President-elect Barack Obama campaigned and won on a platform of change. The overwhelming voter turnout to elect Mr. Obama shows that change is exactly what Americans want. Of course, different Americans are looking for different kinds of change, but there are fundamental changes that the Obama administration needs to make. One area where change is desperately needed is in governmental transparency. If Mr. Obama has the courage and determination to follow through on his campaign pledge of change, he can make significant strides in changing the opaque nature of government under the Bush administration to a transparent government that is of, by, and for the people, particularly in the areas of spending, relationships, and security.
According to the Office of Management and Budget, the 2008 Congress passed a total of 11,524 earmarks totalling $16.5 billion. Many in government and the private sector who benefit from these earmarks may remark that the 2008 figures represent a drastic reduction in earmark spending from just two years ago. Others might mention that $16.5 billion is only a fraction of the nearly $3 trillion budget proposed by President Bush. This type of thinking is exemplary of the problems in government when it comes to money. In the current economic crisis, $16.5 billion appears to be a significant amount of money to the average American taxpayer (because it is!). For a population of approximately 305,754,000, total earmark spending represents about $53.00 for every American. For a family of three, that's $159.00 - a month of groceries, 4.5 tanks of gas, two weeks of heating fuel, well, you get the picture. American taxpayers - the ones who pay for the $16.5 billion in pet political projects - should be the ones deciding how that money is better spent. The problem politicians have with that is most would choose to feed their children or heat their homes rather than give money to fund obscure projects like cranberry research in southeastern Massachusetts, for example. And this doesn't even begin to touch on the apparent mismanagement of the almost $1 trillion bailout package that passed during the election. An Obama administration needs to develop an outlet, preferably online, where American taxpayers can find out exactly how their money is being spent, and it should include a function whereby voters can express their opinions.
In 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney chaired the National Energy Policy Development Group. Initially, the Bush administration report indicated that only members of government were part of the group. According to Source Watch, news reports indicated that corporate energy executives participated in meetings, and later indications showed that "at least 40 meetings with interest groups, most of them from energy-producing industries" had occurred. Such tactics are exemplary of Bush administration tactics to mislead the American public on the nature of officals' relationships with private sector corporate interests. On his website, President-elect Obama's priorities on ethics aim at the heart of this issue; his top three priorities on ethics include creating a centralized database on lobbying information for voters to search, an independent watchdog group on the issue, and a prohibition on executive branch employees working on issues directly related to a former employer or client. The last of these is particularly relevent in light of Vice-president Cheney's actions on the energy taskforce, since Cheney himself is a former energy executive in the private sector. For government to be transparent, voters must be informed about the past and present relationships that can and do affect officials' decisions.
In the post-9/11 world, few issues are as important as security. Americans need to know that their government is working to keep them safe as well as specific steps being taken to maintain that safety. But also, Americans have a right to know about missteps and failed efforts. The Bush administration has stonewalled efforts by the public, the press, and even congress to access records and information about security. The primary method the administration has used to limit access has been executive privilege. Essentially, the President has claimed the right to keep presidential information secret for no other reason than because he is president. However, Mr. Bush has even gone so far as to claim that any executive-branch records may be kept secret indefinitely because ultimately executive-branch agencies report to the president. For instance, the Bush administration claimed executive privilege in order to keep the records and participants of the Cheney Energy Taskforce out of public hands - a policy issue that affects not only national security, but also the economy. Granted, there is information that the President has that would be inappropriate for public disclosure, but there are already policies in place for the classification of defense and security data. And in instances of a legitimate need-to-know, President Bush has continued to drag his feet, most notably on information requested and needed by the 9/11 Commission in order to make recommendations for improved national security. Citizens understand the need to keep national security secrets and would be forgiving if information needs to be kept secret, but they also expect a coherent and reasonable argument for why the information should not be public. To say "You can't know because I said so" is condescending and unbecoming of a public servant.
Americans want to trust their government. In a free and open society, trust in government is contingent on leaders being free and open with the public. This is particularly true in the areas of economy, relationships, and security. In electing Barack Obama, Americans have clearly chosen a different path than what has been charted over the last eight, opaque years. Barack Obama has pledged transparency in his campaign and he would do well to follow through with that promise as president. Voters not only deserve free access to information, but access is also necessary for them to be responsible watchdogs of those who govern. That's what the democratic process is about, after all.