Comptroller General: current fiscal policy is unsustainable

"We are on an unacceptable and unsustainable path as a government".

Breaking news, will post transcript when posted by CSPAN. David Walker, Comptroller General of the United States was intereviewd by Brian Lamb.

http://www.q-and-a.org/Program/?ProgramID=1014

David Walker, Comptroller General of the United States discussed the mission of the G.A.O and its accomplishments and how reports are conducted and compiled.

Transcript - http://www.q-and-a.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1014 - (not yet available, will post ASAP).

Video - http://www.q-and-a.org/ scroll down to "watch program".

==================================================================

http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/longterm/challenge.html

and couldn't help but want to learn more about the GAO.

However, in the breadth of topics covered in the interview, no mention of the GAO's investigation into the elections.

The chart shows without a doubt, that the massive debt this administration has compiled is going to kill us.

http://www.q-and-a.org/Transcript/?ProgramID=1014

March 20, 2005
David Walker
Comptroller General of the United States

Info: David Walker discussed the mission of the G.A.O and its accomplishments and how reports are conducted and compiled.

Uncorrected transcript provided by Morningside Partners.
C-SPAN uses its best efforts to provide accurate transcripts of its programs, but it can not be held liable for mistakes such as omitted words, punctuation, spelling, mistakes that change meaning, etc.
BRIAN LAMB, HOST, Q&A: David Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, you gave a speech at the National Press Club in February, where you said, "The simple truth is that our nation’s financial condition is much worse than advertised.”

What did you mean by that?

DAVID M. WALKER, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES: What I meant by that is, if you look at the accumulated debt that we’ve run up since the beginning of the republic, in 1789, it’s over $7 trillion.

But what you don’t see with that is the difference between promised and funded benefits for Social Security and Medicare, and certain other commitments. But if you add those all together, we had $43 trillion plus in liabilities and commitments, as of September 30, 2004, and growing every day.

LAMB: Why is it your job to point this out?

WALKER: Well, for one thing, as comptroller general of the United States and head of the Government Accountability Office, we at GAO have a statutory responsibility to audit the financial statements of the U.S. government; and therefore I have a professional responsibility, as well as being a certified public accountant.

My opinion is that it’s important for us to make sure that the type of accountability failures that occurred in the private sector are not replicated in the public sector.

And candidly, Brian, last year was a very bad year, both financially and fiscally, because we had a deficit of about $412 billion dollars, of which less than 25 percent had to do with the global war against terrorism and incremental homeland security costs, and yet we’ve had strong economic growth.

At the same time, our liabilities and unfunded commitments went up from about $30 trillion to over $43 trillion in one year, largely due to the Medicare prescription drug benefit.

LAMB: Let me go through a series of questions, because people watching are going to say, where is this guy coming from? Whose side is he on? Where does he get his authority?

So, let’s start with that. Who appointed you to be comptroller general of the United States?

WALKER: Well, it’s a very complex appointment process. I was nominated by President Clinton, confirmed by the Senate. But before it got to President Clinton, there was a bipartisan and bicameral commission of the 10 leaders of the House and Senate who, by law, had to come up with at least three names. And I was on that list of three, and ultimately, I was the one selected by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

LAMB: Are you a member of any party?

WALKER: No, I’m not.

LAMB: Have you ever been?

WALKER: Yes, I have. I started out early in life as a Democrat, when there was such a thing as a conservative Democrat. I then, in 1976, became a Republican, when there was such a thing as a moderate Republican.

But I have been an independent since about 1997. And it’s very important that, both in form and in substance, that I conduct myself in that manner.

LAMB: What job did you have in the Reagan administration, and how did you get that?

WALKER: I was assistant secretary of labor for pensions and health at the U.S. Department of Labor. I was also deputy assistant secretary, and prior to that, head of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.

And then under Bush – 41 – I was a trustee of Social Security and Medicare.

LAMB: So, why do you think Bill Clinton picked you?

WALKER: I think he picked me because, number one, I have a successful track record – or at least many people believe that I did – in both the public sector and the private sector.

I had support on both sides of the aisle. And I was a person that people viewed as speaking truth to power, telling it like is, not being a partisan, not being an ideologue, and trying to do a good job for my client and for the American people.

LAMB: What year were you confirmed?

WALKER: 1998.

LAMB: By what vote?

WALKER: Unanimous. All three times I’ve been confirmed unanimously.

LAMB: And how long is your term?

WALKER: Fifteen years – the longest of any position in the U.S. government.

LAMB: How can they get you out of there if they don’t like what you’re doing?

WALKER: Only by impeachment for specified reasons that are laid out in the law, and I can assure you, I will not engage in those practices.

LAMB: What kind of things would they be able to kick you out over?

WALKER: Well, for moral turpitude, incompetence, you know, a criminal violation of some sort, gross malfeasance. And then it takes impeachment, or a joint resolution of Congress signed by the president, so a supermajority requirement. It’s a very tough standard.

LAMB: We used to know it as the General Accounting Office. Why change to Government Accountability Office?

WALKER: Because we never have been in the accounting business, other than maintaining our own accounting records, and it was very confusing. So, it was very narrow. It didn’t describe who we were and what we did. Most of the time people called us the Government Accounting Office.

And so, we decided that we needed a name that was more reflective of who we are and what we did, that helped us both within the Beltway and also in recruiting people, especially to the extent that you’re trying to recruit lawyers, Ph.D. economists, MBAs.

And so, we decided that the Government Accountability Office was more reflective of who we are and what we did. But the good thing is, it enabled us to keep our brand name, which is GAO. We’d never want to change that.

LAMB: Where are you physically located?

WALKER: We’re at 441 G Street. We have the better part of a city block. It takes up most of that city block. And we’ve got over 2,000 people in that building. But we’re also the landlord for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers headquarters, as well.

LAMB: Now, how many of those offices out in the country do you have?

WALKER: We have 11 outside of Washington, D.C., so 12 in total.

LAMB: Total number of employees?

WALKER: About 3,250.

LAMB: What’s the budget for this year?

WALKER: About $470 million.

LAMB: And when did the GAO start?

WALKER: 1921, at the same time that the then Bureau of Budget was created, which is now called the Office of Management and Budget.

LAMB: Why do we need the GAO?

