Homeland Security operating without a real home - Home & Garden - TheState.com

WASHINGTON — Five miles southeast of the gleaming Capitol dome, on a scenic bluff overlooking the confluence of the Potomac and Anacostia rivers, the future office of the secretary of Homeland Security sits boarded up and abandoned.

Four years ago, U.S. officials announced plans to renovate the dilapidated, castle-like structure - opened in 1855 as the Government Hospital for the Insane - to anchor Washington's largest construction project since the Pentagon was built 70 years ago.

The goal was to unite on a single campus the 22 agencies that were stitched together after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to form the Department of Homeland Security.

But the planned $3.4 billion headquarters project stalled as Congress tried to cut the federal deficit. Lawmakers debated this month whether the nation can afford such a massive home improvement project, and the House has voted to eliminate the funding in next year's budget.

As a result, Homeland Security staffers remain scattered in more than 35 offices around Washington. Janet Napolitano, their boss, works from a former Navy radar facility that has all the comforts of a barracks. Plus, in traffic, she's a good 40 minutes from the White House.

"They need to get out of there as soon as possible," said Tom Ridge, who took over the former Navy compound in early 2003 after he was named the first Homeland Security chief.

In the early rush to get settled, Ridge recalls, one of his assistant secretaries emptied out a broom closet and stuck a desk in it.

"It's hardly anything anyone can call palatial," he growled.

Napolitano's future office, assuming it gets built, has its own charms.

According to renovation plans, she would work by a Gothic-style bay window in the second floor office long used by the director of the nation's first major federally run psychiatric institution, which was founded by Congress in 1852.

It subsequently had a long and storied history.

During the Civil War, when the asylum was used as a Union Army hospital, wounded soldiers began using the euphemism St. Elizabeths, the Colonial-era name for the tract of land. The name stuck and was formally changed in 1916.

The American-born poet Ezra Pound was confined at the facility from 1946 to 1958 after he was deemed unfit to stand trial on charges of treason for making hundreds of pro-fascist and pro-Nazi radio broadcasts from Italy during World War II. Pound lived two doors down from the superintendent's office, and made the schedule for the tennis courts.

Other famous patients included Richard Lawrence, who tried to shoot President Andrew Jackson in 1835, Charles J. Guiteau, who shot and killed President James Garfield in 1881, and John Hinckley Jr., who shot and wounded President Ronald Reagan in 1981.

At its height, the hospital held more than 8,000 patients, though the caseload fell sharply in recent decades as care for the mentally ill shifted to community-based treatment. A new hospital, opened last year by the District of Columbia, now treats a few hundred patients on the eastern edge of the complex.

The Homeland Security complex is planned for what's called the western campus. Already, downhill from the castle-like main building, five cranes are setting support beams for a $350 million headquarters for the U.S. Coast Guard. The opening is scheduled for 2013.

But the Guardsmen may be lonely. As of Sept. 30, no funding will be available to provide new offices for Homeland Security, or any of its component parts, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or the Transportation Security Administration.

Under the original plans, all were scheduled to move to the campus by 2016.

Proponents argue that the high cost of construction will be partially offset by savings. According to projections by the Government Services Administration, the department could save $500 million in rent and other costs over the next three decades if it consolidates its offices.

At a hearing Friday before the House subcommittee on Coast Guard and maritime transportation, Donald Bathurst, chief administrative officer for the Homeland Security Department, offered cautious optimism that the complex will be built - someday.

"We will find a way to keep this project moving forward," he said. "However, we will not be able to keep to the schedule."

Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Wash., appealed to his colleagues to back the consolidation. "Homeland Security is simply too important for the Congress to allow this project to drift off course to an uncertain future," he said.

Homeland Security spending hasn't always inspired confidence, however.

A five-year effort to build a "virtual wall" of cameras, radar and sensors along the southwest border proved a disaster. After spending $1 billion on just 53 miles in Arizona, officials abandoned the project in January and said the border would be guarded with less expensive measures.

"We asked for a Cadillac, and we only needed a Chevy," said a senior Homeland Security official who requested anonymity so he could speak candidly.

In July, despite spending $1.2 billion, the department also scrapped an effort to build devices capable of detecting radiological or nuclear material at border crossings and seaports. The devices didn't work.

Partly in response, the House voted to slash the department's management budget next year from $811 million to $636 million.

There is little political liability in cutting bureaucratic paper pushers, but trimming the management budget only makes the department less efficient, complained Michael Chertoff, who served as Homeland Security chief from 2005 to 2009.

"The problem is, if you punish the department by cutting procurement officers, you are going to get more procurement problems," he said.

Napolitano, the current secretary, seems to be taking the cuts in stride. Meeting reporters earlier this month at the former radar facility that's now her office, she said her priority is to ensure budget cuts don't affect frontline operations such as border patrol, airline security and port inspections.

