No-bid contracts can also be disasters

Congress’s inaction on Hurricane Sandy relief, up until this weekend at least, has succeeded in maintaining the sense of urgency to arrange relief efforts that began as soon as people knew the storm was coming. A $60 billion relief package has finally cleared the Senate, but debate over what the package should have looked like has not. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) is one senator keeping that debate going; expect him to turn his failed amendment into its own legislation as soon as it’s convenient.

The amendment would have required competitive bidding for new disaster recovery contracts, which did not happen for Sandy relief, plus reviews and re-competitions of all existing no-bid contracts. In the amendment text, Coburn cites waste from similar no-bid contracts after Katrina, including $11 billion in improper spending and 1,700 indictments for stealing and abusing funds, according to Inspectors General of various agencies. He also cites the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) record of non-compliance with current rules.

The amendment required a supermajority to pass and only managed a 48-47 vote. My less cynical side tells me most of the opposition was along the lines of that of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who said bidding during disasters wasn’t “appropriate” and would end up costing more, presumably in the paperwork involved in the actual bidding process. And then my more cynical side wonders whose market share those 47 senators are trying to protect.

In response to Schumer, Coburn pointed out that disaster contracts are often pre-negotiated, allowing equipment and supplies to flow as soon as they can be used. Unfortunately, his amendment text says nothing about the timing of a competitive bidding process. In cases of natural disasters that can be predicted – hurricanes, tornadoes, floods – the amendment might have benefitted from text requiring the process to be streamlined to a few days, tops, before it hits. With that improvement, this amendment should have passed.

Those who suffer during and after disasters are still taxpayers. They would benefit from a bidding process that ensured, at least from the federal government, the most relief for the least money and bureaucracy. They deserve a contractor who has an incentive to provide it. That’s considerably worse for them than any delay created by bidding. If they’re going to lose along with the rest of the country if we go over the cliff, they might as well get this much consolation.

Unlike another Republican, Coburn isn’t talking about privatizing the entire disaster relief system, as some who hear the word “competition” automatically assume. (See also: Manitoba Hydro.) Compared to the kind of changes he could have proposed, this one is plain common sense.

The Sunday Drill, Vol. 4, No. 43

Fiscal cliff news as of 12:23 a.m.: Sigh.

If it’s any consolation – and it really shouldn’t be – a number of Democrats have back-up plans that mostly amount to tax cut extensions, which “would allow the party to cast itself as seeking to cut taxes.” Yes, that’s their priority at the moment. Of course it is.

President Obama sends troops to aid evacuations from the Central African Republic, in light of a “deteriorating security situation.” The only upside I see to this is that more people may learn where to find the CAR on a map.

Former President George H.W. Bush is out of the hospital after a prolonged case of bronchitis. Word is the Oak Ridge Boys came to serenade him, which is the most hilariously appropriate thing I’ve ever heard.

An interesting debate over filibuster reform that I’m too tired to elaborate on right now, but I promise we’ll get to it soon.

The Senate passes a $60 billion Hurricane Sandy relief package, despite continuing accusations of unnecessary spending. At least they’re capable of getting something remotely worthwhile done in a lame-duck session, and I must emphasize “remotely.”

And then I spotted a story about members of Congress and federal workers getting a 0.5 percent pay raise, thanks to an executive order, and had a temporary rage blackout. But I’m back now.

Proponents of wind energy tax credits prepare for a fiscal cliff deal that doesn’t extend those credits . . . by planning to demand extensions to those credits. Whether the wind industry is preparing to survive without them, this piece does not say.

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) won’t fight charges of drunk driving, which is generally a good idea after running a red light and blowing over the limit.

The entire White House YouTube channel racks up only one-tenth of the views “Gangnam Style” has racked up. Conclusion: Obama needs to dance more often.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper still won’t meet with Chief Theresa Spence, who is on her third week of a hunger strike. Of course, what this article doesn’t tell you until much later is that she’s declined meetings with multiple cabinet ministers. Not important, really.

Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi warns his people that further “unrest” could damage the national economy. So don’t make them want to start up any further unrest, dickhead. The people who send you military aid would appreciate it.

A court case in Belgium may bring down the entire Church of Scientology, which is somewhat disappointing as Scientologists are hilarious. I say we keep them.

