Justice Alito's candid response to Obama's rebuke

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/31/AR2010013101838.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

Pentagon Pipe Dreams

about : contact : TCS home : donate Pentagon Pipe Dreams Volume XV No. 5: February 5, 2010 Pentagon watchers doubled their caffeine intake this week to get through a $700 billion defense budget request along with the Quadrennial Defense Review, a lengthy report outlining future military priorities. They shouldn’t have bothered: Rather than offering a road map for achieving an effective national defense in the shadow of towering debt and deficits, the QDR leads us down a well-worn path of optimistic and unrealistic defense spending. The QDR was born in 1997 when Congress directed DOD to review long-term plans for force structure, modernization and other military strategies every four years. Though the original law said the QDR must discuss the budget “required to provide sufficient resources” for the QDR’s goals, it was amended in 2007 to ensure the report was “not constrained to comply with the President’s budget submission.” In other words, it exists in its own fiscal la-la land. This tinkering reflects a longstanding ideological conflict about the role financial constraints should play in military planning. In 1997, a Republican-majority Congress was engaged in battle with Democratic President Bill Clinton over the post-Cold War defense drawdown. “I think there were some who felt we weren't spending enough on defense,” said DOD Comptroller Robert Hale about the political environment. “They wanted a plan that gave them a sense of requirements without fiscal constraints.” Ten years later, members of that same school of thought worried the QDR process had become too budget-driven and decided to free it from its financial cage. The result is a document generally dismissed by defense analysts as irrelevant, little more than a government version of a glossy shareholders’ report. The 2010 QDR fails to buck this trend: Though the review disposes with the long-held goal of being able to fight two conventional wars simultaneously, the basic military force structure is left unchanged. In fact, most of the text is devoted to “enhancements” of capabilities such as Special Operations Forces and unmanned aircraft. Yet few would disagree that miltary planning consists largely of weighing risks against available resources.  The QDR admits that “many of these enhancements will be costly” and promises to identify “areas of possible divestment,” but the only tradeoffs referenced are last year’s cuts of weapons such as the F-22 Raptor and this year’s much smaller list of terminations. Important as those cuts were, they’re a drop in the bucket towards the QDR’s goal of “rebalancing” U.S. military goals and resources. Considering the current economic climate, this is a little like giving someone a risky loan without asking if they have a job. It’s not exactly news that the Defense Department has a planning problem when it comes to money: The Government Accountability Office last year found $300 billion in major weapons cost overruns, and the QDR itself acknowledges that unrealistic cost estimates were a major contributor. They also delay weapons delivery, making bad budgeting dangerous not just to our economy but our national security. Removing resource constraints from planning exercises like the QDR sets us up to fail. It also deprives the Secretary of Defense of a sharp prod he could use to herd profligate service heads and lawmakers. Future QDRs should explicitly link strategic goals with fiscal projections, even if that means amending the law again. Disconnecting military planning from fiscal realities is not just bad economics—its bad strategy. Let us know what you think. Support Taxpayers for Common Sense Contribute by mail with this Printer-Friendly Form Going on at Taxpayer.net This Week TCS Letter in Opposition to Potentially Costly Water Bill (February 2, 2010; 5:15 pm) Ongoing TCS Analysis of the FY2011 Budget 2010 Defense Budget Winners and Losers Joint Letter Urging Administration Not to Increase Risky Loan Guarantee Program Top Nuclear Loan Guarantee Contenders in Financial Shambles TCS in the News TCS was cited in dozens of stories this past week. Check them all out in the Headlines About TCS section of our redesigned website.   We Need Your Support! TCS needs you to help us fight government waste Click here to Join Today! Current Action Items Stop Billions in Treasury-Backed Loan Guarantees for Risky Energy Projects GO » Stop Subsidizing Wealthy Companies GO » Not Saving Salmon Could Cost Taxpayers Billions GO » Notable Quote "Using CBO’s methodology, the most effective way to create jobs is to load up a C-17 cargo plane with $50 bills and have it fly over the country pushing money out the door." -Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) on proposals for a jobs creation bill, The Hill Got a quote or article about wasteful spending you think should be featured in the wastebasket? Send us your ideas and comments You have received this email because you signed up for the weekly wastebasket at www.taxpayer.net Support our work. It takes staff resources and money to produce the Wasetbasket. Please consider making a donation today

If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from us, please click here.

