Gov't Report: Nearly Half Sampled Approved School Lunch Applications Found to Be Ineligible

    A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report published a month ago but just publicly released on Monday found that while the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has taken steps to see that ineligible beneficiaries do not receive reduced-price or free school meals, oversight still needs to be improved. An analysis of a small, "nongeneralizable" sample of twenty-five approved applications found that eleven of them were in fact ineligible.
    The sample included two categories of applications: those which automatically qualify due to "categorical eligibility (by participating in certain public-assistance programs or meeting an approved designation, such as foster children)", and those which qualify based on self-reported household size and income.
    Of the six applications that indicated categorical eligibility, half were either completely ineligible (2) or qualified for reduced-price meals instead of free. These type of applications are not even subject to standard verification. The GAO recommended that the USDA conduct sample verification such as the one conducted by the GAO to help prevent this problem.
    Of the remaining nineteen applications, the GAO found that nine were ineligible, and only two of the nine could have been verified as ineligible under standard USDA procedures. The GAO suggests that using computer matching with external income data (state payroll records) could help in weeding out participants who do not qualify despite the self-reported information that resulted in the initial approval.
    A chart included in the report illustrates the relatively small window of income variation ($1,200) from the established thresholds that subjects an application to standard verification:

    The report noted that "[t]he Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has designated the NSLP [National School Lunch Program] as 1 of 13 federal 'high-error' programs due to its large estimated improper payments—approximately $1.8 billion in fiscal year 2013," for an error rate of 15.7 percent.  The School Breakfast Program (SBP) error rate was even higher at 25.3 percent for an estimated $831 million in improper payments in fiscal 2013.
    As of this date, the USDA has not responded to the GAO regarding the recommendations made in the report.


Note: A version of this article first appeared at The Weekly Standard. 

For Thanksgiving, Federal Government Targets ... Pumpkin Pie?

    Remember the old song, There's No Place Like Home for the Holidays?  The federal government has a rewrite in mind for this Thanksgiving: "I met a man who lived in Tennessee and he was heading for Pennsylvania and some homemade pumpkin pie a big bowl of fresh fruit." At least that's the implication from the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) new infographic:

    Among other suggestions are replacing butter with bananas or applesauce for baked goods and cutting back on the gravy.


Note: A version of this article first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Audit: Some Meat Inspectors Work 75-80 Hours Per Week

    If overworked employees are more likely to commit errors, then the consumers who ended up with the meat inspected by one particular Department of Agriculture (USDA) food safety inspector (FSIS) have cause for concern.  A recent audit found one employee had averaged almost thirteen hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.  While this was the most extreme case, the incidence of food safety employees working extraordinary hours is by no means rare.  Over 400 of the 10,000 inspectors averaged in excess of 60 hours per week, including 14 averaging more than 75 hours, and another three who averaged over 80 hours per week.
    When food safety officials were presented with the audit's finding by the inspector general (OIG) of the USDA, they admitted ignorance of the excessive overtime hours, but downplayed the significance:

[FSIS officials] stated that they were unaware of this fact, and doubted that this extended overtime would negatively affect the agency’s inspectors...  Officials explained that, although FSIS has set limits on the number of hours an inspector can work in one day, FSIS has not limited inspectors working overtime hours for extended periods of time... 

The FSIS union contract stipulates that field inspectors are generally not to work more than 10 or 12 hours in one day, depending on their duties.  However, we found that some inspectors are working these hours six and even seven days a week.  Because of these extended hours, OIG believes FSIS inspectors could have decreased productivity, which might impair their ability to perform functions that are critical to public food safety... 

     The concerns of the OIG about the effects of such excessive overtime are shared by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA).  The OIG cited OSHA regulations in the audit:

According to the Occupational Health and Safety Administration, extended or unusual work shifts may be stressful physically, mentally, and emotionally.  These effects lead to an increased risk of operator error, injuries, or accidents.  Federal regulations state that Departments, such as USDA, shall schedule the basic work week so as to consist of five consecutive 8-hour days, although the Department may depart from the basic work week in those cases where maintaining such a schedule would seriously handicap the Department in carrying out its function.

    The OIG audit also uncovered some problems with FSIS's record keeping and billing for overtime hours:

FSIS could not adequately reconcile reimbursable overtime charges to industry with the overtime recorded by field staff in its timekeeping system, which could potentially have resulted in up to an estimated $10.6 million in underbilled overtime and up to an estimated $4.7 million in overcharges to industry.

    The OIG made seven recommendations to the FSIS regarding overtime hours, and the FSIS and the OIG came up with mutually agreeable responses for each of the concerns raised by the audit.


