The cost per Gitmo detainee? $1.6 million a year

While many in Congress continue to oppose the transfer of the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay to maximum security federal prisons, the cost factor may eventually overwhelm all other arguments.

The price tag per Gitmo detainee? $1.6 million a 

year.

That compares to $34,000 a year for the average inmate at a high security federal prison.

Congressman Adam Smith, the top-ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee plans to use those numbers as the committee dives into the nuts and bolts of the fiscal year 2014 defense budget. The panel is expected to debate the issue today.

Smith recently authored an Op-Ed piece, “An Exit Strategy from Detention at Guantanamo,” laying out the reasons why the military facility located in Cuba should be closed and the 166 detainees moved to prisons in the continental U.S. And the Associated Press (story) and Reuters (story) wrote extensive stories laying out the exorbitant cost of running and maintaining Guantanamo.

Smith, a Washington Democrat, will propose multiple amendments designed to give the president flexibility. Specifically, the congressman will move to strike two provisions that limit the White House’s ability to transfer detainees.

A Smith press release issued this morning said: “Additionally, the Chairman’s mark provides $61 million more than the Department of Defense had planned to spend on replacing existing temporary infrastructure to instead construct permanent facilities at Guantanamo Bay. At a time when our country is facing the negative effects of sequestration, we should be working to close this expensive and unnecessary facility rather than seeking to spend additional funds to make it permanent.”

The numbers are rather staggering:

Annual Cost of Detention Operations at Guantanamo Bay

Budget Category	FY2013
Detention Operations	$79,000,000
Linguists at Guantanamo Bay	$13,625,000
Operations & Maintenance, Army (OCO)	$80,502,900
Office of Military Commissions	$12,625,000
Office of Military Commission (NCR)	$68,871,074
Office of Military Commission (USARSO)	$9,564,000
TOTAL	$264,187,974
Annual Cost Per Detainee (166 detainees)	$1,591,493

Source: Department of Defense

Annual Cost Per Inmate in High Security Federal Prison

Fiscal Year	FY2008	FY2009	FY2010	FY2011	FY2012
Annual Cost Per Inmate	$27,924	$32,119	$33,858	$34,629	$34,046

Source: CRS Report: The Federal Prison Population Buildup: Overview, Policy Changes, Issues, and Options. January 22, 2013.

Historical Construction Costs at Guantanamo Bay

Project	Amount
Detention Facility PH I (408 Cells)	$20,643,000
Detention Facility PH II (204 Cells)	$13,374,000
Detention Facility PH III (204 Cells)	$18,200,000
Detention Facility PH IV (192 Cells)	$4,472,000
JTF Military Commission Complex	$21,740,000
JTF Troop Support	$8,500,000
JTF Interrogations/Interview	$17,860,000
Planning and Design	$1,800,000
Psychiatric Ward	$3,050,000
Camp 6 Detention Facility (220 Cells)	$36,000,000
Radio Range Security Fence	$4,400,000
Classified Project	$1,800,000
Expeditionary Legal Complex	$3,600,000
TOTAL	$155,439,000

Source: U.S. Army: GTMO Contract Actions Spreadsheet Analysis. January 27, 2010

FY2014 Proposed Construction Costs at Guantanamo Bay

MILCON Project	Authorized in NDAA	Cost of Temporary Facility
Seaside Galley	$12,000,000	$12,000,000
High Value Detainee Facility	$52,000,000	$52,000,000
Medical Support Facility	$11,800,000	$11,800,000
Communications Network Facility	$11,600,000	$11,600,000
Barracks (496 Person)	$94,000,000*	$68,000,000
Barracks (352 Person)	$66,000,000*	$31,000,000
TOTAL	$247,400,000	$186,400,000

* The committee chairman’s budget "mark" authorizes an increase in scope above what the Department of Defense had planned in order to make these facilities permanent. NDAA refers to the National Defense Reauthorization Act.

Emotional testimony at IRS hearing; Levin says partisanship exaggerated

Emotional testimony is taking place at today's House Ways and Means Committee hearing, with members of tea party groups harassed by the IRS accusing the agency of demonstrating "the jackboot of tyranny.”

According to NPR, Karen Kenny from the San Fernando Valley Patriots of California told the committee that the IRS “asked … in relation to protests asked for a listing of our 'committed violations of local ordinances, breaches of public order or arrests' then requested details on how we 'conduct or promote' illegal activities. I think the IRS needs to fix this: We're the San Fernando Valley Patriots, not Occupy Oakland."

(Karen Kenny)

Kenny said her organization applied for tax-exempt status in October  2010. But she "stopped the costly and exhausting IRS process in July 2012. We survive on card and donations in our cake tin. Like patriots before us, we persevere."

