As we've started digging through the president's FY 2009 federal budget request today, we haven't come across many surprises yet. As we have come to expect from Mr. Bush, his budget consists of harsh cuts to discretionary programs outside of defense and homeland security, unrealistic assumptions about both current and future economic conditions and policy options related to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Alternative Minimum Tax. Despite this, I was surprised this morning when I saw the administration had included their list of 151 programs the presdient proposed to eliminate or drastically cut in his State of the Union speech last week (see Table S-5). The administration claims these programs are selected using their misleading and biased Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), but we've never been able to see any evidence that PART ratings are a factor in the president's proposals (see here, here, here, and here). If all of the president's recommendations were accepted by Congress, the cuts would save just over $18 billion. While the substance of the list is little changed over the last several years - many of the same programs are on the list again this year and previous trends are holding true, such as the Department of Education getting hit the hardest by program eliminations (47) - I am puzzled that the administration has released the list upfront with the budget. And it isn't just the inclusion of the list, but how it is presented. For the last three years, the list was included in a seperate document entitled "Major Savings and Reforms in the President's FY 20XX Budget" (see the docs for 2006, 2007, and 2008). This year, the list is burried on page 143 (out of 170 total pages) in Table S-5 of the glossy main book of the president's budget proposal. In the last two years, the president has failed to release this list when the budget was published despite calling attention to these programs in his State of the Union in both 2006 and 2007. In both those years, the list was quietly released on Friday night the week the budget was released (see our coverage of the sneaky 2006 and 2007 releases). So I guess we have to commend the president for publishing the information in a timely, transparent manner (?), but it still feels a little strange. They've gone from three years of releasing a well-presented, thought-out document late one night during the week the budget was released, to a chart in the back of the budget proposal released on the same day as the rest of the budget. It's almost as if they president is trying to hide the list in plain sight. Maybe they just don't care anymore?

It seems things are getting worse out in the states, almost by the day. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has released another update of their analysis first released last week, adding one more state (Illinois) to the list of states facing a budget crunch in 2009. Now there are 20 states that are projecting budget gaps in 2009. The updated summary stats from CBPP: More than half of states anticipate budget problems, according to this updated analysis of state fiscal conditions.

• 20 states now project budget gaps for 2009. Illinois joins this list.
• The combined budget shortfall for these 20 states in 2009 is now at least $34 billion.
• 5 states now say they will have 2009 deficits, but have released no further information.
• 3 other states project budget gaps for 2010 and beyond.

CBPP: 20 STATES FACE TOTAL BUDGET SHORTFALL OF AT LEAST $34 BILLION IN 2009

The New York Times wonders why the president believes that a wartime contracting commission and protection for contractor fraud whistleblowers would hinder his constitutional duty to faithfully execute laws. The [national defense authorization] bill included four important provisions that Mr. Bush decided he will enforce only if he wants to. The president said they impinged on his constitutional powers. We asked the White House to explain that claim, but got no answer, so we'll do our best to figure it out.

Bob Herbert's column in the NY Times today elevates an important issue that has been swirling under the radar the last few years in Washington and around the country but has not garnered enough attention - lack of infrastructure investment. Herbert highlights the work of Sens. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) to create a national infrastructure bank that would identify, evaluate, and help finance large-scale, long-term infrastructure projects across the country to rebuild and strengthen roads, bridges, levees, transit systems, water treatment facilities, schools, hospitals, electrical grids, and other key infrastructure sectors. Dodd and Hagel are hoping to create a sense of urgency to address the growing infrastructure problems faced by the U.S., framing this as an economic issue as much as a quality of life concern. The need is certainly clear. From Herbert's column: The need for investment on a large scale — and for the long term — is undeniable. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, in a study that should have gotten much more attention when it was released in 2005, it would take more than a trillion and a half dollars over a five-year period to bring the U.S. infrastructure into reasonably decent shape. ... As things stand now, the American infrastructure is incapable of meeting the competitive demands of the globalized 21st-century economy. Senator Hagel noted that ports are overwhelmed by the ever-expanding volume of international trade. Rail lines are overloaded. Highways are clogged. Herbert's well-reasoned column reminded me of another commentary from the Times editorial board last week entitled "Charity Begins in Washington." This editorial argued there are many aspects of our society - namely social needs - that demand government investment and cannot be left to private philanthropy. Dodd and Hagel have certainly made a strong case that infrastructure projects also warrant considerable and sustained federal investment. Read more about the Dodd-Hagel National Infrastructure Bank Act of 2007. Bill summary and letters of support