"There are things we'd like to do that are gonna have to be postponed," she said. "St. Elizabeths is a good example. That's supposed to be our headquarters. We will have to postpone that. ... Oh darn."

Homeland Security operating without a real home - Home & Garden - TheState.com

Attention AFL-CIO, IBEW, Teamsters and UMW Members: Your Christmas Gift From the White House is: 116,000 Layoffs

The EPA will shut down an estimated 20% of the nation’s coal plants through the ground-level ozone rule (the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) ) through cap and trade that is about to be implemented in January 2012. Opponents of the Obama administration’s “over-reaching” EPA say these are costly regulations. Financial analysts estimate that the cost of this rule will be $130 billion by 2015. But if that figure is correct, that’s good news for the US economy.

...Because there is another way of looking at that $130 billion “expense”. One industry’s expense is another industry’s sales bonanza. For the coal industry’s balance sheet, it is an expense, but think about who is going to perform this $130 billion cleanup – fairies? Hardly. This is a job for real American industries...

Consider the raw idiocy behind this line of "reasoning":

• America's coal industry employs 126,000 workers directly and another 455,000 workers whose jobs are indirectly dependent upon the coal industry.

• Closing 20% of America's coal factories will result in the immediate layoffs of about 116,000 workers, many of them union members in the mining, electrical, transportation and service industries.

• Blackouts and brownouts will become commonplace: there is no way to shutter roughly 10% of America's electric generation capacity without causing shortages and rationing.

• And simple supply-and-demand will cause skyrocketing prices for electricity, which will be paid for directly by retail customers (you and I) as well as businesses, which will also pass those costs on to consumers like -- yes -- you and I.

The executive summary for you hard-working, dues-paying members of the AFL-CIO, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Teamsters and the United Mine Workers: the Democrat Party is now aligned with the hard-left Eco-Marxist movement and it is using your money to destroy your jobs.

Remember in 2012.

Attention AFL-CIO, IBEW, Teamsters and UMW Members: Your Christmas Gift From the White House is: 116,000 Layoffs

Walking Off the Democrat Plantation – The Providence of Change (part 1 of 3) | Contagious Transformation

My dear conservative friend introduced me to some historical facts about the Democratic Party that helped push me to research for myself whether or not the claims he made were true. What I learned crushed my beliefs that the Republican Party was full of racists who were trying to hold the black man down. What I learned left me with no affinity for my inherited party; I was left, finally, with NO good reason to vote Democrat.

Walking Off the Democrat Plantation – The Providence of Change (part 1 of 3) | Contagious Transformation

Contagious Transformation | Breaking the Chains

Great blog, highly recommended.

Contagious Transformation | Breaking the Chains

It's Time to Remove Barriers to Job Creation - Wauwatosa, WI Patch

President Obama has encouraged Congress to move forward on legislation to help put Americans back to work. However, he is blind to the fact that some of the very real impediments to creating jobs are coming directly from his own administration.

This fall, House Republicans are committed to finding and repealing some of the most harmful regulations and administrative decrees, which pose barriers to growth and perpetuate an economic environment of uncertainty.

In April, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) filed a complaint against Boeing, when it chose to create new jobs in South Carolina rather than at a unionized facility in Washington. Although no jobs were lost from the Washington plant, the NLRB has brought a case against Boeing for deciding to build a new facility, creating 1,000 new jobs in the right-to-work state of South Carolina.

The NLRB is an agency of the United States government, with appointees by the president, and it is responsible for investigating and remedying unfair labor practices.

This decision is an alarming departure from the core principles of U.S. economic growth — that private companies are free to move capital and business operations — and it is having a chilling effect on hiring from employers around the nation.

In his recent joint address to Congress, the President declared: “I want to see more products sold around the world stamped with three proud words: ‘Made in America.'"

I agree we need to make America more competitive on the global stage, capitalizing on our areas of advantage and encouraging companies to create good-paying jobs here, in the United States.

But decisions like this one from NLRB are having the opposite effect. As reported earlier by the Wall Street Journal, the National Association of Manufacturers asked its members last month how the NRLB decision against affects their decision-making and 49 percent responded that capital expenditure plans "have been or may be impacted by the NLRB's complaint."

When 14 million Americans are still out work, Congress must balance the need to protect workers with the urgency to enact policies that will encourage job growth. Employers are deliberately choosing to sit on their capital, rather than invest and hire new employers, for fear of the impact of government regulations.

The House last week passed the Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act, which amends the National Labor Relations Act, to prevent the government agency from mandating where a company can do business within the United States. The NLRB will still have multiple tools available to continue doing its important work of protecting American workers and holding employers accountable for unfair labor practices.

