July 12, 2009

So...Who is minding the store?

 

Link:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/07/AR2009070702742.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

 

Security Flaws Found at Federal Buildings

By Ed O'Keefe
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Investigators from the Government Accountability Office over the past year successfully smuggled bomb-making materials into 10 high-security federal buildings, constructed bombs and walked around undetected, according to GAO testimony set to be delivered today.

The investigation uncovered critical weaknesses in protection provided to workers by the Federal Protective Service, the agency in charge of safeguarding federal buildings.

More than 1 million government employees work in 9,000 facilities nationwide tha t are guarded by the FPS, including at least 350,000 Washington area workers. The revelation comes as the administration prepares to reorganize the agency.

The GAO said security concerns prevent it from revealing the exact locations of the facilities. They included offices of lawmakers as well as offices for the Homeland Security, Justice and State departments.

In the past, security experts have criticized some GAO investigators for publicizing sensational findings that are not based on intelligence-driven risk assessments, but the GAO stressed that it followed generally accepted government standards.

Staff writer Spencer S. Hsu contributed to this report.

 

Rove Grilled on U.S. Attorney Firings

by: John Bresnahan and Josh Gerstein   |  Visit article original @ The Politico


Karl Rove was questioned by the House Judiciary Committe as part of an investigation into the firing of several US attorneys by the Bush administration. (Photo: Getty Images)

    Former White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove was deposed Tuesday by attorneys for the House Judiciary Committee, according to Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the panel's chairman.

    Rove's deposition began at 10 a.m. and ended around 6:30 p.m, with several breaks, Conyers said.

    Conyers would not comment on what Rove told congressional investigators, what the next step in the long-running Judiciary Committee investigation would be or whether Rove would face additional questioning.

    "He was deposed today," Conyers said in an interview. "That's all I can tell you."

    Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, declined to confirm or deny that his client had appeared before the committee. Luskin said there was an agreement that the depositions would remain confidential until they were completed. However, in a court filing Monday, the Justice Department indicated that the deposition set for this week would be the committee's last.

    Conyers' panel had first subpoenaed Rove in 2007 as part of its probe into the firing of nine U.S. attorneys. But the Bush White House, citing executive privilege, refused to make Rove or White House Counsel Harriet Miers available for any deposition.

    Conyers' panel responded by filing a civil lawsuit against the White House and prevailed in district court last year but the appeals court had yet to address the issue.

    With an agreement between the Obama White House, the Bush White House and House Judiciary Committee, the current Justice Department avoided having to choose sides in court and risk an appeals court precedent which could undercut executive privilege or Congress's right to investigate alleged government malfeasance.

    Miers was interviewed by Judiciary Committee staffers in June.

 

Conspiring Contractors Continue to Plot Snatch of Government $

SAIC, Other Contractors Allegedly Conspired on $3.2 Billion Deal

 

Link:  http://voices.washingtonpost.com/government-inc/

 

 

 

Two government employees allegedly shared restricted procurement information with SAIC and others on a $3.2 billion NASA contract, giving the contractors an unfair advantage, the Justice Department said.

SAIC said the allegations do not have merit.

The allegations are part of a whistleblower lawsuit that the Justice Department just said it would join.

"The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, alleges that the defendants knowingly violated the False Claims Act when they submitted (or caused to be submitted) false claims and conspired to submit false claims under a $3.2 billion contract with the General Services Administration (GSA) to provide support services to a branch of the NAVO MSRC. In April 2004, GSA awarded the contract to SAIC, which teamed with AES and Lockheed Martin Space Operations to perform the agreement."

"'Those who do business with the government must act fairly and in accordance with the law,' said Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division. 'As this case illustrates, the Department of Justice will actively pursue legal action against both contractors and federal employees who seek to gain an unfair advantage in the procurement process.'"

SAIC spokeswoman Melissa Koskovich shared this about the developments:

"SAIC has fully cooperated with the Government over the past three years as this matter was reviewed. We have thoroughly examined the Government's claims and found the allegations to be without merit. The Government has been reviewing this matter for three years and has failed to identify any information provided to SAIC that was not available to other bidders or that could have provided SAIC with an unfair competitive advantage in the procurement process. SAIC intends to pursue a vigorous defense against these allegations.

"SAIC is a highly ethical company committed to complying with all applicable laws and regulations. We spend significant time and effort operating a comprehensive and rigorous ethics and compliance program that includes policies, procedures, mandatory training and audit tools. We are proud of our commitment and track record of ethical performance and legal compliance."

This one is interesting. More to come.

By Robert O'Harrow |  July 2, 2009; 3:33 PM ET

DOJ Discloses Details About Cheney Interview

by: Jason Leopold, t r u t h o u t | Report


Former Vice President Dick Cheney. (Photo: Getty Images)

    In early fall 2003, as the scandal over leaking a covert CIA officer's identity was exploding, President George W. Bush claimed not to know anything about the leak and called on anyone in his administration who had knowledge to come "forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true."

    How disingenuous the president's appeal was has been underscored again by a new Justice Department court filing sketching out the contents of the 2004 interview between special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald and Vice President Dick Cheney.

    Though the Obama administration continues to balk at releasing the full contents of the Cheney interview, it did reveal that Bush and Cheney were in contact about the scandal, including what is described as "a confidential conversation" and "an apparent communication between the Vice President and the President."

    The filing in a federal court case also makes clear that Cheney was at the center of White House machinations rebutting criticism from former US Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who charged in summer 2003 that the Bush administration had "twisted" intelligence to justify invading Iraq in March 2003. While seeking to discredit Wilson, administration officials disclosed to reporters that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA.

