Obama's disclosure rules are all bark and no bite

Despite President Obama's insistence that federal officials disclose their contacts with lobbyists regarding the allocation of stimulus money, the Washington Post reports that the rule is essentially toothless.

Since the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed in February, federal agencies have reported 197 contacts with lobbyists about stimulus grants.

In August, the entire government reported only eight such lobbying contacts. The Pentagon, which controls about $7.4 billion in stimulus spending, reported just one lobbying contact so far this year. The Homeland Security Department, with at least $3 billion to spend, reported none.

Yet the paucity of reporting masks activities by lobbyists and clients eager to obtain stimulus money for their projects. Lobbyists have separately reported work related to stimulus projects, and in many cases have operated in new ways to skirt restrictions on their efforts to influence stimulus spending.

The White House explanations for the lack of reported meetings are the same excuses — "It's an ongoing process" and "we're learning as we go" — that we've heard time and time again.

There is little uniformity in the encounters that are reported. The Department of Education's reports were detailed, but the Department of Energy produced only inscrutable scrawls. The Department of Homeland Security, the State Department and Veterans Affairs have not reported any meetings.

Unfortunately, it gets worse. Because the disclosure rules only affect federal officials and registered lobbyists, lobbyists are now coaching their clients about how to be "involved" with federal officials and still skirt the disclosure rules.

Despite the late summer attempt at closing this loophole, federal officials still allow unreported meetings between "interested parties" and federal officials if the money is not yet in the process of being disbursed.

How bad is it? Even David Wenhold, president of the American League of Lobbyists, is blasting the President for the loophole:

"At least if you're having a meeting with a lobbyist it's written down," Wenhold said. "There's $787 billion out there and you're telling me no one is lobbying for it? It's a whole lot of spin."

It is a bad sign for government transparency when the head of a lobbyist trade group has to point out Obama's broken disclosure promises.

The Lion of the Web

Of all the things Ted Kennedy managed to accomplish during his extensive Senate career, one of the most lasting was his pioneering use of the internet to reach out to his constituents.

As the Sunlight Foundation's Paul Blumenthal explains, Kennedy was approached in 1993 with the suggestion that he create an online web presence so his constituents could stay in contact with him. He signed off on the idea, saying, "If you can find a way for me to reach constituents using computer networks, do it." Upon launching the website, Kennedy became the first Senator online.

While his first website might look outdated now, it was revolutionary for its time.

In this day and age a politician without a Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube page is the one behind the times. Thanks to Senator Kennedy for recognizing the importance of the internet in keeping elected officials accountable and accessible.

Transparency in health care pricing

The (lack of) transparency in health care pricing has received little attention in the health care debate.

As explained in Forbes, our current health care pricing system lacks many of the features that increase efficiency and lower prices in other private exchanges:

Free-market economics is predicated on the idea that people make informed choices about what they consume through prices, which signal the value of goods and services. Unlike the markets for books, cars, groceries and other goods, pricing for health care procedures is done behind the scenes by insurance companies, medical providers and the government.

What do we have instead? A bizarre, ad-hoc and esoteric system in which doctors and hospitals set "list" prices for procedures and insurers set rates that determine how much each party pays.

This has led to a system in which "doctors don't have to compete to provide good care cheaply, and both insurance companies and the government are able to exercise considerable market power in negotiating prices."

So, what should be done? Give people more knowledge about the cost of their procedures. This would help lower prices and increase efficiency as we would use our power as discriminating consumers to seek out the best and most efficient deals.

One way to become more knowledgeable about price is to stop relying on health insurance to pay for routine medical expenses and instead use it only for emergencies like we use other forms of insurance.

A fantastic piece in The Atlantic explains that using health insurance for routine, predicable medical expenses has perverted the price system beyond recognition:

We’ve become so used to health insurance that we don’t realize how absurd that is. We can’t imagine paying for gas with our auto-insurance policy, or for our electric bills with our homeowners insurance, but we all assume that our regular checkups and dental cleanings will be covered at least partially by insurance. Most pregnancies are planned, and deliveries are predictable many months in advance, yet they’re financed the same way we finance fixing a car after a wreck—through an insurance claim.

Health care reform is a complex beast and there are many moving parts in it besides health care pricing transparency. However, transparency is a key to understanding and containing costs.

Shining a light onto campaign finance reporting

In today's Las Vegas Sun there is an op-ed by Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller that gives a great overview of the dismal state of campaign finance transparency in Nevada.

The transparency that is essential to good government has been clouded for too long in Nevada, and while many states are taking steps to increase transparency, here in the Silver State we are making little or no progress. Nevada’s laws regarding political campaigns, particularly the laws regarding campaign finance disclosure, are ranked among some of the nation’s worst.

Secretary Miller also includes some suggestions about online voter registration, which would be a disaster, but his points about campaign finance reform are spot on.

Make sure to read the whole piece to fully understand why Nevada needs a comprehensive reform effort to "clear the air" of entrenched powers and finally shine some light on the black hole of campaign funding.

Cash for Clunkers a success ... or is it?

As you likely have heard by now, the Cash for Clunkers trade-in program — in which you can receive a government handout for trading in older, less fuel efficient cars for newer, more fuel efficient ones — has blown through $1 billion in less than a week.

Now the Obama administration is making the case for $2 billion more in funding to keep the program running.

However, the "most" transparent administration ever has yet to release the data which would support — or undermine — its claims that the program is a success.

And make no mistake about it, the emphasis is definitely on undermining it. Just as no kid hides their "A+" report cards, this administration would be the first out of the gate if the program was half as successful as they claim it is.

Before the Senate takes any action, it should insist on seeing the cold hard facts about "Cash for Clunkers."