Government Executive - Authors - Ben Terris

Analysis: Government Shutdown? Not This Time

Ben Terris, National Journal — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 11:20:00 -0400

The drumbeat has already started.

"GOP split over health care law boosts threat of a government shutdown," says the Los Angeles Times.

"A Government Shutdown Just Got More Likely," BusinessWeek said on Sept. 11.

"No Clear Path in Congress Avoiding a Shutdown," NBC said on their website the next day.

It makes for an exciting story—albeit one that we've heard many times recently—but the general consensus, both from outside experts and Republican leaders, is that it's just not going to happen. Yet.

"I'm very confident in my belief that a shutdown will not happen," said a Republican leadership aide. "I'm not going to rule out the chance that it ever does. But the leadership team and overwhelming number of our members do not want to shut down the government."

Politically, Republican leaders know it's in their best interest not to have the government shut down. A new poll from CNN found that the majority of the country would blame them, not Democrats, if such a thing were to happen. That is certainly part of the pitch from top Republicans to their members. They also want their colleagues to think of passing a budget bill—one that keeps sequester-levels of spending intact—as a victory in and of itself.

And as for fighting for such trophies as delaying or defunding Obamacare, Republican leadership aides say that all they really need is just a bit more time to convince the holdouts that there's a better moment to have that fight.

"If you're looking to partially defund or delay the health care law, or individual mandate, or try and force spending cuts, it seems like, given the timing and lay of the land right now, the better place is on the debt limit," said another top Republican staffer.

Why? Partly because it gives GOP lawmakers time to rally around a plan. It also has to do with messaging. Many sophomore and freshman Republicans got themselves elected by castigating the country's borrowing habits. For them, it's better to fight about that than to look like a group of people who can't even keep the government's doors open.

That doesn't mean it's going to be easy, though. It hasn't been so far.

After returning from a monthlong vacation, lawmakers debated nothing but a possible military strike against Syria, leaving very little room for discussions about funding the government. By the time House Majority Leader Eric Cantor came up with a plan for such a funding bill, he and the leadership team couldn't garner enough support from Republicans to even bring it up for a vote. The problem was, conservatives didn't feel Cantor's bill made a real enough effort to defund Obamacare. While the vast majority of Cantor's colleagues supported his plan, it would only take a small fraction of opposition to derail it.

The vote was put on hold, but House Speaker John Boehner hinted at a press conference that the plan is still to try and sell Cantor's proposal—or something like it—to his members. When a reporter implied that such a course of action had been rejected, the speaker winked and said: "Not quite yet."

It's going to be tough to get Cantor's plan approved by 218 Republicans. Rep. Tom Graves of Georgia has come out with a bill—cosigned by about 50 members and counting—that would fund the government for a year while stripping away funding for Obamacare until 2015.

"Our conference is unifying on this in ways I haven't seen in a long time," he said about his bill, which would surely be dead-on-arrival in the Senate. "We have found the sweet spot that keeps the government open and keeps away the harmful effects of Obamacare."

But even as Graves whips up support for his own bill, some top conservatives admit there may be other ways to go about achieving their goals.

"There are a lot of tools in our tool chest, whether it's the CR or the debt ceiling," said Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., whose job as the chairman of the Republican Study Committee makes him an influential figure among the House's most conservative members. "There's no one way to get this done. We are not married to one plan."

With neither Democrats or Republicans having had much time to prepare for battle, with the debt ceiling just around the corner, and with another possible government funding fight kicked to December, the best time for a knockdown brawl over spending and healthcare may be a little bit later.

"We are much more concerned about a shutdown later in the year," said Sean West, the director of U.S. political risk at the Eurasia Group, a consultancy that specializes in forecasting political developments. "Neither side is well positioned to weather the fall out of a shutdown at this stage."

If this September story line all seems too predictable, just stay tuned. Even if conservatives agree to fund the government for a couple of months, it could set up a very climactic December.

"If you think conservatives are mad now, just wait until there's a second CR," West said. "They will have been steamrolled by the first one, and probably mad by how the debt ceiling went. That's why the risk is higher then."

]]>

From a Bloody Battle in Afghanistan to the Pitchers Mound at Nationals Park

Ben Terris, National Journal — Mon, 01 Apr 2013 12:01:14 -0400

Most people who recover from this injury never get to take the mound on Opening Day of a professional baseball game. Back in 2009, with Taliban insurgents attacking his unit, the soldier looked down at his bloodied arm. A rocket-propelled grenade had exploded nearby, and the shrapnel had torn up his right side.

