Turning Over The Rock To Reveal The Pork
As I have said repeatedly, no matter what party you belong to or ideology you believe in, you should be opposed to pork barrel spending. It is bad for the nation, bad for taxpayers and corrupting for the elected officials. Now, thanks to an unlikely set of alliances and the cooperation of some fairly bitter opponents, we taxpayers can see who is feeding at the public trough. The Office of Management and Budget is unveiling USASpending.gov, a searchable database created with the help of a group strongly critical of the OMB itself. Welcome to strange bedfellow-ville.
Robert Shea is a Republican insider with a head for business and a yen for federal program performance standards. Gary Bass is a government watchdog with a mean bite who wants openness and knows how to get it.
Official antagonists, political opposites, brought together by a wild, crazy idea: federal budget transparency. Online and searchable. Free for the asking.
Today, the White House budget office officially launches USASpending.gov, a Web site that shows taxpayers where their dollars go and which legislators, contractors and regions get the most.
The site was created by Shea, associate director of the Office of Management and Budget. It was modeled on a site pioneered by Bass, director of OMB Watch, one of the budget office's harshest nonprofit critics.
"They were very cooperative and supportive when they recognized we were trying to do the right thing — even before I was paying them," Shea says of OMB Watch.
"Normally, we come to bury Caesar, not praise him," Bass says of Shea. "But they are doing something that's very cool, that's very innovative in government."
The story began late last year, when two other political opposites, Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), sponsored legislation requiring the federal government to set up a searchable online database tracing federal budget spending by Jan. 1, 2008.
The goal was to make both the executive branch and Congress accountable for their spending decisions by allowing regular taxpayers to follow the money.
The new website is up and functional. It actually exceeds the requirements of the law, was complete before the deadline and was done on the cheap, especially for a government project. If you want an unembedded link, here it is:
http://www.federalspending.gov/
This is going to be a nightmare for the pork kings, as the Post story explains:
USASpending allows users to search by contracts and grants, contractor names, congressional districts and lawmakers. The data can be easily downloaded and used. A "wiki" function gives users a chance to suggest changes and add information. Charts and rankings show to whom and where the bulk of federal dollars go.
Just in time for the elections. This should be amusing.
By feeblemind, Thursday, 13 December , 2007 @ 9:19 am
I wish them well, but the success of pork kings like Byrd, Stevens and Murtha leads me to despair. It is an issue that apparently doesn’t resonate with the public at large.
By Americaneocon, Thursday, 13 December , 2007 @ 2:09 pm
You might like this, from USA Today:
“A year ago, Democrats won control of Congress in part by criticizing billions of dollars spent on pet projects. Now, freshmen Democrats are benefiting from the same kind of spending, a USA TODAY analysis shows.
All 49 of the new Democratic lawmakers sponsored or co-sponsored at least one project — known as an “earmark” — inserted into the House and Senate spending bills, the analysis found. Freshmen Democrats were the sole sponsors on projects worth $351 million, an average of $7.6 million. Republicans got approval for projects worth $65 million, or $5 million each.
The analysis found that some of the most vulnerable freshmen Democrats in next year’s election were among those who got the most money: Eight of the top 10 House freshmen earmark sponsors defeated Republican incumbents, and five won in districts carried by President Bush in 2004.”
Here’s the link:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-12-11-earmarks-freshmen_N.htm
I wrote about this yesterday.
Private Pigg, from Liberty Pundit (http://www.libertypundit.com/), remarked:
“We all need to remember to revisit this issue just before next year’s elections.”
By martian, Thursday, 13 December , 2007 @ 3:27 pm
In an ideal world, when a person gets elected to national office they should approach every issue, every project, every budget item with an eye as to how it will affect the nation as a whole. There should be virtually no time spent by a national office holder considering how to enrich or give special treatment to one small area of the country - even if it’s the area that elected them. This is the original idea of electing people to national office. State, county, and locally elected officials are supposed to look out for the people on a state, county and local basis.
Instead, virtually every person elected to national office does their best to grab as much of the federal budget as they can and funnel it to the constituents in their home districts - especially to people/companies who contributed to their campaigns. In effect, they spend much of their time in Washington trying to find ways to bribe the folks back home into re-electing them rather than in trying to find ways to better the country as a whole. And I’m not pointing the finger at members of any one party here - they are all equally guilty either of indulging in the practice of earmarking or of allowing it to exist without protest.
This is a shameful practice and I agree with Gaius when he says, “no matter what party you belong to or ideology you believe in, you should be opposed to pork barrel spending.” Earmarking is just plain wrong and should be banned at all levels of government.