The Brewster Report

Health Care Reform victory comes with a Tragic Setback for Women's Rights

I find it difficult to celebrate President Obama's health care victory! 

 

First, the bill passed last night is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and NOT A NATIONAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM.  In other words, there are a few changes in the nations' approach to health care; however this is not a real NATIONAL health care program that would cover the millions of people that are unemployed and can't afford to pay, but not poor enough for assistance.  The plan will cover Viagra, but not a woman's Pro-Choice rights. 

 

The National Organization of Women (NOW), Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America have criticized President Obama's decision to sell out women's Pro-Choice rights for a vote.  Obama's decision to issue an executive order to reassure pro-life Democrats that there would be no federal funding for abortion was the wrong move. The executive order was published by the White House minutes before Congressman Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) announced that he and his bloc of pro-life Democrats would be providing the missing votes.

 

Pro-Choice New York [http://www.prochoiceny.org/news/press/201003211.shtml

 

March 21, 2010

Tonight Congress passed an historic health care reform bill. Unfortunately, this bill -- with its onerous restrictions on access to abortion care and the accompanying executive order enshrining the Hyde Amendment -- is far from an unadulterated victory. Pro-choice men and women will not soon forget today's disappointing outcome.

NARAL Pro-Choice New York is equally upset with President Obama's executive order, which enshrines the Hyde Amendment and reaffirms that women who receive their healthcare through a federal program (like Medicaid) or who serve their country in federal jobs or military service do not have the same rights as other American women.

This battle, which has been a painful reminder that we cannot ever take our reproductive rights for granted, has also served to reinvigorate the pro-choice movement. While we would have preferred that our renewed energy come on the heels of an unadulterated victory, rest assured that our nation's pro-choice men and women will not soon forget today's disappointing outcome.

 

From NOW http://www.now.org/

 

Health Care Reform Victory Comes with Tragic Setback for Women's Rights
NOW President Terry O'Neill said in a statement, "As a longtime proponent of health care reform, I truly wish that the National Organization for Women could join in celebrating the historic passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It pains me to have to stand against what many see as a major achievement. But feminist, progressive principles are in direct conflict with many of the compromises built into and tacked onto this legislation."

President Obama Breaks Faith with Women
NOW is incensed that President Barack Obama agreed today to issue an executive order designed to appease a handful of anti-choice Democrats who have held up health care reform in an effort to restrict women's access to abortion. Through this order, the president has announced he will lend the weight of his office and the entire executive branch to the anti-abortion measures included in the Senate bill, which the House is now prepared to pass.

NOW/PAC Endorses Connie Saltonstall for Stupak Seat
Saltonstall is running for Congress from Michigan's 1st District, taking on reproductive rights foe and health care reform obstructer Bart Stupak in the state's Democratic primary this August.

White House Health Care Reform Bill Denies Women's Basic Rights
NOW President Terry O'Neill stated, "We will not accept a health care bill that trades off the rights and needs of some women for the benefit of others. And we will never stop fighting for the right of every woman to have equal access to the full range of reproductive health care, including abortion."

 

Haiti Ministerial Preparatory Conference

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Montreal, Canada

January 25, 2010

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much, Minister Cannon, and thanks to you and Prime Minister Harper and your government for hosting this conference. The United States looks forward, working with everyone here and all of the other participants, to move toward a conference in New York in March.

Today, we agreed on key principles that will guide our effort, including the leadership of the Government of Haiti and close cooperation among the international community. I’m very grateful to Prime Minister Bellerive and President Preval for their leadership and guidance as we commence this important effort. It is clear that the Government of Haiti has, under the most difficult circumstances, provided leadership. And we intend to support the government so that this is truly a Haitian-led effort, one that responds to the aspirations and the needs of the Haitian people.

I especially want to thank the United Nations and particularly Brazil, who has contributed so generously to the work at the UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti, MINUSTAH, and also to the other countries, some of whom are present today – Uruguay, Chile, Argentina, and others – who are making additional contributions to this UN mission.

We know that the extent of this devastation is almost more than any of us can grasp, but day by day, we have to make progress. Relief workers continue to operate around the clock to distribute more aid to more people. The generosity of countless millions of citizens around the globe continues to be manifest and making a contribution to those relief efforts. Banks, shops, and markets are starting to reopen. So, today was better than yesterday, and I am hopeful that tomorrow will be better than today for the Haitian people.