Fail of the Year 2012

On the closest Saturday to New Year’s Day, I will bestow this award upon the past year’s ultimate fail. Normally I would allow readers to vote on a selection of three of this year’s earlier fails, but this year I decided to write a brand-new column – well, sort of – for the occasion. You can guess why.

You saw this coming, and here it is: This year’s ultimate fail was brought to you by Congress, the White House and everyone who let them bring America this close to the fiscal cliff. At the time of this writing, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) are working on a deal that they hope to release tomorrow. This follows a meeting yesterday that also included President Obama, Vice President Biden, Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), in which the burden of crafting a deal was officially placed on the Senate. Well, that’ll solve everything!

That’s what the “deal-making” process has become. If it’s not Republicans passing the buck to Democrats and vice-versa, it’s the White House passing the buck to Congress and vice-versa, or it’s the two chambers of Congress passing the buck between each other. A lot of buck-passing, but very little buck-stopping. You’d think, given the potential fallout, that they’d be tripping over each other to come up with the boldest and most comprehensive deal – if not because it’s the right thing to do, then because the political reward for owning the deal would be considerable. Not so.

The exact numerical impact of going over the cliff – on household tax burdens, on hiring, on productivity, on trade, on markets, on the U.S. credit rating – is, at this point, immaterial. The task in front of Washington has been simple: identify and resolve the structural problems that have pushed the national debt into the double-digit trillions. Create at least that much certainty for U.S. taxpayers and creditors, and do it fast. With mere days left to go until the deadline, they haven’t. And they have no excuse for their failure to do this that doesn’t entail more buck-passing. But it’s all their fault.

Remember when the debt supercommittee – USConJointSelComDefRed, as we called them – came out of weeks of meetings and announced they just couldn’t make a deal? The same could happen tomorrow. Reid and McConnell could be their old intractable selves and cede no ground, or come up with a deal so pathetic that they’ll call for another supercommittee to finish the job. Bet on either. But don’t bet on anything acceptable.

Maybe the problem is that American hunger for a deal hasn’t been in their face enough. If there was ever an occasion to occupy the National Mall, this is it – and this time the demand is clear: a balanced and wide-ranging debt deal that keeps everything on the table. Even I would rally on the Hill as long as it took for them to fix the problem.

Disposal Day #155: The 25,000+ signature question

STORY #1: God loves petitions

If the Obama administration’s “We the People” initiative, which allows people to petition the White House online and even get a response (assuming the petition gets 25,000 signatures or more within 30 days), is used for people to voice legitimate policy concerns, it’s worth keeping. Unfortunately, that hasn’t always been the case. (Example.) I wouldn’t call a petition to label the Westboro Baptist Church a hate group a “legitimate policy concern” on the level of anything else we’ve covered this week. But who would disagree with that plan?

According to the FBI, the central purpose of a hate group is “to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin which differs from that of the members of the organization.” Well, that couldn’t describe Westboro any better. And in case any of you are wondering, these groups don’t have to commit a crime to be on the list, although they do have to commit a crime to be investigated. This would be a purely symbolic move. But it would make a lot of people very happy, and it would make Westboro’s reaction considerably funnier than any of their other reactions.

STORY #2: America’s got Piers

And that’s how the UK likes it, according to a British counter-petition against the one calling for CNN host Piers Morgan’s deportation. At the time of this writing, the original White House petition has 73,000 signatures, while the British one has 600. Of course, both numbers are approximately as meaningful as the popular vote in a Canadian election. The only numbers that matter to Morgan’s stint in the U.S. are the ratings for his show.

Whether “Kurt N.” of Austin likes it or not, you can’t deport a legal immigrant for expressing an (allegedly) unpopular opinion about American law. Nor can you, in all seriousness, call it an “attack on the Second Amendment” when someone calls for “a ban on high-powered assault rifles and high-capacity gun magazines.” Even Justice Antonin Scalia says the Second Amendment allows for that. Unfortunately for Kurt N., Scalia was born in New Jersey, so there’s no deporting him. But thanks for playing.

STORY #3: The Alan Parsons Project

Actually, going by the name of the originator of this petition, the appropriate name for the proposed U.S. Death Star is “the John D. Project.” Not that it matters, because the cost of a Death Star would be 13,000 times what the entire world economy could afford if it stopped paying for anything else. Also, I know of no planets that we desperately need to destroy. But John D. can always start up a battle droid factory. I hear those are cheaper and equally useful to national security.

