OhMyGov! - Government News, Knowledge & Networking

Breaking News: Feds Can Executives at Fannie May and Freddie Mac

seniorexec — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 19:16:00 GMT

The Bush administration and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson made the move today for the federal government to take control of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and removed executives of both. However, the Bush administration did not turn to seasoned federal executives to control the failing companies but once again relied on private sector gurus to advert this national crisis.

In a hasty attempt to prevent further liabilities facing both companies, due to soaring mortgage defaults, the heads of the organizations are being head up by a former vice chairman of Merrill Lynch and a former vice chairman of US Bancorp.

So were these good choices?

Merrill, the nation's third-largest investment bank, has piled up $19 billion in losses over the past year because of the credit crisis and its exposure to the troubled mortgage industry. Bancorp tripled its credit-loss provision from $191 million a year earlier to $596 million, citing "continuing stress in the residential real estate markets, including homebuilding and related supplier industries, driven by declining home prices in most geographic regions."

Perhaps a federal takeover should have considered seasoned federal executives for these top leadership positions vs. Adminstration cronies. You be the judge.

LOCKED UP: FBI's Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending September 5, 2008

OhMyGov! — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 19:27:00 GMT

1. Las Vegas: Bank of China Managers and Their Wives Convicted of Stealing More Than $485 Million

Xu Chaofan, Xu Guojun and their wives were convicted of racketeering and money laundering in their elaborate scheme to defraud the Bank of China through Las Vegas casinos. Full story

2. Minneapolis: FBI JTTF Arrests Michigan Man for Possessing Molotov Cocktails

Matthew Bradley DePalma was arrested and charged with illegally possessing of Molotov cocktails which he allegedly planned to use at the Republican National Convention. Full story

3. Baltimore: State Delegate Charged With Possession of Child Porn

Robert Alan McKee, a member of the Maryland House of Delegates since 1994, was charged with possessing material containing the sexual abuse of children. Full story

4. New Haven: Owner of Trash Empire Sentenced

James Galante, majority owner of 25 trash companies, was sentenced for his leadership of an extensive racketeering enterprise. Full story

5. New York: Pakistani Indicted for Attempting to Kill U.S. Nationals in Afghanistan

Aafia Saddiqui, a graduate of M.I.T. as well as Brandeis University, was charged with armed assault and attempting to kill U.S. officers and employees. Full story

6. Tampa: Brothers Plead Guilty to Enslaving Farm Workers

Cesar Navarrete, Geovanni Navarrete, Villhina Navarrete, Ismael Michael Navarrete and Antonio Zúñiga Navarrete pled guilty to enslaving undocumented Mexican and Guatemalan nationals and compelling them to work as agricultural laborers. Full story

7. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Professor Convicted

Dr. J. Reece Roth was convicted of conspiracy to violate the Arms Export Control Act by illegally exporting military defense-related materials to the People’s Republic of China.
Full story

8. Pittsburgh: Guilty Plea in Collar-Bomb Bank Robbery

Kenneth Barnes pled guilty to charges related to his involvement in a bank robbery scheme in which a pizza deliveryman, acting as an unwilling participant, robbed a bank while wearing a bomb around his neck. Full story

9. Buffalo: Guilty Plea in Bomb Hoax

Gino Demitro pled guilty to calling Southwest Airlines and USAir to falsely advise that a woman would be carrying a bomb onto a plane. Full story

10. Washington Field Office: Former Lobbyist Sentenced

Former lobbyist Jack A. Abramoff was sentenced to 48 months in prison and ordered to pay more than $23 million in restitution to his victims and, to date, thirteen various lobbyists and public officials have pled guilty in the ongoing investigation. Full story

Oil and gas heating up Congressional debates

Andrew B. Einhorn — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 18:30:00 GMT

The summer countdown is almost over, as Congress prepares to resume session this Monday. During the August recess, many Republicans stayed in Washington to stage untelevised protests on the House floor, demanding that Democrats return to discuss offshore drilling and a workable energy plan.

Now that the time has finally come to resume bipartisan debate, Democrats are beginning to get the spin rooms up and running.

"American families and businesses are demanding a comprehensive energy policy that increases our domestic supply and encourages investment in clean, renewable energy," says one Pelosi press release. "But time and again, Congressional Republicans have voted against our efforts to expand domestic drilling, to release oil from the nation's stockpile to bring down the price at the pump, to invest in clean energy alternatives, and to protect consumers from price exploitation."

Rep. Adam Putnam (R-FL), Chairman of the House Republican Conference, thinks otherwise.

"Only House Republicans are offering the American people an 'all of the above' energy policy that creates new American-made energy, unleashing the potential of new technologies, and further fostering conservation efforts."

An early bird look at the Democrats' energy plan reveals the following goals:

Reduce the price at the pump within 10 days, by releasing a small portion of the oil from the 700 million barrel national stockpile;
Expand drilling in the Alaska oil reserve already designated for drilling;
Require Big Oil to pay the billions of dollars they owe in royalties to invest in clean energy resources;
Create a federal Renewable Electricity Standard;
Cut mass transit costs for commuters;
Increase the use of natural gas;
Combat undue and excessive speculation that plays a role in driving up the cost of oil; and
Consider opening portions of the Outer Continental Shelf for drilling, with appropriate safeguards, and without taxpayer subsidies to Big Oil.