“Just throw a bandage on it real quick," he told his fellow soldier before jumping back into the scrum.

Wait, you thought this was going to be about Stephen Strasburg opening the season less than two years after Tommy John surgery? No, this is the story of Staff Sgt. Clinton Romesha, who won the Medal of Honor earlier this year and is throwing the ceremonial first pitch at Nationals Park on Monday.

Romesha arrived at Combat Outpost Keating in May of 2009. Situated on low ground and surrounded by 10,000 foot mountains, it was a difficult place to defend (one soldier described the post as “being in a fishbowl or fighting from the bottom of a paper cup.”)

On October 3 that year, about 300 Taliban insurgents attacked the facility, which was being manned by about 50 Americans. In what would become known as the Battle of Kamdesh, the 12-hour fight took the lives of eight American soldiers. But it would have been a lot worse had Romesha not led a counterattack, held the facility, and called in for air support.

"I wholeheartedly believe he single-handedly saved the lives of everybody on that outpost,” Sgt. Brad Larson said. “He took it upon himself to take the COP back. I'm glad he's getting an award for it.”

For his valor, Romesha became just the fourth living Medal of Honor recipient from the war in Afghanistan.

“There were many lessons from COP Keating,” President Obama said at the February 11 Medal of Honor ceremony. “One of them is that our troops should never, ever, be put in a position where they have to defend the indefensible. But that’s what these soldiers did -- for each other, in sacrifice driven by pure love.”

Romesha shies away from considering himself a hero. Recently, he graciously declined to sit in first lady Michelle Obama's box during the State of the Union, opting instead to watch with friends and family, and he has said he feels "conflicted" about getting the award. Instead of basking in the glow, he'll opt for a metaphor strikingly fitting for someone standing before an audience at Nats Park on Opening Day.

“Anyone would have stepped up to the plate,” he said. “It was just, I happened to be there; but without the platoon pulling together, I couldn't have done what I did."

]]>

Think women haven't been in combat situations already? The history of crossdressing soldiers

Ben Terris, National Journal — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 16:55:37 -0500

The military ban on women in combat is coming to an end. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced the overturning of a 1994 Pentagon rule that restricts women from artillery, armor, and infantry jobs.

This country has had a storied history of women fighting for the country, despite various forces dissuading them from doing so. As of last year, for example, more than 800 women have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan (where about 20,000 women have served) despite the combat ban. But the story is older than that, as old as the country even. A woman by the name of Margaret Cochran fought in the Revolutionary War, and hundreds of women disguised themselves as men just to take up arms in the Civil War.

According to the National Archives, as many as 400 women fought during the Civil War while concealing their gender. Mary Livermore of the U.S. Sanitary Commission wrote in 1888:

Some one has stated the number of women soldiers known to the service as little less than four hundred. I cannot vouch for the correctness of this estimate, but I am convinced that a larger number of women disguised themselves and enlisted in the service, for one cause or other, than was dreamed of. Entrenched in secrecy, and regarded as men, they were sometimes revealed as women, by accident or casualty. Some startling histories of these military women were current in the gossip of army life.

Let’s meet some of these women who, in a sense, paved the way for today's ban reversal. Here are four women who fought, compiled from Larry G. Eggleston's Women in the Civil War.

Loretta Janeta Velazquez was a total badass. Born to a rich Cuban aristocrat, Velazquez’s wealth played a key role in her fighting for the Confederate army. When her husband, William, went off to war in 1861, Velazquez wanted so badly to be with him that she offered to fight beside him incognito. William wouldn't hear it, and went off to war without her. Not content with life alone, Velazquez decided to use her wealth to finance and equip an infantry battalion, which she would bring to her husband to command. She cut her hair, tanned her skin, and went by the name Lt. Harry T. Buford. She went on to fight in various battles, including Bull Run and Shiloh, but her gender was twice discovered and she was discharged. So, naturally, she became a spy, with disguises in both the male and female variety.
It must have been hard to hide your gender while serving in the war. Take it from Lizzie Compton, who enlisted at the age of 14. Her gender was discovered seven different times. But each time, she packed up her things and moved on to another regimen. Compton was wounded twice during her service, the first time by a piece of shrapnel as she charged up a hill at Antietam.
Louisa Hoffman has the distinction of serving for both the Union and Confederate armies. When the war first started, she left her home in New York to enlist (as a man, of course) in the 1st Virginia Confederate Cavalry. But, after fighting at both battles of Bull Run, she had a change of heart, and headed up north to Ohio.
Mary Seaberry was said to wear a disguise and have a manner that “never gave anyone in her regiment even the slightest hint that she was not a man.” Unfortunately for her, after being admitted into a hospital with a fever, there was no way she could hide her true identity. She was discharged “on the basis of sexual incompatibility.”