But as we plan for the transition from emergency assistance to long-term investment and reconstruction, it’s imperative that we maintain this spirit of not only cooperation, but coordination. And to that end, the statement that has been presented following this conference sets out the principles for our cooperation and coordination, strategic long-term objectives, and the beginning of a roadmap that can lead us where we intend to go.

It’s important that we see ourselves as partners with Haiti – not patrons – that we work intensely together to produce results that can be seen and felt by the Haitians themselves. Our goal is a peaceful and prosperous future for the people of Haiti. Many of us have a great commitment to Haiti that precedes the tragedy of the earthquake, and the Obama Administration was committed to working with Haiti, and we stand ready to continue to do all that we can to help realize this better future for the Haitians. And I thank all of our partners in this effort.

* * *
QUESTION: Thank you. I’d like to direct my question, if I may, to the two largest donors, the United States and Canada, and the question really is: Who’s driving the bus? I ask that because granted that this is all supposed to be under the leadership of the Government of Haiti, the prime minister has been candid in his remarks today about the severe limits on the capabilities of the Government of Haiti, especially where it counts, in Port-au-Prince. And therefore I’m interested in knowing why today’s declaration is so vague about the coordination, which would seem to be key. It’s certainly been a problem in the emergency phase, and no doubt it will be in the reconstruction phase. So who is driving the bus and why is it so vague? How are you going to decide, who’s going to decide, who is leading the way in what area? Because there’s nothing on that so far in this.

* * *

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, thank you. I think that the statement which was produced at the end of the conference is a good guidepost for how we intend to proceed. The Government of Haiti, as Foreign Minister Cannon just said, must be and will be in the lead. We all recognize that the Government of Haiti has suffered a very serious blow to its capacity and therefore we are coming together on behalf of the international community to work with the Haitian Government to establish the kind of coordinating mechanism that I think you’re referring to. There are some other examples that we will look to. Just one to mention is what happened after the tsunami, another very large natural disaster. And particularly how the Government of Indonesia worked with the World Bank, the United Nations, an executive committee of donor nations.  We are going to, in the next weeks, determine the right approach to follow, but it will always put the sovereignty and the leadership of Haiti in the lead. That’s not only the right thing to do, but given what we have learned over many years about development, it is the smart approach. Now, we cannot any longer in the 21^st century be making decisions for people and their futures without listening and without giving them the opportunity to be as involved and make as many decisions as possible.  So we will be coming forth with an approach that we think takes into account the principles that are in the statement reflecting the longer-term strategic objectives and moving toward a roadmap toward Haiti’s reconstruction and development.

* * *

MODERATOR: The last question comes from Edward Luce, from Financial Times. Sorry.

 

QUESTION: Being the last questioner, all my questions have already been asked, so – (laughter). If I could, could I ask, Secretary Clinton, as the host of the meeting in New York in March, whether between now and then, you are to set targets that you want to achieve – financial numerical targets?

 

And also, at the risk of irritating everybody, could I return to the last question – but one? And one of the things you mentioned under targets for that meeting is to agree on an effective coordination mechanism. You’ve all stressed the importance of that. Clearly, one of the ways of doing that is having a single point of accountability, is having a point-person. Is that completely out of consideration? 

 

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, let me say we are in the process of determining the most effective way forward. And I think there are a number of models that we will be examining. As Foreign Minister Cannon said, there will be some technical meetings between now and the meeting in New York. Those technical meetings will look at needs assessment and sectoral investment and coordination. So there’s a lot of work to be done.

Remember we are, as Bernard Kouchner just said, we are still in an emergency. There is a terrible humanitarian crisis that we are dealing with. As Prime Minister Bellerive said, we don’t yet feed all of the people, we don’t yet have water for them, we have so many who have been grievously injured. Those who have received medical care, many of them have amputated limbs and there are no prosthetics. There are no places to sleep.

So we are moving very rapidly. In fact, I think that the extraordinary outpouring of not just the support on the ground but the willingness for many nations to come today, to have gone to Santo Domingo, to be working toward the conference in New York, it’s a wonderful tribute to the generosity and humanitarian caring of the people of the world. It cuts across all boundaries, and that’s the way it should be.

