07
Feb
2006
There is a hue and cry across this land demanding political reform and accountability. The hubris that abounds, relative to the spending of taxpayers' dollars by government - whether elected, appointed, or simply hired - has gone beyond intolerable to immoral.
Public objection is not enough. Public scrutiny and exposure is necessary if the abuse is to stop. This requires a larger public participation than ever before. The traditional watchdogs are not enough to move the dial. All of us must do our part in sending the message that accountability is mandatory. If not, consequences will be swift. Hopefully, this civic commitment will attract a higher-caliber person to elected office than those we suffer today.
There are several national debates occurring in the political arena, including earmark expenditures by Congress, lobbyists' financial contributions in the form of travel etc. for legislators, domestic surveillance without a court order, and institutionalism as it pertains to protection of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of our government.
Earmark spending accounted for $52 billion of taxpayers' dollars in 2004. These are discretionary funds that legislators earmark for projects that have no accountability in terms of purpose, measurements, or even if the grants are spent where they are promised. A perfect example of an earmark expenditure is the $400,000 recently granted by Senator Tom Harkin to DavenportOne for its NewVentures Center.
Questions to be answered by both Harkin and DavenportOne include :
• What is the $400,000 to be spent on exactly?
• What was the application process, and are there copies for review?
• What is the overall goal of the NewVentures Center, and how does the earmark grant contribute to new jobs or new investment within the community?
• What are the parameters/rules of earmark grants?
• What about the performance of the NewVentures Center warrants further public taxpayer investment?
• What measurement device is used to ensure that the earmark grant is spent as promised?
• What measurement is employed by both grantor and recipient relative to successfully meeting stated goals? (In other words, is the grant doing what it is expected to do, or is it vapor?)
• What accounting process is in place for instant, ongoing review?
• And what is the time frame of the grant for purposes of determining efficacy?
In other words, what about this $400,000 is anything other than another example of taxpayers subsidizing another vapor-filled private real-estate deal?
These are just a few fundamental controls on such dollars that currently don't exist. In addition, many of the earmark grants occur with little or no accounting, and with even less fanfare in the twilight, behind closed doors. They are used as a political cache and represent some of the best examples of corporate welfare, and politicians' deference to special interests.
Much of government spending is sorely lacking in accountability and controls. This is the core problem and underscores all other issues as they pertain to taxpayers' return on investment. The fox is watching the hen house at every level, and this is a corrupting device in and of itself. It isn't as much about bad people as it is about bad systems.
Lobbyists pay for all kinds of perks for congressmen, especially in the area of entertainment. Meet the Press hosted Congressman John Boehner (R-Ohio) this past Sunday, and demonstrated that the senator has enjoyed numerous trips to the best resorts, domestic and abroad, for industry meetings. His explanation: Industry meets in nice places. And so it does.
There is a bill on the table that calls for the immediate end to all lobbyist-paid travel for legislators. This is being met with no small measure of resistance. Senator Boehner's compromise was to have all travel pre-approved - not by an independent party, of course, but by each other, which is just more of the fox watching the hen house and of the same bad system. The same compromise was suggested for earmark grants. These must have pre-approval of some sort, and oversight must occur in the light of day. What is wrong with this picture? The framing of these compromises presumes that anything but the light of day is okay, but could be better. It is ludicrous out of the gate. Anything but the light of day should be illegal!
On the other end of the spectrum is the bipartisan loss of leadership in Congress relative to its institutional governance. It is rare when the executive branch overreaches its powers, as the Bush Administration has done with regard to domestic surveillance without a court order. The legislative branch has within its purview the power to stop such actions by the executive branch, but the current Congress has chosen to abdicate its responsibility in this area. It is unprecedented. The long-term ramifications could be the loss of oversight in these types of matters, and the weakening of Congress as a whole. The checks and balances as defined by our republic's structure will no longer apply in the strictest sense. Is this what we, the people, bargained for when electing the current seats?
Public objection is not enough. Public scrutiny and exposure is necessary if the abuse is to stop. This requires a larger public participation than ever before. The traditional watchdogs are not enough to move the dial. All of us must do our part in sending the message that accountability is mandatory. If not, consequences will be swift. Hopefully, this civic commitment will attract a higher-caliber person to elected office than those we suffer today.
There are several national debates occurring in the political arena, including earmark expenditures by Congress, lobbyists' financial contributions in the form of travel etc. for legislators, domestic surveillance without a court order, and institutionalism as it pertains to protection of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of our government.
Earmark spending accounted for $52 billion of taxpayers' dollars in 2004. These are discretionary funds that legislators earmark for projects that have no accountability in terms of purpose, measurements, or even if the grants are spent where they are promised. A perfect example of an earmark expenditure is the $400,000 recently granted by Senator Tom Harkin to DavenportOne for its NewVentures Center.
Questions to be answered by both Harkin and DavenportOne include :
• What is the $400,000 to be spent on exactly?
• What was the application process, and are there copies for review?
• What is the overall goal of the NewVentures Center, and how does the earmark grant contribute to new jobs or new investment within the community?
• What are the parameters/rules of earmark grants?
• What about the performance of the NewVentures Center warrants further public taxpayer investment?
• What measurement device is used to ensure that the earmark grant is spent as promised?
• What measurement is employed by both grantor and recipient relative to successfully meeting stated goals? (In other words, is the grant doing what it is expected to do, or is it vapor?)
• What accounting process is in place for instant, ongoing review?
• And what is the time frame of the grant for purposes of determining efficacy?
In other words, what about this $400,000 is anything other than another example of taxpayers subsidizing another vapor-filled private real-estate deal?
These are just a few fundamental controls on such dollars that currently don't exist. In addition, many of the earmark grants occur with little or no accounting, and with even less fanfare in the twilight, behind closed doors. They are used as a political cache and represent some of the best examples of corporate welfare, and politicians' deference to special interests.
Much of government spending is sorely lacking in accountability and controls. This is the core problem and underscores all other issues as they pertain to taxpayers' return on investment. The fox is watching the hen house at every level, and this is a corrupting device in and of itself. It isn't as much about bad people as it is about bad systems.
Lobbyists pay for all kinds of perks for congressmen, especially in the area of entertainment. Meet the Press hosted Congressman John Boehner (R-Ohio) this past Sunday, and demonstrated that the senator has enjoyed numerous trips to the best resorts, domestic and abroad, for industry meetings. His explanation: Industry meets in nice places. And so it does.
There is a bill on the table that calls for the immediate end to all lobbyist-paid travel for legislators. This is being met with no small measure of resistance. Senator Boehner's compromise was to have all travel pre-approved - not by an independent party, of course, but by each other, which is just more of the fox watching the hen house and of the same bad system. The same compromise was suggested for earmark grants. These must have pre-approval of some sort, and oversight must occur in the light of day. What is wrong with this picture? The framing of these compromises presumes that anything but the light of day is okay, but could be better. It is ludicrous out of the gate. Anything but the light of day should be illegal!
On the other end of the spectrum is the bipartisan loss of leadership in Congress relative to its institutional governance. It is rare when the executive branch overreaches its powers, as the Bush Administration has done with regard to domestic surveillance without a court order. The legislative branch has within its purview the power to stop such actions by the executive branch, but the current Congress has chosen to abdicate its responsibility in this area. It is unprecedented. The long-term ramifications could be the loss of oversight in these types of matters, and the weakening of Congress as a whole. The checks and balances as defined by our republic's structure will no longer apply in the strictest sense. Is this what we, the people, bargained for when electing the current seats?