]]>

The Blog Commenter Who Invented the Trillion-Dollar Coin

Ben Terris — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:18:00 -0500

The Atlantic has already dubbed it “the single most important comment in the history of Internet comments. Probably.”

In the midst of the debt-ceiling negotiations in the summer of 2011, a commenter on the blogPragmatic Capitalism offered a simple suggestion to end the debate over the debt ceiling once and for all: “Geithner could sidestep the debt ceiling this afternoon by ordering the West Point Mint to coin a 1 oz. $ 1 trillion coin.” For months, it suffered the fate of the vast majority of Internet comments lingering in the ash heap of history. And yet, somehow, this one comment was plucked from obscurity and has become the talk of the nation.

Lately it’s seemed like everyone wants to talk about this platinum coin idea. It resurfaced largely thanks to Joe Weisenthal of Business Insider and Josh Barro of Bloomberg View, and it has now become a favorite topic for journalists around the country (including Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman) and was even brought up in a White House press briefing this week. But it all started with someone going by the name of “Beowulf.”

I found the handle to be strangely fitting. In Beowulf, the hero needs the help of a magical sword in order to be able to slay Grendel’s mother. What’s a trillion-dollar coin if not some sort of deus ex machina, a kind of magical weapon from nowhere? And what’s our national debt if not a terrifying monster?

"Beowulf," it turns out, is just a lawyer from Georgia with no economic training whatsoever. For him, this is just a fun side hobby, or “fantasy football” as he calls it. Beowulf has kept a low profile about all this, and hadn’t spoken on the record about his thoughts on sparking something of a national phenomenon. I was able to track down the guy after seeing his name mentioned on a blog tracing the whole history of the platinum coin idea, but he would only speak under the condition that I refer to him by his online moniker.

“I’ve never taken an economics class,” he told National Journal in a phone interview. “Everything I’ve learned about this is from what I’ve learned on the Internet. It might be an example of the guy who doesn’t know the rules. The guy who doesn’t know you aren’t supposed to look there. If I had economics training, I wouldn’t have even had this thought.”

The idea came to him initially after reading a 2009 Wall Street Journal article about frequent-flier point collectors taking advantage of an offer from the U.S. Mint. When the Mint offered free shipping for purchases of $1 legal-tender Native American coins, entrepreneurial citizens bought them with their credit cards, collected the points, and then deposited the coins into their bank accounts. It amounted to free frequent flier miles.

This story was so intriguing to Beowulf that he began looking into monetary law and found this: “The Secretary may mint and issue platinum bullion coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such specifications, designs, varieties, quantities, denominations, and inscriptions as the Secretary, in the Secretary’s discretion, may prescribe from time to time.”

When he posted the idea on the blog in July of 2011, he could have no way of knowing it would spiral into such a big story. And yet, he didn’t seem all that surprised by the attention it’s getting.

“It’s funny,” he said. “It’s been years since that happened. It’s been like a two-mile-an-hour steamroller, so I’m not as surprised as I would have thought. I figured we’d end up here sooner or later.”

To be honest, it seemed in my conversation with Beowulf that I was more excited about the fact he had come up with the idea than he was. For me, if I came up with an idea that Krugman would spend a column writing about or could be implemented by the president, I’d pretty much feel set for life. He didn’t seem so self-impressed.

It was cool, he said, but he maintained that his role in the story really wasn’t that consequential.

He drew an analogy to the 2002 movie the Time Machine, in which Guy Pearce’s wife is murdered and he travels back in time to try to save her life.

“He goes back in time, and brings her somewhere so she doesn’t get robbed, but she gets hit by a horse,” he told me. “If he were to do it again, maybe she would be hit by piano. I’m just the horse that hit the fiancé. If it weren’t for me there would have been another suggestion. There’s always another gimmick.”