WALKER: We need the GAO in order to try to help the Congress discharge its constitutional responsibilities to assure the performance and help – pardon me (ph) – improve performance and assure accountability of government for the benefit of the American people, to help it discharge its oversight responsibilities, its authorization responsibilities and its appropriations responsibilities.
So, we are the watchdog for the Congress. And I think our primary client is the Congress, but our beneficial client is the American people.

LAMB: I got on your Web site and had printed out the Government Accountability Office organizational chart, and this is what it looks like.

And you can click on, on the Web site, all those little things there in the middle.

Can you make sense out of this?

WALKER: It’s a starship. It’s the future. It’s not the typical type of organization chart.

Basically, we want to have – we want to have a flat organization. We want to be able to have as few a layers and levels as possible. And we want people working together in an integrated and coordinated fashion, rather than trying to harden their own little silos and protect their own turf.

LAMB: I don’t know how to do this, but maybe I ought to put on a cynic’s hat, not about GAO, but about this town for a minute.

You just drowned us in those numbers. And I’ll bet you most people can’t remember those numbers you gave.

When will it hurt the American people? I mean, there are a lot of people, it seems to me, who sit out there and say, oh, I’ve listened to those people talk about the sky is falling, but there’s no proof in my life that it’s falling.

WALKER: The difficulty is, we don’t know for certain when a “crisis” might occur because part of the problem that we have right now is that we are relying upon foreign players to finance our deficit spending and our consumption ways.

Last year, a significant majority of our new debt was purchased by foreign players. We don’t know whether or not – and if so, when – they might decide that they don’t want to continue to buy our debt. And if they don’t do that, then we’re in trouble, because we have the lowest savings rate of any industrialized nation in the world.

We really have triple deficits. We have a budget deficit, we have a balance of payments deficit and we have a savings deficit. And they’re all a problem. But in combination, they can imperil the ship of state.

LAMB: But you say in your speech here – and you’ve testified a lot and given this speech – that we can’t grow ourselves out of this. And you hear politicians tell us, we’ll just grow out of this.

WALKER: The math doesn’t work. Anybody who says that we’re simply going to grow our way out of this problem has not run the numbers, because the type of compounded annual growth that you would have to have in order to achieve that objective, based upon reasonable assumptions, has never occurred before in this country’s history, and it’s not likely to occur.

LAMB: Why?

WALKER: Well, the reason being is, we may be in a knowledge­based economy, but the fact of the matter is, we’re in a global economy at the same point in time. We’re facing slower and slower workforce growth. We’re facing more and more competition.

We are running significant deficits, adding debt. We’re not saving in order to be able to invest, in order to enhance productivity, improve innovation, which increases standard of living.

There are a lot of reasons why. But, you know, the facts speak for themselves, and the numbers speak loudly.

And so, one of the important things about GAO is, we’re in the fact business. And our job is to try to provide professional, objective, fact­based, nonpartisan, non­ideological, fair and balanced information.

LAMB: OK. What does it mean then, if the president says we’re going to have a 400 and – whatever it is – 13 billion dollar deficit this year, when the next person comes along and says, yes, but it’s really not $413 billion. It’s really $600 billion, because we’re using the Social Security money – on and on until your mind begins to break down in all this.

What is the true deficit?

WALKER: Well, the first thing is, no matter which way you look at it, the numbers are big, they’re bad and they’re unacceptable.

There’s two ways that you could look at it. If you look at the so­called unified deficit for last fiscal year, which ended September 30, 2004, you ran about a $412 billion deficit. But that’s net of having spent every dime of the $151 billion temporary Social Security surplus, and the $4 billion temporary postal surplus.

And so, if you look at the on­budget deficit – or I refer to it as the operating deficit – it’s over $560 billion, almost five percent of GDP. That may not be an all­time record, but it’s surely very disquieting.

And in addition, what’s more important is not where we are and where we’ve been, but where we’re headed. And that’s the real concern.

LAMB: But again, take a person making $50,000 a year or less, and they have a savings rate of one percent, or less, as you said. What’s the nation’s savings rate?

WALKER: Oh, it’s less than – it’s about one percent, I …

LAMB: What does that mean?

WALKER: It means, as I said before, that without adequate savings, we don’t have enough investment.

LAMB: No, but I mean, what does it mean – explain that in real terms. A person doesn’t save anything? Is that what they’re saying?

WALKER: I mean, what we’re saying is, is that we’re very good in this country in consuming, including consuming even if it’s on credit, which ultimately means that we’re mortgaging our individual future. And to the extent that we’re doing it from the standpoint of the country – which we are right now – we’re mortgaging our children’s and our grandchildren’s future.

Sooner or later, you have to pay the price. Sooner or later, you have to end up, you know, somehow coming up with the funds to be able to retire that debt and pay the mounting interest on that debt.

LAMB: But again, though, go back to the individual who might make $40,000 or $50,000 a year. When will they see this, and how – I mean, the crash, or whatever you’re talking about – and how would it hurt them, directly?

WALKER: Well, I think if we maintain our present course – assuming that people decide that they don’t want to continue to buy U.S. debt, which I wouldn’t bet on, but, you know, putting that to the side right now, when that might happen – the fact of the matter is, if we maintain our present course, we’re talking about, in order to maintain the certain – the current promises and the current programs with a modest growth rate in the future, we’re talking about federal tax levels 2.5 times what they are right now within about 30 years.

That obviously would cripple the economy.

LAMB: Is anything going to happen in five years?

WALKER: Well, there are several things going to happen in five years.

OK, number one, the Social Security surpluses are going to start to decline. And when the Social Security surpluses start to decline, they’re going to end up putting pressure on the rest of the federal budget. And that’s going to begin, you know, a long process of additional squeezes on the budget.

So, there are a lot of things that will happen in the interim, but the unfortunate problem is, Brian, is the way that we’ve historically measured a crisis is not acceptable in today’s times.

For example, take Social Security. In 1983, when we solved Social Security, the crisis was the checks weren’t going to go out on time. Well, the modern­day equivalent of that is 2042.

But based upon our long­range budget simulation models, the whole economy may be in jeopardy by 2042. So, we shouldn’t be looking at Social Security solvency and the Trust Fund as the basis in which to act.

LAMB: The country that holds the biggest debt is Japan, and way above everybody else – $700 billion. China is right up there with $150 billion, or something like that.

Why would either one of those companies – countries, who love to do business in this country – there’s a trade deficit in favor of the Chinese to this country, the same way with the Japanese – why would they ever stop buying the debt, then? And who’s got the power in those two countries to stop buying the debt?