    Bush and his subordinates then sought to deny a White House hand in the leak. White House press secretary Scott McClellan later apologized for his role in the deception in his 2008 book, "What Happened," saying that Bush and four other high-ranking officials caused him to lie to the public in clearing Bush's political adviser Karl Rove and Cheney's chief of staff I. Lewis Libby of any responsibility for the Plame leak.

    "I had unknowingly passed along false information," McClellan wrote. "And five of the highest ranking officials in the administration were involved in my doing so: Rove, Libby, Vice President Cheney, the president's chief of staff [Andrew Card], and the president himself."

    Eventually, the cover-up led to the prosecution of Libby, who was found guilty in 2007 of four counts of perjury and obstruction of justice, but Bush commuted Libby's 30-month prison sentence.

    When Fitzgerald's investigation came to a close with only that one prosecution, questions were raised about his reasoning for not bringing legal action against Bush, Cheney, or other senior officials implicated in the leak and cover-up. Those questions led to Congressional requests for the Bush-Cheney interviews and to the current Freedom of Information court case.

    In its new court filing, the Obama administration opposed release of the Cheney interview, but described the topics discussed. Besides the contacts with Bush, the filing referenced Cheney's questions to the CIA about its decision to send Wilson to Africa in 2002 to investigate - and ultimately refute - suspicions that Iraq was seeking yellowcake uranium from the African country of Niger.

    Cheney also was asked about his role in arranging a statement by then-CIA Director George Tenet taking responsibility for including a misleading claim about the African uranium in Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, and Cheney's discussions with Libby and other White House officials about how to respond to inquiries regarding the leak of Plame's identity, the court filing said.

    Fitzgerald also questioned Cheney about his participation in the decision to declassify parts of a 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's alleged WMD. It ultimately fell to Bush to clear selected parts of the NIE so they could be leaked as part of the White House campaign to disparage Wilson.

    Obama's Resistance

    A public interest group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, is seeking access to Fitzgerald's interview with Cheney under the Freedom of Information Act and now has confronted refusals from both the Bush administration and the Obama administration.

    Though President Obama declared a new era of openness when he entered the White House in January, he has recently had his administration's lawyers resist releasing information about the secret dealings of the Bush administration.

    In the CIA leak case, Justice Department lawyers claimed that disclosing Cheney's interview might discourage future government officials from cooperating with criminal inquiries.

    "In any such investigation, it will be important that White House officials be able to provide law enforcement officials with a full account of relevant events," said Lanny Breuer, assistant attorney general for the criminal division.

    "Baseless, partisan allegations that easily could be investigated and dismissed through voluntary interviews now may have to be investigated through the specter of the grand jury process. In addition, if law enforcement interviews are routinely subject to public disclosure, there could be a significant risk of politicization of law enforcement files and investigations, which could undermine the integrity and effectiveness of, and public confidence in, those investigations."

    Last month, during a court hearing on the case, Justice Department attorney Jeffrey Smith told the judge that release of the transcript might open Cheney to ridicule from late-night comics and thus could discourage other White House officials from cooperating with government prosecutors.

    "If we become a fact-finder for political enemies, they aren't going to cooperate," Smith said during a court hearing. "I don't want a future Vice President to say, 'I'm not going to cooperate with you because I don't want to be fodder for The Daily Show.'"

    When asked by US District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan whether the Obama administration was standing behind the refusal of Bush's Justice Department to release the transcript, Smith answered, "This has been vetted by the leadership offices.... This is a department position."

    Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said, "It is astonishing that a top Department of Justice political appointee is suggesting other high-level appointees are unlikely to cooperate with legitimate law enforcement investigations. What is wrong with this picture?"

    Fitzgerald told a Congressional committee last year that the interviews he conducted with Cheney and Bush in 2004 were not protected by grand jury secrecy rules, nor were there any prearranged agreements to keep the interview transcripts secret.

    The insistence on keeping the interviews secret arose late in the Bush administration when Congress sought the transcripts. Bush's Justice Department cited executive privilege and national security in refusing to turn them over as well as the speculation about the effect on future White House cooperation with investigations.

    The Obama administration has now taken up that banner while also adding concerns about possible comic use of the transcripts.

    More CIA Delays

    The CIA leak case was only one of two examples this week of the Obama administration going back on its word about government transparency.

    On Thursday, the Justice Department said it would not release until the end of the summer a CIA inspector general's report that was believed to have been sharply critical of the Bush administration's torture program. Even then, the Justice Department said there is no guarantee that any part of the report would be declassified.

    The announcement was made following several previous delays in the long-running court case between the CIA and the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to gain access to the report and other documents related to the treatment of prisoners.

    The Justice Department, acting on behalf of the CIA, previously told US District Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein that the agency would re-evaluate whether the report's contents could be at least partially released by June 19. The CIA then requested two extensions - to June 26 and then July 1.

    "The Report poses unique processing issues," the Justice Department said in a letter on Thursday. "It is over 200 pages long and contains a comprehensive summary and review of the CIA's detention and interrogation program.

    "The Report touches upon the information contained in virtually all of the remaining 318 documents remanded for further review. Although the Government has endeavored in good faith to complete the review of the Special Review Report first, as we have gone through the process, we have determined that prioritizing the Report is simply untenable....

    "We have determined that the only practicable approach is to first complete the review of the remaining 318 documents, and then apply the withholding determinations made with respect to the information in those documents to the Special Review Report....One month into that process, we have concluded that we must review all of the documents together, and that the review will take until August 31, 2009."

    ACLU Objections

    The ACLU, in a letter to Hellerstein, said it "strenuously" opposes the two-month delay, which would amount to "a fourth extension" of the original deadline.

    Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU's National Security Project, said the CIA "has already had more than five months to review the inspector general's report, and the report is only about two hundred pages long."