Image via Steve Lovegrove/Shutterstock.com

]]>

Conservatives may concede to avoid government shutdown

Ben Terris, National Journal — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 17:29:32 -0400

Conservatives hate the idea of the lame duck session so much that many of them are willing to support a six-month continuing budget resolution at a higher spending-level than called for in their sacrosanct Ryan Budget.

"This is conservatives saying that we're willing to vote for the 1047 number," said Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Id., in reference to the $1.047 trillion discretionary spending caps set by the Budget Control Act. "This is the number that we all have voted against until now. We're saying that in order to prevent a crisis we are willing to vote for that 1047 number. But let's get to the next year."

As Republicans internally discussed the possibility of voting on a CR to avoid a possible government shutdown before the election, there were questions about whether the most conservative members would come on board.

Labrador, speaking at a press event called Conversations with Conservatives, said that many of his colleagues would support an extension, but only if it was six months. That would fund the government through the lame duck, but wouldn't lock them in to the higher level of spending much beyond that.

"Anybody that would not vote for a long term CR that puts government funding passed the election, passed the lame duck, then their desire is to hold the American people hostage and the hold American government hostage to get their last minute liberal push for bad policy," said Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C.

Part of this plan is clearly to get ahead of the Democrats in the blame game for who is most holding the country hostage: "This idea is going to come from the conservatives, because if you listen to the Democrats they're saying it's the tea party conservatives who want us to get to a government shutdown. We don't want that and we're going to do everything we can to prevent that," Labrador said.

The idea, in other words, is basically to skip the lame duck session, so Democrats don't have the ability to go forward with their agenda ahead of a possible Republican-run Washington.

As Rep. Jeff Landry, R-La., put it, he' d be willing to support the CR as a trade off for "not having the lame duck session."

]]>

Balanced-budget amendment fails in House

Billy House and Ben Terris — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 00:00:00 -0500

August the first month of Iraq war with no U.S. military deaths

Ben Terris — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 00:00:00 -0400

The New York Times reports.

"If you had thought about a month without a death back during the surge in 2007, it would have been pretty hard to imagine because we were losing soldiers every day, dozens a week," Col. Douglas Crissman, who is in charge of American forces in parts of southern Iraq told the Times. "I think this shows how far the Iraqi security forces have come."

American military commanders say that the lack of deaths has to do with the Iraqi government taking a more active role in combating Shiite militias, in combination with unilateral strikes by the United States.

In total, 4,465 American soldiers have died in Iraq since the United States invasion in 2003, according to Defense Department figures. While August was without American deaths in Iraq, it was the deadliest month on record for U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

]]>

August is deadliest month for U.S. troops in Afghanistan

Ben Terris — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0400

Associated Press tally.

In total, 66 U.S. troops have died this month -- 30 of them, mostly elite Navy SEALs, in the Chinook helicopter crash on Aug. 6 -- surpassing the previous record of 65 in July 2010. The crash was the deadliest incident for American forces in the ten-year war.

So far this year, 403 international service members, including at least 299 Americans, have been killed in Afghanistan.

The record-setting death toll coincides with the beginning of the troop withdrawal ordered by President Obama. He ordered the withdrawl of 10,000 troops this year and another 23,000 by the summer of 2012, leaving about 68,000 troops on the ground. Major combat units are not expected to start leaving for a few months, but two National Guard regiments of about 1,000 soldiers began returning home last month.

]]>

White House issues 9/11 guidelines ahead of anniversary

Ben Terris — Tue, 30 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0400

The White House has distributed two sets of documents -- one framed for allies overseas and one for Americans here at home -- with guidelines on how to best commemorate the tenth anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

The documents include common themes, including warnings to citizens to be prepared for another attack, and calls to officials to memorialize those who died in the attacks and thank military personnel, law enforcement officers, and intelligence officials' contributions since 2001, the New York Times reports.

"A chief goal of our communications is to present a positive, forward-looking narrative," the foreign guidelines state.

The overseas guidelines put an emphasis on praising partners abroad who have joined the global fight against violent extremism.

"The important theme is to show the world how much we realize that 9/11 -- the attacks themselves and violent extremism writ large -- is not 'just about us,' " said one official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe internal White House planning.

]]>

U.S. to prioritize deportation of convicted criminals

Ben Terris — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0400

With about 300,000 cases in the country's immigration courts, officials said they will review each case to determine whether the individual poses a threat to public safety.

