Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiSeveral weeks ago, I joined with Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform in urging state governors to emulate and go beyond the advances in bringing more openness to governmental expenditures put forth by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels.
Early in 2005, Governor Daniels issued an executive order which enables Hoosiers to find on the Internet the total number of state contracts entered into each year, the total amount of dollars awarded under state contracts each year, and the number and percentage of Indiana businesses and out-of-state businesses to whom state contracts are awarded each year. In addition the entire text of most contracts covered by the executive order is available online.
Mr. Norquist and I disagree on many other issues, but we strongly share the belief that taxpayers should be able to easily access clear and concise information on how their tax dollars are being spent by governments at all levels.
At the federal level, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act will create a free, publicly searchable website for all federal contracts and grants. Senator Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) and Senator Barack Obama (D. IL) introduced this bill requiring the dollar amounts and recipients of all grants and earmarked contracts be placed in a publicly accessible database.
This important step toward transparency was signed into law by President Bush on September 26, 2006, the law states that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has to ensure the existence of a searchable website is available no later than January 1, 2008. Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle came together and joined forces to move in the right direction. But this is only a first step, since the actual contract language will not be made available.
When he was Director of the OMB in the federal government, Mitch Daniels expressed his support for putting all federal contracts and grants online above a minimum amount and invited public comment. Included in his proposal were defense contracts, prudently redacted, which, of course, means a large area of governmental spending historically off limits to public scrutiny.
Recently Iowa's Republican Senator Chuck Grassley enthusiastically supported the idea of amending the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, to include the full text of contracts. Senator Grassley, a champion of the taxpayer and government whistleblowers knows that greater transparency will benefit taxpayers.
There is momentum to require the full text of government contracts be put online. But, don't underestimate the power of lethargy. I first wrote to President Bill Clinton and asked him to issue an Executive Order setting procedures for every agency of the federal government to place its contracts online back in January of 2000. On February 8, 2000, President Clinton wrote back saying he had forwarded this request to the OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for review. On September 10, 2001, I wrote to Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., then the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, urging him to give taxpayers access to the full text of government contracts. On June 6, 2003, as a result of Mr. Daniels drive on this issue, a Federal Register Notice was issued asking for public comments on a pilot project to put contracts online. His successors at the OMB have not followed up.
We are moving in the right direction with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, but as we all know the "devil is in the details." Requiring federal agencies and departments to post online the full text of all federal contracts would be a wonderful next step. The computer age should make it possible to efficiently allow for certain redactions related to legitimate concerns about business confidentiality and national security in contracts before they are posted online in a publicly-available database.
A large coalition from across the political spectrum has been pushing for increased transparency in government, which is good for a more competitive procurement process, the taxpayer and our democracy.
Contracting out what the state and federal government do and contracting to obtain what governments need is a large part of our economy. The former includes letting corporations perform government functions and the latter includes buying supplies like fuel, paper, food, medicines and vehicles. Taken together, they amount to spending trillions of dollars over the past decade - our tax dollars.
Putting the full text of these contracts online will: could give taxpayers both savings and better value; let the media focus more incisively on this vast area of government disbursements to inform the wider public; encourage constructive comments and alarms from the citizenry; and stimulate legal and economic research by scholars interested in structural topics related to government procurement, transfers, subsidies and giveaways.
Congress should amend the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act.
And, Governors should work expeditiously to make the full text of all state contracts, ranging from procurement of goods and services to grants, leaseholds and labor contracts, available to the public on the Internet in a clear and searchable format.
Transparency is one of the core principles of representative democracy. Another way of putting it is that "information is the currency of democracy."
Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book is The Seventeen Traditions.
32 Comments so far
Show AllPublic higher education should also be required to put its contracts online.
For instance, if you're shopping around for a college and it's well-known that college XYZ tosses money like there's no tomorrow into sleazy contractual arrangements that do nothing to help students in your field of study, then don't apply there. Competitiveness is nothing without knowledge to make informed decisions.
