Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Bank$ter friend Barney Frank Voted Porker of the Year!




The results are in! As announced by Citizens Against Government Waste President Tom Schatz on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” this morning, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is the “winner” of CAGW’s online poll for 2009 Porker of the Year. Chairman Frank finished first in a field of six with a whopping 49 percent of the vote, outdistancing his closest “porky” competitor by nearly a 2 to 1 margin.

Chairman Frank garnered the lion’s share of the vote as a result of his relentless and garrulous role in the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two mortgage government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), which the federal government took into conservatorship in September, 2008 after they began to collapse and which remain on life support after an infusion of $112 billion in taxpayer funds. Among GSE defenders, Chairman Frank is without peer. He safeguarded their lavish franchises and fended off any attempts to establish GSE oversight even when it became clear that GSE executives had manipulated earnings statements, given themselves huge bonuses based on bogus numbers, and steered the companies into such a precarious condition that they threatened the entire financial system. In one of his most outrageous statements, Chairman Frank casually announced during a committee hearing in 2003 that he didn’t want “the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing.”

The other 2009 Porker of the Year nominees, in order of votes received, were: Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) (26.3 percent), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) (6.6 percent), Rep. Russ Carnahan (D.-Mo.) (5.9 percent), and Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) (5.5 percent). President Barack Obama was the overwhelming favorite in the write-in category with just over 4 percent of the total vote. President Obama even finished ahead of last-place nominee, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who garnered 3 percent of the vote.

Our thanks to the many CAGW members who took the time to participate in this poll. We appreciate your interest and support!


***
Citizens Against Government Waste is the nation's largest taxpayer watchdog group with more than one million members and supporters nationwide. It is a 501(c)(3) nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government. Donations to CAGW are tax-deductible as charitable contributions to the extent permitted by law.

For more information about CAGW, click on title above to visit our website at www.cagw.org. Make a tax-deductible contribution today to support CAGW’s waste-fighting efforts that have saved taxpayers $1.08 trillion.

Hungry in America




Feeding America has just released the results of an extensive nationwide study of hunger—Hunger in America 2010. The study confirms what we already expected: America’s economic recession is taking a terrible toll on Americans and their ability to feed their families.

Some of the startling statistics include:

Nearly 37 million families were served by Feeding America’s food bank network in 2009, including 14 million children. That means one in eight Americans turn to food banks for food assistance.
Since 2006, there has been a 50 percent increase in the number of children served by the network.
Many Americans are being forced to choose between providing food for their families and other basic necessities of life.
Clearly, the problem of hunger in America is growing as our economic recession continues. Your efforts as a Hunger Advocate are more vital than ever. In fact, during his State of the Union address, President Obama called for a freeze on discretionary spending—a move that could directly impact funding for many of our nation’s hunger-relief programs.

Funding is at risk and we need your help!


Join Feeding America on February 12 for an exclusive conversation about Hunger in America 2010!

Join your fellow anti-hunger advocates for an exclusive conversation about Hunger in America 2010. Feeding America CEO Vicky Escarra and actor David Arquette will be speaking to advocates like you about this ground-breaking study, their commitment to our issue, and how you can help. You will have an opportunity to ask questions and learn what you can do to make a difference in the fight against hunger.

We urge you to take advantage of this unique opportunity to speak with those who are at the forefront of our issue. Join the conversation that will help to shape our advocacy mission in 2010. Don’t miss it!


How else can I help?

We need every advocate’s voice to help us fight for the funding that will be required to feed our nation’s hungry families! In addition to joining the discussion on February 12, please take a few moments today to spread the word and learn more about hunger in your community!

Send a letter to your legislators and urge them to support funding for hunger relief programs.

Tell your friends and family about Hunger in America 2010—and ask for their help in spreading the word.

Learn about hunger in your community by using our easy interactive tool to dig into the Hunger Study and quickly see the results for communities in your area and around the country. Find out more about hunger in your area today!

Click on title above to see study;
http://feedingamerica.org/faces-of-hunger/hunger-in-america-2010.aspx

A look at Obama's 2011 budget for govt agencies




President Barack Obama's multi-trillion-dollar budget would boost spending for several government agencies while slashing the account for others. Here is an agency-by-agency glance:

____

Agency: Agriculture

Spending: $148.6 billion

Percentage change from 2010: 9.7 percent increase

Mandatory Spending: $122.8 billion

Highlights: Obama's proposed budget includes hundreds of millions of dollars in increased spending to help feed the poor while also limiting government handouts to wealthy farmers.

The budget would provide $8.1 billion for nutrition programs, a $400 million increase from the president's 2010 budget. It would allocate $10 billion over 10 years to improve access to USDA food programs, establishing higher nutrition standards at schools and aiming to reduce childhood hunger.

