All of the mid-Atlantic area is awaiting the arrival of the cicadas.  “What are they?” you may be asking.  If you are “lucky” enough to live along the Route 95 corridor from North Carolina to New Jersey, you may already know what they are but for the rest of our dear readers they are simply really annoying insects.

Every 17 years, millions of cicadas crawl out of the earth and take over neighborhoods.  There are different broods of cicadas that go through a 17-year life cycle.  The brood that is popping out this year is Brood II.  Back in 2004, there was an even bigger one, called Brood X.

They are really big bugs, over an inch long.  They have wide bodies, big red eyes, and are extremely noisy for hours on end as they search for what they want and that is to find another cicada so they can make more cicadas.  They can be scary as thousands of them swarm all over the place, often landing on humans or on the ground where they get squished by cars or perhaps your foot.  And talk about the waste they make, they also leave behind their exoskeleton, sort of a calling card to as if to simply let you know they were there.  For food, they suck on the life-giving sap that flows through trees and other deciduous plants.

Hmmmm, does this sound like anything else you know?

How about Washington, D.C. and the thousands of politicians, special interests, and bureaucrats that swarm around and want part of your life-giving sap – your money so they can grow more government programs?  But unlike the 17-year cicadas, Washington never disappears.  The DC Brood just keeps getting bigger and bigger, demanding more money from the taxpayers.

The good thing about cicadas is they disappear and do not reappear for several years.  The cicadas lay their eggs on tree stems; the eggs hatch and the young nymphs fall to the ground.  From there, the nymphs using their strong front legs, bury themselves deep into the earth.  For the next 17 years they will feed on the life-giving juice found in the roots of plants to…

Oh wait, maybe they are more like Washington after all.

Filed under: Big Government | No Comments »

Americans need to take heed to the shenanigans that the Obama Administration has undertaken in response to the sequester, which began March 1.  Its action in the recent air traffic control episode to slow down air travel demonstrates arrogance and indifference toward the American people.  In response, Congress had to pass legislation to halt the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) from furloughing air traffic controllers.  The law gives the authority to the DOT secretary to move as much as $253 million funds within the agency to stop air traffic control furloughs.  The money will come from airport improvement funds.

However, several lawmakers and policy wonks said the law was only necessary to stop an impetuous administration from punishing travelers because it wanted to continue its narrative that any cut to the federal government could only be made with severe pain.  The Wall Street Journal pointed out that the “FAA’s all-hands furloughs managed to convert a less than 4% FAA budget cut into a 10% air traffic control cut that would delay 40% of flights.  The 6,700 flights that the FAA threatened to force off schedule every day is twice as many delays as the single worst travel day of 2012.”

Representative Bill Shuster (R-PA), chairman of the House of Representatives Transportation Committee said, “there are some in the Obama administration who thought inflicting pain on the public would give the president more leverage to avoid making necessary spending cuts and to impose more tax hikes on the American people.”

The government must and can cut back on its spending.  It should be noted that spending on the FAA for 2013 was budgeted at $16 billion.  Yet somehow, in 2008, when the FAA had a budget of $14.8 billion, almost $1.2 billion less, air traffic controllers managed to stay on the job every day.

Of course, there have been plenty of instances when the government was facing a complete shutdown, not just a reduction in funding, and air traffic controllers stayed on the job.  This usually can happen when Congress has not reached an agreement on the appropriations (spending) bills in time for the new fiscal year, which begins October 1.  But in those instances, “essential personal,” which are determined by agency heads, would be allowed to work.  In April 2011, when a temporary spending bill was due to expire, there were discussions about who would be allowed to stay on the job and who would be temporarily furloughed.  At that time, the Obama Administration said that those employees necessary to protect life and property would continue working.  It included the military, law enforcement such as the FBI or the Border Patrol, and the air traffic controllers.

Perhaps Congress should consider going even further to avoid a future situation like this.  Many countries have privatized their air traffic controllers without any problems and Citizens Against Government Waste has long supported such a move here in the U.S.  Much of what the traveling public unnecessarily experienced two weeks ago could have been avoided with a private air traffic control force in place.

