Coffee Strong

My blogging skills are sufficiently poor that I cannot upload a CBS News story about our local GI coffee house adjacent to Joint Base Lewis McChord. Instead, you must follow the link. It's worth the effort.

The camera quaintly shows the stone and timber gateway to "Camp Lewis", a name as remote to the reality of the third largest military base in US as the gateway is to the high-paranoia, high-security traffic lanes that feed the base daily. Snark aside, the story is positive and accurate.

Toward the end of the first minute the camera slowly pans a sign about veterans benefits counseling. That's what I do on alternate Fridays. Needless to say, I am very pleased to be associated with Coffee Strong

It is indeed a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done.

I'm Shocked, I Tell You!

Coming soon to stimulus spending near you:

Design and engineering companies helping to build the nation's highways ran up millions of dollars in inappropriate charges at the expense of taxpayers, including bills for parties, luxury car leases and hefty paychecks for executives, according to auditors....

A main reason cited for the misspending was the reliance on private accountants paid by the firms undergoing review. The accountants in some cases appeared to put their clients' interests ahead of taxpayers....

The role of certified public accountants became a focus in part because officials from nine states expressed concerns about their independence. The auditors found that highway contractors sometimes hired accountants that were not qualified to perform the reviews required by state and federal regulations. In many cases, they "hired firms with whom they had existing relationships."

I'm sure nothing like this would happen at the Pentagon.

Budget Matters

Three trillion bucks in the 2009 federal budget. That’s a shitload of money. One thousand billion which itself is one thousand million. A veritable cascade of legal tender, all going somewhere. We know the big ticket items: Social Security, Medicare, national security, interest on the debt. The rest of the federal budget seems to be a labyrinth of departments, programs and activities but otherwise obscured in this tide of money. All this set me to wondering exactly what and how the federal government spends its money so I spent some time looking at the numbers and then writing about it. Clearly, I am a sick man.

Finding detail took a little surfing but I found it pretty quickly. The least useful sites were the White House and the Office of Management and Budget. What I found there was mostly bullshit. Eventually, I came to the US Treasury Financial Management Service website and located the federal government financial statements. This is the bottom line–no projections, no rosy assumptions, no fiscal legerdemain–what the US government spent. The real numbers.

Well, okay...about as real as can be. This is, after all, the federal government. The Comptroller General of the United States cannot render an opinion about the financial statements. (This is Not Good, for those of you not familiar with audit language). He cannot attest to their accuracy and reliability for a variety of reasons, largely due to inadequacies in five departments, including Defense, and other problems. The Comptroller General notes that this is the 11th consecutive year that the federal financial statements did not meet generally accepted standards. In short, the federal government cannot do what is required of virtually every other entity responsible for collecting and disbursing significant funds in this country and, probably, the world.

The Comptroller General's words:

While significant progress has been made in improving financial management since the U.S. government began preparing consolidated financial statements 11 years ago, three major impediments continue to prevent us from rendering an opinion on the accrual basis consolidated financial statements: (1) serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense, (2) the federal government’s inability to adequately account for and reconcile intragovernmental activity and balances between federal agencies, and (3) the federal government’s ineffective process for preparing the consolidated financial statements. Until the problems outlined in our audit report are adequately addressed, they will continue to have adverse implications for the federal government and American taxpayers.

Americans cannot rely on the numbers, especially at Defense, so ensuring real transparency in government is a ways off yet. Even the good news is mixed. Improvements in determining future liabilities for social insurance (Social Security, Medicare, etc) is much improved but it shows a humongous deficit that is cause for real concern. And while the numbers are not exactly reliable, they are sufficient for broad analytical purposes. The Comptroller General does this by reporting the trend in federal fiscal exposures.

Considering this projected gap in social insurance, in addition to reported liabilities (e.g., debt held by the public and federal employee and veterans benefits payable) and other implicit commitments and contingencies that the federal government has pledged to support, the federal government’s fiscal exposures totaled approximately $53 trillion as of September 30, 2007, up more than $2 trillion from September 30, 2006, and an increase of more than $32 trillion from about $20 trillion as of September 30, 2000. This translates into a current burden of about $175,000 per American or approximately $455,000 per American household.