    "We're increasingly troubled that the Obama administration is suppressing documents that would provide more evidence that the CIA's interrogation program was both ineffective and illegal," Jaffer said. "President Obama should not allow the CIA to determine whether evidence of its own unlawful conduct should be made available to the public. The public has a right to know what took place in the CIA's secret prisons and on whose authority."

    Amrit Singh, an ACLU staff attorney who has been working on the case, said it's "apparent that the CIA report is not being delayed for legitimate reasons, but to cover up evidence of the agency's illegal and ineffective interrogation practices....

    "It is time for the President to hold true to his promise of transparency and once and for all quash the forces of secrecy within the agency. The American public has a right to know the full truth about the torture that was committed in its name."

»


Jason Leopold is editor in chief of The Public Record, www.pubrecord.org.

Agency Payment of Undeserved Bonuses to Contractors Must Stop

This band continues to play, and many of us are pretty disgusted with it.  The disconnect between true performance and the payment of bonuses, contractual or not has to be stopped.  Examples of this still keep making the news nationally, in states, and locally. 

-GFS

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Link:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/05/AR2009070502520.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

Report Faults Performance Bonuses for Contractors
Some Agencies 'Unaware' of Policy

By Steve Vogel
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 6, 2009

Federal agencies have awarded billions in bonuses to contractors regardless of whether the work was deemed satisfactory, according to a Government Accountability Office report released last week.

Government-wide guidance issued in 2007 by the Office of Management and Budget recommended that agencies link award fees to results and prohibit payments for poor performance. That policy has saved hundreds of millions of dollars, the GAO reported.

But the office found that many officials at several major agencies, including the departments of Energy, Homeland Security, and Health and Human Services, were "unaware" of the guidance. Others, including the Pentagon and NASA, have done more to make changes, but they have done so inconsistently, according to the GAO report, released June 29.

An Air Force contracting official told GAO investigators that a contractor "has to do a pretty bad job to receive a rating of 'good' " -- a rating that pays in excess of 85 percent of the award fee.

"These evaluations provide little motivation for improved performance despite fee determination letters that consistently noted that the contractor had room to improve," the GAO report noted.

"The Pentagon and other federal agencies seem to live in a world where every contractor is above average," Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) said in a statement after the report's release.

The Office of Science at the Energy Department uses a scoring system that allows for payment of as much as 84 percent of an award despite a performance below expectations, according to the GAO report.

A Homeland Security contractor received a bonus despite an evaluation that described the contractor's communication as "egregious."

The contractor, who maintained aircraft for Customs and Border Protection, switched to a costlier method of disposing hazardous waste without notice. Homeland Security viewed that action as a "questionable use of taxpayer funds for parochial interests without the coordination and consultation of government representatives," the GAO report said.

But the agency paid an undisclosed bonus anyway, reasoning that eliminating the award for poor communication would ignore the contractor's performance in other areas.

Agencies often give poor-performing contractors second and third chances at missed bonuses, the report said. A Homeland Security contractor that missed its bonus on the first go-round earned 100 percent of the award in a subsequent period.

"There are certainly times when agencies should provide incentives for contractors who perform well or go above and beyond the call of duty," said Thomas R. Carper (D-Del.), who as chairman of a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee requested the GAO report. "But I am concerned that many agencies are relying on these poor-performing contractors simply because the federal government does not know what it wants or needs or how services should be delivered."

Carper's office said his subcommittee will hold a hearing to examine "why federal agencies are inappropriately awarding large bonuses."

Where the revised policies have been adopted, hundreds of millions of dollars have been saved, according to the GAO. The Defense Department will save more than $450 million from 2006 through 2010 by limiting second chances at unearned fees in eight programs, the agency estimates.

The GAO report recommends that the secretaries of Energy, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security update their policies on using award fees. The agencies told the GAO they will comply with the recommendations.

I.G. Independence AND Accountability Needed

The essential issues in this debate, is how can we have Inspector General's offices be independent so they are not pressured by agency management, or other government high ranking agency managers, including members of the Executive Branch, and yet still have accountability for those IG’s as they do their jobs, or depart from fulfilling their stated missions as the case may be.  We can see from our most recent experience what having too much Presidential or Vice Presidential influence in appointments, firings, and control of what federal employees do can do when power is abused.  We can also see what happens when Inspector General offices and their employees are subject to pressure and retribution from the agency management and employees they are supposed to be overseeing.  It will be important to devise an effective and workable system here to allow for true independence to do their very important oversight and auditing work, and yet be accountable enough not to be co-opted by very partisan political influences, no matter how high in our government they may be coming from.  -GFS

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Financial Agency IGs Say Bill Threatens Independence

 

Link:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/05/AR2009070502519.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

By Ed O'Keefe
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 6, 2009

Inspectors general at five financial regulatory agencies are objecting to legislation that would elevate their positions to the presidential-appointment level, arguing that the move would compromise their ability to conduct independent investigations.

The bill would elevate the five officials at the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the National Credit Union Administration, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.

Supporters of the measure say the five IGs need greater flexibility and more distance between their work and possible interference from agency leadership, especially amid the economic meltdown. But opponents fear that the politics and length of time associated with the appointment process would delay investigations.

The bill, passed last month by the House and awaiting Senate consideration, comes amid a period of increased tension for the government watchdog community, which has seen the departure or dismissal of three inspectors general in recent weeks.

Last month, the International Trade Commission dismissed its inspector general and President Obama fired Gerald Walpin, inspector general at the Corporation for National and Community Service. Also, Amtrak's inspector general retired suddenly after delivering to leadership of the federally backed corporation an independent audit alleging interference with his probes. Amtrak said retirement arrangements had been made before the analysis was delivered.

Federal watchdogs and their investigative and auditing staffs are tasked with rooting out government corruption or investigating sensitive personnel matters. According to the Government Accountability Office, there are at least 69 inspector general offices across the federal government, with new ones established as the need arises. The president appoints approximately 30 IGs, while the remainder are appointed directly by agency leadership. Rules and reporting structures vary.

