VP Biden's $321,665 Limo Bill and Pres. Obama's $700K to $1.4M Limo Bill

    After two items last week on the cost of lodging for Vice President Biden's early February trip to Europe, other news organizations began to investigate further.  Wolf Blitzer's The Situation Room on CNN uncovered a contract apparently also related to the same visit to Paris:

Also on the receipt was $321,665 for a limousine company.

    Although CNN did not link to the document, the notice of the contract award for the limousine service was posted on the same government website as the hotel contracts.  Oddly, the "Contract Award Date" is listed as 2012, but this seems to simply be a typo:

    The CNN report went on to explain that, just as other government and former government officials had opined about the hotel costs, the limousine costs did not seem out of the ordinary:

As for the limousine to travel around Paris, the former advance official said that goes for the motor pool.  

The vice president's limo is flown in, but staff members on the trip didn't take the Metro around. They're not allowed to drive themselves and tend to book normal cars and drivers with the motor company-but don't necessarily take limousines. The $321,665 figure in Paris sounded about right, that former official said.

    The peculiarity pointed out by the CNN report and by Wolf Blitzer himself, based on his years reporting on the White House, is that these contracts are publicly available at all.  A search of the government website in question reveals very few other contracts related to the travels of the president or vice president.  However, another one of those rare finds also involves limousine service for a trip to France, this one from November 2011 when President Obama travelled to the G20 Summit in Cannes.

    Inexplicably, the contract award amount is listed as only $10,000 which is wildly at odds with the $321,665 for Vice President Biden's trip.  However, this listing, unlike the one for the Biden trip, includes an accompanying Justification and Approval document.  It reveals that the estimated cost of vehicles and drivers for the president's Cannes visit was $731,938, not to exceed $1.4 million:

    The president was in France for less than 36 hours.

Note: This article first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Addendum:

    Obviously, the high cost of overseas travel for government officials is nothing new, and security measures certainly add to those costs.  ABC News, reporting on the Biden hotel costs, interviewed an unnamed State Department official:

“These costs are nothing out of the ordinary. They are in line with high-level travel across multiple administrations,” the State Department official said.  ”The contract costs cover the entire range of support, including accommodations for military, communications, secret service staff, and other support professionals.  Security experts are also required to travel in advance of the president or vice president. Safety and security are not negotiable.”

    Security concerns notwithstanding, the first sentence of that response should strike fear in the hearts (and wallets) of taxpayers everywhere. "These costs are nothing out of the ordinary." If only they were.  Instead of the apoplectic response of many citizens, our government officials greeted the news with a collective yawn.  Perhaps the light these contracts are shining on this largely hidden expenditures will help bring about some true austerity to our profligate federal government.

The Danger of America's Endless "National Emergencies"

    On March 12, the White House issued a press release that began with what have become rather familiar words: "Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to..."  In this case, it is Iran, an emergency first declared on March 15, 1995, when President Bill Clinton imposed sanctions on Iran in response to concern over the regime's nuclear ambitions. This is not to be confused with the state of emergency with respect to Iran declared by President Jimmy Carter in 1979 during the Iranian hostage crisis. The hostages were released in 1980, but 33 years later, President Obama continues to renew the national emergency declaration just as Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan did year after year.

    These continuations are the product of the 1976 National Emergencies Act, which, ironically, was intended in part to prevent such declarations from being open-ended.  Per the Act, if not terminated by Congress or the President, National Emergency declarations automatically expire after a year unless the president issues a continuance, and these continuances have become a matter of course.

   In the past year, President Obama has signed continuations of National Emergency declarations for Zimbabwe, Cuba, Libya, Ivory Coast, the Middle East Peace Process, Sudan, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Lebanon, Significant Transnational Criminal Organizations, the Former Liberian Regime of Charles Taylor, the Western Balkans, the Risk of Nuclear Proliferation Created by the Accumulation of Weapons-Usable Fissile Material in the Territory of the Russian Federation, Belarus, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, and Iran (2); nineteen in all.  Nineteen concurrent "national emergencies."  Most Americans, and perhaps most politicians, would be hard pressed to explain the circumstances surrounding one-third of these emergencies, let alone all nineteen.  The mere existence of some of these declarations would doubtless be a surprise to many.