Labor & the Obama Agenda

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01292010/watch2.html

Stimulus: The Sequel

about : contact : TCS home : donate Stimulus: The Sequel Volume XV No. 4: January 29, 2010 Here we are again. It’s January and Congress is considering an economic stimulus bill—again. Economists tell us the recession has ended, but for most taxpayers the economy is simply limping along. So lawmakers are considering a so-called “jobs” bill (likely to the tune of $100 billion) to bring the impacts of economic recovery to Main Street. While quite a bit smaller than the $787 billion stimulus enacted last January, the striking similarities between these bills should lead lawmakers to take stock of lessons learned before sending anything to the president. The House has already approved a $154 billion package that includes familiar provisions such as extending unemployment benefits, aid to states, and infrastructure investments. President Obama took advantage of his State of the Union address to heartily endorse their effort, and call on the Senate to also pass a bill, saying “I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay.” Considering the similarities between last year’s bill and this one, it's fair to say the jobs bill is Stimulus 2: The Sequel. With the notable exception of Godfather II, sequels are almost never as good as the original. And in this case the original hasn't even reached the credits. Last year’s stimulus bill included $275 billion for infrastructure investment. As of the end of the October (most recent data), only $36.7 billion of that money had actually been received by contractors with an additional $122 billion worth of contracts awarded but not yet spent. That’s a lot of stimulus coin still burning a hole in Uncle Sam’s pocket. But the new jobs bill plans to dedicate tens of billions more to infrastructure investment. Unfortunately, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has already told us that “investing in public works projects” (infrastructure) has a long lag time and is not very cost effective as a stimulus. We recognize Congress wants to expedite the economic recovery and sees increased infrastructure spending as a way to do this. But we already have billions of infrastructure dollars that haven't made their way into the economy. So what is the benefit of piling on more especially when there are much quicker and effective ways Congress can help? The President has added a new wrinkle into the stimulus mix. He has proposed several tax breaks for small business; eliminating their capital gains tax and providing tax credits for hiring new workers. The problem with these is you have to be making money to have any capital gains, and even amongst the business community there isn’t much enthusiasm to take on the additional liabilities of new workers just to get a $5,000 tax credit. And to top everything off, you have a bizarre budgetary tactic that lawmakers are touting to pay for this stimulus – tap leftover or repaid funds available in the bank bailout. This budgetary feel good approach is like thinking you’ll weigh less if you lift one foot off the scale. CBO Director Elmendorf said as much this week: “If more is spent through the [bailout], that is just more that’s spent, and more that is borrowed and more that goes on the federal debt.” Yet again, there is no such thing as a free lunch. The nation is staring down the barrel of a $1.3 trillion budget deficit this year. We have to be extremely careful to target any additional stimulus spending at only those activities that are going to give us significant bang for our buck – like extending unemployment benefits, which are practically the opposite of infrastructure investments. The CBO has said that as a stimulus these payments are very cost-effective and have little lag time before their effects are felt. Sounds like a winner to us. During the State of the Union, the President said “Let’s try common sense.” Here, here, Mr. President, TCS is for that. Let us know what you think. Support Taxpayers for Common Sense Contribute by mail with this Printer-Friendly Form Going on at Taxpayer.net This Week 2010 Defense Budget Winners and Losers Joint Letter Urging Administration Not to Increase Risky Loan Guarantee Program Top Nuclear Loan Guarantee Contenders in Financial Shambles TCS Applauds President's Commitment to End Big Oil's Tax Breaks but Disappointed in Call for Nuclear and Clean Coal Subsidies Statement by Ms. Ryan Alexander, President, Taxpayers for Common Sense on the State of the Union Address TCS on the President's Proposed FY2011 Budget Freeze TCS in the News TCS was cited in dozens of stories this past week. Check them all out in the Headlines About TCS section of our redesigned website.   We Need Your Support! TCS needs you to help us fight government waste Click here to Join Today! Current Action Items Stop Billions in Treasury-Backed Loan Guarantees for Risky Energy Projects GO » Stop Subsidizing Wealthy Companies GO » Not Saving Salmon Could Cost Taxpayers Billions GO » Notable Quote "U.S. fiscal policy is on an unsustainable path to an extent that cannot be solved by minor tinkering.” -Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf, The Hill Got a quote or article about wasteful spending you think should be featured in the wastebasket? Send us your ideas and comments You have received this email because you signed up for the weekly wastebasket at www.taxpayer.net Support our work. It takes staff resources and money to produce the Wasetbasket. Please consider making a donation today

If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from us, please click here.