Putting contracts online helps everyone except those on the gravy train, and those taking money under the table.
Karl,
There will be no more corporate candidates for me. All we can do is strengthen the alternative media and vote our conscience.
All those effen' polls tell us is that the MSM has done its job of "manufacturing consent."
Peace to you and Ralph!
BTW, I would like to hear Nader talk about issues OTHER than economics and corporatism. Like women's issues, the Middle East, etc. I heard him on Democracy Now!maybe 7 or 8 years ago and he was superb on a variety of topics. He's not a one trick pony, you know.
dcb: I am not pessimist, HOWEVER: I have bad news for all of you: According to the latest-polls on the internet, i mean latest Gallup, Zogby, Penn and Shoe, and other company's polls, Hillary Clinton will be next Democratic Party candidate :-(
Hello all: Don't bash Nader, he is a good person, trying to wake us all up. We won't be able to change america by attacking each other. He is on our side !!
Transparency in government is essential. Kucinich should run as an independent and select Nader to be his VP and "Czar of Financial Transparency." This would be a huge step toward righting the wrongs of the past two decades of government privatization. The private sector is NOT more "efficient" when you consider the broader picture of how tax moneys impact US quality of life -- a quality of life that includes measures of employee protections, employee benefits, and freedom of speech. The private sector is a cold SOB where employees are hired "at will," and 401K's are trumpeted as superior to defined benefit plans like social security.
There's nothing like a Nader article to get people worked up and give their keyboards a workout.
The only one who is going to save "us" is us. Gore couldn't do it and neither can ralph nader. You all talk about democracy and our republic but you don't don't talk about the one thing that is lacking - participation by the citizenry. Ralph's job isn't to save us by becoming president. His job is to wake us up so that we start participating in our government and stop being spectators. Write a letter to the editor or to a congressman, organize a demonstration. Anything you can do at this time has tremendous power to rearrange the current paradigm. Power to the people. United we stand, divided we fall.
" Jacob Freeze August 26th, 2007 1:27 pm
Mike Corbeil, if it ever occurs to you to extend your research about the difference between republics and democracies beyond the “the free dictionary,†you might want to consult James Madison’s discussion in The Federalist No. 10:
..."
That's being puritanical in definition though; while I prefer application of simply sound commonsense. That in turn means that a true democracy, for it to be sane and just, cannot wittingly be governed in a way that allows the whims of a majority to override the legitimate rights and liberties of a minority. To do otherwise is to support injustices by the administrators of The People's govt and against some members of the population, which will of course never be supported by anyone in any integral way, for those who'd support it when the injustices are against only other members of the population would refuse when they are the ones who are the targets. That'd be hypocrisy and hegemony, so definitely lack of integrity.
Hence, republic can be democratic alright; just that you have to shed the puritanical p.o.v. and instead adopt the way of sound commonsense, rational thinking, which means to be against all injustices and therefore all hypocrisy and hegemony.
As far as I'm concerned, the First Nations Peoples of this continent, who ethically remain the real owners, had a better and sufficient form of govt. They also did not have the fears that establishing an imperialistic govt of invaders, aggressors, conquerors and dominators caused at least some of the founders of the so-called U.S. govt to have. They feared what the govt would become, foreseeing it; all while having been the first of the invaders, aggressors, conquerors, etc. and acting, ruling as if ignoring this reality about themselves.
That's of course history that can't be undone, although an honest people of ethical mind and heart could finally start living up to the many treaties that their govt and population have long been dishonouring therefore causing themselves to be dishonourable people; from the very start, and ongoingly so, today and in to the future. Can't change the past, but could start honouring the treaties, though.
Anyway, on U.S. democracy and republic, I think the article which is a review by Stephen Lendman is minimally an interesting read.
And if you disagree with TheFreeDictionary.com's dictionary definition of republic, then provide a dictionary defintion, for that's all I provided; not encyclopedic, only dict. defintion.
