An online database detailing the billions of dollars paid out in federal grants and contracts would be a gold mine of information, helping citizens and voters keep track of that vast spending machine on the Potomac River.

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, proposed by Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, would document the amount, recipient and other details of most federal grants and contracts on a onestop Web site.

Under the plan, the White House Office of Management and Budget would begin providing a federal funding breakdown by Jan. 1, 2007. The proposal envisages that by 2009, data stretching as far back as 1999 would be available for review.

This idea is not new. A similar bill recently passed in the House would document the $300 billion a year in grants that the government hands out. But this proposal would not include contracts to private businesses, reducing its usefulness.

With the Coburn proposal, people could search, for example, for Ohio State University to see who is getting how much. By showing where the money trail leads, any citizen could become a watchdog of government spending.

The measure has bipartisan appeal. It is backed by Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Thomas Carper D-Del., and John McCain, R-Ariz.
The idea also has critics. Members of Congress and the administration who are steering contracts or grants to favored constituents and special interests will not welcome increased scrutiny of the labyrinthine federal budget.

Some argue that although the increased spending scrutiny might inhibit pork-barrel spending, it also might provoke a reaction against spending for public-service and nonprofit programs.

Liberal groups, for example, fear that the database would become a tool for conservatives who want to restrict grants to organizations they consider liberal.

Of course, that tactic could be used by either side. In fact, it should be. If a given spending item is justified, it will stand up to public scrutiny. If the spending isn’t justified, then it deserves to be challenged.

The winners would be federal taxpayers.

The arguments against the database don’t wash. Easy access to this information would be an overwhelming public good.