nationalpriorities.org - Latest entries

A Millennial Middle America

guestblogger — Wed, 22 May 2013 06:00:00 -0500

Solar panels at Thompson Rivers University/ Photo by Thompson Rivers, Creative Commons

By Tarsi Dunlop

Millennial America – the generation born between 1981 and 2000 – is bigger than the boomers and values innovation, government stewardship and community investment. That means the time is ripe for consumers and environmentalists to push for better clean energy technologies. In the Washington Post Matthew Stepp argued, “the best way to make clean energy ready for prime time is through public investments in innovation.” The Millennial vision for America is one of smart investment for a robust and sustainable future, and public investment for truly cutting-edge innovation is a risk worthy of the federal government. The United States is reluctant to lead and sign onto any international efforts to deal with climate change and time is running out. Domestically, we as citizens have an opportunity to push for smarter and more robust investments. If we are truly concerned about climate change, and 72 percent of us are according to a recent poll, then we should use our consumer power to push for better and more efficient alternatives.

As citizens we pay taxes, but federal government expenditures may not always line up with our own priorities. For example, in 2011, according to National Priorities Project data, 1.9 cents for every dollar paid in taxes went to Energy & Environment. This category covers all environmentally-related initiatives, but not expenditures related to nuclear weapons. My 2012 tax receipt says I spent approximately $95 on Energy & Environment, with $11.66 on energy conservation. However, Stepp makes the argument that even in these tight budgetary times, funding can be shifted. Stepp argues that money spent supporting high-cost clean technologies and giving tax breaks to mature fossil fuels could be invested in other research, testing, prototyping and development, perhaps particularly with solar and geothermal energy sources. If costs are truly one of the greatest challenges to adopting a greener lifestyle, more R&D investment to produce consumer friendly products may be the solution.

The challenge, particularly for a Millennial America that stands behind values of smart sustainable public investment, is how to efficiently and effectively lead this effort and write this narrative. Millennials of all ages are combining efforts, through organizations such as 350.org, Energy Action Coalition, and Power Shift, and showcasing their policy solutions through the annual Roosevelt Institute | Campus Network’s 10ideas journal for Energy & Environment, and the Blueprint for Millennial America. Competitions such as the U.S. Department of Energy’s Solar Decathlon or those hosted by the University of Michigan’s Energy Institute are encouraging youth to put forth their scientific innovations to promote sustainable development. It’s also noteworthy that houses built for the Decathlon are relatively affordable to construct.

As the world’s population continues to rise, we are facing an increasing strain on our resources. We need research and design investments to help us reduce human impact on natural resources – clear air and water, and land conservation. Addressing climate change is a moral imperative, but through strategic planning, there is a chance to compromise when it comes to footing the bill for moving to a more sustainable way of living. Government, as a steward of the common good, can invest in innovative research to help bring costs down so that Americans from all socioeconomic backgrounds can afford to be part of this effort.

Tarsi Dunlop is the former Director of Operations for the Roosevelt Institute Campus Network and the Communications Director for the Roosevelt Pipeline, DC Chapter.

Open Government Advocates Unite at Transparency Camp

bsweger@nationalpriorities.org (bsweger) — Mon, 20 May 2013 06:00:00 -0500

Transparency Camp 2013 Opening Session. Photo by TamasSzemann.

Earlier this month, I represented NPP at Transparency Camp, the Sunlight Foundation’s annual gathering of people interested in making governments transparent and accountable.

Transparency Camp is an unconference, meaning that its agenda is set by participants. That’s part of the magic, since 500 attendees come from all over the world and represent a wide range of perspectives: government employees, programmers, activists, watchdog organizations, lobbyists, and the media. Taking a few days off from business-as-usual and immersing yourself in these varying outlooks is enlightening and energizing.

For example, a few of us brainstormed a legislative agenda for open data. As more politicians become interested in championing transparency initiatives, what kinds of legislation would the community like them to pursue? Well, here’s what we came up with: http://transparencycamp.org/schedule/2013/creating-a-legislative-agenda-for-open-data/

The international aspect of Transparency Camp is another part of the magic. I met Onigbinde Oluseun of budgiT, NPP’s Nigerian counterpart. This team scrapes Nigeria’s budget data from PDFs and makes it accessible to citizens in the form of visualizations, an interactive tax day tool, and trade-offs. Sound familiar? It’s affirming to swap stories and resources with people from around the world doing the same kind of work.