"It is more important than ever that there is continuity of the operations and oversight activities currently undertaken by inspectors general of financial regulatory agencies," H. David Kotz, the SEC's inspector general, said at a hearing this year.

"It is more important to ensure that the best qualified individuals are selected to serve," CFTC Inspector General A. Roy Lavik told lawmakers, suggesting that elevation was unnecessary because the original inspector general act codified his independence.

NCUA Inspector General William A. DeSarno told lawmakers his office's independence has never been challenged despite his appointment by the agency's board.

Colleagues have expressed similar concerns, and independent observers are also skeptical.

"We remain unconvinced that a presidentially appointed IG is more independent than one that reports to a bipartisan board," said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, which tracks government watchdogs.

"I think you can be more independent reporting to a bipartisan board than being at the mercy of the president's good graces," she said.

"It is not surprising that some inspectors general would be critical of a piece of legislation that will hold them to a higher standard and demand more from them," said Emily Barocas, spokeswoman for Rep. John B. Larson (D-Conn.), the bill's lead sponsor. "This bill gives them more resources and more independence, but it also requires them to do their jobs and be accountable."

Debate over the bill speaks to the balancing act required of inspectors general who must perform investigations while maintaining cordial lines of communication with agency leadership or the White House. Several approached about the issue declined to speak publicly about their roles.

Though the bill passed the House, its fate in the Senate is uncertain. Both chambers continue to probe the Amtrak and ITC situations and an allegation of possible interference with inspector general investigations at the Library of Congress.

Walpin's dismissal drew the most attention, however. Obama dismissed him after the agency's bipartisan board of directors contacted the White House counsel's office about his behavior at a May board meeting. In an initial letter to lawmakers, Obama stated that he had lost confidence in Walpin. Several lawmakers objected, and the White House provided documents outlining its reasons.

Several lawmakers of both parties have since stated their agreement with Obama's decision, while Walpin maintains the firing was unjustified.

Some observers say the firestorm could have been avoided if Congress had adopted an even stronger version of legislation passed last year to bolster the 1978 Inspector General Act. The original law codified the existence of federal watchdogs.

Last fall's amendments require the president to inform lawmakers in writing of a decision to terminate an inspector general 30 days before removal. The initial bill required the president to list specific reasons for any removal, but the Bush administration objected to the provisions, arguing they challenged executive authority.

For its part, the current White House notes that then-Sen. Obama cosponsored and voted for last year's legislation and that most of the recent incidents involved agency leaders and watchdogs appointed by the previous administration. Aides also note that most of the current IG investigations involve watchdogs not at the presidential appointment level.

 

Revolving Door Between Government and Healthcare Industry Keeps Spinning

Familiar Players in Health Bill Lobbying
Firms Are Enlisting Ex-Lawmakers, Aides

Link:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/05/AR2009070502770.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

By Dan Eggen and Kimberly Kindy
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, July 6, 2009

The nation's largest insurers, hospitals and medical groups have hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress in hopes of influencing their old bosses and colleagues, according to an analysis of lobbying disclosures and other records.

The tactic is so widespread that three of every four major health-care firms have at least one former insider on their lobbying payrolls, according to The Washington Post's analysis.

Nearly half of the insiders previously worked for the key committees and lawmakers, including Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), debating whether to adopt a public insurance option opposed by major industry groups. At least 10 others have been members of Congress, such as former House majority leaders Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) and Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), both of whom represent a New Jersey pharmaceutical firm.

The hirings are part of a record-breaking influence campaign by the health-care industry, which is spending more than $1.4 million a day on lobbying in the current fight, according to disclosure records. And even in a city where lobbying is a part of life, the scale of the effort has drawn attention. For example, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) doubled its spending to nearly $7 million in the first quarter of 2009, followed by Pfizer, with more than $6 million.

The push has reunited many who worked together in government on health-care reform, but are now employed as advocates for pharmaceutical and insurance companies.

A June 10 meeting between aides to Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and health-care lobbyists included two former Baucus chiefs of staff: David Castagnetti, whose clients include PhRMA and America's Health Insurance Plans, and Jeffrey A. Forbes, who represents PhRMA, Amgen, Genentech, Merck and others. Castagnetti did not return a telephone call; Forbes declined to comment.

Also inside the closed committee hearing room that day was Richard Tarplin, a veteran of both the Department of Health and Human Services and the Senate, where he worked for Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), one of the leaders in fashioning reform legislation this year. Tarplin now represents the American Medical Association as head of his own lobbying firm, Tarplin Strategies.

"For people like me who are on the outside and used to be on the inside, this is great, because there is a level of trust in these relationships, and I know the policy rationale that is required," Tarplin said in explaining the benefits of having government experience.

But public interest groups and reform advocates complain that the concentration of former government aides on K Street has distorted the health-care debate, and that it further illustrates the problem posed by the "revolving door" between government and private firms.

"The revolving door offers a short cut to a member of Congress to the highest bidder," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, which compiled some of the data used in The Post's analysis. "It's a small cost of doing business relative to the profits they can garner."

Aides to Baucus and other lawmakers bristle at any suggestion of special treatment for former staff members. Baucus spokesman Scott Mulhauser said the senator "remains committed to working with a variety of stakeholders" as the Finance Committee attempts to come up with a bill this summer.

"The senator and his staff meet daily with individuals, nonprofits and interests from across the health-care spectrum, and are proud that all interests are treated equally and that no one receives special treatment of any kind," Mulhauser said. "As a result, the Finance Committee has been praised by members of Congress and the media for its uniquely inclusive and transparent health-care reform process."

The Post examined federally required disclosure reports submitted by health-care firms that spent more than $100,000 lobbying in the first quarter of this year. It used current and past filings to identify former lawmakers, congressional staff members and executive branch officials.

