Who Owns Your Congressman?

From Masters in Accounting:

Read more...

Our Common Enemy Ain't Each Other

Rather it's our unaccountable lawmakers who can't be bothered to show up for important briefings. If any one of us failed to show up for a meeting, we would be fired, yet these jokers fail to show up on a regular basis.

That's right. Most of our senators decided to "leave Washington early Thursday afternoon instead of attending a briefing with James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, Keith Alexander, the head of the National Security Agency (NSA), and other officials."

Only 47 of 100 senators attended the 2:30 briefing, leaving dozens of chairs in the secure meeting room empty as Clapper, Alexander and other senior officials told lawmakers about classified programs to monitor millions of telephone calls and broad swaths of Internet activity. The room on the lower level of the Capitol Visitor Center is large enough to fit the entire Senate membership, according to a Senate aide.

Read more...

When Banksters Scam, Swindle and Steal, It's Legal.

The Justice Department won't be pursuing criminal charges against Goldman Sachs or its employees over its deceptive practices in marketing mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations (CDO).

In April 2011, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released a voluminous report on the role of major banks, federal regulators and credit rating firms in the collapse of the subprime mortgage market and ensuing financial crash of September 2008. 240 pages of the 640 page report examined the role of Goldman Sachs (GS) in selling securities that they were betting would fail.

Chairman of the committee, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, said the panel’s two-year probe had found “a financial snake pit rife with greed, conflicts of interest and wrongdoing". He went on to say, "In my judgment, Goldman clearly misled their clients and they misled Congress.”

On Thursday, despite the massive amount of evidence - 56 million pages of memos, documents, prospectuses and emails - against Goldman Sachs, the DOJ concluded that "there is not a viable basis to bring a criminal prosecution with respect to Goldman Sachs or its employees in regard to the allegations set forth in the report.”

Moreover, on the same day that the DOJ decided not to pursue criminal charges against GS, the SEC, in a totally separate investigation of a $1.3 billion subprime mortgage deal from 2006, also decided not to take any action against GS. And the largest transfer of wealth from the public to private sector continues on.

What happened to President Barack Obama's Justice Department task force to investigate banking practices in the mortgage industry?

"On the sixth month anniversary of the announcement of the so-called financial crisis task force, the twin announcements yesterday that Goldman Sachs and its executives will not be charged by either the Sec or DOJ for conduct directly related to the toxic assets at the heart of the crisis is a stark reminder that no individual or institution has been held meaningfully accountable for their role in the financial crisis. And without such accountability, the unending parade of megabanks scandals will inevitably continue," - Neil Barofsky

Links:

Goldman Sachs and Control Fraud

Five Senior Goldman Sachs Execs Gave $130K To 'Obama Victory Fund' WHILE Eric Holder Was Deciding Whether To File Criminal Charges

Read more...

Secret Congress. Secret. Wall Street Government.

Now, Congress has the constitutional authority to meet in secret - excluding press and public - whenever they deem necessary. According to Congressional Research Service, since 1830, the House has met in secret four times: 1979, 1980, 1983, and 2008. The report: Secret Sessions of the House and Senate: Authority, Confidentiality, and Frequency.

However, does the U.S. Constitution grant authority to Wall Street and top government officials to conceal pertinent information from Congress and the public?  Well, obviously it doesn't matter because that's what's happening.

The documents show how top US government officials willfully concealed from Congress and the public the true extent of the 2008-'09 bailouts that enriched the few and enhanced the interests of giant Wall Streets firms. Here’s what came out as the result of Bloomberg's investigation:

The secret Wall Street bailouts totaled $7.77 trillion, 10 times more than the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) officially passed by Congress in 2008.

Knowledge of the secret bailout funds was not shared with Congress even while it was drafting and debating legislation to break up the big banks.

The secret loans financed bank mergers so that the largest banks could grow even larger. The money also allowed banks to step up their lobbying efforts.

Read more...

Is Poverty a Death Sentence in the US?

According to Senator Bernie Sanders, there is no question that "thousands more Americans will die earlier than they should...that they are being sentenced to death without having committed any crime other than being poor". On the other hand, Rand Paul, in so many words, says the poor are getting richer.