Step One: Admit You Have a Problem

about : contact : TCS home : donate Step One: Admit You Have a Problem Volume XV No. 3: January 22, 2010 Experts on addiction always say that the first step to solving the problem is admitting you have one. Thankfully, some lawmakers have taken that first step and are crying for help. A bi-partisan group from the House and Senate – Reps. Cooper (D-TN) and Wolf (R-VA) and Sens. Conrad (D-ND) and Gregg (R-NH) – have been pushing legislation (pdf) that would create a Commission to "significantly improve the long-term fiscal imbalance" (a.k.a perpetual deficits) of our national budget—a package that Congress would have to take or leave on an up or down vote. The Conrad-Gregg Commission would have ten members appointed by Democrats and eight by Republicans, but adoption of any recommendation would require approval of at least 14 members. To almost everyone but Congress, the scope of our nation’s budget problems were obvious for quite a while. It’s not just the cost of the bailout and the stimulus. We all know how we got here. Back in the halcyon days of the surplus and booming economic growth (remember those?), the President and Congress lived too hard: bloated farm and highway bills, a new prescription drug benefit, and off-budget wars. We’re looking at a $1.5 trillion budget deficit in 2010 on top of a nearly $1.6 trillion deficit from last year. Deficits over the next ten years total $9 trillion. That’s more than the entire debt accumulated in our nation's history through 2007. Unsurprisingly, interest groups on the left and right have their long knives out for the Commission. The left is worried that entitlement cuts will be the first step; the right wants a guarantee that all possible revenue raisers will be taken off the table. But protests on both sides avoid the main problem, kind of like an alcoholic saying they’ll quit drinking as long as they can have a beer now and then.   There are some problems with the Commission proposal.   Chairmen of powerful committees are howling about their loss of power, saying they should be in charge of finding savings and additional revenue. Sorry – been there, haven’t done that. The long-term budget situation is too bleak to simply rely on a promise to deliver. To address these concerns, the Conrad-Gregg proposal requires a majority of three-fifths of both the House and the Senate to enact Commission recommendations.  That may seems like a reasonable standard for what could be far reaching changes, but it may well mean that the recommended changes never make it in to law.  Also, the Commission as currently designed could not present any recommendations until the week after Mid-term elections. The only reason for this timing is political cover for incumbents. The President has indicated he is open to a Commission proposal from Congress, but is also contemplating establishing a similar deficit reduction commission by Executive Order.  Some Congressional leaders have pledged to take up the Presidential commission’s findings later this year (after elections, no doubt). Unfortunately, this option doesn’t have the heft of a legislatively established commission. In fact, the last President had a similar Commission on tax simplification and reform. That report is probably still being used as a doorstop in some offices around Washington. The bottom line is that this is a budgetary all-hands-on-deck. We have to look at spending cuts and revenue raisers. We cannot afford to leave any stone unturned. With a $12 trillion—and counting—debt, we have to try something else. In the midst of an incredibly difficult economic situation, the public is growing increasingly concerned about the nation's mounting debt. So if Congress isn’t willing to take the next step and address their budgetary problem, they may face a taxpayer intervention at the ballot box. Let us know what you think. Support Taxpayers for Common Sense Contribute by mail with this Printer-Friendly Form Going on at Taxpayer.net This Week Obama to Contractors: Don't Cheat Uncle Sam Senate Energy Committee Discusses Costly Nuclear Legislation The Department of Energy FutureGen Initiative UPDATE: 1,720 Earmarks in Final Defense Spending Bill Citigroup Returning TARP Money May Cost Taxpayers Billions FY10 Omnibus Disclosed Earmark Numbers TCS in the News TCS was cited in dozens of stories this past week. Check them all out in the Headlines About TCS section of our redesigned website.   We Need Your Support! TCS needs you to help us fight government waste Click here to Join Today! Current Action Items Stop Billions in Treasury-Backed Loan Guarantees for Risky Energy Projects GO » Stop Subsidizing Wealthy Companies GO » Not Saving Salmon Could Cost Taxpayers Billions GO » Notable Quote "The key issue is that institutions that are getting a backstop from the taxpayer shouldn't be able to make a profit off their own investing" -Whitehouse Economist Austan Goolsbee on the President's recent financial reform proposal, Wall Street Journal   Got a quote or article about wasteful spending you think should be featured in the wastebasket? Send us your ideas and comments You have received this email because you signed up for the weekly wastebasket at www.taxpayer.net Support our work. It takes staff resources and money to produce the Wasetbasket. Please consider making a donation today

If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from us, please click here.