If I figure correctly, the exposure has increased by 60 percent during CheneyBush’s tenure. That and endless war are his legacies. Way to fucking go, America. And some of you STILL think he's been a good steward of the public weal?

All this was occasioned by the FY 2009 budget released yesterday. See "bullshit" above. I don’t put much faith in budgets. I think actual spending is much more informative since that’s what happened (assuming I’m not looking at unreliable federal data). “Follow the money,” Deep Throat said. Or not. Either way, it’s good advice. The money never lies; the people who count, spend and report the money lie but not the numbers.

I look at all this and wonder about the future. The numbers don’t look good. That’s why the Comptroller General has joined with a somewhat bi-partisan coalition (mostly center-right) groups in conducting a “Fiscal Wake Up Tour” to alert Americans to the fiscal implications of current policies. I’ve seen David Walker, the Comptroller General give this presentation as well as another presenter. I’ve also heard the Fiscal Wake-Up dismissed as a conservative plot to further reduce government. Given the lack of progressive organizations that is plausible but at this stage, the Wake Up is simply calling attention to the discrepancy between obligations and resources to meet them. It’s just the numbers

My take is that a wake-up is seriously called for. I don’t doubt the numbers, they are neither conservative nor liberal. GAO's confidence in the Statement of Social Insurance, which is largely reasoned projection, adds credibility. I don’t think waking up to fiscal reality necessarily means we eliminate social insurance or other public programs that contribute to economic security for all. Americans do need to ask how we will sustain the society that we have created with our promises. Young Americans should have a future that offers opportunity rather than saddling them with a huge national debt, the costs of an aging generation and a deteriorating physical and social infrastructure. I believe that the generations now in power and now coming into power have a duty not to leave their successors with an “...imprudent and unsustainable long-term fiscal path that is getting worse with the passage of time” as the Comptroller General so directly states it. The sooner we start talking about the real challenges to our future, the sooner this nation will have a future to offer. I don’t see or hear any or the remaining presidential candidates really addressing those long term issues.

That's why I understand what Jim Yeager wrote the other day at Mockingbird's Medley. It is a long post that I would describe as the “hopelessness of a thinking person”, the excruciating position of seeing American democracy simply degenerating into sheer meaninglessness. Because he pays attention, Jim not only sees the degeneration and its implications but, unlike most Americans, he understands how irrelevant modern politics is to this loss.

Even the NYT knows this, pointing out that CheneyBush’s 2009 budget leaves all the contradictions and problems in place. The story blames politicians for doing what politicians do naturally–make promises and minimize problems–and it also blames voters who will defeat anyone who faces up to “long-run fiscal challenges...It’s not what voters want to hear.” The story is right about the inadequacy of candidates’ supposed solutions but I think it underestimates voters’ intelligence. I think that the US can address the fiscal contradictions at a reasonable level of taxation by examining the fundamental nature of our economy and its relationship to the world economy. We are a nation of polarized wealth, a massive military-industrial economy, served by a deteriorating public infrastructure, a dysfunctional health care system. Still, America is a rich, rich nation with a history of innovation and accomplishment. It’s not like we have nothing to work with, like many nations.

I would like to see a candidate who can rise to this occasion. That would be a difference worth voting for. I don’t see that candidate yet.

Sigh.


addendum

This post got way too long to incorporate language from the Comptroller General’s December 10, 2007 transmittal letter. If a company got this kind of audit report, it’s stock would tank. That’s why companies work so hard–in both legitimate compliance efforts and pressure on the people they pay to produce audits–to ensure they don’t get bad audit reports like this. I’ve never seen one so brutally direct about deficiencies. Read the first two pages or so then read the section headings and the first sentence of those sections. You’ll get the idea even if you don’t speak accountant.

It's good that we can better see what we are doing with our public resources even if that knowledge is unsettling. The reports show that most federal agencies can actually produce reliable financial statements these days. A decade ago, the federal government couldn’t even produce basic financial statements at any level. Now it can. Almost. And the numbers are squishy. This information didn’t even exist before.

If I have good informationI can talk honestly and knowledgeably. That's my opening bid for any dialog about public policy and resource allocation.