Rand Paul is an idiot. Census data recently released show that while the poverty rate increased, median household income declined, and the percentage without health insurance coverage was not statistically different from the previous year.

Garrett Adams, a medical doctor in the southeastern U.S., backed up Senator Sanders when he said,  "financial constraints are preventing people from getting the life-saving health treatments they need." He went on to say, "there is a cycle in which poverty can be a death sentence and illness can be a poverty sentence"

Read more...

Leaving Whistleblowers and Taxpayers Hopelessly in a Lurch

Abuse of the public trust is at an all time high. So, its more important than ever before to see and understand, what our leadership is up to...the leadership we've been conditioned to trust. And, that's where the  Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA) came in.  It was legislation aimed at exposing corruption at the top levels of politics, our economy, and other large institutions. The Act would have protected federal workers who use legal and safe channels to expose waste, fraud, abuse, and threats to public safety. 

So, you say, what's more important than protecting against "unlawful acts, regulatory violations, abuses of authority, dangers to public health and any gross mismanagement or gross waste of funds?" Apparently, everything. Especially after a few Republicans connected the WikiLeaks controversy to the WPEA, ultimately killing it.

Yep, the act of one  senator, who shall remain nameless, secretly put a hold on the bill after it passed a voice vote, just before the chamber adjourned for the Christmas holiday...the political scoundrel's favorite time of the year.

But isn't it weird how it always comes down to that one scoundrel who messes things up for everyone?  Anyway, WikiLeaks seems to be the go-to excuse for everything from restrict-the-Internet to kill-the-whistleblower...protection.

Read more...

What is the Food Safety Modernization Act, Really?

On the surface, it certainly sounds like the S. 510:FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) was created with the "best of intentions" as it is designed to give added protection to consumers from food contamination.  However, we know better, right?  "Best of intentions" in our current corpocracy doesn't compute. 

So, what else could possibly motivate our legislators?  Could it be an excuse to create even more bureaucracy, therefore taking further control of our lives, without taking any of the responsibility?  Because what is the point of adding five more federal agencies? The Department of Agriculture, Department of Health and Human Services, the Center for Disease Control, the Environmental Protection Agency and even the Department of Homeland Security?  And that's in addition to the Food and Drug Administration!

Consider this. These  new regulations are not required for food grown outside the United States. So, as prices sky-rocket on American produced or local organic food, incoming food, from other countries  that doesn't have to meet any of the food safety regulations, saturated with all of those dangerous chemicals and/or hormones, will be able to charge far below the price of locals.   So, as a result, it's possible, once the  FSMA goes into action,  consumers will end up buying the extremely toxic food, grown beyond the scope of regulation, from the multinational corporate farms; hence, rendering the FSMA, the FP[oison]MA.  

Aha! There is the rub, and the reason: securing multinational profits!  Because, in the end, this food safety bill will place enormous new burdens on small to mid-sized farms in the US, driving them out of business, not to mention, erecting new barriers to potential local food-producers.

Some even say that this bill will or could make it illegal for people to grow their own food. Well, as crazy as that sounds, when you consider how corporatized our government is now, and when you consider that so many activists are trying to convince people to starve the multi-nationals and instead, build up their local economies, anything is possible. Moreover, there are large gray areas in this bill, open wide to interpretation.

Yep, to be sure, those super-sized, over-hormoning, deplete the nutrients, corporate farms will benefit, as always.

Read more...

Republicans Filibuster Cost of Living Adjustment For Seniors, Veterans and Disabled

Sen. Bernie Sanders proposed legislation to provide $250 payments to some 58 million Social Security recipients, veterans and persons with disabilities facing a second straight year without a cost-of-living adjustment. The vote Wednesday in the Senate on Bernie's bill was 53 to 45 in favor of the proposal, but that was short of the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster.

Read more...

80% of All New Income Has Gone to the Top 1% Over the Last 25 Years!

Senator Bernie Sanders kicks ass:


Senator Bernie Sanders is a rare breed of politician in Washington today.  He is, without a doubt, one of the fiercest, if not thee fiercest advocate for  We the People, moreover, he may be one of the last honest politicians in Washington.

