Citizens Against Government Waste

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) is a prominent taxpayer watchdog group in the USA. Its stated goal is "to eliminate waste, fraud, abuse and mismanagement in the federal government."^[1] The group, which declares itself as a "non-partisan, non-profit organization," has been accused of fronting lobbying efforts of corporations to make them appear "grassroots."^[2]

The CAGW's current President is Thomas A. Schatz.^[3]

1 Congressional Ratings
2 Pig Book
3 Government WasteWatch
4 Influence of CAGW
5 Controversies
6 References
7 External links

[edit] Congressional Ratings

Congressional Ratings are one of the most popular features where one can view a member of congress' “Scorecard.”

Since 1989, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) has examined Congressional roll-call votes to determine which members of Congress are voting in what they view as the interest of taxpayers. CAGW makes public what legislators are engaging in "pork-barrel" spending based on 'key' votes for each congressional session.

For the first session of the 109th Congress, CCAGW rated 34 key votes in the House and 24 key votes in the Senate. From these votes a scorecard is developed.

Scorecard Categories
100%	Taxpayer Superhero
80% - 99%	Taxpayer Hero
60% - 79%	Friendly
40% - 59%	Lukewarm
20% - 39%	Unfriendly
0% - 19%	Hostile

The House Scorecard and The Senate Scorecard are available on the group's site.

[edit] Pig Book

The Congressional Pig Book Summary (Pig Book) is published each spring. This is CAGW's famous exposé of the most glaring and irresponsible pork-barrel projects in the years appropriations bills and their sponsors.

The 2006 Pig Book identified 9,963 projects in the 11 appropriations bills that constitute the discretionary portion of the federal budget for fiscal 2006, costing taxpayers $29 billion. A "pork" project is a line-item in an appropriations bill that designates tax dollars for a specific purpose in circumvention of established budgetary procedures. To qualify as pork, a project must meet one of seven criteria that were developed in 1991 by CAGW and the Congressional Porkbusters Coalition.

Seven Criteria to Qualify as Pork

Requested by only one chamber of Congress
Not specifically authorized
Not competitively awarded
Not requested by the President
Greatly exceeds the President’s budget request or the previous year’s funding
Not the subject of congressional hearings
Serves only a local or special interest.

According to the St. Petersburg Times however, the Pig Book has been used to benefit corporate donors, specifically health clubs who donated to CAGW. The Pig Book listed federal grants to YMCAs who compete with those health clubs as waste. CAGW's president countered that "The Ys are there because they qualify as pork. Period."^[2]

In keeping with the pork tradition, each month CAGW issues a press release nominating its "Porker(s) of the Month", whereby a member of Congress is selected for supporting a particular piece of pork-barrel legislation.

[edit] Government WasteWatch

Government WasteWatch is the group's quarterly newsletter, which is distributed to members of CAGW, Congress, and members of the media nationwide. "Wastewatch" is the group's monthly dispatch feature.

[edit] Influence of CAGW

Positive: "I truly believe that the overwhelming 306-121 vote for the... amendment would not have been possible were it not for the work of the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste." - Former Rep. Bill Luther (D-Minn.)

"When CCAGW sends a letter to the Hill in support of an issue, it guarantees strong support on the House floor." - Former Rep. James Hansen (R-Utah)

CNN Inside Politics - "(CAGW's Pig Book) finds congressmen bringing home more than their share of legislative bacon."

Newsweek - "(CAGW's) annual Pig Book (is) a catalog of government excess."

Associated Press - "(CAGW is) Congress' pork barrel patrol."

Negative: Senator Ted Stevens, (R- Alaska) "I am guilty of asking the Senate for pork and proud of the Senate for giving it to me."

Senator Robert Byrd (D- West Virginia) "Let me thank the good senator (Stevens) from Alaska for being a good servant of his people. I have been in the same boat with the senator in many ways, and I have no apologies to make. What's one man's pork is another man's job."

Note: CAGW has termed Stevens as "top porker per capita in the U.S. Congress."

Senator Ted Stevens, (R- Alaska) on CAGW - "All they are is a bunch of psychopaths." -- December 26, 1999 Associated Press

Note: CAGW has termed Byrd as the "King of Pork" with a regular feature called, "Byrd Droppings" as he was the first in their database to obtain more than $1 billion in pork for his state.^[4]

"They call me 'The Pork King,' they don't know how much I enjoy it." - Sen. Robert Byrd

Senator Robert Byrd (D- West Virginia) on CAGW - "You might as well slap my wife as take away the highway money from West Virginia."-- December/ January 2001 George Magazine

[edit] Controversies

One man's junk is another man's treasure and this theme is not the exception to what CAGW considers wasteful. As should be expected many of their recommendations has them at odds with those who benefit from the government spending. A few policies have placed them at odds with different groups and interests.

Most provoking is CAGW's policy, as stated by their president, "We have always opposed increased taxes and increased regulations on all kinds of issues." Since regulations and government litigation generally increase government spending, CAGW usually opposes such use.

Controversy has erupted numerous times in CAGW's history. These have included disputes regarding litagation involving computer operating systems and the tobacco industry.