The analysis identified more than 350 former government aides, each representing an average of four firms or trade groups. That tally does not include lobbyists who did not report their earlier government experience, such as PhRMA President W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, a former Republican congressman from Louisiana. Federal law does not require providing such detail.

Overall, health-care companies and their representatives spent more than $126 million on lobbying in the first quarter, leading all other industries, according to CRP and Senate data. PhRMA led the pack in spending and employs 49 former government staff members among its 136 lobbyists, according to The Post's analysis. Dozens of other former insiders are employed as lobbyists by Pfizer, Eli Lilly, the AMA and the American Hospital Association, each of which spent at least $3.5 million on lobbying from January through March.

The aim of the lobbying blitz is simple: to minimize the damage to insurers, hospitals and other major sectors while maximizing the potential of up to 46 million uninsured Americans as new customers. Although many firms have vowed to help cut costs, major players such as PhRMA, America's Health Insurance Plans and others remain opposed to the public-insurance option, a key proposal that President Obama has endorsed.

Several major Democratic bills include such a plan, but Baucus's committee -- which is acting as the central broker in the debate -- has not committed to the idea. Instead, the Finance Committee has focused recently on private-insurance cooperatives and other proposals seen as more palatable to the insurance industry and centrist Democrats. More than 50 former employees of the committee or its members lobby on behalf of the health-care industry, records show.

Deploying former government officials is a key strategy for pressing such positions on Capitol Hill, according to industry lobbyists, many of whom discussed the issue on the condition of anonymity. They say that legislative or administration experience helps ensure that policies considered by Congress do not imperil health-care interests, which account for about one-sixth of the U.S. economy.

At the same time, these lobbyists say, a personal connection to lawmakers and their staffs does not guarantee success.

"If anyone thinks hiring a former staffer for Baucus or [Charles] Schumer or Blanche Lincoln is going to get them what they want, they are crazy," said one health-care lobbyist who used to work on the Finance Committee, referring to several key Democratic senators. "If we were being judged on that, a lot of us should be fired."

William K. "Billy" Wynne, a former Baucus health counsel who now works for the Health Policy Source lobbying firm, said that "there's nothing insidious" about medical companies and groups hiring former legislative staff members. He also notes that he is subject to a two-year limit on contacts with Baucus's office.

"The technical processes of the House and Senate are not intuitive or widely known," Wynne said. "Like with any service, people who have experience are going to be valuable to people who don't."

Some trade groups and companies appear to emphasize hiring lobbyists with legislative or executive experience. Wellpoint, one of the world's largest insurance conglomerates, employs 11 lobbyists with government experience and three with none. One of its veterans is Stephen Northrup, who worked for several years for Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), including a year as his health policy director on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

"I think the experience on Capitol Hill gives you a better appreciation of the challenges that members and staff face," said Northrup, who began his Washington career as a lobbyist before entering government. "Every institution has its own rhythm. You need to understand when people need information."

The personal and professional ties between lawmakers, their staffs and lobbyists are often complex. Consider the case of Tarplin and his wife, Republican lobbyist Linda Tarplin. The two worked on opposite sides of the Family Medical Leave Act debate in the 1990s, and each has held high-ranking HHS positions -- he for Bill Clinton and she for George H.W. Bush.

Now they run their own health-care lobbying firms, drawing on their connections. Last year, Richard Tarplin's firm reported $650,000 in lobbying income and his wife's firm -- Tarplin, Downs and Young -- reported $3.5 million.

"We have been in situations that are much more combative than this," Linda Tarplin said of the health-care fight. "Both Democrats and Republicans want health-care reform. The rub has always been they tend to get there in different ways."

At least eight former HHS appointees have also crossed over into health-care lobbying, representing more than 25 companies with a stake in the reform legislation. Most were presidential appointees with high-ranking positions, such as the Tarplins.

A few have also cycled back into government. Jack Charles Ebeler, a former Clinton HHS official, left his job as president and chief executive of the Alliance of Community Health Plans a few months ago to become senior adviser for health policy on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Financial disclosure statements show that Ebeler received consulting fees over the past two years from UnitedHealth Group, Academy Health, the Medicare Rights Center, the Center for Health Care Strategies and the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans. Ebeler declined interview requests by The Post.

One of the most prominent examples of Washington's revolving door is Tauzin, who took the $2.5 million-a-year job as head of PhRMA in 2005 after shepherding a Medicare prescription drug plan through Congress.

Uproar over the appointment led Congress in 2007 to pass a bill barring former members from bringing clients onto the House and Senate floors and from lobbying their friends in members-only gyms. The legislation also forbade direct lobbying contacts with former colleagues for a year in the House and two years in the Senate; efforts to enact a wider ban went nowhere.

Tauzin and other lobbyists rebuff critics, arguing that it is unsurprising that those with experience on Capitol Hill should then draw on that background.

"Is it a distortion of baseball to hire coaches who have played baseball? Is it a distortion of universities to hire from academia?" Tauzin asked rhetorically. "The bottom line is that people work in the fields in which they have experience. Somehow there are people who think that's unusual for politics, but I think it's pretty normal."

Graphics editor Karen Yourish, database editor Sarah Cohen and research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.

Local and Regional Newspapers Struggle to Continue to Exist

It seems like newspapers everywhere have been struggling to prevail lately, and some are stopping the presses and closing their doors.    Times like these create opportunity and motivation sometimes to cross some lines that should not be crossed.  Here are a couple of stories of interest, one from Washington State describing the struggles of these news organizations and what one state is doing to try to bail them out, and one from Washington, District of Columbia  describing the ethical and legal morass one paper (The Washington Post),  found itself in by crossing that line.   –GFS

 

 

Newspapers in WA get tax break during bad times

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — As newspapers across the country struggle through a brutal economic climate, papers in Washington State are getting a tax break.