"The president has said on numerous occasions that it makes no sense to expend our enforcement resources on low-priority cases,'' Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano wrote yesterday to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, according to The New York Times. Doing otherwise, she said, "hinders our public-safety mission-clogging immigration court dockets and diverting DHS enforcement resources away from individuals who pose a threat to public safety.''

The move would allow thousands of immigrants -- including many children of immigrants who crossed the border illegally -- the opportunity to apply for a work permit, even though they would retain their illegal status and their cases could be opened at any time.

The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, told The Times that he was less than pleased with the announcement.

"The Obama administration has again made clear its plan to grant backdoor amnesty to illegal immigrants," Smith said. "The administration should enforce immigration laws, not look for ways to ignore them. Officials should remember the oath of office they took to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land."

]]>

After two centuries, House page program to end

Ben Terris — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 00:00:00 -0400

After nearly 200 years of using teenagers as paid messengers, the House of Representatives will be concluding its page program as of Aug. 31.

"We have great appreciation for the unique role that Pages have played in the history and traditions of the House of Representatives," House Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said Monday in a statement. "This decision was not easy, but it is necessary due to the prohibitive cost of the program and advances in technology that have rendered most page-provided services no longer essential to the smooth functioning of the House."

Pages will remain in the more tradition-bound Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid's office said after the Boehner-Pelosi announcement that it had no plans to discontinue the program in that chamber.

The House's decision came after a review conducted by Strategic Assets Consulting and Fieldstone Consulting Inc. found the program to be both costly and unnecessary with current technology.

The annual cost of the program exceeds $5 million, with the per-page cost in each school year being between $69,000 and $80,000. The original tasks of delivering large numbers of documents and other packages between the Capitol and House office buildings and relaying phone messages to their lawmaker bosses, are now almost entirely transmitted electronically.

The last, and apparently final, House page class was lauded on the House floor August 1, prior to the final-passage vote on the debt ceiling deal and just as Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., made a surprise appearance on the floor to vote in favor of the bill.

"As we all know, the job of a congressional page is not an easy one. Along with being away from home, the pages must possess the maturity to balance competing demands for their time and their energy," said Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Mich., who helps oversee the Page Board, on the House floor. "You pages have witnessed the House debate issues of war and peace, hunger and poverty, justice and civil rights. You have lived through history."

According to the House of Representatives Page Program website, the history of the pages themselves goes back to the first Continental Congress of 1774 (though they were not called "pages" until 1827), when lawmakers began sponsoring young boys, many of them poor and orphaned, for menial work. What started out as small operation grew into a highly competitive program for about 70 teenagers a year.

The recent history of having young people working at the Capitol has not been without controversy. In 1983, Rep. Dan Crane, R-Ill., and Rep. Gerry Studds, D-Mass., were reprimanded by the House Ethics Committee for engaging in sexual relationships with 17-year-old House pages. In Crane's case it involved a female, and in Studds's case a male. Both lawmakers admitted wrongdoing but were not charged with any crime because the age of consent in Washington, D.C., is 16 years old. Crane was defeated in 1984, but Studds was reelected until he retired in 1996. The House Page Board was established after the scandal as a way to monitor the pages.

In 2006, Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., was forced to resign when explicit online communications with former male House pages surfaced. Foley was never charged with any wrongdoing.

]]>

Fed, Wall Street prepare for default

Ben Terris — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 00:00:00 -0400

With time running out to make a deal on raising the debt limit, and with Congress at loggerheads over how to do it, both the Federal Reserve and Wall Street have started preparing for the worst.

Charles Plosser, the president of the Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank, tells Reuters that, for the past several months, the U.S. central bank and the Treasury have been working together on a contingency plan if no deal is in place by August 2nd, when Treasury expects the country to run out of cash.

"We are developing processes and procedures by which the Treasury communicates to us what we are going to do," Plosser said. "How the Fed is going to go about clearing government checks. Which ones are going to be good? Which ones are not going to be good?"

Plosser said that his gut tells him that a deal will be struck before the country defaults, but a gut feeling isn't enough to keep people from "working on what we would do and how we would do it."

Leaders from both sides of the aisle, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, and President Obama have all said that defaulting on our loans is not on option.

Likewise, companies on Wall Street are scrambling to determine which of their holdings will retain their value. Investors in the Treasury market have already started to sell, fearing that the government will not make good on interest payments, The New York Times reports. But for now, at least, the country has yet to reach full-scale panic.

