700 Thirteenth Street, NW, Suite 400
Washington, DC 20005

Phone: 202.347.0773
Fax: 202.347.0785
info@cassidy.com

For those Americans who believe they are successfully avoiding contact with the controversial chemical known as BPA through avoiding plastic bottles and food cans, a new study shows they’ll have to try a little harder.

A study recently completed by Environmental Working Group showed that the chemical is found in receipts issued by major U.S. retailers such as grocery stores and restaurants among others. The concern with this finding is that the chemical can be absorbed through the skin and then potentially spread internally by ingesting it through touching the mouth.

However, a representative specializing in BPA from American Chemistry Council has criticized the study pointing out that the employees who handle the store receipts on a regular basis, have not been shown to have a significant amount of BPA present in their systems. He suggested that BPA is safe and any bans on its use in receipts or otherwise is not necessary.

This study comes out as the Food Safety Bill is pending approval in the Senate. Part of the reasoning behind stalling of the bill is due to the controversy over the concern that it does not do enough to address the issue of BPA.

While Congress has reviewed a number of nonprofit practices over the years, now it appears as though there may be some support for an effort to look into nonprofit salaries.  Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, and currently the most senior Republican on the Finance Committee has long worked to increase oversight of the nonprofit sector.  Sen. Grassley is pushing the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Treasury to put more effort into the scrutiny it gives to pay in the nonprofit sector.  It is too soon to determine if this issue will move.  But given the economic times as well as the criticisms we have seen of the salaries in the banking and finance sectors and now the oil sector, this should be something nonprofits invest time and energy into in the coming months and into next year.

On Wednesday, The Global Health Council, Management Sciences for Health and PATH co-hosted an event on the topic of “Reaching Women and Children with Innovative Technologies.”  Moderated by PATH’s Catharine Taylor, the program’s panelists included Paul LaBarre from PATH, Dr. Edmund Rutta of Management Sciences for Health, Allen Wilcox of VillageReach, and Dr. Lily Kak from USAID, who discussed the benefits of and obstacles to providing cost effective and culturally-appropriate maternal and child healthcare through technology.  One of the primary obstacles discussed was the lack of access to remote rural places most in need of healthcare facilities and services. 

To reinforce the importance of this issue, Congressman Albio Sires (D-NJ) and Congressman Brian Baird (D-WA), cosponsors of H.R. 3560, the “21^st Century Global Health Technologies Act,” shared personal accounts that illustrated the need to leverage technology to improve maternal and child healthcare in developing countries.  Their bill, H.R. 3560, would amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to establish a program within USAID which would focus specifically on researching and developing technologies to improve global health.  By applying American ingenuity and technology, we can not only help save lives in remote places around the world, but also promote economic development and stability.

Congratulations to the Africa Society of the National Summit on Africa and the Africa Congressional Staffers Association on a very successful first-ever “Africa Day on the Hill”!  “Africa Day on the Hill” celebrates the passage of H.Res. 1405, a resolution commemorating the 50^th anniversary of independence from France, Italy and Great Britain for 17 African nations.  H.Res. 1405 was introduced by Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) with 51 co-sponsors and passed the House of Representatives on July 1^st.  Many of the African countries commemorating their independence were represented at the event by their Ambassadors. Members of Congress in attendance included Reps. Rush, Ed Royce, Donald Payne, Barbara Lee, Yvette Clarke and Carolyn Kilpatrick.

The Honorable Abdoulaye Wade, President of Senegal, spoke inspiringly about African independence after guests had been treated to traditional African music and a performance by renowned Nigerian opera singer, Abiodun Koya.    Representing Cassidy & Associates as a proud sponsor of the event were senior executives Rep. Martin Russo (D-IL-retired) and Vice Chairman Gregg Hartley, who greeted Members of Congress and welcomed members of the African Diplomatic Corps.

