Letters to the Editor
-
Obama, Coburn Introduce Bill Requiring Public Disclosure of All Recipients of Federal Funding
Obama, Coburn Introduce Bill Requiring Public Disclosure of All Recipients of Federal Funding
Friday, April 7, 2006
Printable FormatFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Washington Contact: Robert Gibbs or Tommy Vietor, (202) 228-5511
Illinois Contact: Julian Green (312) 886-3506
Date: April 7, 2006
Obama, Coburn Introduce Bill Requiring Public Disclosure of All Recipients of Federal Funding
Taxpayers Can Find Out Online How Their Money Is Spent
WASHINGTON - U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) today announced the introduction of legislation that would publicly disclose all recipients of federal funding and financial assistance. The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (S. 2590) will allow taxpayers to see how their money is being spent, the Senators said.
The federal government awards roughly $300 billion in grants annually to 30,000 different organizations across the United States, according to the General Services Administration. This bill would require the Office of Management and Budget to establish and maintain a single public Web site that lists all entities receiving federal funds, including the name of each entity, the amount of federal funds the entity has received annually by program, and the location of the entity. All federal assistance must be posted within 30 days of such funding being awarded to an organization.
"At the very least, taxpayers deserve to know where their money is being spent," Senator Obama said. "This common-sense legislation would shine a bright light on all federal spending to help prevent tax dollars from being wasted. If government spending can't withstand public scrutiny, then the money shouldn't be spent."
"This public database will provide transparency to federal spending and will provide an important weapon taxpayers can use to hold the government accountable. The database also would help to reduce fraud, abuse and misallocation of federal funds by requiring greater accounting of federal expenditures," Dr. Coburn said. "Every citizen in this country, after all, should have the right to know what organizations and activities are being funded with their hard-earned tax dollars."
Over the past year, the Senate Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management on which Dr. Coburn serves as chairman has uncovered tens of billions of dollars in fraud, abuse and wasteful spending, ranging from expensive leasing schemes to corporate welfare to bloated bureaucracy.
"This database would ensure such spending is better tracked and the public can hold policy makers and government agencies accountable for questionable spending decisions," Dr. Coburn said. "If enacted, this legislation will finally ensure true accountability and transparency in how the government spends our money, which will hopefully lead to more fiscal responsibility by the federal government."
-
@AKA Smith: Rufus and the McCain "Pact"
Rufus is a blue-collar wordsmith who is currently laboring under the false impression that the force of his ideas and convictions (not to mention his service to our country) will carry the day and win the hearts and minds of Salon readers dispite his rather clunky grammar and incorregible attitude towards spelling [yes dude, more people would listen if you cleaned it up].
He should be aware that the posters and readers of Salon all aspire to a certain literary refinement, with the notable exception of one of my favourite posters, Notorious W.E.S., who finds such pretense vulgar.
John McCain has substantial record which includes campaign reform. Are any of you even aware of the pact that Obama made with John McCain concerning the use of campaign funds in the GE?
I'm not sure what 'pact' you are referring to. The Midwest Demcoracy Network questionnaire filled in by Obama mentions 'pursuing an agreement with the Republican nominee'. It's not an unconditional deal, and as prior posters have mentioned, McCain has already made a Bank loan collaterialized with public funds, which seems like stretching the rules at least. Do you have another pact in mind?
The revolution will be on Google:
Link to full questionnaire:
http://www.midwestdemocracynetwork.org/templates/media/MDNPresidentialQuestionnaire.pdf
Excerpt with full text of Question and Obama response:
Question I-B: If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?
OBAMA: Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold s (D-WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (r-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.
-
How Obama's legislative experience helped him beat Clinton
A summary here:
http://ketchupandcaviar.com/2008/02/20/obamas-legislative-record-and-how-its-related-to-hillarys-defeat/
-
@ Uncle Fester
Do you read this as referring to the same thing? I confess that this is a bit confusing. Frankly I would be surprised if either of them stuck to it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/us/politics/16campaign.html?scp=20&sq=&st=nyt
-
@AKA Smith : public election funding
Thanks for the link (actually like following up when possible). I haven't seen the NYT story before, so I share your growing sense of confusion about what the real story is. I thought Obama's funding commitment came from the midwest democracy network survey released in November 07, not a February 07 statement, which I haven't read.
I just did a quick google ("obama february 2007 public funding" ) and found this link from the correct time period:
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/02/fec-may-allow-obama-to-preserve-public.html
Here's the opening lead:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Under a draft proposal released Thursday by the Federal Election Commission, Sen. Barack Obama would be allowed to raise private funds for the 2008 presidential general election while keeping open the option of returning that money should he later decide to accept public funding.
My take from the articles is that both have Obama considering public funds, but not unconditionally committing to them. There's probably more nuance to the story, but I'll leave that to others, such as the Salon editors (heh).
That leaves multiple story narratives including Obama trying to have it both ways, that he's optimistic but not stupid, and it's the same old b.s. just told better.
I'm not sure what I think. I'm not the type of guy that thinks all we have to do is elect Obama to live happily ever after. Or Hillary for that matter. I used to respect McCain for his anti-party positions on the Tax Cuts, the agents of religious intolerance and torture. But he has reversed himself on each issue. His party has gelded him and he allowed it.
And I'm not sure if McCain has already violated his pledge about funding. I'll have to ponder his financial engineering to determine if I think it is a bait and switch.
Any Democrat considering a protest vote for McCain if their fave candidate doesn't make the nomination (we're not quite dead yet) should really pause and take a deep breath and think about it. A lot.