    The nature of most national emergency declarations is not a sweeping omnipotence granted to the Commander in Chief. The National Emergencies Act requires the president to specify the provisions in the law upon which his actions under each declaration are authorized.  Many of the current declarations involve only economic measures and sanctions that are being imposed in a targeted and limited context.  But presidents seem loath to yield back even these limited powers granted by the declarations.  So the "emergencies" go on... and on.

    The world is surely a dangerous place, and responsible governance requires not only vigilance, but the ability to exercise a variety of powers.  But perhaps nothing illustrates the problem with the perpetual "emergency" as well as the following.  Last year, President Obama extended the National Emergency with respect to terrorism that President Bush signed after the devastating attacks on America by al-Qaeda on September 11, 2001.  In his notice to Congress, President Obama wrote:

CONTINUATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH RESPECT TO PERSONS WHO COMMIT, THREATEN TO COMMIT, OR SUPPORT TERRORISM

On September 23, 2001, by Executive Order 13224, the President declared a national emergency with respect to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism, pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701-1706).  The President took this action to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the grave acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, including the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, in New York and Pennsylvania and against the Pentagon, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks against United States nationals or the United States.  Because the actions of these persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States... I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency[.]

    The date the president signed and issued this notice warning of the "immediate threat of further attacks"?  September 11, 2012, the very day of the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya.  While the ink was still drying on the words "continuing and immediate threat of further attacks against United States nationals" and "an unusual and extraordinary threat," the assault was underway.  Because the readiness that a "national emergency" implies was just a facade (at least in Benghazi,) the United States was caught flatfooted, unable to adequately respond in time.  Four Americans were killed and the consulate was burned.

    We will never stop every attack. The enemies of the United States are legion and seemingly tireless.  Yet the principle at work here is at least as old as Aesop and the boy watching the sheep.  When everything is an emergency, nothing is. While these declarations are not false alarms, neither do they reflect the imminence and urgency normally associated with a true emergency.  Rather, they tend to obscure actual immediate threats.  Therefore, as nineteen echoes of "national emergency!" rang in the air, the wolf struck in Benghazi.  Unless our leaders learn to resist the profligate invocation of "emergency," the wolves simply have to wait until overuse once again breeds complacency before they strike.  But then, the emergency will be all too real.

Border Security: Apprehensions versus Attempted Crossings

    In mid-February, Homeland (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano and Delaware Senator Tom Carper visited Arizona to observe border security operations at the well known Mariposa Port of Entry.  Carper chairs the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and he conducted the tour with Napolitano as part of his committee's oversight function.  Napolitano and Carper issued a joint statement after the trip that included this claim about a precipitous drop in attempted illegal border crossings during the first four years of the Obama administration:

Over the past four years, the Obama Administration, working together with Congress, has dedicated historic levels of personnel, technology, and resources to the Southwest border, and undertaken an unprecedented effort to transform our nation's immigration enforcement systems into one that focuses on public safety, border security, and the integrity of the immigration system.  

Attempts to cross the border illegally, as measured by U.S. Border Patrol apprehensions, totaled nearly 365,000 nationwide in FY 2012, representing a nearly 50 percent decrease since FY 2008 and a 78 percent decrease from their peak in FY 2000.

    The key phrase is "as measured by U.S. Border Patrol apprehensions."  Since attempted crossings are, of course, impossible to track accurately, this statement makes the assumption that attempts mirror apprehensions - in other words, attempts are only counted if those crossing are caught.  Not only is this highly improbable, it opens the door for manipulation of the numbers or even manipulation of enforcement efforts themselves.  Lax enforcement of border security would result in lower apprehensions and therefore lower reported attempts when in fact the lax enforcement would likely result in a higher success rate for those attempting to enter the U.S. illegally.