A new law that gives newspaper printers and publishers a 40 percent cut in Washington's main business tax took effect this week, providing some much-needed relief to the business after a year in which The Seattle Post-Intelligencer printed its final edition and other papers suffered drastic cutbacks.

"It's not a bailout, because it's not enough money," said House Majority Leader Lynn Kessler, the Democrat who sponsored the measure. "But it is our way of saying to the newspapers that we do believe you're incredibly important to our state and our democracy."

The Society of Professional Journalists and the National Conference of State Legislatures was not aware of any other state that has granted a similar tax break to the newspaper industry.

In Michigan, a bill that was introduced in May would exempt newspapers from paying that state's main business tax, but the bill has not yet had a hearing. And several states, including Mississippi, Idaho and Colorado, have existing sales-tax exemptions for newspapers.

The Washington tax cut, which will cost the state about $1.3 million a year, was approved despite uneasiness in the industry about newspapers relying on the government they cover for help.

But there was also recognition that these are historic times for the industry.

Newspapers across the country have resorted to layoffs, pay cuts, furloughs and other cost cutting moves to deal with a wounded business model and a recession-fueled drop in advertising.

The Post-Intelligencer was converted to an Internet-only publication with a much-reduced staff, and The Seattle Times — the only mainstream daily left in the state's largest city — has had severe financial troubles of its own and has cut 500 positions in the past year.

Gov. Chris Gregoire called the decision to stop printing the 146-year-old P-I a "huge historical loss."

Gregoire said that while the tax break won't cure all that ails newspapers, she felt the state needed to do something.

"The industry has to right itself, and government can't and won't be a part of it righting itself," she said. "But I don't want government to be part of the reason that this industry can't make it."

In May, the company that publishes The Columbian filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in an effort to resolve credit issues involving a building project.

Publisher Frank Blethen said things have improved slightly for his newspaper since earlier this year, when he testified in support of the tax break and said that "we're hanging on by our fingertips."

"We're probably hanging on by our fingers now," Blethen said. "The tangible result is with all the pressure on budgets and all the red ink right now, anything that helps dampen that means that there's going to be fewer reporters laid off, and less content reduction. It's not big enough to take a lot of pressure off, but it helps."

The News Tribune of Tacoma publisher Dave Zeeck said that the approximate $100,000 a year in savings his newspaper will see is the equivalent of keeping two reporters on staff for a year.

"We are doing everything we can to preserve news content, and this certainly helps," he said, noting that they are still paying about $150,000 in state business and occupation taxes even after the cut.

Washington state's tax cut is to the state's business and occupation tax, which is based on gross revenues instead of profit. Washington is one of just a handful of states that does not have a state income tax. The law provides newspapers the same discounted rate given to the aerospace industry, including Boeing Co., and the timber industry.

But media watchers are quick to point out that those other industries have a different relationship with the government than newspapers.

"It makes me a little nervous," said Dave Aeikens, president of the Society for Professional Journalists. "There needs to be a clear separation between the government and the watchdog role of the press. If it looks like there's any type of tie, then the public's not going to trust the press."

Publishers say that line is not in jeopardy.

"We're very good at separating our opinions from our news coverage," said Michael Shepard, publisher of the Yakima Herald-Republic. "We've been doing that for hundreds of years. It wasn't our reporters and editors who were asking for this relief."

Rufus Woods, publisher and editor of the family-owned Wenatchee World, said he didn't personally push for the tax cut because he didn't think it was enough to make a difference, and that with the state's current financial troubles, "I didn't think it was a good year to do it."

"I don't think it's up to the government to make us survive," he said. "We need to figure out how to make that happen. We're like any other business. We need to find new ways to do things."

 

 

by: Bill Moyers and Michael Winship, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

 

    If you want to know what really matters in Washington, don't go to Capitol Hill for one of those hearings, or pay attention to those staged White House "town meetings." They're just for show. What really happens - the serious business of Washington - happens in the shadows, out of sight, off the record. Only occasionally - and usually only because someone high up stumbles - do we get a glimpse of just how pervasive the corruption has become.

    Case in point: Katharine Weymouth, the publisher of The Washington Post - one of the most powerful people in DC - invited top officials from the White House, the Cabinet and Congress to her home for an intimate, off-the-record dinner to discuss health care reform with some of her reporters and editors covering the story.

    But CEOs and lobbyists from the health care industry were invited, too, provided they forked over $25,000 a head - or up to a quarter of a million if they want to sponsor a whole series of these cozy get-togethers. And what is the inducement offered? Nothing less, the invitation read, than "an exclusive opportunity to participate in the health-care reform debate among the select few who will get it done."

    The invitation reminds the CEO's and lobbyists that they will be buying access to "those powerful few in business and policy making who are forwarding, legislating and reporting on the issues …

    "Spirited? Yes. Confrontational? No." The invitation promises this private, intimate and off-the-record dinner is an extension "of The Washington Post brand of journalistic inquiry into the issues, a unique opportunity for stakeholders to hear and be heard."

    Let that sink in. In this case, the "stakeholders" in health care reform do not include the rabble - the folks across the country who actually need quality health care but can't afford it. If any of them showed up at the kitchen door on the night of this little soiree, the bouncer would drop kick them beyond the Beltway.

    No, before you can cross the threshold to reach "the select few who will actually get it done," you must first cross the palm of some outstretched hand. The Washington Post dinner was canceled after a copy of the invite was leaked to the web site Politico.com, by a health care lobbyist, of all people. The paper said it was a misunderstanding - the document was a draft that had been mailed out prematurely by its marketing department. There's noblesse oblige for you - blame it on the hired help.