And by the Dem's accounts, the minority party has voted against the very solutions they tout:

1.    No to renewable energy
2.    No to the first new vehicle efficiency standards in 32 years-saving $1,000 in fuel costs per car per year
3.    No to reducing transit fares for commuter rail and buses
4.    No to recouping royalties the oil companies failed to pay to taxpayers
5.    No to repealing unnecessary subsidies for the top five oil companies, raking in record profits
6.    No to expanded drilling in Alaska's Energy Reserve
7.    No to requiring oil companies to drill on 68 million acres they already control nationwide
8.    No to lowering gas prices immediately by releasing a small portion of the government oil stockpile
9.    No to curbing excessive speculation in the energy futures markets

Rep. Putnam replied to this assertion: "clearly, Denver's rarefied air has gone straight to Democrat leaders' heads for thinking that their 'new' energy plan is anything more than a rehash of the broken promises and failed policies of the past."

"Maybe one of the reasons for this failure of leadership is because, as we have learned in recent days, Speaker Pelosi does not even know that natural gas is a fossil fuel, or that it will require increased exploration of American natural gas to make use of it," Putnam continued.

Welcome to House politics!

It's still unclear what the first item on Monday's agenda will be. However, one thing's certain: if Democrats fail to bring energy to the table before the September 26 target adjournment, none of us may ever hear the end of it.

Also Interesting:

Bush Administration Aborting Woman’s Right to Choose
Can a car be too quiet?
Will new food laws put a squeeze on your wallet?
Mass universal insurance program showing ups and downs
Medical marijuana use gets a boost

The week's best political jokes - 9/5/08

Andrew B. Einhorn — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:44:00 GMT

1. "What's the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull?...Lipstick." - Gov. Sarah Palin 2. "What's the difference between Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney?...Lipstick" - Anonymous 3. "How are you going to be the vice president of the United States with five kids to take care of? She's got a four-month-old of her own, she's about to become a grandmother, and she's partnered with John McCain. How many diapers can one woman possibly change?" --Jimmy...(read more)

EPA in hot water for possible age and race discrimination

OhMyGov! — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 15:30:00 GMT

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is being sued for age and race discrimination in a class-action lawsuit pending before Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The complainants allege that the EPA denied training opportunities, promotions, and other learning assignments to employees over the age of 40 because of their age and race, while granting preferential treatment, larger raises, expedited promotion, and opportunities to younger employees and recent hires.

“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should be held accountable by compensating those employees who have been harmed by EPA’s unwritten and illegal policies of age and race discrimination,” said Steven M. Spiegel, the attorney for the class of plaintiffs.

WORLD VIEWS: Spain to introduce fewer abortion restrictions in 2009

OhMyGov! — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 14:35:00 GMT

The Spanish government is planning to introduce a new law that offers women and doctors greater legal protection for carrying out abortions, AFP reports.

Why should you care? For one, Spain isn't too far away. Americans determined to have the procedure could conceivably hop a flight there if Roe v. Wade was ever overturned, and if their Spanglish was good enough to get them around.

More importantly, keeping an eye on the policy debates and changes in a country like Spain, whose culture is similar to ours, provides insight into potential policy directions the U.S. could go as well as the debates that may arise along the campaign trail in the coming months.

Last night, in his acceptance speech, John McCain referred to his goal of promoting a "culture of life." The rhetoric was aimed at rallying his pro-life supporters around the always heated abortion debate. In the coming months, you can bet the issue will arise a number of times during debates, commercials, and interviews.

Indeed, some states plan to add an abortion ban to the ballot in November, having found, just as Spain is finding, that the devil is in the details.

In South Dakota for example, a referendum to ban abortion outright failed in 2006 because the policy did not include provisions for justifying the procedure.

This coming November, the mistake won't be repeated. Pro-life activists in South Dakota have crafted a bill that grants exceptions to women seeking abortions that have become pregnant through rape or incest. It also places the mother's health above her future child's, so in cases in which the mother's health is in jeopardy from the pregnancy, abortions may be conducted.

In Spain, abortion was decriminalised in 1985 in rape cases, if the fetus was malformed within the first 22 weeks, and if the pregnancy represented a threat to the physical or mental health of the woman. Sound familiar?

Of course, mental health is a very subjective term that could almost always be used to justify an abortion, and in Spain, it is the most frequently cited reason for having the procedure. But if more lenient laws are introduced in Spain, women wouldn't need to hide behind their fear of motherhood or childbirth to have the procedure.

Interestingly, when looking at the U.S. and Spain, those few exceptions where abortions are tolerated by pro-life groups are identical: rape, incest, or danger to a woman's life. What is it about these circumstances that triggers such acceptance? Is the life of a bastard child worth less than a child from a known couple? Does a soul not form in a baby if the mother becomes pregnant through rape? And if so, when was that proven?

Regardless of what side of the abortion argument a person is on, one has to wonder why a "culture of life" is pushed up to a certain point by the "moral majority," and then abandoned in unfortunate cases of rape or capital punishment. Shouldn't it be all or nothing?

Also Interesting:

South Dakota to hold vote on abortion ban
Bush Administration Aborting Woman’s Right to Choose
Dear Bureau Pat: Is it ok for my supervisor to force his staff to engage in religious conversation?
Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything
Are 80 dead dogs enough to warrant a new law?
New Utah law requires 'fire safe' cigarettes

Obama, McCain tax plans: more similar than you think

Andrew B. Einhorn — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 12:57:00 GMT

Republican presidential hopeful John McCain delivered an effective, albeit slightly subdued speech while accepting his party's nomination last night. The content of the speech centered around his experiences as the son of a general, a prisoner of war, and as a maverick legislator working in a bipartisan way to shake up Washington - all tenets of the campaign. As expected, McCain also made a point to highlight his desire to cut taxes, while stating his opponent, Barak Obama, wants to raise them.