    This apprehensions-equals-attempts formula is counterproductive and probably misleading.  Looking at airport security as a parallel, if the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) were to see a decrease in the number of weapons being carried into airplanes, that would not automatically mean fewer attempts were being made to carry weapons on board.  On the contrary, it may indicate more success by violators in hiding such weapons, a decline in thoroughness by TSA personnel, or lack of effective search techniques to find new varieties of more easily hidden weapons.  Any solace gained from a report of a decline in weapons seizures by the TSA apart from other factors to explain the decline would be rather cold comfort.

    Not only does this proxy method suffer from practical and logical fallacies, the DHS has itself disavowed its validity as recently as 2011.  In a July 2011 DHS Fact Sheet, a section entitled "Defining Border Apprehensions" says the following [emphasis added]:

Apprehension data collected by DHS represent events, not individuals. The total number of apprehensions during a specific period will be greater than the total number of unique individuals apprehended because some individuals will have been apprehended more than once. The relationship between the number of border apprehensions to either the number of attempted illegal entries or the number of successful illegal entries is unknown. 

    The same document goes on to note that the "decrease in apprehensions ... may be due to a number of factors including changes in U.S. economic conditions and border enforcement efforts." The statement from Napolitano and Carper was silent on economic and other possible factors.

    Another problem presented by this proxy method of counting attempts is the implications for the other statistics quoted later in the press release:

Additionally, from FY 2009 to 2012, CBP and ICE seized 71 percent more currency, 39 percent more drugs, and 189 percent more weapons along the Southwest border as compared to FY 2005 to 2008.

    Applying the earlier logic, this would mean drug traffic across the border increased by 39 percent, and weapons traffic increased a whopping 189 percent.  Those would not be statistics that DHS would be anxious to report using the apprehensions-equals-attempts formula. But by choosing to tout success in reducing attempted border crossing with a dubious methodology, the DHS has inadvertently implied those disturbing conclusions.

    None of this amounts to direct evidence that the DHS is manipulating statistics or that the results derived from the numbers are somehow wildly inaccurate.  But at a time when the Obama administration is seeking to push through "comprehensive immigration reform," demonstrating a secure border, a pre-condition to immigration reform for many on the right, is certainly in its interest.  The apprehensions-equals-attempts proxy does not provide the assurance that the secure border pre-condition has been met.

Vice President Biden's One-Night Paris Hotel Tab: $585,000.50

    As it turns out, Vice President Joe Biden's London stay in February was not the most expensive part of his trip.  A government document released on February 14, 2013 shows that the contract for the Hotel Intercontinental Paris Le Grand came in at $585,000.50.

    The documentation for this contract is not as detailed as the London one, so the cost per room is not available.  However, just as the Hyatt Regency in London, the Hotel Intercontinental Paris Le Grand is a five star hotel.  Again, security concerns prevent these type of contracts from being open to bidding, but if the government was able to do some comparison shopping, the Hotel Intercontinental has a special offer.  "Find a lower price elsewhere and your first night is free."  The Vice President stayed in Paris for one night.


Note: This article first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Vice President Biden's $459,388.65 Hotel Bill

    Vice President Biden and his entourage spent a little time in London in early February during his first foreign trip of the second term of the Obama administration.  A document released today revealed that the cost of lodging in London alone was close to half a million dollars.  The contract was awarded on January 30, 2013 to the Hyatt Regency London for a total of $459,388.65.

 
    Due to obvious security concerns, such contracts are not open to the competitive bidding normally required on government contracts.  The accompanying document justifying the "sole source" contract notes that the vice president's group required "approximately 136 hotel rooms for 893 room nights."  Based on these figures and the total contract price, each hotel room at the five star hotel cost the US government about $500 per night.


