Demanding Transparency in Federal and State Recovery Spending
With the federal government about to transfer hundreds of billions of
dollars to the states, with many of those funds going to private
contractors, a broad-based, bi-partisan coalition of organizations has
come together in a Coalition for an Accountable Recovery to actually track whose getting the money and whether they are creating quality, decent-paying jobs with the cash.
The goal is to promote reforms at both the federal and state level to assure transparency in how funds are used by federal and state contractors, the number of jobs created, and the quality of jobs created-- with the results posted online in easily searchable websites for the public. A poll released yesterday by the Coalition highlights the public support for transparency (more on the flip)
State Action on Disclosure: State government do make some aspects of their spending and contracting decisions public, as detailed in this report by Good Jobs First. But few states track job quality standards outside of public works construction projects and almost none comprehensively track their overall contracting programs, a point Progressive States Network highlighted in our report, Privatizing in the Dark: The Pitfalls of Privatization & Why Budget Disclosure is Needed.
States have begun taking increasing action to improve accountability, with partial contracting reforms enacted in a number of states. A couple of especially strong bills are moving in legislatures this session, bills that should be models for states committed to establishing the transparency the public is demanding.
The goal is to promote reforms at both the federal and state level to assure transparency in how funds are used by federal and state contractors, the number of jobs created, and the quality of jobs created-- with the results posted online in easily searchable websites for the public. A poll released yesterday by the Coalition highlights the public support for transparency (more on the flip)
- Three-quarters of voters (76%) believe that "creating a national website where citizens can see what companies and government agencies are getting the funds, for what purposes, and the number and quality of jobs being created or saved" would have an important impact on the package, including 39% who believe its impact would be extremely important.
- Fully 76% of American voters said creating state level websites to track funds was "important," and 34% said it was "very important."
State Action on Disclosure: State government do make some aspects of their spending and contracting decisions public, as detailed in this report by Good Jobs First. But few states track job quality standards outside of public works construction projects and almost none comprehensively track their overall contracting programs, a point Progressive States Network highlighted in our report, Privatizing in the Dark: The Pitfalls of Privatization & Why Budget Disclosure is Needed.
States have begun taking increasing action to improve accountability, with partial contracting reforms enacted in a number of states. A couple of especially strong bills are moving in legislatures this session, bills that should be models for states committed to establishing the transparency the public is demanding.
- In Massachusetts, Sen. Cynthia Creem and Reps. Antonio Cabral and Jay Kaufman are proposing a bill to create a searchable online database detailing the costs, recipients, and purposes for all appropriations, including contracts, grants, subcontracts, tax expenditures and other subsidies funded by the state government.
- And a coalition in Oregon are promoting potentially the most effective contracting accountability bill in the country, House Bill 2037, which would collect detailed information on the contract terms, location, hours worked and wages paid for all jobs created under each individual contract, along with aggregating the data for all statewide contracts by contractor and agency and making the data publicly available on the Internet.
Advertisement




















How would this work in practice? If a state builds a bridge would just the construction labor for the bridge count? Jobs transporting materials? Jobs for inspectors? Jobs producing construction materisls? Jobs producing raw materials to make the finished materials. Jobs transporting raw materials needed to make construction materials? Jobs serving food to those jobs listed above? Jobs providing tools to those listed above?
There may be come gamesmanship in this. Do you want to count job losses because the state has now taken a key material out of the market? If you only want to count positive aspects, then having the state hire folks to beat people up with baseball bats can be made to look good.
BTW, is 100 jobs at $60,000 better than 60 jobs at $100,000?
February 5, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
To answer the last question, it's a debatable question but the problem is we have no data on which is happening with most contracts because of lack of transparency. So requiring transparency is the first step to making public policy choices.
As for how it works, there is actually a pretty clear distinction between buying goods and subcontracting, since there is ongoing supervision between the prime contractor and the subcontractors. So if you build a bridge, all jobs involving contractors and subcontractors get tracked, while direct purchases of goods won't. Yes, you still need to think about are jobs being created through those goods purchases, but you still have a lot of data on jobs getting created and wages for the contractors.
February 5, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thats fine, but it will tend to make comparisons not very useful. Progects like bridges that use costly materials (remote uncounted but high paid labor) will tend to look worse than high paid leaf rakers. A new bridge can help the economy, but make-work is a drag.
February 5, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a limit to the value of "transparency" programs. This became quite clear to me watching the Maddow show with guest Elizabeth Warren. Warren talked about getting lots of info about TARP funds online so there would be transparency. But I think she's so good at her job as top TARP COP, that I'd trust her for the most part to facilitate the transparency.
That is, posting tons of data online seems frivolous or even possibly problematic. And speaking of "gamesmanship" as another commenter did, making up special spreadsheets or databases for public viewing is very much like keeping two sets of books. Is it then not only a costly luxury but also subject to abuse and error?
At some point we trust other people. We may want them audited occasionally or often. But do we really need to browse the gosh-darned little details on a whim?
I did rec. your post and I think there is some merit in the ideas. I'm trying to look at the endpoint and work back from there...
February 6, 2009 3:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the main point would be to track the money to make sure that large sums don't just vaporize into some local politician's brother-in-law's pocket.
"Trust people"? No. Right now we definitely *do not* trust people. When I looked into my local ballot this past November, I discovered I'd been watching the wrong political soap opera.
I guess the FBI sting on the county government's contracting practices didn't go deep enough yet.
February 6, 2009 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was that in re my comment, JTF?
Society cannot exist without trusting other people. Trust isn't "blind faith". Trust has two parts, faith and recourse and it is usually based in understanding of prior experience.
I can't tell where you're coming from, politically. My guess is that you have some anti-pragmatic radical idealism going on.
February 6, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink