First Draft

GAO: Bush administration's Social Security reform campaign cost federal government $2.8 million

The GAO responds  (pdf)  to a request from Rep. Waxman  to "identify the official Social Security reform public speaking events and other promotion initiatives involving administration officials, and their costs to the federal government, since January 2005."

The GAO reports these results in brief:

We identified 228 public speaking events to promote the Social Security reform initiative, of which there were 40 presidential events, 7 vice presidential events, and 122 events with officials from EOP, SSA, or Treasury. As agreed with your office, we primarily focused on these 169 events (almost 75 percent of the 228 public speaking events) and are reporting cost information we obtained for these events. We also identified many other promotion initiatives, including radio addresses and interviews and the establishment of a Treasury Web site.

The direct and incremental costs for the 169 events and other initiatives were a reported $2,588,367 for staging, travel, and other direct costs. The largest portion was for reported reimbursements to EOP from Treasury, HHS, and Labor for staging costs totaling $1,651,460, while reported travel costs included $437,887 for the use of Air Force One and Air Force Two, $369,838 for EOP officials’ travel, and $66,794 for travel by Treasury and SSA officials. EOP reported $62,388 in other direct costs to support its public speaking events. Treasury reported an additional $222,608 in other initiative costs to establish and operate its SSIC and Strengthening Social Security Web site, bringing the total reported costs to $2,810,975.

Or perhaps more....

Scout's Obsession with the GAO: DHS report

The GAO report on the Department of Homeland Security (pdf) is a whopping 321 pages long. Needless to say I haven't completed reading it. But here are 2 charts which summarize.  The first shows  DHS’s overall progress in implementing its mission and management areas:

(Click on charts for larger view)

The second which is after the jump shows the lack of progress made in the area of emergency preparedness and response. Two years after Katrina we find that of the 24 performance expectations in this area, 18 are "generally not achieved" and the overall assessment of progress is "limited."

Scout's Obsession with the GAO: It's their week baby

The GAO is receiving quite the attention this week between the release of their highly critical Iraq report and similarly critical DHS report. Their report on FEMA's oversight of  insurance companies will likely receive little if any attention however. But it should. Here's the title..."NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM: FEMA’s Management and Oversight of Payments for Insurance Company Services Should Be Improved" (pdf)

That title belies what is contained within as the GAO basically slaps FEMA around for lack of oversight of WYO (Write Your Own) insurance companies providing flood insurance policies. Essentially the problem is twofold: 1) FEMA's approach to making payments to WYO's is not based on actual expense and 2) Audits of WYO companies required by FEMA regulations have not been performed.

Let's start with the latter problem. The GAO explains....

Biennial financial statement audits—FEMA’s primary mechanism to provide assurance that it receives complete and accurate financial management information from the WYO insurance companies—were not performed consistently as required by regulation. FEMA regulations require each participating company to arrange and pay for these audits by independent certified public accounting firms. However, many WYO insurance companies did not comply with the schedule in recent years.

The GAO provides this chart...

Only 5 of 94 companies met the requirement in the last fiscal year...arguably the most important year in the federal flood insurance program as explained after the jump.

But first regarding the problem of making payments to WYO's, the GAO found....

The Pawlenty Pile-On Continues

He's Turdblossom approved!

April 8, 2005:

Karl Rove, the man considered to be the political mastermind of the Bush White House, will be in Minnesota Friday night to raise money for Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Pawlenty is up for re-election next year. Some powerful Republicans also view Pawlenty as a potential presidential or vice presidential candidate in 2008. Most agree though that Pawlenty's prospects for national politics hinge on his ability to maintain his "no new taxes" pledge and to get re-elected in what could be a tough campaign.

McCain/Pawlenty '08!

A couple of losers.

To hear Gov. Tim Pawlenty and U.S. Sen. John McCain tell it, 2008 is the last thing on their minds. But the Minnesota governor and the Arizona senator sounded a lot like two guys who wouldn't mind sharing a national ticket. McCain was in town Wednesday to help fellow Republican Pawlenty raise funds for his re-election bid this year.

"I think that all of us in public life have an obligation to try to encourage another generation behind us to serve, and that's why I've been very privileged to know Governor Pawlenty," McCain said at a press conference, with Pawlenty standing at his side. "I think he's the next generation of leadership in our Republican Party, and in America."

[snip]

Pawlenty, for his part, said he's focused on winning re-election and on a possible second term. But he offered similarly effusive praise for McCain, stopping short of openly endorsing his likely presidential bid but saying, "I think the times are calling out Senator McCain."

Pawlenty said that, along with Ronald Reagan and former Green Bay Packers quarterback Bart Starr, McCain is one of his personal heroes.

"You can't help but look at his life story and his record of courage, his record of dedication, his record of self-service ... and not be inspired," Pawlenty said.