WALKER: Well, part of the question is diversification. You know, diversification is something we can all relate to, whether it relates to investments or whether it relates to risk.

And there are a lot of reasons why they buy our debt, in part because of our trade balance, if you will.

But if they ever get concerned as to whether or not it’s prudent to continue to hold as large a portion of our debt as part of their overall portfolio, they have other alternatives they could go to.

And if they decide that they’ll continue to buy our debt, but not to the same extent that they have in the past, then we could start to face some problems, because we don’t have enough savings to be able to fund our own deficits and consumption ways.

LAMB: Does either party do this better than the other?

WALKER: Well, I have to conduct myself in a nonpartisan fashion. And I believe that there’s a lot of blame that you could point to as to why we are where we are. And it’s something that, quite frankly, has occurred over many, many different years.

Even during the few years that we had surpluses and projected surpluses, we knew we were going to return to days of deficits, because of known demographic trends and rising health care costs.

I don’t think anybody has been very good on this on a sustained basis over a long period of time. It’s time that we get serious now.

LAMB: But why do you have to worry? If you’ve got a 15­year term, you could say anything about anybody, couldn’t you?

WALKER: Oh, no. One has to be prudent. I mean, I do have a client. My client is the Congress of the United States. And as a result, I want to be constructive. I want to be professional, fact­based, nonpartisan, non­ideological, try to be fair and balanced.

I want to get the facts out. I want to speak truth to power. I want to tell it like it is. But I don’t want to be alarmist.

I believe that we can solve this problem. But before we solve the problem, we have to admit that we have a problem. And then we have to get started soon, because right now the miracle of compounding is working against us. Debt on debt is bad.

LAMB: When I got on your Web site, and I was reading all kinds of things that you have on there about the different things that the GAO does – and that was on that wheel, all those things – I kept saying to myself, why does the GAO do this? Why don’t the committees on the Hill do it, or why don’t the departments do it? Why do they need this agency outside of all of that? And I’ll read some of this in a second.

How far does your power go, and what – and how does it work? Who orders a study? Who orders some kind of an investigation of the GAO?

WALKER: Well, first let’s talk a little bit about what we do and orders the studies.

We do audits, investigations, program evaluations, policy analyses, render legal opinions, do adjudications of bid protest – a broad range of professional services for the client – for the Congress.

Ninety percent plus of all the work that we do is either requested by Congress or directed by Congress. Ten percent, roughly, are based upon my own statutory authority.

The 10 percent tends to be focused on longer­range issues, more cross­cutting issues, sometimes more complex and controversial issues, because as you might expect, the Congress tends to be focused more on the here and now, and they tend to be focused on their geographic areas of interest and the committees of jurisdiction that they have.

And so, we are very much focused on supporting the Congress. They are our client. But we do also have some discretion to start things on our own.

LAMB: All right, let’s just say Congressman Carl Levin calls you up from Michigan. He’s a Democrat. He’s on the Armed Services Committee. And he says, “Dave, I want you to study the cost overruns on the F­16.” Do you have any choice at that point?

WALKER: Yes. I mean, basically, the way that our statute works is that we’re required by law to do mandates. That’s where the Congress as a whole acts.

We’re required by law to do work if a committee asks us to do it, which is technically the committee chair, although we give the same priority to the ranking minority member, because we don’t want to be partisan.

Right now, quite frankly, Brian, where we are is, given the tremendous amount of requests that we receive and the limited resources that we have, a vast majority of our work is done for chairmen or ranking minority members of either full committees or subcommittees of jurisdiction.

We encourage bipartisan work, as well as bicameral work, but we can’t require it. And occasionally we’ll do work for individual members, but that’s declining, because of supply and demand imbalance.

LAMB: What’s to prevent a chairman of a committee or a ranking member from calling you up and saying – or getting with his colleague and saying – I’m going to call Dave Walker and get him to study this? And it’s a pet project that they want to embarrass somebody. And they say to you, go out and study this. I’m going to issue a press release that I’ve asked the GAO to go out and prove that the welfare system doesn’t work.

What do you do?

WALKER: Well, first, even – we don’t have to say yes to everything if there’s not a statutory mandate for us to do it, or if it’s not a committee.

But even if we do have to do the work, we control our methodology, and we make sure that our work is done in accordance with professional standards and our core values. And our core values, among other things, are something I talked about before – professional, objective, fact­based, nonpartisan, non­ideological, fair and balanced.

I can tell you, I’ve had situations where members – on both sides of the aisle – have asked us to do work to say, I want you to do work in this area. By the way, I only want you to look at the plus side of it. Or I only want you to look at the negative side of it.

We say, no, we won’t do the work on that basis. You have to decide whether or not you want us to do the work. But when we do the work, it’s going to be done, you know, based upon our professional standards and core values.

The facts are going to fall where they may. You may or may not like the answer. So, be sure you want us to do the work.

LAMB: OK. Let’s say the Appropriations Committee chairman calls you up and says, I want this study done, and you say no. And then he holds your future in the balance, because he can determine how much money you’re going to get in your appropriation.

WALKER: Well, I think as long as you have a constructive working relationship, as long as you’re professional about it, as long as you’re not ideological about it, as long as you’re reasonable and constructive, and you explain why you are where you are and why you reached the judgment you have – I think you can work through those issues.

I mean, I’ve been in this job now for over six years. We don’t always say yes. We shouldn’t always say yes. Sometimes if we say yes, we might make somebody happy, but we’re not doing our job. And we undercut our reputation and our integrity, if you will.

I’m not going to do that. You can’t put a dollar value on that.

LAMB: Some people say you don’t hear much criticism about the GAO, because people are afraid that, if they criticize it, you’ll come after them and do a study on them.

Have you ever heard that before?

WALKER: Well, I mean, there are some people that get intimidated by GAO, because when GAO speaks, people listen.

And obviously, people typically don’t like auditors, investigators or evaluators. You typically don’t have people inviting you in.

All of that’s changing, I might add, because the new GAO is an organization that’s focused on trying to achieve results, trying to help people transform themselves, trying to help them deal with difficult issues in a constructive way.

And actually, we have situations now where people actually do ask us to come in and help, and we have to be careful that we don’t cross the line to lose our independence, because we need to be objective. And we can’t cross the line to where, in effect, we’re de facto making management decisions.

LAMB: What part of the world are you from originally?

WALKER: Alabama.

LAMB: Where?

