The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) Blog

Obama Wants Cuts in Federal Spending

Based on the hand he's been dealt, President-elect Obama really had no choice but to push for federal spending cuts.  Today, he announced the hiring of “Nancy Killefer as his administration’s chief performance officer, creating a new White House position aimed at eliminating government waste and improving efficiency.”

He also stated that he would go after inefficient government programs.  That's great news, and it falls in line with some of the recommendations POGO sent to both Presidential candidates prior to the election--especially our recommendation to review federal agencies to determine if they are accomplishing their mandated missions.  It really seems like Team Obama is listening!

-- Scott Amey

Message to the New DOE Secretary: Don't Believe the Hype

This week, President-elect Obama is expected to appoint a Secretary for the Department of Energy (DOE).  This person will need some serious muscle: in addition to the enormous task of shifting the bureaucracy's entrenched focus away from nuclear weapons production toward the renewable energy priorities of the Obama Administration, they will also need to hold accountable the contractors who conduct 90 percent of the agency's work.

Additionally, with a seat on the Nuclear Weapons Council, the Secretary will have to stand up against the well-organized offensive for the Bush Administration's failed Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) program.  As Walter Pincus reported in the Washington Post last week, U.S. Strategic Commander Air Force Gen. Kevin P. Chilton is calling for a rush to develop and produce RRW because of alleged surety problems--a topic of serious controversy within the nuclear scientific community.  Also, in the January/February edition of Foreign Affairs, Sec. of Defense Robert Gates again heralded RRW, without addressing the fact that RRW's test pedigree will be much less extensive than that of the existing stockpile.

Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA), Chair of the House Armed Services subcommittee on Strategic Forces, appears to be in lock-step with Chilton.  Because RRW has gotten a bad name, Tauscher is promoting the idea of renaming RRW to avoid all the opposition it has garnered in Congress and among the public.  She has even started re-framing RRW to make it more palatable to the Congress by saying it will help with nonproliferation efforts.  Hmmm.  Does it slice toast too? 

POGO is skeptical of the rush to spend billions and billions of dollars, not only on the RRW program but also on the related buildings in the complex that will come along with it, before we have evidence that we need it.  If the original argument for RRW was a based on surety, then why not fix the surety concerns through the Life Extension Program (LEP), which existing warheads are already undergoing?  Why would Tauscher push for a solution when her Commission of the Strategic Posture of the United States has not even submitted a preliminary report on its findings?  And why push for a solution prior to the new administration’s Nuclear Posture Review, which is due in December 2009?

We've seen this game before: a major boondoggle that morphs into a new mission after it doesn't get the necessary political support to survive.  The Superconducting Supercollider comes to mind.  Don't forget, there are a lot of people who stand to make a lot of money off of RRW and the creation of a new mission for the nuclear weapons complex.  The fact that it is a program in search of a mission is the first sign we don't need it.

Unfortunately, Rep. David Hobson (R-OH), one of the few Members of Congress who asked tough questions about the need for RRW, has retired.  Luckily, his House Appropriations Committee colleague, Chair Pete Visclosky (D-IN), is equally skeptical that RRW is a necessary investment.

No matter who the DOE Secretary will be, POGO will continue to question whether we need RRW, especially at a time when federal funds are getting harder and harder to come by.

-- Ingrid Drake

Obama Invites Outside Groups to the Transition Table

Steve Aftergood at Secrecy News has tipped us off to “Your Seat at the Table,” a new feature on President-elect Obama’s transition website where the public will have access to policy documents and recommendations submitted by outside groups (like POGO, cough cough).

In a staff memo sent last Friday, transition co-chair John Podesta announced that the initiative was launched to “ensure that we give the American people a 'seat at the table' and that we receive the benefit of their feedback.”  This might not seem like a big deal, but as Aftergood points out, the executive branch hasn't always been terribly forthcoming in disclosing recommendations from outside groups.  POGO applauds any effort to increase executive branch transparency, and we hope this is a sign of more to come.

Over at the Sunlight Foundation blog, John Wonderlich discusses this and other important transparency policies recently advanced by the transition team.

-- Michael Smallberg

Some Whispers About Obama Nominees Raise Ethical Concerns

As we've said before, we're excited that President-elect Barack Obama expects ethical conduct from his appointees.  And because we think ethical conduct does make the government more effective, accountable, open, and honest, we have to admit that we're concerned that we're hearing that retired Admiral Dennis C. Blair is being considered for Director of National Intelligence.