On paper, Pawlenty would certainly help to balance out a ticket with McCain at the top. McCain will turn 72 in 2008, while Pawlenty will turn 48 that November. McCain is a Washington veteran, having represented his southwestern state in the U.S. Senate since 1987, while Pawlenty is a newer face, a Midwestern governor first elected in 2002.

McCain recently invited Pawlenty to accompany him on a trip to visit U.S. soldiers in Baghdad. His visit to Minnesota on Wednesday was expected to raise at least $100,000 for Pawlenty's re-election effort, according to a campaign official.

Tony Snow had numbers today....So did the GAO

Below Holden has links to Tony Snow's slide show on number of captured weapons caches. The source of those numbers is the MNF-I. 

It's interesting that Snow has this on the same day that the GAO released a report to Congressional Committees titled "Stabilizing Iraq: DOD Cannot Ensure That U.S.-Funded Equipment Has Reached Iraqi Security Forces." (pdf) which "(1) examines the property accountability procedures DOD and MNF-I applied to the U.S. train-and-equip program for Iraq and (2) assesses whether DOD and MNF-I can account for the U.S.-funded equipment issued to the Iraqi security forces."

The GAO reports that DoD and the MNF-I can not account for at least 190,000 US funded weapons.  Here are some numbers from the GAO:

Thus, DOD and MNF-I cannot fully account for about 110,000 AK-47 rifles, 80,000 pistols, 135,000 items of body armor, and 115,000 helmets reported as issued to Iraqi forces as of September 22, 2005. Our analysis of the MNSTC-I property book records found that DOD and MNF-I cannot fully account for at least 190,000 weapons reported as issued to Iraqi forces as of September 22, 2005.

And from the GAO's conclusions:

Given DOD’s request for an additional $2 billion to develop Iraqi security forces, improving accountability procedures can help ensure that the equipment purchased with these funds reaches the intended recipients.

As opposed to say winding up in enemy hands where someday MNF-I may finally have the opportunity to count them if captured?

Just saying..... interesting timing.

Scout's Obsession with the GAO: GWOT $$$ "Approximations"

In GAO correspondence to Congress we learn of DoD's reported obligations for  the GWOT. That would be "approximations" because they can not be sure of the actual cost.....

Specifically, we identified appropriated amounts intended for GWOT and reported GWOT obligations for each operation, military service, and appropriation account. Our prior work has found the data in DOD’s monthly Supplemental and Cost of War Execution Report to be of questionable reliability. Consequently, we are unable to ensure that DOD’s reported obligations for GWOT are complete, reliable, and accurate, and they therefore should be considered approximations.

"Approximations" = $542.9 Billion.

From fiscal year 2001 through July 2007, Congress has provided DOD with about $542.9 billion for its efforts in support of GWOT.

Though there is a $113.8 billion slush fund difference between appropriations and obligations which includes the super secret stuff.

The $113.8 billion difference between DOD’s GWOT appropriations and reported obligations can generally be attributed to certain fiscal year 2007 appropriations and multiyear funding for procurement; military construction; and research, development, test, and evaluation from previous GWOT-related appropriations that have yet to be obligated, and obligations for classified activities, which are not included in DOD’s reported obligations. (my emphasis)

I don't see why they can not at least say how much these classified activities cost.

And GAO reports... "DOD’s total reported obligations related to GWOT have demonstrated a steady annual increase each fiscal year through 2006."

Further..... "Through April 2007, DOD’s total reported obligations are already more than three quarters of the total amount of obligations it reported for all of fiscal year 2006."

Finally..... "As a result, total reported obligations for fiscal year 2007 may well exceed the amount reported for fiscal year 2006."

And this is just DoD's obligations for the GWOT.

GAO knew that

The news that Kansas National Guard is lacking equipment needed to respond to the tornado devastation in Greensburg because it is instead in Iraq would not come as a surprise to those who read this GAO Obsession post from January. In that post I wrote...

As regards the NG's readiness the GAO reported....

DOD does not routinely measure or report to Congress the equipment readiness of nondeployed National Guard forces for domestic missions. DOD'€™s legacy readiness reporting system and its annual National Guard equipping report to Congress address warfighting readiness but do not address the Guard'€™s domestic missions.

On average, states and territories had about 50 percent of their authorized inventory of dual-use equipment available for domestic missions. (dual use=authorized for warfighting missions but could be highly useful in responding to domestic events). The map below shows the percentage for each state and territory. Note that Washington D.C. is one of the lowest at 35.6%

If you want to check out your state, the map described above can be seen here with a better image on page 31 of the pdf.

BTW Kansas had 50.6% of authorized inventory according to the GAO.

