Democrats in the House are congratulating themselves for allegedly including historic levels of transparency and accountability in the $825 billion economic stimulus bill draft they released today. And indeed there are some definite steps forward in the draft, but a modestly close reading reveals that most of the “transparency” in this proposal is of the faux kind.
Consider:
* The oversight reporting provisions expressly do NOT go beyond the Freedom of Information Act, and all its exemptions are incorporated to allow redaction of data before it’s given to the public. That means, for example, any private company receiving funds under the act can claim exemption under the commercial privilege exemption. Even if, as is likely, the exemption shouldn’t be applied in their particular case, they can be confident that nobody will challenge them because FOIA litigation is notoriously slow and expensive.
* If including the FOIA commercial privilege exemption isn’t sufficient to make the point, the legislation also says that all information that is “proprietary” under ANY state or federal law or regulation is also exempted from disclosure. That virtually assures nobody filing FOIAs will get any document that can be construed under even the most outrageous reading of any state or federal law or regulation.
* It is encouraging that a website, www.recovery.gov, is to be established, which could contain useful details about stimulus spending, but that absolutely depends upon who administers it. A more likely outcome is that it will become a joke reminescent of the TARP oversight provisions.
I also wonder why Democrats think the existing government spending website at USASpending.gov is not the place to disclose economic stimulus spending. And I have a theory for why that might be: By mandating a new website with different rules of what is disclosed and how, they create a precedent for doing it for other kinds of special spending, thus undermining the fundamental purpose of USASpending.gov.
* The final proof that claims of historic transparency in the economic stimulus legislation are likely bogus is seen in this most crucial fact: the Oversight Board to be established to monitor how the money is being spent will consist only of high-ranking executive branch appointees of the Administration. As former Rep. Ernest Istook observed, this means “the foxes will guard the henhouses.”
I note that my liberal friends at the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) seem to have lost a bit of their usual healthy skepticism about the claims of virtue made by members of Congress, particularly on transparency and accountability issues.
Reminds me of some of my conservative friends back in 2001 and 2002 who were worried about the civil liberties implications of the Bush administration’s Patriot Act, but because it was a Republican president in the White House proposing that legislation, they couldn’t bring themselves to oppose it.
Looks like my concerns expressed in this space some weeks ago were justified on whether transparency advocates on the left side of the political spectrum will be as critical of the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress on these issues as they were throughout the years of the Bush administration. Of course, it’s equally important for transparency advocates on the right to maintain their perspective and not be unthinkingly critical of the current regime in Congress and the one about to assume the reins of power in the White House.
By the way, the Sunlight Foundation has a fantastic new feature on its web site, a Transparency Timeline for public access to Congress and its operations. This is just cool beyond words. I hope the growing transparency community in this country is able to unite and press for more genuine transparency provisions in legislation like the economic stimulus package, thus adding more points on that timeline.