Note: A version of this article first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Senator Harry Reid and a Scandal in Plain View

    The Boulder City Hospital in Boulder City, Nevada, dates back to the building of the nearby Hoover Dam. The original building cost $20,000 back in 1931, and was built by the group of companies involved in building the dam.  Over the years, the ownership, size, structure and location of the hospital have changed numerous times, and it is currently a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. In fact, the website declares, "The Hospital's success and long-term future depends largely on private donations from friends like you!" However, according to a recent press release by Senator Harry Reid, the hospital's best friends are now U.S. taxpayers:

Reid Announces Nearly $14 Million for Boulder City Hospital 

January 18, 2013 

 Washington, D.C.- Nevada Senator Harry Reid today announced a grant for $13,877,228 for the Boulder City Hospital. The grant comes from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development fund and will be used to complete a major renovation and expansion. According to the USDA, the hospital’s pharmacy, home health, lab and dietary areas will be remodeled, and surgery,  physical therapy, long-term care and the admissions lobby will be renovated and expanded. The Emergency Department also will be expanded by over 5,100 square feet. 

     Given that Boulder City is located in the desert about 20 miles outside Las Vegas, not exactly farmland or terribly isolated (the next closest hospital is about 11 miles away,) the hospital's qualification for a "rural development" grant from the Department of Agriculture is purely technical. The city's population is just over 15,000, so this grant amounts to just under $1,000 per resident. The $14 million grant is $2 million more than total present assets of the hospital, listed at just under $12 million on the latest available IRS Form 990. (The most recent audited financial statements on the hospital website are from 2007, so the 990 provided more up-to-date figures.) Contributions and grants in 2009 were $46,210 and in 2010 were $64,514, so the USDA has increased those totals by a factor of 200 or more for 2013.

    This enormous grant was announced by Nevada Senator Harry Reid's office with obvious pleasure:

“This USDA grant will significantly improve Boulder City Hospital,” said Reid. “I am pleased that Boulder City residents will have access to the highest quality health care services and facilities. Various elements of hospital will be strengthened, from its Emergency Department to surgery areas. I will continue to work hard so Nevada communities benefit from the very best resources and amenities.”

    This is not the first time the hospital has hit the jackpot with Harry Reid.  An article in the Fall 2010 newsletter noted the Senator's help with a grant in 2010 ("Were it not for the grant we received through Senator Reid in the 2010 Omnibus Spending Bill...") and Senator Reid's office pegged that grant at $1 million. (It is not apparent why that $1 million does not appear on the hospital's 2010 Form 990.) Three years later, the Senate Majority leader managed to better his earlier efforts by 14 times that $1 million.

    At issue here is not whether Boulder City Hospital needed $15 million. The issue is whether a country that is $16.5 trillion in debt, increasing $4 billion per day, should be giving a hospital in Nevada a grant that amounts to $1,000 per resident so those constituents of Harry Reid can "benefit from the very best resources and amenities."  The government blows through $15,000,000 every five minutes, but even the nearby casinos might choke on $15 million worth of "amenities."

    This grant represents not a shady back room deal, but a scandal in plain view that is endlessly repeated in the press releases of many of the other 534 members of Congress. What America needs is not a debt ceiling, but a fiscal Hoover dam that will once and for all control the torrent of money flowing through the Capitol in Washington, DC.  Let us hope that some in the 113th Congress will be up to the task.

Governmental Creep

     While the title of this post might suggest to some that I have certain elected officials in mind, I'm actually using "creep" in the sense of "spreading" - like a fungus or a rash.  The point I am trying to make is that even a good and useful function of government can devolve into a boondoogle if left unchecked, and "unchecked" seems to be the default these days.

    With that premise, consider the following.  When the word "disaster" comes to mind, the photos from the recent Hurricane Sandy certain seem to fit the bill:

Source: http://www.examiner.com/

    More specifically, when we think of a "drought disaster," we might think of this:

    Or this:

    But when the folks at the USDA of the United States federal government think "drought disaster", they see this:

    Nearly 2,200 of the 3,000 or so counties in the United States have "Drought Disaster Incidents" as of 11/7/12.  More than 70% of the United States is a disaster area. Now I am not belittling the seriousness of the dry conditions in some places in our country.  There is doubtless suffering and need.  But is it any wonder we have 47,000,000 on food stamps and over 14,000,000 on social security disability?
Is it any wonder that unless contraceptives are freely available to all (and when I say "freely", I mean "plentifully and at no cost whatsoever",) we have a "health care crisis" on our hands?

    This governmental tendency towards hyperbole results in policies that are costly and intrusive, but in addition it masks the true crises: the national debt, for one. But according to economists like Paul Krugman, the debt is nothing compared to the crisis we'd create by cutting government spending now.  How about the Social Security/Medicare crisis of impending bankruptcy?  No, we must fulfill the social contract lest our politicians (mostly Republican ones) begin shoving aging citizens over cliffs.