The budget also would increase government spending on food stamps, a jump of $11 million to a proposed $36 million. That includes an extension for an additional year of benefits under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which temporarily eliminated food stamp time limits for certain low-income adults.

Obama wants to limit the amount of money that wealthy farmers can receive from the government. Direct payments to farmers would be reduced from $40,000 per person per year to $30,000. Direct payments are payments to farmers based on historical production.

The budget also proposes limiting direct payments to farmers who make $500,000 or less in farm income; the limit is currently $750,000 or less.

Also in Obama's agriculture proposal:

_ $429 million for research grants through the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative.

_ $418 million in loans and grants for expanding rural broadband access.

_ $1.2 billion for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program to help farmers comply with regulatory requirements and protect natural resources, a 67 percent increase in funding over 2010.

_Henry C. Jackson

____

Agency: Commerce

Spending: $9.1 billion

Percentage change from 2010: 34.4 percent decrease

Mandatory Spending: $180 million

Highlights: The department's discretionary budget would decline from $13.8 billion in 2010 to $8.9 billion in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1. Much of the proposed decrease comes from the U.S. Census Bureau, which received a huge spending increase last year to hire about a half million people and conduct the 2010 census.

The proposed Commerce budget would provide $1.3 billion to process, tabulate and release 2010 census data. Funds for the census are closely watched by Congress because the count determines government pay-outs to states and cities and the number of congressional seats in each state. Democrats typically seek more funds to enable accurate counts for poor and minority communities who have been undercounted in the past.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which oversees the government's weather forecasting and conducts climate and ocean research, would get more money in the plan. The proposal would provide NOAA with more than $2 billion — the equivalent of the worldwide box office take of the blockbuster film "Avatar" — for weather satellites, measurements of sea level and other climate data.

The proposed budget would eliminate a grant program created in 2004 for manufacturers of worsted wool fabric. The department said wool manufacturers had enough time to adjust to changes in the trade law. It would also ax funding for a program that supports public television stations' conversion to digital broadcasting. The department said the required conversion efforts have been completed and money for remaining digital conversion would be available from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

_Ken Thomas

____

Agency: Defense

Spending: $768.2 billion

Percentage change from 2010: 2.2 percent increase

Mandatory Spending: $59.9 billion

Highlights: Obama's budget would boost defense spending slightly, with more money for helicopters, unmanned planes, commandos and other highly specialized assets that officials say are needed to fight nimble enemy forces in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

The budget also would support for the first time Obama's envisioned European missile shield aimed at deterring Iran. Last fall, Obama scrapped a Bush-era project in Eastern Europe in favor of smaller radar systems with a network of sensors and missiles deployed at sea or on land.

Unlike last year's budget, when Obama called for an end to F-22 production, Obama's 2011 plan spares the military's major defense systems. The budget supports the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a new family of ground vehicles, as well as new ships.

One exception is the C-17 cargo plane, which the administration says the military should stop buying. The proposed cut would save $2.5 billion. The Pentagon has tried to cease production of the aircraft before, but lawmakers have restored the money because they fear ending the program would cost jobs in their home states.

Included in the $768 billion request is $159 billion for operations overseas.

In addition to the 2011 defense budget, Obama is asking for another $33 billion in war spending to sustain operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through September. The administration says the extra money was needed because of the 30,000 more troops being sent to Afghanistan.

_Anne Flaherty

___

Agency: Education

Spending: $82.3 billion

Percentage change from 2010: 32.8 percent increase

Mandatory Spending: $32.6 billion

Highlights: Obama is asking Congress for a major increase in education spending as he seeks to overhaul the nation's system and revise the Bush-era No Child Left Behind law.

The administration wants to help an additional 1 million college students by increasing the Pell Grant tuition program by $17 billion, to just under $35 billion. Pell Grants are the main form of college aid to the poor. The maximum grant would increase by $160 to $5,710.

Obama is seeking an increase in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, a $3 billion jump to $28 billion. There could be $1 billion more if Congress agrees to some major changes in the law.

The administration wants $1.35 billion more to expand the president's Race to the Top challenge, a federal grant program in which 40 states are competing for $4 billion in education money included in last year's stimulus bill.

In revising the No Child Left Behind law, Obama wants changes in how schools are judged to be successes or failures. The administration contends that if federal education spending is more competitive, states and school districts would do a better job. That's a change from the government's traditional formula-driven approach in which states and districts can look forward to getting a certain amount of money each school year, regardless of how good a job they do educating students.

Obama favors using student test scores to judge teacher performance and determine support for charter schools, which get public money but operate independently of local school boards. National teachers' unions disagree with that approach, saying student achievement is more than standardized test scores and that relying heavily on charter schools is a mistake.

