Bradley in DC
04-29-2009, 05:43 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124096725235166449.html#mod=djemEditorialPage
* OPINION
* APRIL 29, 2009
Let's Hold Obama to His Promise of Transparency
So far, taxpayers can't see the fine print of stimulus spending.
By VERONIQUE DE RUGY and EILEEN NORCROSS
President Barack Obama has promised a full accounting online of where his $787 stimulus package is spent and to expose to public ridicule anyone caught wasting taxpayer money. At a White House news conference in March, the president put it this way: "If we see money being misspent, we're going to put a stop to it, and we will call it out and we will publicize it." Unfortunately, the president's deeds don't match his words.
True transparency requires putting specific details of every government expenditure online, where citizens can review them and spot wasteful spending. Several states are already doing just that and finding that citizens and taxpayer groups make great watchdogs.
In Missouri last August, the nonpartisan National Taxpayers Union (NTU), discovered more than $2.4 million spent for questionable purposes over the past eight years, including purchases from bakeries, beauty salons and women's lingerie stores.
Thanks to NTU and Missouri's willingness to put its expenses out for public review, we know that state officials spent $15,482.57 at Ann's Bra Shop in St. Louis (expenses listed as "professional services" and "clothing supplies"). Government employees also spent more than $1.6 million at coffee shops, $387,210.14 at framing stores, $278,053.46 at florists and nurseries, and $70,849.02 at bakeries. Other dubious expenditures included $936.75 spent at The Corsage Shop in New Madrid, Mo., and $3,010 at the Westside Barber Shop (the disclosure forms didn't indicate which of the several in the state).
After receiving thousands of letters from unhappy state residents, Republican Gov. Matt Blunt asked the state's Office of Administration in August to review the expenditures. "This is exactly what we expected and envisioned when we created the MAP [Missouri Accountability Portal]," Mr. Blunt said in a statement. "Transparency and openness help root out wasteful spending and we welcome this scrutiny."
The bra-shop purchases turned out to be legitimate (they were for female prisoners). However, the uproar that followed the disclosure put lawmakers on notice that the public was paying attention and put the fear into them that voters would punish them if they allowed tax dollars to pay for floral bouquets, beauty treatments and caffeine fixes for bureaucrats.
This watchdog process is apparently what the president has in mind for Recovery.gov, a Web site the administration set up to publish reports on stimulus spending. But these reports will offer very little insight into where our tax dollars are going.
Why? Because the stimulus package only requires states and cities to disclose project-level expenses. We will know that New York will spend $5.9 million on repaving 34 miles of roads in Westchester and Rockland counties, but not how much of our tax dollars went to, say, Starbucks for workers on the project.
The federal government will disclose how much it gives to a state, and the state must report how it distributed those funds to a private company or to local government. But there's no requirement to disclose where the money actually ends up. And there won't be any real data on the Web site for a year. There will be plenty of potential for corsages and caffeine.
Americans need a much clearer picture of their stimulus dollars at work. Who got what? What did they buy? And for how much? That's the only information that will let taxpayers know if they're getting ripped off.
This last point is crucial. Congress isn't requiring stimulus contracts to be competitively bid. Transparency -- and the public pressure it brings -- is the best remedy left for cutting waste.
If Mr. Obama means what he says about transparency, he must get governors, mayors, city executives and grantees to account for every stimulus dime spent. And he must do it now -- not in a year. Without those details, we can only assume the worst.
Ms. de Rugy and Ms. Norcross are both senior research fellows at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
* OPINION
* APRIL 29, 2009
Let's Hold Obama to His Promise of Transparency
So far, taxpayers can't see the fine print of stimulus spending.
By VERONIQUE DE RUGY and EILEEN NORCROSS
President Barack Obama has promised a full accounting online of where his $787 stimulus package is spent and to expose to public ridicule anyone caught wasting taxpayer money. At a White House news conference in March, the president put it this way: "If we see money being misspent, we're going to put a stop to it, and we will call it out and we will publicize it." Unfortunately, the president's deeds don't match his words.
True transparency requires putting specific details of every government expenditure online, where citizens can review them and spot wasteful spending. Several states are already doing just that and finding that citizens and taxpayer groups make great watchdogs.
In Missouri last August, the nonpartisan National Taxpayers Union (NTU), discovered more than $2.4 million spent for questionable purposes over the past eight years, including purchases from bakeries, beauty salons and women's lingerie stores.
Thanks to NTU and Missouri's willingness to put its expenses out for public review, we know that state officials spent $15,482.57 at Ann's Bra Shop in St. Louis (expenses listed as "professional services" and "clothing supplies"). Government employees also spent more than $1.6 million at coffee shops, $387,210.14 at framing stores, $278,053.46 at florists and nurseries, and $70,849.02 at bakeries. Other dubious expenditures included $936.75 spent at The Corsage Shop in New Madrid, Mo., and $3,010 at the Westside Barber Shop (the disclosure forms didn't indicate which of the several in the state).
After receiving thousands of letters from unhappy state residents, Republican Gov. Matt Blunt asked the state's Office of Administration in August to review the expenditures. "This is exactly what we expected and envisioned when we created the MAP [Missouri Accountability Portal]," Mr. Blunt said in a statement. "Transparency and openness help root out wasteful spending and we welcome this scrutiny."
The bra-shop purchases turned out to be legitimate (they were for female prisoners). However, the uproar that followed the disclosure put lawmakers on notice that the public was paying attention and put the fear into them that voters would punish them if they allowed tax dollars to pay for floral bouquets, beauty treatments and caffeine fixes for bureaucrats.
This watchdog process is apparently what the president has in mind for Recovery.gov, a Web site the administration set up to publish reports on stimulus spending. But these reports will offer very little insight into where our tax dollars are going.
Why? Because the stimulus package only requires states and cities to disclose project-level expenses. We will know that New York will spend $5.9 million on repaving 34 miles of roads in Westchester and Rockland counties, but not how much of our tax dollars went to, say, Starbucks for workers on the project.
The federal government will disclose how much it gives to a state, and the state must report how it distributed those funds to a private company or to local government. But there's no requirement to disclose where the money actually ends up. And there won't be any real data on the Web site for a year. There will be plenty of potential for corsages and caffeine.
Americans need a much clearer picture of their stimulus dollars at work. Who got what? What did they buy? And for how much? That's the only information that will let taxpayers know if they're getting ripped off.
This last point is crucial. Congress isn't requiring stimulus contracts to be competitively bid. Transparency -- and the public pressure it brings -- is the best remedy left for cutting waste.
If Mr. Obama means what he says about transparency, he must get governors, mayors, city executives and grantees to account for every stimulus dime spent. And he must do it now -- not in a year. Without those details, we can only assume the worst.
Ms. de Rugy and Ms. Norcross are both senior research fellows at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.