Navigating Budget Cuts

about : contact : TCS home : donate Navigating Budget Cuts Volume XIV No. 54: January 15, 2010 The old saw “if at first you don’t succeed try, try again” may have first been uttered by a budgeteer because it certainly takes persistence to make budget cuts stick. President Obama, like his predecessors, has tried to prove wrong former President Reagan’s observation that a government program is the closest thing we get to eternal life on earth. The Administration had some success shortening the budgetary life of several programs in his first year, but considering we’re staring into a deficit abyss, they are going to have to double back for some more. Let’s be fair, the President scored some significant budgetary victories last year, getting over half of his proposed cuts through. There were high profile, high stakes political battles, like saving billions by ending production of the F-22 Raptor jet fighter and the Presidential Helicopter. But a close examination of the successful effort to shut down the relatively small potatoes Loran-C navigation system tells you just how much persistence is required to get these cuts through.    During World War II, the need for more precise navigation systems gave birth to a new radio navigation system. The original Loran-A (LOng RAnge Navigation) was leaps and bounds above the accuracy of navigation by stars (the existing method), and with later improvements eventually yielded to Loran-C in 1957. The system sent radio signals from manned land-based stations to receivers on ships and aircraft to enable them to get a “fix” on their position. Other navigation systems popped up in the ensuing decades, but it wasn’t until the highly accurate, globally available satellite navigation system (GPS - Global Positioning System) was fully operational and receivers became widespread in the mid-1990s, that Loran-C became obsolete. After years of being targeted for a budget cut, the writing should have been on the budgetary wall for Loran-C, but not surprisingly, it wasn’t going to go down without a fight. The Administration listed the program for termination in the FY2010 budget, citing a one year savings of $36 million and a five year savings of $190 million. Even with the greatest backer of Loran-C, former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens (who probably used the original Loran-A while flying for the U.S. Army Air Corps in World War II), no longer in office, the Administration had to fend off efforts to maintain the program. Equipment for a “next generation” Loran was being built in Maine and that delegation fought to keep the program alive. The House provided no funding, but in negotiations the Senate won a temporary reprieve – funding the program through early January then requiring that the Commandant of the Coast Guard certify that the program was not necessary for maritime safety and the Homeland Security Secretary certify that Loran-C was not needed as a back-up to GPS before Loran-C could be terminated. The certifications came out January 7, and the White House can chalk up a tougher than expected budget cut victory. But the Administration cannot stop there. In a few weeks the FY 2011 budget will be rolled out and the cuts should be even more robust than in the Administration’s first budget. Parochial interests will be looking for any sort of weakened resolve on the budget cutting front. These budgetary skirmishes are critical if we are ever going to put the budget on a sustainable fiscal path. To be sure, the few billion dollars envisioned in the proposed cuts are not even close to what is necessary. We have to fundamentally reevaluate revenue and spending across the budget. But when the hole is this big, every dime – and certainly every billion – counts. Let us know what you think. Support Taxpayers for Common Sense Contribute by mail with this Printer-Friendly Form Going on at Taxpayer.net This Week Senate Energy Committee Discusses Costly Nuclear Legislation The Department of Energy FutureGen Initiative UPDATE: 1,720 Earmarks in Final Defense Spending Bill Citigroup Returning TARP Money May Cost Taxpayers Billions FY10 Omnibus Disclosed Earmark Numbers MilCon, VA and State Department Funding in Omnibus TCS in the News TCS was cited in dozens of stories this past week. Check them all out in the Headlines About TCS section of our redesigned website.   We Need Your Support! TCS needs you to help us fight government waste Click here to Join Today! Current Action Items Stop Billions in Treasury-Backed Loan Guarantees for Risky Energy Projects GO » Stop Subsidizing Wealthy Companies GO » Not Saving Salmon Could Cost Taxpayers Billions GO » Notable Quote "Somehow, we just missed, you know, that home prices don’t go up forever" -Jamie Dimon, CEO of J.P. Morgan Chase, responding to a question from the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Christian Science Monitor   Got a quote or article about wasteful spending you think should be featured in the wastebasket? Send us your ideas and comments You have received this email because you signed up for the weekly wastebasket at www.taxpayer.net Support our work. It takes staff resources and money to produce the Wasetbasket. Please consider making a donation today

If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from us, please click here.