If Madison was as great as you pretend, then he would've been a real leader in terms of working to make sure that the invaders would not act like conquistadorian invaders, but would instead RESPECT the FNP. Neither he nor any of the other founders of the U.S. govt cared much if at all for the FNP and their RIGHTS.
But he's right in so much as saying that a majority of a population must not be allowed to unjustly override the rights and liberties of a minority. I won't deny him that recognition; though it also is plain and simple commonsense. It's not rocket science, but simple commonsense. May not be simple to guarantee, but is simple to understand.
A democracy that is unjust in allowing wrongful majority against a minority that is within its legitimate or acceptable rights and liberties is not what I consider a democracy, for it's then about injustice.
In the U.S., it doesn't matter, the elite tend to be the real rulers, and they're hegemonious, hypocritical, ..., and insane, psychopathically so. And they make use of sick minorities like the insane "Christian" Zionists and other insane Zionist or Zionist-supporting Americans; all of whom, I believe anyway, consistute a minority.
That's evidently not due to pure democracy, and I don't consider it as due to republic, either. I consider it as due to VERY CORRUPT govt supported by large minorities of very insane citizens.
The war on Iraq was supported and strongly so by around 77% of Americans in early 2003 and for quite some time after the war was launched; but they are not the ones who decided to launch the war. That decision was made years earlier, and those Americans, the 77%, only supported the launching. That would, in turn, have most likely happened anyway, one way or another; such as, perhaps with another 9-11 sort of day, f.e.
That's not democracy and it's not republic, not in my book, in which the above is about corporatocracy and VERY CORRUPT govt that is full of hegemony, hypocrisy, psychopathy.
webwalk, wonderwoman, Dichterfreund, GOOD posts; it's nice to see some people here have rational reasoning abilities, that is, some real matter between their ears.
"abbybwood August 25th, 2007 2:27 pm
Webwalk is right. The facts speak for themselves. Gore is a traitor to the Constitution. ..."
Gore is traitor to the country when he stayed goldenly (for himself) silent while Bill Clinton and his administration saw to it that the U.S. govt and military would launch war of totally criminal gangster aggression against former Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic and the people of Kosovo area. After all, if a soldier's duty is to disobey the president when he or she gives criminal orders, then it should be the duty of the vice pres. to speak UP and oppose the criminal orders coming out of the mouth of the moron president.
A lot of people won't call that treason on Gore's part, but I have since around 1999. After all, all I had to do was be aware that Pres. Milosevic accepted the Rambouilet Accord and that as soon as he did this, Clinton et al suddenly remembered that they had forgotten to include a particular clause, which, once read only a single time, and needing no more time than it took to just read the clause, it was immediately obvious that if Pres. Milosevic was a man of self-respect and real integrity, then he would definitely not accept the modified accord. The clause very clearly was one of definitely gangsterism nature; it was immediately obvious upon just one reading of the clause.
So Gore staying silent about that really is something that is totally rejectable, imo. There's NO WAY that I could ever consider voting for anyone of such character; unless it was to vote for them to have the right to clean streets, or to go live on some remote island in some isolated part of the world, or ..., say.
Hence, that he wrongfully did not demand for vote or election verification in 2000 was and remains NO surprise. He never once said a single word on the above gangsterism of the administration he was v.p. in, not until well after that administration was past history, at which point it was "TOO LATE!", his word having then NO respectable value.
An interesting article in that regard, though from a different angle, is the following.
"The Corporate Climate Coup", by David F. Noble, historian, May 1 2007, ActivistTeacher blog
That's impressive, and excellently qualitative.
Vic Anderson:
It's actually a great idea, one that I thought of 3 years ago, and posted here periodically. But move everything offshore? No. Starve the beast that represents only corporations? You betcha!
"Jacob Freeze August 25th, 2007 11:48 am
...
Did you happen to notice that we live in a republic, and not a democracy? But why bother with these petty distinctions? Why bother with Jefferson, Hamilton, and Madison when we have Nader and Norquist to show us the new way forward?
..."