"We believe in low taxes, spending discipline and open markets. We believe in rewarding hard work and risk takers and letting people keep the fruits of their labor...I will keep taxes low and cut them where I can. My opponent will raise them...I will cut government spending. He will increase it."

The tough tax talk is essential to winning over the republican base and painting Obama as a classic "tax and spend liberal," but the closer one looks, the more complex the tax situation becomes. Recently, the non-partisan Tax Policy Center examined the tax plans proposed by both McCain and Obama and found the differences to be less predictable than expected.

According to the Tax Policy Center, "both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years" without substantial budget cuts to accommodate them. Without budget cuts, at the current spending rate, "Obama’s tax plan would boost the debt by $3.5 trillion by 2018. McCain’s plan would increase the debt by $5 trillion."

Over a period extending from 2009-2018, TPC estimates that Obama's plan would decrease tax revenues by $2.9 trillion, while McCain's plan would reduce taxes by close to $4.2 trillion. But who is benefiting from these cuts?

Those affected by the cuts differ mostly at the upper end of the income spectrum. As expected, McCain would cut taxes across the board and give the biggest cuts to the highest-income households who currently pay the most. On the contrary, Obama would hand larger tax cuts to low and moderate-income households. He intends to pay for these cuts by increasing taxes on those making over $600,000 per year.

The Washington Post was kind enough to create an exceptional graphic of the tax plans. It clearly shows that both candidates intend to impose significant tax cuts, although Obama differs in his tax increase on the wealthiest groups.

According to the TPC, by 2012, under Obama's plan, middle-income taxpayers would be keeping five percent more of their paychecks, or nearly $2,200 annually. The cuts are paid for by the top one percent of earners who would face an average tax increase of $19,000 annually or 1.5 percent.

For that same wealthy group, the Maverick would cut taxes by 9.5 percent, increasing after-tax income by more than $125,000. Not leaving out the little guy, McCain would also decrease taxes for the middle-incomers by about 3 percent, amounting to $1,400 annually.

Both candidates also wish to keep the estate tax or death tax, which places a tax on estates passed down from the deceased to their heirs. The tax is dreaded by many as double taxation, since it taxes an estate that was already taxed when purchased and while owned. It's also notorious for breaking the banks of inheritants, who without cash on hand are forced to sell the estates just to pay the tax due on them to Uncle Sam. The current estate tax rate varies with the value of the estate inherited from 20-55 percent.

Obama wants to increase the estate tax rate to 45 percent with a $3.5 million exemption - anything under that amount does not get taxed. McCain wants that exemption higher at $5 million, and hopes to set the estate tax rate at 15 percent.

Of course, the differences don't end there. Businesses have much at stake in this election, like any other, and should be closely monitoring the tax proposals of the candidates. Thankfully, TPC has provided a breakdown of the various tax proposals of most interest to businesses. If you care not about them or the economy, this may be a good time to stop reading.

On business taxation, Obama differs from McCain the most. Obama wishes to increase the maximum tax rate on capital gains and qualified dividends to 20 percent, increase the payroll tax for those making over $250,000 (he has not provided additional details), and close tax breaks for multinational companies.

Both candidates want to eliminate tax breaks and subsidies for oil and gas companies and simplify the tax filing process in some form or fashion.

Also Interesting:

NEED TO KNOW NEWS - 9/4/08
How would Gov. Palin influence government?
Dear Bureau Pat: Is it ok for my supervisor to force his staff to engage in religious conversation?
OPM opposed to four-day workweek
And the Palin hits just keep on coming

Presidential candidates on the environment and energy
Presidential Candidates on Immigration Reform
Presidential candidates on veterans
Presidential candidates on the economy

NEED TO KNOW NEWS - 9/4/08

Andrew B. Einhorn — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:00:00 GMT

HHS not using discounted airfares
(But at least the first-class option is out)

Employees of the Health and Human Service Department's Office of the Secretary are rarely taking advantage of the cheapest available fare when booking air travel, a recent report from the HHS inspector general found. In 2006, the office spent about $4 million of airfare.

Federal travel tab tops $14B
(No word yet whether that includes haircuts for John Edwards)

Agencies spent about $14.8 billion on airline tickets, hotel rooms and other expenses in fiscal 2007, an increase of about 5 percent, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

TSP Returns for August 2008
You still have money...most of you

G Fund    0.33%

F Fund    0.92%

C Fund    1.46%

S Fund    2.17%

I Fund    -4.16%

NIH blocks public access to DNA databases
Too many people trying to Google their DNA at once

The National Institutes of Health pulls anonymous DNA records off line after learning of a new method to un-mask the identities of patients who were profiled.

Iraqi Security Forces Continue Improving, Army Colonel Says
Thankfully, their is plenty of room for improvement

An Army colonel working with Iraqi security forces in the country’s southern provinces described their proficiency and dedication as impressive.

Soldier wanted for 40 counts of sexual assault turns himself in
He'll get all the sex he wants in prison...

45-year-old Laurence Clifton faces 40 counts of sex charges involving a minor. Police said the charges are related to child pornography.

Ambramoff arrives in court for sentencing
Sporting shady looks and hat as usual

Disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff was at federal court today for sentencing in a public corruption case that upended Washington politics and contributed to the Republican loss of Congress in 2006.

Totally tasteless photoshopped images of Sarah Palin...that you can't help but laugh at

Andrew B. Einhorn — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:58:00 GMT

source: Kodiak Konfidential...(read more)

How would Gov. Palin influence government?

Andrew B. Einhorn — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 15:32:00 GMT

Last night, Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin absolutely rocked the Republican National Convention with a powerful, well-delivered speech aimed at rallying the Republican base, showcasing her own "executive experience" and trivializing the experiences of her rival, Barak Obama.