Note: This article first appeared at The Weekly Standard.

Symbolism and the HHS

    The American flag is the most enduring and recognizable symbol of the United States, and there is a long list of laws, regulations, and recommendations (widely flouted) regarding its use and display.  However, the flag is only one of many symbols our government uses.  Most departments have their own logos and symbols, and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is no exception.

    HHS takes quite seriously the use (and misuse) of its identifiers.  An entire page on the HHS website is dedicated to "HHS Logo, Seal and Symbol Policies."  Here is the seal:

    Most of the regulations are common sense and fairly mundane, but I found the closing section describing the HHS eagle symbol especially interesting in light of HHS's oversight of the implementation of ObamaCare and the ever-expanding nanny-state:

HHS SymbolThe symbol is the key element in Department identification. The symbol represents the American People sheltered in the wing of the American Eagle, suggesting the Department’s concern and responsibility for the welfare of the people. 

This symbol is the visual link which connects the graphic communications of all components and programs of the Department. It is the major design component for the Department Identifiers - the Department Logo, Seal, and Signatures. 

The symbol can never be altered and must always be positioned with the eagle facing left...

    Facing left, eh?  That may very well be the most symbolic element of all.

Acting Labor Secretary Mocks ‘Small-Government’ Conservatives, CEOs

    Acting Secretary of Labor Seth D. Harris addressed the Annual Legislative Conference of the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) on Monday.  As part of a scathing attack on attempts to reform public employee labor unions, Harris told a joke that he said was “making the rounds a few years ago”:

 A unionized public employee, a small-government conservative, and a CEO are sitting around a table with a plate that has a dozen cookies on it. The CEO reaches across and takes 11 cookies, looks at the conservative and says: "Watch out for that union guy, he wants a piece of your cookie."

    Ironically, of course, since the IAFF is a public employee labor union, there are no CEOs.  Rather, the firefighters work for the taxpayers, hardly the greedy CEOs caricatured in Harris’s joke.

    Harris’s assault did not end with the joke.  He further accused those attempting to reform public union labor practices as wanting

to tear apart that bargaining table until it's a pile of firewood. Their goal isn't to give you a little haircut; their goal is to cut off your head. Their goal, through a campaign of denigration, distortion and demonization, is to destroy public employee unions as we know them, to eliminate them as a force in American life.

     Harris took a further swipe at "pundits and professional political hatchetmen," suggesting that they blamed firefighters and their fellow public union members for the 2008 financial crisis:

It's really unfathomable how many pundits and professional political hatchetmen looked around and somehow decided it wasn't reckless Wall Street shenanigans that crashed our economy under President Bush. Instead, they tell us, it was dedicated public servants barely getting by on middle-class wages. Have any of you ever met a firefighter who got a multi-million dollar bonus? They're as common [as] unicorns being ridden by leprechauns with angels sitting on their shoulders.

    Congress (Republicans in particular) did not escape Harris's broadside either.  He laid the blame for the sequestration at the GOP's doorstep:

I know that IAFF just celebrated 95 years of standing up for firefighters and the communities they serve. At the Department of Labor, we're having a birthday too — 100 years ago this month, we first opened our doors. And to mark the occasion, Congress sent us a present to both of us — it's called "sequestration."... 

[O]ne side in Congress is choosing to further undermine public safety and economic security... because they don't want to close tax loopholes that contribute nothing to growth, because they don't want to ask millionaires and billionaires and the largest and wealthiest corporations to pay a little more.

    Harris encouraged IAFF members visiting Capitol Hill on Wednesday to tell members on Congress that the GOP's way is the "wrong path" for the middle class, the economy and the nation.

Update:  Excerpts above are from the prepared remarks.  Here is the video of the joke as actually told:

   

Note:  The article (without the video) first appeared at The Weekly Standard.