So we’re trying to do this in the correct order. Sometimes people have pledging conferences and pledge money they don’t have any idea what they’re going to do with it. We actually think it’s a novel idea to do the needs assessment first, and then the planning, and then the pledging. So it may seem different from what you’re used to, where people come together and make all kinds of promises, many of which never get realized because the follow-up work is never done in the way that creates confidence in the donors.

So we are committed to, as best as it can be, doing this in a way that builds confidence in the international community and among donor states and donor organizations and individuals, coming forward with a needs assessment that looks at the entire country because, as Prime Minister Bellerive said today, you can’t look at just Port-au-Prince and the immediate area. You have to look at all of Haiti and figure out how we’re going to decentralize power and aid and the other kinds of necessities.

So I think we’re off to a cautiously positive start, given the extraordinary challenges we’re up against. But we’re going to work really hard to do this in a way that, at the end of it, people can look back and say they took their time, they did it right, but they were as forcefully committed as it was possible. And that’s what we’re trying to achieve here.

MODERATOR: Thank you. This concludes the press conference today. Thank you all for coming.

Let Mr and Mrs Salahi, Bravo, as well as Half Yard Productions know how you feel!

Voice your complains about the crashing of President Obama's 1st state dinner to Bravo, the network involved, as well as Half Yard Productions! 

 

http://www.bravotv.com/contact  and info@halfyardproductions.com

 

• Bravo and Mr & Mrs Salahi should reimburse our government for the investigation.
• The couple should be prosecuted and receive JAIL TIME.
• Stress, this is an outrages disrespect for our President and the US, so that some selfish person can get "camera time"

The show should not be allowed to air, and we need an end to these shows and the type of people they have created.  Remember the "balloon boy incident"!

 

 

BACKGROUND:    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6741555.html

 

"Bravo Media has confirmed that Michaele Salahi is being considered as a participant in the upcoming “The Real Housewives of D.C.” program and on the day of the dinner was being filmed around Washington by Half Yard Productions, the producer of the program."

“Half Yard Productions was told by Michaele and Tareq Salahi that they had been invited to the State Dinner. We took them at their word and filmed their preparations for the event. Half Yard Productions had no part in planning their presence at the event,” said Abby Greensfelder of Half Yard Productions.

The couple who crashed a state dinner were being filmed that day by a camera crew connected with a reality TV program, but no filming took place on White House grounds, the network says.

Federal Employees Getting BONUS

GOVERNMENTEXECUTIVE.COM

Most TSA employees are in line for performance-based payouts

By Alex M. Parker aparker@govexec.com November 20, 2009

More than three-quarters of workers under the Transportation Security Administration's pay-for-performance plan soon will receive a performance-related raise, according to an internal report. But federal employee unions are claiming TSA's method of determining the pay hikes was arbitrary and confusing.

Seventy-six percent of employees under the agency's Performance Accountability and Standards System will receive pay boosts or bonuses, based on the quality of their work in 2009, the report said. These payments will supplement an annual cost-of-living increase, which has yet to be determined. The percentage of employees receiving a raise is roughly the same as last year, but TSA cautioned that some employees might not receive as much money despite similar performance.

"While the pay pool for 2009 performance will ensure that PASS-covered employees are properly recognized for their hard work and outstanding achievements, there is no guarantee that all PASS-covered employees will receive a payout equal to or greater than their 2008 performance payout," the report stated. "In addition, due to the unpredictability of current and future budget levels, the overall funding level should not be viewed as a guarantee of future pay pool levels." 

TSA acting Administrator Gale Rossides said there was slightly more money available for raises in 2009 than in 2008, but there also were more employees in the system, making the amount available per employee similar. One difference between the two years, however, was that the workforce as a whole did a better job in 2009, raising the bar for payouts.

"We look at all of the data, when it's all completed, and all of the ratings have been submitted, and we look for the natural breaks in those results," Rossides said. "This year, the ratings ranges were slightly different than last year, because the workforce had performed better. The officers are staying on the job longer, and gaining more experience, and they're becoming more skilled in the job."

According to the report, about 17 percent of employees fell into the top performance category in 2009, earning a 4 percent boost to their base salary and a $2,500 bonus. About 32 percent were in the next tier and will receive a 2 percent raise and a $1,500 bonus. Twenty-seven percent will receive a 1 percent raise and $1,000 bonus, and nearly 24 percent will receive only a $500 bonus. A small portion (0.02 percent) of employees will not receive any raise or bonus other than the cost-of-living increase, which everyone will get. Some officers will receive additional cash bonuses. Last year's report showed approximately the same distribution and payout to employees.