The speech laid plain many of Palin's beliefs, which line up with traditional republicans. These include being aggressive in the fight against terrorists while painting the zeitgeist as "a crucial hour for our country," promoting family values - she was not afraid of parading her own family for political gain, being fiscally conservative - which she said she demonstrated by selling the corporate governor's jet on eBay and cutting the budget, taking a hard line approach against Iran, and achieving "victory" in Iraq. She went on to express support for drilling for more oil and gas in Alaska and elsewhere, expanding the use of clean coal, and obtaining energy independence from foreigners.

"Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines ... build more nuclear plants ... create jobs with clean coal ... and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal, and other alternative sources."

Of course, some of the achievements she touted were exaggerations, such as her objections to the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," which she actually supported before being elected Governor and became against once sworn in. She also promoted herself as an outspoken anti-pork barrel legislation advocate to the likes of John McCain, despite working with lobbying firms to obtain tens of millions of pork dollars while Mayor of Wasilla.

"I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending ... and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere," said Palin.

Stretching the truth aside, Palin was savvy in catapulting herself to leadership status while denigrating Obama's experience as little more than feel-good community outreach.

"Before I became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown. And since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that experience, let me explain to them what the job involves.

I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities...there is much to like and admire about our opponent. But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate."

The Obama roast went on for another few minutes, painting him as a reckless, economy-smothering promoter of higher taxes for individuals and corporations and bigger government. This is the traditional attack-dog role of the VP and a predictable republican stance against a very liberal democrat.

What wasn't included in Palin's speech were her more right-wing beliefs. These include her desire to teach creationism in school alongside evolution, privatize health insurance, and overturn Roe v Wade. Palin also opposes stem-cell research and is a card-carrying NRA members, though in Alaskan bear country who could blame her? And surprisingly for a global warming fighter like McCain, Palin says she remains unconvinced that global warming is exacerbated by humans, even as the roads in her home state cave from melting ice underneath them.

How does all this translate to government policy?

Well, as a VP, the reality is that it may never translate to policy unless she takes over the Oval Office as President. If that happens, she will likely cut spending on global warming mitigation and research, ban stem-cell research, promote faith-based funding, work to allow states to teach creationism in schools, appoint conservative judges, continue the Iraq War, attempt to open up more federal lands for drilling, cut the federal workforce and outsource more work to contractors, and provide greater funding to natural gas and clean coal research and development. And like the current Vice President, she might also end up shooting a friend in the face during a hunting trip.

Also Interesting:

And the Palin hits just keep on coming
Obama Calls for End of '20th century bureaucracy'
Will Senator Biden's influence stretch to the federal workforce?
McCain picks Gay-friendly Alaska Governor Palin for VP slot
McCain confused over how many houses he owns
When it comes to presidential elections, 'you gotta have faith'

Boeing in trouble for $7.5 million contract fraud

Andrew B. Einhorn — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 14:00:00 GMT

Earlier this week, the United States Department of Justice filed a civil lawsuit against The Boeing Company for alleged price gouging. According to the Justice Department, Boeing unlawfully inflated the price tag by $7.5 million for manufacturing a missile decoy system designed for the Air Force's B-1 bomber.

The lawsuit states that Boeing failed to disclose it would outsource the manufacturing of the majority of parts needed to create the Towed Decoy System - a tool for intercepting missiles fired at the B-1 - during contract negotiations. The company claimed, according to the suit, that it would instead build the parts in-house at a greater cost than required for outsourcing. Consequently, Boeing charged more for something they outsourced for less, and in effect, defrauded the government for the price difference.

The lawsuit alleges that the Air Force would have renegotiated a substantially lower price tag for the Towed Decoy System had Boeing informed them they intended to purchase most components at a lower cost.

"It's a significant amount and, of course, it's all taxpayer money," Assistant U.S. Attorney Lisa Palombo told The Associated Press. "We make it a priority to collect all taxpayer funds that are obtained through fraud. We don't make exceptions for anyone, individuals or large companies."

Evidence of Boeing's actions originally came from whistle-blowers inside the organization that complained to their managers that the company was overcharging. The managers allegedly ignored the complaints and failed to tell their client, the Air Force.

Boeing spokesman Forrest Gossett told Business Week that the company disputes the allegations and believes it properly negotiated and fulfilled its contract with the Air Force.

But investigators from the Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, and auditors from the Defense Contract Audit Agency claim to have evidence of 140 incidents of over billing by Boeing, equating to $7.5 million in fraudulent charges. Under the False Claims Act, the government may recover up to three times the amount of the loss and enforce criminal penalties for each of the 140 incidents of fraud.

Also Interesting:

Boeing gets another shot at contentious aerial refueling contract
Boeing whistle-blower trial to resume
House Speaker Pelosi Promoting No-bid Contracting
Today's Spotlight: A Contractor Misconduct Database
McCain Under Fire Over Pentagon Contract

Dear Bureau Pat: Is it ok for my supervisor to force his staff to engage in religious conversation?

Bureau Pat — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:21:00 GMT

Dear Bureau Pat:

I work in a pretty conservative office and understand the dynamics of fitting in; however, my boss has taken his interest in staff to a new level...recently he has been asking our religious beliefs and encourages us to engage in religious conversations quite often. Is all this legal? It is getting very out of hand!

Dear Proselytized:

Before getting into the nitty-gritty of the law, let me just say that your supervisor should be encouraging people to use taxpayer money wisely and work instead of chatting about creation theory...unless of course you are all theoretical physicists. If so, head to Amsterdam, hit a "café," and embrace the discourse.

