Reason Foundation - Policy Areas >

On the Very Idea of the Agricultural Committee

carson.young@reason.org (Carson Young) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 09:00:00 EDT

The Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill has turned into a feeding frenzy for special interests, as Reason’s Ron Bailey warned back in April. Prominently elbowing its way to the public trough, as usual, is Big Agriculture:

Because they are the source of most carbon emissions, factories, power plants and oil refineries would all be covered by the caps and be required to buy the permits, or allowances, as they are called. The one major source that is not covered is the American farm…. But, for farmers, it wasn't enough to get a free pass on carbon emissions…. In the mind of the entitled American farmer, any increase in costs or reduction in revenue—whether from natural causes, market forces or government regulation—must be compensated for by the government.

This doesn’t come as a surprise, given the other boondoggles caused by the farm lobby’s disproportionate political influence (ethanol and the farm bill, to name a few). One institutional reason for the farm lobby’s clout is Congress’s committee structure. As Matt Yglesias explains,

One basic problem of democratic governance relates to concentrated interests versus diffuse ones. Organizing broad groups of people to advance the public interest in the face of entrenched opposition is difficult. And the committee structure is like it was designed to make this problem as bad as possible.

Ezra Klein proposes an obvious solution: get rid of agricultural committees. Agriculture is the only industry that gets legislative committees all to itself (not to mention an entire executive department). Maybe this made sense back in the 19th century, when the United States was still mostly an agrarian economy. But now that the agricultural sector employs only two percent of workers in the United States, agricultural committees have been reduced to serving as conduits between public funds and special interests, making already dreadful bills like Waxman-Markey even worse. Why do we need this problem?

Reason's Anthony Randazzo has more on the travesty that is Waxman-Markey here.

Jindal And The Debate Over Volcano Monitoring

adrian.moore@reason.org (Adrian Moore) — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 04:42:00 EST

The news and blogosphere is full of back and forth jabs and plenty of high horses over Gov. Jindal singling out volcano monitoring as an example of federal spending that maybe should not be a priority. A sample here.

"Does the governor have a volcano in his backyard?" asks the mayor of Vancouver, WA self rightiously. Well, no he does not. Which raises the question of why Louisianans, for example, should be paying for volcano monitoring in Washington state. In other words, why is that a necessary federal mission paid for by all taxpayers? Why should the people who live near volcanoes pay for volcano monitoring themselves? Ditto for those in earthquake or hurricane zones.

It amazes me that as I poked around the media and blog discussion of this, that question seems not to be raised. It’s all about whether volcano monitoring is good or bad, not about whether feds or state/locals should do it. Seems obvious to me that Gov. Jindal hit the nail on the head—this should not be a federal priority.

Obama Needs to Push for Online Stimulus Transparency

anthony.randazzo@reason.org (Anthony Randazzo) — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:00:00 EST

House Democrats have put forth an $825 billion stimulus package in an ambitious plan aimed at stimulating the economy. But before spending any more money, Congress and newly inaugurated President Barack Obama should offer a detailed account of the vast sums of bailout dollars already doled out by the Bush administration over the last few months. Incredibly enough, no one really knows precisely how much Washington has already committed or handed out - let alone to whom and for what purposes.

In July 2007, Mr. Obama signed Reason Foundation's Oath of Presidential Transparency, pledging his commitment to "open, transparent, and accountable government principles."

"Every American has the right to know how the government spends their tax dollars, but for too long that information has been largely hidden from public view," said then Sen. Obama. "This historic law will lift the veil of secrecy in Washington and ensure that our government is transparent and accountable to the American people."

If his promise for transparency was important then, it is even more critical now in the wake of Uncle Sam's recent spending binge.

Mr. Obama should press for a complete, itemized - and publicly available - list of how much money taxpayers are already on the hook for to bailout failing entities. There are so many different bailout-related programs - TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), Federal Reserve programs, auto bailouts, and investment guarantees that we don't have a firm dollar figure. No one knows exactly what to count. Different sources have given different estimates that vary by as much as $1 trillion or so. The New York Times, in December, calculated bailout spending to be $7.8 trillion. CNBC thinks it is about $7.3 trillion. If you count all the taxpayer money spent in 2008 on bailouts, including the $150 billion stimulus in the spring of 2008 and the early bank rescues, such as IndyMac, the figure rises to over $8.4 trillion.

