Spending transparency for the federal government
OMB Watch reports here and here on the Transparency Through Technology: Evaluating Federal Open-Government Initiatives : Transparency Through Technology: Evaluating Federal Open-Government Initiatives and testimony here.
OMB Watch recommends six changes Congress and the Obama administration should make to USAspending.gov, the government’s spending website which is based off of one of their websites, FedSpending.org.
Making USAspending.gov better isn’t just about improving the quality of the current data, which Friday’s hearing focused on a great deal, it’s also about broadening the site’s scope. We need to bring in other data sources to improve, and help give context to, the spending data already on USAspending.gov. To that end, the testimony outlines a six-point plan for advancing federal spending transparency:
- Treasury data: Use spending information directly from the nation’s checkbook, which would improve data quality
- Tax expenditure data: Shed light on the more than $1 trillion in tax expenditures
- Multi-tier sub-recipient reporting: Everyone who gets federal funds must report in, as opposed to the current two-tier system
- Unique entity identification: Create a new system to link recipients to lobbying data, contractor performance information, etc.
- Full text of contracts: Show detailed information on government projects, not just short summaries
- Performance information: Provide meaningful data on which programs are effective
OMB notes that in the House, funds for such initiatives were slashed:
In the midst of a fight about the budget deficit, Congress is poised to shut down federal websites that tell the public how the government spends our money. It’s ironic and disappointing. Websites like USAspending.gov and Data.gov have started to make government more transparent. But just when things are starting to get better, Congress wants to take us backward. Members of Congress love to talk about transparency, but the spending bill being negotiated right now would slash funding for vital transparency programs by 94 percent. Agencies are already making contingency plans to shut down the sites if their funding is cut so drastically. Congress is set to vote on the budget this week. Incredibly, Congress wants to cut the Electronic Government Fund even though it represents only 0.002 percent of the deficit. But this tiny slice of the budget pays big dividends: sites like USAspending.gov help citizens and government watchdogs spot wasteful spending and other abuses – and deter them from happening in the first place. We can’t afford to not know how our money is being spent. Meanwhile, Congress hasn’t held a single hearing to debate the destructive impact these cuts would have on government openness.
Dan this article needs some serious rework. The first link is inoperative, and the quotes are from OMBwatch (OMB notes that…) and not OMB, the right arm of the presidents for managing the budget.
Check it out:
http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Muller_Testimony_31_March_2011
Sorry a little off topic but it’s worth the read!
How does that old saying go: “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink! The present cast of charlatans in the Washington D.C. Kabuki performance we call Congress, well, you get what I mean.
Bear, the testimony was quite disappointing scientifically. Why? there was too little emphasis on the preliminary and unsubstantiated findings upon which he testified. Testimony was based upon a random selection of 2% of the available data, did not use the full set data adjustment and correction routines which are still being developed and/or tested, and was far from based upon a transparent process which most were excited to embrace.
I was excited because the BEST process would finally fully public, transparent and available for all to use. Personally, I did not expect a major change in final results from the current sets, but having agreement on the process was scientifically important.
I’ll sit on the sidelines in hope of the transparency to be forthcoming.
BTW, I do not intend to comment further on this subject on this thread. This is far enough off topic already.
Norman, it’s cute, but what does it mean relative to this article?
There is no transparency in DoD.
They have never passed an audit of their accounts. It is not managed under GPRA.
The biggest, with the “best (highest paid, good guys and gals) management”, third of the total money on buying things, weapons acquisitions are not managing to cost baselines, not performing to auditable technical performance and not being tested. That third of the DoD acquisition pot is $1.68T in committed future budgets that is not open for viewing.
Worse the insiders managing the systems have no idea what they are getting, until the vendors come in asking for a few more years and another 30%.
Transparency indeed.
Fixed.
Thanks
sites like USAspending.gov help citizens and government watchdogs spot wasteful spending and other abuses – and deter them from happening in the first place.
Are you kidding? I went to the USAspending.gov and found this:
http://www.usaspending.gov/search?query=&searchtype=&formFields=eyJQU0NDYXRlZ29yeUNvZGUiOlsiQSJdfQ==
Pure gobbledygook.
The OMB watch says this cost $32 million. It is worthless. Good riddance.
Oh such a straightline comes to mind. Say, I notice MA and Tx get loads of defense monies. Congrats buff.
One could also check the regional aspect (main thrust of policy) of energy policy instead of ‘partisan’ aspects.