This bill is one example of how Congress can help remove barriers to growth and provide employers the certainty they need to plan for the future, invest capital, and expand. House Republicans will continue to pass legislation in the coming months aimed at providing employers with the opportunity to create jobs.

It's Time to Remove Barriers to Job Creation - Wauwatosa, WI Patch

Boeing Plant Is Expected to Get Lift From House - NYTimes.com

The Republican-controlled House is expected to approve an unusual bill that would bar the labor board from pursuing the board’s pending action against Boeing, which Republicans have been denouncing day after day.

Republican leaders and business groups are vigorously backing the bill, saying it would safeguard the freedom of corporations to locate operations where they want.

But many Democrats and labor unions have denounced the bill, asserting that it would badly weaken an independent federal agency and be an improper favor to Boeing, a prominent political contributor.

The Republican bill, called “The Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act,” would prohibit the labor board from “ordering any employer to close, relocate or transfer employment under any circumstances.”

Republicans are angry that the labor board’s acting general counsel filed a complaint against Boeing in April, asserting that the company had built an assembly line in South Carolina to retaliate against unionized workers in Washington State for engaging in numerous strikes.

The National Labor Relations Act bars employers from taking any actions, including transferring an operation, in retaliation against workers for exercising their federally protected rights, including forming a union or going on strike.

Representative Eric Cantor, Republican of Virginia and the House majority leader, has condemned the board’s move, calling it an “overbearing action” that discriminates against right-to-work states in the South and makes it “nearly impossible” for Boeing to add additional workers. Several Republican presidential candidates have also criticized the complaint. For example, Mitt Romney visited South Carolina last Monday and called the move “an egregious example of political payback, where the president is able to pay back unions for the hundreds of millions of dollars they put in his campaign.”

The labor board is an independent agency that enforces federal laws regarding unionization and labor-management relations in the private sector. The president appoints its board members and general counsel, who is independent from the board and prosecutes cases claiming unfair labor practices.

The acting general counsel, Lafe E. Solomon, has asked an administrative law judge in Seattle to order Boeing to move the production line, which will build seven planes a month, from South Carolina to Washington State. The House bill to halt action against Boring has a retroactive provision that would nullify labor board complaints, like the Boeing one, for which “final adjudication” has “not been made.”

If the administrative law judge rules against Boeing, the company could appeal to the full board itself.

Mr. Solomon issued a statement Wednesday, saying his decision to issue a complaint against Boeing “was based on a careful investigation and a review of the facts under longstanding federal labor law.”

“The decision had absolutely nothing to do with political considerations, and there were no consultations with the White House,” he said. “Regrettably, some have chosen to insert politics into what should be a straightforward legal procedure. These continuing political attacks are baseless and unprecedented and take the focus away from where it belongs — the ongoing trial in Seattle.”

To prove that Boeing’s decision to assemble the 787 Dreamliners in South Carolina was retaliation, Mr. Solomon pointed to statements by top Boeing executives saying their dismay about past strikes was motivating them to open the production line in North Charleston. But Boeing officials say low costs were the reason they located the plant in South Carolina. Some assembly began there this summer.

Richard L. Trumka, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s president, said the Republican bill was “sleazy legislation,” and added, “This is sweeping legislation that would gut the National Labor Relations Act and result in serious harmful changes to workers’ rights throughout the country.”

He said that if the bill passed, the labor board would be powerless to stop an employer from moving an operation to punish workers who staged a protest against unsafe conditions or sexual or racial discrimination.

Republicans have voiced confidence that the bill will pass the House, which they dominate. But Bill Samuel, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s legislative director, said defeat of the bill was possible, although he said the bill’s chances were not good in the Senate, which is controlled by Democrats.

Representative John Kline, a Minnesota Republican and chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, has strongly backed the bill. “No government board should have the authority to dictate where a private employer can run a business,” he said.

But Representative George Miller of California, the committee’s senior Democrat, said the bill was “the Outsourcers’ Bill of Rights.” He said that Republicans were pushing the bill “to change the rules midtrial on behalf of one Fortune 500 company.”

Aric Newhouse, senior vice president for policy and government relations with the National Association of Manufacturers, said the action against Boeing was hurting job creation and discouraging investment in right-to-work states.

Boeing Plant Is Expected to Get Lift From House - NYTimes.com

New Import Fees from FDA May Drive Food Prices | WholeFoods Magazine

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) now has broader authority to levy fees for the re-inspection of imported food. The new fee structure comes as a result of certain sections of the recently passed Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), and some parties fear it may result in burdensome fees for small companies and in higher food prices.