Why did the Obama Administration yank the public’s chain on air travel?  Because it could.  It wanted to show its displeasure with sequestration budget cuts, it wanted to make a political point, and it wanted it to hurt. 

Unfortunately, acts like this may not end here.  Instead of government control being reduced, it is expanding.  The administration, with allies in Congress, is doing what it can to have the government run even more aspects of our lives.  Examples:

• We have seen a huge increase in people collecting disability checks, some 5.4 million since President Obama was sworn in. 
• Food stamps are now being utilized by 15% of American families.
• The entire guaranteed student loan program for college is being run by the Department of Education.
• Picking winners and losers in the energy sector, the government provided billions of taxpayer-funded federal grants to “green energy” companies.  Unfortunately, this lead to billions being lost to bad management and bankruptcy.
• And of course there is Obamacare, the crème de la crème where the federal government will now control the healthcare of every American citizen.

The federal government is immersing itself more and more into our daily lives and more people and businesses are relying on Washington for their every need.

There will be another budget crunch that will come along and require a necessary reduction in spending because our leviathan government is deeply in debt. When that happens, what strings will be pulled to inflict pain on American citizens to protest those cuts?  The only way to reverse such control is to reduce the size of government.

Filed under: Big Government, Budget, Debt, Sequestration | No Comments »

According to an April 29, 2013 article in The Washington Post, the federal government is spending more than previously thought on disaster relief.  The Post article cites a report released by the Center for American Progress, which found that:

the federal government–which means taxpayers–spent $136 billion total from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2013 on disaster relief.  This adds up to an average of nearly $400 per household per year.

In an even more disconcerting portion of the report, the authors revealed that no one in government knew the exact amount that had been spent on disaster relief.  In order to make an estimate, the authors examined the relevant appropriations and supplemental bills that Congress enacted between fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2013.  When examining the years prior to 2011, the problem is becomes even more severe.  From the Center for American Progress Report:

As part of the Budget Control Act of 2011, the Office of Management and Budget was required to report to Congress on ‘disaster relief spending … over the previous 10 years.’ It determined that, ‘The average funding provided for disaster relief over the previous 10 years (excluding the highest and lowest years) is $11.5 billion for fiscal year 2011.’

OMB estimated that actual disaster-relief spending in 2011 was $2.5 billion. We estimate that the federal government spent $21 billion on disaster relief and recovery in fiscal year 2011.

As Citizens Against Government Waste has stated in the past, Congress should improve the transparency of its disaster spending by creating some sort of rainy day fund that would contain money for unpredictable disasters.  According to CAGW’s Luke Gelber:

Ballparking an emergency budget during the appropriations process would lend transparency, stability, and quality to spending bills that are intended to help people in need.  It would prevent lawmakers from tacking frivolous projects onto emergency relief bills, thus removing the incentive to vote against otherwise well-intentioned legislation and preventing time-sensitive relief from being bogged down in Congress.

Creating a rainy day fund would also greatly hamper the ability of lawmakers to insert pork-barrel projects into emergency relief funding.  By subjecting this funding to the normal budgeting process, Congress will be able to better direct disaster relief funding to those most in need, and taxpayers will be able to rest assured that their money is not being spent on extraneous, wasteful projects.

Filed under: Uncategorized | No Comments »

Yesterday, I blogged about a story in the newspaper Politico that said members of Congress were looking for ways to exempt themselves and their staff from Obamacare.  Today The Hill, another popular newspaper in Washington, D.C., reports:

Democratic leaders said Thursday they’re not seeking an exemption from a central requirement of ObamaCare — that members of Congress and their staff purchase healthcare coverage through insurance exchanges.

Republicans spent the day hammering Democrats for allegedly seeking to carve themselves out of a requirement in the healthcare law.

But Democratic leaders said they have not sought an exemption — and would not support one if it were proposed.

“Nobody is exempting anybody from anything,” one Democratic aide said.

Based on the Politico story, it is clear discussions are going on within the congressional leadership on how to implement Obamacare for their staff and members of Congress.  They are confused about how to go about it and worried about the effects the law will have on their staff.  Right now, Congress and their staff get their health insurance via the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP) in which taxpayers subsidize approximately 75 percent of the cost of the premium.  But under Obamacare, members of Congress and office staff must get their healthcare coverage through the new insurance exchanges.  Major questions that need to be answered include when a congressional employee would be eligible for a subsidy to purchase their health insurance and in what exchange they would participate.

