Along with an economic stimulus package, the details of which are unknown, one of the big initiatives coming out of the new Obama administration is likely to be a draw-down in troops from Iraq.

The good folks at Harris Interactive are touting what they’ve learned recently about public opinion in that area. A majority of people believe that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded in March 2003, but “a significant number of U.S. adults (37%) still believe today that Iraq had such weapons.”

A majority of survey respondents (55% to 37%) are not confident that Iraq will be successful in developing a stable and reasonably democratic government, a belief that is essentially unchanged since July 2006. Half of adults agree that invading and occupying Iraq has motivated more Islamic terrorists to attack the United States. Sixty-one percent felt this way in July 2006.

Public opinion here at home will play some role in the Obama administration’s decision-making about Iraq. Of course, the facts on the ground there will too, as will the situation in Afghanistan. Of all the campaign promises a presidential candidate can make, this is one that is much more easily said than done. Good luck to the new President, and, of course, we always hope for the safety of the troops.

The operations of the Department of Defense were funded for the year in Public Law 110-329, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009. The bill was passed in haste during the height of the financial crisis, $8,000 per U.S. family in spending that most people didn’t notice.

The drama of the financial services bailout, coming right at the end of the congressional session and the beginning of the new fiscal year, was very distracting. So distracting that it was easy to miss the partial/temporary spending bill that Congress hurriedly passed.

The bill (now law) is Public Law 110-329, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009. Total cost: $8,000 per U.S. family.

The financial services bailout law cost a little under $3,000 per U.S. family, according to our analysis of a relatively vague government cost estimate. (It will probably really cost more like $6,500 per family.)

But this spending bill - which received almost no comment in the press or consideration in either House of Congress - cost about eight large per family.

Here’s a breakdown of where the money goes in the bill, which is split into five “divisions”:

• Division A is a “continuing resolution, which spends money on domestic, non-defense government programs through March 6, 2009. Cost per U.S. family: about $1,650, or $525 per person.
• Division B is “emergency supplemental” spending for relief and recovery from hurricanes, floods, and other natural disasters. Cost: $230 per family/$75 per person.
• Division C is spending for the full 2009 fiscal year on the operations of the Department of Defense. Cost: $5,000 per family/$1,600 per person.
• Division D is spending on the Department of Homeland Security for the full 2009 fiscal year. Cost: $410 per family/$131 per person.
• Division E is full fiscal year 2009 spending on military construction and veterans affairs. Cost: about $750 per family/a little under $240 per person.

Congress had essentially been planning to abandon the regular schedule for several months before the beginning of the fiscal year October 1st. The investment banking crisis made the problem worse by drawing everyone’s attention from the really big spending moving through Congress at the same time.

Oh well! Better luck next year, right? Or maybe people will start to insist that Congress use a more careful process when deciding how to spend literally thousands of American families’ dollars.

Word on the street is that Congress will come back in on November 17th to do some post-election business. The respite gives us time to look at some of the bills hustled across the House floor while we were concentrating on the big stuff.

Though there might be more silliness when Congress comes back, this is the final one in this set of “Silly Season” posts. Here are the previous installments: Silly Season on Capitol Hill; Silly Season, Part Deux; Silly Season, Part C; and Silly Season, Part IV.

Here are some of the bills that saw action on the House floor Thursday and Friday last week. It wasn’t the silliest period compared to a few days earlier but, again, these bills could have been debated at any time, not just the last two days of the regular session:

H.R. 5159
The Capitol Visitor Center Act of 2008
Costs: $1.51 per family

S. 3641
A bill to authorize funding for the National Crime Victim Law Institute to provide support for victims of crime under Crime Victims Legal Assistance Programs as a part of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984

H.R. 7221
The Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2008

S. 3197
The National Guard and Reservists Debt Relief Act of 2008
Costs: $0.00 per family

H.R. 5714
The United States Army Commemorative Coin Act of 2008

H.R. 6867
The Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2008

S. 602
The Child Safe Viewing Act of 2007
Costs: $0.00 per family

H.R. 6469
The Organ Transplant Authorization Act of 2008

S. 3197
The National Guard and Reservists Debt Relief Act of 2008
Costs: $0.00 per family

H.R. 7222
To extend the Andean Trade Preference Act, and for other purposes

Silly season on Capitol Hill. It’s that special time of year when Congress nears the end of its scheduled session and decides to do all its work at once. Dozens of bills fly across the House floor with little debate.

They’re not all bad bills, but nothing prevented Congress from addressing them at a careful pace all through the winter, spring, and summer.