The three new fee categories, each tied a section of FSMA, were detailed in a recent FDA notice in the Federal Register, as follows: “(1) Certain domestic and foreign facility re-inspections (section 743(a)(1)(A)), (2) failure to comply with a recall order under section 423 or 412(f) of the FD&C Act (section 743(a)(1)(B)), and (3) certain importer re-inspections (section 743(a)(1)(D)).” It is this last category that may provide particular difficulty for industry, according to Benjamin L. England, a former regulatory counsel at FDA, and founder and CEO of FDAImports.com. “My gut reaction is that at least 40% of the current detentions that are food detentions are going to be suddenly subject to fees,” he says.

When FDA inspects food for admission to the country, the scenarios that qualify as an official “examination” include analysis of physical samples of the product, a review of the product’s label, a review of sample results from a reliable third party, relevant epidemiological evidence, the results from an FDA or third party inspection of a facility where the food was processed, information contained in an import alert and other cases, according to the Federal Register notice. These “examinations” can be used to fulfill the initial requirement that FDA “identify noncompliance materially related to a food safety requirement of the FD&C Act.” After this first examination, any subsequent action to verify the safety of or readmit the product is now subject to a fee.

For Fiscal Year (FY) 2012, the agency has assessed these fees at a rate of $224/hour of re-inspection if no foreign travel is required, and $335/hour if it is. All agency work time devoted to each re-inspection will be subject to this rate, payable by the company importing the food. England expects these fees to become a factor right away. “The government already has a mechanism for collecting fees like that. The FDA already collects fees for any operations that they perform on a product that has to be reconditioned,” he says, noting that this has included cases like relabeling or reformulating a product, and that this statute has been in place since 1906.

What is new is the now foreseeable scenario where a company will be responsible for multiple redundant fees, at costs that England sees mounting into the thousands of dollars. He explains that the time it takes FDA to review a re-submitted label or private lab analysis, as well as every subsequent import after an import alert is issued could be subject to a fee. Typically five clean shipments are required before the removal of an import alert. Requesting removal from an import alert is also subject to the fee, per the Federal Register notice. “Any of these scenarios are going to be troublesome, because there’s no cushion in the market,” England says. While some consumer categories like organic may be better equipped to absorb the fees, food prices overall may reflect the change, England feels.

The FY 2012 rates become effective October 1, 2011. Public comments on the fee structures, meanwhile, are open until October 31, 2011, according to FDA. The agency notes in the Federal Register that it may make special considerations in the future for small businesses that would suffer unduly from the fees, but that the rules for FY 2012 will not change. FDA may, however, consider waiving some fees in FY 2012 based on “severe economic hardship, the nature and extent of the underlying violation, and other relevant factors.”

Published in WholeFoods Magazine, October 2011

New Import Fees from FDA May Drive Food Prices | WholeFoods Magazine

Survey: US falls to 5th in global competitiveness - Business - Stocks & economy - msnbc.com

GENEVA — The U.S. has tumbled further down a global ranking of the world's most competitive economies, landing at fifth place because of its huge deficits and declining public faith in government, a global economic group said Wednesday.

The announcement by the World Economic Forum was the latest bad news for the Obama administration, which has been struggling to boost the sinking U.S. economy and lower an unemployment rate of more than 9 percent.

Switzerland held onto the top spot for the third consecutive year in the annual ranking by the Geneva-based forum, which is best known for its exclusive meeting of luminaries in Davos, Switzerland, each January.

Singapore moved up to second place, bumping Sweden down to third. Finland moved up to fourth place, from seventh last year. The U.S. was in fourth place last year, after falling from No. 1 in 2008.

The rankings, which the forum has issued for more than three decades, are based on economic data and a survey of 15,000 business executives.

The forum praised the U.S. for its productivity, highly sophisticated and innovative companies, excellent universities and flexible labor market. But it also cited "a number of escalating weaknesses" such as rising government debt and declining public faith in political leaders and corporate ethics.

The results of a survey of 142 nations comes a day before Obama is preparing to tackle jobs issues in a speech to the U.S. Congress, and just as U.S. polls show a clear majority of those surveyed say they disapprove of the way Obama is handling the economy.

Switzerland held onto its top ranking, the forum said, because of "continuing strong performance across the board" with innovation, technological readiness, even-handed regulation and having one of the world's most stable economic environments.

Germany, Europe's economic powerhouse, was sixth, followed by the Netherlands and Denmark. Japan came in ninth, and Britain was 10th. France was 18th, and Greece, saddled with debt, fell to 90th.

The report looked at broader trends: While the U.S. slipped, emerging markets gained traction. China took 26th place, highest among major emerging economies; Brazil was 53rd; India was 56th; and Russia was 66th.

"Fiscal imbalances that have been building up around the world are really a danger to future competitiveness, in terms of the ability of countries to invest in those things that will be very important for competitiveness going forward, things like education, infrastructure and so on," said Jennifer Blanke, an economist with the forum.

Survey: US falls to 5th in global competitiveness - Business - Stocks & economy - msnbc.com