"The metaphor is a pile of sand," Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody's Analytics, told the Times. "You keep putting one piece of sand on the pile, nothing happens, and then, all of the sudden it just caves."

]]>

Treasury head: Only option is to raise debt limit

Ben Terris — Mon, 18 Jul 2011 00:00:00 -0400

Plan A: Raise the debt ceiling. Plan B: (See plan A).

Even with Congress gridlocked over how to do it, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner says there is no alternative to raising the debt ceiling, and that he is "absolutely" convinced that it will get done.

"Our plan has been -- and the only plan available -- is for Congress to act," Geithner said Monday morning on CNBC's Squawk Box. "There is no plausible way to run the country… if we are not paying our obligations.... It's not feasible."

Geithner also said that the August 2 deadline (a date that many GOP lawmakers have dubbed "arbitrary") is still firm.

"We've looked at this carefully," he said. "We have no other options to give Congress more time." While some members doubt the importance of the date, Geithner said that leadership "understands" the date is real.

Geithner would not say how he expected the deal to play out, but said that under no circumstances would it involve the dismantling of Social Security and Medicare, and that it must include "modest" revenue increases.

He also said that the Reid-McConnell plan, which would give the president the power to raise the debt ceiling himself, could have the effect of ensuring that "politics can't stand in the way" of a solution.

]]>

Geithner sticking around for time being

Ben Terris — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 00:00:00 -0400

Amid rumors of his imminent departure, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said on Thursday that he will continue working his current job for the "foreseeable future."

Speaking to former President Bill Clinton onstage at a meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative, Geithner nipped rumors in the bud that he would be stepping down if and when a deal was reached on raising the country's debt ceiling.

"I live for this work. It's the only thing I've ever done. I believe in it," he told Clinton, according to the Associated Press.

If Geithner were to step down, it would make him the fourth high-profile member of the president's economic brain trust to do so, after former Council of Economic Advisers Chairwoman Christina Romer, former National Economic Council Chairman Lawrence Summers, and Austan Goolsbee, who succeeded Romer but will be leaving soon.

But, with enough tension already surrounding the debt talks, Geithner made it clear that now is not a good time to talk about any potential departure.

"We have a lot of challenges in the country, and I'm going to be doing it for the foreseeable future," he said.

]]>

Senate cancels July 4 recess after Obama addresses debt-ceiling

Ben Terris — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 00:00:00 -0400

Just one day after President Obama chided Congress for spending so much time away from Washington, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he was canceling the July 4 recess.

Reid said that the Senate would reconvene on July 5, with the first votes likely to take place that afternoon.

"The moment is too important, the obstacle is too steep, and the time too short to waste even a moment," said the Nevada Democrat. "I hope my Republican colleagues will put politics aside and help Democrats fulfill Congress's responsibility to the American people."

The decision comes after a press conference where Obama expressed exasperation over Republican claims that he was not acting as a leader in the debt-ceiling negotiations.

"I've got to say, I'm very amused when I start hearing comments about, 'Well, the president needs to show more leadership on this,'" Obama said in his first press conference since March. "I met with every single caucus for an hour to a hour and a half each. Republican senators, Democratic senators. Republican House, Democratic House. I've met with the leaders multiple times. At a certain point, they need to do their job. You know?"

One of the major barriers to real progress, Obama implied, was that the House and Senate continue to take alternate weeks off. This week the House is not in session, and until Reid made his announcement Thursday the Senate was scheduled to be in a pro forma session.

Congress, Obama said, has to "cancel things and stay here until we get it done. You know? They're in one week. They're out one week. And then they're saying, Obama's got to step in. You need to be here. I've been here."

Republicans found the suggestion sanctimonious.

"By that logic, the president would have to be in Washington every time the Congress is in," said Laena Fallon, press secretary for House Majority Leader REp. Eric Cantor of Virginia, in e-mailed comments. "So we'd hope he cancels all of his campaign trips and travel to allow for that."

Fallon said that Obama's press conference will not change the Republican stance on the debt-limit debate.

"Despite the lecture from the President today," she said, "the House will not agree to a debt limit increase that raises taxes. This argument is not about this loophole or that loophole, it is about raising taxes in a lagging economy when we should be focused on growth and getting people back to work. As always, the House will be here if and when needed (whether that's the week of July 18 or the week of August 8)."

