Randy's Blog

RSS Feed

Question of the week: Do you support the ACCOUNT Act as a means of reining in federal spending?

Posted by Randy | March 06, 2013

Last month, I asked whether you supported sequestration or an alternative plan to reduce spending. After nearly 80% responded that they preferred alternative spending cuts, I asked which alternatives to sequestration you support. Finally, I asked which legislative proposals voted on in the House or Senate you supported to avert sequestration.

This week we take a look at a far narrower bill designed to reign in government spending by increasing accountability for federal spending on conferences. Recently introduced, the Agency Conferences and Conventions Operating Under Necessary Transparency (ACCOUNT) Act, or H.R.283, seeks to control spending by requiring that conferences costing more than $25,000 must be approved by the head of the particular federal agency, and must have details posted on the agency website within 30 days of the conference, including the purpose, total cost and cost per employee attending. Each agency would be required to submit a report on their conferences to the relevant Congressional committee for the fiscal year. Under the ACCOUNT Act, conference spending would be public and federal agencies would use taxpayer money more wisely with the American people watching. This bill aims to crack down on wasteful practices and bring conference spending – such as the $823,000 spent by the U.S. General Services Administration in Las Vegas last year – into the light of day.

Question of the week: Do you support the ACCOUNT Act as a means of reining in federal spending?

( ) Yes.
( ) No.
( ) I don’t know.
( ) Other (share your thoughts below).

Take the Poll here.

Find the results of last week’s InstaPoll here.

Comments

Users are solely responsible for the opinions they post here and their comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Congressman Forbes.

Gregg J commented on 3/6/2013

No, I do not support the ACCOUNT act. All conferences--except those involving national security or classified information--should be conducted by teleconference. The government spent hundreds of millions on large screen televisions and advanced phones to gain teleconference capability...use them! Any agency that spends a ridiculous amount on a conference needs to be heavily sequestered. Additionally, the management that authorized it should be barred from federal service for a period not less than 25 years and required to return wasted funds to the taxpayers. Federal service is not an excuse for foolish behavior.
Joe Auricchio commented on 3/6/2013

Why does everything have to be an act of Congress? Why can't we just use common sense? Oh wait....we are talking about Congress. Randy, the citizens of this great country are not fools. With information being passed around at the speed of light Congress and Federal workers should know by now to behave themselves as if they are spending thier own money. Teleconferencing should be the norm of business today. Maybe with the sequester in tact, the citizens of this country will see we can actually survive without the governement spending at will.
JD Public commented on 3/6/2013

NO! The costs associated with collecting that information and the time spent doing so greatly impair the ability of Fed employees to do their jobs. Disseminating scientific and technical information to benefit the American economy will be negatively impacted. Don't punish everybody for the acts of a few.
Guy Albanese commented on 3/6/2013

The Account Act is another flyspecking exercise and diversion. Lets start making decisions on big issues - size of the military, entitlements, regulations, debt reduction.
Richard G commented on 3/6/2013

Really!! $25,000 for 20 people!! Haven't you guys anything better to do?
Brenda Balschmiter commented on 3/6/2013

No, I don't support ACCOUNT either. All conferences should be suspended except by video. We're not talking forever. Folks will get to go to conferences again eventually. Granted conferences are small potatoes in the scheme of things, but you'd be surprised how quickly the registration fees, hotel charges, food and entertainment and transportation add up for a few thousand people. I see it everyday where I work. On a side note, I think automatically going for peoples' pay is an awful thing. There are so many other area (e.g. conference attendance, subscriptions, memberships, furniture buying) that can be totally eliminated for the time being. But you guys always go for the squeeky wheel that will make the most noise.
Richard doss commented on 3/6/2013

Cut out the expensive trips the president first lady and Biden are taking. Not the white house tours. Give me a break. 17 trillion in debt and you want to cut conferences.
A Forman commented on 3/6/2013

We spend Billions and give away Billions. We should be spending our time on managing those expenses and not wasting time on micro managing what is effectively small dollars.
Mike Payne commented on 3/6/2013