Almost full transcript of Sen. Sander's speech :

On who is winning in this economy and who is losing:

"Mr. President...the income going to the top 1% nearly tripled since the 1970s...
Today, if you can believe it, the top one-tenth of 1% earns about 12 cents of every dollar earned in America.  We talk about a lot of things on the floor of the Senate but somehow we forget to talk about who is winning in this economy and who is losing. And it's very clear to anyone who spends two-minutes studying this issue that the people on top are doing extraordinarily well, at the same time the middle-class is collapsing, and poverty is increasing.

...you know many people out there are angry; they're wondering what's happening to their own income, to their lives, to the lives of their kids. Since 1980 and 2005, 80%...80% of all new income created in this country went to the top 1%..80% of all new income. "
[...]
Today, the Wall Street executives...the crooks on Wall Street whose actions resulted in the severe recession that we are in right now--the people whose actions, illegal actions, reckless actions, have resulted in millions of Americans losing their jobs, their homes, their savings. Guess what? After we bailed them out, the CEOs today are earning more money than they did before the bailout.

Mr. President, while the middle class of this country collapses and the rich become richer, the United States, has by far, the most unequal distribution of income and wealth of any major country on earth.
[...]

On Bush tax-cuts:

We are now faced with the issue of what we do with the Bush tax cuts of 2001-2003. And if you can believe it, we have people here, many of whom are my Republican colleagues, who tell us, 'Oh, I am so concerned about our record breaking deficit...I am terribly concerned about a $13.7 TRILLION national debt...I'm terribly concerned about the debt we're going to be leaving to our kids and our grandchildren...but wait a minute...it's very important that we give, over a 10-year period, $700 billion in tax breaks to the top 2%.  Oh yeah, we're concerned about the debt...we're concerned about the deficit...but we are more concerned that the millionaires, people who earn at least a million dollars per year or more get, on average, a hundred-thousand dollars a year in tax-breaks. ' So you gotta $13.7 trillion national debt growing, you got growing income equality: top 1% earning more income than the bottom 50% but the highest priority of many of my Republican colleagues is to make sure that millionaires and billionaires get more tax-breaks. I think it's absurd.

On the estate tax:

But it is not only income tax rates that we're dealing with. It's the estate tax as well. And let's be clear, while some of my friends want to eliminate completely, the estate tax, which has been in existence since 1916...let us be clear that every nickel of benefit...ALL OF THOSE BENEFITS will go to the top three-tenths of 1%, and if we did as some of my friends would like, eliminate  the estate tax completely, it would cost us a TRILLION dollars in revenue for a 10-year period of time...ALL OF THOSE BENEFITS going to the top three-tenths of 1%. So, I'm sure in a little while, some of my friends are going to come down to the floor, and say...'we're very concerned about the...'

On destroying the "New Deal":

But, Mr. President, the tax issue is just one part of what some of our wealthy friends want to see what happen in this country. The reality is that many of these folks want to bring the United States back to where we were in the 1920s. And they want to do their best to eliminate all traces of social legislation which working families fought tooth and nail to develop to bring a modicum of stability security to their lives.

There are people out there, not all, but there are some, who want to privatize or eliminate social security. They want to privatize or cutback substantially on Medicare. Yeah, you're 75-years of age and have no money...good luck to you getting your health insurance at an affordable cost from a private insurance company…I am just sure there are sorts of private insurance companies just delighted to take care of low-income seniors who are struggling with cancer or another disease.

On China: the 51st state and disastrous trade policies:

Mr President, furthermore, there are corporate leaders out there, and many members of congress who not only want to continue, they want to expand our disastrous trade policies.
[…]
We seem to have a country, which has a 51st state named China, which is virtually producing all of the products that we as Americans consume. Our trade policy has resulted in the loss of millions of good paying jobs as large corporations and CEOs have said, why do I want to reinvest in American when I can go to countries where people are paid 50¢, 75¢ an hour…that’s what I’m gonna do…the heck with working people in this country.