    The attraction is that faux crises are so much easier to "solve" than real ones.  Just a little more of someone else's money and we can "help" whoever needs it more.  But unless we can face the hard truth that sometimes someone will fall and the federal government won't necessarily be there to catch him before he hits the ground, we will soon all be on the ground getting tangled up in what is left of the rotting strands of a "safety net" that is no longer catching anyone.

Subsidizing Success

    On Tuesday, Sallie James of the Cato Institute noted a recent endorsement of farm subsidies by Senator Debbie Stabenow, chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee:

“American agriculture represents a bright spot in our economy,” Chairwoman Stabenow said. “Agricultural exports are reaching record highs and American farmers and ranchers are continuing to outpace the rest of the world in productivity and efficiency. Sixteen million American jobs are supported by American agriculture, so it’s critical we pass the Farm Bill this year. We must provide farmers and small businesses the certainty they need to continue growing and helping the country’s economy recover.”

Despite the sometimes decidedly non-farmy uses of Department of Agriculture funds (as I noted here in April,) the Farm Bill is often treated as a sacred cow (or at least the family cow) even by conservative lawmakers who should know better.  Senator Stabenow, not to be confused with one of those conservatives, isn't a wholesale advocate of subsidies, however.  Back in 2011, here's what she had to say about oil company "subsidies":

“We’ve got to stop these taxpayer subsidies that adds insult to injury, when we’re paying the highest price at the pump and, at the same time, they have the highest profits ever,” said Stabenow. “It doesn’t make any sense. They don’t need it.”

I hope that some enterprising reporter gives Senator Stabenow the opportunity to harmonize her two subsidy positions.  In 2009, Cato put the annual farm subsidy cost at between $10 billion and $30 billion.  By contrast, in January 2011, President Obama proposed ending $4 billion in "subsidies and tax breaks" to oil companies.  At the time, the president said: "I don’t know if -- I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they’re doing just fine on their own."  To summarize: "American agriculture represents a bright spot in our economy" and oil companies are "doing just fine on their own" - so continue subsidies for one and eliminate them for the other?
 
    As I indicated, farm subsidies may be the closest thing to bi-partisanship that Congress manages to do.  And some people say bi-partisanship is what we need more of?  On the other hand, if both agriculture and oil companies are "doing fine" by this administration's standards, maybe dumping the subsidies isn't such a good idea after all.

The Food Police

    For most of us, our daily contact with the federal Department of Agriculture (USDA) begins with our bleary eyes absentmindedly scanning the side panel of our cereal box in the morning as we struggle to get our minds in gear for the day.  The familiar Nutrition Facts information panel fulfills the USDA requirements to inform consumers about how good or bad our bowl of Chocolate Covered Sugar Honey Froot Puffs is for us.  Later in the day, we might have a steak that is "USDA Choice".  (For you vegetarians, I don't know if tufo gets a nod from the USDA, but let's face it, "Choice Tofu" would be an oxymoron.)  And at some point in our growing up, we were introduced to the Four Food Groups which morphed into the relatively short-lived and overly complex Food Pyramid which is now morphing into the Food Plate.  The common element in the above examples is food - it's the Department of Agriculture after all.
    So imagine my surprise when reading this recent article on the construction of a police station in Fruitland, Maryland, and who should pop up but the USDA.

For Fruitland Police Department, 'excitement is building' about new facility

 FRUITLAND -- For years, the city's police department had worked in a facility that was not only was limited in space, but also outside of compliance due to its age and condition.  Within the next two months, those issues will be addressed as the department is scheduled to move into its new public safety building... The building, which is being constructed by Mervin L. Blades & Sons, costs approximately $2.6 million and was funded through a low-interest, 40-year loan from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

My search through the rest of the article for the common element of "food" (noted above) came up empty unless you count "fruit" in the name of the town, but that seemed like a stretch even for the government. (By the way, it's pronounced "frootlind", not "fruit land"; the natives will mock you if you choose the latter.)  Anyway, I visited the USDA website for clues.  It turns out the USDA has all kinds of money to loan under the heading of Rural Development.  The upshot seems to be rural = farming; therefore, in addition to inspecting food going to market, the USDA is now loaning money to build police stations in "rural" America.  Not much of a leap, eh?
    So what is next?  Loan advice from the Justice Department?  What's that?  "Comparison Shopping for a Home Equity Loan" on the Justice.gov website?  Sorry, bad example.  OK, then, what's next?  Recipes from Housing and Urban Development?  What?  "Heart Healthy Home Cooking - African American Style" on HUD's website?  OK, another bad example.  Perhaps we just need to face the fact that our federal government has become a sprawling mass of overlapping and interconnected programs that bear little resemblance to what was envisioned for a country of "limited government."  I have nothing against the town of Fruitland.  But that the funds to build its local police station are coming from a department of the federal government that is ostensibly all about food is rather hard to swallow.