To follow up on Craig's post, I wanted to comment on Robert Samuelson's contempt for the American public. From his column: We could consider all of federal spending and not just small bits of it. But most Americans don't want to admit that they are current or prospective welfare recipients. They prefer to think that they automatically deserve whatever they've been promised simply because the promises were made. Americans do not want to pose the basic questions, and their political leaders mirror that reluctance. This makes the welfare state immovable and the budget situation intractable.

House Ways and Means Committee chair Charles Rangel (D-NY) is on a scavenger hunt. With his sights on major Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) reform, he's on the lookout for offset provisions, the bigger the better. Reportedly, he's agreed to have House Select Revenue Subcommittee chairman Richard Neal (D-MA) vet solutions to the problem of how to keep the AMT from engulfing millions more taxpayers this year and beyond. None of the solutions will be cheap; all will require offsets.

The House began consideration of lobbying reform legislation, with specific attention towards the lobbying of executing branch officials. Yesterday the Oversight and Government Reform Committee considered H.R. 984, the Executive Branch Reform Act of 2007. The bill would require senior government officials to report significant contacts with lobbyists to the Office of Government Ethics. According to BNA Money and Politics ($$), the bill could be attached to the House's lobby reform legislation expected to be voted on in March.

Yesterday, two House subcommittees held back-to-back oversight hearings investigating President Bush's recent amendments to Executive Order 12866 — Regulatory Planning and Review. The first hearing, held by the House Science and Technology Committee subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, delved into the specific impacts of the amendments.

• OMB Watch's own Rick Melberth framed the amendments as the next step in a disturbing trend where the White House has adopted tools to delay regulation.
• Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA) wondered how the marketplace incentivized certain protections.
• Witness and former OIRA administrator Sally Katzen criticized the administration for exerting influence over agency guidance documents.
• And subcommittee Chair Brad Miller (D-NC) chastised the influence of the Presidential appointees who will serve as Regulatory Policy Officers:

If an RPO makes the wrong decision for the wrong reason, we're not going to know about it. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), the ranking member on the subcommittee, exhibited a lack of understanding of the issue at large. He claimed the amendments do not require "additional hurdles to be overcome" and he muddled the separate issues of market failures and cost-benefit analyses. He left abruptly in the middle of the hearing. The second hearing, held by the House Judiciary Committee subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, focused on action Congress could take. Committee Chair John Conyers (D-MI) and subcommittee Chair Linda Sanchez (D-CA) both asked witnesses what Congress could do. While Columbia University law professor Peter Strauss admitted Congress's options are limited, Curtis Copeland from the Congressional Research Service pointed out that Congress may declare that Executive Orders not hold any legal sway. Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA) is ready to "wage war" on the "institutional combat" against the legislative branch. Read more from The Pump Handle here.