Seeing is Believing

It's time for Obama to keep his promise about stimulus transparency

Veronique de Rugy & Eileen Norcross | May 12, 2009

(Page 2 of 2)

Transparency is neither hard nor expensive. Nebraska recently created a budget website giving taxpayers an easy way to track where the state's money is going. After much howling about the expensiveness of the site, in the end it cost the state a mere $38,000. And when it comes to tracking stimulus spending, the private sector is doing it for free. Onvia, a company that matches contractors with government needs, has already launched Recovery.org, a free, searchable database of stimulus projects. (Go here for a Reason.tv video with Onvia's CEO.)

If President Obama means what he says about transparency, he will demand that governors, mayors, city executives, and grantees be required to account for every dime that comes into their hands. And he'll do so now, not in a year. Until American taxpayers are provided detailed information at every stage of the stimulus process, we can only assume the worst.

Veronique de Rugy and Eileen Norcross are economists at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

Comments

|5.12.09 @ 12:15PM|#

Wow. It almost leads one to believe that Dear Leader was more interested in paying off political chonies than helping the economy. Never!!

Xeones|5.12.09 @ 12:21PM|#

No, John, he really does believe he's doing both.

|5.12.09 @ 12:21PM|#

I'm shocked to learn there is gambling here!

JB|5.12.09 @ 12:34PM|#

Obama is a giant liar.

|5.12.09 @ 12:41PM|#

"No, John, he really does believe he's doing both."


Sadly, you are probably right. I would actually feel better if he were just an ordinary crook. At least then I would know he knew what he was doing about at least something.

Civil Discourse|5.12.09 @ 12:42PM|#

"Obama is a giant liar."

No, blacks don't govern well because all they see is color and alleged injustice. It's a reverse Colbert of sorts. Look at Zimbabway. Now tell me how how Obama's policies are different from Mugabe's.

stuartl|5.12.09 @ 12:55PM|#

In many instances, the most ludicrous examples from the ready-to-go wish list-such as $2.1 million for a new state-of-the-art eco-conscious "green animal rescue foundation building" for the city of Superior, Wisconsin-aren't examples of fraud.

Seriously, isn't fraud and corruption a better use of the stimulus money than most government spending? The money will get into the economy right away, it will be spent on new cars, new homes, trips to Vegas, ... To build a "green animal rescue whatzit," the government will waste precious time getting bids, hiring and reviewing contractors, etc. Don't we know that the money needs to be burned NOW to stave off financial disaster?

Warty|5.12.09 @ 1:06PM|#

No, blacks don't govern well because all they see is color and alleged injustice. It's a reverse Colbert of sorts. Look at Zimbabway. Now tell me how how Obama's policies are different from Mugabe's.

I still miss joe.

calvin|5.12.09 @ 1:39PM|#

"No, blacks don't govern well because all they see is color and alleged injustice. It's a reverse Colbert of sorts. Look at Zimbabway. Now tell me how how Obama's policies are different from Mugabe's."

This is... a joke? Surely we can do better than this.

I'm thinkin' it's a joke.

|5.12.09 @ 1:46PM|#

Now tell me how how Obama's policies are different from Mugabe's.

Obama and his thugs are better dressed and his thugs are better armed.

Civil Discourse|5.12.09 @ 1:53PM|#

"I'm thinkin' it's a joke."

No joke. If you spend your life thinking you've been victimized for generations, when the opportunity to govern arrives, it's impossible not to go into a state of psychological blindness, where all you can see is an opportunity to right that alleged wrong.

That's why Mugabe took the productive white farmer's land and gave it to the ignorant black peasants. How'd that work out?

And now Obama has given Chrysler to the UAW, who only know how to run an extortion racket. Frankly, I don't see any difference between the two. Near identical mindsets, really.

Civil Discourse|5.12.09 @ 1:54PM|#

Blue gets it.

Chrysler CEOs|5.12.09 @ 1:56PM|#

Because we did real well running Chrysler!

Chrysler CEOs|5.12.09 @ 1:58PM|#

Hey, who wants a Dodge Caliber?

Uh, a Chrysler Sebring?

Jeep Compass? Anyone?

Alan Vanneman|5.12.09 @ 1:59PM|#

The point of stimulus spending is not to spend money on the "very best" projects. The point is to spend it. Tax cuts would be the perfect stimulus if only people would only spend the damn money instead of saving it. If people would spend their tax cut or stimulus check on on-line porno, or designer shoes, or mink coats, or black velvet paintings, or whatever, it would all be good.

Whining about spending stimulus funds on fixing up public bathrooms is stupid. Fix up the damn bathrooms! The plumbers get money. The plumbing supply firms get money. They buy things. The point is not to buy something "valuable." The point is to buy something. It's Econ 101, actually.

Civil Discourse|5.12.09 @ 2:04PM|#

"Because we did real well running Chrysler!"

Well I guess if that justifies wholesale theft in your world...

|5.12.09 @ 2:05PM|#

The point is not to buy something "valuable."

Well, that's a relief.

Let's spend the money on lifesize ceramic dog sculptures. And then, we can drop bowling balls on them from the rooftops.

Chrysler|5.12.09 @ 2:08PM|#

Theft? Uh, we begged the government to come bail us out.

Clifford the Shaggy Cunt|5.12.09 @ 2:09PM|#

"Fix up the damn bathrooms!"

That may sound good on paper, but it seems like every time I gotta take a shit and the only option is a public restroom, it's always closed because the plumbers are doing an upgrade or repair. It really sucks.

Clifford the Shaggy Cunt|5.12.09 @ 2:11PM|#

"Theft? Uh, we begged the government to come bail us out."

Then you were monumentally stoopid.

Clifford the Big Shaggy Cunt|5.12.09 @ 2:12PM|#

"Let's spend the money on lifesize ceramic dog sculptures. And then, we can drop bowling balls on them from the rooftops."

Thanks. You reminded me that I am big.

|5.12.09 @ 2:41PM|#

Tax cuts would be the perfect stimulus if only people would only spend the damn money instead of saving it.

Once I realized that savings = investments, I became puzzled by this very common assertion.

Why is spending good for the economy, but investing is not?

it seems like every time I gotta take a shit and the only option is a public restroom,

Uh, dude, a restroom is never the only option.

|5.12.09 @ 3:14PM|#

The only thing I can imagine that would make stimulus money ineffective is sewing it up in a mattress.

Even if you pay off debts, your creditor will circulate the cash pretty quickly. That's what lenders tend to do.

Of course, that assumes that stimulus money is actually effectivein the first place.

|5.13.09 @ 12:16AM|#

Please pardon my ignorance, but if creating a bunch of stimulus money and getting people to spend it is the way to fix the economy, why not print a billion for each citizen? We'd all spend like crazy and the economy would be instantly okay, right?

Or does money actually have to represent something else? Something of worth?