Accountability, If You Can Keep It

Before yesterday, most Americans paid little attention to government audits other than to lament yet another failure in public policy or insult to common sense. Yesterday’s report by the Government Accountability Office on Securing, Stabilizing, and Rebuilding Iraq may grab their attention. It should. The report tells the country what CheneyBush’s occupation of Iraq has accomplished. The results are not good. Critical political reconciliation, economic and security goals are unmet. The few that have been met involve creating committees, not actual accomplishment. Here, America, are the fruits of the war initiated in your name, with the lives of your sons and daughters.

The report’s political critics try to marginalize its impact with allegations of “factually incorrect”, “outdated data” and “set up” to deliver a negative report. The military argues that GAO conclusions on violence levels would be different if only GAO has looked at August figures. Don’t buy any of this. I’ve heard it all before in the many program evaluations and performance audits I conducted over the past 30 years. Sometimes critics may be right or actually provide additional information that will change conclusions but, if the audit the evaluation is done honestly and competently, the criticisms have no weight, however loudly the critics howl.

GAO did an honest review of progress toward the benchmarks. I know because I do this kind of work. It’s been my career. I’ve evaluated everything from licensing funeral directors to corrections systems to highway construction and maintenance. I never evaluated a war or national security operation but I know the process. That part is simple. Any good auditor knows what to look for. Reading the GAO report, it’s clear to me that GAO did all the right things in its review.

The Comptroller General’s transmittal letter states that GAO conducted the review in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. The standards establish requirements for independence, competence, planning, supervision and reporting. In following the standards GAO ensures that it has the credibility to report objectively and accurately. The report begins by stating the basis for its review: the 18 benchmarks mandated by Congress in law. A handy figure on page 4 shows the origin of each benchmark and demonstrates broad agreement between the US and Iraqi governments about what the US is trying to achieve in Iraq and that these goals are consistent with the Iraqi government’s’ own goals. Although the benchmarks were mandated by Congress, they are drawn from US executive and Iraqi government sources. This is not Congress judging based on some obscure or narrow definition. This is judging based on what all participants have stated are the primary goals of US and Iraqi government policies. When you hear the politicians barking about “narrow definitions, “arbitrary either-or choices” or “not looking at the big picture”, don’ buy it. This IS the big picture.

Next, GAO presents its conclusions on performance meeting the benchmarks. GAO uses a Consumer Reports format on page 6 to show results: blank circles indicate benchmarks “not met”, black circles show benchmarks “met” and half-filled circle represent “partially met”. Only three circles are completely black. Four others are half-filled. The remaining 11 benchmarks are unmet. GAO includes comments on the status of the benchmarks that provides some compelling insight on the results. Benchmark 9, providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations, is partially met; the status questions the reliability of the forces provided. Benchmark 16, ensuring the rights of minority political parties are protected in the legislature, is met but the status notes that the political rights of minority citizens are unprotected. Benchmark 8 is rated as met because committees have been established. It’s nice they have committees. I wonder if the committees are functioning and what they might be accomplishing. The comments suggests even less real accomplishment than the limited results reported.

The report discusses legislative benchmarks, legislation and parliamentary actions necessary to achieve consensus and reconciliation within Iraq, actions which all sentient observers recognize as the only long-term solution to Iraq’s instability and violence. Only one of eight of these benchmarks–protecting the rights of minority parties in the legislature–has been met,. The six unmet benchmarks are the key issues that have been at the center of conflict throughout the occupation: constitutional reform, de-Baathification and sharing oil revenues. Although CheneyBush claimed progress in legislative benchmarks, GAO’s figure on page shows how little has actually been accomplished.

GAO finds mixed results in meeting security benchmarks. Only two are met, creating committees to support the security plan and establishing joint security bases. The latter is probably the more significant. Progress on eliminating safe havens for militias and providing trained Iraqi troops is partially met but safe havens still exist, according to GAO. Even more significant are the five unmet benchmarks, all of which address critical security issues. GAO uses level of violence as a key measure and concludes that it is unchanged since February 2007 when the Baghdad Security Plan (aka The Surge) began. The military is arguing that August would show a significant drop. The Comptroller General responds that levels of violence are measured in a variety of ways and that GAO did not find agreement among the responsible organizations that violence is reduced.