Last week when writing about The Challenge of Federal Budget Deficits, I recalled my initial impressions of dealing with the massive U.S. government budget as a member of the Ways & Means Committee and its representative to the House Budget Committee.  By the time George H.W. Bush was elected President in 1988, I had become well versed in Congressional processes and authority governing taxation, spending and budgeting.  Having become personally acquainted with then Vice President Bush, I watched with interest as he grappled with these tough economic and budget issues.  What I witnessed was impressive.

Recently, Bruce Bartlett covered this era well in a comprehensive article in The Fiscal Times that examines the budget deal in 1990 between President George H.W. Bush and the Congressional Democrats. He sets the record straight from the start:

There is a dogmatic belief that permeates Republican circles which says that budget deals never reduce budget deficits. Republican strategist Grover Norquist recently said that those that do cut the deficit are as real as unicorns. This is factually untrue. The record shows that the 1990 budget deal was extremely effective in reducing deficits; the budget surpluses of the late 1990s owe much to the policies put in place by George H.W. Bush that his son and party later repudiated.

As President, George H.W. Bush was faced with a very difficult economic situation due to the savings and loan crises which is not dissimilar, albeit on a much smaller scale, than what President Obama faced upon taking office.  With a worsening economy and the call for government intervention to shore up the savings and loan industry, it looked to all eyes as if the deficit was set to take a significant turn for the worse.  

As part of the broad leadership team of the Democratic majority, I knew  we were serious about protecting consumers from the impacts of the savings and loan fiasco and that meant spending federal dollars to mitigate damages and new policy to fix the deep underlying issues.  But we Democrats on the Budget Committee also had serious concerns about addressing the deficit – a stance that Americans don’t recognize enough as a platform of the Democratic party.  Addressing the growing deficit while grappling with these critical extra expenditures left only two real options –raise taxes and cut spending. 

President Bush had famously ruled out the imposition of any new taxes at the 1988 Republican Convention, yet he was encountering a situation where fiscal responsibility necessitated finding new revenue. A lesser leader may have avoided the problem or deferred it to a later administration. Instead, President Bush made the tough choice to partner with the Democrats in Congress and put the country on the right track to budgetary responsibility. As Bruce Bartlett notes:

…Bush agreed to negotiate in early May on the Democrats’ terms. Although Republican negotiators were willing to discuss taxes, Democrats were wary of a trap. They feared being hung out to dry unless Bush himself made a public commitment to put taxes on the table. He did so on June 26, 1990, saying, “It is clear to me that both the size of the deficit problem and the need for a package that can be enacted require all of the following: entitlement and mandatory program reform; tax revenue increases; growth incentives; discretionary spending reductions; orderly reductions in defense expenditures; and budget process reform—to assure that any bipartisan agreement is enforceable and that the deficit problem is brought under responsible control.”

Due to the President’s leadership and initiative, the Democrats in Congress were able to work with the administration and arrive at a budget deal that put principles before politics. The plan cut spending and raised revenues.  It was the birth of PAYGO which required any new spending to be paid for by offsets somewhere else. There were spending caps in certain areas and we hoped it would pave the way for long-term fiscal responsibility.  I was proud to be part of that 1990 budget process.

Sadly, President Bush paid the price for his actions when he lost the White House.  But his deal set the stage for President Clinton to build on this foundation and achieve budget surpluses later in the 1990’s. There are lessons to be learned from the bi-partisan deal-making of 1990 that would benefit the American People today.

As posted earlier today on the Huffington Post

From the outside looking in, African elections often look messy, violent and corrupt.  Incumbents and their political parties rig election outcomes even before the polls open.  It is easy to become cynical about democracy in Africa when important processes–elections–are no more than pro forma exercises.

Against this background, what is happening today in the Republic of Guinea deserves a closer look from other African nations and the international community.  We have observed over the years that elections in and of themselves can not bring about democratic change.  Independent institutions and a determined civil society are the necessary change agents.

In Guinea, the Supreme Court and courageous civic activism led the way to the return of civilian rule.  Last night, the Supreme Court of Guinea confirmed the final results of the June 27, 2010 first round election.  The first poll results were challenged by opposing candidates due to allegations of fraud.  The Court moved quickly to delay the July 18 second round vote and expeditiously adjudicated the complaints. 