Helen Thomas deviates from the terrorism script

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/09/thomas/index.html

Playing Secret Santa for Fannie and Freddie

about : contact : TCS home : donate Playing Secret Santa for Fannie and Freddie Volume XIV No. 53: January 8, 2010 Twas the night before Christmas and in the White House, spinmeisters were stirring trying to churn something out. While taxpayers were settling down, all snug in their beds, Treasury announced something that left us shaking our heads: “Merry Christmas to all and to Fannie and Freddie execs big bonuses and unlimited bailout checks.” Say what? That’s not how the rhyme goes; it’s not even the right meter. But sure enough in a cynical – but successful – move to bury an unpopular decision without too much clatter, on December 24th the Administration pledged unlimited support for Fannie and Freddie through 2012. At the same time they whispered that they were setting aside $42 million to pay bonuses to executives, including up to $6 million apiece for the top dogs. Something is the matter. Taxpayers are already into Fannie and Freddie to the tune of $111 billion—backing their balance sheets bogged down with bad mortgage debt. The Bush Administration initially promised up to $200 billion, and the Obama Administration upped the ante to $400 billion. But with a December 31st deadline looming on what do with the companies, Treasury decided to tell the markets that the taxpayer is all in at least until 2012 when it would revert to only $400 billion in guarantees. Not to be outdone by Treasury’s good tidings for the beleaguered entities, the companies’ regulator – the Federal Housing Finance Authority (FHFA)— was spreading bonus cheer to the executives. While the FHFA touted that only five officials of the two companies were eligible for salaries in excess of $500,000 compared to 16 before the bailout, they also indicated that with performance bonus, the compensation packages for the CEOs could be as much as $6 million. Somewhat surprisingly the administration’s pay czar Ken Feinberg, fresh off of (justifiably) whacking executive bonuses at bailout banks, defended (albeit half-heartedly) the pay structure. The idea being that deferred compensation through stock wouldn’t work both because the stock of the companies is near worthless and because it is unclear whether they will survive as independent entities. The acting director of the FHFA defended giving “wise” men of Fannie and Freddie gold, frankincense and myrrh, pointing out that management of the companies involves $2-$3 trillion worth of mortgages. Well, the executive job at the White House involves quite a bit more than just the $3.8 trillion budget and the President only gets paid $400,000. But the greatest insult to taxpayers was how, rather Grinch-like, the Administration slinked out to “announce” this lump of coal on Christmas Eve, mere hours after the Capitol emptied. You can be sure that on almost any another day, lawmakers, the media, and the public would have pounced on this news. If giving a blank check to Fannie and Freddie was so important, if the corporate bonuses are so critical to the management of the assets, the Administration should have engaged the public and made the announcement weeks before, or even in the first days after Christmas. Announcing a major, likely unpopular, fiscal commitment while many Americans are scurrying around wrapping presents, travelling or spending time with family, may make good political sense, but it is the most cynical, opaque way to make policy.   Let us know what you think. Support Taxpayers for Common Sense Contribute by mail with this Printer-Friendly Form Going on at Taxpayer.net This Week Senate Energy Committee Discusses Costly Nuclear Legislation The Department of Energy FutureGen Initiative UPDATE: 1,720 Earmarks in Final Defense Spending Bill Citigroup Returning TARP Money May Cost Taxpayers Billions FY10 Omnibus Disclosed Earmark Numbers MilCon, VA and State Department Funding in Omnibus TCS in the News TCS was cited in dozens of stories this past week. Check them all out in the Headlines About TCS section of our redesigned website.   We Need Your Support! TCS needs you to help us fight government waste Click here to Join Today! Current Action Items Stop Billions in Treasury-Backed Loan Guarantees for Risky Energy Projects GO » Stop Subsidizing Wealthy Companies GO » Not Saving Salmon Could Cost Taxpayers Billions GO » Notable Quote "…the timing of the announcement is clearly designed to try and sneak the bailout by the taxpayers." -Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.), on the continued government bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Washington Post   Got a quote or article about wasteful spending you think should be featured in the wastebasket? Send us your ideas and comments You have received this email because you signed up for the weekly wastebasket at www.taxpayer.net Support our work. It takes staff resources and money to produce the Wasetbasket. Please consider making a donation today

If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from us, please click here.