Congress passed the No Child Left Behind law with bipartisan support in 2001 but deadlocked over a rewrite in 2007.

_Andrew Miga

____

Agency: Energy

Spending: $26.8 billion

Percentage change from 2010: 9.2 percent increase

Mandatory Spending: None.

Highlights: The budget follows through on Obama's call in his State of the Union address to build "a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country," by tripling the amount for loan guarantees for nuclear power to $54.5 billion. The spending proposal also aims to give a boost to energy efficiency and renewable energy projects with an additional $500 million in credit subsidy in support of $3 billion to $5 billion in loan guarantees.

As a candidate, Obama promised to close the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility in Nevada, and the budget calls for eliminating funding for the site.The budget also calls for a 4.6 percent increase in basic research.

Funding would be increased for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs such as solar energy.

_Frederic Frommer

___

Agency: Environmental Protection Agency

Spending: $9.9 billion

Percentage change from 2010: 3.2 percent decrease
Mandatory Spending: None.

Highlights: Obama's budget would finance efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate the gases blamed for global warming — a first — as the administration awaits congressional action on legislation.

The budget seeks $43 million in new funds for the EPA and states to control emissions of heat-trapping pollution from automobiles and refineries, power plants and factories. The administration also is looking for more money to roll out a new rule that would require polluters to annually report the amount of greenhouse gases they release.

Unlike last year, the budget does not bank on raising money for a promised tax cut and clean energy technologies by auctioning off permits to companies that emit global warming gases. Congress has balked at that strategy. A House-passed bill gives the bulk of the permits away for free, as would a proposal being worked on in the Senate. Instead, there is a placeholder for a to-be-determined climate policy that would reduce emissions by more than 80 percent by 2050. The budget says the policy will be deficit neutral because the money made from selling permits will be returned to families, communities and businesses to help offset higher energy costs.

With a slight decrease in its request for hazardous-waste sites, the administration will likely continue to lag behind previous administrations in the pace of its cleanups.

The budget would continue to supply billions of dollars worth of grants to states and local governments to improve sewage treatment plants and drinking water systems, although the total is slightly less than last year. It adds another $1.3 billion — a 14 percent increase — to help cash-strapped states and tribes implement air and water programs.

_Dina Cappiello

____

Agency: Health and Human Services

Spending: $915.5 billion

Percentage change from 2010: 3.9 percent increase

Mandatory Spending: $832 billion

Highlights: Obama's health care budget takes modest steps to stretch the safety net for low-income families trapped in the economic downturn and improve the quality of medical care for seniors.

But his biggest project — health care overhaul to expand coverage and grapple with costs — is on hold in Congress with Democrats uncertain how to push the sweeping legislation over the finish line.

The budget includes a $25.5 billion cash infusion to help states cover the costs of their Medicaid programs until July of next year. Medicaid rolls grew as state revenues plummeted during the recession. Under the budget, every state would get an additional 6.2 percent of its Medicaid costs paid by Washington. That would extend federal assistance provided under the stimulus bill.

Obama is also calling for a big increase — $290 million — for community health centers that are front-line providers of medical care for low-income Americans, including many uninsured.

The budget takes a small — but potentially significant — step to improve Medicare quality by launching a series of experiments on how to better coordinate care for seniors with multiple chronic illness. And it adds funds for research into what kinds of medical treatments work best.

Also in Obama's health budget:

_ A crackdown on fraud, waste and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid, which the administration estimates could save more than $1 billion a year over the next decade.

_ A $1.4 billion investment to improve food safety, following outbreaks of illness in recent years.

_ A $1 billion increase for the National Institutes of Health for medical research, including the development of new drugs for cancer and other life-threatening illnesses.

_Ricardo Alonso-Zaldviar

___

Agency: Homeland Security

Spending: $44 billion

Percentage change from 2010: 1 percent increase

Mandatory Spending: $193 million

Highlights: In the wake of the attempted Christmas Day terrorist attack, Obama is seeking to strengthen aviation security programs.

The budget proposes funds to pay for 1,000 technologically advanced machines at airports. There is also money to hire more Federal Air Marshals so that they will be on more international flights. Currently there are more than 4,000 air marshals, with the exact figure classified.

While Obama is asking for the same amount in overall funds for screening operations — such as those at airports — he is asking for more money for explosive detection devices.

The budget calls for 25 percent less money for the border fence and technology — a controversial George W. Bush administration initiative that has run into problems.

The president's is asking for more money for counterterrorism and preparedness grants.

On the heels of the administration's decision to reconsider holding the high profile Sept. 11 trial in New York City, the president is asking for $200 million in grants available to those cities that do end up holding these trials. New York lawmakers said it would cost them $200 million a year if the trial is held in a Manhattan courthouse.