National Treasury Employees Union officials said members were frustrated they didn't know the score or performance level they needed to get a certain pay hike until after TSA had distributed the raises. Union representatives also noted that at least one NTEU member was slated to receive a smaller raise than in 2008, despite achieving a better performance review score.

"The fact that you can score higher from one year to the next and receive a smaller merit-pay increase points to the unfair and arbitrary nature of the PASS system," NTEU President Colleen Kelley said.

American Federation of Government Employees attorney Chad Harris also blasted the system, claiming that the changing thresholds and payouts were unfair to employees.

"It's an extremely subjective system, in terms of evaluating the [transportation security officers] and what scores they will ultimately receive," Harris said.

Both unions support legislation that would move TSA employees to the General Schedule and grant them the right to bargain collectively, but its prospects for passage remain murky. The bill (H.R. 1881) has cleared two House panels and is awaiting a floor vote; it has yet to be introduced in the Senate, however.

Rossides defended the pay plan, noting employees know at the beginning of the year the actions they must take and the tasks they must perform well to qualify for rewards. The system is critical to ensuring dedicated TSOs are well-compensated, she said.

FROM GovernmentExecutive.com: Half of stimulus contract spending falls into risky categories

By Elizabeth Newell enewell@govexec.com October 20, 2009

Despite the Obama administration's stated preference for competitively awarded, fixed-price contracts, at least $7.8 billion of the more than $16 billion in federal contracts awarded under the stimulus falls outside these categories, according to data posted on Recovery.gov.

In the initial Recovery Act implementation memorandum released on Feb. 18, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter R. Orszag stated, "To the maximum extent practicable, contracts using Recovery Act funds shall be awarded as fixed-price contracts using competitive procedures."

Contracts that did not meet this criteria were to be posted on a special section of Recovery.gov. The list there shows that, as of Sept. 9, $7.8 billion in noncompetitive, nonfixed price contract awards had been made under the stimulus. While the total contract spending was updated on Oct. 15, the list of risky contracts was not.

OMB spokesman Tom Gavin said the majority of these contracts, awarded by the Energy Department, were not conducive to fixed-price arrangements.

"Fixed-price contracts are most useful when the scope of work is a known commodity," Gavin said. " However, for these contracts (primarily environmental management and clean-up), the final scope of work is not known, and the department has moved forward with cost-plus contracts for these projects."

Gavin said the administration remains firm in its effort to significantly limit nonfixed price contracts and to implement contracting reforms governmentwide.

Thus far, the noncompetitive, nonfixed price section of Recovery.gov lists only the awarding agency, contractor name, cost of award and date the contract was signed. OMB has stated that a full summary -- including a description of the required products or services -- will be posted as well. Ed Pound, spokesman for the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, said within the next week, what is now a small PDF file will be broken out into a Web page and each entry will contain a detailed view of the contract.

OMB has stated that when agencies choose to use "riskier contract types," they must take a number of actions to mitigate the government's exposure. When choosing other than fixed-price contracts, for example, agencies are to ensure all alternatives have been considered and qualified employees are available to monitor the contract.

"Fixed-price contracts provide maximum incentive for the contractor to control costs and perform effectively and impose a minimum burden upon the contracting parties," Orszag wrote in the February memo. "Using other than a fixed-price contract may be appropriate, but requires agencies to pay special attention to ensuring that sufficient qualified acquisition personnel are available to perform contract administration to mitigate the government's risk."

The memo also advised agencies to review internal procurement policies to ensure they are promoting competition "to the maximum extent practicable." 

FROM GovernmentExecutive.com: OMB contracting guidance expected to be released this week

By Elizabeth Newell enewell@govexec.com October 26, 2009

Contracting guidance that the Office of Management and Budget is developing likely will be released within the next few days, sources told Government Executive on Monday.

The Senate's contracting oversight subcommittee is holding a hearing on Wednesday to review the Obama administration's strategy for reforming government contracting. A subcommittee spokeswoman said members expect the report to be released in advance of the hearing, and an OMB official confirmed on background that the guidance will be released soon.