Finally, I was able to visit the offices of my representative and senators as part of the Sunlight Network’s Citizen Advocacy Day. After writing about the DATA ACT for the past year, it was gratifying to go to Capitol Hill and campaign face-to-face for better federal spending data.

Thanks, Sunlight, for another great Transparency Camp and for being a stalwart resource for the open government community.

Extra Cash Pushes Debt Ceiling Deadline to September

mattea@nationalpriorities.org (mattea) — Wed, 15 May 2013 06:00:00 -0500

Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and President Obama/ White House photo by Chuck Kennedy

A better-than-expected cash flow at the U.S. Treasury has turned May 18 into just any old day.

That was supposed to be the deadline for lawmakers to come to an agreement on raising the debt ceiling, which is the limit Congress places on its own borrowing. But the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are expected to send tens of billions of dollars in profits to the Treasury over the coming months, while government spending has gone down due to the cuts of sequestration. That means the federal government will borrow less money and won't hit the debt ceiling until after Labor Day, according to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew.

The Debt Ceiling and Budget Cuts

Historically, raising the debt ceiling was a routine order of business - it's happened dozens of times since the debt ceiling was first put in place in 1917. But in recent years it's become highly politicized. Republicans in Congress have used the debt ceiling as an opportunity to negotiate with Democrats and the president for spending cuts and deficit reduction. In 2011, the threat of hitting the debt ceiling and defaulting on interest payments led lawmakers to agree on the Budget Control Act, which cut trillions of dollars from federal spending and put in place the across-the-board cuts of sequestration, which went into effect on March 1 of this year.

The Debt Ceiling and Tax Reform

Unlike past debt ceiling negotiations, which Republicans have used to demand deficit reduction, GOP officials are now focused on implementing corporate tax reform. Their proposal – which would lower tax rates while closing loopholes – essentially means that deficit reduction will not be on the table this time around. That's because the Republicans are opposed to raising new revenue via the tax code.

In recent months the president has said he won't negotiate over the debt ceiling - a promise he kept in January, when lawmakers decided to suspend the debt ceiling through May 18.

Where Are We Now – It’s Appropriations Season

chellman@nationalpriorities.org (chellman) — Thu, 09 May 2013 13:49:01 -0500

If you're concerned about gridlock in Washington, get ready for more fireworks. May 15 marks the unofficial start of the annual appropriations process on Capitol Hill, where Congress begins putting together the spending bills that support many domestic federal programs and the Pentagon.

First, let’s take a couple of steps back. Each year, with the February release of the president’s budget request, the White House and Congress begin a Five-Step process that normally results in a federal budget. Step Two is the enactment of House and Senate budget resolutions which guide the remainder of the process.

Things were reversed this year, however, with the House and Senate acting on their respective budget resolutions in late March and the Obama Administration not releasing its budget request until mid-April.

Step Three is where the appropriations committees make funding decisions about specific federal programs based on the overall spending guidlines set out in the budget resolutions.

So that’s where we are, sort of. Truth is, at Step Three both the House and Senate should have passed identical budget resolutions, and would be working from the same set of numbers. But they haven’t, which means that they’re working from two different sets of numbers instead of working out their differences now. May 15 is the deadline after which appropriators can begin their work without a single budget resolution.

Which brings us to the idea of “regular order” – Washington-speak for “how things are supposed to work.” Under regular order, committees draft and pass legislation and the full House and Senate vote on it. Once they agree on a final identical version, they send it on to the president. [Although there are exceptions…]

In an effort to avoid the gridlock of last year’s budget process, members have been clamoring for a return to regular order. Last year was a disaster – none of the appropriations bills got through both the House and Senate under regular order.

Stay tuned as we guide you through whatever Congress orders up.

Open Data from White House Shows Path Forward

guestblogger — Thu, 09 May 2013 11:00:00 -0500

The White House/ flickr

By John Wonderlich

Today, the White House is issuing a new Executive Order on Open Data -- one that is significantly different from the open data policies that have come before it -- reflecting Sunlight's persistent call for stronger public listings of agency data, and demonstrating a new path forward for governments committing to open data.

This Executive Order and the new policies that accompany it cover a lot of ground, building public reporting systems, adding new goals, creating new avenues for public participation, and laying out new principles for openness, much of which can be found in Sunlight's extensive Open Data Policy Guidelines, and the work of our friends and allies.