Despite promises to make cyber security a priority in his administration, Obama is asking for a decrease in funds for the department's cyber security division. He is also asking for less money to fund a program that detects biological threats.

Obama also is calling for cutting 1,100 active duty personnel in the Coast Guard and 181 Border Patrol agents. Recent administrations have hired more agents and Obama said the current number of about 20,000 agents is sufficient. Funds for immigration enforcement remains basically the same as last year.

_Eileen Sullivan

____

Agency: Housing and Urban Development

Spending: $48.9 billion

Percentage change from 2010: .9 percent decrease

Mandatory Spending: $7.3 billion

Highlights: The agency got a big boost in funding during the president's first year but would experience a small cut in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1.

Cuts would occur in a fund used to renovate public housing inventory, from $2.3 billion to $2 billion, and in the block grants used for constructing Native American housing, from $690 million to $578 million. Two programs that finance the development of supportive housing for the elderly and disabled will be suspended, though projects already in the pipeline would continue.

The agency will also begin consolidating 13 rental assistance programs to cut down on duplicative work assignments and improve customer service.

Spending on homelessness assistance would increase by nearly $200 million, or about 10 percent. Also, a recent increase in borrower fees and stricter lending requirements will generate $6 billion in profit for the Federal Housing Administration, a stark contrast to the publicly anticipated shortfall. The agency is a major source of funds for first time home buyers and there have been concerns that it would need a cash infusion.

_Kevin Freking

____

Agency: Interior

Spending: $12.1 billion

Percentage change from 2010: 5.9 percent decrease

Mandatory Spending: $30 million

Highlights: Interior would invest more than $73 million — an increase of $14.2 million — to spur construction of windmills, solar panels and other green-energy projects. The budget calls for increased taxes and fees on oil and gas companies that harvest fossil fuels in the Gulf of Mexico and on other public property.

The plan would save $115 million this year, and $1.2 billion over 10 years, by eliminating payments to states and Indian tribes that have completed cleanup of abandoned coal mines. The administration said the payments were intended to encourage mine cleanup and were never meant to continue after the work was completed.

The budget would cut $30 million for a National Park Service program called Save America's Treasures. The administration said the historic preservation program lacks rigorous performance standards and its benefits are unclear.

The plan would add more than $35 million to help land and wildlife managers monitor and prepare for global warming's toll. And it would set aside $75 million for a reserve fund to address catastrophic wildfires, so agencies don't have to divert money budgeted for other purposes.

The budget would provide $445 million — an increase of $106 million — to purchase more land and forests and to establish programs that encourage young people to hunt, fish and get outdoors.

_Matthew Daly

___

Agency: Justice

Spending: $31.4 billion

Percentage change from 2010: 5.7 percent increase

Mandatory Spending: $7.3 billion

Highlights: The proposed budget calls for $73 million for the transfer, prosecution and incarceration of Guantanamo Bay detainees. The administration said it will work with Congress to identify additional funds and other resources that may be needed in the current fiscal year to address "extraordinary federal, state, and local security requirements associated with terrorism trials that may begin in 2010 and continue into 2011."

The budget also would allocate $237 million to acquire, renovate, equip and staff a state prison at Thomson, Ill., to house detainees from Guantanamo Bay.

_Pete Yost

___

Agency: Labor

Spending: $117.5 billion

Percentage change from 2010: 43 percent decrease

Mandatory Spending: $103.5 billion

Highlights: The Labor Department would see a major drop in spending for its unemployment insurance programs. That's because the administration forecasts an economic rebound and expects fewer people to claim unemployment benefits.

At the same time, the budget would boost funds to make the agency's job training programs more effective and find better ways to help young workers find jobs.

The budget continues to increase spending for the department's worker protection agencies — including enforcement of workplace health, safety and wage laws — to return these programs to staffing levels that were in place in 2001, before the Bush administration began making cuts.

The White House projects a savings of about $4 billion over 10 years by cracking down on states that make unauthorized unemployment insurance payments. It also projects saving $300 million over the next decade by targeting employers who evade unemployment taxes.

The new crackdown will focus on employers who misclassify workers as independent contractors to avoid paying taxes. The department will identify certain industries where it believes worker misclassification is rampant and plans to increase audits to make sure taxes are being paid.

The administration is starting a new program to automatically enroll workers in employer pension plans or other retirement accounts to encourage retirement savings. About 78 million Americans lack employer-based retirement plans outside the Social Security system.

Employees could opt out of the program if they didn't want to participate, and small businesses would be exempt.