Anything that assists in reducing wasteful spending, I am for. However, the fact remains, it is beyond the pale of responsibility that our "so called" leaders would need something so insignificant to garner support for saving money. Read James Busch's comments above and place a ditto for my complete agreement. We are speaking of grown men and women who have grown entirely complacent with the ability to spend the taxpayer's money into the next two generations and beyond, without any sense of responsibility. The only apparent concern for the great majority, if not the entirety, of Congress, is the need to be re-elected. And, what must be done in order to accomplish that goal.
Suzanne Guggenheim commented on 3/6/2013

$25K for a conference is still a LOT of money! There needs to be more control than that: relevance and uniqueness of the conference, number of people who go, cost per person. ... Going to such a conference needs to correspond to a business need, not be a reward, or a perk!
Nicole R commented on 3/6/2013

Before you can say this is a way to "reign in" federal spending you need to specify 1 - how much money is currently spent on conferences, 2 - how much of that money is considered "wasteful" and 3 - the estimated amount that would be saved by this measure. My suspicion is not much. That doesn't mean it's not important; just that it will likely not make a significant dent in federal spending. Please focus on appropriate accounting like the reported billions of dollars wasted in efforts to rebuild the Middle East. And certainly don't ask me for another dime of my money until this is done. I get it that the federal budget is very large, but that doesn't excuse poor spending. Also close ridiculous tax loopholes like tax breaks for personal jets. Then reduce tax rates especially on the middle class. It's all shuffling around the same money but the way it's presented makes all the difference.
Beverly Taylor commented on 3/6/2013

Randy, Why do we have to have these conferences which to me is nothing but a vacation at the taxpayers expense. Don't we still have teleconferencing? I wish Congress would reign in on Mr. Obama using AirForce One for his campaigns on gun control, immigration, etc and start doing his appointed and paid job. Where was he when Ambassador Chrisopher was killed? You are doing great job and I am proud that you are my Congressman.
Samuel Woolf commented on 3/6/2013

he 25K limit is too low to be acted upon at the federal agency level as that amount would not support reasonable number of attendees for some departments. There should be levels of conference size stepped up and approved at increasingly higher levels within the departments of a federal agency.
David Reed commented on 3/6/2013

A good start, but I don't see why law enforcement agencies are exempted. For conferences involving national security, why would any private conference need to cost more than $25,000? If a conference is classified for "national security," and it costs more than $25,000, it needs to be put on the records and scrutinized.
Richard Hill commented on 3/6/2013

I do not support this bill. What I do support is the prohibition of ANY conferences until you and the rest of the congress can cut spending even more. I support sequestration and deeper cuts.
J Crowgey commented on 3/6/2013

Don't see why there should be any exclusions except perhaps number three. But then again, it seems the bill is about authorizing conferences at non-govt facilities. If it is defense related why not meet at a government facility? Also think that if your poll last week was more forthcoming in the questioning, that is to say, that your question read "accept the Democratic proposal to eliminate tax loopholes" your survey would have had different results than those you received by painting the democratic bill as as tax increases. I understand that eliminating tax loopholes for large corporations is in effect a tax increase but I question the broad base of constituents support for the continuation of what has been questioned by so many. When soliciting responses from the broad base of your constituents I expect you are aware the coloring of your questions will affect the responses you get. If the Republican Party does not start becoming more candid they will not be able to understand what is driving their constituency or perhaps, as evidenced in the last election, their lack of one.
Bob Harris commented on 3/6/2013

This could result in more cost of justifying and documenting than any savings hoped for. And they will come up with means of end- running the intent. You should also include all those dumb and lavish Congressional recess junks, agree? Yes pennies add up but you need to go after bigger ticket waste. This smells of a PR gimmick, the very thing the President is being admonished for. You all need to get off the stump, cut you PR staff by 50% and get some work done. These little gimmicks don't cut it.
Nicole Rankins commented on 3/6/2013