Welcome to our world Congress!

According to Obamacare, a person or family can receive financial assistance if their income is up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL.)  Right now, 400 percent of the FPL is $45,960 for one person or $94,200 for a family of four.  (The Kaiser Family Foundation provides a  summary of the legislation, which can be found here and Families USA provides a convenient FPL chart that can be found here.)  The Hill points out that, “staffers whose total household income is less than about $45,000 per year by themselves — or $94,000 for a family of four — would be eligible for subsidies to help pay for their policies, just like anyone else who uses the exchanges…Staffers and members with higher incomes would have to foot the entire bill for their coverage.”

There’s the rub.  Some people who work on Capitol Hill are going to pay much more than they do now for their health insurance.

And there will be inequities among congressional staff too.  As I mentioned in yesterday’s blog, congressional committee staff are exempted from Obamacare and will continue to get their health insurance through the FEHBP, which is a pretty good healthcare plan.  The Hill reported on comments regarding these differences from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA.):

Pelosi noted that some congressional staff, such as aides who work for a committee instead of an individual lawmaker, wouldn’t be covered by the healthcare reform law’s requirement to use the exchanges. Congress should level the playing field by moving all staffers and members into the exchanges, she said.  “The bill has been written, it’s a question of interpretation, and we want everybody to be treated the same,” she said at a news conference Thursday.

Reminds me of the infamous comment Ms. Pelosi made back in 2010 about the legislation.  She said, “we have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it.”  I bet a lot of members of Congress and staff now wish they had read the bill and knew what was in it before they passed it.

(Note to Senator Grassley, now is a good time to bring up your amendment again that would require congressional committee staff, the President and Vice President and other members in the Executive Branch to get their health insurance through Obamacare.]

Filed under: Big Government, Budget, Healthcare | No Comments »

All you need to do to find out how “wonderful” the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare will be for all of us is to go to the White House Web site.  In almost reverent slogans the Obama Administration claims:

“A More Secure Future”

“Stronger Consumer Rights and Protections”

“More Affordable Coverage”

“Better Access to Care”

“Stronger Medicare”

If Obamacare is so great, then why are members of Congress trying to extract themselves and their staff from complying with the law?  According to an article in Politico, a Washington, D.C. newspaper:

Congressional leaders in both parties are engaged in high-level, confidential talks about exempting lawmakers and Capitol Hill aides from the insurance exchanges they are mandated to join as part of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.

The talks — which involve Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), the Obama administration and other top lawmakers — are extraordinarily sensitive, with both sides acutely aware of the potential for political fallout from giving carve-outs from the hugely controversial law to 535 lawmakers and thousands of their aides. Discussions have stretched out for months, sources said.”

This is simply more proof that Obamacare is a pending train wreck and the ruling class is doing whatever they can to make sure only the proletariat are subject to the healthcare law.

It can be pretty confusing just who in the government is subject to Obamacare.  Back in 2010, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) attempted to put all federal employees under the Affordable Care Act with an amendment.   What the amendment would have done is “apply the new health care law to the President, Vice President, cabinet members, top White House staff, and the congressional staff who drafted the proposal.”  But the amendment was rejected so now only members of Congress and their personal staff are subject to the law.

And that is exactly what congressional leadership is trying to change according to the news article.  Politico quotes from someone involved in the sensitive negotiations, “Everyone has to hold hands on this and jump, or nothing is going to get done.”

Politico points out that one of the biggest concerns is a “brain drain.”  There is a question as to whether staff will have their health insurance premiums subsidized by the federal government.  If the Office of Personnel Management makes the decision that the federal government will not pick up 75 percent of the premium, as they are currently doing in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, then staff will have to pay the cost.  Members of Congress and their staff will then pay thousands of dollars in new healthcare costs.  The result – many staff may decide to seek jobs elsewhere.

Good luck with that.  The nation is still dealing with a high unemployment rate because many private employers are refusing to hire people because of, you guessed it, Obamacare.