_Sam Hananel

____

Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

Spending: $19 billion

Percentage change from 2010: 1.5 percent increase

Mandatory Spending: None

Highlights: Obama's budget would kill former President George W. Bush's $100 billion mission to return to the moon, on the seventh anniversary of the space shuttle Columbia disaster. It was that loss of the shuttle that spurred Bush to propose the plan that was nicknamed "Apollo on steroids," but last year an outside panel said the Bush program didn't have enough money to do all it proposed. The budget said repeating the Apollo program 50 years later is "the least attractive approach to space exploration." NASA has already spent $9.1 billion on the program.

Obama's budget promises a "bold new course for human space flight," but provides no details, such as where astronauts would go, in what ship or by when. It extends the life of the International Space Station beyond its 2016 retirement date and provides $6 billion over five years in additional spending, mostly to spur commercial companies to develop still-untested private rocketships. NASA would then buy rides in those ships like taxis.

The budget is much more about spending closer to Earth. It promises a speeding up of launching new Earth's observing satellites, especially to monitor climate change. It includes money to fly a replacement for a carbon dioxide monitoring satellite that fell into the ocean last year instead of going into orbit.

Science spending at NASA would jump by about 12 percent and the agency is doubling what it spends on aeronautics, highlighting programs to reduce pollution from aircraft. Spending on day-to-day space operations, with the upcoming retirement of the space shuttle fleet, and education would go down 20 percent.

_Seth Borenstein

____

Agency: State

Spending: $63.8 billion

Percentage change from 2010: 2.3 percent decrease

Mandatory Spending: $7.9 billion

Highlights: The budget for the State Department and international affairs includes $4 billion in assistance to Afghanistan and $3.1 billion for Pakistan to be used for reconstruction and to improve governance and combat corruption and extremism. It foresees hiring an additional 500 civilian personnel to work in Afghanistan and Pakistan and provides for increased security at U.S. diplomatic missions in the two countries.

The budget sets aside $2.6 billion for civilian operations in Iraq, where the State Department is assuming responsibility for programs previously handled by the Pentagon, which is drawing down its troop presence there.

The administration is asking for $8.5 billion to expand the president's Global Health Initiative and increases funding to treat and prevent HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and other tropical diseases and improve maternal and child health. It is seeking $1.6 billion for agriculture development and nutrition programs and $1.4 billion to help developing nations adapt to climate change and pursue low-carbon development.

The spending plan calls for $446 million to boost the number of Peace Corps volunteers by 50 percent to 11,000 by 2016.

It also includes:

_ $1.9 billion in annual contributions and arrears to regional development banks to support the world's poorest countries.

_ $1.3 billion for new Millennium Challenge Corporation poverty reduction and economic growth programs for countries that meet certain good governance standards.

_Matthew Lee

____

Agency: Transportation

Spending: $79.2 billion

Percentage change from 2010: 1 percent increase

Mandatory Spending: $56.4 billion

Highlights: Calls for the creation of a $4 billion National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund. Large, expensive projects sometimes have trouble obtaining money, especially if more than one state or local jurisdiction is involved. The fund will target projects that will have the biggest impact on improving transportation or safety, such as replacing aging bridges that limit harbor access or antiquated tunnels that force trains to slow to a crawl.

The fund would be a significant departure from the federal government's traditional means of spending on infrastructure through grants to specific states and localities, often by formulas created by Congress to generate political support for legislation that doesn't take into account that some states or regions might have greater needs. The fund would directly support projects through grants, loans or a blend of both, and seek to leverage private capital.

While campaigning for president, Barack Obama called for creation of a national infrastructure investment bank using seed money from the federal government. The proposed fund would be part of the Transportation Department and wouldn't have the independence of a stand-alone bank. However, it would perform some of the same functions.

In his first budget as president, Obama requested $5 billion for a national infrastructure investment bank, but the proposal has had a hard time winning approval in Congress.

The latest budget proposal also seeks an additional $1 billion for high-speed trains. Last week, Obama announced grants totaling $8 billion to 13 major rail projects across the country. Separately, Congress allocated $2.5 billion for the current budget year ending on Sept. 30.

The proposal also seeks $1.1 billion for FAA's NextGen program, a long-term effort to improve the efficiency, safety and capacity of the air traffic control system by moving from ground-based radar surveillance to a more accurate satellite-based surveillance.

_Joan Lowy

____

Agency: Treasury

Spending: $560.9 billion.

Percentage change from 2010: 40.1 percent increase.

Mandatory Spending: $546.9 billion

Highlights: The bulk of the Treasury's mandatory spending is for interest on the public debt, an ever increasing component of the federal budget. The estimated interest payment for 2011 is $499 billion. The budget projects that the gross federal debt in 2011 will be $15.1 trillion, up from nearly $12 trillion in 2009.

One reason for the sharp increase from fiscal 2010 to fiscal 2011 is that the estimated mandatory spending for 2010 has been revised downward due to repayments of $114.5 billion from banks that received infusions of government money at the height of the financial crisis.

Treasury also has revised the long-term cost of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program down to $117 billion; the Congressional Budget Office has placed the total cost of the program to taxpayers at $99 billion. In either case, the administration is proposing a fee on large financial institutions to cover that shortfall, whatever it may be. That levy would raise an average of about $9 billion a year. Congress would have to approve the new fee.

Obama plans to ask Congress to use $30 billion from TARP to inject money into small community banks at low rates on the condition the banks use the money to increase lending to small businesses.

_Jim Kuhnhenn

____

Agency: Veterans Affairs

Spending: $121.7 billion

Percentage change from 2010: 2.6 percent decrease

Mandatory Spending: $64.7 billion

Highlights: Some 2 million veterans have deployed in support of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The budget proposal would invest nearly $800 million in services targeting veterans who are homeless, in part, through partnerships with private and government groups. It would allocate funds for counseling and medical care for female veterans who are serving at unprecedented levels in the nation's wars. It would also invest $5.2 billion in specialized care for mental health conditions, including traumatic brain injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder.

The president's budget also calls for $50.6 billion in advanced appropriations for VA medical care, to prevent budget delays from hindering planning. This was long sought after by veterans' service organizations, and Obama signed a bill into law last fall allowing advanced appropriations.

The budget also would allow for an increase in enrollment of more than 500,000 moderate-income veterans in the VA system by 2013.

_Kimberly Hefling

____

Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Spending: $4.9 billion

Percentage change from 2010: 11 percent decrease

Mandatory Spending: None.

Highlights: The corps' 11 percent funding cut would hold spending at roughly the same levels seen during most of the 2000s — just under $5 billion. But the agency, which builds levees and dams around the country and keeps rivers and harbors open for commerce, has been a big recipient of stimulus funding and would get another shot of nearly $1 billion in 2011. That would push its real spending capacity to about $6 billion.

Obama proposed using most of the money on harbor and river projects such as waterway dredging, levee and dam upgrades to prevent flooding, and environmental initiatives such as restoring the Florida Everglades and other coastal wetlands.

Individual priorities are likely to change, however. The agency's budget is notoriously susceptible to parochial influence in Congress, where lawmakers jockey to steer funds to projects benefiting their home districts.

The administration also is calling for changing the way the agency plans and prioritizes its work so that it focuses on critical projects. Similar efforts have fallen flat on Capitol Hill as diverging interests fight over priorities.

In fiscal 2010, the agency was budgeted to spend $5.4 billion. But including stimulus spending the real budget was closer to $7.6 billion.

_Ben Evans

Monday, February 1, 2010

Glaxo said to cut up to 4,000 more jobs

By Tracy Staton

New month, new layoff announcement: GlaxoSmithKline is plotting to cut up to 4,000 more jobs, with an announcement coming later this week accompanying its earnings, London newspapers are reporting. Most of the lost jobs will come from the U.S. and Europe as the company continues to broaden its global focus.

If that's the case, then we're likely to see more of the sort of changes that GSK undertook last year, when it cut 2,000 sales jobs in the U.S., but prepared to add 1,500 staffers in fast-growing China. More resources will be shifted away from slow-growing, long-industrialized markets and to less-developed countries whose drug markets are on a steep upward curve. Some of that shift could come in R&D as well as manufacturing and sales; the Sunday Times reports that alongside the job cutbacks, Glaxo also will announce an R&D efficiency drive.

As the Financial Times notes, this latest restructuring is hardly a new idea at Glaxo. The company appears to be accelerating changes that CEO Andrew Witty set in motion soon after he was appointed two years ago. The aim being to diversify beyond on-patent prescription medications and to invest less in mature markets and businesses and more in fast-growing segments such as consumer health and emerging markets.

Glaxo's job cuts would come hot on the heels of newly announced cuts at AstraZeneca. Last week, that company said it would trim another 8,000 jobs from its workforce, in addition to the 15,000 cuts announced last year.

$100 Million Bonus for Goldman Exec



Above, Loyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs CEO


Story by Michelle Ruiz


AOL News (Feb. 1) -- So much for President Barack Obama's crackdown on executive bonuses.

In what could be a very public defiance of the White House, Goldman Sachs may award a $100 million bonus to its chief executive, Lloyd Blankfein, according to a Times of London report today.

"This is Lloyd thumbing his nose at Obama," a banker at one of Goldman's rivals told the paper at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.


Mark Wilson, Getty Images
Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, testified on Capitol Hill earlier this month. The Times of London reports Blankfein may get a $100 million bonus.
The bonus would be a record for Blankfein, who collected a $67.9 million pay bump in 2007.