Mr. Forbes - I genuinely appreciate your efforts to solicit the opinion of your constituents. Please don't take this the wrong way, but the fact that Congress is entertaining this shows that as a unit, the 432 men and women of the House and the 100 men and women of the Senate just don't get it. It's not that this is not important, but the amount of money that might be saved is likely minimal so it is a stretch to say this will "rein in federal spending". How much is currently spent on conferences? How much of that has been demonstrated to be wasteful in the past? How much money do you anticipate this will save? This topic is probably #150 on the list of things that need to be addressed to reduce federal spending. It cannot be done without addressing wasteful defense spending (billions wasted in the Middle East), Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Close ridiculous tax loopholes like breaks for personal jets. Go department by department and carefully review spending. It will take a lot of time; but if it is done right and a clear example is set up front, departments will get their act together when it's their turn to get the books reviewed. At this point we should fire every single member of the House and Senate as there is something entrenched in the culture that prevents the 535 of you from getting much of anything done. It's extreme; but it cannot be worse than where we are now. There are over 300 million men, women, and children in this country and about 70% of them are over age 20. That's a huge pool and there have to be people who can get it done better than what is being done now. If you were working for a business you would have all been terminated a long time ago. We should stop being fooled by individual members coming back to their districts and pointing the finger at everyone else for things not being done. This is not personal, and many if not most representatives care and want to make a difference, but if you can't get the job done you need to go. Period.
Thomas G commented on 3/6/2013

This is pathetic congressman Forbes. I will not even dignify this question with a response. What on God's green earth are you doing in Washington. To present something like this to your constituents after telling me in a personal letter you will not support an increase in the minimum wage is just insulting sir. How can you face the voters with a position like that on the very day the national headlines reported on the record income disparity, record corporate profits, record amount of corporate cash on hand, and the overwhelming support of the people for action on this issue. You are not leading sir, you are harming your country. I challenge you to write a serious column and you defend your consistent votes against the interests of the middle class. You defend your obstruction of jobs initiatives. To present an issue like this, after hearing the outrage from dozens and dozens of people on this very blog on this issue is just mind numbing sir. To not even accompany the president to Newport News, when your colleagues did, where you could have stood up for the middle class was simply shameful. You squandered a serious opportunity sir to make good on your personal promise to me that you would work with ANY republican, democrat, or independent to address the sequestration matter. You chose obstruction sir, yet again. You FAILED me sir and you FAILED the public. Do not expect to remain in congress without an immediate change in course sir. Stop FAILING the American people and stop harming our nation with obstruction.
Matthew Nielsen commented on 3/6/2013

Any and all conferences should be approved by taxpayers in advance. Teleconferencing should be the norm.
James Edwards commented on 3/6/2013

Having Agency Accountability for Dollars spent on sending Employees to Conferences and Conventions is a Good Start But, There is a LOT of Waste in these Federal Agencies Outside of What they Spend on Conferences and Conventions!!! There should also be Accountability for Each and Every Dollar Spent and for Every Current or Future Hire Employee of these Agencies and whether Their Jobs are Really Necessary? Expansion of the Federal Government is One of the Major Reasons we are in this Financial Dilemma!
Lee Bingham commented on 3/6/2013

This isn't a poor choice - it seems reasonable. Unfortunately it also seems to have almost no support and the probability of passing in infinitesimal. Why is our time and money being wasted on these song and dance routines where we wave a flag to distract from the major issues. Compare what agency spending is versus Lobbyist spending - how much do the Lobby groups spend to influence our leaders? Look it up - and then consider the fact that our civil servants, people who have chosen a lower wage to work for something they believe in, are currently faced with a 20% wage cut. Stop the balderdash and solve the problems! Democrats and Republicans together!
Brad Tolbert commented on 3/6/2013

Eliminate or greatly reduce foreign aid. Sell the military MRAP vehicles purchased for DHS. Get rid of the drones purchased and operated over U.S. airspace.
frank h commented on 3/6/2013

Although I support the Account act, the act itself does not prevent spending. It only enables the public to be informed of the amount spent. It doesn't ensure the conference will be cancelled do to public input. Alternative means should be established. Local government has been relying heavily on webinars viewed at their own desk to engage in discussions while limiting the cost to travel.
Richard Insley commented on 3/6/2013

The federal government needs a balanced budget. If we can't achieve that goal, nothing else matters. Public and Congressional discussions of other issues--even the reduction in specific types of wasteful spending--stand in the way of the one and only change that will save our nation from economic ruin. We did not tax our way into this predicament, so the only way out is discussion and debate on the reduction in the overall level of spending. Kicking the can down the road must end.
Jackie Stephens commented on 3/6/2013