Over the course of our investigation of multiyear procurement for the F-22 in 2006, POGO found that Blair--then-President of the Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), which was evaluating whether or not the F-22 met the legal requirements for multiyear procurement--was also a stockholder and board member for the EDO Corporation, a subcontractor for the F-22.  At the time this conflict was revealed, Blair told the Washington Post he did not recuse himself "because his link to EDO was not of sufficient 'scale' to require it."  Following the news, however, Blair resigned from EDO and from the IDA. The Department of Defense Inspector General later found Blair violated IDA's conflict of interest standards (standards that POGO was told we could not know), but that this conflict of interest did not alter the findings of IDA.  This incident also led to an internal reexamination and reform of ethical policies at IDA and Congressional scrutiny into FFRDCs.

Blair has a long and admirable history of service to the country, but the conditions under which he left IDA suggest he doesn't have the same take on conflicts of interest as are reportedly expected of the new Administration.

-- Mandy Smithberger

New Hope for Government Whistleblowers?

Efforts to improve protections for government whistleblowers failed miserably in this session of Congress, in no small part because of active opposition by the Department of Justice and the White House to proposed legislation.  Will the incoming Obama Administration bring a new approach to whistleblowers?  One can only hope so, particularly given the numerous public statements by leading Obama insiders and advisers.  Were those statements simply rhetoric aimed at scoring points against the Bush Administration, or were they a more meaningful expression of the desire for honest and accountable government?

Time will tell.  However, past experience has shown that Democrats are no better at protecting government whistleblowers than their Republican counterparts once they are in charge of government.  Similar to the Bush White House, President Clinton threatened to veto legislation to strengthen whistleblower protections in the 1990's.

In order to stay true to whistleblowers, the Obama Administration will need to repudiate the long-standing hostile position of the Department of Justice (DOJ) toward whistleblowers.  If they do so, the Obama Administration truly will be living up to its promise to change the way Washington works.  DOJ's opposition to whistleblowing stems in part from an overly aggressive interpretation of Executive Branch powers, and in part from its role as the lawyers who represent government agencies when they are sued by whistleblowers.  DOJ is all too happy to have the almost 100% win record they currently have with whistleblower cases.  However, their interest in winning has for too long overruled the broader public interest in rewarding employees who expose corruption and make the government more accountable to taxpayers and voters.  When whistleblowers are retaliated against, as they have been vociferously in recent years, a clear message is sent to other employees: Keep your mouth shut.

President-elect Obama could also send a strong message of support from the White House.  One idea we've heard circulating is that Obama could issue a presidential decree offering certain federal whistleblowers either the jobs they lost or their equivalent in the federal service.

According to the Associated Press, President-elect Obama helped legally represent whistleblowers when he worked at a civil rights law firm in Chicago:

Obama also wrote a major portion of an appeals brief on behalf of a whistleblower who exposed waste and corruption in a research project involving Cook County Hospital and the Hektoen Institute for Medical Research and alleged that she was fired in retaliation.

The case was settled out of court.  The county agreed to pay the federal government $5 million, part of which went to the whistleblower, Dr. Janet Chandler.  Hektoen agreed to pay $500,000 to the government, plus $170,000 to Chandler for wrongful termination.

Also, incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel voted for whistleblower protection legislation in this session of Congress, and has repeatedly spoken out in support of whistleblowers including Department of Interior auditor Bobby Maxwell, pharmaceutical industry whistleblower Dr. Peter Rost, and Army Corps of Engineers whistleblower Bunny Greenhouse and others who blew the whistle under the Bush Administration.

"We teach our children to tell the truth.  We should expect the same thing from our public officials.  But in this Administration, the only thing the truth will get you is fired," said Emanuel.

-- Beth Daley

Reforming Government Contracting: Common Ground for Obama and McCain

In light of yesterday's meeting, numerous pundits have argued that there are few or even no common ground agendas that President-elect Barack Obama and Senator John McCain share.  However, they have strongly agreed on on the need to reform government contracting, also known as "acquisition reform."  Both have been leading lights on legislative efforts in the Senate to improve the transparency and accountability of the government's contract spending.  Senator Obama (D-IL) and Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) sponsored legislation to make information about federal contracts and grants accessible to the public.  Senator McCain (R-AZ) has worked tirelessly year after year to advance acquisition reforms in the annual defense spending bills, in many cases only to be blocked by his colleagues in the House and Senate Armed Services Committees.

The Obama Administration will need to find billions of dollars in government funds to advance its agenda.  There's no lower-hanging fruit than government contracting, where companies have, since Clinton Administration era "reforms", gorged taxpayer dollars with little or no oversight and accountability.  Earlier this year, the Government Accountability Office identified $295 billion in cost overruns just on defense weapons spending in recent years.  Imagine cost overruns government-wide.