]]>

Economic Development Agency is a waste of money, senator says

Ben Terris — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 00:00:00 -0400

The EDA was founded in 1965 to help promote economic competitiveness and create jobs, but DeMint says it wastes money with the promotion of "pet projects."

"A review of the EDA's grants makes clear that, just like the stimulus, this program too often has used federal dollars to fund pet projects that have little relation to the national interest," DeMint writes in an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal.

DeMint cites examples that he believes are akin to "bridges to nowhere and teapot museums." The EDA, he writes, is responsible for projects like building a $2 million wine tasting room and gift shop in Washington state, and spending $1.5 million to promote tourism in the Northern Mariana Islands.

But it's not just frivolous programs that make the EDA wasteful, he says. The EDA's efforts also duplicate existing federal programs, like the $49 million that went to support flooded regions of Rhode Island, Nebraska, Tennessee, and Kentucky, a job that normally would go to the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

"Mr. Obama's deficit commission cited these same examples of duplication and waste as reasons to eliminate the EDA completely-something Congress should immediately do," he writes. "But Democrats and, sadly, some Republicans, want to give the EDA a raise."

]]>

Senators oppose White House disclosure plan for contractors

Ben Terris — Thu, 12 May 2011 00:00:00 -0400

When it comes to transparency, not everything is clear.

President Obama's proposal that federal contractors disclose their political contributions has rankled some members of Congress, and not just along party lines. Four members of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs-two Republicans, a Democrat, and an independent-penned a letter to the president on Thursday, urging him to reconsider his position on the proposed mandated disclosures.

Sens. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., Rob Portman, R-Ohio, and Susan Collins, R-Maine, wrote that while they share Obama's "commitment to ensuring that the federal contracting process is not influenced by political activity or favoritism," they also worry that requiring "businesses to disclose their political activity when making an offer risks injecting politics into the contracting process."

With election spending reaching unprecedented levels in 2010 after the Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United case-which allowed corporations and unions to make direct political donations-the issue of disclosure has been a heated topic in Washington.

But the senators say the draft executive order, if enacted, would put an unnecessary burden on those tasked with overseeing federal contracts, and wouldn't even have much of an effect. They write that federal contracting law already "precludes the consideration of political activity in evaluating contract offers," and that under the Federal Acquisition Regulation, "the award of a contract must be based on the evaluation of quality, price, past performances," and other merit-based factors.

Republicans on the Hill have been touting the letter as proof that there is a schism in the Democratic Party over the initiative.

"With a now bipartisan outcry against an order which would put politics before the best interest of our taxpayers, the Administration needs to provide candid answers and has an opportunity to do so at today's hearing," said a statement from Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. "Concerns that this executive order that will have a chilling effect on contractors who fear a corrupt Chicago-style spoils system where contracts are tied to partisan political affiliations are very real. President Obama would be wrong to try and ignore this clear and bipartisan opposition."

Earlier this week, House Minority Whip Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., bucked up against the proposal, saying, "I am not in agreement with the administration on that issue."

"I think the issue on contracting ought to be on the merits of the contractor's application and bid and capabilities," Hoyer said in a meeting with reporters on Tuesday. "...I think there are some serious questions as to what implications there are if somehow we consider political contributions in the context of awarding contracts."

These comments allowed for a rare response from House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va.

"Certainly, I am in agreement with the Democratic whip," Cantor said this week.

Obama's proposal is also the topic of a Thursday afternoon hearing in front of the House oversight committee in which Office of Management and Budget official Daniel Gordon will testify on behalf of the administration.

]]>

Lawmakers criticize military funeral protesters

Ben Terris — Fri, 04 Mar 2011 00:00:00 -0500

Members of the Westboro Baptist Church, who won a Supreme Court ruling this week supporting their right to protest military funerals, are misusing their right to free speech, say Senate Armed Services Committee members Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., and Sen. Mark Begich, Alaska.

Julie Hasquet, a spokeswoman for Begich, told National Journal that while the senator "supports the First Amendment" he also believes "the protestors from Westboro Baptist Church are abusing their right to free speech and intentionally causing unnecessary distress for military families who have suffered incredible loss."

Manchin, who just returned from a trip to Afghanistan, agrees that the WBC protests are out of line, calling them "deplorable and despicable."

"He wishes that these people could see the bravery and patriotism of our service members in war zones-he's sure they would change their minds about these protests," said spokeswoman Emily Bittner.