This year has been particularly silly, as Congress didn’t even try to follow its annual budgeting and spending process. It just passed a temporary measure on the fly, funding the government through the first half of the fiscal year in one big bill.

Then along came the financial services crisis. (Or is it a “crisis”? I’m less and less sure that it’s a crisis for anyone more than the investment bankers who overextended themselves.)

Smack dab at the end of the session, right when members want to go home and campaign, they have to think about a $700 bailout of the financial services industry. (Text of the proposal that failed Monday is here.)

Congress comes back Thursday - maybe to consider another bailout proposal. Don’t lose focus on that issue just yet!

But for the moment, let’s take a look at some of what the Congress did while we focused on everything else that Congress was doing. These are the bills that went to the floor of the House of Representatives on Saturday. The bills that were on the House floor last Thursday and Friday are here and here. Monday’s bills coming soon:
(more…)

A commenter on S. 3001, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, which passed the House yesterday, pointed out a large discrepancy between the cost figures reported here on WashingtonWatch.com and on a worthy similar site, GovTrack.

The GovTrack page on S. 3001 recites costs of $23 per American. (The commenter actually reported the cost from GovTrack at $230.) Meanwhile, our page was showing costs of nearly $9,000 per U.S. family, or $2,800 per person. That’s quite a discrepancy.

Well, I’ve checked it all out, and believe that the GovTrack estimate is very low because it may only include direct spending, not authorized spending, which is the bulk of it - about $600 billion.

However, in reviewing our numbers, I discovered that we were using total defense spending for our cost estimate, not the amount of spending that the bill would authorize. Spending is already authorized in existing law, and this bill does not affect that, so reporting total spending was an error.

The new cost estimate we’re reporting is a little over $5,600 per family and $1,800 per person. (The specific figure will vary from week to week with changes in interest rates, population, and the coming change in fiscal year.)

That’s a big discrepancy from the earlier numbers, and I apologize for the error in our reporting.

Of all the threats facing our nation today, you probably weren’t aware of this one: submarines. No, we’re not talking Soviet nuclear subs or German U-boats. These are privately owned and used for transporting drugs.

Not to worry, though, your Congress is on the case, with no less than four - count ‘em four! - bills to get at the submarine scourge.

For example, H.R. 6295 would prohibit “operation by any means or embarking in any submersible or semi-submersible vessel that is without nationality and that is navigating or has navigated into, through or from waters beyond the outer limit of the territorial sea of a single country or a lateral limit of that country’s territorial sea with an adjacent country.”

Thanks goodness! I feel safer already.

S. 3198 does something similar, specifically citing the threat of drug trafficking using submarines.

S. 3351, the Drug Trafficking Interdiction Assistance Act of 2008: same thing using more words - and (more words? yep!) it was introduced by vice presidential candidate Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE).

Rounding out the field is S. 3526, which creates a federal felony for operating or embarking on an international voyage in a submersible or semi-submersible vessel without nationality.

Where do we place the blame for the submarine scourge? Perhaps narco-traffickers, who prey on our children and deserve all the firepower we can lay down in their direction. Perhaps it’s the counter-productive drug war, which we can only win by abandoning. For my part, I blame the Beatles, who came up with the idea of a drug-laden submarine in the first place.

I had to do a double-take when I first saw this bill.

H.R. 6615 would “provide for the transport of the enemy combatants detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to Washington, D.C., where the United States Supreme Court will be able to more effectively micromanage the detainees by holding them on the Supreme Court grounds . . . .”

OK, I get it.

Some member of Congress doesn’t like the Supreme Court’s rulings on treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and decided to introduce a bill to makes a symbolic point: “Well if the dang Supreme Court wants these guys treated well, they should have to serve ‘em sandwiches and sweet tea right there in their own offices!”

I like sarcasm and irony and all, but on balance I think this annoys me. For a symbolic gesture, this guy put his staff to work, he put the House parliamentarian to work, he put the Government Printing Office to work, and the committees of jurisdiction too (Armed Services and Judiciary).

This is taking the legislative process very unseriously. It wastes a lot of people’s time and money.

So, Louie Gohmert, leave it out next time. There are people who differ with the Supreme Court’s rulings, and they offer serious legislation and serious arguments. They’re doing they’re jobs as they see them, not monkeying around with taxpayers’ money on stunts that they think will make cheap political points.

Reserving my right to applaud abuses of the legislative process that are actually clever, here’s the current vote on the bill. Click to vote, comment, learn more, or edit the wiki article on the bill.