If religion does not fit into your office duties, the legality centers around encouraging government waste - a greater offense than inciting holy rollers to come forward in the office.

While the situation does not sound like a Sunday morning at Bob Jones University, the situation is more complex that you would expect due to that pesky First Amendment.

As a matter of law, agencies cannot legally restrict personal religious expression by employees in the federal workplace, except where the employee's right to free speech is outweighed by the government's interest in the efficient provision of public services (i.e. the job comes first), or where the expression intrudes upon the legitimate rights of other employees or creates the appearance, to a reasonable observer, of an official endorsement of religion.

In this provision, if your supervisor is exchanging work hours for Sunday school activities, that is inappropriate and illegal. But if you are all simply discussing religion over samosas and curry without fear of reprisal for not participating, it's as kosher as a Hebrew National hot dog.

While federal employees are not paid to engage in religious or ideological campaigns during work hours, they can talk about religion in a general way. They just may not discriminate against others on the basis of religion or religious beliefs.

What is clear in the law is that a supervisor may not, explicitly or implicitly, insist that the employee participate in religious activities as a condition of continued employment, promotion, salary increases, preferred job assignments, or any other incidents of employment. Nor may a supervisor insist that an employee refrain from participating in religious activities outside the workplace, except pursuant to otherwise legal, neutral restrictions that apply to employees' off-duty conduct and expression in general (e.g., restrictions on political activities prohibited by the Hatch Act).

Supervisors are free to engage in some kinds of speech about religion if it is understood as his or her personal view only. That expression is protected in the federal workplace in the same way and to the same extent as other free speech. However, as supervisors maintain the power to hire, fire, or promote, employees may reasonably perceive their supervisors' religious expression as coercive, even if it was not intended as such.

So if you feel talking religion is a necessity for promotion or retention, you should report your supervisor to the Equal Employment Office. But if you think he/she just likes that subject instead of say, NASCAR, then you might just invest in some earplugs.

Below are a few examples of what is and is not OK in the federal workplace.

OK:
A supervisor invites coworkers to his son's confirmation in a church, her daughter's bat mitzvah in a synagogue, or to his wedding at a temple.

NOT OK:
A supervisor should not say to an employee: "I didn't see you in church this week. I expect to see you there this Sunday."

OK:
On a bulletin board on which personal notices unrelated to work regularly are permitted, a supervisor posts a flyer announcing an Easter musical service at her church, with a handwritten notice inviting co-workers to attend.

NOT OK:
The supervisor circulates a memo announcing that he will be leading a lunch-hour Talmud class that employees should attend in order to participate in a discussion of career advancement that will convene at the conclusion of the class.

OK:
During a wide-ranging discussion in the cafeteria about various non-work related matters, a supervisor states to an employee her belief that religion is important in one's life. Without more, this is not coercive, and the statement is protected in the federal workplace in the same way, and to the same extent, as other constitutionally valued speech.

NOT OK:
A supervisor who is an atheist has made it known that he thinks that anyone who attends church regularly should not be trusted with the public wheel. Over the years, the supervisor regularly awards merit increases to employees who do not attend church routinely, but not to employees of equal merit who do attend church.

OK:
At a lunch table discussion about abortion, during which a wide range of views are vigorously expressed, a supervisor shares with those he supervises his belief that God demands full respect for unborn life, and that he believes it is appropriate for all persons to pray for the unborn. Another supervisor expresses the view that abortion should be kept legal because God teaches that women must have control over their own bodies. Without more, neither of these comments coerces employees' religious conformity or conduct.

Religious expression is well established under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. This right encompasses a right to speak about religious subjects. The Free Speech Clause also prohibits the government from singling out religious expression for disfavored treatment.

Your situation is very complex and only you can decide if you feel coerced. The easy solution is to simply tell your supervisor that you are uncomfortably being forced to talk about religion and ask him/her to cut the crap. If he/she continues and you believe it is a form of harassment, contact your local EEO office to help you navigate through this complex issue.

The Only,

Got a question for Bureau Pat?
Don't be shy; ask away by clicking here and sending in your question.

Dear Bureau Pat: Can you tackle another Merit Systems question?
Dear Bureau Pat: I believe my hiring official violated Merit Systems Principles
Dear Bureau Pat: Can I meet with a hiring official under my supervision to describe the qualifications of a family member who is applying for a job?
Dear Bureau Pat: Can I insist a witness or a tape recorder be present between my boss and I?

OPM opposed to four-day workweek

OhMyGov! — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:44:00 GMT

In mid-August, with the burden of increasing gas prices squeezing the budgets of commuters throughout the region, Congressman Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD) called on the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to limit unnecessary commuting by urging federal agencies to adopt a four-day, 40-hour work week for their employees.

The policy, which has been implemented by local and state governments across the nation, would make the federal government a partner in reducing petroleum consumption - a key factor in the recent decline in gas prices. The compressed work week would also cut down on commuting costs for federal workers, as well as all commuters who would benefit from the decrease in traffic congestion.

To that proposal, OPM has said nearly unequivocally "no way." In an August 29th letter to Rep. Hoyer, acting OPM Director Michael Hager stated that the four-day workweek would hamper the government's ability to deliver essential services to the public, weaken national security safeguards, and hurt recruitment and retention efforts, Federal Times reports.

Hager went on to point out that agencies already offer flexible and compressed work schedules that would grant a four-day workweek every two weeks for employees that take advantage of the program, assuming their supervisor allows it.

"We strongly believe the current system is effective and is already helping federal employees reduce fuel consumption," Hager said in his letter to Hoyer.