Most importantly, though, the new policies take on one of the most important, trickiest questions that these policies face -- how can we reset the default to openness when there is so much data? How can we take on managing and releasing all the government's data, or as much as possible, without negotiating over every dataset the government has?

How can the public (or policymakers) request what they don't know exists? How can CIOs manage what they haven't surveyed?

Most open data policies have avoided this complexity, building requirements around datasets that are already public, or setting vague goals about new disclosures. The Open Government Directive, Obama's signature open data initiative from his first term, took a similar approach, requiring agencies to release three high value datasets, and then requiring a data disclosure planning process that was hard to oversee and even harder to enforce.

We've often pointed out this deficit, and grown more pointed in our vision for reliable open data policies that move beyond aspirational statements and cherry-picking data policies over the last few years. The Open Government Partnership has spawned a huge number of similar commitments from governments around the world -- important, welcome enthusiasm for sure, but enthusiasm that needs an example of where to head next.

This new policies provide that direction, similarly to how we've envisioned it. To move beyond vague aspirations, the policies require agencies to index all of their data (internally), to make a public list of all their public data, and (this is the key point) requires all agencies to list all their data that can be made public.

Here's how we envisioned such a requirement about a year ago:

So we're not giving up on forcing agencies to make information policy decisions in public. One of the most important things that governments can do to be more transparent is to list, or index all of their information holdings online. CIOs should be more than just technology purchasers; the word information is in their title. Every agency should have a public list of its major information holdings, along with a description of whether it's public or not, and why. Without creating such a list, how do Chief Information Officers even do their jobs? Now, the question "where is all of our information" can be a tricky one to answer, but agencies can rely on threshold definitions. For example, any database with a maintenance cost over a certain number should be listed. Any information specifically described in a statute governing the agency should be described. Any form, report, or data described in the regulations governing the agency should be described. Whether the information is usually (or never) accessible via FOI request should be noted, and whether bulk data is available through a central portal should be spelled out as well. (By far, the best example of such a review that we've seen is the DOT regulatory compliance plan, and the closest we've found for Congress is this.)

The new policies take a similar tack:

b. Create and maintain a public data listing- Any datasets in the agency's enterprise data inventory that can be made publicly available must be listed at www.[agency].gov/data in a human- and machine-readable format that enables automatic aggregation by Data.gov and other services (known as "harvestable files"), to the extent practicable. This should include datasets that can be made publicly available but have not yet been released. This public data listing should also include, to the extent permitted by law and existing terms and conditions, datasets that were produced through agency-funded grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements (excluding any data submitted primarily for the purpose of contract monitoring and administration), and, where feasible, be accompanied by standard citation information, preferably in the form of a persistent identifier. The public data listing will be built out over time, with the ultimate goal of including all agency datasets that can be made publicly available. See Project Open Data for best practices, tools, and schema to implement the public data listing and harvestable files.

By requiring agencies to publicly list all their data that could be made public, the president is not just reaffirming that decisions about disclosure should be based on the public interest, he's also giving the public (and Congress) tools to enforce them. When open data procedures are incorporated into agency processes from the start, we'll start to see more systems designed for bulk access from the start, and we'll be better able to recoup all the missed opportunities in legacy datasets that are still closed. We'll be able to evaluate agencies' transparency against what they've defined as their candidates for release, and clearly identify areas where agencies avoid disclosure altogether.

To be sure, getting agencies to publicly list all their data that can be open will be a significant challenge, even with a high-profile Executive Order. Concerns like cost, privacy, and security will be used to justify non-disclosure (as they often are), and will be used to try to justify keeping even a description of many datasets private. That's a good struggle to have, though, and one we're looking forward to. Without this Executive Order, too many agencies are managing data holdings that they haven't comprehensively reviewed, without public oversight, while advocates, journalists, and policymakers have an unclear view of what agencies know, and what they could be releasing.

Today's Executive Order demonstrates a new approach to open data, moving beyond rhetoric and aspiration, requiring agencies to publicly report on what data can be made public, building a new backbone for federal open data policy, and setting an example for other governments to follow.

We're thrilled that the president (and some very dedicated staff) have been listening, and are aggressively pursuing a strong vision for what open data should mean. Changing the default to open takes more than political commitments and enthusiastic rhetoric, and today's new policies mark a new aggressive move to pursue that idea.