[edit] Microsoft's Antitrust Case (Litigation)

CAGW tracked the antitrust case in the U.S. and monitored its $35 million cost to taxpayers due to the litigation costs by the many states involved. This they considered to be wasteful use of taxpayer dollars. The states involved were CA, CT, FL, IL, IA, KS, KY, LA, MD, MA, MI, MN, NM, NY, NC, OH, UT, WV and WI. CAGW developed an email and a paper mail campaign for their million plus users that could be sent directly to their state's Attorney General and a space they could use to add personal anecdotes if desired.

The opponents of Microsoft (many who have never heard of CAGW) claimed CAGW was just a front for Microsoft. Many were Linux supporters and Open Source supporters that had long been opponents to Microsoft. They lumped CAGW with another group, Americans for Technology Leadership (ATL), as a movement to support Microsoft's monopoly on the computer operating systems market.

Since CAGW is a non-profit origination, 501(c)(3), they are not required by law to furnish donor names and they have a policy of not releasing names. This further exasperated opponents claim although CAGW claims to receive 78% of its funds from individuals and only 21% from corporations and foundations.^[5]

The Los Angeles Times reported that at least two dead people sent in a form letter by CAGW to Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff. According to the Times, family members crossed out the names on the form letters and signed for them. This brought about the "Microsoft Supported by Dead People" controversy^[6] from Microsoft's and CAGW's opponents and the CAGW's response that they were not tied to Microsoft or to ATL^[7].

[edit] CAGW and CCAGW against Linux

CAGW caused a firestorm after criticizing an apparent move by Gov. Mitt Romney's administration to transition all government computers to open source operating systems. The "Freeware Initiative" would have required all IT expenditures in fiscal 2004 and 2005 to be made on an open source/Linux format (and revised to mandate that state agencies use only open source and open standard software by January 1, 2007). Proprietary vendors would have been effectively barred from competing for state contracts, thereby limiting competition and raising costs.

Proponents retorted that this was a misrepresentation of the policy. Broadly speaking, the policy required that public documents be represented in approved open formats. Any software, including proprietary software, is free to operate on these formats. In contrast, only particular proprietary programs may operate on particular proprietary formats. So the policy was pro-competitive. When challenged on this^[8], CAGW slightly modified their press release but left its message unchanged.^[9] The chain of argument no longer makes sense (“It is bad procurement policy for any state to unilaterally lock itself into one set of technologies," might be true, but the policy does not do so).

CAGW further claimed that while the software itself is free, the cost to maintain and upgrade it can become very expensive. Acquisition costs commonly represent only a small percentage of the total cost of ownership. Maintenance, training and support are often more expensive with open source than proprietary software.

Coming out against the state of Massachusetts' use of the open standards OpenDocument format, the organization's press release states: "It is bad procurement policy for any state to unilaterally lock itself into one set of technologies," CAGW President Tom Schatz said. "Agencies should be able to accept bids from any company that can provide the desired product or service. Government earns the best value for taxpayer dollars through a competitive, transparent, and accountable bidding process."^[9]

Those opposed to the CAGW criticism, most already irked by CAGW's support of Microsoft, maintained that by not allowing the governor's "Freeware Initiative" to proceed it increased the Microsoft's monopoly (which at that time was at a critical controversial stage) with their operating system and products.

Newsforge, an open-source journalism source, and reported, "Despite conceding that every man, woman, child, and dog in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts would not actually be forced to use FOSS for their computing, CAGW stood by its contention that the Bay State's move could give businesses and citizens compatibility problems in exchanging documents with all of the state agencies."^[8]

LWN.net, a news and information source for the free software community, came out against CAGW, saying, "Presumably it is just fine for the state to lock itself into proprietary formats. For those who don't remember, these are the folks who have been accused of recruiting dead people to the anti-Linux cause in the past."^[10]

[edit] CAGW and tobacco

CAGW has examined several cases in the federal government where certain health policies are being determined based upon preconceived agendas, regardless of the facts, especially the fact that CAGW receives funding from Phillip Morris.

In particular, CAGW reported the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Health and Human Services, in their administration of The Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education Act of 1986, are disseminating misleading and inaccurate information to the public regarding the dangers of smokeless tobacco. In this case, they claim that the agencies are dedicated to pleasing activists that are so dedicated to their anti-tobacco “quit or die” agenda that they actively try to prevent the public from receiving any information regarding smokeless tobacco’s potential as either a reduced-risk alternative to smoking or a cessation technique. They report this policy is based on junk science.^[11]

The St. Petersburg Times reported that CAGW "got at least $245,000 from the tobacco industry".^[12] They followed up with a number of stories against CAGW including the avocado industry and YMCA, that were picked up by the press throughout the country.

Although The St. Petersburg Times did not publish the source of their information, CAGW's 2005 Pig Book outlined three different totaling $17 million paid by taxpayers the year before.^[13]

[edit] Other controversies

Throughout its history CAGW has been charged with being a front group for a multitude of interests from both the right and left sides of the political isles. This occurs because CAGW is funded by the Olin Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, Merrill-Lynch, Phillip Morris, and Exxon-Mobil. The Washington Post is also reporting that they may be linked to the Abramoff scandal^[14].