On page 12 GAO compares its assessment of performance with CheneyBush’s progress report issued this summer. The latter is more positive but the two reports are not completely at odds. Neither is particularly hopeful; even the Administration claims satisfactory progress in only eight of the benchmarks, not even half. The two reports differ dramatically on only one benchmark, constitutional reform, rest are differences of degree and level of evidence. GAO clearly outclasses the Administration in documenting lack of legislative progress (Figure 3)and reports that the administration offered little information to support its claim of satisfactory progress on this benchmark. The administration does not even attempt to report progress on two benchmarks--amnesty legislation and disarming militias to ensure that security forces are accountable only to the government and loyal to the Iraqi constitution–only that “conditions are not present for these benchmarks”. Whatever that means. I believe it can only mean benchmark “not met”, which is also GAO’s conclusion. I sense that the “conditions are not present” language is the Administration’s excuse for no progress on the most vexing political and security challenges of the occupation.

The report is written in simple audit language with just enough detail in its 18 pages to convey a complete story. A classified (and no doubt longer) report was also submitted to Congress. GAO’s language does not sensationalize its findings, it simply characterizes performance and assesses results. Critics will dismiss GAO’s findings as simplistic, preferring to hear from the “commanders on the ground” when General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker report to Congress next week. I’m pretty sure both will argue for completing the mission, giving the counterinsurgency strategy time to create the space for political reconciliation. That’s why they went to Iraq, to salvage the mission. They also both know that a military solution will not resolve Iraq’s political crisis. The only real solution is an Iraqi solution wherein Iraqis bridge their sectarian, ethnic and political divisions. I expect Petraeus and Crocker to argue for more opportunity to succeed, focusing on some limited successes. But in the end, the real job is an Iraqi one. Congress should be skeptical when

And when Petraeus and Crocker talk about success, remember the war reported by so many of “the troops”: the junior officers, NCO’s and enlisted men on the ground fighting this war. Most recently they wrote about the danger and uncertainty of fighting in a multi-dimensional civil war where your friends during the day are helping your enemies at night, where you cannot trust anyone. The pace of combat operations in Iraq and the repeated deployments into what has been a deteriorating situation for years has pretty much exhausted the Army and Marine Corps. They will be a long time rebuilding.

The GAO report is a significant achievement in legislative oversight. It won't end the war but for the first time Congress has an independent view of the Operation Iraqi Freedom, the official name of the occupation. Members of Congress are in a position to critically evaluate Administration claims and hyperbole and they damn well better use that information to ask questions and demand straight answers. If they do, perhaps Constitutional government will survive the CheneyBush years of predation.

Above all don’t be distracted when you hear CheneyBush and his apologists say that they need more time to make the new strategy work. The GAO is reporting on Iraq FOUR AND A HALF YEARS after the United States began its experiment in “democratic reform. The results we see now clearly document CheneyBush’s inability to use American resources and assets to provide for the common defense. Congress and the American people have every right to demand a change, that our government secure America’s foreign interests without resorting to unprovoked war, that American policy support local and regional initiatives to stabilize Iraq and create non-violent alternatives for resolving differences.

It’s about fucking time.

Trapped!

Hussein Agha writing in The Guardian tells why the United States will have great difficulty withdrawing its troops from Iraq: American troops serve just about everyone's interests, except perhaps for the American and Iraqi people.

Overt political debate in the Middle East is hostile to the American occupation of Iraq and dominated by calls for it to end sooner rather than later. No less a figure than King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, arguably the United States' closest Arab ally, has declared the occupation of Iraq "illegal" and "illegitimate". Real intentions, however, are different. States and local political groups might not admit it - because of public opinion - but they do not want to see the back of the Americans. Not yet.

For this there is a simple reason: while the US can no longer successfully manipulate regional actors to carry out its plans, regional actors have learned to use the US presence to promote their own objectives. Quietly and against the deeply held wishes of their populations, they have managed to keep the Americans engaged with the hope of some elusive victory.

