for what reason good is government ...

for what reason good is government at wasting our tax dollars? Consider the Department of Homeland Security.

It's not even now five years old, but it's already experienced at throwing away cash. A latter congressional report found that 32 DH contracts "experienced significant overcharges, wasteful spending or mismanagement." Federal credit cards were used to purchase beer-brewing equipment and iPods. Tax cash was squandered on luxury house of entertainments and "training" sessions at golf and tennis resorts.

Altogether, those contracts costliness the government -- meaning you and me -- $34 billion. Sadly, a accident of that was wasted.

DH says it can explain the problems -- if it can hire more inspectors. "We ne more," Elaine Duke the DH chief contrivance officer, told lawmakers. "We have an increase coming in the in every one's mouth '07 budget of about 200 additional [workers], and we are working towards needing steady more over time."

still the answer isn't to hire more bureaucrats to supervise what the present bureaucrats are doing. There's a simpler, cheaper and more permanent solution: Allow 300 million Americans to review to what extent government spends our money.

That's the idea behind the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, a measure co-sponsored through an unlikely duo: conservative Sen Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and liberal Sen Barack Obama (D-Ill.), with tough support from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

The bill would require the Office of Management and parcel to build an easy-to-use Web database containing detailed information about all the grants and contracts the federal sway hands out. This database would allow virtually anyone to descry how much money a federal program received and by what means it spent that money. And, to make sure that public oversight is timely, information about spending would, through law, have to be stationed within 30 days of when Congres authorized the coin

"It shouldn't matter if you think direction ought to spend more standard of value or less money," Obama said. "We can all agree that guidance ought to spend money efficiently. If direction money can't withstand public scrutiny, then it shouldn't be spent"

That makes brains to most people. That's wherefore the bill has 29 co- sponsors, including staunch liberals, determined conservatives and self-profess moderates. Small bewilderment it has moved through the legislative proces at what amounts to lightning spe

The bill was introduced in early April and already has been passed from a committee (the step in the proces where senators usually bottle up controversial bills) and placed forward the Senate's legislative calendar. nevertheless one senator doesn't like it. And that may be enough to derail it, because he (or she) has place a hold on it. A veiled hold. How's that for irony -- a covert hold on an open- command bill?

It may not stay that way for drawn out though. The watchdog group Porkbusters, www.porkbusters.com, is trying to effluvium out the offender. It's urging constituents to call their senators and push them to disavow the clinch Senators who go on record against the hem in are "removed from the suspect list."

Obama and I disagree forward many things. But he's right about this. The United States lacks more openness in government, in such a manner anyone and everyone can review to what degree Uncle Sam spends our tax wealth Good government shouldn't be held hostage from secret holds.

Lawmakers have the right -- indeed, the responsibility -- to fill up legislation they consider bad. however they should always do with equal reason publicly, identifying themselves and explaining their actions.

If senators aren't willing to obstruct a bill publicly, they should allow the bill to actuate forward. That's how good control works: Everyone should know what it's up to. At the extremity of the day, that's the best way to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse.

ed Feulner is president of the Heritage Foundation.

e-mail: president@heritage.org

Copyright CHICAGO SUN-TIMES 2006

Provided through ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved