Et Tu, Paul!?

OK, so it pains me to report that Dr. Paul, my choice in the Republican field, is not untainted by the scourge of pork (PDF). I haven't been able to actually get the pdf to load for me, but I will be interested to see what it contains.

While Paul's voting record remains exemplary, I am greatly troubled that he has taken his place at the trough. I guess that partly explains how he has been able to get repeatedly re-elected against the odds.

My only consolation is that at least he fessed up when asked, which is more than can said about most.

Sigh.

Government Admits It Is Wasting Your Money

It is painfully obvious to anyone paying even a little bit of attention that the federal government wastes a ton of money on programs that are useless or that it has no business being involved in in the first place. Well, it seems that the Office of Management and Budget has figured this out as well.

As part of a program they call ExpectMore.gov, they are using a system called the Program Assesment Rating Tool (PART) to determine the "effectiveness" of government programs.

The Program Assessment Rating Tool, or PART, for short, is a questionnaire designed to help assess the management and performance of programs. It is used to evaluate a program’s purpose, design, planning, management, results, and accountability to determine its overall effectiveness.

Based on the evaluation, recommendations are made to improve program results.

To reflect that federal programs deliver goods and services using different mechanisms, the PART also has customized questions depending on the type of program. The seven PART categories are: Direct Federal, Competitive Grant, Block/Formula Grant, Regulatory, Capital Assets and Service Acquisition, Credit, and Research and Development.

The PART questionnaire is made up of the following questions:

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need?

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other federal, state, local or private effort?

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Are budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Using the answers to these questions, programs are divided into two main categories, Performing and Not Performing, with each having sub-categories. So, had did various government programs fare? Not well:

Based on our most recent assessments, 25% of Federal programs are Not Performing.

The actual breakdown by subcategory looks like this:

To date, we have assessed about 96% of all Federal programs. Here's how they stack up, by rating.

Distribution of Program Ratings
Number of Programs Assessed	977
Effective	17%
Moderately Effective	30%
Adequate	28%
Ineffective	3%
Results Not Demonstrated	22%

Of course, even this gives a rosier picture than is warranted. That is because of the way each program is assigned to one of the sub-categories:

The answers to questions in each of the four sections result in a numerical score for each section from 0 to 100 (100 being the best score). Because reporting a single weighted numerical rating could suggest false precision, or draw attention away from the very areas most in need of improvement, numerical scores are translated into qualitative ratings. The bands and associated ratings are as follows:

Rating Range

Effective .............................................................. 85-100

Moderately Effective ............................................... 70-84

Adequate .............................................................. 50-69

Ineffective .............................................................. 0-49

Now I don't about where you come from, but where I come from a score of 50-69 is not adequate. Just ask any school kid if those grades are considered adequate. They equate to Ds and Fs which is hardly adequate. My dad would have planted his foot firmly in my fundament if I brought home grades like that. Of course it is no surprise that the government is letting the government off easy. When taking that into account, you find that fully 53% of programs are not up to par.

Taking a look at some of the programs in the Not Performing category, we find such gems as this:

Dairy Price Support Program

USDA maintains a minimal price to dairy farmers by buying excess milk in the form of nonfat dry milk, butter, and cheese. The government owned dairy products are stored in warehouses until the dairy products are sold or donated. This program is one of several USDA programs that support dairy farmers.

NOT PERFORMING
Results Not Demonstrated

A rating of Results Not Demonstrated (RND) indicates that a program has not been able to develop acceptable performance goals or collect data to determine whether it is performing.

The program has not demonstrated results.

The program began in 1949 to assure an adequate supply of milk, but has not been updated in response to changing industry conditions. The U.S. dairy industry has matured as a global leader in milk production, while current challenges include: price variability, consolidation, global trade, and environmental impacts.

The program has major design flaws that limit its effectiveness.

The program is considered trade distorting because it can maintain U.S. prices above world prices. Dairy production represents 11% of all U.S. farm receipts, but this program accounts for over 30% of permitted trade distorting support under World Trade Organization rules.USDA manages the government owned dairy products resulting from this program for multiple purposes.

USDA is not required to minimize costs, and can choose to sell the inventory back to the commercial market, or incur additional costs to donate dairy products to USDA food assistance programs and other domestic and international charitable organizations.

And this:

Packers and Stockyards

The Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration regulates livestock marketing activities at public stockyards and operations of meat packers and poultry dealers. The program was instituted in 1921 to promote fair and competitive trade of livestock, meat, and poultry.


NOT PERFORMING
Results Not Demonstrated

A rating of Results Not Demonstrated (RND) indicates that a program has not been able to develop acceptable performance goals or collect data to determine whether it is performing.

The program lacks well-defined internal processes to determine workload priorities, conduct effective investigations, evaluate investigative findings, and monitor industry activity to determine if regulatory reforms are needed.

The program lacks standard definitions to distinguish regulatory activities from investigative activities.

The program maintains inaccurate and incomplete tracking systems.

What business does the government even have maintaining a minimal price to dairy farmers or regulating marketing activities at stockyards? Even if these programs were "effective", they would still be a waste of money. The list is rife with programs and this and then, of course, there are the programs with the feel good names such as Mentoring Program, Safe and Drug Free Schools State Grants, and African Development Fund.

The website states "As a result, all assessed programs are held accountable for improving their performance and management", but there is no discussion of how they are held accountable. You can be sure that it doesn't include shutting those programs down.

In the end, the ExpectMore.gov program only serves as a tool for people like me to complain about the failures of the government. It is highly unlikely Congress will use it as a guideline for ridding the government of wasteful programs that don't even accomplish there missions. So in that respect, OMB should list ExpectMore.gov on the Not Performing list.

Update: BTW, given the re-killing of the immigration bill, I should also point out that the Border Patrol is in the Not Performing category as well.

(H/T Stephen Slivinski at Cato@Liberty)

Obviously Not Muslim

OK, so I guess Obama got tired of the lingering questions about his Muslim background. Today he released his "FY08 Federal Funding Requests" and let me tell you, we are talking major league swine her ladies and gentlemen.

My first assumption when I read that he was releasing this information was that he probably only had a few million dollars worth of lard and would use this opportunity to make the candidates look bad, but once I got to his site, I knew I would have dust off the 'ol Canis Libertas super computer to come up with a total. After about an hour of 90% CPU time, I got the result. Whole hog to the tune of $399,766,475* taxpayer dollars. Ouch!

If this is average, and I can only assume that he must think he is on the light side, then we are talking some $40 billion in pork just out of the Senate.

Just for fun, here are some of his gems:

American Theater Company, for the construction of a new facility in Logan Square, $200,000

In the heart of Chicago's Logan Square neighborhood, American Theater Company (ATC) will build an 11,000 square foot theater complex using green construction standards that will provide a state-of-the-art experience for its artists and patrons. The theater will serve as a commercial and cultural hub for this diverse and growing neighborhood, welcoming audiences from within and outside of the community. It will be a home for the development of new American works and re-imagined classic American plays, and a center for the development of new talent.

Aurora University, to the Center for Latino Leadership and Education, $400,000

Funding would establish a family-focused after school bilingual program for Latino families that would promote academic preparation and college readiness within an underserved population.

Mujeres Latinas en Accion, for the Parent Support Program and Women in Transition Program, $295,000

These programs provide services crucial to increasing parental efficacy and educate parents about creating a family environment that is supportive and conducive to emotional and academic growth. The curriculum teaches parents to help youth avoid gang involvement, stay in school, and improve their school performance all in a culturally sensitive atmosphere.

PACE Suburban Bus, to replace the radio system in all of its 672 fixed route buses, $2,500,000

The radio system is currently 11 years old, and because it is the primary method of communication between drivers and dispatchers, it is imperative that it be upgraded. The new radios will solve communication gaps that current buses experience. PACE provides 130,000 trips daily, and passengers throughout the region will experience fewer missed connections with other bus routes.

Rockford College, to enhance classrooms, $490,000

This funding would equip classrooms and enhance student learning by outfitting classrooms and labs that will enable faculty to employ the most modern technology when instructing students and will measurably improve student performance.

Those were just a few I grabbed. There were more than 100 listed. Oh and just in case you were wondering, yes, both of the colleges listed above are private institutions and there are several others listed.

* The Canis Libertas intern is somewhat lazy and not very thorough (I suspect he was dropped on his head more than once as a child), so it is possible he entered the data incorrectly. Feel free to run the numbers yourself.

Government Cheese

I guess it is only appropriate that Wisconsin, known for its cheese, would be just as fervent about government cheese as it is about Cheddar and Colby. In fact, they have a non-profit, Wisconsin Procurement Institute, that is dedicated solely to the purpose of helping to get Wisconsin companies on the federal dole.

The Wisconsin Procurement Institute is a nonprofit organization established in 1987 to "bridge the gap" for Wisconsin companies interested in supplying their products and or services to federal, state, local agencies and prime contractors.

WPI guides, trains and provides hands-on assistance to firms in developing government business and improving process and technical capabilities to access and compete in the Government marketplace.

That in itself, is bad enough, but to find out that, David Obey (D-WI) the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, who earlier tried to take the earmark process underground, has created an earmark for WPI, is just surreal. That's right folks, Obey wants to give them your tax dollars so they can help others get your tax dollars.