"Obviously, the subcommittee has been eagerly awaiting this report, so they will be anxious to talk with OMB's [Deputy Director for Management] Jeffrey Zients and give him their feedback on the administration's plan, including any critiques they may have," the spokeswoman said.

In March, Obama directed OMB to work with agencies to reform multiple areas of federal acquisition, including competition, the appropriate use of contract types, outsourcing and the workforce. The agency also issued memos to guide agencies in managing and creating processes for the ongoing review of existing contracts to identify those deemed wasteful, inefficient or irrelevant.

In July, OMB released an initial round of guidance that covered general ways to improve acquisition processes, make better use of information related to contractors' past performance and balance the blended contractor and federal workforce. The acquisition practices memo, signed by OMB director Peter R. Orszag, directed agencies to develop a plan to save 7 percent on contract spending by the end of fiscal 2011.

The OMB official said the July guidance covered "90 percent of the president's charge from his March memo," and the new material will supplement that information. Contracting specialists have been anticipating in particular guidance on the definition of "inherently governmental" work, or work barred from outsourcing.

Go to Government Executive

Recovery Act Transparency is Questioned in a Recent Report

Read the September report from OMB Watch [ www.ombwatch.org]:

Recovery Act Transparency: Implementation and Current Issues

In the Abramoff case another former Bush official is sentenced to prison

FROM GovernmentExecutive.com

By Robert Brodsky rbrodsky@govexec.com October 16, 2009

David Safavian, the former head of federal procurement policy during the Bush administration, was sentenced on Friday to 12 months and one day in prison for lying about his dealings with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. He will be on supervised probation for 24 months after his release from prison.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman, however, ruled that Safavian would not have to surrender to authorities until after his pregnant wife, Jennifer, gives birth. It is not clear when she is due to give birth.

Prosecutors had been asking for a prison sentence of 15 to 21 months.

Friedman appeared moved by the emotional speeches from David and Jennifer Safavian, in which the couple pleaded for mercy and urged the judge to consider the toll that the lengthy case -- which has spanned two trials and an appeal -- has had on their family, including their 6-year-old daughter.

"Please give our daughter and unborn child an opportunity to have a father in their life," Jennifer Safavian asked Friedman before the sentence was handed down.

David Safavian "begged for mercy" and said there was no chance he would ever make such a mistake again. "My situation is an abject lesson for everyone," Safavian said. "I am the poster child for staying away from the gray areas of ethics; how not to act and what not to say."

Safavian conceded multiple lapses of poor judgment, but he continued to argue that his behavior, while inappropriate, was not criminal.

Defense attorney Richard Sauber said his client had suffered more than enough already without enduring prison. Safavian is bankrupt, will lose his law license and never will be able to work or contract for the government again, he said.

But Friedman pointed out that Safavian had abused the public's trust and lied to investigators, and he needed to be punished. "At some point, a light bulb should have gone on," Friedman said.

Safavian, who also served as chief of staff at the General Services Administration, was convicted in December 2008 on four counts relating to an elaborate golf trip he took with Abramoff and several others in 2002. In the weeks leading up to the trip, prosecutors said Abramoff lobbied Safavian for help in purchasing or developing two GSA properties. Safavian was found guilty of obstructing a GSA investigation into the trip, providing false statements to a GSA ethics officer and to the FBI, and lying on a financial disclosure form about the trip's cost. He was acquitted of providing a false statement to a Senate committee.

The trial was the second for Safavian. He originally was convicted of five counts in June 2006 and Friedman later sentenced him to 18 months in prison. Safavian was allowed to stay free on bail pending his appeal.

In June 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia agreed to vacate Safavian's conviction, throwing out two charges and granting a retrial on three others. The appeals court noted that Friedman should have allowed Safavian to call an expert witness and castigated federal attorneys for presenting "tenuous" legal arguments.

Months later, the Justice Department reindicted Safavian on three of the original counts and added two new charges.

The case dates back to 2002, when Safavian, then with GSA, was invited by Abramoff, a friend of several years, to attend a golfing excursion to Scotland and London. Safavian told a GSA ethics officer -- and later repeated the same statement to Senate investigators and to the FBI -- that Abramoff "did not have business with GSA" and that he worked only on Capitol Hill.

Abramoff was sentenced to six years in prison on charges of corruption, fraud, conspiracy and tax evasion.

