Today's LA Times has an
editorial that supports a tantalizing bill, S.2590, which is currently wending its way through Congress. The bill is tantalizing because it is being sponsored by notable pork-buster Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and co-sponsored by, among other strange bedfellows, Barack Obama, Rick Santorum, Hillary Clinton, George Allen, and Evan Bayh. The bill is tantalizing because it provides an indispensable tool to maintaining a healthy democracy. The bill is tantalizing because it could be one of
the biggest pains in the ass of all time. It's the
Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. If it's a godsend, and I believe on balance that it is, then truly, god is in the details. If it's a scourge and a curse, then the devil is in the details, too. Here's the 411 ...
The premise of Sen. Coburn's bill is simple: it's the taxpayer's money, so the taxpayers ought to be able to find out where their money is being spent. The heart of the bill lies in this provision:
SEC. 2. FULL DISCLOSURE OF ENTITIES RECEIVING FEDERAL FUNDING.
(a) In General-
(1) WEBSITE- Effective beginning January 1, 2007 and subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), the Office of Management and Budget shall ensure the existence and operation of a single updated searchable database website accessible by the public at no cost that includes for each entity receiving Federal funding--
(A) the name of the entity;
(B) the amount of any Federal funds that the entity has received in each of the last 10 fiscal years;
(C) an itemized breakdown of each transaction, including funding agency, program source, and a description of the purpose of each funding action;
(D) the location of the entity and primary location of performance, including the city, State, congressional district, and country;
(E) a unique identifier for each such entity and parent entity, should the entity be owned by another entity; and
(F) any other relevant information.
The godsend is in its expansive definition of an `entity,' which is defined as:
1) ENTITY- The term `entity'--
(A) includes--
(i) a corporation;
(ii) an association;
(iii) a partnership;
(iv) a limited liability company;
(v) a limited liability partnership;
(vi) any other legal business entity;
(vii) grantees, contractors, and, on and after October 1, 2007, subgrantees and subcontractors; and
(viii) any State or locality;
Laudable too, is the bill's expansive definition of `federal funding,' which takes in:
Federal financial assistance and expenditures that include grants, contracts, subgrants, subcontracts, loans, awards and other forms of financial assistance....
One of the many outrages of the current Bush administration is its obsessive -- indeed, reflexive -- secrecy. This administration is frantically classifying information as fast, and as broadly, as it can, something that Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-CA) reported at length back in 2004, as ranking member of the Minority Office of the House Committee on Government Reform. And when they're not classifying stuff, or relying on the state secrets doctrine so the federal courts can do the dirty work for them, then -- as Waxman exposed just today -- they're pressuring government employees to hide stuff by lying about it:
I am writing to draw to your attention a survey of FDA scientists that was conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The survey reveals that hundreds of agency scientists are concerned about inappropriate political interference that is compromising the agency's public health mission ....
The survey finds that a large number of FDA scientists have experienced improper interference from agency superiors. One hundred forty-five FDA scientists (18%) report in the surve that they "have been asked, for non-scientific reasons, to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information or ... conclusions in an FDA scientific document.... The survey also shows that many FDA scientists have been inappropriately censored or ordered to distort their research. One hundred sixty-three of the scientists (20%) said they "have been asked explicitly by FDA decision makers to provide incomplete, inaccurate, or misleading information to the public, regulated industry, media[], or elected/senior government officials."
(Letter dated July 21, 2006 from Rep. Waxman to Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services.)
I don't think there's any question that fiscal transparency is fundamental to a healthy, functioning democracy. I really do want a single, searchable database where I can find out how much of my money Halliburton is getting this week. But where there's a Halliburton, there's a Dick Cheney, and where there's Dick Cheney, the devil must be nearby. In fact, the devil is nearby --right there in the bill, skulking in the background.
Under the bill, an `entity` does not include:
(B) ...--
(i) an individual recipient of Federal assistance;
(ii) a Federal employee; or
(iii) a grant or contract of a nature that could be reasonably expected to cause damage to national security.
Now, I've certainly got no problem with according privacy to individual recipients of assistance; they are subjected to indignities enough, without further subjecting them to a total loss of privacy into the bargain. I'm less sure about not extending transparency to federal employees. Privacy of salary and loan information for people hired in the normal course is just fine -- I'm not one of those people who thinks that you should have to give up your right to privacy in exchange for the privilege of being a public servant. Consultants, however, are a whole nother thing; although most consultants are probably hired through companies or corporations, I strongly suspect that there are individual consultants, too -- or at least, there will be, if this law passes. It's a loophole just waiting to open.
But the real devil is the notion of `national security,' which has taken on a life of its own as a rationale for hiding information from the press, the public, Congress ...whomever. (Just think ... `National Security' has given a whole new meaning to the phrase "from your mouth to God's ear!" No one but God is allowed to hear anything from the Bush Administration anymore. No in-between stoppings.)
Here's just one example: this website lists more than 50 private security firms working in Iraq. Multiply that by about a bajillion privatized governmental functions , then add in all the countries against whom we are ...or even could be, pre-emptively waging war, and you're talking an awful lot of government contracts that we'll never know about. Congress ought to raise the standard beyond just the catch-all 'national security,' to ensure that the vast majority of government military contracts are not exempt from disclosure.
Entirely separate from the issue of `national security' non-disclosures, the bill opens up another potential nightmare. The substance of this nightmare is hinted at in the parade of horribles trotted out by Sen. Coburn when he introduced the bill:
Last August, (said Sen. Coburn,) HHS sponsored a conference in Utah entitled the ``First National Conference on Methamphetamine, HIV and Hepatitis'' that promoted illegal drug abuse and dangerous sexual behavior. Conference sessions included: ``We Don't Need a `War' on Methamphetamine''; ``You Don't Have to Be Clean & Sober. Or Even Want to Be!''; ``Tweaking Tips for Party Boys''; ``Barebacking: A Harm Reduction Approach''; and ``Without condoms: Harm Reduction, Unprotected Sex, Gay Men and Barebacking.'' ``Tweaking'' is a street term for the most dangerous stage of meth abuse. A ``tweaker'' is a term for a meth addict who probably has not slept in days, or weeks, and is irritable and paranoid. Likewise, ``party boy'' is slang for an individual who abuses drugs, or ``parties.'' ``Barebacking'' is a slang term for sexual intercourse without the use of a condom.
While HHS initially denied sponsoring the conference, it was later learned that thousands of dollars of a CDC grant were used to, in fact, sponsor this conference and CDC sent six employees to participate ....
Previously, the CDC was questioned about its financial support for a number of dubious HIV prevention workshops ... orchestrated by the Stop AIDS Foundation of San Francisco. While CDC repeatedly denied to both Congress and the public that taxpayer funds were used to finance these programs, a Stop AIDS Project official eventually admitted in August 2001 to using Federal funds for the programs.... Finally, the OIG concluded that ``CDC funding was used to support all [Stop AIDS] Project activities.'' The Stop AIDS Project received approximately $700,000 a year from the CDC but no longer receives Federal funding.
Sigh You can see where this kind of thing is going, can't you? Programs geared towards vulnerable or unpopular constituencies are easy to attack. It's hard to think of a way to achieve the transparency that we need and deserve, and at the same time, protect entirely worthy, if provocatively named, programs that help unpopular causes or marginalized people. But we should try.
With some tweaking (no ...not that kind of tweaking!) this is a good bill, that deserves support. Pick up the phone, people. Call your critters and let `em know.