WALKER: Birmingham is where I was born. Raised in Alabama and Florida.

LAMB: How long did you live in Birmingham?

WALKER: Well, I lived in Birmingham twice. I lived in Alabama a little over 12 years, but we lived in several cities – Birmingham, Tuscaloosa, Selma and Mobile.

LAMB: What kind of a family did you grow up in? What did your parents …

WALKER: Well, my dad was with Southern Bell, the telephone company, and we were moved several times. My mother raised three boys, and believe me, that was a full­time job.

And then we moved from Tuscaloosa, Alabama to Miami, Florida – talk about a cultural change – in 1964. And I lived in Florida through undergraduate school, and started my professional career there. Then we’ve moved several times since.

LAMB: What year did you get your degree at Jacksonville University?

WALKER: 1973.

LAMB: In what subject?

WALKER: Accounting.

LAMB: And then what did you do with your life?

WALKER: Well, I went with Price Waterhouse. And I started there, was with Price Waterhouse, then Coopers & Lybrand. Those firms have now merged, and it’d be PricewaterhouseCoopers.

I went into the executive search and human capital consulting business, went into government. Went back out with Arthur Andersen, and then came back in as Comptroller General of the United States.

LAMB: What’s a guy – what’s a comptroller – if you don’t mind asking, I know it’s a public figure – how much do you make a year?

WALKER: I think I make $161,200, the same thing as a United States senator.

LAMB: What is a guy doing in that job for 15 years who could be out making four times that much at Arthur Andersen or some company like that?

WALKER: Even more than that. I took about an 85 percent pay cut to take this job.

LAMB: Why did you do it?

WALKER: Well, and the reason being is, because I love public service. I’ve had the good fortune to work 21 years in the private sector. I’ve now been about 12 years in the public sector. I’ve run two executive branch agencies, now this legislative branch agency.

You can make a lot more money in the private sector, but you can make a difference for the country and in people’s lives in the public sector.

My view is that your bank account might get bigger in the private sector, but, you know, but I like it more here, and I get more here out of what I do in the public sector.

And so, that’s why, because you can make a difference and because you’re doing something that’s worthwhile.

LAMB: One of the few times I’ve seen criticism of the GAO was a fellow we had on this same time slot. We had a program called “Booknotes.” A guy named Winslow Wheeler. I don’t know if you’ve seen this or not.

I’m going to show you the clip of it, because it’ll give us an opportunity to talk about the way you relate to these agencies.

He wrote a book called “Wastrels of Defense,” and it was all about his nine – it’s not about his nine years at GAO, but he worked there for nine years. And here’s how he explained what it was like. Let’s watch it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WINSLOW WHEELER, AUTHOR, “WASTRELS OF DEFENSE”: My experience in GAO is that, when you pick up a GAO report, you don’t know what you have.

You need to look carefully, not at the content of the report, but at the section that describes their methodology.

If their description of the methodology for their study is about a page long and basically says, Senator or Congressman X asked us to do this. We went to the following places. We started on this date. We ended on this date. We spoke to these officials. And that was our methodology.

My advice is to fold it up, put it on the table and go read something else.

LAMB: Why?

WHEELER: Because they basically went out and, in the case of Defense Department issues, spoke to project managers and collected documents.

The documents they got were the ones that DOD permitted them to have. GAO has got statutory authority to get any document it pleases. And they have the ability to legally demand the documents.

In Defense Department subjects, that almost never happens.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LAMB: How much of that do you agree with? How much do you disagree with?

WALKER: I strongly disagree with it. First of all, I don’t know who he is. Number two, I don’t know when he worked at GAO. I doubt that was ever true, but it’s surely not true today.

The fact of the matter is, we’re not – we’re not light on anybody, much less the Defense Department.

If you look at our high­risk list, there are 25 high­risk areas in the U.S. government. Fourteen of them are the Defense Department.

We are very assertive and very aggressive in doing work with regard to the Defense Department. And, in fact, we don’t have problems obtaining records from the Defense Department. We probably have the best relations right now with the Defense Department in obtaining records that we’ve ever had.

We had problems from time to time with certain agencies, but Defense has not been one that we’ve had problems with of late.

LAMB: Pick your time, pick your issue. I don’t remember the last one you heard was that we lost something like $9 billion worth of something over in Iraq. I mean, how – I mean, you know what I’m talking about.

WALKER: Oh, I know what you’re talking about.

LAMB: What was it?

WALKER: Well, for one thing, I think it’s important to understand that we have the best military in the world. There’s nobody even close. We’re an A+. We’re the gold standard. There’s nobody even close.

So, on effectiveness, we’re great. But on economy, efficiency, transparency and accountability, the Defense Department is a D, a poor, graded on a curve, giving them the benefit of the doubt.

It’s got 14 of 25 high­risk areas. Their financial management is horrible. They are wasting billions of dollars a year on the business side because of thousands of legacy, non­integrated information systems, because of inadequate controls, because of poor accounting systems, because of, you know, ineffective contracting and acquisition practices.

Right now, Brian, we’re trying to find out how the $72 billion that were spent for the supplemental on the global war against terrorism were spent.

I have no doubt in my mind that money was spent, but it’s like pulling teeth to find out how it was spent.

LAMB: Why?

WALKER: Because for years, the Defense Department has placed its time and attention and resources on military capabilities and mission. And that’s obviously important.

On the other hand, they have not placed enough time and attention on the business side – the infrastructure, if you will. And as a result, over the years, they have not done what needs to be done, and they have not been held accountable for it.

And one of the problems that they have is, if you went to the Defense Department right now and asked them, who’s in charge of business transformation, the answer is nobody. Nobody’s in charge.

And even if somebody was in charge, they’re not there long enough, they don’t have the responsibility and authority, they’re not at the right level to get the job done.

So, one of the things that we’re advocating right now is, the Defense Department desperately needs a chief operating officer, a deputy secretary for management, with a term appointment, a performance contract, with the responsibility and the authority to make sure that we can actually start effectively dealing with some of these issues.

LAMB: As I listen to you, I think, why wouldn’t the president of the United States, if he saw billions – you said it – billions being wasted, or the chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the House and the Senate, why wouldn’t they demand that this kind of thing happen?

Why does it take you?

WALKER: It’s difficult because, obviously, we’re at a time of war. And in a time of war, everybody wants to rally around our troops and wants to rally around the Department of Defense, and wants to rally around homeland security.