On our wealthy "friends" in high places:

While we struggle with a record breaking deficit and a large national debt caused by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, caused by tax breaks for the wealthy, caused by an unpaid for Medicare Part D Prescription Drug Program, caused by the Wall Street bailout...driving up the deficit, driving up the national debt..some people can say, ‘Oh my goodness! We’ve got all these expenses, and we’ve gotta give tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, but we gotta balance the budget. Gee, how we going to do that? Well, obviously, we know how we’re going to do that. We’re going to cut back on health care, we’re going to cut back on education, we’re going to cut back on childcare, we’re going to cut back on PELL programs…we’re going to cut back on food-stamps,…we’re surely not going to expand unemployment compensation…we gotta a higher priority, Mr. President. We have got to, got to got to give tax breaks to billionaires! That’s what this whole place is all about, isn’t it? They fund the campaigns, they get what’s due them.

Mr. President, amazingly enough, we have our friends on Wall Street, the CEOs of the large financial institutions…they want to rescind or slow-down many of the provisions, very modest provisions in the financial reform bill…I voted for the financial reform bill but I will tell you clearly, it didn’t go nearly anywhere near far enough but it went too far for our Wall Street friends and their lobbyists, who were all over here, and the hundreds of millions of dollars Wall Street spends on this place. These people want to cut back on the powers of the EPA and department of energy, so that Exxon Mobil can remain one of the most profitable corporations in world history, while oil and coal companies continue to pollute our air and our water. Last year Exxon Mobil made $19 billion in profit. Guess what? They paid zero in taxes and got a $156 million refund from the IRS. I guess that’s not good enough. We gotta give the oil companies even more tax breaks.

So, Mr. President, that’s where we are, and we gotta own up to it. There is a war going on. The middle-class is struggling for existence and they’re takin on some of the wealthiest and most powerful forces in the world whose greed has no end. And if we don’t start to stand together and start representing those families, there will not be a middle-class in this country.” -- Bernie Sanders

Read more...

Economic Recovery for Who?

Economists expect the "recovery" to remain "firmly on track" over the next two years, although job growth is likely to remain slow...very slow. So, with 15 million people out of work, six million of them out of work for more than half a year, and no idea when or where these "new" jobs will emerge from, where is the recovery? If recovery means regaining a former and better state or condition, then how can we be experiencing a recovery with "millions of Americans remaining out of work, out of savings and nearing the end of their unemployment benefits"?

Historically, a correlation between increased economic production and job creation could be counted on as fairly reliable. However, with technology advancing at an exponential rate, the increasing trend to outsource work to countries where costs are lower, and the never ending shareholder pressure to boost profits, employers will do their very best to avoid the long-term cost of hiring full-time employees.

Today, the US Senate voted to advance a $15-billion package , a mere drop in the bucket, aimed at spurring job creation. A few Republicans, including Scott Brown, broke ranks as legislators voted 62-30 to end debate on the measure, clearing a 60-vote requirement and setting the stage for final approval.

The centerpiece of the bill includes a payroll tax break for employers who hire new workers, unemployed for more than 60 days. It also includes measures aimed at improving access to capital for small businesses, an extension of the current federal subsidy formula for road and bridge repairs carried out by states, and a modest expansion of federally subsidized bonds to help local governments raise funds for infrastructure projects.

Again, what about the millions of unemployed who face years without jobs?

Even as the American economy shows tentative signs of a rebound, the human toll of the recession continues to mount, with millions of Americans remaining out of work, out of savings and nearing the end of their unemployment benefits.

Economists fear that the nascent recovery will leave more people behind than in past recessions, failing to create jobs in sufficient numbers to absorb the record-setting ranks of the long-term unemployed.

Call them the new poor: people long accustomed to the comforts of middle-class life who are now relying on public assistance for the first time in their lives — potentially for years to come.

Yet the social safety net is already showing severe strains. Roughly 2.7 million jobless people will lose their unemployment check before the end of April unless Congress approves the Obama administration’s proposal to extend the payments, according to the Labor Department.

Oh, wait a minute. This must be what they mean, when they tell us we're experiencing a recovery.

Feb. 18 (Bloomberg) -- "The 400 highest-earning U.S. households reported an average of $345 million in income in 2007, up 31 percent from a year earlier, IRS statistics show. The average tax rate for the households fell to the lowest in almost 20 years. The figures for 2007, the last year of an economic expansion, show that the average income reported by the top 400 earners more than doubled from $131.1 million in 2001. That year, Congress adopted tax cuts urged by then-President George W. Bush that Democrats say disproportionately benefit the wealthy."