How the NRA can improve its rating

Well, if you’re going to let the National Rifle Association (NRA) do the legislating for you, it might as well come from the rank-and-file and not the leadership. That’s the middle ground from which Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) delivers his bill, known as the NRA Members’ Gun Safety Act – I didn’t make that up – widely touted for its support among NRA members, as discovered by famed Republican pollster Frank Luntz:

• 74 percent of NRA members support background checks on all gun buyers, which would mean closing the gun-show loophole;
• 79 percent support background checks on all gun retailer employees;
• 71 percent support a ban on gun ownership by people on the FBI terror watch list (who wouldn’t?);
• 64 percent support mandatory police reports if a gun is lost or stolen;
• and 63 to 75 percent support some battery of minimum standards for concealed-carry permits.

Lest anyone worry that this poll was conducted solely in the service of this bill after the Newtown shooting – as if Luntz would do that for a Democrat, or as if one would ask him – this poll was conducted in July. Either Moran just found it out, or he was sitting on this bill for a while, waiting to break it out after the dust from the next high-profile shooting cleared. If the latter, that’s both brilliant timing and sad in terms of his expectations.

Using a Luntz poll is an equally brilliant strategy. The NRA brass may have been tragically out of step with its own membership until now. But why would they question his results? It should be noted that non-NRA gun owners were also included in the poll, which may be the only sufficient ground the leadership has for dismissal – unless they want more members. There are reasons some gun owners are turned off by the NRA, not the least of which is their “absolutism,” to paraphrase Moran.

However, Moran himself has an F rating from the NRA, which is still a ground for dismissal, albeit not even half as sufficient as the above one. To neutralize this, Moran can seek the help of Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), who despite his A rating has recently called for new gun control measures. At least for the next few months, people like him will be more politically influential than the “absolutists.” Given the NRA’s own safety training programs, their support of a bill like this wouldn’t be entirely inconsistent.

And that’s my final word on the NRA for this year. Now, a word about Fail of the Year, coming up this Saturday. With fiscal cliff talks in their final agonizing days, I’ve decided to skip the traditional voting process and write a brand-new FOTY column. You can probably guess what I’m going to say, but stay tuned anyway.

Or we could remit it all to Seattle

Not until I got my first credit card at the age of 21 did I truly appreciate the benefits of online shopping. (Except for DVDs. I’ve had some disappointments buying those online. And don’t even think about shoes.) If Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) thinks his proposed online sales tax will “help traditional brick-and-mortar stores compete with online giants,” he’s not giving much credit to human nature. Who shops online because of opposition to sales taxes on principle, compared to opposition to going from store to store looking for one thing?

At the moment, states are only permitted to collect sales taxes from retailers if they are physically present in that state. Technically, they could collect online sales taxes if consumers declared those purchases on their tax forms, but very few do, and states haven’t bothered trying to make them. Durbin’s bill, the Marketplace Fairness Act, would “level the playing field” by requiring online retailers to collect sales taxes and remit them to the state of the purchaser, with an exemption for retailers earning less than $500,000 from out-of-state sales.

Here’s a pro tip: If a bill has the word “fairness” in the title, and its way of “leveling the playing field” involves new tax collection authority, which in effect is a tax hike of sorts, be on special alert. Granted, if online retailers are required to collect the same taxes as physical ones, it would make that playing field a little more level. Whether it would make the physical ones more appealing to consumers, as Durbin seems to think, is a different story.

The issue of implementation is much more complex. Proponents of the bill are correct in pointing out that thanks to modern technology, the act of making an interstate transaction is considerably simpler than it used to be. But why, under this legislation, would the purchaser’s state collect the revenue? That hardly seems “fair,” especially if economic and tax conditions in that state are such that online retailers don’t headquarter there.

Republican opponents point out that all this bill would do is empower states to decide whether or not to target that revenue, as 24 states currently could, having already adopted the sales tax simplification measures that are a condition of said empowerment. Whether they actually do target the revenue is their choice. Seeing as most haven’t made a vigorous effort to get residents to declare their online purchases, I have to wonder how much appetite for this exists in earnest on the part of the states.

If anyone is interested in the legal factor, one of the Supreme Court rulings barring sales tax on interstate purchases explicitly states that new legislation could override the ruling. Proponents can be happy about that. But this bill might not generate nearly enough state revenue for them to stay happy.