During the campaign, Mr. Obama talked about "putting the government online" and he has already announced a website for stimulus spending - www.Recovery.gov.

"We plan to create a Web site that will contain information about the contracts and include PDFs or contracts themselves and also financial information about the contracts," Peter Orzag, Obama's choice to lead the Office of Management and Budget, encouragingly told the Washington Post.

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), one of Mr. Obama's most boisterous supporters, recently told Time magazine that taxpayers are demanding accountability. "I call it the grocery-store test: How many aisles can I get down the grocery store without someone yelling at me?" said McCaskill. "I couldn't even get to the produce section at the front of the store before people started screaming at me about the TARP. If we can't get transparency for taxpayers on this, it's going to be difficult to get my vote [on the stimulus package]."

But President Obama and Congress should not limit transparency to just the stimulus spending or even TARP - everything should be on the table.

The Treasury Department - in association with the Federal Reserve and FDIC - should create an "online checkbook" showing how many checks it has written, when they are cashed, and offer detailed notes about what they paid for. The government should also list who it has loaned money to, what has been paid back, and how much interest it has earned. Ultimately, the key is simplicity and clarity.

Neel Kashkari, interim assistant Treasury Secretary for financial stability and one of the people theoretically in charge of the bailout money, has told the House Financial Services Committee that he is directing his staff to establish a formal monitoring program to track TARP dollars. But with the Bush administration and Congress having failed to provide accountability for the bailout spending thus far, it will be up to the Obama administration to halt the government's policy of handing out taxpayer money first and asking questions later, if ever.

The lack of accountability thus far should be unacceptable to the taxpayers who have had trillions spent in their name. With talk that the upcoming stimulus package may grow beyond $825 billion, taxpayers now, more than ever, need President Obama to lead the charge for transparency and accountability.

Earmarks: The Alien Menace

Tue, 29 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EDT

Los Angeles (July 29, 2008) - In fiscal 2008, taxpayers are shelling out over $17 billion for more than 11,000 Congressional earmarks. One such project is a $1.6 million earmark in this year's defense spending bill for the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI), a program that looks for evidence of life elsewhere in the universe. SETI scientists haven't detected any evidence of extra-terrestrial life since the program's inception in the 1960s, leading Reason.tv editor Nick Gillespie to wonder, "Are aliens really a threat to our national security? Why is SETI receiving money that is supposed to be used for national defense?"

Earmarks, not aliens, are the real threat to Americans. Beyond encouraging Congressional overspending, earmarks create "an unfair and unbalanced representative government," says Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn. "If you've got money and you can influence things in Washington, you get benefits. If you don't have money and you can't influence, you're not necessarily benefiting."

This alien pork project is just one example of how elected officials use earmarks to funnel your federal tax dollars back to powerful interests in their districts. Since 1991, Americans have paid over $271 billion for pork projects, according to Citizens Against Government Waste.

"Look at the omnibus package in the Senate right now," says Gillespie. "They've rolled 35 bills into one, with over $10 billion in spending stuffed into it. With the federal government facing a record $490 billion budget deficit in 2009, maybe Congress should consider how it will balance the federal budget before it goes running up more credit card bills that taxpayers get stuck with."

Full Video Online

The Reason.tv Drew Carey video, Earmarks: The Alien Menace, is online at http://reason.tv/video/show/483.html. An archive of Reason.tv's feature videos is online at http://reason.tv/featuredvids/.

About Reason.tv

Reason.tv is an online community showcasing the best libertarian ideas and videos on the Internet. Reason.tv gives you the opportunity to create videos, share videos and suggest topics for Drew Carey's upcoming documentaries. For more information, please visit www.reason.tv.

About Reason Foundation

Reason Foundation is a nonprofit think tank dedicated to advancing free minds and free markets. Reason Foundation produces respected public policy research on a variety of issues and publishes the critically acclaimed Reason magazine and its website www.reason.com. For more information, please visit www.reason.org.