On Thursday, the trial of another Abramoff associate, Kevin Ring, ended in a mistrial.

Safavian's attorneys have 10 days to decide whether to appeal the conviction. Safavian declined to comment after the sentencing, as did his attorneys.

A new ad goes too far when it says Medicare will be "bankrupt" in eight years

FROM FactCheck.org

A new health care ad from a conservative group claims that "Medicare will be bankrupt in eight years." That gives a false impression. The program does have huge financial problems, but there’s no reason to think it’s going out of business as the word "bankrupt" implies. And the issue isn’t new:

• A government report the ad refers to says the trust fund for one part of Medicare – hospital insurance – won’t have enough money to pay all benefits in 2017. Medicare’s physician and drug benefits will "remain adequately financed," says the report.

• Government projections have found that the hospital insurance trust fund would face a shortfall "almost from its inception," according to the Congressional Research Service. But in many cases politicians have found ways to extend it. In 1970, for instance, the trust fund was expected to be insolvent in 1972.

The ad also claims that "some want to pay for health care reform with $500 billion dollars in Medicare spending cuts." Actually, the House health care bill, to which this refers, proposes a net cut in spending of $219 billion over 10 years.

Analysis

The conservative group Americans for Prosperity has released a new 60-second ad through its Patients First project. The ad, which features a family doctor, Dr. Amy Siems, talking to viewers, recycles a few misleading talking points against health care legislation in Congress, but includes a new claim that is quite startling. Dr. Siems says that "Medicare will be bankrupt in eight years."

READ full article at http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/going-out-of-business/

Government should focus on quality of contracting competition

FROM GovernmentExecutive.com

By Elizabeth Newell enewell@govexec.com October 9, 2009

Agencies should focus on increasing the quality, not just the quantity, of competition in contracting, according to a new report from the Federal Acquisition Innovation and Reform Institute.

One of the key challenges in assessing federal competition is a lack of consensus on its key goals and measurements of success, said FAIR Institute President Raj Sharma. The most common question raised to gauge competition is determining how many contracts or how many dollars were competed, according to Sharma.

But agencies instead should concentrate on ensuring they are creating a competitive, innovative marketplace for federal contracts that ensures the lowest life-cycle costs for purchases, the report concluded.

"It's the quality of competition we need to look at in combination with the quantity of competition," Sharma said. "For example, if we determine we're increasing full-and-open competition, are we attracting the best suppliers and the best capabilities?"

While the Obama administration and other stakeholders agree that competition is an important element of a healthy acquisition system, there isn't consensus on whether the government is making progress. "There is no consistent definition for competition. To be able to say whether competition is increasing or decreasing, when there's no consensus definition, is hard," Sharma said.

The FAIR Institute reported that the current competitive environment does not allow government to attract the most innovative and capable suppliers or to manage total life-cycle costs effectively. The group identified three primary issues hindering progress: limited knowledge of industry or supplier capabilities, economics and cost structures; a complex acquisition process and unique government requirements; and common acquisition strategies such as aggregating unlike requirements.

These issues create an acquisition environment Sharma likened to the federal hiring process -- "complex, lengthy and unattractive for the best candidates." Among the most detrimental consequences are a process and requirements so excessive they discourage some qualified companies from competing in the federal marketplace. Many of those that do choose to compete incur significant costs to overcome barriers to entry, costs that are eventually passed on to the government and taxpayers.

The report also criticized the government's cost management and negotiation strategies, which neither reduce cost nor improve performance, observers said.

"The government often ends up in situations where it pays higher prices and also ends up with higher total costs," the report stated. "Suppliers end up frustrated and sometimes walk away from government work."

Sharma said private sector companies best known for their procurement practices have a deep understanding not only of their economics and the cost of their own business, but also of suppliers at every level. This understanding allows for more productive negotiations and the ability to address cost drivers, he said.

"The philosophy has been that by openly competing, we get the best price; that is not true," Sharma said. "Competition by itself doesn't ensure best value."

To ensure best value and productive competition, the government should adopt a more "proactive, systematic and holistic" approach to competition, the report stated. Agencies should develop a common set of definitions and metrics to measure competition, devise strategies to mitigate barriers to entry and attract the best suppliers, strengthen internal capabilities to perform industry analyses and cost modeling, and ensure acquisitions strategies enhance competition and limit risk in sole-source situations.