And I have mixed emotions about it. I have a son who’s a captain in the Marine Corps, who fought in Iraq. And so, I obviously am a big supporter of our military and the need to have a strong defense and have adequate homeland security.

But that does not excuse the fact that, to the extent that we’re wasting money in a time of huge deficits, it’s not just a matter of the impact that it has on the deficits, it’s also the fact that it’s money that could be used to improve quality of life, to enhance readiness, to close the gaps between wants, needs and affordability on real needs in the Defense Department.

That’s what’s unacceptable. And that’s starting to change, – in fairness. The current administration has its president’s management agenda. The current leadership of the Defense Department know this is a problem. They are focused on it.

But quite candidly, nobody’s in charge. And, you know, somebody will tell you, well, it’s the secretary – Secretary Rumsfeld. Frankly, he doesn’t have time to deal with this.

LAMB: Why not?

WALKER: Because we’re at war, and because we’ve got two huge efforts ongoing, even if we weren’t at war. For …

LAMB: If what you’re saying is so serious and such a problem, why wouldn’t you, if you were secretary of defense, say, I’m going to designate this deputy. I want a new deputy, and it’s going to be his sole responsibility to follow this money situation, because we’ve got a country that’s in serious financial trouble.

Why wouldn’t that be the simple thing you’d do?

WALKER: Well, I’m hopeful that the secretary of defense may decide to do that voluntarily. He has certain authorities, and he’s actively considering it at the present point in time, in fairness.

But secondly, I would respectfully suggest that we need legislation, because – the reason I say that is, this secretary of defense might decide he wants to do that. But what about the next secretary of defense?

Quite frankly, it’s taken decades to get us where we are in this area. It’s going to take a number of years to get us to where we need to be.

We need to have a pro – a professional – with a proven track record of success, with both public and private sector experience, who can come in there for enough time to be try to be able to solve the problem.

That means a term appointment, performance contract, deputy secretary level. And it’s a supplement to, not a substitute for, the current deputy secretary. That job is needed. There’s no question about it.

LAMB: What’s your reaction when you see Air Force contract officers going to jail, because of their relationship with a major military contractor, like Boeing?

WALKER: It tells you the system’s broken, that there are inadequate checks and balances. And it reinforces the need for fundamental reform.

LAMB: Well, go back to your speech where you talk about values, that we have to decide what our values are. And you know that’s a hot word right now in politics.

What do you mean by that?

WALKER: Prudence, fiscal responsibility and stewardship.

I’m a member of the Sons of the American Revolution. And George Washington, who’s the father of our country said, the most important individual attribute is courage. The most important institutional attribute is fiscal responsibility.

We need to heed Washington’s words of wisdom. And we need more of both.

LAMB: OK. Who’s doing it in this town?

WALKER: Not enough people. There are a few …

LAMB: They’re all …

WALKER: Well, there are a few exceptions, on both sides of the aisle. But we haven’t reached critical mass yet.

I am somewhat comforted, that because within the last two to three months, we’ve seen more people speaking out on our current financial condition and growing fiscal imbalance, including, for example, most recently, Chairman Greenspan from the Fed, the Federal Reserve. He spoke out within the last month on his concern about the need to look on both the spending side and the revenue side, and to start to come to grips with our growing deficits and debt.

LAMB: The people that watch this network just watched the Congress in the middle of the night put 11,000 earmarks on a supplemental appropriations bill.

And we ran, over a period of a couple months, as many as we could get on the screen, all the goodies that were given around the country to all the districts. Millions and millions of dollars – billions of dollars – that were given out in building libraries and town halls and city halls and things like that.

Do you get into all that? And if – you were talking about prudence.

WALKER: Well, earmarks have been on the increase. I’m aware of some of work that’s been done by another legislative branch agency, not by us, on what the trend on earmarks have been. And they’ve gone up significantly in the last several years.

Not all earmarks are bad, but not all earmarks are good, either.

And the fact of the matter is, if you take this past year, it’s my understanding that there were $13 to $15 billion dollars in earmarks in the last appropriations bill.

Interesting, the way that those were paid for, in large part, was an across­the­board rescission – or cut, across­the­board cut – of .83 percent in funding for all the domestic agencies other than Defense and Homeland Security, I believe.

The concern that I have is, that if we’re going to come under increasing budget pressures – which I believe we are, I believe the facts speak loudly – then earmarks really present a serious problem. Because if you’re trying to get more done with less, and if you have less flexibility, because earmarks are in there, it’s a vicious cycle.

And so, one of the things that’s going to have to happen is to start looking at the base of government and start engaging in a fundamental review and reassessment.

LAMB: Let me ask you about one simple thing. In the recent supplemental that was announced by the president – 80 whatever is, $81 billion or, and there’s 70­some billion of that goes to Iraq – there was a $700 million embassy in there for Iraq, the largest embassy of the United States in the world.

And a lot of people raised the issue. They said, take it out of there, and all that stuff.

But when you see something like that, does that raise a flag with you? And do you have anything to say about things like that?

WALKER: Well, you know, if we’re asked to. Obviously, if we see something in there that’s a matter of concern, we may mention something.

But typically, as I said before, 90 percent of our work is, we’re doing it at the request of the Congress.

I will tell you one example of something that we’ve done recently, that we stepped into a void that nobody else was doing.

From time to time, Congress will consider new legislation, whether it’s spending or on the tax side, where they don’t consider the long­term affordability and sustainability of it, or they don’t consider the discounted present value – the current dollar cost of it, if you will.

You know, one example of that was Medicare prescription drugs. There was a big debate about whether it was going to cost $395 billion, or whatever.

Two­and­a­half months, 3.5 months after the bill was passed, the Medicare trustee said, we would need $8.1 trillion dollars today, invested at Treasury rates, to deliver on that promise. That’s more than the entire debt of the United States outstanding since the beginning of the republic.

I’ve had several situations where things were being considered, where I tried to end up sending a letter up to the Hill, to encourage them to understand what the long­term cost was, not just the short­term cost, and in some cases have been able to try to work with others to come up with the numbers for them to consider, so we don’t keep digging the hole deeper.

LAMB: But there still is that commitment to prescription drugs that’s going to cost trillions of dollars. And there still is a commitment to the Iraqi war – and as you say, you support the idea – for billions and billions of dollars that goes on forever.

And then the Medicare.

How many trust funds are there in the United States?

WALKER: Oh, lord, I couldn’t tell you, Brian.