Contact

Chris Mitchell, Director of Communications, Reason Foundation, (310) 367-6109

Obama, Brownback and Paul Promise Executive Order Mandating Google Government

Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:48:00 EDT

Los Angeles (August 24, 2007) – Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) have signed oaths declaring that, should they win the presidency in 2008, they will issue an executive order during their first month in office instructing the entire executive branch to put into practice the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, a Google-like search tool will allow you to see how your tax dollars are being spent on federal contracts, grants and earmarks.

All of the major presidential candidates have been invited to sign the "oath of presidential transparency" which is being promoted by a diverse coalition of 36 groups, led by Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank that has advised the last four presidential administrations.

"The next president should be committed to transparency and accountability," said Adrian Moore, vice president of research at Reason Foundation. "Redesigning the federal government so that it is more accountable to taxpayers is a nonpartisan issue. Transparency will help produce a government focused on results instead of our current system, which is plagued by secrecy, wasteful spending and pork projects."

"Every American has the right to know how the government spends their tax dollars, but for too long that information has been largely hidden from public view," said Sen. Obama. "This historic law will lift the veil of secrecy in Washington and ensure that our government is transparent and accountable to the American people."

"Government transparency is essential to government accountability. Americans need to feel they can trust their government," Sen. Brownback stated.

"When government spends the people's money, it must be done with utmost possible transparency," Rep. Paul, the first to sign the oath, declared. "Signing the Oath of Presidential Transparency was a no-brainer for me."

The oath was sent to every presidential candidate who has met the Federal Election Commission's filing requirements and has "raised or spent $50,000 or more (the threshold for mandatory electronic filing) from sources or to payees other than the candidate him or herself." The oath was first distributed to every presidential candidate's headquarters on July 17, 2007. Subsequently, at least five follow-up emails or calls were made to each campaign.

Full Oath Online

The complete oath of presidential transparency is available online at www.reason.org/Letter_Oath_of_Presidential_Transparency.pdf.

About the Coalition

An alliance of 36 diverse groups is advocating the presidential accountability oath. The following groups are part of the coalition: American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, American Association of Small Property Owners, Americans for Tax Reform, Budget Watch Nevada, Capital Research Center, Center for Financial Privacy and Human Rights, Center for Individual Freedom, Citizen Outreach Project, Citizens Against Government Waste, Doctors for Open Government, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Evergreen Freedom Foundation, FreedomWorks, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, Iowa Public Policy Institute, Liberty Coalition, Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Minnesota Free Market Institute, Mississippi Center for Public Policy, National Taxpayers Union, Nevada Policy Research Institute, Reason Foundation, Republican Liberty Caucus, Research Accountability Project, Rio Grande Foundation, Taxpayers League of Minnesota, Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, The Harbor League, The Performance Institute, The Project on Government Oversight, The Pullins Report, The Rutherford Institute, US Bill of Rights Foundation, Velvet Revolution, Virginia Institute for Public Policy, and Washington Policy Center.

About Reason Foundation

Reason Foundation is a nonprofit think tank dedicated to advancing free minds and free markets. Reason produces respected public policy research on a variety of issues and publishes the critically acclaimed monthly magazine, Reason. Reason Foundation does not endorse any political candidates. For more information, please visit www.reason.org.

Government Contact

Presidential candidates interested in signing the oath, or organizations interested in joining the coalition, should contact Reason Foundation's Amanda Hydro at (202) 236-9193.

Media Contacts

Adrian Moore, Vice President of Research, Reason Foundation (661) 477-3107
Chris Mitchell, Director of Communications, Reason Foundation, (310) 367-6109

Opportunity and Performance in the President's Management Agenda

adrian.moore@reason.org (Adrian Moore) — Thu, 01 Aug 2002 00:00:00 EDT

Two events are working together to confront the challenge facing federal agencies in figuring out which programs are working, how customers are being served, and if functions are better provided by private firms. The first is President Bush's Management Agenda, which is a set of initiatives designed to improve the management of federal agencies by adopting performance-based criteria for decision-making and action, and ultimately tying performance to budget appropriations. The Agenda includes a set of goals for "competitive sourcing," the most important of which is asking federal agencies to subject 50 percent of all commercial positions identified in their Federal Activities Inventory Reform (FAIR) Act inventories to competition from the private sector over the next four years. That is over 400,000 positions.

