News
In 1802, Thomas Jefferson called for more transparency in government spending. "We might hope," he said, "to see the finances of the Union as clear and intelligible as a merchant's books, so that every member of Congress and every man of any kind -- and any mind in the Union -- should be able to comprehend them, to investigate abuses and to consequently control them." That was 200 years ago when federal budgets were minuscule and corruption easier to ferret out.
It has taken two centuries for a group of senators to act on Jefferson's advice. But better late than never.
Wednesday, the Senate will be voting on the Homeland Security Appropriations bill that includes an amendment described as the "Google for good government spending." It would create a searchable database that would make government spending more transparent, allowing every American to access, via the Internet, the contracts awarded to companies by the federal government and connect by links to subcontractors. It would enable the public to see where federal money goes and how it is spent. It's a brilliant idea.
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 is sponsored by a Senate odd couple: very liberal Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and very conservative Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.). It also brings together other disparate groups such as the national Gay and Lesbian Task Force and Phyllis Schlafly, who opposes gay rights.
All of them are concerned, particularly in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the scandal of lobbyist Jack Abramoff, that the public be able to see exactly how government money is spent. This legislation "will empower citizens and watchdog groups," said Obama in an interview.
Obama notes that databases containing information about government spending do exist but they are difficult to access and are often incomplete. "It is almost impossible to find this information," he says. "Even if you're a senator, it is very hard to track where money is going."
Passing this bill is a "no-brainer," he told the Senate subcommittee. "If government spending can't withstand public scrutiny, then the money should not be spent."
He told the Sun-Times that although most of government money is wisely spent, Washington's budget is so enormous -- almost $3 trillion -- that even if 5 percent is questionable, that means billions of dollars going astray. But the amendment, he adds, "is not a cure all. It does not eliminate the need for earmark reform." It would not end the practice of building bridges to nowhere, but it would put it under a magnifying glass sooner.
Anything that allows a clearer look at the way our government doles out money -- including on defense -- is a bonus. Thomas Jefferson definitely would have voted "yes" for this.
It has taken two centuries for a group of senators to act on Jefferson's advice. But better late than never.
Wednesday, the Senate will be voting on the Homeland Security Appropriations bill that includes an amendment described as the "Google for good government spending." It would create a searchable database that would make government spending more transparent, allowing every American to access, via the Internet, the contracts awarded to companies by the federal government and connect by links to subcontractors. It would enable the public to see where federal money goes and how it is spent. It's a brilliant idea.
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 is sponsored by a Senate odd couple: very liberal Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and very conservative Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.). It also brings together other disparate groups such as the national Gay and Lesbian Task Force and Phyllis Schlafly, who opposes gay rights.
All of them are concerned, particularly in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the scandal of lobbyist Jack Abramoff, that the public be able to see exactly how government money is spent. This legislation "will empower citizens and watchdog groups," said Obama in an interview.
Obama notes that databases containing information about government spending do exist but they are difficult to access and are often incomplete. "It is almost impossible to find this information," he says. "Even if you're a senator, it is very hard to track where money is going."
Passing this bill is a "no-brainer," he told the Senate subcommittee. "If government spending can't withstand public scrutiny, then the money should not be spent."
He told the Sun-Times that although most of government money is wisely spent, Washington's budget is so enormous -- almost $3 trillion -- that even if 5 percent is questionable, that means billions of dollars going astray. But the amendment, he adds, "is not a cure all. It does not eliminate the need for earmark reform." It would not end the practice of building bridges to nowhere, but it would put it under a magnifying glass sooner.
Anything that allows a clearer look at the way our government doles out money -- including on defense -- is a bonus. Thomas Jefferson definitely would have voted "yes" for this.