LAMB: Somebody gave a figure of 140­some. Is that possible?

WALKER: Well, it’s possible. I couldn’t tell you. I don’t …

LAMB: Is there any money in any of those trust funds? Any real money in any of those trust funds?

WALKER: A vast majority of the trust funds, including Social Security and Medicare, have government bonds in them – non­readily­marketable, government bonds, so you can’t sell them or negotiate them – that are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. They’re guaranteed as to principal and interest.

What does that mean? That means that they are effectively a priority claim on future general revenues. They have legal, political and moral significance. They have no economic significance whatsoever.

When we have to end up cashing in those bonds – which we will at some point in time – then what’s going to have to happen, we’re either going to have to raise taxes, cut other spending or go out and borrow, probably from foreign players, in order to be able to raise the cash to be able to pay off the obligations.

LAMB: Is there any threat in this business that the foreign governments will have so much power over us, because of the economics of it, that it would affect the way we deal with them, and the kind of power they have over us to demand things?

WALKER: It could. The fact of the matter is, when you rely to then extent that we are right now, on foreign players to finance our debt, then it means that you cede a little bit of your future destiny to those who hold that debt.

Now, we have some convergence of interests, but we have some differences of interest, from an economic, from a foreign policy and from a national security perspective.

And I think the point is, is that we’re not on a prudent path. And we need to get serious soon, and start getting ourselves back on the prudent path. It’s probably going to take as much as a generation to get that done.

LAMB: Well, go back to the countries for a minute.

In Japan, we still have 50,000 troops and all kinds of military over there, including the navy. And they’re our biggest – they own the most of our debt, $700 billion, roughly.

South Korea owns another big chunk. We have, what, 25,000 – eventually we’ll have – or we have had 37,000 troops over there.

Those two situations, they could say to us, we want those troops to stay here, whether you want to take them home or not, or we’ll, you know, take back some of our money.

WALKER: Well, that’s what negotiations are all about.

But one of the things that you’ve probably heard, as well as I have recently, is that the Korean central bank has decided that they’re not going to invest as much in Treasury securities as has been the case.

And we already know that the OPEC nations are not investing as much in Treasury securities as historically has been the case.

And we also know that the dollar has taken a big hit in the last couple of years. And I think we have to see that as a shot across the bow.

LAMB: What’s the dollar impact? In other words, it takes a $1.30 to buy one euro, and it used to be a dollar for dollar, or dollar for euro.

WALKER: It used to even be better than that.

LAMB: Yes. I know that. But what’s the impact on us?

WALKER: Well, I mean, it obviously helps in some ways. I mean, to the extent that our currency is worth less, it means it helps our exports, if you will. It obviously costs a lot more when you travel overseas.

But I guess part of it is, is that, what does it tell you about the confidence that they have in our ability to deal with large and growing deficits and debt?

LAMB: Here’s a political question. Why is it that the Democrats used to not worry about the deficit, and now they worry about it every day, and the Republicans used to think that was the worst thing happening in this country, and now they don’t worry about it?

WALKER: Probably it best could be represented by who’s in charge.

LAMB: So, does it really not matter?

WALKER: Oh, it does matter. It matters very seriously.

LAMB: What proof do you have that it really matters?

WALKER: Well, you know, I think the fact of the matter is, is that whether you’re in the private sector or in the public sector, if you’re imprudent long enough, over a period of time, ultimately the day of reckoning comes.

You know, you have to be able to ultimately discharge your obligations.

Right now we’re lucky, because interest rates are at very low levels in historical terms. And as a result, last year, believe it or not, the federal budget, only seven percent of it was for interest – same thing as 40 years ago, in 1964.

But not for long, because we’re adding debt at record rates, and interest rates are likely to move up over time. And that means that we’re going to be spending more and more of our budget on past actions, rather than future needs.

LAMB: Well, you know people listening, depending on what their politics are, are sitting there saying, you know, there’s really no problem, if you’re a strong supporter of the president. He’s got this under control. He’s got the war on terror under control. The budget, the growth – all that’s going to be – it’s a plus. Jobs – we’ve never had a better month in a long time.

If you’re on the other side, you say the sky is falling.

Where does that put you in this? And do you ever get a call from the administration saying, back off, David, we don’t want you doing this out there.

WALKER: I’ve never had a call from the administration saying back off. I’ve never had a call from a member of Congress from either side of the aisle saying back off.

As long as we are doing our work as an institution, and as long as I’m doing my work as comptroller general in a professional, objective, fact­based, nonpartisan, non­ideological, fair and balanced manner, I think we’re OK.

LAMB: On your Web site is a 4.5­minute video of you. I’m going to run this, so that they can see you.

You’ve got something going called transformation. And I want you – obviously, you know what’s on there. We’ll listen to what you say, and then I want to parse it a little bit, to see what you’re talking about here.

WALKER: Sure.

(BEGIN VIDEO)

WALKER: The world is changing very rapidly, and the U.S.’s position in the world is evolving at the same point in time.

One of the things that is constant in today’s world, in fact – whether you’re in the government, the private sector or not­for­profit sector – is change.

And as a result, the issue of how do we adapt to those changes, how do we address the challenges, how do we capitalize on the opportunities, becomes very important.

Government is on a burning platform, and therefore, we must adapt to a number of changing conditions.

Number one, trends that have no boundaries, that affect the U.S. and our position in the world, that we have to address.

Secondly, rising public expectations for a more responsive and accountable federal government, as well as current and projected budget deficits.

Well, first, transformation is about creating the future, rather than perfecting the past. It’s really trying to assess what one should do, how one should do business, and in some cases, who should do the business.

For the government, transformation is about, what’s the proper role of government in the 21st century, how should the government go about doing its business in the 21st century, and in some cases, who should do the government’s business in the 21st century.

I think there’s a wide acknowledgment of the fact that the status quo is unacceptable. While reasonable people can differ on what the proper role of government is for the 21st century, most people recognize the government has to do business differently in the 21st century.

And there is increasing interest in the transformation issue, and there’s increasing awareness that human capital strategy, or people strategy, is really the central component of making transformation happen.

But clearly, effective human capital strategy is key to maximize the performance or assure the accountability of any enterprise, whether it be government, the private sector or the not­for­profit sector.

In today’s knowledge­based economy, people represent the most valuable asset of any organization. They’re the key to success and failure.