That doesn't make sense, for republic does not mean absence of democracy; although, likely anyway, does not mean presence of it, either. I'm sure about the former, but not of the latter, though.
A republic can certainly be democratic, and an article that explains what the actual intention of the founders of the U.S. Constitution was, and which is a govt for, of and by the elite, not The People, well, the article is, "Reviewing Michael Parenti's 'Democracy For the Few'", by Stephen Lendman, July 26 2007, for which a Web search will quickly turn up links; or check via the authors subindex GlobalResearch.ca .
If in doubt about republic minimally allowing democracy, then check out the dictionary. The following definition is very clear.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/republic
Gee, Uncle Ralph is actually trying to do something constructive, instead of grabbing headlines and Fox News time as a "presidential" candidate! Let him put up a list of his corporate and GOP contributors, while he's at it. Let's see whether he and his fellow "Greenies" have the guts to work on the state and local level -- for example, discussing gun control in the South, grazing on Federal land in the West, and relations with Cuba in Miami!
That's the mark of a party, not just a group of malcontents screaming at the Democrats every four years. Ralphie-boy's recent branding of Hillary Clinton as a coward gets him coverage, but what does the "philosopher-president" have to offer in the way of alternatives?
As a Democrat, I've been accused by Naderites of "drinking the Kool-Aid." I never did, even when I was young, but I'd rather enjoy Kool-Aid than water out of Ralphie's toilet!
Mike Corbeil, if it ever occurs to you to extend your research about the difference between republics and democracies beyond the "the free dictionary," you might want to consult James Madison's discussion in The Federalist No. 10:
"From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended."
Transparency is great but I wouldn't get too excited about it's relevancy when all we've hearing over the past 6 years is "national security" and "executive privilege".
When some 48% of our budget is used by the Department of Defense, how much transparency do you think you're going to get?
Ralph!
Now is the time to run again my friend. Not since revolutionary days have things been darker. The America I love is no more. It's been a sad series of gradual steps, but we've finally turned the U.S. into George Orwell's "Animal Farm" (plus "1984" to boot!)
The world needs a savior right now. You are the only one who has any track record of really looking out for the little guy (e.g, food inspection, highway safety for the innocents) and I emplore you to run anew. Nobody wants the Republicrats this time! (Oh hated lapdogs of corporate crime!) They had their chance, and made it clear to all of us we should have voted for you! Step once more into the breech my friend....
I'll vote for you.
pac
Thank you for the article. It is great to know that the charade of accountability may/can at least be seen by all the tax payers. At least the ones who actually pay attention and/or care how our government operates.
A very informative piece that will get lost again because Congress has other things to worry about.
"Mr. Norquist and I disagree on many other issues, but..."
Aww, that's just good ol' Ralph, pandering to his core contribution base from his 2004 run. He sounds like Hillary trying to explain being best buddies with Rupert Murdoch.
Mr. Nader, I still have tremendous respect for you, but permit me to clue the consumer cult in to a newsflash:
It's nice to believe we're all consumers and such; but has anyone stopped to think why we've bought into this charade of consumer protectionism and transparency of government in the first place?
Don't we need to be protected from ourselves, first? And our slave-masters, then second?
Hell, it's why capitalism as we think we know it is clearly bankrupt. It's why we have secretive cabals of greedy men consolidating power at the expense of our constitutional republic... and our supposed liberties guaranteed therein.
Maybe we'll finally get what we paid for - a federal ID chip and a worthless old piece of paper forgotten about under museum glass - a one-way ticket to mass enslavement!
At least it'd all be out in the open, I guess...
I always like to read the disccussion that ensues when any Nader piece is posted on Common Dreams. It is mostly because I am amused at the Democrats who continue to whine about Nader regardless of what he supports. Nader says "Mr. Norquist and I disagree on many other issues, but we strongly share the belief that taxpayers should be able to easily access clear and concise information on how their tax dollars are being spent by governments at all levels.". I believe that is thrust of what Nader is saying. For those of you who support secrecy in government I can see why you might not like Nader. The rest of the anti-Nader people seem to attribute a good deal of power to him, that I'm not sure he has.