Peanut Gallery, December 2012

Peanut Gallery columns, in which I summarize the last month’s worth of online political discussion between me, my friends and annoying people who aren’t also friends, will be featured on the last Tuesday of every month. If you want a mention here, talk to me about politics.

December 6, 11:39 a.m.: News breaks of Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) leaving the Senate to head the Heritage Foundation. Dan from Winnipeg wonders why DeMint thinks people should be “dependent on God.” Gabe from Winnipeg, who identifies as a pantheist, says it’s impossible for anyone to be independent of God. Thankfully, we are spared a theological debate, which both Dan and Gabe have been known to get into more than once, at times with each other.

December 15, 11:26 p.m.: I link to an article in which someone suggests that the Republicans target female “low-information” voters by slipping fluffy/female-centric articles into women’s magazine websites. Steve from Winnipeg and I agree that the need to appeal to low-information voters is real, and that’s why neither of us has any intention of running for elected office.

December 16, 11:22 a.m.: I warn everyone that the Westboro Baptist Church is planning to picket Newtown funerals. Nine people express disgust in various ways. Alyssa from Illinois hints at wanting to run them over with a bulldozer.

(By the way, if you haven’t heard The Henningsens’ “American Beautiful” yet, check it out; Alyssa is the daughter of one band member and the sister of two others. I’m not much of a country fan and I’ve been playing this multiple times a day.)

December 20, 5:29 a.m.: I link to an article about Prime Minister Stephen Harper using direct business subsidies to rack up votes in Quebec and Atlantic Canada. Brigitte from Ottawa agree that we are unfazed by his “job creation and economic recovery” rhetoric whenever he does this, which is constantly. (Conservative, our asses.)

December 21, 8:16 a.m.: I post my latest round-up of fiscal news. Darren from New York laughs at Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) objections to the Sandy bill, since Ryan is a known earmarker. I point out that even hypocrites can be right sometimes. Then Darren tells me that my idea of giving some D.C. land to Virginia is a non-starter, since the two halves of Virginia are divided enough already. This disappoints me.

December 22, 9:08 a.m.: I post my column about the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) press conference. Brian from Massachusetts says the need for humility on the NRA’s part is moot, since they don’t consider themselves responsible. I say behaving like you do constitutes effective issues management. An argument over conciliation (his word) vs. a simple messaging reset ensues.

Chuck Hagel vs. the Three Amigos

I realize people other than Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) have expressed doubts, if not outright opposition, to former Sen. Chuck Hagel’s (R-NE) possible nomination for Secretary of Defense. But it’s usually fun to watch the three of them do something together. (See HBO’s Game Change for a brief, dramatized example.) I say “usually” because some of their doubts aren’t as serious as they’re making them out.

For example, one of McCain’s jabs from a recent question about Hagel went as follows:

Well, of course I strongly disagree with such comments and I know of no such “Jewish lobby.” I know that there’s strong support for Israel here, but I know of no Jewish lobby. I hope he would identify who that is.

He’s referring to Hagel once saying “[t]he Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people” in Washington. No, there is no “Jewish lobby”; there is only the Israel lobby, which itself has enough ideological diversity, between the right-wing American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and the left-wing J Street, not to be considered a unified mass.

Scratch the surface of this quote and I doubt you’d find much more there than a rhetorical blunder, which doesn’t merit elaboration for anyone who knows Jewish stereotypes. That would be more serious if he were considered for Secretary of State, a position in which loose lips can sink more ships. In any event, there’s nothing wrong with criticizing the influence of lobbyists, however much you agree with them.

Meanwhile, Graham and Lieberman focused on Hagel’s vote against extending sanctions on Iran, and his support of letting Hamas into talks between the U.S., Israel and Palestine. If you look into the Iran vote a little more, you’ll note that he has serious doubts about the benefit of sanctions, while still being solidly opposed to Iran’s current regime, as evidenced by some of his other votes. As for the Hamas thing, one writer has endorsed this view on the ground that Hamas has a role in the future of Palestine whether we like it or not.

Both positions do fly in the face of conventional wisdom on the Middle East, and would make Hagel’s confirmation hearings a bit thorny. But they’re not so out of the mainstream as to render those hearings useless. A little diversity of opinion could be beneficial, especially when some people conflate support for the Israel lobby with support for Israel.