    In any case, it was enough to give us a glimpse into how things really work in Washington - a clear insight into why there is such a great disconnect between democracy and government today, between Washington and the rest of the country.

    According to one poll after another, a majority of Americans not only want a public option in health care, they also think that growing inequality is bad for the country, that corporations have too much power over policy, that money in politics is the root of all evil, that working families and poor communities need and deserve public support if the market system fails to generate shared prosperity.

    But, when the insiders in Washington have finished tearing worthy intentions apart and devouring flesh from bone, none of these reforms happen. "Oh," they say, "it's all about compromise. All in the nature of the give-and-take-negotiating of a representative democracy."

    That, people, is bull - the basic nutrient of Washington's high and mighty.

    It's not about compromise. It's not about what the public wants. It's about money - the golden ticket to "the select few who actually get it done."

    When Congress passed the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act, "the select few" made sure it no longer contained the cramdown provision that would have allowed judges to readjust mortgages. The one provision that would have helped homeowners the most was removed in favor of an industry that pours hundreds of millions into political campaigns.

    So, too, with a bill designed to protect us from terrorist attacks on chemical plants. With "the select few" dictating marching orders, hundreds of factories are being exempted from measures that would make them spend money to prevent the release of toxic clouds that could kill hundreds of thousands.

    Everyone knows the credit ratings agencies were co-conspirators with Wall Street in the shameful wilding that brought on the financial meltdown. But when the Obama administration came up with new reforms to prevent another crisis, the credit ratings agencies were given a pass. They'd been excused by "the select few who actually get it done."

    And by the time an energy bill emerged from the House of Representatives the other day, "the select few who actually get it done" had given away billions of dollars worth of emission permits and offsets. As The New York Times reported, while the legislation worked its way to the House floor, "It grew fat with compromises, carve-outs, concessions and out-and-out gifts," expanding from 648 pages to 1,400 as it spread its largesse among big oil and gas, utility companies and agribusiness.

    This week, the public interest groups Common Cause and the Center for Responsive Politics reported that, "According to lobby disclosure reports, 34 energy companies registered in the first quarter of 2009 to lobby Congress around the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. This group of companies spent a total of $23.7 million - or $260,000 a day - lobbying members of Congress in January, February and March.

    "Many of these same companies also made large contributions to the members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which has jurisdiction over the legislation and held a hearing this week on the proposed 'cap and trade' system energy companies are fighting. Data shows oil and gas companies, mining companies and electric utilities combined have given more than $2 million just to the 19 members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee since 2007, the start of the last full election cycle."

    It's happening to health care as well. Even the pro-business magazine The Economist says America has the worst system in the developed world, controlled by executives who are not held to account and investors whose primary goal is raising share price and increasing profit - while wasting $450 billion dollars in redundant administrative costs and leaving nearly 50 million uninsured.

    Enter "the select few who actually get it done." Three out of four of the big health care firms lobbying on Capitol Hill have former members of Congress or government staff members on the payroll - more than 350 of them - and they're all fighting hard to prevent a public option, at a rate in excess of $1.4 million a day.

    Health care policy has become insider heaven. Even Nancy-Ann DeParle, the White House health reform director, served on the boards of several major health care corporations.

    President Obama has pushed hard for a public option but many fear he's wavering, and just this week his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel - the insider di tutti insiders - indicated that a public plan just might be negotiable, ready for reengineering, no doubt, by "the select few who actually get it done."

    That's how it works. And it works that way because we let it. The game goes on and the insiders keep dealing themselves winning hands. Nothing will change - nothing - until the moneylenders are tossed out of the temple, the ATM's are wrested from the marble halls, and we tear down the sign they've placed on government - the one that reads, "For Sale."

 

Bill Moyers is managing editor and Michael Winship is senior writer of the weekly public affairs program, Bill Moyers Journal, which airs Friday nights on PBS. Check local airtimes or comment at The Moyers Blog at www.pbs.org/moyers.

 

 

Boeing competes to build Brazilian Warfighter

This particular contract is for defense planes for the government of Brazil.  Keep in mind that Boeing routinely negotiates as a part of getting planes sold to other nations, having parts manufacture and other work done for each contract in that nation, as well as parts manufacture and other work done for other contracts.  Pretty much, whatever it takes to make a sale, appears to be the customary rule. 

 

Do you recall when Boeing fired many of their machinists, a decade ago and then had the parts manufactured in China?  The result was the few machinists left in the U.S., (I heard from some in the Seattle area), that the parts were so bad that the U.S. machinists were having to re-machine them before they could be used in the building of Boeing planes. 

 

Do you also recall when Boeing decided to move certain composite manufacturing processes to China?  It didn’t take long before China announced they were going to compete in the manufacturing of aircraft in competition with Boeing and others.  Amazing how fast technology can be stolen given proxmimity and poor security.  There has been more than one event of improper transfer of classified technology to foreign interests brought about by poor business or security practices by Boeing, meaning loss of U.S. defense technology and “edge.”

 

Remember these and other examples of Boeing outsourcing the next time you hear the argument that Boeing should get the government defense contract “because they are a U.S. Company who uses local U.S. workers.    Please see other previous posts about other outsourcing of Boeing work to the detriment of U.S. workers.  -GFS 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

From Tulsa World

 

Boeing pursues contract for warplane in Brazil

 

Link:  http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=46&articleid=20090711_46_E1_hDowJo291187

 

 

by: Associated Press

Saturday, July 11, 2009

7/11/2009 4:15:22 AM

 

Boeing Co. says it's prepared to have Brazilian manufacturers supply a "big portion" of components for its Super Hornet jetfighter in order to sell 36 of the warplanes to the South American nation.

 

The move could create as many as 5,000 jobs in Brazil.