According to the article, Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office refused to discuss whether any talks were going on.  Speaker John Boehner’s office said, “if the Speaker has the opportunity to save anyone from Obamacare, he will.”

Should Congress exempt itself from Obamacare, the 2014 elections are going to be very interesting.

Filed under: Budget, Healthcare | No Comments »

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) applauds approval by voice vote today of S. 607, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act Amendments Act of 2013, by the Senate Judiciary Committee.  The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) was enacted in 1986, long before widespread use of the Internet. Today’s society communicates in a dramatically different manner than in 1986, with an increasing amount of data stored digitally with third party providers.

In particular, concerns have been raised by the Digital Due Process Coalition (DDP), of which CAGW is a member, about the privacy of information stored online, including the use of third party cloud providers for email storage.  The 1986 law was unclear in regard to what kind of authority law enforcement and government agencies have to access such information.

Members of the DDP pushed hard for more than a year to include provisions in ECPA reform legislation that would require a warrant in order for law enforcement to access the content of electronic communications.  S. 607 will provide much-needed reform to the existing law to bring it into today’s technological landscape.

In addition to being a member of DDP, CAGW is also the co-chair of the Privacy Working Group, which brings together leading experts and thought leaders on current privacy policy and online safety issues.  If S. 607 is signed into law, information stored by individuals online, especially in cloud computing services would be subject to the same privacy rules and protections as information stored in personal computers, desk drawers and file cabinets.

Filed under: Cloud Computing, Internet, Privacy, Technology | No Comments »

Today, Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) announced his retirement – joining five other Democrat senators calling it quits.  Maybe all one needs to know why he is retiring and not running for re-election next year is to read this quote from the senator.  In an April 17 Senate Finance Committee hearing on President Obama’s 2014 budget, Chairman Baucus said the following about the Affordable Care Act (ACA), better known as Obamacare, to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

As you somewhat know, Madam Secretary, I’m going to be a bit — I’m a bit Johnny One-Note on implementation of the law, especially with respect to sign-ups and exchanges, et cetera, and am very concerned that not enough is being done so far — very concerned.  When I am home, small businesses have no idea what to do, what to expect.  They don’t know what affordability rules are. They don’t know what — when penalties may apply.  They just don’t know.

I mean, it just — I was talking to one CPA.  You know, he’s not histrionic.  He just was being straight with me.  He says, Max, I just got to tell you that, you know, my clients, small-business people, are just throwing their hands up and I don’t know what to tell them.  That’s just from the small-business perspective, let alone all the other issues that are going to be arising here.  And I just — as I discussed earlier and as you well know, a lot of people have no idea about all of this.

They just — people just don’t know a lot about it, and the Kaiser poll pointed that out.  I understand you’ve hired a contractor.  I’m just worried that that’s going to be money down the drain because contractors like to make money more than they do like to do anything else.  That’s their job. They’ve got to worry about their shareholders and whatnot.  And — I mean, and also, all the other agencies are all involved.  People are going to be really confused.  And maybe you can give some thought to a one-stop shopping somehow so you go to one location, a business person — one location to get the answers.”

I just tell you, I just see a huge train wreck coming down.  You and I have discussed this many times, and I don’t see any results yet.  What can you do to help all these people around the country wondering what in the world do I do and what — whether I know what to do?

This profoundly candid remark from the Senator that helped create and write Obamacare sent shockwaves through Washington, D.C.  No doubt he heard criticism from some of his Democrat colleagues after the Finance Committee hearing and tried to walk back the comments in a press release.  He said:

This is a good law but it can’t work if people don’t understand it… I hear from people on the ground in Montana that they are confused about the health care law.  For the insurance marketplaces to work, people need to know their options and how to enroll.  I want families’ lives to be easier, and I want small businesses to focus on job creation, not confusion.  The administration must use every day between now and October 1 to have insurance marketplaces up and running.”

But Baucus’s action today shows where his heart really is when it comes to ACA.  He doesn’t want to face the Montana voters in the fall of 2014 when mass confusion reigns as citizens try to sign up with either poorly functioning or inoperable exchanges, thousands of employers start dropping health insurance because it is cheaper to pay the fine not to provide health insurance than it is to provide the benefit, and the “Utopian” Obamacare is collapsing all around him.