I think we need to recognize that for many governmental organizations, including GAO, people do represent our largest cost. At the same point in time, they represent our most valuable asset. They represent also the character of the organization. And it’s character that counts in today’s world.

In most cases, we need to move from hierarchical, process­oriented, inwardly focused organizations to being more partnerial, more results­oriented, more externally focused organizations.

GAO has two roles with regard to transformation. First, we believe in leading by example. We want to be in the vanguard of government transformation.

Our second responsibility is to help the Congress – our client – and to help other agencies see the way forward, and to try to provide tools and methodologies to help them help themselves, to try to provide best practices and benchmarking information, and to also conduct audits, investigations and evaluations on what progress is being made along the way.

We need to recognize that the United States government is the largest and most complex, the most diverse, and arguably the most important entity on the face of the earth. We can’t afford to have anything less than a first­rate workforce running that type of enterprise.

(END VIDEO)

LAMB: Why did you do that?

WALKER: Well, first, that was prepared in­house at very low cost by our own people. It’s amazing how talented they are, and it’s won a number of national awards.

We did it because we really are in the vanguard of change. I mean, we are on an unacceptable and unsustainable path as a government. We’re going to have to make some tough choices with regard to what the proper role of government is.

We’re going to have to look at discretionary spending, mandatory spending, entitlement programs, tax policies – all across the board.

And we’re going to not only have to figure out what needs to be done, but how best to go about doing it.

Now, the vast majority of the federal government is based on the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s – all those policies. And so, what we’re trying to do is to try to help build a case for the need for fundamental change, fundamental transformation and to lead by example.

I did it because a lot of people were watching what we were doing, and how we were doing it, and wanted us to, you know, speak out more and provide more information.

It also helps on recruiting as well, I might add.

LAMB: Thirty­two hundred people, $474 million budget, 11 different offices in the United States. How many audits a year do you do?

WALKER: We issue about 1,000 reports, which either audits, you know, program evaluations, policy analyses, legal opinions or whatever. About 1,000 a year.

LAMB: How many of those are available to the general public?

WALKER: Ninety­nine point nine percent. We are probably one of the most transparent organizations in the world.

When we issue a report, it is on the Web the day that we issue it. There are two exceptions. Number one, if it classified, we obviously don’t post it to the Web, and we don’t make it publicly available.

Secondly, there are certain reports that are not classified, but we deem them to be sensitive, and therefore we’ll make them public available, but they’re not posted to the Web, because after all, you can get the reports on the Web from any cave in Afghanistan or anywhere in the world. And so, in today’s world, you have to be more sensitive about what you’re putting on the Web.

LAMB: Homeland security, 15 – is it 15 or 22? I can’t remember, there’s …

WALKER: Twenty­two.

LAMB: … 22 different departments. How do you keep track of that?

WALKER: Well, first, that’s the largest merger and reorganization of government since the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947.

And what’s important to keep in mind, that of these 22 different departments and agencies that were brought together – really agencies, primarily – a vast majority of them, homeland security was not their primary mission before September 11, 2001. And in many cases, they may not be the primary mission now.

And so, it’s a massive undertaking. And we have the merger and transformation of the Department of Homeland Security on our high­risk list, and we’re trying to work with them in a constructive way to maximize the chance of success.

LAMB: In your video you said things like, status quo is unacceptable, government has to do business differently, we must lead by example.

Give us an example.

WALKER: Well, for one thing, when I came into GAO, we didn’t have a strategic plan. We have one now. It’s a framework for everything we do. In fact, it’s probably the closest thing that the U.S. government has for a strategic plan.

It’s our strategic plan for serving the United States Congress.

We also ended up restructuring our organization. We ended up eliminating a layer of management. We reduced the number of organizational units from 35 to 13. We reduced the number of field offices from 16 to 11. We changed how we measure success.

We ended up developing a number of international and domestic partnerships with good government organizations and other players, in order to maximize our value and manage risk, given limited resources, and to leverage our resources for positive results.

We have over doubled our results – outcome­based results – in the last six years with the same number of people – in fact, a few less people today than we had six years ago.

So, I think that’s important. I think it adds credibility to the agency. I think it shows others that you can be successful, and that just because things have been done a certain way for a long time doesn’t mean you can’t change, although change is tough in government.

LAMB: I got on your Web site, as I said, and read under the different – you have all these different categories – education, workforce and income security – accomplishments in key projects. You say currently – I’m just grabbing this at random – we’re working to ensure that children are provided healthy meals in school.

When I read that I said, what’s the GAO doing that for, when we have – I don’t know – the Education Department, you’ve got the committees on the Hill.

The second thing, determine how best to place a highly qualified teacher in every classroom. Why is that your business?

WALKER: Well, first, it’s important to understand what we do. We’re not the ones, the policymakers. The Congress passes the laws. We’re not the ones that administer the programs. That’s the executive branch’s responsibilities.

But we do do work, typically at the request of the Congress, to try to evaluate whether or not the laws, the programs, the policies and the regulations, in some cases, are working, whether or not they’re achieving intended results.

And so, when we talk about those things, it’s where we’re doing the work, to do program evaluations, or we’re doing work to try to understand whether or not the intended objective of the Congress is, in fact, being achieved.

LAMB: Here’s another small item. Examples of our recent accomplishments include preventing or reducing supplemental security income overpayments. That comes out of the Social Security Administration.

Why wouldn’t the Social Security Administration be responsible for that?

WALKER: Well, they are primarily responsible. But the fact of the matter is, we have three roles. Oversight – are people properly discharging their responsibilities? Is the money being expended for the intended purpose? Are they complying with laws and regulations? Insight – what works and what doesn’t work – and foresight.

So, while the Social Security Administration has the primary responsibility, we’re part of the oversight arm and try to ascertain whether or not they’re doing their job properly, or whether or not there may be better ways to do it.

And in that regard, if we see problems, we will make recommendations. And, in fact, the way that we measure success is, to what extent do people adopt our recommendations? Does it save money? Does it free up money for other priorities? Does it improve safety, enhance security? Whatever.

LAMB: By the way, what is the cost of each of those audit reports? How do you …

WALKER: We do it in staff days. I mean, basically, how many – you know, how many days does it take to get it done. Obviously, the cost will vary depending upon the size and complexity of the engagement.

So, that’s something that we monitor. We have a cost accounting system where we monitor that information.

LAMB: What would happen if your agency went away?