The Obama Administration could learn much from Senator McCain and his staff, who have dug into the minutia of the government's contracting rules.  Senator McCain's advice could be particularly helpful at this moment when many of the Clinton Administration appointees who supported the effort to decimate taxpayer protections in contracting during the 1990's are posing as reformers in an effort to get back into government.  Their legacy led to the astonishing cases of contract misspending during the Bush Administration, from Hurricane Katrina to Iraq reconstruction to Deepwater.

To learn more about contracting reforms needed to restore honesty and accountability in government spending, visit POGO's contract oversight investigations page.

-- Beth Daley

POGO Calls for a 21st Century Approach to Government Transparency

Yesterday, POGO joined a coalition of hundreds of groups and individuals from across the political spectrum in announcing the release of a new report on government transparency: Moving toward a 21st Century Right-to-Know Agenda: Recommendations to President-elect Obama and Congress.  A special thanks to the great folks at OMB Watch for all their hard work leading this project.

As a member of the 21st Century Right to Know Project, POGO firmly believes that the next administration and Congress must make government transparency a top priority.  Recent increases in government secrecy and over-classification have made the country less safe, the government less effective, and the public less trustful of its appointed and elected officials.

Among the recommendations made in the report, some will hopefully sound familiar to readers of this blog (in fact, we touched on many of these issues in our recently released transition recommendations):

• Actively disseminate information and documents, rather than simply waiting for FOIA requests, and make them searchable and available online;
• Create an online searchable database with information on federal grants, contracts, loans and insurance, and a revolving door database with information on the employment histories of high-ranking officials before they enter and after they leave the federal government;
• Reduce the use of executive privilege, state secrets, and presidential signing statements;
• Provide adequate funding for the Office of Government Information Service, which was recently created under the OPEN Government Act of 2007;
• Urge Congress to exercise its authority to obtain classified materials;
• Reduce the use of pseudo-classification and information control markings on documents;
• Require agency heads to task inspectors general with conducting regular audits to ensure that agencies are complying with executive orders on classification and declassification;
• Improve the e-rulemaking system;
• Make the preservation and conservation of electronic and converted records a priority; and
• Give whistleblowers the protections they need to expose corruption and misconduct in their federal agencies.

In order for these reforms to be truly effective, federal agencies must fully embrace the principle that the public has a right to know about the government's activities.  On a more practical level, agencies need to request--and Congress needs to provide--the funding and resources to make these reforms possible.  While some might be hesitant to increase government spending during a time of economic crisis, it's important to keep in mind that there is also a steep financial burden associated with excessive classification mechanisms and labor-intensive FOIA processes.  Furthermore, excessive secrecy often prevents Congress, oversight agencies, and the public from holding officials accountable for wasting taxpayer dollars on failing government programs.

Click here to read the report.  You can also sign on to endorse the report's recommendations.

-- Michael Smallberg

Can Obama Fill His Administration Without the Revolving Door? (Hint: Yes He Can!)

I was just reading an article in last week's The Hill, and I couldn't help but notice a crescendo in the petulant tone coming from lobbyists.  While it hasn't been a surprise to hear them suggest that Obama will have a hard time filling his Administration without them, this quote made me snort: Nick Allard from Patton Boggs' public policy department opined, "You don't want only virgins and academics in your administration."

Hey now.  It's one thing to try to argue that the stranglehold of the revolving door was a good thing (although you won't persuade POGO of that), but it's pretty ridiculous to suggest that everybody who isn't a lobbyist either lives in their parents' basement or is obliviously ensconced in an ivory tower.  Do I really need to point to the many qualified, dedicated people in the NGO community, the Hill, and the civil service who would want the job for the right reason--public service rather than private gain?

As we mentioned last week, we're pretty impressed with Obama's pledge to bar appointees for two years from working on regulations or contracts related to their prior employer.  And if you haven't seen them yet, we have some recommendations of our own for limiting the harmful effects of the revolving door.

-- Danielle Brian

POGO to Obama: Can You Hear Me Now?

From today's Washington Post:

(If you haven't seen them yet, check out our transition recommendations to learn more.)

-- Michael Smallberg

DoD Outsourcing Thought Leadership?

Someone recently alerted POGO to an absurd contract that helps to illuminate the problem of contractors potentially having too large of a role in government operations, with some contracts asking contractors to perform inherently governmental functions.  Forbes provides the most recent example in a $260 million Defense Department contract for CACI International to support their Business Transformation Agency effort to provide "thought leadership and change management."  Pushing aside how "thought leadership" recalls aliens and UFOs, it's worth comparing it to the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) definition of inherently governmental functions, which lists examples such as "the determination of agency policy, such as determining the content and application of regulations, among other things," "the determination of Federal program priorities for budget requests," "the direction and control of Federal employees," and "determination of budget policy, guidance, and strategy."  Without seeing the contract, we can't be sure that "thought leadership" encompasses any of these examples, but if it doesn't, what is $260 million worth of thought leadership and change management buying?