As far as the comments regarding Nadar guaranteeing Clinton II, I only wish that third parties had that much power. If this is really the case, then it must be that Nader also caused Kerry to loose. How come no one complains about that? I guess the Democrats really didn't care about that election or maybe Nader isn't as powerful as you think.
As far as 2008 goes, I will not be voting for Clinton. I might vote for Nader or I might vote for some other Green candidate. I may also vote for an independant or some other third party. But Hillary will not get my vote. If the Dems want to win and think that my vote is important (as one of those people who mindlessly voted for Nader in 2000 and gave the election to Bush) then I suggest you nominate someone else. Perhaps you might come up with a credible anti-war candidate (just an idea).
Or for those of you who oppose open government, maybe you can change the laws so that we are never even told who the president is. That would be sure to annoy Nader. Since the Dems control congress you could get it passed, and of course you could count on Bush to sign it.
Vic Anderson said:
"Ralph, my philosopher pres., why don’t you incorporate We the People as America, Inc., move our assets offshore so We don’t have to pay federal income taxes AT ALL and thereby END the Bush wars, as well?"
Coincidentally, I posted a similar comment on another thread. It may actually be a great idea! Incorporating We the People into a for-profit corporation instead of a government of, by and for other corporations could bring every citizen many benefits RIGHT NOW. An equal share of non-transferable stock for everyone present and future would give us equal voting rights in shareholder's meetings. We could hire and fire our company leadership according to their performance in profiting our collective economy, education, healthcare, environment, world peace and so on.
What do you think Ralph? Could this idea turn fascism on its head?
Konfused and Jacob Freeze both remind me of the whiney people during WWII who bitched about the aid we were giving the Soviets because of Stalin. Without realizing that without that aid and the ferocious courage of the Russian people who fully chewed up 80% of the Nazi war machine and turned it into so much hamburger, at a terrible cost in the tens of millions of casualties that we in the West would not have had the precious two years needed to be ready to launch the proper assault on the Nazi western flank.
Grover Norquist and Ra[ph Nader together have given potential whistle-blowers and investigative researchers a great tool with which to call the bluff of the many bloated hogs who slop at the federal trough (faith based initiatives, AID--Agency for International Development-- subsidies for the export of American jobs, and all those cost over-run adjustments used by contractors to gaurantee that after they get the initial contract they can make their extortionate profit off of it) and all some can do is piss and moan about the coalition making tihs possible.
I don't like either Coburn or Obama but I am just as glad they got the ball rolling on this issue as iam that murdering joe stalin was able to hold t Soviet Union together and mobiize its armed forces to defeat the fascists in the East.
"“Save us†from another Clinton presidency"
Iraq was bombed every day of Clinton's two terms.
"Free speech zones" where protesters were to be sidelined, wholly endorsed by Clinton, who was on the side of security forces during the "battle for Seattle".
Corporate mergers? Clinton blessed every one, because they raised his economic numbers.
Clinton's advisor for the '96 election? Dick Morris. His advisor for the '92 -- then-bedmate & current spouse of Republican advisor Mary Matalin.
Yes, we SHOULD be spared another Clinton presidency.
Webwalk is right. The facts speak for themselves. Gore is a traitor to the Constitution.
Of course I still believe his choice of Lieberman (or was it the DLC's choice?) is what really did him in. There was a whole lot of nose holding going on in the voting booths in 2000.
"Mr. Nader please save us from another Clinton in the White House, how about another run for the presidency? You’ve been awfully quiet about the Dem’s sellout to Bush."
Why should Nader be expected to speak about something that HE PREDICTED WOULD HAPPEN? He not only predicted it would happen, he told us we were fools to believe that the Dems would take any other course.
So when Ralph Nader is right, he's wrong. Ralph Nader prevented Al Gore from winning the election,e ven though Gore did win & refused to insist on the investigation of election fraud; and even though a Gore presidency would have included all the DLCers' favorite son, Joe Lieberman.