Upon careful consideration and the execution of due process, the Court confirmed that former Prime Minister Cellou Dalein Diallo and Alpha Conde will face each other in the run off.  The Court’s action legitimized what Guinean and international observers called the country’s first free and fair election since the country gained independence from France in 1958.  The ruling should also encourage all political parties to peacefully participate in Guinea politics through to the next presidential race and beyond.

Additionally, Guinea’s brave and determined civil society deserves tremendous credit for refusing to allow the military junta to continue its involvement in politics.  Following the death of President Lansana Conte in December 2008, the military seized control of government and announced its plan to participate in the election.  Civil society refused to accede to further military participation in government and protested. 

Civil protest reached a crescendo in September 2009 with a mass demonstration in the capital city of Conakry.  Security forces were sent to the national stadium to quell the disturbance.  What ensued was a massacre where 150 demonstrators were killed.  Women and girls were raped openly in the streets, and journalists were targeted for physical attack and harassment.

The massacre did not deter the pro-democracy advocates.  It did, however, lead to the demise of the military junta.  In January 2010, the United States and France helped organize a transitional government to govern the country through to the June election.  A military general and a veteran legislator were named President and Prime Minister respectively.  The international community provided assistance to support the independent electoral commission, train political parties and prepare civil society.

By all accounts the campaign leading up to the first round election were largely free and fair.  While there were logistical problems, the independent election commission operated in an open manner and the political parties refrained from violence, intimidation and other obstructionist activities.

The next President of Guinea faces herculean challenges.  The economy must be re-organized and restored.  Mining concession agreements must be reviewed for fairness and accountability.  The people need greater access to electricity and food security. 

Nonetheless, Guinea is off to a good start.  The lesson to be learned from this experience is that independent institutions and determined people form the corner stone of democratic change everywhere.

As the days and weeks tick down, so do the chances of passage for a number of bills held up in the Senate. One of these is S.510, better known as the Food Safety Bill.

Originally considered a non-controversial piece of legislation (it passed easily in the House over a year ago) the Food Safety Bill has become nothing short of contentious as a result of added language by Senator Dianne Feinstein banning a chemical called bisphenol A, commonly known as BPA. The addition of this language has many in the food industry as well as special interest groups and chemical companies up in arms. Many have withdrawn their original support for the bill as a result of the added language claiming that the new rules are unfounded and too onerous for too many in the industry.

Critics of BPA argue that the chemical has very serious effects on children (the chemical is often found in the plastic used to make baby bottles) as well as on the endocrine system as a whole.

The one thing both opponents and proponents of BPA can agree on is that unless a resolution is reached the chances of passing the Food Safety Bill in its current form grow slimmer by the day.

The Washington post ran an article today about the amount of capital sitting on the side lines. The article sited a survey of nearly 1,000 chief financial officers by Duke University and CFO magazine which showed that:

“nearly 60 percent of those executives don’t expect to bring their employment back to pre-recession levels until 2012 or later — even though they’re projecting a 12 percent rise in earnings and a 9 percent boost in capital spending over the next year.”

Clearly the capacity and will to spend are there, but outlays are not translating into the growth this country sorely needs. There is a simple answer. The government must provide clear incentives for  investment that will promote growth and boost employment.

Private industry has always been and always will be the driving force in the American economy. The role of government is to make the rules, not call the shots. The current lack of investment does not stem from a lack of opportunities, but an abiding uncertainty over what those rules will be.

In the case of the energy sector the various proposed energy/climate bills have been through many twists and turns. At times, energy/climate legislation seems imminent and at other times, all but put on the back burner. Given the massive upfront investment that many energy projects require, savvy businessmen are loathe to invest while the rules that they must play by remain unclear. That is why moving on energy/climate legislation is so important. Certainty will pave the way for the release of the innovative and productive capacity that makes this country great. Here are some reasons why removal of uncertainty is essential:

Energy projects are by nature highly capital intensive, particularly those in the utility sector. The construction lead times associated with these investments are considerable, with many hurdles beyond capital, such as environmental reviews, final permits, and overlapping decision-making among agencies with jurisdiction over a project’s ultimate approval.    Taken together; these requirements force energy companies, especially utilities and independent power producers, to create investment strategies many years to a decade in advance.

