Transparency
November 27th, 2009 by Derrick DePledgeOne of our readers found some irony in a donor pitch from the Grassroot Institute, the conservative-to-libertarian public-policy group. An anonymous donor has agreed to match donations to help Grassroot with a government transparency Web site. Anonymous? Transparency?
From Grassroot:
Thanks to an anonymous donor, for the next ten days, all donations for our government transparency project will be matched 100%! With your help, we can reach our $30,000 goal.
Jamie Story, the Grassroot president, laughed when we asked her about it today. “That’s funny you say that,” she said.
“The difference, obviously, between our donors and taxpayers is that taxpayers are forced by the government to give for things that they may not approve of, whereas our donors are giving because they like what we do.”
Story said Grassroot is doing a government transparency project in part because the state scrapped plans for a Web site that was supposed to show how taxpayer money is spent.
November 28th, 2009 at 6:57 am
The conservative "think tanks" (tax dodging P.R firms) have been funded all along by the usual suspects: petroleum industry, tobacco, gun lobby, automobile industry, etc. They just don't like to talk about it because they like to pass themselves off as "non-partisan" and without a specific agenda. These guys got their panties in a twist when the Mayor outed their new president Jamie Story as having come from a large Texas-based conservative operation funded by petroleum companies hell bent on killing rail in Dallas, Austin and Houston.
These characters call themselves a "research" outfit, and lavish titles on their regulars. Cliff Slater and Panos Prevedouros are resident "scholars."
They remind me of the "Jack Acid Society" in Lil Abner (am I dating myself again?)
November 28th, 2009 at 7:08 am
Dam...I am getting old. It was Walt Kelly's Pogo that had the Jack Acid Society.
November 28th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Aloha ~
Irony? I don't consider the Grassroot Institute (GI)'s pitch ironic ... it's hypocritical. They call on government to be transparent, which is a laudable goal, yet cannot behave this way in return. This is the definition of hypocrisy ... "do what I say, not what I do."
This is the flaw in the libertarian/conservative/Republican platform. Jamie Story posts an article on GI's website, "No More Taxes to Stop Furloughs."
She claims DOE is full of dead weight in a bloated bureaucracy. Ms. Story does not account for the explosion of costs related to Special Education nor does she display sufficient economic skills to adjust for basic inflation in her 10-year time series review of costs.
Is the DOE bloated? Likely ... yet insurance companies that manage our health care are bloated as well. They have overhead ranging from 18% to 40% while government-run Medicare has a 2% to 6% overhead.
There are problems with both the private and public sectors. Yet GI and these advocates only pursue a selfish and anti-social agenda - no more taxes from our most rich - as we do not care about YOUR kids. They likely send theirs to expensive private schools.
I have one suggestion for Ms. Story and activists at GI. Develop your own system of school where you accept 100% of students - as public schools must do. Accept Special Needs children as well.
This year's average cost per pupil figure is about $10,500. Show us how you would do it ... not how you "SAY" you would do it. Show us how your system would increase proficiency. We are willing to watch this experiment.
Most of America is frustrated with our education system. We are waiting for your innovation and creativity. Build your schools and our Keiki will come.
Stop pointing fingers and the uneducated blaming. Invest and build. Put your money where your mouth is, as the saying goes. End this incessant whining about public schools and build your own. Private schools do not count, as they limit admission to the best of the best. Charter schools currently have failure rates equal or above our public school system.
We're waiting ... but not patiently, Jamie Story.
A*L*O*H*A
November 28th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Yeah, do as I say, not as I do... that's the ticket.
Sounds exactly like the type of mumbo jumbo a government functionary would say in denying trransparency applies to them.
November 28th, 2009 at 11:14 am
All of these posts are missing a key point. An individual donor has a legal right to privacy when spending money that they have earned legally. Perhaps they have seen the personal attacks on those going against the status quo and would like to support a cause without being harassed.
Our government, however, does not make its own money, it takes it from its citizens. It is our money that they our spending, not theirs. They, therefore, are subject to different laws of disclosure--as they should be.
If anyone can offer a good reason why we should not know how our government is spending our money, please post it.
Thanks.
November 28th, 2009 at 11:18 am
P.S. Bongo has chosen not to be transparent with his identity on this forum. This is a perfectly legal and ethical decision, and nobody has called him a hypocrite. Just some food for thought.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:21 am
The difference is the origin of the money being spent. We are allowed as free citizens to spend the money that we have earned at our own discretion (with some limitations). The government does not earn money. It takes the money that we earn and spend it. Since it is not their money, they are held to a different standard.
"Bongo" has chosen to remain anonymous in his postings, which is fine, assuming that he is not doing so on the government dime. If he were being paid by a government entity, his anonymity would be questionable. There is a difference.
November 30th, 2009 at 10:36 am
I like transparency in everything done by the government or elected officials (in their official or related capacities). However, private organizations and citizens are not subject to the sale rules (in my book). The donor and institute are well within their rights to keep the donation under wraps.
Aloha,
Keahi
December 1st, 2009 at 6:52 am
Pila, Bongo participates in blogs from the comfort of his own home.
December 1st, 2009 at 7:00 am
My problem with the Grassroot Institute and all "think tanks" in general is that they are simply propaganda mills disguised as research institutions. They hide behind laws meant for academic reasearch, such as non-profit tax protection and indemnification from political organizational disclosure. They funnel millions of dollars of special interest money intended for specific political action and subvert the laws meant to disclose the authors of politically motivated activities.
December 1st, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Bongo,
That is what I thought, I was merely making the point that privacy is a citizens right, not a government right. Now if Grassroot gets government money, then there is an issue.
It is a bit simplistic to say something like "all "think tanks"" don't you think? If you have specific experience with think-tanks or some particular knowledge of think-tank shenanigans, then by all means state them.
Privacy in political action is an essential right for a free citizen. That is why voting is done in private, and also why anonymous private donations can be made.
Just remember that if there is corruption (and I am sure there are examples) in a think-tank, that the think-tank does not have any power over citizens. Government does, and that is why they are more dangerous. Think tanks can end up in court. The government, generally does not.
December 1st, 2009 at 6:28 pm
I agree that government has a higher standard of transparency to uphold...however there are rules about paid media and campaign contribution limits...rules with loop-holes that various organizations exploit. Not talking about an average citizens rights here...I'm talking about large corporations playing in the shadows.
December 2nd, 2009 at 8:25 am
Aloha ~
When a private group acts in the economic marketplace they should have a reasonable right to privacy ... yet when a private group acts within the political system they should be transparent.
Would we accept Al Qaeda setting up a front group called the Grassroot Institute and acting within our political system? In fact how do we know the Grassroot Institute's secret donor isn't an Islamic extremist group? I don't agree to such a principle.
Of course who am I to talk about transparency in a forum where most people hide their identity?
A*L*O*H*A