Um,
So, the people attacking Nader for this, what do you actually support? Keeping government contracts secret from citizens? Brilliant argumentation...
By the way, for all the people still living in the dream world in which Ralph Nader is responsible for all the horrors of the past seven years, you might want to look this up: Al Gore won the election in 2000. His victory was stolen by the Bush Gang with an assist from the Supreme Court. And, absurdly, with an assist from Al Gore, who first refused to demand that every vote be counted, and then refused to stand up in the Senate when members of the Congressional Black Caucus only needed one person in the Senate to stand up.
But i know, ad hominem attacks are the order of the day, so ignore reality and fire away. i have more respect for Ralph Nader than i ever will for the yo-yos who attack him.
Oops. *virtually* Sorry there. Not so well said.
Oh yes, Ralph, by all means, do run again. "Save us" from another Clinton presidency.
By running, you will virtual guarantee another Republican victory.
"I don’t doubt Ralph Nader’s intellect or the sincerity behind his advocacy for consumer rights, but when he’s willing to sign up with the likes of the despicable Norquist, even while acknowledging disagreement on other issues, I certainly begin to doubt his judgement."
Well said.
Dear Jacob,
Well said! Why Nader doesn't seem in the least suspicious of Republican operatives and legislators advocating fiscal transparency for state government while aiding and abetting one of the least forthcoming presidencies and federal governments in our history is truly beyond comprehension. It should be obvious to Mr. Nader that Republican advocacy of budget disclosures for state governments is merely another tactic whereby they hope to destroy government and leave the citizens of this country to fend for themselves. A bridge collapse in Minnesota and the ongoing, criminal abandonment of Katrina' victims serve as but a glimpse of the world that would please Grover Norquist no end.
I don't doubt Ralph Nader's intellect or the sincerity behind his advocacy for consumer rights, but when he's willing to sign up with the likes of the despicable Norquist, even while acknowledging disagreement on other issues, I certainly begin to doubt his judgement.
Mr. Nader please save us from another Clinton in the White House, how about another run for the presidency? You've been awfully quiet about the Dem's sellout to Bush.
The Democratic Congress approval is the lowest in history, how they managed to be more loathed than Bush is beyond me. NOW is the time for a Third Party run, we're counting on you.
The above two comments are ad hominem arguments. Transparency is a good idea regardless of who's making the argument. We are entitled to this information.
Now Nader is in bed with Grover Norquist! Excellent! Wonderful! More power for the tax rebellion!
“Information is the currency of democracy.â€
Where does that slogan come from, Mr Nader? Did Alexander Hamilton write it? James Madison? Thomas Jefferson?
Did you happen to notice that we live in a republic, and not a democracy? But why bother with these petty distinctions? Why bother with Jefferson, Hamilton, and Madison when we have Nader and Norquist to show us the new way forward?
As demagogues, Nader and Norquist have very different records. Nader hasn't won a battle since the Sixties, and Norquist is on a never-ending winning streak. Americans pay a lower percentage of the GDP in taxes than Sweden, Denmark, Belgium, France, Finland, Switzerland, Ireland, and all 28 of the other major industrialized countries except Mexico, and all the so-called "citizens" of the USA really want to do is pay even less. Norquist is the new Messiah of selfishness and greed, and his single Commandment of "Everything for me, nothing for the nation" exerts more influence on American politics than all the religious principles of all the other religions combined.
Now poor old Ralph Nader has climbed on the Grover Norquist bandwagon for one last ride around the park. It isn't even as incongruous as it might first appear. Nader and Norquist were always more concerned with consumers than citizens, but it took them a very long time to form their natural alliance.
Ralph, my philosopher pres., why don't you incorporate We the People as America, Inc., move our assets offshore so We don't have to pay federal income taxes AT ALL and thereby END the Bush wars, as well? Or does it have something to do with your newfound fetish for ?Grover Norquist?, bathtub baby drowner?