WPI is just the start though apparently. Governor Jim Doyle (D-WI), it seems, actually gives out awards for the companies that are the most successful at milking the US taxpayer. This year's lucky winners:

Governor's Award - Federal Procurement - Small Business: McNally Industries, Grantsburg, Burnett County. This company makes complex systems and components for a variety of air, land, and sea combat applications. Its products include ammunition handling systems and hydraulic systems, pumps, and valve bodies. Customers include the US Government and defense contractors.

Governor's Award - Federal Procurement - Large Business: Astronautics Corporation of America, Milwaukee, Milwaukee County. This company was established in 1959. It is major supplier of avionics equipment to airlines, aircraft manufacturers, the U.S. Government and governments around the world.

I am sure there is some equivalent here in the Lone Star State, but this is just sickening.

$790,000 Later

After months of work and a cost of approximately $790,000, the London 2012 Olympic Committee has put forth this piece of crap as it's official logo:



What a great use for taxpayer money. According to London 2012 organizing committee chairman Seb Coe:

"It won't be to be eveybody's (sic) taste immediately but it's a brand that we genuinely believe can be a hard working brand which builds on pretty much everything we said in Singapore about reaching out and engaging young people, which is where our challenge is over the next five years.

"If we don't that, then frankly the whole project is unsustainable."

GOP Demagogues -- Our Last, Best Hope

Probably the most significant reason (behind Iraq) for the Democrats return to power was their promise to clean up the "Culture of Corruption" that is created by the way earmarks are handled. I called bullshit at the time, not because I didn't think the process needed to be cleaned up, but because I knew the Dems wouldn't actually keep that promise.

After a just-for-show swat at the earmarks during their 100 hours agenda, it was back to business as usual, or at least it was briefly. Now things have gotten even worse. House Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey (D-WI) has decided to take the process completely underground and tack the earmarks on after the passage of bills just before they went into conference. This makes the chance of sunlight reaching these projects virtually nil. Indeed there are already some 30,000 requests (more than under the Republicans even) waiting to get slipped in.

Fortunately, there are a few members of the Grand 'Ol Party that either still hold to small government beliefs or that have found religion on the subject now that the electorate has kicked them firmly in the balls. They are making noise and the Dems don't like it. We've already seen Murtha castigating anyone that would dare challenge his place at the trough and now Obey is trying to get those pesky few Republicans to pipe down:

House Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey, D-Wis., today outlined how earmarks will be disclosed before conference, and warned that if Republicans “demagogue” the issue there might be no earmarks in the fiscal 2008 bills.

Now call me crazy, but you have to be one hell of an idiot to threaten these guys in such a manner. If I was a member fighting against earmarks and the guy that controlled all earmarks threatened to put an end to all those earmarks if I didn't pipe down, what do you think I would do?

Update: There may be some progress.

In Case You Were Confused

Just in case any of you were confused and actually bought into the Democrats promises to clean things up in DC, here are a couple of pieces from CNN that should set you straight.






As I have said too many times to count, the Dems are just as crooked as the Reps. They are two sides to a very dirty coin.

More of the Same

Back before the 06 midterm elections, the second most voiced complaint from Dems was the "Culture of Corruption". According to them, if the Dems got control they would sweep in and clean house on the way things are done in Congress. Back then, I told my Dem friends they were crazy if they thought the Donkeys were any different than the Elephants.

Needless to say, I was right and they were wrong. The Dems have done next to nothing to rid Congress of earmarks, those nasty little add-ons to bills that members use to butter up constituents, payoff lobbyists, and fatten their own pockets.

Now that the Dems control the purse strings once again, they are not quite so eager to clean up shop, Robert Bluey points out:

So when Murtha faced Republican opposition for a $23-million earmark to fund the National Drug Intelligence Center, an operation in his hometown of Johnstown, Pa., he blew a gasket -- “unleashing a loud, finger-jabbing, spittle-spraying piece of his mind,” according to The Hill.

Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), a fellow appropriator, was the recipient of Murtha’s tirade for voting against the earmark in committee. Murtha threatened to pull a pet project from Tiahrt’s district to exact revenge. Fortunately for both members, the situation was resolved, and they walked away from the squabble with their projects intact.

Such is life in Washington, where members of Congress still don’t get it.

The Dems seem to have a short memory when it comes to their campaign promises. What a shock right? Well, only if you have no idea of how politicians work or if you are just so blindly partisan that you only see problems with the "other" side.

Democrats and Republicans are both quick to point out the problems with the other side, while blatantly ignoring their own party's lapses. As the saying goes, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss." The truly disheartening thing is that there is no sign of change on the horizon. Their taste of power has almost completely cleansed the Republican party of all of its beliefs of small government and fiscal sanity, so even if they regain power, expect no changes.

I guess the best that can be hoped for is continued split power between Congress and the President. At least that slows the process down a bit so that not quite as much pork gets through, but both sides have shown they are eager to be "bought off" with pork; principles be damned when there is other people's money to be wasted.