H.R. 3221, the housing bailout bill that President Bush signed on July 23, 2008 is a $300 billion handout to home builders, mortgage companies who made bad loans and borrowers who took loans for homes they could not afford. The bill was exacerbated by the last-minute inclusion of a potential $25 billion (or more) taxpayer subsidy for the nation’s two mammoth government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Despite claims that the money would not be used, the taxpayers may be on the hook sooner rather than never. It turns out that there were other nasty surprises tucked into the bill as well.
Earmark Disclosure: Slow but Steady
“Will you disclose the earmarks that you have requested, Representative?”
Special Interests Before Taxpayers
For many years, the Government Accountability Office and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of the Inspector General have issued report after report pointing out that Medicare pays too much for durable medical equipment (DME). DME includes walkers, wheelchairs, and portable oxygen equipment. Unfortunately for taxpayers, Medicare’s fee schedule is not based on competitive market prices.
GSE Monster Mash-up
On Friday, July 11, the nation’s two largest housing government-sponsored enterprises (GSE), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, began a precipitous stock slide that stirred a mini-panic on Wall Street and among government officials. There was a frantic bid to craft a government rescue plan over the weekend. On Monday, federal officials rushed to the nearest open microphone to reassure the nation that these mortgage behemoths were in no real danger of going belly up.
Federal Government – The Ideal Tenant?
Apparently, the federal government has an aversion to commitment, at least in terms of property. According to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released on January 24, 2008, for the first time in history the federal government is predicted to lease more property than it owns. Based upon information gathered from the General Services Administration (GSA), which handles many of the government’s leases, from 2003 to 2006, federally-leased space increased from 160 million square feet to 172 million square feet; conversely, federally-owned space decreased from 180 million square feet to 174 million square feet.
Department of Defense and Lavish Expenditures
What do earmarks for $10 million for the National World War Two Museum in New Orleans, $18 million for a chapel in Fort Hood, and $5 million for a fence near San Diego have in common? The House of Representatives deemed them to be important enough to include as earmarks in the committee report on H.R. 5658, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2009.
Rhetorical Flim-Flam
In the wake of the March 13 vote on a one-year moratorium on congressional earmarks, it is time for a post-mortem on who said what in the heat of the battle. The amendment, offered by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) to the fiscal year 2009 budget resolution, failed by a vote of 29-71. But the earmark fight is far from over; the comments made by the appropriations cardinals and various earmark apologists are fodder for future skirmishes.
Earmarks Invade DC
An op-ed in the May 17 Washington Post by Colbert King showed that earmarks know no boundaries. King cited $56 million in projects in the District of Columbia’s budget that were “initiated and approved by the [city] council without extensive executive branch review.”
Home, Home on the Range, Where the Big Railroad Companies Graze Or South Dakotans Should Choo Choo Choose Their Own Destiny
When one thinks of western South Dakota, one imagines sweeping vistas and beautiful ranches. However, the Dakota, Minnesota, & Eastern Railroad (DM&E) is threatening to grab massive swaths of this beautiful private land in western South Dakota to build 120 miles of new rail line.
What’s In Your Wallet? Free Goodies Courtesy of Taxpayers
In an audit of federal employees’ use of credit cards, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found some shocking charges with a debatable relationship to necessary costs. For example, during more than 15 consecutive months between 2004 and 2006, a U.S. postmaster charged $1,100 to two Internet dating services, and faced no disciplinary action for the fraudulent transactions. For nearly six years, a Department of Agriculture employee charged more than $642,000 to her government account, covering expenses ranging from car loans to gambling.