Scout's Obsession with the GAO: D'oh! Don't Stuff the Furrners Katrina Aid Money in the Mattress (and more on that pesky 10% match requirement)

CREW did a great job investigating what happened to the hundreds of millions in foreign aid pledged post Katrina. But I must note that the GAO reported on this one year ago. (Pdf)

There were several interesting findings which only once again support the need to revise the Stafford Act and the National Response Plan.

This is a bit complicated but still very timely and a rewarding read  for appreciating your gubmint at work..... First-- as of a year ago the federal government could have earned $1 million in interest had a portion of that foreign aid been put in an interest bearing account and second-- the aid ran smack dab into the contentious 10% federal match requirement of the Stafford Act. Here is a summary of the background info to understand.....

The Math
Over $400 million in cash was pledged by foreign countries. In the end $126 million was received. $66 million was accepted by FEMA under the Stafford Act (important later) and spent on a case management grant awarded to the United Methodist Committee on Relief  to help Katrina affected households ID needs and assisstance. Thus $60 million remained.

The Process

The National Response Plan (NRP) states the Department of State (DOS) coordinates offers of international assistance. So their Katrina Task Force evaluated foreign aid offers of cash  and if it accepted an offer they  told  donor countries to "wire transfer the funds to a designated Department of the Treasury account maintained at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York specifically for DOS."

Here's where it gets complicated. Though  the NRP designates DOS to coordinate, the plan also outlines that issues of policy adjudication or anything out of the normal purview of relevant agencies, acts or directives is elevated for resolution to the National Security Council (NSC). So the NSC "convened an interagency working group to decide how the donated funds would be used." Under consensus from the NSC group, FEMA got the $66 million mentioned above. But the NSC group had other plans for the remaining $60 million so it could not earn interest because the Treasury could pay interest on funds FEMA accepted under the Stafford Act but it did not have  statutory authority to otherwise pay interest on the DOS account where the remainder waited. And important to note..."The U.S. government would be responsible for paying the interest if these funds were held in an account at the Treasury that can earn interest."

The Remaining $60 Million

The NSC working group decided it wanted the remaining $60 million to go to “bricks and mortar” projects, namely schools. But under the Stafford Act FEMA can only repair schools and not rebuild them.

And here is where we meet the 10% matching requirement. From the GAO report.....

Also, according to a DHS official, the Act would have required that receiving entities match FEMA funds for these purposes. However, because of the devastation, the entities would have difficulty matching FEMA funds, which in essence limited FEMA from doing these types of projects. According to DHS, FEMA considered whether it would be useful for donated funds to contribute to the non-federal share for applicants having trouble meeting the non-federal share, but would need legislative authority to use it to match federal funds. We contacted NSC to further discuss these matters; however, NSC did not respond to our requests for a meeting. On March 16, 2006, DOS and the Department of Education signed a Memorandum of Agreement regarding the use of $60 million of the international cash donations. We did not review the details of this agreement. (my emphasis)

This is quite incredible and goes to the heart of the problem with the matching requirement of the Stafford Act.   Not only do we see predicted what has  been painfully born out...that local and state entities would have trouble matching funds but further, because of that fact,  the matching requirement in effect stood in the way of FEMA doing recovery projects.  It's your classic chicken and egg conundrum.

It looks as though FEMA wanted that $60 million to go to  state and locals to use for the required match requirement, a requirement still in contention, one which Bush will not waive and one  that we NOW see has been a major obstacle to the Gulf Coast recovery. So give FEMA some credit on this one.

Scout's Obsession with the GAO: Colbert Edition

OK some of you encouraged me with this obsession and now everyone is stuck with it. Today though is video of last night's appearance of the GAO's Comptroller General David Walker on the  Colbert Report. He did well. Lots of energy but then again he works at the agency that is ranked Number 2 in the recently released  Best Places to Work in the Federal Government 2007!

BTW... Department of Homeland Security which includes FEMA was ranked  second to last place or #29 of 30. Last place was the Small Business Administration. But I digress...

Scout's Obsession with the GAO: WaPo, Norm, and Metrocheks...The scandal that shouldn't rock DC

The number 2 story at WaPo online as I write this is about  GAO  testimony scheduled for today on scores of federal workers selling their transit tickets on the Internet. They receive the tickets as a perk of federal employment.

I'm reading this and thinking well yes this isn't right and yes it apparently is fraud to the tune of about $17 million but is this really that big of a deal?  Only scores of GS-05's or whatever GS level cashing in a perk on Ebay? Out of 300,000 employees? A Number 2 story? I mean what about this GAO testimony released yesterday.... "Stabilizing and Rebuilding Iraq:  Conditions in Iraq Are Conducive to Fraud, Waste, and Abuse"?    We're talking BILLIONS with that.

But I kept reading the WaPo article because you know this is GAO stuff and so on page two I read this....