Congress moves to repeal Pentagon pay-for-performance system

GovernmentExecutive.com

By Alyssa Rosenberg arosenberg@govexec.com October 7, 2009

Congress has dealt a lethal blow to the Defense Department's controversial pay-for-performance system.

The conference committee working on the fiscal 2010 Defense authorization bill on Wednesday released a report of the final legislation that repeals the law authorizing the National Security Personnel System, and mandates the return of all NSPS employees to their previous pay system by Jan. 1, 2012. The House and Senate are expected to approve the conference agreement.

"I am pleased my fellow Armed Services conferees agreed that it is time to end this short-sighted policy, which threatens the rights and protections of the DoD civilian workforce," said Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii. "Employees throughout the federal government, especially those charged with defending the nation, deserve a fair personnel system. I believe this agreement will more appropriately protect DoD employee rights while giving DoD the additional performance management and hiring flexibility it needs."

The report also gives the Defense secretary the ability to propose new personnel flexibilities, but would subject those to congressional approval.

Under the agreement, the Defense secretary would have to begin returning the 200,000 Defense employees covered by NSPS to their previous pay system within six months of the law's enactment. The conference report said "no employee shall suffer any loss of or decrease in pay" when they revert to the previous personnel system.

The Federal Managers Association had been concerned that highly-rated employees who received significant pay increases under NSPS would be financially penalized when they returned to the General Schedule or another personnel system, said FMA President Darryl Perkinson.

The conference report also stated that until NSPS employees are returned to their earlier pay systems, they are entitled to 100 percent of pay raises granted to General Schedule workers in other departments.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced on Sept. 25 that all Defense employees who received ratings above "unacceptable" would receive the full raise given to General Schedule employees. Previously, employees had been entitled to at least 60 percent of that raise, but the Defense secretary had the authority to allocate 40 percent of the raise to pay pools to be distributed as performance increases and bonuses.

Federal employee unions strongly praised the conferees for choosing to repeal the authorizing legislation behind NSPS, a more aggressive action than those proposed in the House and Senate Defense authorization bills. The House version of the provision would have rolled back NSPS within one year, unless the Defense secretary argued for its reform and Congress passed legislation to preserve the system. The Senate provision would have eliminated NSPS within the same period of time, but allowed the Defense Secretary to establish a new pay-for-performance system that was "fair, credible and transparent."

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Rep. Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., said that the decision to repeal NSPS was a necessary first step toward the "reconstruction" of the Pentagon's personnel system, recommended by the Defense Business Board's review panel, which issued its final report in August.

While the conference report does not give the Defense secretary authority to establish a new pay system unilaterally, it does direct him to make substantial changes to performance management within the department. The report directs the secretary to work with the head of the Office of Personnel Management to create a "fair, credible and transparent performance appraisal system" for employees; a "fair, credible and transparent system for linking employee bonuses and other performance based actions to performance appraisals of employees;" and a system to provide employees with "performance assistance plans" that would give them access to on-the-job training and mentoring.

And the report gives the Defense secretary the authority to create a "Department of Defense Civilian Workforce Incentive Fund." Money appropriated for the fund could be used to award performance, hiring and retention bonuses to Defense employees.

The agreement opens the door to the creation of additional personnel flexibilities other than the changes outlined in the conference report, but says the Pentagon chief must work with the OPM director to develop a plan for those changes and justification for how they would avoid the pitfalls of NSPS identified in the Defense Business Board review panel's report. Congress would have to approve those changes.

"NSPS has been on the wrong track since its inception, and I am glad to see the conference committee take a strong stand against this failed system," said William Dougan, president of the National Federation of Federal Employees. Dougan cautioned that the conference report still had to pass, but said Wednesday had been "a very good day for the federal workforce."

100 Technology Courses You Should Have Taken in College

You may have already graduated from college, but that doesn’t mean you have to stop learning. For many people, taking advantage of open courseware can be a great way to build skills that can be applied directly to the workplace. Whether you went to college before computers were prevalent, or ended up working a more technologically-focused field than you anticipated, these courses can help you learn about a myriad of technological topics.  Full Article

 

US Dept. of Justice: Three Jailers Plead Guilty to Systematic Detainee Abuse & Coverup

Three former jailers at the Lexington-Fayette County Detention Center (FCDC) pleaded guilty today to civil rights charges in federal court in Lexington, Ky.  Scott Tyree, Kristine Lafoe and Anthony Estep were convicted for their roles in abusing pretrial detainees and their efforts to conceal that abuse.