The second event is the release of the final report from the General Accounting Office-led Commercial Activities Panel. Two years ago Congress ordered the GAO to convene an expert panel to recommend changes in how the federal government conducts public-private competitions and outsourcing. The report did what many who watched the process expected, and recommended scrapping the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-76 process for competitive sourcing and replacing it with the best-value competition process from Federal Acquisition Regulations Part 15. These two events come together to foster federal agencies' strategic use of partnerships with private firms.

President Bush's competitive sourcing goals are for competition, not outsourcing. An outsourcing goal is an ephemeral thing, with nothing to sustain it over time, and a lightning rod for organized resistance. President Bush is looking instead to change the institutional structure in which decisions about what an agency should be doing are made. He is asking agencies to use competition between employees and private firms to evaluate who can deliver the best performance.

The President's goals come together with the Commercial Activities Panel report, because the competitive sourcing approach in FAR Part 15 allows performance-based, best-value competitions in a way the A-76 process does not. OMB is judging agency plans to meet the President's competitive sourcing goals to a large extent on how much they are based on improving agency performance. And flexible best-value approaches, such as those allowed in FAR Part 15 and recommended by the Commercial Activities Panel, are crucial to basing competitive sourcing on performance criteria rather than simple low cost.

Most federal agencies will probably choose to buy political space with their staff by using public-private competitions even where A-76 or the much more generous FAR Part 15 process allows direct outsourcing. But, again, OMB has demonstrated that it will accept a wide range of approaches to meeting the competitive sourcing goals, as long as each approach is grounded in demonstrable performance criteria. As agencies move forward, they should develop performance criteria for deciding when to take a public-private competition approach and when direct conversion makes more sense.

One way for agencies to identify where to begin applying competitive sourcing, and later to help decide whether to use public-private competition or direct conversion, is shown in the figure. If an agency has done a good job of analyzing how important an activity is to meeting the agency's performance goals and also analyzed how well the activity is performing, it can plot the activity in the graph. The more important the activity is to the agency's overall performance, the higher on the graph it is. The better the activity is performing, the farther to the right on the graph it is.

Based on which box the activity falls into, an agency can determine what opportunities for change may exist.

Attention Needed—Activities plotted here are important to the agency's overall performance, but are not performing very well. These activities are prime candidates for competition designed to improve activity performance.
Proven Success—Activities plotted here are important to the agency's overall performance and are performing very well. Enough said.
Exit Opportunity—Activities plotted here are not important to the agency's overall performance and are not performing very well. The agency may choose to shift resources to more important areas after ceasing these activities and allowing the private sector to meet any demand for them.
Resources Available—Activities plotted here are not important to the agency's overall performance but are performing very well. The agency may have resources and staff here that can deliver similar high performance in more important activities and again may choose to shift resources to more important areas after ceasing these activities and allowing the private sector to meet any demand for them.

But such an approach to focusing on and allocating resources to agency performance will only succeed if the process is improved, as the Commercial Activities Panel report suggests, and if Congress follows through by being willing to oversee agencies and make appropriations based on performance criteria rather than micromanaging service delivery. Without a bottom line and without competitive forces, program structures and approaches often stagnate, while success is not always visible, and is hard to replicate. Worse, since budgets are not linked to performance in a positive way, too often poor performers get rewarded as budget increases follow failure.

The President's Management Agenda is aimed at creating the institutional change that creates a bottom line and a competitive system. Performance is the common thread. In applying competition to decisions about doing activities in house or moving them to the private sector, these institutional changes begin to solve the problem of inadequate cost information to begin with and no longer accept an agency's failure to use performance measurement to track and compare quality and value. Performance becomes embedded in all service decisions, including contracting. Unnecessary or poor performing programs cannot survive the transparency and the scrutiny that follows it. They change or they go away.

Adrian Moore is Vice President of Reason Foundation.