The RAT Hiding Inside the Stimulus Bill

[Middy]

The RAT hiding deep inside the stimulus bill

By: Byron York (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bios/39293527.html)
Chief Political Correspondent
02/20/09 6:29 AM EST


The far-reaching — and potentially dangerous — provision that no one knows about.

You’ve heard a lot about the astonishing spending in the $787 billion economic stimulus bill, signed into law this week by President Barack Obama. But 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.

When Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, a longtime champion of inspectors general, read the words “conduct or refrain from conducting,” alarm bells went off. The language means that the board — whose chairman will be appointed by the president — can reach deep inside a federal agency and tell an inspector general to lay off some particularly sensitive subject. Or, conversely, it can tell the inspector general to go after a tempting political target.

“This strikes at the heart of the independence of inspectors general,” Grassley told me this week, in a phone conversation between visits to town meetings in rural Iowa. “Anytime an inspector general has somebody questioning his authority, it tends to dampen the aggressiveness with which they pursue something, particularly if it’s going to make the incumbent administration look bad.”

Cont'd: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/The-RAT-hiding-deep-inside-the-stimulus-bill-39805642.html


In view of Walpingate, this disclosure is most interesting. More:
http://www.redstate.com/

[clearcarbon]

Elections have consequences.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v416/clearcarbon/Lavin/vote08rats300.jpg

[hailreagan]

Unreal !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ModerateVoice]

Nixon is starting to look like a saint after 6 months of Obama.

[Conservative16]

This is up there with the Czars. Where in the constitution is this power granted?

[diamond dave]

O couldn't wait to get into office so he could undermine one of the few laws that he help pass while in the Senate. What is really sad is that this doesn't surprise me. That is sad.

[diamond dave]

This is up there with the Czars. Where in the constitution is this power granted?

"Constitution"? What is this that you speak?

[hailreagan]

OK................I'm ready for some witty pseudo-intellectual liberal spin......GO !


Crickets.



Hello?

[clearcarbon]

This is up there with the Czars. Where in the constitution is this power granted?

Perhaps in something left behind
on the W-House welcome mat.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v416/clearcarbon/kery/Obma/shoes300.jpg

[waynevan]

Corruption is now officially mandated in the lawbooks.

[WildRose]

The inmates are now officially running the prison ... .

[CaptC]

Looks like King Barack I is gonna get his "hope and change" by totally destroying everything our forefathers worked, fought, and died for. :wall:

[Camp]

Nixon is starting to look like a saint after 6 months of Obama.


Ain't that the truth.

[Kegler300]

A "real American" would not be trying so hard to destroy America. Those muslim roots, Marxist ideology, questionable citizenship, etc., are all coming together and starting to develope a picture...

[waynevan]

Guess nobody wants to defend the indefensible. Buyer's remorse should be eating Obama voters alive.

[utmom]

This actually makes since. Obama is the king of two-faced politics.

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama won so USSR East aka Dems get to rewrite the Constitution

[less right]

It does not require "some witty pseudo-intellectual liberal" to understand this, only basic reading comprehension skills.

Contrary to York's opening paragraph, this board does not have authority to "investigate - or not investigate - throughout the federal government."

SEC. 1224. POWERS OF THE BOARD.

...The Board shall coordinate the audits and investigations of spending under this Act by agency inspectors general.

SEC. 1231 BOARD TERMINATION.

The Board shall terminate 12 months after 90 percent of the funds made available under this Act have been expended...

According to law, the board is temporary (12 mos./90%) and limited in scope (only this Act).

[b]SEC. 1227. PRESERVATION OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF INSPECTORS GENERAL

Inspectors general shall retain independent authority to determine whether to conduct an audit or investigation of spending under this Act. If the Board requests that an inspector general conduct or refrain from conducting an audit or investigation and the inspector general rejects the request in whole or in part, the inspector general shall, with 30 days after the receipt of the request, submit to the Board, the agency head, and the congressional committees of jurisdiction a report explaining why the inspector general has rejected the request in whole or in part.

The inspector general gets the final word on whether or not to honor a request. This section just requires that they explain their decision.

It reads like another level of complexity and bureaucracy. Supporters probably envision it as another set of eyes ensuring accountability. Detractors (like Byron York) see this as "far reaching and dangerous". As written, it doesn't seem as far reaching and dangerous as York makes it sound.

[waynevan]

It does not require "some witty pseudo-intellectual liberal" to understand this, only basic reading comprehension skills.

Contrary to York's opening paragraph, this board does not have authority to "investigate - or not investigate - throughout the federal government."



According to law, the board is temporary (12 mos./90%) and limited in scope (only this Act).



The inspector general gets the final word on whether or not to honor a request. This section just requires that they explain their decision.

It reads like another level of complexity and bureaucracy. Supporters probably envision it as another set of eyes ensuring accountability. Detractors (like Byron York) see this as "far reaching and dangerous". As written, it doesn't seem as far reaching and dangerous as York makes it sound.

It absolutely is dangerous, especially in light of three IG's having now been fired. It will CLEARLY be viewed as going up against the Obama machine and risking your job. If you can't see that it is because you choose not to.

They have inserted a powerful incentive to avoid investigations that the administration "wouldn't like". They want nothing less than obsequious sycophants in the position of Inspectors General.

[animalnut]

It does not require "some witty pseudo-intellectual liberal" to understand this, only basic reading comprehension skills.

Contrary to York's opening paragraph, this board does not have authority to "investigate - or not investigate - throughout the federal government."



According to law, the board is temporary (12 mos./90%) and limited in scope (only this Act).




The inspector general gets the final word on whether or not to honor a request. This section just requires that they explain their decision.

