who know Washington may have known about the Office of Public Liaison, which has been the office in the White House since the Nixon Administration that has connected the White House with public interest groups and constituencies based here in DC. Since the Inauguration, I have been the Director of the Office of Public Liaison, and our staff has had a busy hundred days reaching out to local and national groups across over four dozen different areas. But President Obama, as a community organizer himself, has always recognized the importance of engaging grass roots and grass tops, and wants this White House to be engaged in a two-way conversation with people across the country. As the President explained in the video announcing our "relaunch," we are renaming and repurposing ourselves as the Office of Public Engagement to reflect that mission [...]

[...]

As President Obama has said, this office serves as the front door to the White House, and we will be engaging all of you in the work it will take to change this country. The meeting I had with women small business owners this week is one of many important conversations we’ll be holding. Please stay tuned for additional blogs from me and the rest of the Office of Public Engagement staff, as we will be listening to and sharing with you the stories that we are hearing around the country.

Check out this lecture video on campaign finance reform by Lawrence Lessig

2009-05-16T08:58:00.008-05:00

Government reform orgs. deliver news on major events within their areas of expertise.
From: Change Congress

Lessig's keynote - an intellectual treat for you

Hi folks,

If you want to give your mind an intellectual treat, take the time this weekend to watch Lawrence Lessig's recent keynote address at the Brennan Center's national conference on campaign-finance reform.

Lessig is co-founder of Change Congress and his keynotes have been called "legendary." This keynote was presented to luminaries of the campaign-finance reform world and top Obama administration officials.

Click here to check it out.

Thanks for helping to Change Congress.

--Adam, Monica, Japhet, and Stephanie