The Democrats now own the stimulus, and it’s perceived success or failure will frame the 2010 midterm if not the 2012 Presidential elections as well. I think the political risk is marginal (see my previous post as a clue to why. Heh) and the recovery itself has a high chance of success. But there is an aspect of the battle over this legislation that didn’t see much light of day among the ridiculous speeches by Boehner and Cantor, and the self-induced (by Obama) “bipartisan” b.s.: Accountability.
There is a lot of good. Washington Independent:
The lead story in The New York Times Sunday serves as a sobering reminder of what can happen when government tries to spend a lot of money quickly, but doesn’t bother to keep track of where it’s going. In Iraq, no-bid contracts and nonexistent oversight led not only to brand-new trucks abandoned on roadsides and $45 cases of soda, but also to tens of thousands of dollars in cash delivered in pizza boxes and distributed as payoffs in paper sacks at drop-off spots around the Green Zone, according to a widening government investigation detailed by The Times.The stimulus package goes a long way to keep that particular history from repeating itself.
For example, the bill creates a new board to oversee and coordinate federal spending and prevent “waste, fraud and abuse.” Any agency’s inspector general can review concerns about spending under the program, and the General Accountability Office (GAO) will conduct regular and reports on how the money is being spent. All this, plus a summary of the contracts themselves (the House bill had promised to put the entire contracts online—this was a concession to government contractors) are required to be posted online at www.recovery.gov.
The bill also requires the government to put most contracts up for competitive bidding — a sharp departure from business-as-usual under the Bush administration — and if for some reason the contract is not competitive, the government must publish a justification for the exception.
Sounds great. But if you were paying close attention to details rather than political grandstanding by “moderates” and screaming Republicans, it’s obvious this good news is a greatly reduced level of accountability than what was originally proposed. Why are the contracts not posted in full? What does a “summary” entail? Hundreds of millions are set aside for independent critics (GAO, general inspectors), but why did Claire McCaskill’s whistleblowing protections for employees of private contractors and transparency measures for state/local contracts not make it into the final bills from either the House or Senate, only to be returned to the legislation in final conference?
I think the answer is pretty black and white: Lobbyists arguing that full transparency would “hurt their business” and the propensity of Hill reps (both D and R) to not challenge lobbyists. Proprietary information, management expenses, trade secrets, employee safety… anything you can imagine was presented as a reason for reduced oversight, and both the House and Senate versions of the bill were more than obliging.
Obama is about to assume another responsibility beyond the success of the economic recovery plan. His administration will be responsible for the transparency promised, almost entirely. He can expect zero backing from the House, save a handful of Democrats, and modest support from Democrats and a few Republicans in the Senate. But overall, he owns not only the stimulus, but future efforts to restore a heightened “post-Bush” accountability to governing branches and any legislation that passes.
It’s not impossible, but it’s disappointing the House and Senate won’t be lending a hand.
UPDATE: Tangent alert, but an interesting take, very different from mine, on a possible usefulness of the “bipartisan” ploy complained about in my first paragraph.