John Wonderlich is the Policy Director for the Sunlight Foundation and one of the nation's foremost advocates for open government. This post originally appeared on the Sunlight Foundation's blog.

Congress Prevents Flight Delays by Lying; Cuts Funding for Domestic Violence Relief Programs

guestblogger — Wed, 08 May 2013 06:00:00 -0500

Last week we explained that Congress was rushing to prevent airport delays, even as education programs and services for vulnerable Americans - such as shelters for victims of domestic violence - were seeing funding cuts. The following guest blog is an explanation of how lawmakers ultimately passed the "Reducing Flight Delays Act" - by lying about a typo and throwing transparency out the window.

By Jim Harper

Last weekend, we reported how Congress had failed to pass identical versions of the same bill in the House and Senate, meaning it couldn’t be signed into law. Now they’ve fixed the problem … by lying.

S. 853 and H.R. 1765 are both called the Reducing Flight Delays Act of 2013. They allow the Federal Aviation Administration to move money around so that it doesn’t have to furlough air traffic controllers under the across-the-board budget cuts produced by sequestration.

Late last week, the House and Senate each passed their bills, and the Senate agreed to automatically pass a bill “identical” to the one they had passed when the House version arrived. Except, before the House version arrived, its sponsor amended it, changing the word “account” to “accounts” in one place. (The FAA has to move money from multiple appropriations accounts in order to pay air traffic controllers, not just one.) That meant that the bills weren’t identical and couldn’t be sent to the president for his signature.

Well, the fix is in. And we mean “fix” in the worst possible way. Rather than pass a bill identical to the House bill, the Senate lied to itself to get the bill through the process. And the bill is now what can only be called a grammatical embarrassment.

During a one-minute session on Tuesday, the Senate agreed by unanimous consent to retrieve the bill it passed from the House “in order for the Secretary of the Senate to make corrections in the engrossment of this bill.” Engrossment—that’s when the Secretary of the Senate produces the official copy to send to the House or the president.

The thing is, there were no corrections to make. The Secretary had engrossed the bill correctly. It’s just that the Senate had passed a bill with “account” in it and the House had passed a bill with “accounts” in it.

But I guess if you’re the Secretary of the Senate, you’re going to take the fall sometimes. The House and Senate couldn’t take the time to do things right, and they decided that it’s the Secretary’s fault.

But that’s not all. With this “error” cleared up, a shiny new one has emerged. When the House and Senate changing the word “account” to “accounts” in one place, it forgot to do so the second place in the same sentence!

The idea is to allow the FAA to use money from multiple Treasury accounts to fund air traffic controllers. Here’s a shortened version of what the convoluted sentence says in the final version of the bill:

Notwithstanding [other laws and policies], the Secretary of Transportation may transfer during fiscal year 2013 [up to $253,000,000] to the appropriations accounts providing for the operations of the Federal Aviation Administration, for any activity or activities funded by that account, from [airport grants-in-aid] or any other program or account of the Federal Aviation Administration.

We’ve added italics to show you the two instances of “account/s” that don’t match up. The second one is still singular, referring back to the first one, which is plural.

But what the heck. When Congress is moving only a quarter-billion dollars around, there isn’t much reason to take time to get it right.

Maybe President Obama can straighten this out. He, after all, promised as a candidate for president in 2008 that there would be a five-day public review of all bills sent him by Congress.

Oh. The bill was presented to him Tuesday, the White House posted it on the pending legislation page at 6:42 p.m. that day, and he signed it on Wednesday. Oh well.

Jim Harper is the Director of Information Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. This was post originally appeared on the site Washington Watch.

Photo by John Krzesinski / Creative Commons flickr

A Pathway To a Better Federal Budget

robin@nationalpriorities.org (robin) — Tue, 07 May 2013 08:33:21 -0500

Photo courtesy of rileyroxx's photostream on Flickr / Creative Commons.

Join me, if you will, in envisioning a pathway to a nation where the federal budget reflects the priorities of the American people.

That nation would have funding for a strong public education system, stable health care and social security programs for elders, a safety net providing basic human needs -- like food and heat -- for people who are struggling, and smaller national deficits as a result of mitigated spending and progressive tax reform.

That nation is within our reach. Multiple polls show that these are the priorities of the majority of Americans. Yet, federal budget policy-makers in Washington haven’t gotten the memo.

NPP is leading a national movement for a budget that listens to the priorities of people like you and me -- our nation’s priorities. After all, it’s our federal budget.