The potential payout would come after Obama's continued blasting of executive bonuses, in light of the massive government bailout funds given to the institutions. Last week, after learning that Wall Street has distributed $18 billion in bonuses in the last two months, Obama said: "That is the height of irresponsibility. It's shameful."

Goldman Sachs Group Inc., the world's richest investment bank, paid back the approximate $10 billion it received in TARP funds. It reported a fourth-quarter net income of $4.95 billion. Goldman declined comment on the Times report, but the pay of its top five earners will be revealed in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission by the end of next month.
michelle Ruiz


AOL News (Feb. 1) -- So much for President Barack Obama's crackdown on executive bonuses.

In what could be a very public defiance of the White House, Goldman Sachs may award a $100 million bonus to its chief executive, Lloyd Blankfein, according to a Times of London report today.

"This is Lloyd thumbing his nose at Obama," a banker at one of Goldman's rivals told the paper at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.


Mark Wilson, Getty Images
Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, testified on Capitol Hill earlier this month. The Times of London reports Blankfein may get a $100 million bonus.
The bonus would be a record for Blankfein, who collected a $67.9 million pay bump in 2007.

The potential payout would come after Obama's continued blasting of executive bonuses, in light of the massive government bailout funds given to the institutions. Last week, after learning that Wall Street has distributed $18 billion in bonuses in the last two months, Obama said: "That is the height of irresponsibility. It's shameful."

Goldman Sachs Group Inc., the world's richest investment bank, paid back the approximate $10 billion it received in TARP funds. It reported a fourth-quarter net income of $4.95 billion. Goldman declined comment on the Times report, but the pay of its top five earners will be revealed in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission by the end of next month.

Sunday, January 31, 2010

After Bailout, Chrysler to Air Superbowl Ad

Heller Questions Car Company’s Super Bowl Ad
January 28, 2010 by Tom Darby


Congressman Dean Heller says Chrysler shouldn’t be spending money on advertisements during next month’s Super Bowl after receiving a $15 billion taxpayer bailout. Heller says while some advertising is necessary to restore confidence in the Chrysler brand, the pricey Super Bowl ads are extravagant.

Damn straight…


http://tomdarby.wordpress.com/2010/01/28/heller-questions-car-companys-super-bowl-ad/

Saturday, January 30, 2010

Corruption in Washington is smothering America's future




How do you regulate banks effectively, if the Senate is owned by Wall Street?


Friday, 29 January 2010


This week, a disaster hit the United States, and the after-shocks will be shaking and breaking global politics for years. It did not grab the same press attention as the fall of liberal Kennedy-licking Massachusetts to a pick-up truck Republican, or President Obama's first State of the Union address, or the possible break-up of Brangelina and their United Nations of adopted infants. But it took the single biggest problem dragging American politics towards brutality and dysfunction – and made it much, much worse. Yet it also showed the only path that Obama can now take to salvage his Presidency.


For more than a century, the US has slowly put some limits – too few, too feeble – on how much corporations can bribe, bully or intimidate politicians. On Tuesday, they were burned away in one whoosh. The Supreme Court ruled that corporations can suddenly run political adverts during an election campaign – and there is absolutely no limit on how many, or how much they can spend. So if you anger the investment bankers by supporting legislation to break up the too-big-to-fail banks, you will smack into a wall of 24/7 ads exposing your every flaw. If you displease oil companies by supporting legislation to deal with global warming, you will now be hit by a tsunami of advertising saying you are opposed to jobs and the American Way. If you rile the defence contractors by opposing the gargantuan war budget, you will face a smear-campaign calling you Soft on Terror.

Representative Alan Grayson says: "It basically institutionalises and legalises bribery on the largest scale imaginable. Corporations will now be able to reward the politicians that play ball with them – and beat to death the politicians that don't... You won't even hear any more about the Senator from Kansas. It'll be the Senator from General Electric or the Senator from Microsoft."

Related articles
Obama gets down to business on the economy first
Bernanke survives Senate protest vote
Search the news archive for more stories
To understand the impact this will have, you need to grasp how smaller sums of corporate money have already hijacked American democracy. Let's look at a case that is simple and immediate and every American can see in front of them: healthcare. The United States is the only major industrialised democracy that doesn't guarantee healthcare for all its citizens. The result is that, according to a detailed study by Harvard University, some 45,000 Americans die needlessly every year. That's equivalent to 15 9/11s every year, or two Haitian earthquakes every decade.

This isn't because the American people like it this way. Gallup has found in polls for a decade now that two-thirds believe the government should guarantee care for every American: they are as good and decent and concerned for each other as any European. No: it is because private insurance companies make a fortune today out of a system that doesn't cover the profit-less poor, and can turn away the sickest people as "uninsurable". So they pay for politicians to keep the system broken. They fund the election campaigns of politicians on both sides of the aisle and employ an army of lobbyists, and for their part those politicians veto any system that doesn't serve their paymasters.