The Decade When the US Lost Its Way

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/30/AR2009123002187.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

A New Year for Taxpayers

about : contact : TCS home : donate As Taxpayers for Common Sense staff make their way back to DC, steeled for a new year of making government work, below you will find the best TCS Wastebasket title as chosen by you, our supporters. We wish you and your family a Happy New Year. And as we move into 2010, please consider helping us start on a strong foot by making a donation today. Support Taxpayers for Common Sense Contribute by mail with this Printer-Friendly Form Sur-Tax-A-Lot Volume XIV No. 49: December 4, 2009 Thank you again for the support. We can not do this without you. A group of powerful lawmakers recently proposed a surtax to pay for costs associated with the war in Afghanistan. While we have regularly argued that the war costs should be budgeted, tacking a special income surtax on top of the tax code for certain dedicated purposes – in this case, the troop increase – is the wrong way to go about raising revenue. The country is facing an enormous $1.5 trillion budget deficit, so the idea of enacting a special surtax to pay for the war may be attractive to some. But in reality we should either look to raise revenue across the board or cut other expenditures. War represents the ultimate sacrifice and commitment of a nation. If we are to go to war, we need to be prepared to both budget and pay for it. But the surtax is problematic for other reasons as well. One major problem of enacting a surtax is that it complicates an already complex tax code. And the proposed war surtax is ridiculously complex. It is a sliding scale that starts at a base level of 1% of taxes owed and then is multiplied by a factor – annually determined by the president to yield enough revenue to pay for the war – and added on top of the filer’s tax bill. For those at the upper end of the income scale, the factor is doubled. That is unless you have served in the Iraq or Afghanistan combat zone since 2001, or you have lost a family member to the wars, in which case you are exempt. Another problem is that temporary fixes in the code have a nasty habit of overstaying their welcome. For instance, there is some precedent for creating a special tax to pay for war. Remember that telephone tax that was abolished in 2006? Well the tax was enacted to pay for a war – the Spanish American War! For a four month conflict, it left quite a legacy: the Rough Riders, the slogan “Remember the Maine,” and a tax to pay for it that stuck around for 108 years. Creating a sunset or end date for a surtax doesn’t give us much confidence either – the U.S. Code is rife with programs that were extended past intended sunset dates. Surtaxes are not a one hit wonder. In fact the war tax is not the only surtax Congress has been considering. The House health care reform bill has a 5.4% tax on individuals making more than $500,000 a year or double that for couples. But the problems outlined above remain. In reality, surtaxes represent quick hit solutions to highlight an issue or avoid tough revenue challenges. It’s pretty clear that the war surtax was more about scoring political points than it was about raising revenue. That’s probably why Speaker Pelosi swatted it down this week. But that doesn’t get around the fact that the enormous deficits our country faces are the result of fundamental revenue and spending problems. Quick hits, sound bites, and band aid solutions are not going to address the issues. But real tax simplification, tax reform and targeted spending cuts could go a long way to bringing the nations books closer to balance. Let us know what you think. Support Taxpayers for Common Sense Contribute by mail with this Printer-Friendly Form Going on at Taxpayer.net This Week The Percentage Depletion Allowance (PDA): A Double Giveaway for Hardrock Mining Companies Troop Surge Dollars Must be Watched House Ethics Committee Investigation Memo Available House Office Expenditures Available Electronically UPDATE: Fiscal Year 2010 Earmark Databases - Final Homeland Security and Agriculture Bills Added (11/16) TCS in the News TCS was cited in dozens of stories this past week. Check them all out in the Headlines About TCS section of our redesigned website.   We Need Your Support! TCS needs you to help us fight government waste Click here to Join Today! Current Action Items Stop Billions in Treasury-Backed Loan Guarantees for Risky Energy Projects GO » Stop Subsidizing Wealthy Companies GO » Not Saving Salmon Could Cost Taxpayers Billions GO » Notable Quote “The country faces a fundamental disconnect between the services the people expect the government to provide, particularly in the form of benefits for older Americans, and the tax revenues that people are willing to send to the government to finance those services.” -Douglas Elmendorf, Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Wall Street Journal   Got a quote or article about wasteful spending you think should be featured in the wastebasket? Send us your ideas and comments You have received this email because you signed up for the weekly wastebasket at www.taxpayer.net Support our work. It takes staff resources and money to produce the Wasetbasket. Please consider making a donation today

If you no longer wish to receive e-mail from us, please click here.