HOUSE Republican Leader John Boehner

As Unemployment Continues to Rise, Democrats Spend Millions on a Website That Isn’t Working

Late last night, ABC News’ Senior Political Reporter Rick Klein reported that: “$18 million in additional funds are being spent to redesign the Recovery.gov website.”  That’s in addition to the $84 million the Administration has already obligated towards Recovery.gov, bringing the total spent on Recovery.gov to more than $100 million.

And, as this morning’s Washington Examiner reported, that additional $18 million has an interesting connection to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD):

ABC reports this morning that the Maryland firm Smartronix has won what seems like an enormous $18 million contract to re-design the Recovery.gov website…The company appears to have just one important political connection: according to FEC records, Smartronix president, Mohammed Javaid, vice president Alan Parris, and partner John Parris have together given $19,000 to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D) since 1999.

Back in February, President Obama said that: “every dime of the spending will be made available to the public on Recovery.gov so every American can see where their tax dollars are going.”  He also said that, “Ultimately, this is your money, and you deserve to know where it’s going and how it’s spent.”  There’s only one problem: the Administration’s website doesn’t actually show were the “stimulus” money is going, as the Washington Times noted in April:

Concerns are piling up that www.Recovery.gov, the Obama administration’s online clearinghouse for stimulus- spending information, isn’t producing the kind of transparency it promised.  Obama said the Web site would provide a way for taxpayers to track and monitor how the $700 billion in stimulus money was being spent, yet more than two months after some of the funds were released, the Web site offers little detail on where the money is going.

Little has changed since then.  In April when discussing proposed budget cuts, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that: “only in Washington, D.C. is $100 million not a lot of money.  It is where I’m from.  It is where I grew up.  And I think it is for hundreds of millions of Americans.”

With unemployment nearing 10 percent nationally and more than two million Americans out of work since the Democrats rushed through their $1 trillion “stimulus,” $100 million sure is a lot of money to spend on a website that isn’t working.

Permalink | 2 Comments »

---

My Response to President Obama on National Journal’s Energy Blog

Yesterday President Obama delivered remarks at the White House in support of Speaker Pelosi’s national energy tax, which House Democrats narrowly passed last Friday. In response, I posted the following on National Journal’s energy blog:

The President likes to say this “cap-and-trade” bureaucratic nightmare is a jobs bill, and he did so again today.  But this comes from the same Administration that said its trillion-dollar “stimulus bill” would keep unemployment from going over 8 percent.  This is a jobs bill alright - for China and India.  Here in the United States, it will destroy 2.3 to 2.7 million jobs each year.

Let’s call it for what it is: a huge tax that will punish middle-class families by will raising gasoline and electricity costs.  Even prominent Obama supporter Warren Buffett calls it a “huge” and “regressive” tax.

It creates a slew of new government programs to take and redistribute trillions of dollars from families and small businesses, overseen by a confusing web of government agencies that will ultimately answer to the Environmental Protection Agency.  Even my Democratic colleague from Minnesota, Rep. Collin Peterson, admitted in the Washington Post last Friday that: “The truth is, nobody knows for sure how this is going to work.”  How encouraging.  That night, I went to the House floor and spent an hour raising serious questions about the bill - questions that no one in the House could answer, because the bill was substantially amended at 3 AM, meaning that not one single Member of Congress actually read it. 

Republicans believe there is a better route to clean energy and a clean environment than the national energy tax that passed the House passed on Friday night, and we have introduced legislation embodying our “all-of-the-above” energy reform strategy.  Our American Energy Act will increase environmentally-responsible production of American energy, promote the use of alternative fuels to reduce carbon emissions, such as clean coal and nuclear, and encourage increased efficiencies and cutting edge technologies to maximize America’s energy potential.

Our plan is also the fastest route to a cleaner, more reliable energy future,  by reinvesting billions of the royalties from increased American energy production into development and expanded us of clean, alternative energy across our country like wind, solar, and geothermal, just to name a few.  It’s a strategy that will create American jobs instead of destroying them; one that will lower costs for American families and small businesses rather than raising them at a time of economic hardship.  Unfortunately, Democratic leaders did not allow a vote on our plan.  Instead, they chose an approach that will ensure higher costs and higher taxes for every middle-class family and small business owner.

Permalink | 3 Comments »

---

The White House’s Cloudy Transparency Initiative

Seeing an opportunity to start a discussion on transparency in government spending with the American people, Leader Boehner recently submitted an idea to the White House’s “open government initiative.”  The Boehner-submitted idea, a 72-hour mandatory minimum public review proposal on spending legislation, is backed by a wide range of outside groups including the pro-transparency Sunlight Foundation and the nonpartisan American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a coalition of reform-minded state legislators.  Leader Boehner’s submission also asked that President Obama make good on his promise to provide for five days of public comment on all legislation before being signed into law. To date, President Obama is one for 23 in providing that review period.

In announcing the “Open Government Initiative,” the Administration welcomed any and all ideas on increasing openness and transparency, saying:

We are seeking innovative approaches to policy, specific project suggestions, government-wide or agency-specific instructions, and any relevant examples and stories relating to law, policy, technology, culture, or practice.

This is an ideal forum for the 72 hour / 5 day reviews, especially considering the established support of the public…and the President himself.  Thousands of Americans agreed, and at the conclusion of the scheduled voting period, the idea received more votes than any other.  So, surely the White House took the idea into consideration, right?  Not so much.  When ideas from the “brainstorm” phase were chosen to move forward for further development it was apparent that the Administration officials handpicked them with no regard for public support or merit.  In a White House blog post “Wrap-Up of the Open Government Brainstorming: Transparency,” White House Deputy CTO Beth Noveck indicates that the process will not be “government-wide” as previously stated and, coincidently, your votes don’t matter either:

We took the voting into account when assessing your enthusiasm for a submission, but only somewhat in evaluating relevance…There were plenty of great ideas that we read but that unfortunately did not make sense to bring into the next phase, including those … outside the purview of the Executive branch.

So to the nearly 1,200 supporters of Leader Boehner’s submission, the thousands of supporters of the Read the Bill initiative, American taxpayers seeking more accountability in government spending, and yes, even the President, who has been a vocal supporter of the concept in the past, Administration officials have a message for you: It doesn’t “make sense” to discuss your ideas any further.  On the brainstorming site, commenter “sobi” offers his/her appraisal of the situation:

It is diversionary. Health care is also in the hands of the legislature, the administration has no problem involving itself there.

So was the bailout. Administration made demand after demand on legislature.

When it is a policy the administration wants, it is called leadership.

When it is a policy the administration does not want to touch it is called legislative territory.

We will continue to follow the process and look for more opportunities to engage the White House in a genuinely open discussion on these critical issues.  For that discussion to be truly open, it’s time for the White House to acknowledge submissions that make sense to all Americans, even those that are inconvenient or happen to highlight their own broken promises.

Please take a moment to give us your feedback on Leader Boehner’s submission or any others, in the comments below.

Permalink | 24 Comments »

---