Also Interesting:

Congressman Calls for Four-Day Work Week for Federal Employees
Arkansas considering four-day workweek
Four-day workweeks becoming popular for state employees
Tools for promotion and increasing worker retention
Federal employees go AWOL

All Contracted Out

OhMyGov! — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:42:00 GMT

In 1988, only 52 percent of federal procurement workers had college degrees and roughly a quarter fell into clerical and assistance positions. Since then, buyers have become much more professionalized. Eight in 10 people hired in the contracting job category in fiscal 2007 had college degrees compared with five in 10 a decade ago. The number of workers in the procurement clerical and assistance category has plummeted from 10,000 in 1988 to less than 2,000 in 2007.

And the Palin hits just keep on coming

Andrew B. Einhorn — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 13:51:00 GMT

As much as the political muckraking degrades from the more important but admittedly more boring conversation of "how will they lead us," one can't help but wonder, as the media barrage against Governor Palin continues, what a blunder the McCain camp seems to have made with his pick for a running-mate. Naturally the biggest oversight was by 5 months...of pregnancy in Palin's 17-year-old unwed daughter. But as the media investigation continues, more and more unsavory tidbits are leaking out and altering America's palette for the Alaskan beauty queen turned governor.

The latest discovery appeals more to OhMyGov! readers and all those with a disdain for pork projects (not to be confused with delectable pork products). During her introductory speech late last week, Palin aligned herself with McCain in his war on earmarks, stating she opposed such unnecessary federal spending projects and citing the infamous Alaskan "Bridge to Nowhere" as an example of government waste at its finest.

Well, the media giveth and the media taketh away. Within days, reports whirled that Palin had not only supported the $233 million "Bridge to Nowhere" while running for governor before later denouncing it following her election, but she was also a major pork barrel legislator.

According to the irreverent government spending watchdog, Citizens Against Government Waste, Palin requested 31 federal earmarks worth $198 million from Congress this year and $550 million the year prior for her Alaskan constituents. That equates to $295 per Alaska resident, or $261 per person more than the national average of $34. The group also charged that Palin hired a major Washington lobbying firm while Mayor of the 9,000-person Alaskan town of Wasilla (part of her "executive experience") and subsequently procured $27 million in federal earmarks.

So it appears both McCain and his vetting staff have a lot of explaining to do. Rumors are emerging that the vetting of Palin wasn't as thorough as some would have liked because the campaign tried to keep the VP pick a secret. At the end of the day, it matters not. Palin's secrets are coming to the limelight and the straight talk express, for the moment, seems quite derailed.

Also Interesting:

BREAKING: McCain picks Gay-friendly Alaska Governor Palin for VP slot
Gustav recovery a political sink or swim event
The week's best political jokes - 8/29/08
Biden's son to deploy to Iraq soon
Will Senator Biden's influence stretch to the federal workforce?

Gustav recovery a political sink or swim event

Andrew B. Einhorn — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 13:24:00 GMT

As Hurricane Gustav winds down, Gulf State southerners are beginning to make their way home, only this time with a little more faith in their government.

Sure, Gustav hardly rivaled Hurricane Katrina's power, but the mass exodus executed by FEMA and state and local governments proved two important things: governments can learn from their mistakes and can do a good job. The evacuation went smoothly - partly because residents were more willing to evacuate this time around, but mostly because all levels of government worked tirelessly in preparation. The levees seemed to have withstood a decent pounding, despite not being completed. And in stark contrast to the Katrina recovery effort, there were adequate stockpiles of food, water, and supplies ready ahead of time.

“'It's amazing. It makes me feel really good that so many people are saying, 'We as Americans, we as the world, have to get this right this time,''' New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin told the Associated Press before Hurricane Gustav hit. '”We cannot afford to screw up again.”

Indeed they can't, especially during an election year when Presidential hopeful Barak Obama continues to highlight the Katrina debacles as an example of poor Republican leadership at the highest government levels, and rightfully so. As the Post eloquently states, "The lackluster federal response [to Katrina] laid bare Bush's failure to pay attention to core functions of government -- and a serious empathy problem."

So it should not have surprised anyone when Senator Obama chastised federal leadership - namely President Bush and his political appointees - in his acceptance speech last week by stating that Americans should not tolerate a government "that sits on its hands while a major American city drowns before our eyes." And so rose the tides of Katrina to weigh heavily upon the minds of Americans once again. As Gustav spun towards New Orleans, government leaders at all levels were fully aware of the humanitarian and political stakes riding those storm surges.

In the end, government triumphed, and the five Republican Gulf state governors and their Republican president may have earned some redemption from their Katrina follies. But in this country, successes are remembered with less ease than failures, and the images of an overcrowded and chaotic Superdome, a National Guard brigade arriving a week late, and row upon row of toxic trailers may be too branded in the minds of voters to so easily overcome in November.

Also Interesting:

TOP STORY: Toxic trailers from FEMA still source of debate and concern
Red Tape Preventing Disaster Relief Being Eliminated...Finally
When it comes to presidential elections, 'you gotta have faith'
Obama and McCain Remain Silent on the Federal Workforce
FEMA improving its operations in latest disaster recovery efforts
Bush sums up his experience as President as "a cool time"

Texas government loses track of $1.1 billion

OhMyGov! — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:56:00 GMT

The Texas Department of Transportation made a $1.1 billion accounting mistake last year through a mixture of "ineffective internal communication, a complex reporting structure and misunderstanding" of its data, according to a report by the state auditor's office released Thursday.