It reads like another level of complexity and bureaucracy. Supporters probably envision it as another set of eyes ensuring accountability. Detractors (like Byron York) see this as "far reaching and dangerous". As written, it doesn't seem as far reaching and dangerous as York makes it sound.

It does make you wonder though, when Obama fires an AG that investigated, and found fraud in Calif. Oh wait - Michelle Obama spoke there this week. I get it now. It would have caused some tension, and oh yeah, the guy is a good friend of Obama's.

[less right]

It absolutely is dangerous, especially in light of three IG's having now been fired. It will CLEARLY be viewed as going up against the Obama machine and risking your job. If you can't see that it is because you choose not to.

They have inserted a powerful incentive to avoid investigations that the administration "wouldn't like". They want nothing less than obsequious sycophants in the position of Inspectors General.

It does make you wonder though, when Obama fires an AG that investigated, and found fraud in Calif. Oh wait - Michelle Obama spoke there this week. I get it now. It would have caused some tension, and oh yeah, the guy is a good friend of Obama's.

Almost any legislation has the potential for abuse. That said, this legislation wasn't necessary for Obama to terminate the IG's in question. Also, this legislation provides a paper trail that may come back and bite the administration should they attempt to terminate an IG based upon differing investigation priorities.

I'm not defending the stimulus, and it remains to be seen whether or not this added layer of oversight provides focus and accountability, or meddling and coercive power. The potential is there for either.

That I choose not to see the abuse is because it hasn't occurred yet, not because I refuse to see it.

[agent_86]

back in the US... back in the US... Back in the USSR!

[mechanicon]

Almost any legislation has the potential for abuse. That said, this legislation wasn't necessary for Obama to terminate the IG's in question. Also, this legislation provides a paper trail that may come back and bite the administration should they attempt to terminate an IG based upon differing investigation priorities.

I'm not defending the stimulus, and it remains to be seen whether or not this added layer of oversight provides focus and accountability, or meddling and coercive power. The potential is there for either.

That I choose not to see the abuse is because it hasn't occurred yet, not because I refuse to see it.



It seems to me that this administration, has added, or plans to add "another layer of oversight", to quite a few agencies and departments since taking over...Financial, Health, Energy, the Auto industries, unelected Czars, etc, etc...In my opinion, ANOTHER LAYER, can simply be translated as ANOTHER BOSS...Not always a bad thing, but think about it, how many people feel comfortable enough to go against what their bosses say...We have even had to pass LAWS to protect them, i.e. Whistleblower laws...
Instead of ENFORCEMENT of EXISTING laws and standards, such as SEC oversight laws, IG reporting, or even just repairing the existing Healthcare System, we are now expanding gov't at an alarming rate...And it all seems to point in only one direction...MORE taxation & government control in almost every aspect of American life.

[mboncher]

A "real American" would not be trying so hard to destroy America. Those muslim roots, Marxist ideology, questionable citizenship, etc., are all coming together and starting to develope a picture...
>Cough< Barney Frank... >Coughgag< Nancy Pelosi... >HACK!coughgagbarf< Harry Reid....

[Socrates]

It does not require "some witty pseudo-intellectual liberal" to understand this, only basic reading comprehension skills.

Contrary to York's opening paragraph, this board does not have authority to "investigate - or not investigate - throughout the federal government."
Perhaps you should supplement your reading comprehension skills with some reasoning skills and healthy skepticism.

For what honest purpose would such a board ever find it necessary to ask an independent IG to refrain from investigating something he thought worthy of investigation?

According to law, the board is temporary (12 mos./90%) and limited in scope (only this Act).
Which is "only" a trillion or so dollars of spending...so far. Whenever any entity in Washington is given a power they did not previously have, they hold onto it for dear life. That a sunset is written in only means that a reason will be concocted to extend (and probably expand) the authority at that point.

The inspector general gets the final word on whether or not to honor a request. This section just requires that they explain their decision.
Did Mr. Walpin have the final word?

It reads like another level of complexity and bureaucracy. Supporters probably envision it as another set of eyes ensuring accountability. Detractors (like Byron York) see this as "far reaching and dangerous". As written, it doesn't seem as far reaching and dangerous as York makes it sound.
To someone with experience in Washington it sounds quite dangerous.

[waynevan]

Almost any legislation has the potential for abuse. That said, this legislation wasn't necessary for Obama to terminate the IG's in question. Also, this legislation provides a paper trail that may come back and bite the administration should they attempt to terminate an IG based upon differing investigation priorities.

I'm not defending the stimulus, and it remains to be seen whether or not this added layer of oversight provides focus and accountability, or meddling and coercive power. The potential is there for either.

That I choose not to see the abuse is because it hasn't occurred yet, not because I refuse to see it.

Not saying abuse of this particular law has occurred yet either. What I am saying tho', is that the method, or more accurately, the ENTICEMENT to abuse was written right into the law. This is the government we are talking about here, remember? I find it unfathomable that anyone would find this acceptable.

[less right]

mechanicon ~ Socrates ~ waynevan

I essentially agree with much of what you say. I can see the potential (rather than enticement) for great political abuse. But like the Patriot Act, potential does not necessarily mean abuse. If this Board actually improves accountability and performance, then I will see it as a good thing.

I think any requests by this Board should be open to public scrutiny (although in an on-going investigation that may need to come after-the-fact). I'm not trying to justify the stimulus, but just commenting on this particular provision.

I think it necessary to take into account factual discrepancies like the author's statement, "throughout the federal government", when it only applies to stimulus monies; or pointing to a "trillion or so dollars" when it's actually $710B, or using Walpin as an example, when that example shows that Obama doesn't need this bill or this Board to terminate IG's.

I always appreciate the civil presentation of alternative points of view.