Becky Gerritson from the Wetumpka Tea Party of Alabama said it took 635 days for her group to achieve tax-exempt status, according to NPR. Information she was told to supply included "my list of donors, including the amounts that they gave. ... 501(c)4 organizations do not have to disclose donor information. I knew that. Why didn't [the IRS]?"

Choking back tears, Gerritson concluded her statement to the committee by saying she isn't "interested in scoring political points. I want to protect and preserve the America I grew up in, the America that people cross oceans and risk their lives to become a part of. And I'm terrified that it's slipping away."

According to The Hill, a representative from an anti-abortion rights group will testify the IRS tried to limit its protesting of Planned Parenthood.
Sue Martinek of the Coalition for Life of Iowa is expected to recount her experience trying to convince the IRS to grant her group tax-exempt status as a 501(c)(3) group.

Press reports indicate that her group was asked how often it prays and whether it considers these prayers to be "educational," and that the IRS pressured the group to limit its advocacy against Planned Parenthood.

Congressman Sandy Levin, the top-ranking Democrat on the committee, continues to hammer the IRS for “gross mismanagement.” But he also suggested that the degree of partisanship at play within the IRS is less than what has been reported. The Royal Oak Democrat, who represents most of Macomb County, also called for more clear-cut standards to determine which nonprofits meet the guidelines that require they engage “primarily” in social welfare activities.

Here is Levin’s opening statement:

At our first hearing, and every day since, each of us on a bipartisan basis have condemned the actions within the IRS exempt organization division and condemned the actions by the IRS leadership who failed to accurately and adequately inform Congress after they had all of the facts of what had occurred between 2010 and 2012. 

We have all said that the singling out (groups) by name was wrong.  The president said it was “outrageous.”  The delays of over 13 months in processing applications were wrong and the fact that the applications of some organizations have been pending for over three years is inexcusable.  The inability to get clear guidance on how to measure political activity was wrong.  And, the burdensome questions and inquiries were totally inappropriate.  The handling of these applications was gross mismanagement by the IRS exempt organization division. That’s why the day after the report was issued I called for Acting Commissioner Steve Miller and the Exempt Organization Division Director Lois Lerner to be replaced.

Since our (May 17) hearing, progress has been made to address the malfeasance that occurred within the IRS exempt organization division and to ensure that all of the facts come to the surface and that all identified problems are corrected so that the confidence of the American people may be restored:

*         Steve Miller resigned as the IRS commissioner

*         The president appointed Daniel Werfel as the acting IRS commissioner and (Treasury) Secretary Lew instructed him to immediately conduct a 30-day review and to implement the recommendations in the (Inspector General’s) report

*         Lois Lerner, the director of the Exempt Organization division, was put on administrative leave by Commissioner Werfel

*         Commissioner Werfel appointed David Fisher as the chief risk officer.  Mr. Fisher previously served as the chief administrative officer and chief financial officer at (the General Accountability Office) GAO

*         And yesterday, he appointed a new deputy commissioner and chief of staff, both with significant managerial and administrative experience.

To the individuals testifying before us, the organizations they represent, and all the others who were caught up in this malfeasance, you are owed an apology.  We say to you that each of us is committed to doing our part to ensure this does not happen again.

The IG’s report includes a number of key facts that we should keep in mind today:

The IG determined that the applications of 298 organizations were set aside for further review.  One-third of the applications that were set aside – 96 – contained the name, “Tea Party,” “9/12,” or “Patriots.”  While the remaining 202 applications did not.

The IRS released a list of 176 advocacy organizations that have been approved for tax-exempt status through May 9, 2013. The news organization Tax Analysts did an analysis of the list released by the IRS.  Its conclusion as to the approved applicants states: “these organizations are the following: 46 with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their name, 76 other conservative organizations, 48 non-conservative organizations, and six organizations about which we can make no determination.” 

This is not a Democratic or Republican issue.  It should not be.

This issue is a direct reflection on highly inappropriate actions within the IRS Exempt Organization division and totally incompetent management within and over that division.  The (IG’s) report highlights more problems than the singling out by name.  The report found that IRS employees were screening applications that had no indications of significant political activities while closing cases that did have such indications.

To qualify for tax-exempt status as social welfare organizations, the tax code provides that an organization must be operated “exclusively” for the promotion of social welfare.  The regulations, however, state that an organization will qualify for tax-exempt status if it operated “primarily” for social welfare purposes.  Overall the data indicate an emerging use of the social welfare designation under Section 501(c) 4 to engage in political activity.  501(c) 4s spent $92 million in the 2010 election. They spent $254 million in the 2012 election – the second largest category of organizations making political expenditures — equal to that of political parties.

One recommendation in the IG’s report was that the IRS and the Department of Treasury include guidance on how to measure the “primary activity” of social welfare organizations be included for consideration in their priority guidance plan.  We urge them to move with all deliberate speed to implement this recommendation.