Well, it seems the "recovered 400" earn much of their income from capital gains on their investments, many of which have sky-rocketed thanks to we, the taxpayers. Their incomes have grown five times what they were in 1992 and their tax rates (capital gains) have plunged 15 percentage points, to a mere 15%.

So, it is clear who is in "recovery", as if they had anything to recover from. And it is also very clear that the ever increasing population at the bottom of our economic system, with no political power, are experiencing something as bad, if not worse than the Great Depression, with no end in sight. Yet we allow the mainstream media to lie to us and create the impression that the country is experiencing a recovery.

Until we grab the control from the infinitesimally small group of elites, who control our political system, ensuring they, and only they benefit from government policy, nothing will change.

Read more...

Great Depression For Low Income Workers.

Total unemployment has more than doubled over the past two years, and the number of underemployed; i.e., those persons working part time for economic reasons, has also more than doubled. In addition, the nation’s labor force shrunk by nearly one million over the past year rather than rising by 1.5 million as earlier projected by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

However, no one has addressed the question, "Which American workers suffer the most from the deep deterioration in labor markets?" Until now, that is.

A new unemployment study reports that low income groups face unemployment on a massive and unprecedented scale --unemployment levels over 30%. At the same time, America's top income brackets are experiencing lower than average unemployment rates of anywhere from 3-4%. As if things weren't bad enough, underemployment and hidden unemployment (individuals who have given up) rates are also at record levels for lower income groups with rates at the 16% for those at the bottom, and 1-1.5% at the top.

If you break it down, professional employment is up 2%, management down 3%, clerical work down 10%, and construction and production work is down 22%. Although, if you depend on the mainstream media for your information, you would think things are reversed as they tend to portray atypical examples of the unemployed...financial managers, professionals and Wall Street employees.

Meanwhile, back at the Beltway, the U.S. Senate prepares to hold a vote on the $15 billion jobs bill (will need 60 votes to pass) aimed at spurring job creation (est. 180,000 new jobs) when lawmakers return Monday. The centerpiece of the bill includes a payroll tax break for employers who hire new workers, unemployed more than 60 days. It also includes measures aimed at improving access to capital for small businesses, an extension of the current federal subsidy formula for road and bridge repairs carried out by states, and a modest expansion of federally subsidized bonds to help local governments raise funds for infrastructure projects.

However, just last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) replaced a bipartisan job- creation bill with a more streamlined version of the legislation because, as sources said, McConnell would not agree to bring the bipartisan jobs bill to the floor quickly and Reid became concerned McConnell would drag out the process and the bill would ultimately fail.

So, is this a case of Republicans publicly calling for a jobs bill, but privately working to derail it?

According to Roll Call, Republican Senate leaders told more than 100 lobbyists yesterday that they plan to oppose the bill because of the process -- not because of the actual policy.

"The feeling is they aren't going to say anything in opposition to the bill, except to say it's incomplete," a lobbyist who attended the meeting said. "They are not opposed to the bill, they just believe their rights as the minority have been abridged."

Is it me, or are the Republicans acting like a bunch of school girls?

Read more...

Our Nation's Capitol on Video.

MetaVid allows users to keyword search every word spoken (transcript search) of legislative proceedings on the floors of the U.S. House and U.S. Senate and then listen to the audio and/or watch the video.

FedNet - Get the latest and archived video broadcast from our Nation's Capitol.

C-Span Video Library. - Over 125,000 hours of C-SPAN programming, every program aired since 1987, are contained in the C-SPAN Archives and immediately accessible through the database and electronic archival systems developed and maintained by the C-SPAN Archives.

Read more...

Extend the Federal Clean Energy Tax Credits

The Long-term Extension and Modification of Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit bill will expire December 31, 2009, if the Senate does not vote to extend it further. It has been voted on or attempted to pass eight times. McCain failed to show up to vote all eight times, including one time when the bill failed by one vote and McCain was in Washington DC and could have easily participated. Obama voted to extend the bill three times.

Why is this a big deal?