People are angry and want change -- right now. NPP has the information and tools people need to be powerful and effective advocates. Now in our 30th year, we remain the only organization in the nation breaking down the federal budget for citizen engagement to strengthen our democracy. NPP is providing the pathway to a better federal budget.

And this month, NPP needs your help.

We've received a challenge gift! A major supporter has pledged $6,000 if we can raise an additional $4,000 online by May 31.

That’s just 67 people becoming monthly donors at $5/month.

Will you join us?

Now is the time. Your gift will help us turn $4,000 into $10,000 for a movement towards a better federal budget.

NPP is in this fight with you, and for you. Together, we will fulfill the promise of our democracy.

How Much Foreign Aid Does the U.S. Give Away?

mattea@nationalpriorities.org (mattea) — Mon, 06 May 2013 06:00:00 -0500

Photo by U.S. Embassy, Santiago Chile

How much money does the U.S. spend on foreign? "Very little," I wrote back in October.

But some readers rightly critized that characterization of U.S. foreign aid spending. Indeed, while foreign aid is well under 1 percent of the total U.S. federal budget, it's still counted in the multiple tens of billions of dollars – around $23 billion this year, or a total of $37 billion if you include assistance to foreign militaries. And that, of course, is a lot of money. Here are the precise figures:

Foreign Aid

In fiscal 2013, U.S. government funding for humanitarian assistance and international development will total around $23 billion. (Back in October, I included spending on diplomacy in the numbers that I reported. In order to directly address the question of how much we give in aid to other countries, I'm now leaving out diplomacy and operations of the State Department.)

Foreign Military Assistance

In addition, the U.S. will spend around $14 billion in fiscal 2013 for foreign military assistance – that's money spent on training foreign armies and providing them with weapons.

Use our Trade-Offs tool to see how many teachers, police officers, and years of health care coverage – among other things – your community could buy with tax dollars currently spent on foreign aid and the military.

Can the DATA Act Restore Medicare "Cuts?"

mattea@nationalpriorities.org (mattea) — Thu, 02 May 2013 20:43:49 -0500

The Medicare program accounts for around 14 percent of the entire federal budget, but you wouldn’t know it from USAspending.gov.

USAspending.gov is a website that’s supposed to make government spending transparent. But if you use it to investigate how much the government spent on Medicare benefits last year, you’ll find a surprising number: zero. That’s not a reporting error; there are many such problems in USAspending.gov, and it’s a sign of opaque government. In 2012 Washington actually spent more than $500 billion on Medicare. Citizens should have access to that information – both because health care costs are a major budgetary challenge affecting all Americans and because we deserve to know how our taxes are spent.

And that’s our mission at National Priorities Project. We’re working to make the federal budget more accessible so Americans of all walks of life can understand and influence where their tax dollars go. To that end we maintain the Federal Priorities Database, a resource that features federal spending down to the county level – so you can see the local impact of federal dollars invested in programs ranging from Medicare and Social Security to Head Start, school lunches, and Title I grants for disadvantaged public schools. The federal government even applauded our work recently, citing the Federal Priorities Database as an important use of government data.

But we can’t do our job unless government officials do theirs. The Federal Priorities Database is only as good as the data that federal agencies report – and right now that data is not very good. That’s why we have to choose as a nation to invest in government transparency. NPP supports the DATA Act (short for the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act), legislation that would mandate standardized and complete reporting by federal agencies. When citizens want to know how much their government is spending on any given program, contract, or salary, the answer should be at their fingertips.

Sequestration - Useless Baggage

jo@nationalpriorities.org (jo) — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 09:00:00 -0500

Photo by John Krzesinski / Creative Commons flickr

They’ve hit a new low.

Citing significant concerns about long lines at airports and flight delays caused by the furlough of air-traffic controllers, Congress let the Federal Aviation Administration override strict sequestration rules and redirect funds within its budget. And they did so with lightning speed.

With their big fuss over aviation punctuality, lawmakers made it clear that they’re not feeling the pain felt by the majority of Americans. Their message: In the United States it’s fine to wait – and face a steep climb – for housing, health care, cancer treatment, a preschool slot, domestic violence intervention services, federal work study, or job retraining. But our planes? They better take off on time.

Thanks to sequestration’s across-the-board cuts that began two months ago, the FAA had to cut $637 million from its budget between March 1 and September 30, 2013. It planned to achieve one-third of this cost savings by furloughing 14,000 air-traffic controllers – making them take one unpaid day off for every ten days worked.