State government's steps offset higher gas prices

OhMyGov! — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:51:00 GMT

For once, there's good news about fuel costs. Ohio state employees who use their personal vehicles for business drove about 5.2 million fewer miles in the past fiscal year than in the previous one, resulting in a $2 million reduction in mileage reimbursements, according to the Ohio Department of Administrative Services, the business arm of state government.

LOCKED UP: FBI’s Top Ten News Stories for the Week Ending August 29, 2008

Andrew B. Einhorn — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:38:00 GMT

1. Atlanta: Top Ten Fugitive Nabbed

Michael Jason Registe, who was added to the FBI’s Top Ten Fugitives on July 28, 2008, was arrested in St. Maarten on August 27, 2008. Full story

2. FBI Issues Alert on the Hit Man E-Mail Scam

The FBI and its partner, the Internet Crime Complaint Center, are warning the public not to fall victim to the various Hit Man scams and to report them at the IC3 website, www.IC3.gov. Full story

3. Houston: U.S. District Judge Charged

Samuel B. Kent, U.S. District Judge, was charged with the attempted aggravated sexual assault and abusive sexual contact of a Deputy Clerk assigned to his courtroom. Full story

4. Los Angeles: Arrest on Copyright Infringement Charges for Internet Posting

Kevin Cogill was arrested on charges of violating federal copyright laws by posting nine songs from Guns N’ Roses' unreleased album Chinese Democracy on his website. Full story (pdf)

5. Atlanta: Three Men Indicted in $13 Million Escrow Scheme

Edgar J. Beaudreault, Howard A. Sperling, and Robert B. Surles were indicted on charges of conspiracy to defraud Cornell Corrections of California, Inc. out of $13 million held in escrow. Full story

6. Baltimore: Mortgage Broker Sentenced

Robin Neil Snyder was sentenced for wire fraud, money laundering and obstruction of justice arising from a scheme to defraud commercial loan applicants through his Internet websites. Full story

7. Sacramento: Sentencing for Racial Intimidation

Bradley Smith was sentenced for engaging in a campaign of racially-motivated threats via Citizens-Band (CB) broadcasts and providing a false statement to the FBI. Full story

8. Baltimore: Pakistani Pleads Guilty to Concealing Terrorist Financing

Saifullah Anjum Ranjha pled guilty to conspring to launder money and to concealing terrorist financing through Hamza. Inc., his money remitter business. Full story

9. Atlanta: Army Rangers Sentenced for Conspiring to Rob Drug Trafficker

Two active duty soldiers, Carlos Lopez and David Ray White, were sentenced for their roles in a conspiracy to rob a cocaine dealer at gunpoint. Full story

10. New York: Booker Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy Charges

Tanya Hollander, who arranged appointments for clients of an illegal prostitution business known as the Emperors Club VIP, pled guilty to conspiracy charges. Full story

I'm Just a Bill from Capitol Hill

seniorexec — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:27:00 GMT

Remember when politics was easy and you could rely on the School House Rock explanation of how a bill becomes a law? Well, political gamesmanship from the 110th Congress and the Bush Administration continue to make the simple more complicated.

Not a phenomenon of the 21st Century, this sort of gamesmanship is not only a key component of our system; it was in play in the ratification of our own Constitution. The current games deal with the twelve appropriation bills that need to be signed into law to fund our government. One receiving attention is House Rule (H.R.) 6599: Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2009.

Like most appropriations bills, H.R. 6599 has pages and pages of language with key spending initiatives (think "Bridge to Nowhere"). Currently, one key policy within H.R. 6599 is an initiative to expand care to veterans that are currently not eligible for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care because their income is above the geographically-adjusted threshold, also know in VA jargon as a "priority 8 veteran."

Congress, possibly motivated by desire to show its support for veterans during a reelection year, explicitly mandates the expansion of veteran health care by increasing priority 8 veteran eligibility by 10 percent with a price tag of approximately $550 million. This will open health care to approximately 150,000 veterans, some with annual incomes above $75,000.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are well aware that this initiative is not supported by the Administration. In a July 30, 2008 Statement of Administration Policy, the White House said:

"The Administration continues to believe that the VA medical care system should focus on its core population -- veterans with service-connected disabilities, lower-incomes, special needs, and those returning from combat. As a result, the Administration strongly opposes expanding the eligible population of priority level 8 veterans by 10 percent... [T]his expansion would jeopardize both access to care for the Nation's veterans in its core population and sustainability of high-quality care for which VA has been recognized."

It's here the political battle starts. First, the Congressional Committee use an appropriation bill that very few within the White House or the full House would feel comfortable publicly disavowing and then add controversial Priority 8 initiative which is not supported by the Bush Administration.

Who is not going to support the troops and the vets?

The VA motto, "to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan," is excerpted from President Lincoln's second inaugural address. But today's VA encompasses much more than Lincoln's original patriotic ideal.

The expansion of care to more veterans comes at a cost and the Administration has consistently stated their support for needy veterans but realize they cannot open the system to all veterans without jeopardizing care to those who need it the most. But alas, it is an election year and Congress is compelled to show the American people they support the military, veterans and more importantly, those that have borne the most recent battle in Iraq and Afghanistan. This legislative desire places the Administration in a difficult position to balance the budget while ensuring appropriate government programs are adequately funded.

So who won this battle? Well it appears Congress won, since the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act of 2009 passed the House on August 1, 2008 with a vote 409 to 4 with expectation the Senate will pass its companion Bill, S. 3301, before the full Senate in September. And according to insiders within the White House, the President will begrudgingly sign the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriation Bill after it's out of conference, but all other appropriation bills will not get passed unless they absorb the cost of the Military Construction/VA bill.

