Transparency In The Budget: Obama Style

“Finally, because we’re also suffering from a deficit of trust, I am committed to restoring a sense of honesty and accountability to our budget. That is why this budget looks ahead ten years and accounts for spending that was left out under the old rules – and for the first time, that includes the full cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. For seven years, we have been a nation at war. No longer will we hide its price,” the President said in his Tuesday night address to Congress.

It seems that these new rules for the budget, mentioned by the President, include a secrecy pledge that must be signed by Pentagon officials.  Officials are prohibited from discussing details of the budget development process until it is released to the public.  This is usually when Congress begins holding debates on the budget.  Among the reasons for this: lobbyists.

When lobbyists find out their pet project is on a list of proposed cuts, they step into high gear to get members of Congress to apply pressure to take it off the list.  This keeps spending in the budget, without a public debate being held on the merits of a program.  Hopefully, this secrecy pledge will help when cuts to the budget are being proposed.  I would hope that the secrecy pledge will be given to other departments, outside of the military as well.  We need cuts in Federal government in areas outside of the Pentagon too. 

Human nature being what it is, I suspect any lobbyist worthy of his salary will get the information they are looking for anyway.  Back in the days when I was in the service, I could usually find out all sorts of things by going to the designated smoking areas of various headquarters buildings.  Even though I wasn’t smoking, it was easy to engage in conversation during “break time” and find out about all the latest happenings.  Ditto for after hours conversation at bars, restaurants, and other gathering places.

While I am cautiously optimistic that this secrecy pledge will be helpful in getting some wasteful programs killed, I still have a healthy amount of skepticism.  Until members of Congress police themselves better, and start paying attention to voters more than lobbyists, I have my doubts about government spending being reduced.