 

Jim Albaugh, head of Boeing's defense unit, said agreements have been signed with 27 Brazilian companies that are capable of producing parts for the F/A-18, including Empresa Brasilieira de Aeronautica SA, the world's fourth-largest airplane maker.

 

Should Brazil buy the jet from Boeing, it will create opportunities for suppliers beyond defense, Albaugh said.

 

"A big portion of the F-18 will be built here," he told Bloomberg news Friday during an interview in Brasilia. "For every dollar that goes toward that airplane, that money will come back to Brazil as manufacturing, software, avionics, and electronics."

 

Brazil is beefing up its military after years of neglect and also is seeking to rebuild its arms export industry.

 

Chicago-based Boeing is competing in Brazil with Saab AB, the Swedish maker of the Gripen warplane, and Paris-based Dassault Aviation SA, which is pitching its Rafale.

 

Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is expected to award a contract, which analysts say could be worth as much as $4.5 billion, as early as next month.

 

 

July 05, 2009

FAA Whistleblower safety warnings found to have merit

 

 

Link to Original Blog:  http://southwestairlinesalmostkilledyou.blogspot.com/2009/07/faa-is-very-sick-agency-run-by-college.html

 

 

July 2, 2009
FAA whistle-blower safety warnings found to have merit
Posted: 12:14 PM ET
American Morning - amFIXFiled under: Airline safety

Tom Devine, legal director of the non-profit Government Accountability Project, tells CNN the FAA is a 'very sick agency.'
By Allan Chernoff
CNN Sr. Correspondent

A federal investigation into Federal Aviation Administration employee whistle-blower safety complaints has found more than two dozen to be on the mark, CNN has learned, potentially putting the public’s safety at risk.

The federal Office of Special Counsel, which investigates allegations of reprisal against whistle-blowers, tells CNN it has made a “positive determination” that the FAA improperly responded to 27 current cases of FAA employee whistle-blowers warning of safety violations ranging from airline maintenance concerns to runway and air traffic control issues.

“It means that FAA is a very sick agency,” said Tom Devine, legal director of the non-profit Government Accountability Project. “There’s never been an agency that’s had that large of a surge of whistle-blowers whose concerns were vindicated by the government’s official whistle-blower protection office.”

The Department of Transportation told CNN, “We acknowledge it’s a large number of cases.”

“We take whistle-blower complaints very seriously and we fully cooperate with all of the investigations,” said FAA spokesperson Laura J. Brown.

Among the warnings found to have merit are those of FAA inspector Christopher Monteleon, who flagged safety problems at Colgan Air for several years before a Colgan plane crashed near Buffalo in February killing 50 people. He told CNN he’s faced retaliation at the FAA for pointing out issues including faulty aircraft manuals and poor cockpit procedures he observed during in-flight aircraft testing.

“My supervisor called me into his office and said, ‘Stop your investigation.’ He said that these violations never occurred,” said Monteleon.

But Monteleon continued raising safety concerns about the airline. Eventually he was demoted and put on leave of absence.

“I had my aviation inspector credentials taken from me,” Monteleon told CNN. “It has just been humiliating. It’s been awful.”

The FAA says it does not believe any of Monteleon’s reassignments were retaliatory, and cannot comment further because this is a personnel issue covered by privacy laws.

While the Office of Special Counsel has found merit in Monteleon’s charges of safety violations, the Special Counsel continues to investigate his claim that he was the victim of retaliation for pressing his safety concerns.

Though passenger safety is at stake, the Office of Special Counsel found the FAA has repeatedly deferred to the airlines it regulates.

“That’s shocking, and it’s really unconscionable for a government agency that’s supposed to be about safety, not about witch hunts for those who find safety lacking,” said Mary Schiavo, inspector general of the Department of Transportation from 1990-1996, who is now an attorney representing families of accident victims.

What’s going on at FAA? Critics say it’s the culture.

In 2003, former FAA administrator Marion Blakey established a “Customer Service Initiative” that defined airlines as customers, rather than the flying public. The current Transportation Department Inspector General Calvin Scovel, found, “FAA’s definition of its customer has had a pervasively negative, although unintended, impact on its oversight program.”

While there’s no evidence of illegal dealings, the FAA has an active revolving door. Agency managers regularly go on to work in the aviation industry while industry executives take top spots at FAA.

-Former FAA administrator Marion Blakey is now president and CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association.

-Former FAA chief operating officer Russell Chew moved on to become president of Jet Blue Airways, where he just stepped down and took on the role of Senior Adviser for the company.

-FAA’s chief operating officer of air traffic, Hank Krakowski, came from United Airlines where he held a number of senior management positions, including vice president of flight operations.

-Linda Daschle, wife of the former Senate Democratic leader, was the FAA’s acting administrator, and then became a lobbyist representing the airline industry.

“There’s a very cozy relationship between the lobbyists for the industry and the Department of Transportation and the FAA,” said Schiavo.

As in all federal agencies, senior executives leaving the FAA are subject to a one-year “cooling off” period that forbids them from representing a client before the FAA.

The new transportation secretary Ray LaHood and FAA administrator Randy Babbitt, who took office June 1, say they will make sure whistle-blowers are heard.

“We will pay attention to any kind of complaint or accusation or any concern expressed by an employee of FAA. It’s a new day at the FAA and at DOT,” LaHood told CNN.

FAA last year established a Safety Issues Reporting System for employees to raise safety concerns. FAA also tracks employee hotline complaints in its General Counsel Office.

But, the agency has resisted calls to establish an independent office to investigate whistle-blower safety claims. The pending House bill to reauthorize FAA would require the agency to establish such an office. The Senate still has to write its version of the bill.

The Office of Special Counsel has referred all 27 cases to the transportation secretary who is investigating and must tell the Special Counsel what steps will be taken to fix the safety problems.

Categories

Blog powered by TypePad

July 2009

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31