Bush Administration Aborting Woman’s Right to Choose

Jeff Dubbin — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 13:29:00 GMT

Every two years, we are all forced to remember that no matter how much progress we have made, no matter how much we are drawn closer in an increasingly interconnected world, there is one thing we will never agree on. A woman's right to choose will never be made compatible with a fetus's right to life. They are this generation's Odd Couple. (You can decide which one is the messy one.)

So for an issue with intractable battle lines drawn on both sides, one would think that in the interest of unity, we would not talk about it so much. And in the interest of unity, maybe our duly elected leaders would stop pouring rhetorical salt in painful wounds.

In election years, many people just do not care about unity. Some of them are called the Bush administration.

New rules, according to The Wall Street Journal, "threaten state governments with a cutoff in federal funding if they force medical personnel to perform, assist in or refer patients to abortion services." The rules' vague wording may also be construed as applying to other medical services, such as administering emergency contraceptive services (read: the controversial morning-after pill).

Current state mandates, such as the requirement that health insurers include birth control in their coverage plans, may also be undone by these changes. That spells bad news for teenage girls, who for lack of money and desire to request birth control from their parents, may end up with more surprises than their sweet sixteen parties.

The rules in question are set by the Department of Health and Human Services. By allowing medical practitioners who oppose abortion on moral grounds to legally refuse to perform the procedure or prescribe certain forms of contraception, HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt says the changes are to respect practitioners' "freedom of conscience."

The consciences of 1.2 million women who undergo abortions each year just went, "Excuse me?"

The rules become official after the conclusion of a 30-day comment period, which ends September 25, 2008. Thereafter, the rule could only be undone by an act of Congress or the President.

One legal problem with the proposed new rule is that if an individual seeking a legal abortion is continually denied by doctors not willing to perform the procedure, it could constitute the kind of "undue restraint," or severe limitations to receiving an abortion, deemed unconstitutional in the Supreme Court's ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

On the other hand, in a country where we tout freedom - including the ability to choose an abortion - don't physicians deserve as much freedom to do what they think is right as the patients seeking their services? They are, after all, licensed by the state to make life or death decisions.

Of course, this right must be exercised in moderation. A doctor should not be able to withhold life-saving procedures or medications from patients just because they believe in organic-only cures, for example, unless they spell out their beliefs to the patients prior to administering care. And along those lines, withholding a prescription for birth control pills on the basis of personal rather than medical beliefs seems in conflict with the "do no harm" oath these physicians have taken.

Just as in every aspect of the abortion issue, there is no clear and easy answer to a provider's right to choose. But the timing of the proposed HHS rules suggest they are quite simply an election-year tactic to rally the conservative, pro-life voting base, and unfortunate women make an inappropriate pawn.

And so it seems that where law conflicts with conservative ideology, the Bush Administration makes no attempt to balance the two. Instead, as OhMyGov! has previously reported, they manipulate agency rules to contravene existing law rather than let the democratic process take its course. Yes, the Department of Health and Human Services has the right to apportion money in a way they see fit for governance. But they should not be encouraged to apportion money to effect greater voter turn out in upcoming elections.

Also Interesting:

South Dakota to hold vote on abortion ban
Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything
When it comes to presidential elections, 'you gotta have faith'
Are 80 dead dogs enough to warrant a new law?
How faith-based is the White House?

Jon Stewart does a great summary of the democratic convention

OhMyGov! — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:01:00 GMT

In the process, he roasts John Kerry, John McCain, Bill Clinton....you get the point....(read more)

The week's best political jokes - 8/29/08

OhMyGov! — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:13:00 GMT

1. "We can't simply drill our way to energy independence if you drilled everywhere, if you drilled in all of John McCain's backyards, even the ones he doesn't know he has." –Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer 2. "Hillary Clinton gave a big speech at the Democratic Convention in support of Barack Obama. Experts say it was the longest speech ever delivered entirely through clenched teeth." --Conan O'Brien 3. "She must prove she loves America, as opposed to Republicans...(read more)

Obama Calls for End of '20th century bureaucracy'

OhMyGov! — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:59:00 GMT

In his speech accepting the Democratic nomination for president Thursday, Barack Obama issued a call for government reform that echoed a wide-ranging effort launched by the last Democratic president.

Obama pledged to "go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less -- because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a 20th century bureaucracy."

BREAKING: McCain picks Gay-friendly Alaska Governor Palin for VP slot

Andrew Brett — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:05:00 GMT

John McCain picked Republican Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin today to be his vice presidential running mate.

Some quick reference points about Palin.

Palin is noted for her independence from big oil companies and willingness to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions within Alaska.
She proposed to eliminate the gas tax for her state in the wake of high oil prices.
She used her veto power to prevent the state legislature from blocking health benefits to same-sex partners of public employees in Alaska.
Palin is strongly pro-life and belongs to Feminists for Life.
She opposes same-sex marriage, but is open to gay lifestyle and culture.
She created the largest operating budget in Alaska's history but paid for it by cutting costs in the construction budget.
In 1984, Palin placed second in the Miss Alaska beauty pageant. Don't be too impressed, the entire state population is about the size of Little Rock, Arkansas.
Palin holds a bachelor's degree in journalism from the University of Idaho.
Her husband is an Eskimo that works for BP. Her son is in the Army.

Fast Facts:

Born: Feb. 11, 1964; Sandpoint, Idaho
Family: Married (Todd); four children
Education: University of Idaho, B.S., 1987
Professional Career: Chairwoman, Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
Military Service: None
Previous Elective Office: Wasilla City Mayor, 1996-2002; Wasilla City Council, 1992-96