In closing, I thank the witnesses for being here today and discussing your experiences. 

Please be assured that we take seriously our responsibility to ensure that Congress gets to the bottom of what happened, that those responsible are held accountable, and that safeguards are in place to ensure that this does not happen again.

Christie's choice: politics or qualifications

A funeral for New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg hasn’t been scheduled yet and the political pundits are already in full fury, speculating wildly about how Gov. Chris Christie will handle the Senate vacancy, which he will fill temporarily by appointment.

Christie, whose standing with conservative Republicans is shaky, will be pressured by some in New Jersey to appoint a Democrat to fill a seat that’s been held by a Democrat for a long time. But the centrist governor, who’s already widely mentioned as a possible 2016 presidential contender, must appoint a Republican, preferably a conservative, if he doesn’t want to damage his prospects in the presidential primaries.

At least that’s the conventional thinking. The appointee will run for election in November, when New Jersey holds statewide elections, so everything will happen quickly.

With some of the highest approval ratings in the nation, Christie is cruising toward such a comfortable re-election win in the fall that anything less than a landslide would be disappointing. An unpopular Senate appointee on the same ballot could drag down his numbers.

The governor could appoint a “caretaker” senator – former governor Tom Keane would be ideal – but he has made it clear that that is not his plan.

So, amid this political chess game commentators are already rambling on about all the implications and strategy and ins and outs.

On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” this a.m., co-host Joe Scarborough, a former GOP congressman, said some in the Republican Party are criticizing Christie because he has garnered a lot of Democratic support and has collected a lot of campaign donations from Democrats.

Scarborough advised that Christie is accomplishing what the entire Republican Party should be striving for:

 “Isn’t that the whole idea? You steal votes from the enemy, you grab money from the enemy.”

One guest on the show, former Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell, a rather moderate Democrat and normally a level-headed guy, said this about the political calculations: “You also have to appoint someone who is qualified. That’s almost as important. Almost.”

And there, in one encapsulated moment, you see what’s wrong with American politics.

Hackel raises eyebrows, puts face on billboard (again)

Here’s a recap of Macomb County Executive Mark Hackel’s performance at the Mackinac Island policy conference:

In keeping with his flair for promotion, Hackel had two billboards erected on I-75 in full view of the Mackinac-goers that promote Macomb County.

On the island, Hackel was first out of the gate with news from Mackinac when he announced that the Snyder administration was awarding Macomb County with a $231,000 grant to help promote Michigan as the “Defense Capital of the Midwest.”

Hackel made some news and raised some eyebrows when he declined to support fellow Democrat Mark Schauer for governor, deciding to stay neutral in the 2014 contest with Gov. Snyder. Schauer, a former Battle Creek congressman may have the nomination nearly sewn up after announcing his candidacy just days ago, just before the start of the conference, but the Lansing press corps needs constant reminding that Macomb County is a political place all to its own.

A Macomb Township Democrat, Hackel has repeatedly butted heads with the Macomb County Democratic Party and he proudly declares himself a bipartisan operator. Tim Skubick, the dean of the Capitol press, had this to say about Macomb County’s top official:

“He's an important vote that goes beyond symbolism. Hackel has won a number of elections by asserting his independence and apparently the folks in Macomb like what they see. So if he is sitting this one out, maybe some (Democrats) will not break their necks getting in Mr. Schauer's corner.

(Hackel with Gov. and Mrs. Snyder)

“For the executive it's not about partisan politics. ‘I won't vote against somebody just because you may not like him,’ he said, referring to the Democratic story line that Mr. Snyder is a bad guy.

“Mr. Hackel figures if the GOP governor is willing to help the county, why should he fight to unseat him?”

And, finally, in an interview with WWJ-AM radio, Hackel used an interesting choice of words to describe the billboards:

(Hackel with Jeb Bush)

“Macomb is making it regional — and that’s what the second billboard was about. [We're] trying to let people know that I, as the figurehead — on behalf of Macomb County and Macomb County’s residents — support the regional assets that we have. We want to build up the region.”

Climate-change fixes now cheaper than storm damage?

There’s an old adage we’ve all heard: “If you don’t like the weather in Michigan, wait a little bit. It will change.”

That doesn’t seem very funny anymore.

The severe swings in May temperatures caused so many disruptions in people’s lives across Michigan that it appears we’re entering a stage where “wild weather” is an oxymoron. And it’s moronic to think that this instability is just a passing phase, a brief anomaly.
Personally, I have never in my life turned on the heat and air conditioning in my house within a single 24-hour period. In late May, I did it twice.

Beyond the 30-degree swings in temperature that occurred daily, and the switch from snow flurries to July-like heat in a matter of days, there’s a slightly longer view that is disturbing. According to the official records, we experienced warmer weather on Jan. 11-13 than we did on May 11-13. Two-thirds of the days in January saw temps above freezing.