Uncertainty with respect to: federal carbon regulation, the pre-emption of EPA regulatory actions, transmission regulation and pricing, or the continuation of renewable tax credits are just a few of the issues plaguing the commitment of capital by energy investors.  Often forgotten is the large capital expenditure needed for transmission projects.   Transmission projects are not getting off the ground at the pace or scale needed to meet expected demand.  Without transmission, planned renewable power projects located in areas with the best solar and wind resources will remain stranded without access to distant markets.

While not a panacea by any means, government loan guarantees can help ameliorate the capital constraint created by uncertainty.  However, the circumstance is also created where Wall Street and private equity funds are reluctant to make investments on high risk energy projects unless the government provides loan guarantees.  This is particularly true for nuclear projects, advanced coal projects, and large scale renewable energy projects.

Uncertainty in loan guarantees aside, the regulatory roadmap must be clearer for industry to commit to large capital projects.  The establishment of a carbon price is fundamental to providing the needed certainty required for energy investments.  A price on carbon must be made clearer and clarity is needed today.  Failure to provide certainty stalls the deployment of investment capital by the very companies in the energy sector looking to improve America’s energy security.  Delayed investments stunts growth and will stifle the creation of jobs we so desperately need.

Over the weekend White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs acknowledged the very real possibility that Republicans could take back the House this November. Interestingly Jim Ellis, a conservative political analyst for the PRIsm Information Network, highlighted how heavy the lift will be.

While it is true that a 40 seat swing is less than one district per state, when breaking down the country into small regions, it becomes evident that the Republicans can theoretically win back the House – there are enough seats in play – but the task difficulty factor is extremely high.

Dividing the 50 states into ten five-state geographic regions allows us to easily calculate the victory numbers Republicans must achieve to reach thier ultimate goal. Defeating upward of 30 Democrat incumbents is tantamount to winning House control, but one must rememeber that the GOP has only defeated 21 US Representative in the seven suceeding post-1994 elections, or an average of three per campaign cycle. This year, the Republicans will have to exceed their fourteen year average by a multiple of ten.

Expanding the competitive map to the furthest degree, we can make an argument that active campaigns will occur in 113 congressional districts. Many of these will not be particularly competative but it is fair to suggest that the challenger in each of these races will spend will into six figures. Of these 113, eighty-eight are currently held by Democrats, versus just 25 that are in the GOP column. To gain 40 seats, and obtain the barest one-seat majority, Republicans are forced to win 65 of 113 contests, or 57.5% of the contested campaigns.

This year’s National Governors Association (NGA) Annual Meeting was hosted in Boston, Massachusetts over the weekend. According to WBZ, the Governors attended sessions focused on health care, childhood nutrition, energy policy, information sharing, the economy and the perils of the federal budget deficit. There was also a classified national security briefing Sunday from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and John Brennan, the president’s counterterrorism adviser.       

The association chairman Vermont Governor Jim Douglas had this to say about the importance of the event:

“There are only 50 of us with this unique responsibility, and it’s important that we learn from each other, share our experiences — both good and bad — so that we can provide even better service to the people of the states that we serve,”

A press release from the National Governors association highlighted Gov. Douglas’s yearlong initiative Rx for Health Reform: Affordable, Accessible, Accountable, which focuses on ways to reform the nation’s health care system to deliver high-quality, more efficient care to control health care spending and improve health outcomes.

“With the passage of federal health reform, my colleagues and I are taking on much preparation and potential restructuring in state government to move forward with the reforms,” Gov. Douglas said. “Those efforts are all the more important as the current economic realities have stretched state agency personnel, a limited ability of states to invest in health care improvements and reduced private sector interest in reforms.”

With so many important issues facing state governments Cassidy & Associates is proud to have served as a member of the Massachusetts Host Committee for the NGA meeting in Boston.