The article provides an insightful analysis of how the occupation serves various regional interests and the interests of Iraqi factions and leaders. Among the more interesting observations:

Inside Iraq, this is a period of consolidation for most political groups. They are building up their political and military capabilities, cultivating and forging alliances, clarifying political objectives and preparing for impending challenges. It is not the moment for all-out confrontation. No group has the confidence or capacity decisively to confront rivals within its own community or across communal lines. Equally, no party is genuinely interested in a serious process of national reconciliation when they feel they can improve their position later on. A continued American presence is consistent with both concerns - it can keep clashes manageable and be used to postpone the need for serious political engagement.

Shias in government would like the US to stay long enough for them to tighten their grip on the levers of state power and build a loyal military. Those Shias who are not in power would like them to stay long enough to avoid a premature showdown with their rivals. Militant Shia groups can simultaneously blame the occupation forces for their community's plight and attack them to mobilise further support. Pro-Iranian Shias, meanwhile, retaliate against anti-Iranian US moves with attacks on Americans in Iraq.

Al-Qaida and its affiliates arguably benefit most from the occupation. They established themselves, brought in recruits, sustained operations against the Americans and expanded. The last thing they want is for the Americans to leave and deny them targets and motivation for new members. Other Sunni armed groups need the Americans for similar reasons and for protection against Shias. For Sunni politicians, the occupation prevents a total Shia takeover of state institutions and helps increase their influence.

[...]

In this grim picture, the Americans appear the least sure and most confused. With unattainable objectives, wobbly plans, changing tactics, shifting alliances and ever-increasing casualties, it is not clear any longer what they want or how they are going to achieve it. By setting themselves up to be manipulated, they give credence to an old Arab saying: the magic has taken over the magician.

America is screwed unless we start asking our leaders to clearly and honestly tell us what interests they are pursuing. So far the "debate" in this country has been mostly fear,lies, dissimulation and obfuscation. America would benefit from a thoughtful, frank discussion of just what the fuck we are doing in Iraq because it sure isn't helping either this nation or most Iraqis.

An Odd Job Well Done

For much of my adult life I worked as a performance auditor, a job description that baffles most people. They recognize audit and think accountant--definitely not. They're not sure what to make of the performance part. I like to further confuse them with the not entirely inaccurate description that perfrmance audit is to audit as performance art is to art, if for no other reason than I like to hear my profession described terms of art.

Performance audit is pretty simple, actually. It's asking if a project or organization meets its goals. If yes, how did they do it, and, if not, what went wrong? The mechanics, methodologies and experience needed to define and measure performance can be complex and often require professional skills but the basic idea--measuring results against expectations--is something everyone does every day.

Some government performance auditors are inspectors general whose scope varies from a single department or a state government to individual programs. One right thing America has done in Iraq is to create the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. The Special IG just released a report that is what performance audit is all about:

The U.S. government was unprepared for the extensive nation-building required after it invaded Iraq, and at each juncture where it could have adjusted its efforts, it failed even to understand the problems it faced, according to the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.

In a stinging, wide-ranging assessment of U.S. reconstruction efforts, Stuart W. Bowen Jr. said that in the days after the invasion, the Defense Department had no strategy for restoring either government institutions or infrastructure. And in the years since, other agencies joined the effort without an overall plan and without a structure in place to organize and execute a task of such agnitude.

Looking at the other end of America's wars, the GovernmentAccountability Office has just released a report on care at the Veterans Home in northwest DC. More than 1,100 enlisted retirees live at the home. The GAO found problems.

The Government Accountability Office warned the Pentagon this week that residents of the home "may be at risk" in light of allegations of severe health-care problems. Residents have been admitted to Walter Reed Army Medical Center with "the most serious type of pressure sores" and, in one case, with maggots in a wound, according to a GAO letter sent to the Defense Department.

I would be proud to have participated in either review. I always liked projects that helped individuals or populations at risk. I also liked the opportunity to slam incompetence. In either case I enjoyed the opporutnity to make something positive occur. I still have some romantic idealism after all these years.

So maybe next time someone asks what I do, I should give them copies of the Iraq reconstruction or veterans home reports.