Enough is enough; stop trying to micromanage! Focus on your job which is to represent your constituents. You and your colleagues have allowed sequestration to occur by not compromising. Middle Class Americans are the ones who will bear the brunt of this horrendous austerity measure. Additionally, we can expect (with Congress's track record) approval of another Continuing Resolution or (God forbid) a Govt. shutdown to occur at the end of the month. If you seriously think you can balance the budget on the backs of federal employees, you may need to take a math class. I would like to see your next poll to inquire if your constituents approve of a balanced approach to our budget woes and/or closing special interest tax loopholes. Unless you dramatically change the way you do business, I will have no choice but to vote for someone else next election. Shame on you Congressman Forbes!
Richard Diver commented on 3/6/2013

There is no reason for agencies of the federal govenment to have any conferences. All of the money comes from the taxpayers, the great majority of whom are not also government employees
A Hogge commented on 3/6/2013

I support the ACCOUNT act but any hopes that this anything to rein in spending is misguided. Our country's spending problem goes sooo much farther than a conference.
Cary Lynch commented on 3/6/2013

I might have said 'yes', until I read the proposal. 1. It accomplishes absolutely nothing. $50k could still be spent on a conference of 5 people. It would be reported (probably inaccurately and at the cost of 25+ hrs of labor), but it would still take place and the money spent. Nothing would be done about it. If the agencies did not learn from the GSA debacale, this little bill will not phase them. 2.The proposal does not specify what should be included in the cost analysis, ie, travel, awards, time lost to travel and organization of the event, etc. 3. Above all it, excludes the armed forces! Surely you jest!!
J Browning commented on 3/6/2013

While in principle I completely agree that conferences should have scrutiny and accountability, the process of approval needs to be clearly defined and easy to determine. Otherwise, the process creates a backlog and significant issues for the planners and participants. Also, a difficult process also creates huge amounts of administrative overhead that is equally wasteful. While some will suggest no conferences in light of Video Teleconferences, that approach will not always enable the true benefits of a conference; that is, all of the side-bar conversations and in depth interactions. You must balance efficiency with effectiveness. You can be highly efficient but very ineffective.
Kevin Smith commented on 3/6/2013

Don't micromanage spending. When you find mis-use DEMAND disciplinary actions with senior leaders held accountable and THAT organization's budget drastically scrutinized by GAO. Also MANDATE ALL government and Services in DoD go to activity based accounting so they can't hide spending and the profiles of spending are better understood for what they NEED.
Kimberly Stone commented on 3/6/2013

What I expect is for our leaders in Washington to come together and find the rational middle ground, to compromise and fight for the "grand bargain" that the analysts of merit have supported. Smaller measures that chip away at pieces consume resources for little pay off.
Robert Johns commented on 3/6/2013

With over 300 billion in waste via program duplication and untold billions in fraud the actions taken by congress have to be much broader.
b p commented on 3/7/2013

$25,000 is the threshold for looking into the reason for attending a conference?? How about $2000, or even $200. Let's, please put some type of restraint on spending. What good comes out of these conferences?? Are they going to save the government more money than the cost of the conference?? Let the attendee pay the cost and see how many think it is worth while to attend!
Robert OByrne commented on 3/7/2013

Yes, I support the legislation. Who wouldnt except those to loose conference $. This said, I really wonder which test of reason is being used. The one that is so narrowly hoping to reduce waste via conference oversight, or the one that is corporate welfare. Sure tackle the conference, but not at the expense of reducing and e.iminating corporate supports that serve only those who take the money to serve only their bottom line and investors
Cynndara Morgan commented on 3/7/2013

I think this proposal is a foolish waste of time and money. While the GSA incident was obviously outrageous, the vast majority of federal conferences are conducted for a third or less of what it would cost any other organization to manage them, including federally-funded universities and academic organizations. The accounting rules already in operation are virtually punitive in their complexity. Additional reports to Congress only waste more time and effort that should be invested in an agency's mission on political grandstanding. By far the majority of federal workers and agencies are dedicated, hardworking, and trustworthy. Those that betray that trust can be disgraced and sacked under existing frameworks. Congress has better things to do with its time than pursue such petty vendettas.
Paul Somers commented on 3/7/2013