Aside from obvious reasons, the biggest concentrated solar project, on paper, in the world is ready to go, outside of Phoenix Arizona. This massive undertaking will employ as many as 2,000 people and use as much steel as it took to build the Golden Gate Bridge.

We have one more shot at passing a long-term extension of the critical federal clean energy tax credits. Please call or email your Senators today to urge them to vote YES on S. 3335, which includes an 8 year extension of the commercial and residential solar tax credit, and doubles the residential cap to $4,000.

Read more...

Are We "Giving the President a Blank Check" to Continue this War?

The Senate voted 94-1 Thursday, to allot billions of additional dollars to fund the Iraq war... Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold the only dissenter.

"I am disappointed that we are about to begin the 2008 fiscal year without having enacted any of the appropriations bills for that year. I am even more disappointed that we voted on a continuing resolution that provides tens of billions of dollars to continue the misguided war in Iraq but does not include any language to bring that war to a close. We need to keep the federal government operating and make sure our brave troops get all the equipment and supplies they need, but we should not be giving the President a blank check to continue a war that is hurting our national security." -- Senator Russ Feingold

The Bush administration asked Congress on Wednesday for $42 billion more next year for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an increase that would raise spending to more than $600 billion for Iraq alone.

The administration has also been given emergency authority to tap into a $70 billion "bridge fund" to provide additional money for this war.

3,801 American soldiers are dead, and more than 27,000 have been wounded, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians and government security forces that have lost their lives since we decided to invade Iraq.

Read more...

Bush Orders Gatekeepers.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 29 — President Bush has signed a directive that gives the White House much greater control over the rules and policy statements that the government develops to protect public health, safety, the environment, civil rights and privacy.

In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president’s priorities.

This strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts. It suggests that the administration still has ways to exert its power after the takeover of Congress by the Democrats.

The White House said the executive order was not meant to rein in any one agency. But business executives and consumer advocates said the administration was particularly concerned about rules and guidance issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

In an interview on Monday, Jeffrey A. Rosen, general counsel at the White House Office of Management and Budget, said, “This is a classic good-government measure that will make federal agencies more open and accountable.”

Business groups welcomed the executive order, saying it had the potential to reduce what they saw as the burden of federal regulations. This burden is of great concern to many groups, including small businesses, that have given strong political and financial backing to Mr. Bush.

Consumer, labor and environmental groups denounced the executive order, saying it gave too much control to the White House and would hinder agencies’ efforts to protect the public.

Typically, agencies issue regulations under authority granted to them in laws enacted by Congress. In many cases, the statute does not say precisely what agencies should do, giving them considerable latitude in interpreting the law and developing regulations.

The directive issued by Mr. Bush says that, in deciding whether to issue regulations, federal agencies must identify “the specific market failure” or problem that justifies government intervention.

Besides placing political appointees in charge of rule making, Mr. Bush said agencies must give the White House an opportunity to review “any significant guidance documents” before they are issued.

The Office of Management and Budget already has an elaborate process for the review of proposed rules. But in recent years, many agencies have circumvented this process by issuing guidance documents, which explain how they will enforce federal laws and contractual requirements.

Peter L. Strauss, a professor at Columbia Law School, said the executive order “achieves a major increase in White House control over domestic government.”

“Having lost control of Congress,” Mr. Strauss said, “the president is doing what he can to increase his control of the executive branch.”

Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said: “The executive order allows the political staff at the White House to dictate decisions on health and safety issues, even if the government’s own impartial experts disagree. This is a terrible way to govern, but great news for special interests.”

Business groups hailed the initiative.

“This is the most serious attempt by any chief executive to get control over the regulatory process, which spews out thousands of regulations a year,” said William L. Kovacs, a vice president of the United States Chamber of Commerce. “Because of the executive order, regulations will be less onerous and more reasonable. Federal officials will have to pay more attention to the costs imposed on business, state and local governments, and society.”

Under the executive order, each federal agency must estimate “the combined aggregate costs and benefits of all its regulations” each year. Until now, agencies often tallied the costs and the benefits of major rules one by one, without measuring the cumulative effects.