Baucus has not been polling well too.  According to a recent poll by Public Policy Polling, a Democrat polling company, he was below 50% when compared to all possible challengers.  Plus, the state voted for McCain in 2008 (50% to 47%) and by a larger margin for Romney in 2012 (55% to 42%).

A recent blog “Putting Lipstick on the Obamacare Pig” by John Fund shows that Baucus is not the only one concerned about Obamacare.  Fund points out other reality checks and concerns as Obamacare is implemented like how seniors will react to the “dramatic cuts to Medicare Advantage.”  Or how “Kinsey Robinson, the president of the 22,000-member United Union of Roofers, issued a public statement last week calling for ‘repeal or complete reform of the Affordable Care Act.’”  Or how “Henry Chao, deputy chief information officer at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, admitted his doubts to a group of health-care executives recently.  ‘We are under 200 days from open enrollment [in Obamacare], and I’m pretty nervous,’ he said.  ‘The time for debating . . . is it a world-class experience, that’s what we used to talk about two years ago.  Let’s just make sure it’s not a third-world experience.’”

It is said that actions always speak louder than words and today’s action by one of the most senior Democrat senators in Washington and chief author of Obamacare speaks volumes.  Rather than defend his creation in an election, Senator Baucus is choosing the easy way out.  It is a clear indication of just how bad Obamacare really is.

Filed under: Big Government, Budget, Healthcare | No Comments »

Yesterday, Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on the fiscal straits faced by the United States Postal Service (USPS).  Postal Service reform in order to prevent an expensive taxpayer bailout has been on CAGW’s radar for a long time, but Congress has not allowed the USPS to do what is necessary to cut costs.  Donahoe’s testimony should make it harder for Congress to keep ignoring the problem.

Donahoe testified on what has been clear for some time: the Postal Service is hemorrhaging cash at an alarming rate.  The USPS recorded losses of $15.9 billion in fiscal year 2012 and has netted losses of $41 billion over the last six fiscal years. Most alarming of all, Donahoe stated that the Postal Service currently averages losses of $25 million per day.

Yet modest reforms, such as switching to a five-day delivery schedule of first-class mail, which the USPS estimates would save $2 billion annually, have consistently been obstructed by Congress.  Closing excess facilities and downsizing the Postal Service’s workforce have proved similarly problematic. Congress’s most significant action on postal reform occurred nearly a year ago, when the Senate approved legislation to allow a woefully inadequate amount of facility closures in 2012 while adding to the red tape in the approval process for future closures and delaying the move to five-day delivery by two years.

Conversely, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa’s (R-Calif.) Postal Reform Act, first introduced in 2011, would establish the Postal Service Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority upon a USPS default on debt to the federal government for more than 30 days. Once the USPS has met pre-established benchmarks of financial health, the authority would be disbanded. The bill would help right-size an agency that threatens to gouge taxpayers for billions due to its own mismanagement.

The USPS must be allowed to make changes that any private-sector firm with even a hint of a self-preservation instinct would have made years ago. As Postmaster General Donahoe explained in his testimony, ‘Every option has to be put on the table … piecemeal efforts simply will not work.’  While it may be politically convenient for certain members of Congress to hold the line and block Postal Service reform in the present, it is becoming increasingly clear that, barring significant reform, there may not be a Postal Service to defend in the future. At that point, the USPS’s long-held contention that it operates “at not cost to taxpayers” will look very silly indeed, and its popularity seems likely to take a serious hit.  But most Americans don’t much like being forced to pay for products they choose not to consume, and the Postal Service – along with its defenders who would block reform – would do well to remember that the types of “drastic” changes they oppose could look much more reasonable in the harsh light of a taxpayer bailout.

Filed under: Uncategorized | No Comments »

The federal government is once again picking winners and losers.  On April 12, 2013, the Department of Justice (DOJ) submitted its recommendations to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for the upcoming broadcast spectrum incentive auctions.  Among the DOJ’s suggestions are that the FCC adopt rules that prohibit larger mobile competitors from bidding on low-frequency spectrum in order to give smaller nationwide carriers the ability to purchase blocks of this spectrum.