An even more senseless conflation, however, is the idea that Hagel’s opinion that the defense budget needs to be “pared down” equates support for cuts on the scale of the post-fiscal cliff sequester. There’s a reason he said “pared down” and not “bludgeoned.” “Paring” implies forethought and precision.

The Sunday Drill. Vol. 4, No. 42

President Obama and family go to Hawaii, with the rest of Congress also on vacation. In fairness, Sen. Daniel Inouye’s (D-HI) funeral is on (R.I.P., good sir), but those of us who aren’t getting a break this winter – Adam has to work Thursday and Friday – aren’t impressed. Hell, I’m not impressed, and I’m not back at work until January 3.

The White House Office of Management and Budget hilariously promises no “regulatory tsunami” next year. How long before @RegulatoryTsunami becomes a Twitter account? Here’s the profile picture.

Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) will probably stay Speaker, despite the most humiliating defeat I’ve seen since Salé and Pelletier were literally robbed at the 2002 Winter Olympics. But at least they made up for that one.

The headlines are starting to transfer some of the blame for fiscal cliff stalling onto Senate Democrats. How many of us actually want Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to have a more active role in talks? And if we do, how desperate are we?

Now that Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) has been officially nominated for Secretary of State, some liberal Democrats and European Union (EU) lawmakers want climate change “on the front burner.” (Hey, that’s probably a pun.) But just so everyone knows, it won’t be. Sorry to disappoint you.

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) acting head Michael Morrell says the movie Zero Dark Thirty, about the operation that killed Osama bin Laden, gets some facts wrong. Any conspiracy theorists waiting to accuse them of just saying that so they can put the government coordination story to death?

Tom D’Agostino, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), steps down. This really isn’t significant news, unless he turns out to be selling state secrets to Iran or something, but I just find it interesting that the Energy Department oversees nuclear weapons.

A Senate resolution calls for Village Voice Media to take down the “adult entertainment” section of one of its websites, which apparently provides access to child prostitutes. Now, honestly, why wouldn’t you screen for that? Stupid Village Voice Media.

The “local content requirements” in Ontario’s green energy program violates World Trade Organization (WTO) rules. Oh, Premier Dalton McGuinty. Is there anything you can’t screw up?

Egyptian Vice President Mahmoud Mekki and central bank governor Farouq el-Oqdah quit and quit. Nothing to see here. Move along, folks. Time to disperse.

Russia refuses to offer asylum to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, should he want it, but won’t condemn any country that does. Give them time, everyone. They’re trying.

Guns don’t kill brain cells, the NRA does

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by National Rifle Association (NRA) CEO Wayne LaPierre, that great defender of the second half of the Second Amendment, and whoever gives him communications advice. If you haven’t read the full text of the press conference he gave yesterday, it’s widely available online, and it’s ridiculous. For those who have a bad gag reflex or limited patience for reading, I will helpfully go through LaPierre’s blame list for you:

Not putting armed guards in schools. Yes, bring more guns into an environment mostly populated by children! What could possibly go wrong? And since we’ve had no trouble funding teachers, textbooks, lab equipment, computers, school repairs and extracurriculars, it’s going to be so easy to implement that an idiot could do it!

The media, for talking about this stuff. Compared to other shootings, they’ve done a better job focusing on the victims, specifically the heroic actions of teachers. But I’ll get back to you when they air the Adam Lanza Lifetime special.

No “active national database of the mentally ill.” You mean the mentally ill who have been determined by licensed medical professionals to have a high risk of violence, right, Wayne? . . . Right?

Unwillingness to prosecute gun crimes. He notes that federal gun prosecutions have decreased by 40 percent over a decade. Of course, most gun prosecutions happen at the state, county or local level.

Violent video games and movies. Just enough of that bullshit already.

Overall, the tone of the press conference can be summed up as “What are you looking at meeeeee for?” Of course, if LaPierre wanted to avoid excessive attention, he might have chosen not to call a press conference.

You know what would have worked for the NRA yesterday? The same thing that needs to work for the federal government: an exact definition of a responsible gun owner, and ways to keep guns out of the hands of anyone who doesn’t meet that definition. Occasionally an NRA official will talk up their firearms education programs. They could have emphasized that side of their operation yesterday. Instead they made the NRA look like a caricature of itself.

We need a second gun lobby willing to make that definition. I suggest Americans for Responsible Gun Ownership, or ARGO. Now that’s a sexy acronym.