Surprise!  We sent the transition team advice on making sure that the outsourcing of governmental functions doesn't put contractors in the improper position of advancing private interests ahead of the public good:

The new President should make it a priority to assess the extent to which outsourcing of previously governmental functions has undermined accountability, effective management, and policy-making in federal agencies.  Transition team members and new appointees should review FAIR Act inventories, protests, and job descriptions over the past decade, as well as interview career employees and agency ethics officers, to identify instances of improperly privatized inherently governmental functions.  Regulations need to be strengthened to prevent future instances of problematic outsourcing, and any identified inherently governmental positions should be promptly filled by public servants.

Contractors performing arguably inherently governmental functions is one of POGO's ongoing investigations, and this blog has raised concerns before about CACI assisting the General Services Administration (GSA) to process their backlog of suspension and debarment cases.

But the real question is, if DoD shouldn't be getting their thought leadership from CACI International, where should they get it from?  In addition to carefully selecting the next leadership team and trying to tap and build up competency within the agency, we'd suggest that they review our newly revamped website and the Transitions page that the Government Accountability Office just put together.  The GAO site breaks down their recommendations--and supporting reports--into urgent issues, agency-by-agency issues, management challenges across the government, major cost-saving opportunities, upcoming reports on major issues, and a long-term fiscal outlook.  DoD should be thrilled to see that in addition to their own agency-specific page, the GAO is looking out for them by highlighting defense spending and defense readiness as two of the most urgent issues facing the federal government.

If anyone knows more about this contract or contracts like this, contact us at [email protected] or 202-347-1122.

-- Mandy Smithberger

"Only Qualified People Can Come from Industry" Needs to Revolve Out of the Conventional Wisdom

In our recommendations for transition teams, we stressed that one of the key tools for making the government more effective was to make sure that the chosen political appointees would contribute effectively to the missions of their agencies by being well-qualified, but also that these individuals would operate without any conflicts of interest.  Specifically, we stressed that the revolving door between the government and contractors damages the integrity of government.  To quote ourselves:

The revolving door between the government and contractors or regulated industries inevitably creates conflicts of interest and undermines the public's faith in the government.  The revolving door undermines the basic obligations of public service to place loyalty to the Constitution, laws, and ethical principles above personal or private gain.

POGO Recommends: The President should issue an Executive Order that executive branch employees, including political appointees, must consider their position a matter of public trust and service, not a stepping stone for personal gain.  Once they leave government service, there should be a three year prohibition against public employees and officials working for or representing industries or other private interests that they regulated, contracted with, or otherwise oversaw.  Similarly, the President should exercise great caution in appointing individuals with ties to the industry they will oversee.  The Office of Government Ethics and agency ethics offices should be given administrative enforcement power over violations of ethics, as well as the necessary resources to execute this new mandate.

So we have to say that we're excited to hear that President-elect Barack Obama has pledged to bar appointees from working on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years.  An article in today's New York Times ridicules this pledge, saying that it will hamper the administration.  But we think if you look at the history and impact of the revolving door, one might question the value of appointees that see their government position as a stepping stone to private sector gains.

-- Mandy Smithberger

For the Consideration of the Next Commander-In-Chief: Weapons Accquisition Reform

Many important issues confront President-elect Barack Obama's administration.  In addition to the need to make the federal government more effective, accountable, open, and honest, the next administration faces numerous challenges at the Defense Department.  An article recently published in IEEE Spectrum Online focuses attention on the problems with how DoD acquires its weapons--an issue that we have certainly addressed before here.  Among the problems that the article identifies is politics trumping common sense: "congressmen, defense contractors, lobbyists, and economic development officials are all aggressive players in the weapons-acquisition process, all pushing for their own pet projects."

And it looks like Congress may be part of the problem again.  This time the politicized project is the F-22, one of the case studies the IEEE Spectrum Online article uses to examine procurement problems--and also a project that POGO has criticized as being advanced too quickly as a result of politicization.  The Hill reported on Monday that Reps. Ike Skelton (D-MO), Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), and Jim Saxton (R-NJ) sent a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates insisting that he spend the $140 million Congress appropriated to buy more F-22 Raptors.  Secretary Gates has said that the F-22 is irrelevant to post-Cold War conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan, and that he wants to let the next administration decide on the future of the program.

As much as DoD is fairly criticized for being over-ambitious in its requests, the continued controversy over the F-22 Raptor demonstrates yet again that there are many people responsible for DoD's problems with weapons acquisitions, and that some of those people are members of Congress pushing the agency to acquire tools that they aren't even sure that they want.

-- Mandy Smithberger