WALKER: Well, last year we had financial benefits of $44 billion dollars, a $95 return for every dollar invested in GAO. All­time record. About double where we were five years ago. We wouldn’t get a lot of that money.

LAMB: Does that say that we can’t trust the existing government, because it needed you to get in there and find out where they weren’t spending the money right?

WALKER: I mean, our founding fathers were very brilliant people. You need checks and balances. You need checks and balances, you know. And Ronald Reagan said, trust but verify.

I mean, the fact of the matter is, we’re an integral part of the checks and balances. We help the Congress to exercise their oversight responsibilities.

You know, one of the reasons you have auditors and evaluators is because, if all you had to do is rely upon management to say, don’t worry, everything’s OK, we’ll take care of it, you know, we’d be out of business.

Even if you have good people trying to do the right thing, sometimes problems will happen. And many times, you end up having to, you know, share best practices to try to – where you see a success – to try to share that to help others be successful.

LAMB: Here’s the international affairs and trade rundown. Examples of our recent accomplishments. Encouraging the State Department to control costs on overseas embassy construction projects, thereby avoiding more than $90 million in unnecessary expenses.

I go back to, again, why does it take the GAO to encourage the State Department to spend our money right?

WALKER: Well, you might say it shouldn’t necessarily be the case, or we shouldn’t have to do that. But, the fact of the matter is, we have had to do that.

And one of the things that we do is, we not only try to ascertain whether or not people are complying with the laws and using the money properly, but whether or not they are using best practices.

And in many cases what we’re finding out is, is that there are a number of areas where people are not using best practices. And the result is increased costs, delays, compromised performance standards, waste.

LAMB: What specific thing – you’ve been there over 6.5 years. You’ve got another 8.5 to go. You going to stay till the end?

WALKER: I intend to at the present point in time, God willing.

LAMB: How many kids you got?

WALKER: Two.

LAMB: How old are they?

WALKER: Well, I got married at 19, Brian, so we had them young. I have a daughter 31, son 28. And I now have two grandchildren.

LAMB: So the school stuff is over. You don’t have to worry about college …

WALKER: Ah, I find that that helps. That helped me be able to say yes to this job, I can tell you.

LAMB: So, what’s the most recent example of something that you personally are proud of that you’ve done, that you had some impact on, yourself, in your agency?

WALKER: Well, I guess, first, I think we’re leading by example in many different ways. I mentioned a couple before. But one that’s really, I think, very visible is, we’re only as good as our people.

And we are clearly way ahead in modernizing our people policies and strategies, and modernizing our classification systems, our compensation systems to make them more market­based and performance oriented, to empower our people. We’re clearly way ahead on that. And I have been directly involved, with the help of many others.

But on an issue that you talked about before, which I’ve been directly engaged on, with the help of many other GAO professionals, is to try to speak truth, provide enhanced transparency of our nation’s true financial condition and long­term fiscal outlook.

Because I’m concerned for our country. I’m concerned for my children. I’m concerned for my grandchildren. And I think I’m in a position that I can try to do something constructive about it.

LAMB: How much farther can you go to get people’s attention?

WALKER: Well, the good news is, is I think within the last two to three months, we’re starting to see things change.

For example, I mentioned about others are speaking out, including Chairman Greenspan, which I think is a very positive step.

Secondly, we have others using their shareholder money to take out ads – full­page ads. Merrill Lynch took out four, full­page ads in publications, “Roll Call” on the Hill, to address the Congress on this issue, unbeknownst to me and to us.

There are a lot of organizations that are trying to work now to try to get the message out, recognizing that we are in an unsustainable …

LAMB: Do you think it’s going to have to break before people really pay attention?

WALKER: I hope it doesn’t. I hope it doesn’t.

And I think that it’s important that we recognize that, you know, that we have a responsibility to our country, our children and grandchildren, not to wait until we have to act.

I mean, the numbers are clear and compelling. The trends are something that you really can hardly argue with.

People that have the facts understand that we’ve got to change course.

LAMB: What’s the best Web address for people to get your Web site?

WALKER: www.gao.gov.

LAMB: General Walker, thank you very much for joining us.

WALKER: It’s my pleasure, Brian. Thank you for having me.

END

we must figure out how to a) put this in a sound bite and b) get folks with less than four teeth to listen to the message.

Logic and reason will never penetrate - this needs to be framed in the context of what this means to ME. Where's the pain? Who gets hurt?

The graph is unrealistic in the positive direction.

Notice the revenue flat line through to 2040.

Government revenue will drop drastically in the next few years if Bush makes tax cuts permanent.

Interest rates are rising due to the falling dollar driven by the C/O deficit.

In 2040 the revenue line is just about entering the blue net interest bar. That means All govt revenue will go to pay interest on the debt and ALL budget expenditures will be funded with money borrowed on foreign money markets.

Of course this will never happen because US Treasuries will be effectively worthless before that occurs as foreign Govt's flee to the Euro, Ruble, Dinar, Remindi or any other currency that has any semblence of value.

The 2040 scenario, if it happens, will occur much sooner probably before 2015 if the Republicans stay in power in the next ten years.

By then the US dollar will cease to be the worlds reserve currency.

Remember the most powerful nation in the world is not the one with the most aircraft carriers. The most powerful nation in the world is the one whose currency is the most traded and the most value during uncertain times.

A reserve currency is a safe harbour during inflationary AND deflationary cycles. The US dollar is no longer safe over the long term given the unsustainability of US debt.

South Korea, Russian and most importantly China are beginning to move away from the dollar.

Li Rongi, the Deputy Director of China Bank has said quite openly that the days of the US dollar as the worlds reserve currrency are over.

at the least we need to get it at least into blogs, and some progressive or at least truthful corporate media journalists like Ed Schultz and Keith Olbermann might cover it.

Crooks & Liars often posts video, in fact its subtitle is "The Video Blogger."
http://www.crooksandliars.com
TruthOut often posts video as well. Have you told Will Pitt about this?
How about some of the other major progressive blogs and boards? And interest from them so far?

I just sent this message to

2 members of the DNC
1 staffer in my Representative's DC office.
1 political staffer in my junior senator's office.

Hope this issue gets some play!

=======================================================

How loud does the US Comptroller General need to shout "current fiscal policy is unsustainable" before the Democrats hear the message and raise it as a political issue?

Please see the detailed information, including a transcript of his interview by Brian Lamb, at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1674886

To view the interview online, go to www.cspan.org

Signed

me