Five years after Albert Snyder sued the WBC for their protests of homosexuality at his son's military funeral, the high court ruled in an 8-1 decision on Wednesday that the group has a First Amendment right to picket military funerals, no matter how "hurtful" the message. The group has made headlines over the years with signs like "Thank God for 9/11" and "God Hates Fags."

The Supreme Court ruling has been met with controversy, and Snyder has even taken to television shows to say WBC protests could easily lead to violence. "Something is going to happen," Albert Snyder told CNN Thursday. "Somebody is going to get hurt."

]]>

Senate GOP not satisfied with Obama's budget proposal

Ben Terris — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 00:00:00 -0500

With President Obama's proposed budget out Monday morning, Senate Republicans are already signaling their disappointment with leaked portions of the plan.

Obama's 2012 budget calls for $1.1 trillion in deficit reduction over the next 10 years, with roughly two-thirds drawn from spending cuts and another third from revenue increases, but members of the GOP say that's not nearly enough.

"A $1 trillion reduction is insignificant and does not get us on the right course and historically we know the president's numbers are inflated so it will be less reduction," Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama, the ranking member of the Budget Committee said Monday on CNN's American Morning. "We have a 50/50 chance of not having a debt crisis. The international monetary fund said we have to make substantial changes, and this budget, it appears, doesn't come close."

Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, the former Bush administration budget director and current member of the Budget Committee agrees with Sessions.

"We are looking at a challenge we never faced before," he said on MSNBC's The Daily Rundown. "This is a situation that cries out for leadership and requires leadership on both sides of the aisle. This is the president's opportunity. This is his vision for the next 10 years and frankly is doesn't rise to the challenge."

For Portman, one of the biggest problems is that the proposal does not sufficiently deal with "the elephant in the room." Namely it doesn't do enough to address the costs of entitlement reform for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who took to MSNBC's Morning Joe to announce he would be running for Republican whip in two years, said he was disappointed that the president's proposed budget deals with a small fraction of federal spending, raises taxes, and "ignores the recommendation of his own fiscal commission."

"Right now [Obama] seems to be very timid about taking the leadership role that the president typically takes in these battles," said Cornyn who is also on the Budget Committee. And while he said the deficit needs to be reduced to a greater degree, that does not mean an increase in taxes.

"I don't think we need to be talking about tax increases until we get serious about spending," he said.

Still, the senator said bipartisan work was possible.

"Republicans are ready to meet him halfway," he said.

]]>

Likely House majority leader calls for hiring freeze

Ben Terris — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 00:00:00 -0500

The Republicans surged to power this past election with rhetoric about changing the way Washington is run and reducing the federal budget. House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va., the presumed House majority leader, says he has a plan to tackle both of these issues with a single move: slash the federal bureaucracy.

"We could do that and save $35 billion if we began to put hiring changes in place, and begin to rein in the government." Cantor said Wednesday on Imus in the Morning. He did not offer specifics.

A new report from USA Today found that the number of federal workers who earn more than $150,000 has risen tenfold in the past five years and has doubled since President Obama took office in 2009. The report found that federal workers earning $150,000 or more make up 3.9 percent of the workforce, compared to 0.4 percent in 2005.

The annual increase of pay and benefits for federal workers is about 3 percent higher than inflation, while the increase for private workers is .8 percent. This difference has led some members of Congress to call for an immediate freeze in federal salaries, a move that will likely resonate well with the public, given the depths of the current recession.

The first challenge could come during next week's lame-duck session, when Republicans will have the chance to try and strike down the 1.4-percent-across-the-board pay raise for 2.1 million federal workers. But many Republicans do not want to stop there.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, who will head the panel overseeing federal pay, told USA Today that a pay freeze should only be the first step, and that if he has his way there would be a 10-percent reduction in pay.

National Treasury Employees Union President Colleen Kelley disagrees, telling the paper the proposed raise "is a modest amount and should be implemented" to try and keep pace with the salaries of the private sector.

While federal pay increases will continue to be the focus of GOP ire, some critics discount the comparisons between federal and private-sector wages. After an August study from USA Today found that federal workers were earning twice as much as their private-sector counterparts, the group Media Matters countered that many public-sector jobs require a higher level of education, and it is this education gap that results in the wage disparity. They also pointed out that there are just more white-collar jobs in the public sector than in the private sector.

"The bottom line is: When education and age are held constant, the entire difference in average pay between the federal and private sectors disappears," former White House Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag wrote in a post at Whitehouse.gov in March.

]]>