The RAT hiding deep inside the stimulus bill
…you probably haven’t heard about a provision in the bill that threatens to politicize the way allegations of fraud and corruption are investigated — or not investigated — throughout the federal government.
The provision, which attracted virtually no attention in the debate over the 1,073-page stimulus bill, creates something called the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board — the RAT Board, as it’s known by the few insiders who are aware of it. The board would oversee the in-house watchdogs, known as inspectors general, whose job is to independently investigate allegations of wrongdoing at various federal agencies, without fear of interference by political appointees or the White House.
In the name of accountability and transparency, Congress has given the RAT Board the authority to ask “that an inspector general conduct or refrain from conducting an audit or investigation.†If the inspector general doesn’t want to follow the wishes of the RAT Board, he’ll have to write a report explaining his decision to the board, as well as to the head of his agency (from whom he is supposedly independent) and to Congress. In the end, a determined inspector general can probably get his way, but only after jumping through bureaucratic hoops that will inevitably make him hesitate to go forward.
If the Chief were a gambling man, he would bet that the Donks who were SO fast to weep and wail about the possible political abuse of the Patriot Act will be only noticeable by their silence about this. Hmmmmm. Come to think of it, maybe it WOULDN’T be a gamble at all to bet on it!
So you’re against the federal government attempting to increase transparency on the use of your money. Right. You really don’t have to stretch this hard to find reasonable criticisms of the Obama Administration.
Precisely! I AM against this sort of transparency.
The I.G.’s handle the investigations of corruption, ethical violations, etc. on the part of upper civil service AND (POLITICALLY) APPOINTED management in the government service. Making them subject to political review in the performance of their (by design) independent performance of their duties.
Also, bringing outside review into play would insure that no one would ever whistle-blow, knowing that their upper management would be cognizant of the whistle-blowing activity, to the detriment of the future of the whistle-blower in government employment.
After 24 years of government service, including serving a a union local president of a federal employees union, this sort of thing would immediately become a critical issue.
Of course if one has no concern with the conduct of upper level government management…or WANTS criticism and reports of malfeasance squelched for political reasons, then hey, this is OK.