Congress is falling prey to what The New York Times calls the “special-interest demands for exceptions” – first meat inspectors, now air-traffic controllers.

Even though the majority of sequester-driven cuts fall on programs that serve families, workers, and low-income Americans, the gasp emerging from local communities is barely audible in the media or on Capitol Hill.

That’s because the majority of folks enduring the across-the-board cuts – program beneficiaries and the workers who serve them – are fighting to survive. They don’t have huge sums at their disposal to pay lobbyists or publicists.

Our lawmakers’ struggle to ease the pain of weary travelers is doing nothing to soften sequestration’s overall blow. More than a piecemeal approach is required.

Congress must cast off its confounding allegiance to zero-sum budgeting where one person’s win is another person’s loss. With all their constituents in mind, not just a powerful few, lawmakers must forge comprehensive legislation that tackles the way our nation makes our revenue and the way we set federal spending priorities.

Any member of Congress unwilling to engage in this task should locate the exit closest to them. There’s no room on this flight for useless baggage.

Jo Comerford is the Executive Director of National Priorities Project. This piece first appeared on the site OtherWords.

How Budget Cuts Affect Special Education Programs

guestblogger — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 06:00:00 -0500

By Blake Pappas

The cost of education for a child with disabilities can be double the amount needed for a child without disabilities. Many students with special needs require multiple services such as classroom aides, counseling, specialized equipment, or access to health professionals during the day. Special education programs are often underfunded, leading to poor outcomes for students and repercussions for schools and communities. Unfortunately, many school districts today are seeing budget cuts, and these cuts exacerbate the challenges faced by special education programs and the students they serve.

One way that many school districts attempt to cut costs in special education is by placing special needs students in mainstream classrooms. While this can be an effective tool to reduce spending, the effect on learning outcomes for special needs students can be negative and counterproductive.

The Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, which became federal law in 1990, protects disabled students and provides for their equal access to education. It is important for special education teachers to know how to develop accurate plans for their students so they can gain the equal access guaranteed under federal law. By effectively developing these plans, called Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), they can help to protect their programs and students from some of the negative effects of budget cuts.

Even though students with disabilities are guaranteed equal access to education under the law, budget constraints often affect special education programs more severely than other programs. Already underfunded even in the best of budgetary times, these programs are now competing for ever scarcer funding.

For more:

See federal grants to the 50 states for special education in the Federal Priorities Database.
See a comparison of competing budget proposals from the House, Senate, and President Obama, and their plans for education funding.

Blake Pappas completed his undergraduate degree in Justice Studies from Arizona State University, has worked in habilitation therapy and higher education, and is currently pursuing a Master’s Degree in Business. Photo by Kim Cofino.

National Priorities Project and Western Massachusetts' First Civic Hackathon

bsweger@nationalpriorities.org (bsweger) — Wed, 24 Apr 2013 06:00:00 -0500

In just over a month, hackers will descend on over 80 locations across the United States, including Amherst, Massachusetts. But don’t worry—these are civic hackers: volunteer technologists, designers, and citizens coming together and using publicly-released data to solve challenges relevant to their towns and states.

In January, President Obama called for a national day of civic hacking. National Priorities Project heard the call and put Western Massachusetts on the map of national and international events taking place on June 1-2, 2013.

NPP is offering up our federal budget data and partnering with a great team of local organizers, local businesses, and the University of Massachusetts to put on Hack for Western Mass, the inaugural civic hackathon in Western Massachusetts.

Civic hackathons have gained significant momentum in cities across the country, resulting in hundreds of projects like websites to match surplus food to those who can distribute it, tools for identifying backers of political ads, and maps of city tree ecosystems.

If you’re a software developer, designer/artist, entrepreneur, advocate/activist, or concerned citizen, we want to see you at Hack for Western Mass at UMass Amherst on June 1-2.

Registration is free, but sign up soon so we can plan accordingly and keep you updated about the local challenges we’ll be working on. For more information or to get in touch with Hack for Western Mass organizers, visit the website at http://hackforwesternmass.org.

Graphic Design by Molly McLeod

Data Story: Social Security's Wide Reach and Proposed Cuts

bsweger@nationalpriorities.org (bsweger) — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:00:00 -0500

When President Obama released his FY2014 budget, he endorsed a plan to use an alternate measure of inflation – known as chained CPI – to shrink the cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security beneficiaries.