"The internal controls on this particular program are grossly inadequate, and no one agency is responsible for overseeing or managing the program -- that is a recipe for disaster," said Sen. Norm Coleman (Minn.), the panel's ranking Republican, who initiated the investigation. "It's not a case of someone being asleep at the switch; it's a case of no one being at the switch at all." (my emphasis)

Norm!

Wow that's Republican oversight for ya. A $250 million dollar program with only scores of abusers and we got ourselves "a recipe for disaster" that's just almost at the very top of WaPo online and page A1 in the paper.

GAO did what they are suppose to do and good on them. Bad on Norm for asking. OK I must qualify that. Of course Norm can ask but it should have been freaking Number 619 on his list if he is really concerned about oversight and "recipes for disaster." And WaPo... you owe Franken a front page story.

Now this admirer of the GAO is heading over to Watertiger's place to pound her head on her desk.

Scout's Obsession with the GAO: Not a Whole Lotta Rebuilding Going On

The GAO's  Director of Strategic Issues, Stanley J. Czerwinski, provided testimony today on Gulf Coast Rebuilding to the Senate's Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. (Pdf here)

The major finding, not surprisingly, is that  in spite of Bush's highly touted $110 billion for rebuilding very little has actually gone to anything other than immediate emergency needs. From the testimony...

A substantial portion of this assistance was directed to emergency assistance and meeting short-term needs arising from these hurricanes, such as relocation assistance, emergency housing, immediate levee repair, and debris removal efforts. Consequently, a relatively small portion of federal assistance is available for longer-term rebuilding activities such as the restoration of the region’s housing and infrastructure. (my emphasis)

Czerwinski reported that the federal appropriations thus far should be viewed in context of the need faced on the Gulf Coast...

It may be useful to view this assistance in the context of the costs of damages incurred by the region and the resources necessary to rebuild. Some damage estimates have put capital losses at a range of $70 billion to over $150 billion, while the State of Louisiana estimated that the economic impact on its state alone could reach $200 billion. Such estimates raise important questions regarding additional assistance that will be needed to help the Gulf Coast rebuild in the future.

Czerwinski testified those important questions to Congress would specifically be...

• How much will it cost to rebuild the Gulf Coast and how much of this cost should the federal government bear?

• How effective are current funding delivery mechanisms—such as Public Assistance and CDBG—and should they be modified or supplemented by other mechanisms?

• How can the federal government further partner with state and local governments and the nonprofit and private sectors to leverage the public investment in rebuilding?

Czerwinski also stated that "rebuilding efforts in the Gulf Coast are at a critical turning point" with all levels of government needing to make decisions of great and lasting impact.

There is also good info and comparison of efforts in MS and Louisiana in the testimony.

None of this is surprising. Anyone driving through the Gulf Coast would see little rebuilding taking place.

Scout's Obsession with the GAO: Why plan here for what's over there

The GAO released a report titled "Actions Needed to Identify National Guard Domestic Equipment Requirements and Readiness" in which we learn that planning to use the National Guard domestically in large-scale terrorist events and natural disasters is lacking as well as the National Guard's equipment readiness for such domestic events.

Here is what the GAO said regarding planning...

   The Homeland Security Council has developed 15 catastrophic
   scenarios to guide federal and state governments in planning their
   response activities.While DOD is responsible for equipping the Guard
   for its federal missions and states plan for the National Guard'€™s
   activities within their borders, neither is comprehensively planning
   for the Guard'€'s role in responding to events like the national
   planning scenarios that may involve more than one state and be
   federally funded. Such planning has not been completed primarily
   because there is no formal mechanism for facilitating planning for
   the Guard'€™s role in large-scale events.

That's reassuring.

The GAO recommended that the the National Guard Bureau'€™s charter and its civil support regulations be revised to define its role in facilitating state planning for multistate events.

However the DoD did not concur claiming the function already exists in the Charter and that it is inappropriate for the Chief of the NG Bureau to "coordinate directly with other Federal agencies" as that is the responsibility of the Secretary of Defense and Combatant Commanders.

So much for planning.

And related to that is the readiness issue given if you don't know what you need well you go to the disaster with what ya got.

As regards the NG's readiness the GAO reported....

   DOD does not routinely measure or report to Congress the equipment
   readiness of nondeployed National Guard forces for domestic
   missions. DOD'€™s legacy readiness reporting system and its annual
   National Guard equipping report to Congress address warfighting
   readiness but do not address the Guard'€™s domestic missions.

On average, states and territories had about 50 percent of their authorized inventory of dual-use equipment available for domestic missions. (dual use=authorized for warfighting missions but could be highly useful in responding to domestic events). The map below shows the percentage for each state and territory. Note that Washington D.C. is one of the lowest at 35.6%

(for larger image go to page 31 of Pdf linked above)

The GAO recommended.......