$25K is too small amount and will force senior managers to deal with something they don't need to focus on. The local offices within government have authority to purchase supplies and equipment for more that $25K. While there are conferences that can be accomplished via teleconferencing, there are others that need to be accomplished face to face. The issue becomes providing teleconferencing capability to every government office and that will get expensive, due to the fact that not every office presently has that capability. Most of the problems publicized about abuse of travel are due to managers not doing their job within the approval process and asking the hard questions as to why the travel is necessary and why does it have to be in Las Vegas (for example). Have all conferences approved at the SES level but not at Head of Agency level. There are plenty of checks and balances already within government to determine if someone is abusing travel.
ginger jamerson commented on 3/7/2013

I agree with the gentleman who said that leaving the decision in the hands of the very one who CALLED for the conference is ridiculous. And I also believe that in today's world, teleconferencing is the way to go ....these conferences are nothing more than social events and any "work" that gets done can easily be accomplished with a very inexpensive teleconference. Another cost cutting measure would be to examine any "vacations" taken by the White House family BEFORE they go...the taxpayers should be allowed to view what one of the jaunts will cost us BEFORE it's taken...in today's economy and need for austerity methods, I truly feel that it's not too much to ask that the family in the White House stop using the taxpayers as their private travel agency.
Kara Canada commented on 3/7/2013

During difficult times, I support no conferences of a group of people. You get your people on the phone or in a room and tell them what needs to happen. There should be no show.
Kathy Lineker commented on 3/7/2013

The ACCOUNT Act might be a good idea, if somebody other than a Congressional committee was tasked with enforcement. Congress is famous for giving itself perks, boondoggles, and undeserved raises. And you guys think I would trust you to prevent Federal employees from wasting money? Please.....
Gregg J commented on 3/7/2013

This proposed legislation has holes big enough to drive a train through. For example, if I was an agency head planning an unneccessary national conference costing $125K, I would break this down into five regional conferences, containing costs for each under the $25K oversight limit. Think it won't happen...think again. Additionally, granting a blanket wavier to the military and law enforcement is unwise. Many agencies are equipped with secure networks that are authorized for handling sensitive information. These secure networks are a much better option than the ball room of a hotel where a majority of federal conferences are currently held.
Philip Kaye commented on 3/7/2013

Reduce agency budgets and the money will not be spent...This sounds like the "barn door is being closed after the horse has left"...A December 31 yearly report will NOT save money...
Jeff Brown commented on 3/8/2013

Randy, I support spending MY tax dollars for useful, productive work - and that is not defined by an arbitrary conference dollar amount. Let's start with holding Government personnel and program responsible for being productive for the Taxpayer's dollars they are spending. And let's start at the top. If you hire someone to fix your porch and they fail to do so, you don't pay them for it. Congress has been totally unproductive, spending basically the equivalent of a 20 hour workweek for only half the year actually on duty do the business you get paid for - and you have accomplished nothing of importance in the imte you were actually "working." So, begin by immediately ceasing pay to Congress and follow that by legislating that 100% of pay and benefits paid over the past two years be reimbursed to the people. Immediately eliminate the waste in Congressional staffs. Strip all Congressional staffs down to one aide and one administrative assistant. You can keep one staffer and an assistant in a maximum of 4 offices in the you District. Bottom line: start with YOUR waste.
Steven Jordan commented on 3/9/2013

Sir: Any wasteful spending needs to be addressed. This act appears to be no more than a sound bite to make people think that Congress is doing something. Vice the sound bites why not start w/ Oklahoma Senator Coburn's wasteful spending list to include not attack Get on with with attacking duplicity of spending for same thing; Medicare/Medicaid fraud; entitlement reform; baseline budgeting; etc. Respectfully, Steve Jordan
Sandra Miller commented on 3/17/2013

No they should not be allowed to accuse people of terrorism and kill them without due process of law. This could actually come down to let's just accuse everyone of terrorism, then wait for them to go over seas and we'll send our drone to murder them. Didn't they accuse almost everyone of Communism back in the 50's-60's? I believe they did. I don't think that one man has the right to take the life of another man.

Randy's Blog

SEARCH BLOG

RECENT POSTS

ARCHIVES

By Year

By Issue

Services

Issues