Social Security Programs

Social Security insurance covers more than just retirees; benefits are also paid to those with disabilities and family members of deceased workers. Combined, these groups received about $720 billion in benefits during fiscal year 2011.

The newly-updated Federal Priorities Database has state and county-level spending data for all three of these groups:

Nearly 90% of Americans oppose cuts to Social Security. How would reduced Social Security benefits affect your state and county?

NPP's Federal Spending Database: USASpending.gov Made Understandable

bsweger@nationalpriorities.org (bsweger) — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 08:46:38 -0500

How does money from the federal budget affect you and your neighbors? Where do those Social Security, food stamp, and Medicaid dollars end up?

NPP has released the latest version of the Federal Priorities Database, the interactive tool that connects the dots between our tax dollars, the federal budget, and programs or services in your community. The Federal Priorities Database can answer these questions, and now it contains data from USASpending.gov.

USASpending.gov for the Average Citizen

Although USASpending.gov is a public website, it provides raw, low-level records and a search form that’s useful for data wonks like us but not for the average citizen. So we’ve made that data relevant and accessible by:

Providing maps and tables for county-level data
Allowing users to adjust for inflation and compare data year over year
Displaying per capita spending in addition to total spending, allowing for comparisons between states and counties
Providing downloadable spreadsheets and exports

And while USASpending.gov has been criticized for being incomplete and inaccurate, it is currently the only government-provided source of localized, program-level data about federal spending. NPP is committed to making USASpending.gov understandable while at the same time advocating for increased oversight of the information it contains.

Getting Started

Visit the Federal Priorities Database to see what’s new, and also check out these additional resources:

Federal Priorities Database Getting Started Guide
Our series of in-depth database tutorials
Federal Priorities Database data stories

Top Five Things To Know About the Pentagon’s Budget Request

chellman@nationalpriorities.org (chellman) — Mon, 15 Apr 2013 14:36:33 -0500

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and DoD comptroller Robert Hale testify before Congress on the Pentagon's request (courtesy of Defense Department)

Last week the Obama Administration released its long-overdue budget request for fiscal year 2014. As part of the request, the administration is seeking $526.6 billion for the Pentagon. This amount does not including funding for wars or the nuclear weapons activities at the Department of Energy. Here are five things you need to know about the FY2014 Pentagon request:

1) It Doesn’t Contribute Much To Reducing The Deficit

Despite concerns about the deficit this is only a 1.6 percent decrease in funding from last year. By comparison, this is far less than the 7.8 percent reduction in Pentagon spending that the Office of Management and Budget projects will result in FY2013 from the automatic spending cuts – known as sequestration – that went into effect on March 1.

2) It Assumes There Won’t Be Additional Cuts From Sequestration in FY2014

Pentagon officials have indicated that they expect Congress and the White House will reach some sort of larger deal on the federal budget that will avoid additional cuts under sequestration. But considering sequestration wasn’t supposed to happen in the first place, and that the FY2014 budget process is already off to a shaky political start as Republicans and Democrats continue the gridlock that marked last year’s budget, that’s a pretty big assumption.

3) It Includes no Funding Request for War Costs

This is a technicality really, since the Pentagon says a request will be out within the month and have put in a “placeholder” amount equal to last year’s request – roughly $88.5 billion. But it’s interesting to note that with a budget request that was already delayed by two months, the Pentagon needs more time to figure out what the war in Afghanistan is going to cost. Stay tuned…

4) “Stays the Course”

In a recent speech Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel pledged to put “everything on the table” in efforts to control the Pentagon budget, and said that the military must look at change “that involves not just tweaking or chipping away at existing structures and practices.” But the request includes no significant new strategic policy initiatives, nor does it cancel any of the major Cold War-era weapons like the F-35 fighter aircraft, the 'Virginia' class submarine and missile defense – most of which are behind schedule and over budget.

5) “Can’t Touch That”

The request contains a couple of policy changes the Pentagon has proposed in the past that were considered “dead on arrival” long before they got to Capitol Hill. The request includes a new round of military base closures (BRAC) for 2015. It also proposes changes in the Pentagon’s TRICARE health insurance program to control spiraling costs.

Click here for NPP’s in-depth analysis of the Pentagon’s request, and see our analysis of the full FY2014 budget request. And check out the Top Five things you need to know about the Obama budget.