Akkam’s Razor

What would you say if I told you the White House had a half-billion to spend in wallking around money at the start of this (just completed) campaign season, and was free to spend it without disclosure or Congressional oversight?

Facts:

The conservative Prime Minister of Canada, Steven Harper, announced at the end of August 2006, that the Canadian government had announced a settlement with the United States as a result of a trade dispute regarding Soft Lumber Dumping. The resolution will result in the United States giving the Canadian Lumber industry somewhere in the range of ~$3-4B in tax credits, with $1B retained for the US. Of that $1B sum, half will go to the lumber industry, and the remainder will bypass the Treasury and the Congress, to be spent without oversight or discretion. The White House was to have planned for the dispersal no later than 9/1/2006. It is unclear if funds had been received and/or dispersed, in what matter they were spent, and if any balance remains.

Elliot Feldman, a Washington, DC Trade Lawyer with Baker-Hostetler, LLP, a Republican leaning law firm, said the following:

First, on April 7, the United States Court of International Trade ruled that the U.S. industry was entitled legally to no money. None of it. It was not surprising then, that 20 days later, the U.S. coalition said that it would take $500 million. It was hardly a negotiating triumph to persuade them to take $500 million, when they had become legally entitled to not a penny.

The term sheet [for the United States offer that was then formalized as the SLA] promised a major joint initiative to improve North American competitiveness. The "remainder" - that was the word the terms said - would go to so-called "meritorious initiatives" in the United States.

Meanwhile, we were advised by negotiators that the White House had taken a direct and active interest in this money, but that Canadian industry ought to focus on other things. As the minister had said, it was not really their concern. The "remainder," then, became $450 out of $500 million dollars.

So, here we have the government of Canada requiring that Canadian private parties sign over $450 million to

[...]

The agreement does not mention Congress, and the Bush administration says that Congress will not be involved in any way with this agreement.

The provision in Article 13.A.2 of the agreement, which recites the meritorious initiatives, is language which could be defined only as a slush fund for the president.

[...]

There is only one date certain in the deal: that the planned expenditure of the $450 million must be determined by September 1.

According to a State Department Press Release, the funds are to be dispersed by the White House as follows :

Another provision of the SLA requires that $450 million of the approximately $5.3 billion in deposits that have been collected under the anti-dumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on Canadian softwood lumber be used to advance meritorious initiatives in the United States. These funds, the USTR said, will be dedicated to assistance for timber-reliant communities; low-income housing and disaster relief, and the promotion of sustainable forest management practices.

Issues:

• The Executive Branch is frequently non-compliant or severly deficient in their spending and submissions of data to the various reporting systems for oversight.
• Much Executive Branch activity is shielded from scrutiny by either National Security Concerns or Executive Priviledge.
• Given the government wide allegations of corruption (as well as numerous indictments, convictions, and imprisonments), it would be wise to follow the advise of Supreme Court Justice Brandeis, that "Sunlight is the Best Disinfectant".

Opportunities:

• Will money given to American lumber companies get funneled back to American political parties?
• Have these funds been politicized in a manner that could influence the just completed 2006 mid-term elections?
• Exemplary opportunity for bipartisan citizen activism on fiscal responsibility, checks and balances, and executive authority?
• The President should be strongly advised to return the funds to the Treasury, or to the taxpayers as a refund, or at the very least be compelled to diligently document and report the spending to Congress, in the spirit of fiscal responsibility.

Framing:

• This issue clearly illustrates the opportunity and need for this incoming Congress to assert itself in the interest of the taxpayer and to dissolve the notion of the Unitary Executive Theory, assisting in restoring executive priviledge back to it's post-Watergate and pre-Iran-Contra level.
• Americans' approval of Congress as an institution is somewhere below the President and above the Vice-President; Advocacy in this Area refocuses the role of Congress towards split government, separation of powers, financial discipline, and steward of the taxpayers money.
• Framing this to the Holiday and Christmas Season, with bills, obligations, and budgets, is a powerful media metaphor that will resonate with the taxpayer.

References:

Running Commentary on a Forestry Law Blog
The US-Canadian Lumber Agreement (PDF)
US State Department Press Release
CorrenteWire (a blog):

Popularity: 12% [?]