By Chris Edwards on 8.4.06 @ 12:07AM
Who's getting your tax dollars? Sen. Tom Coburn launches his latest idea to keep you informed and the porkers and earmarkers chagrined.
Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) and fellow reformers on Capitol Hill
have so far met with limited success in their efforts to cut
government waste, but they have garnered a lot of attention from
popular websites and blogs. And that's about to become the basis of
their strategy. Mr. Coburn has proposed a bill to create an
Internet database that would track hundreds of billions of dollars
in federal contracts, grants, and other payments.
Though not as comprehensive as the database Coburn proposes,
there are already tools available online to unearth wasteful
spending. The Federal Assistance Award Data System provides state-by-state reports listing the recipients
of subsidies from 600 federal programs.
The most recent FAADS report for California lists thousands of
grants, loans, and other federal payments for motels, fast food
franchises, and other companies. One guaranteed loan program for
small businesses provided $1.5 million to a liquor store in Los
Angeles, $1.4 million to a car wash in Anaheim, and $1.1 million to
a pizza parlor in Hayward.
The California report also lists thousands of subsidies to
non-profit groups, including the Wine Institute ($1.5 million), the
San Francisco Symphony ($50,000), the California Strawberry
Commission ($227,000), and the International Museum of Women
($298,000).
For subsidies that go directly to individuals, FAADS usually
doesn't reveal names, but we do learn that a certain George Peale
of Orange County received $40,000 for a project titled "References
to Spanish Baroque Theatre in the Royal Palace Archives." Mr. Peale
must find value in this obscure research, but I doubt many
taxpayers would.
Another website for citizens concerned about excess spending is
the Federal Audit Clearinghouse. FAC provides audit reports for
state and local governments and nonprofit groups that receive
federal subsidies. It tells us, for example, that Palm Beach County
received $109 million in federal grants in 2004 from 53 programs
including "citizen corps," "rural business," "nutrition services,"
"job access reverse commute," "bulletproof vest partnership," and
"outdoor recreation."
FAC reveals that many groups with agendas opposed to taxpayer
interests receive federal funding. The American Association of
Retired Persons -- which fights to preserve the tax-and-spend
Social Security system -- received $82 million from federal
taxpayers in 2004. The Teamsters, the American Federation of
Teachers, and other unions receive millions of dollars in federal
subsidies as well.
One shortcoming of existing databases is that they often don't
show the ultimate recipients of subsidies. They may show that a
city received federal money for "community development," but not
reveal which private groups ultimately received the cash. Coburn's
legislation would fix this problem and create a simpler and more
comprehensive system.
A Coburn-style spending database wouldn't guarantee greater
federal budget restraint. But a big problem today is that
politicians can get away with justifying subsidies on the basis of
empty rhetoric -- "we need to help struggling small businesses." It
might change the political dynamics if taxpayers could easily find
out what that meant: giving subsidies to liquor stores and Quiznos
Sub shops.
Indeed, detailed data often reveal that the real-world effects
of programs are different from the stated goals of policymakers.
Data on farm subsidies, for example, show that the money often goes
to wealthy landowners -- many of whom don't even farm -- and not to
hard-pressed small farmers, as politicians often claim.
A further benefit of a new spending database is that it would
impress upon taxpayers the vast number of groups and businesses
that are on the federal dole. People might think that small
businesses are natural enemies of big government, but FAADS reveals
that many of them are likely neutralized as opponents of budget
restraint because they are feeding from the federal subsidy
trough.
Mr. Coburn has the right idea: in order to cut wasteful
spending, we need average citizens to become more involved in
monitoring budgeting decisions. A new Internet database can enable
taxpayers to do their own research and complain to Congress when
they find dubious spending items. It may be that the new tools of
the Internet age finally create the groundswell of support for
Washington to reform its wasteful ways.
topics:
Business, Federal Budget, Social Security, NATO, Unions
