Return to Nicholas Johnson's Iowa Rain Forest ("Earthpark") Web Site

Return to Nicholas Johnson's Blog, FromDC2Iowa
 
 

[Note: This material is copyright by The Gazette, and is reproduced here as a matter of "fair use" for non-commercial, educational purposes only. Any other use may require the prior approval of The Gazette.]

  The first is a bill already passed by the Senate that charges the Office of Management and Budget with providing a single, searchable Web site with free access to anyone who is interested in finding out how much is being spent for what by which lawmakers.

  The second is a rule change that puts limits on so-called earmarks, a procedure through which a member of Congress can funnel federal funding to a project or program via a bill that might not have anything to do with the purpose. With the House on record, observers expect the Senate to follow suit.

  House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, summed up the logic behind both when he said, ‘‘It’s common sense: if you request a project, you ought to be willing to put your name on it and defend it.

  And if you aren’t willing to put your name on a project, you shouldn’t expect the American people to pay for it.’’ The Web site, which must be in operation by Jan. 1, 2008 — in plenty of time for use by campaigns — will give ordinary citizens access to information that even members of Congress now find difficult to obtain. It will provide at a minimum the name of the recipient of any contract or grant in excess of $25,000, the amount, the funding agency, the purpose, the location of the recipient (including the congressional district) and the name of the parent company or agency.

  Who will take the time and trouble to track more than a million individual appropriations that funnel about $300 billion to more than 30,000 organizations? The answer is the blogosphere, which was a key player in getting the bill through Congress. It’s a good bet that when there’s a bridge to nowhere, a research grant to study the mating habits of some rare insect or an indoor rain forest in the middle of the prairie, the alarm will be sounded so the subject can be debated.

  The earmark rules are relatively simple. Any addition to a bill that costs money must be matched with the name of the legislator who came up with it. Something clearly had to be done, as the process was out of control. In 1996 there were 958 earmarks. Last year there were 15,877 for a total of $47.4 billion. The rule change passed with bipartisan support Thursday (Tom Latham of Iowa’s 4th District voted against the bill; the rest of Iowa’s delegation supported it.)

  Cynics will say neither measure actually prevents boondoggles. They are correct. It still will be legal to waste money. What both measures do, however, is add transparency to the tax spending process. At worst, Americans will know where their money is going and will be able to hold responsible the person or persons sending it there. At best, the new openness will deter questionable spending in the first place. It is much easier to slip a few million dollars to a favored cause if the lawmaker can go unidentified than it will be when the action must be done in the full light of day.

  No one should think this ends the problem. It does not. It is a big step in the right direction, though, which is reason to be pleased at a time when government has been marching the other way too long.