What if we don’t have real Michigan winters anymore? How much of an impact would that have on the tourism industry and seasonal economy of “Pure Michigan?”
What if the Mitten State weather starts to replicate conditions in Miami? What kind of dramatic impact would that have on Michigan agriculture and outdoor businesses? Sounds far-fetched?
Well, from May 15-31, our tri-county temperatures roughly matched – or sometimes exceeded – those in Miami on nine separate days. Amazingly, the humidity (in May, mind you) was nearly as stifling as that routinely experienced this time of year in Florida.

Mark Twain had his own adage: “Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.”
Is it time we start doing something about the weather, about climate change? We need a national discussion on the economic damage and death and destruction that our crazy climate accumulates across the nation.
More to the point: Is it unreasonable to pay a little more for gasoline and electricity through a carbon tax to possibly reverse this trend?

Of course, in Michigan, when we complain about stifling heat and violent storms that knock down trees and power lines, that is no comparison to the frightening destruction that’s taking place daily in the Plains and Upper Midwest.
When we gripe, we sound like those Southern folks who grumble about the havoc imposed on commuters when their city is hit with a dusting of snow, while deadly blizzards are simultaneously pounding the Midwest and Northeast.
Michigan has had it easy compared to the rest of the nation’s havoc: hundreds of record high temperatures, and unprecedented floods, hurricanes, snowstorms, hail storms, droughts and wildfires. Consider this: In mid-May, the thermometer hit 98 degrees in the Minnesota mid-section. We’ve even experienced earthquakes in the strangest places.

Imagine the impact all these killer storms will have on insurance costs for homes, autos, businesses and farms. Food prices and availability will be affected. Consider the ripple effects each time our nation’s highways, airports and rail systems are disrupted. What is the effect on businesses when even a relatively minor disturbance such as a massive power outage occurs?
If the current patterns keep up, FEMA may emerge as the federal government’s largest, most expensive department.

While the nation tries to comprehend the recent wave of powerful twisters, Hurricane season is next. Will we experience another Sandy or Katrina? Let’s not forget that June is historically second only to May as the height of tornado season.
Yet, we now experience tornadoes in February; tornadoes in western Massachusetts; we’ve even seen a tornado in New York City. There is no longer a “tornado alley” where people take their chances when they establish roots.

The city of Moore, Okl., which on May 20 was uprooted unlike any tornado-ravaged town since, well, since Joplin, Mo., in 2011 when a tornado killed 158 people and inflicted $2.8 billion in damage, is not ringed by a bulls-eye.
True, just a day prior to the monster, mile-wide twister that killed 23, two people died in Moore at the hands of a weaker tornado. And Moore experienced the most powerful tornado known to the world in 1999. But in the several decades prior to that, going back to the 1950s, the combined tornado death toll in the town was two.

On Friday, about two dozen twisters were reported in a “danger zone” that stretched through Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri and Illinois – an area with a population of 3 million. We’re lucky, we’re told, that only nine deaths and 71 injuries resulted.
When does our luck run out?

Meteorologists say that the level of “fuel” for powerful tornadoes – the atmospheric collisions between cold air and warm, moist air in the jet stream – has been off the charts in the Plains in the past two weeks.
That may become an annual pattern. The weather of the past month may never be tied directly to climate change or greenhouse gases or carbon emissions. But, as the song says: “There’s something happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear.”

Beyond the financial hardships, consider how many people have been emotionally devastated by these storms. How many permanent disabilities have resulted? Imagine the mental health issues that all those young students who were buried beneath the rubble in Moore will face. The dark, deadly skies just keep coming.

I realize that no single storm or multi-month weather pattern necessarily signals the onset of permanent climate disruptions. But surely it’s time for our political leaders to step up.
Perhaps the people of Oklahoma, one of the reddest of the Red States, can lead the effort to debunk the talk of a climate change “hoax” and some of the wacky ideas on the Internet that insist volcanoes are responsible for global warming.

So far, here is Congress’ answer: When they’re not delaying disaster assistance they are imposing unpaid furlough days on the federal employees at the National Weather Service and the National Hurricane Center -- in the middle of tornado and hurricane season.
On Capitol Hill, a tax on carbon emissions was shelved long ago though it has been called “one of the best ideas in Washington almost no one in Congress will talk about.”

Estimates indicate that a $20-per-ton tax on carbon dioxide emissions, which would raise $1.2 trillion over a decade to reduce the federal deficit or enhance green-energy tax breaks, would boost gasoline prices by 20 cents per gallon – a fairly common practice already imposed by the oil companies -- and increase monthly electric bills by about $12. A more significant effort to cut greenhouse gases would cost more but could be phased in over a few years.

Is that too high of a price to pay? Maybe we should simply label it as a penny-wise environmental maintenance expense.
After all: We can pay now, or we can pay later.