The DOJ’s recommendations for the upcoming spectrum auctions are not the first time the federal government has tried to choose corporate winners and losers.  In 2003, Northpoint Technology sought $100 million worth of spectrum directly from Congress to provide wireless and satellite services.  The company attempted to subvert the FCC’s auction process by mounting a large lobbying campaign for the inclusion of language in authorization and appropriations bills.

The language nearly made it into the law, except for protests from some legislators and groups like the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste.  CCAGW called the proposal “a $100 million giveaway to an organization whose only asset was knowing the right people in Washington.”  Ultimately, the company failed to obtain the free spectrum allocation from Congress.

In addition, smaller carrier bids do not always lead to increased competition in the marketplace, particularly if a smaller, less experienced company wins a large segment of spectrum in the auctions.  In May 2000, Winstar Communications was awarded 931 spectrum licenses in the FCC’s closed 39 GHz auction #30 to provide wireless broadband services.  However, the company was unable to generate enough sales to cover its large capital infrastructure build outs, and eventually filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2001.

While DOJ asserts that its recommendation is meant to provide a level playing field, it is in fact anti-competitive.  The FCC would be determining winners and losers in the spectrum auctions before they even begin.  According to an April 15, 2013 article in ZNet, Verizon and AT&T have indicated that if the DOJ recommendations reduce their ability to bid on prime low-frequency spectrum, it might lessen their participation in the upcoming auctions.

Past mistakes of opening up spectrum auctions to only to politically-connected or inexperienced telecommunications companies should be avoided.  The FCC should allow a truly free market competitive bidding process to move forward that will benefit everyone.

Filed under: Broadband, Internet, Spectrum, Technology, Telecommunications | No Comments »

The Obama Administration may have just hammered the last nail into the coffin of the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS).

As part of his fiscal year (FY) 2014 budget, President Obama refused to add money for the troubled program, keeping with his promise to cease funding following a two year proof of concept phase that concluded after FY 2013.

Intended as a replacement for the Patriot missile system, MEADS has been dogged by cost overruns of nearly $2 billion and is a decade behind schedule.  A March 9, 2010 Washington Post report quoted a U.S. Army memo asserting that the program “will not meet U.S. requirements or address the current and emerging threat without extensive and costly modifications,” and Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) has called the program “a waste of money.”   A March 2011 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report recommended terminating MEADS in favor of continuing production of the Patriot. CBO cited an internal Army memo that urged “harvesting MEADS technologies and improving the Patriot program it was designed to replace.”  The Government Accountability Office’s annual report on Department of Defense (DOD) weapons programs in March 2011 noted problems with MEADS, including that it “is at risk of not meeting several technical performance measures….”  The DOD does not have any plans to purchase the system.  The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste laid out the full case against MEADS in its microsite, MisguidedMissile.org.

For several years, officials at the DOD stated that cancelling the program was prohibitive without agreement from the U.S.’ partners Germany and Italy because of high unilateral termination costs.  However, a confidential DOD report to Congress obtained by Citizens Against Government Waste concludes that the U.S. can withdraw from the contract without committing additional money or paying termination fees.

Barring congressional action, the $380 million in last month’s continuing resolution funding the federal government for the balance of FY 2013 will represent MEADS’ final allowance.  According to a Pentagon spokeswoman, this funding will be used to complete the archival of data for potential later use by the three partner nations.

Of course, just like all good horror movies, costly defense acquisition programs rarely stay dead for long, even with the most glaring of deficiencies.  Congress will get one last bite at the apple during this summer’s appropriations process.  Three out of four relevant congressional committees have zeroed funding for MEADS in the past.  Predictably, the lone holdout is the Senate Appropriations Committee, whose old guard appropriators have never been easily persuaded to cut waste.  However, with the country staring down a deep fiscal morass (and the DOD facing automatic cuts via sequestration), the time is now for them to stand down.

Filed under: Appropriations, Budget, Congress, Defense, Deficit, Earmarks, In The News, International, MEADS, National Security, Pork, Victories, Waste | No Comments »