Tyree, 46, pleaded guilty to conspiring to deprive detainees of their constitutional rights by physically abusing them and by authoring false and misleading incident reports in order to conceal that abuse. Tyree faces a maximum prison sentence of ten years and a fine of up to $250,000.

Lafoe, 43, pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiring to obstruct justice for her role in concealing the abuses at FCDC by permitting others to write false and misleading incident reports in order to justify unnecessary and excessive uses of force. Lafoe faces a maximum prison sentence of five years and a fine of up to $250,000.

Estep, 34, pleaded guilty to a federal civil rights charge and a charge of obstruction of justice by bringing false disciplinary charges with the intent to hinder and delay the reporting of the assault by FCDC officers, and by witnessing and failing to intervene in an incident of abuse by another FCDC officer. Estep faces a maximum prison sentence of two years and a fine of up to $200,000.

Two of the three former jailers have agreed to cooperate in the government’s investigation and prosecution.

"The overwhelming majority of detention officers perform their difficult duties with honor and professionalism," said Assistant Attorney General King. "The Justice Department will vigorously prosecute those who cross the line to engage in acts of criminal misconduct."

Today’s guilty pleas resulted from the investigative work of the FBI’s Louisville Division and the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. The case is being prosecuted by Department attorneys Jared Fishman and Benjamin Hawk.

45-years after Pres. Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act wage disparity among men & women still around

Equal Pay Day was held on April 28^th, it's late, however I wanted to express my discouragement about the wage disparity among men and women. We are 45 years after President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act (EPA) into law, and women are still making less than men.  I'm surprised America is still having this conversation 24-years after I found out that my pay was not equal to my manufacturing engineer male counterparts.

See NoLimits.org:  To a man’s dollar, White women make 77.8 cents, African-American women make 68.7 cents and Hispanic women make 59 cents.

I sincerely hope Congress will pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, which closes loopholes that enable employers to discriminate in terms of pay. It also would support agencies that monitor employers and keep them honest.

Our daughters and Granddaughters should not have to fight this fight.

Let’s achieve pay equity now, before the 50th anniversary of the Equal Pay Act (EPA)!

Urge President Obama to nominate a justice who will uphold the American values of freedom and privacy set forth in the landmark Roe v. Wade decision

I received the email below and strongly feel that President Obama MUST nominate a justice who will uphold the American values of freedom and privacy set forth in the landmark Roe vs. Wade decision.  President Obama, do not send women back to the days before Roe vs. Wade!

BELOW IS THE LETTER FROM: Nancy Keenan, President, NARAL Pro-Choice America

Last week when I heard about Justice David Souter’s retirement from the Supreme Court, I thought, “This is why it’s so important to have a pro-choice president.”

But anti-choice senators are already railing against President Obama’s desire to select a nominee who is empathetic with the American people, claiming that empathy is simply a code word for a so-called “activist judge.” Sen. Orrin Hatch went so far as to state that the White House will be sure to pick a “pro-abortion justice.”

You can make sure that senators like Orrin Hatch don’t succeed. Urge President Obama to nominate a justice who will uphold the American values of freedom and privacy set forth in the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. Please send him an urgent message today.

Even with a pro-choice president, we have a long road ahead of us.

First, you can bet that our anti-choice opponents will do whatever it takes to defeat any Supreme Court nominee who has taken a pro-choice position. Just look at the hateful smear campaign they launched to block several of President Obama’s highly qualified nominees, including Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Prof. Dawn Johnsen, and Judge David Hamilton.

Even the president of the Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-choice group, said that the fight against Johnsen holds “significant implications for our next Supreme Court battle.”²  This doesn’t sound like someone who’s ready to wave the white flag just because the majority of Americans are pro-choice.

Second, we’ll need to secure 60 votes in the Senate. The fact is, there are only 40 fully pro-choice senators.

Take a quick moment to send your personal message to President Obama -- urge him to select a nominee who supports the constitutional right to privacy.

Today is just the beginning of our campaign to protect Roe v. Wade. In the days and months ahead, we’ll need your help again. So tell us what you’re feeling, thinking, and how we can help you mobilize your friends. Give us your feedback on our blog or Facebook.