Look for example at Joe Lieberman, the former Democratic candidate for Vice-President. He has taken $448,066 in campaign contributions from private healthcare companies while his wife raked in $2m as one of their chief lobbyists, and he has blocked any attempt in the Senate to break the stranglehold of the health insurance companies and broaden coverage.

The US political system now operates within a corporate cage. If you want to run for office, you have to take corporate cash – and so you have to serve corporate interests. Corporations are often blatant in their corruption: it's not unusual for them to give to both competing candidates in a Senate race, to ensure all sides are indebted to them. It has reached the point that lobbyists now often write the country's laws. Not metaphorically; literally. The former Republican congressman Walter Jones spoke out in disgust in 2006 when he found that drug company lobbyists were actually authoring the words of the Medicare prescription bill, and puppet-politicians were simply nodding it through.

But what happens if politicians are serving the short-term profit-hunger of corporations, and not the public interest? You only have to look at the shuttered shops outside your window for the answer. The banks were rapidly deregulated from the Eighties through the Noughties because their lobbyists paid politicians on all sides, and demanded their payback in rolled-back rules and tossed-away laws. As Senator Dick Durbin says simply: "The banks own the Senate," so they had to obey.

It is this corruption that has prevented Barack Obama from achieving anything substantial in his first year in office. How do you re-regulate the banks, if the Senate is owned by Wall Street? How do you launch a rapid transition away from oil and coal to wind and solar, if the fossil fuel industry owns Congress? How do you break with a grab-the-oil foreign policy if Big Oil provides the invitation that gets you into the party of American politics?

His attempt at healthcare reform is dying because he thought he could only get through the Senate a system that the giant healthcare corporations and drug companies pre-approved. So he promised to keep the ban on bringing cheap drugs down from Canada, he pledged not to bargain over prices, and he dumped the idea of having a public option that would make sure ordinary Americans could actually afford it. The result was a Quasimodo healthcare proposal so feeble and misshapen that even the people of Massachusetts turned away in disgust.

Yet the corporations that caused this crisis are now being given yet more power. Bizarrely, the Supreme Court has decided that corporations are "persons", so they have the "right" to speak during elections. But corporations are not people. Should they have the right to bear arms, or to vote? It would make as much sense. They are a legal fiction, invented by the state – and they can be fairly regulated to stop them devouring their creator. This is the same Supreme Court that ruled that the detainees at Guantanomo Bay are not "persons" under the constitution deserving basic protections. A court that says a living breathing human is less of a "persons" than Lockheed Martin has gone badly awry.

Obama now faces two paths – the Clinton road, or the FDR highway. After he lost his healthcare battle, Clinton decided to serve the corporate interests totally. He is the one who carried out the biggest roll-back of banking laws, and saw the largest explosion of inequality since the 1920s. Some of Obama's advisers are now nudging him down that path: the appalling anti-Keynesian pledge for a spending freeze on social programmes for the next three years to pay down the deficit is one of their triumphs.

But there is another way. Franklin Roosevelt began his Presidency trying to appease corporate interests – but he faced huge uproar and disgust at home when it became clear this left ordinary Americans stranded. He switched course. He turned his anger on "the malefactors of great wealth" and bragged: "I welcome the hatred... of the economic royalists." He put in place tough regulations that prevented economic disaster and spiralling inequality for three generations.

There were rare flashes of what Franklin Delano Obama would look like in his reaction to the Supreme Court decision. He said: "It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies, and other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americas." But he has spent far more time coddling those interests than taking them on. The great pressure of strikes and protests put on FDR hasn't yet arisen from a public dissipated into hopelessness by an appalling media that convinces them they are powerless and should wait passively for a Messiah.

Very little positive change can happen in the US until they clear out the temple of American democracy. In the State of the Union, Obama spent one minute on this problem, and proposed restrictions on lobbyists – but that's only the tiniest of baby steps. He evaded the bigger issue. If Americans want a democratic system, they have to pay for it – and that means fair state funding for political candidates. Candidates are essential for the system to work: you may as well begrudge paying for the polling booths, or the lever you pull. At the same time, the Supreme Court needs to be confronted: when the court tried to stymie the new deal, FDR tried to pack it with justices on the side of the people. Obama needs to be pressured by Americans to be as radical in democratising the Land of the Fee (CRCT).

None of the crises facing us all – from the global banking system to global warming – can be dealt with if a tiny number of super-rich corporations have a veto over every inch of progress. If Obama funks this challenge, he may as well put the US government on e-Bay – and sell it to the highest bidder. How would we spot the difference?

j.hari@independent.co.uk

More from Johann Hari



http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-this-corruption-in-washington-is-smothering-americas-future-1882349.html