Gary D. Bass, executive director of O.M.B. Watch, a liberal-leaning consumer group that monitors the Office of Management and Budget, criticized Mr. Bush’s order, saying, “It will result in more delay and more White House control over the day-to-day work of federal agencies.”

“By requiring agencies to show a ‘market failure,’ ” Dr. Bass said, “President Bush has created another hurdle for agencies to clear before they can issue rules protecting public health and safety.”

Wesley P. Warren, program director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, who worked at the White House for seven years under President Bill Clinton, said, “The executive order is a backdoor attempt to prevent E.P.A. from being able to enforce environmental safeguards that keep cancer-causing chemicals and other pollutants out of the air and water.”

Business groups have complained about the proliferation of guidance documents. David W. Beier, a senior vice president of Amgen, the biotechnology company, said Medicare officials had issued such documents “with little or no public input.”

Hugh M. O’Neill, a vice president of the pharmaceutical company Sanofi-Aventis, said guidance documents sometimes undermined or negated the effects of formal regulations.

In theory, guidance documents do not have the force of law. But the White House said the documents needed closer scrutiny because they “can have coercive effects” and “can impose significant costs” on the public. Many guidance documents are made available to regulated industries but not to the public.

Paul R. Noe, who worked on regulatory policy at the White House from 2001 to 2006, said such aberrations would soon end. “In the past, guidance documents were often issued in the dark,” Mr. Noe said. “The executive order will ensure they are issued in the sunshine, with more opportunity for public comment.”

Under the new White House policy, any guidance document expected to have an economic effect of $100 million a year or more must be posted on the Internet, and agencies must invite public comment, except in emergencies in which the White House grants an exemption.

The White House told agencies that in writing guidance documents, they could not impose new legal obligations on anyone and could not use “mandatory language such as ‘shall,’ ‘must,’ ‘required’ or ‘requirement.’ ”

The executive order was issued as White House aides were preparing for a battle over the nomination of Susan E. Dudley to be administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget.

President Bush first nominated Ms. Dudley last August. The nomination died in the Senate, under a barrage of criticism from environmental and consumer groups, which said she had been hostile to government regulation. Mr. Bush nominated her again on Jan. 9.

With Democrats in control, the Senate appears unlikely to confirm Ms. Dudley. But under the Constitution, the president could appoint her while the Senate is in recess, allowing her to serve through next year.

Some of Ms. Dudley’s views are reflected in the executive order. In a primer on regulation written in 2005, while she was at the Mercatus Center of George Mason University in Northern Virginia, Ms. Dudley said that government regulation was generally not warranted “in the absence of a significant market failure.”

She did not return calls seeking comment on Monday.

Read more...

Leahy Introduces Bills To Combat War Profiteering, Public Corruption

WASHINGTON (Thursday, January 4) – Signaling a renewed emphasis on combating corruption at home and abroad, incoming Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), introduced a package of bills Thursday targeting corrupt officials and private companies seeking to defraud American taxpayers and troops.

“Americans want the culture of corruption to end. From war profiteers and corrupt officials in Iraq, to convicted Administration officials, to influence-peddling lobbyists and, regrettably, even members of Congress, too many supposed public servants have been serving their own interests, rather than the public interest,” said Leahy.

Many Democratic Senators joined Leahy in reintroducing a bill creating criminal penalties for war profiteers and cheats who would exploit taxpayer-funded efforts in Iraq and elsewhere around the world. The War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007 builds on earlier efforts by Leahy, who is also a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, to crack down on this type of rampant fraud and abuse. It is similar to legislation Leahy introduced in 2003, that was subsequently passed by the Senate as part of an appropriations bill but later torpedoed by the White House and the House Republican leadership, which stripped out the Leahy provision.

Also on Thursday, Leahy joined with Senator Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), on another anti-corruption measure aimed at strengthening the tools available to federal prosecutors in combating public corruption. This bill gives investigators and prosecutors the statutory tools and the resources that they need to ensure that serious and insidious public corruption is detected and punished, including extending the statute of limitations on some of the worst crimes.

“The American people staged an intervention during the November elections and made it clear that they would not stand for it any longer. They expect the Congress to take action, and these bills are a good first step toward meeting that call,” Leahy said. “We need to restore the people’s trust by acting to clean up the people’s government.”

Read more...