September marks the 20-year anniversary of a law that changed how Americans see their government’s money. The Bipartisan Accountability and Transparency Act created USAspending.gov, a website that lets anyone track federal spending, including agency budgets and grants. The law was bipartisan, spearheaded by the late Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL).
The law was meant to be a receipt for taxpayers. Instead, it turned out to be a receipt with no itemized bill attached. A new analysis finds that the federal government cannot trace more than two-thirds of its grant spending back to the local level. The data simply do not exist to show how Medicaid dollars land in individual towns.
The Coburn-Obama Receipt
Coburn and Obama backed the law together, a rare moment of shared purpose in Washington. The website it created shows agency spending and grants, giving citizens a window into how their money moves through the federal budget.
The idea was simple: show the numbers. Let voters see what the government spends and on what. The law set a standard for transparency that has lasted two decades.
What the law did not do is enforce the details. The numbers are posted, but the underlying records often do not exist.
What the Data Show
The Project On Government Oversight analyzed federal grant funding and found that more than 74% of the money reviewed could not be tracked to the local level. That means the federal government awards money to intermediary recipients, who then further disperse funds to beneficiaries. The data are vague, and that vagueness makes fraud and waste harder to detect.
There is no data available to show how taxpayer dollars support Medicaid recipients in individual towns. The federal government pays companies to improve broadband access, but neither of those programs has published where the funds were spent.
Sean Moulton is a senior policy analyst at the Project On Government Oversight.
The Expedited Transparency Act
Reps. Josh Brecheen (R-OK) and Jimmy Panetta (D-CA) have introduced the Expedited Transparency Act. The bill would shorten the reporting period for agencies to file to USAspending.gov from the current 30-day requirement down to three days.
The idea is straightforward: faster reporting means fresher information. Citizens should know sooner what their government is doing with their money.
John Hart, CEO of Mars Hill Strategies and a former staffer to the late Sen. Coburn, has supported the push for better data. His work with Coburn on the original transparency legislation gives him a direct stake in making sure the promise of that law is kept.
Why This Matters Now
Two decades after the law passed, the gap between the ideal of transparency and the reality of data availability has widened. The federal government collects vast sums of money and distributes them through a network of intermediaries. Each layer of distribution loses some of the record of where the money started.
The Medicaid example is telling. A citizen who wants to know whether Medicaid recipients in their town received their fair share has no official record to check.
The broadband program faces the same problem. The program pays companies to improve access, but it has not published where the funds were spent. Without that information, it is impossible to know whether the money reached the places it was supposed to reach.
What Needs to Change
The Expedited Transparency Act is a start, but it addresses only the timing of reporting. It does not require agencies to keep the records in the first place. The broader problem is that the federal government does not consistently collect the data it needs to produce meaningful itemized bills.
Here is what needs to happen:
- Require agencies to keep detailed records of every transaction, from award to final recipient.
- Mandate that all federal grant spending be traceable to the local level.
- Create a single, searchable database that links federal spending to specific communities.
- Enforce penalties on agencies that fail to report accurately or on time.
- Give citizens tools to verify the data themselves.
Each step would move the country closer to the kind of transparency Coburn and Obama envisioned in 2006. The receipt exists. The itemized bill does not.
The Paper’s View
Clay Tribune believes in small government and less control over people’s lives. It supports transparency as a tool for holding power accountable. When the government spends money, citizens should know where it went.
The Coburn-Obama legislation was a genuine attempt to make the federal budget visible. It has not lived up to that promise. The gap between the ideal and the reality is now two decades wide.
The Expedited Transparency Act is a modest proposal, but it is the right direction. Faster reporting is better than slow reporting, and three days is far better than 30. But speed alone will not fix the data gap.
The bigger problem is that the federal government does not consistently collect the data it needs to produce meaningful itemized bills. That requires a change in how agencies operate, not just a change in reporting deadlines.
The paper supports the Expedited Transparency Act as a step forward. It also supports the broader push for better data collection. The federal budget belongs to the people who pay for it, and they deserve to see it in full.
The anniversary of the Bipartisan Accountability and Transparency Act is a chance to remember what was promised. It is also a chance to demand what has not yet arrived.
| Event | Date |
|---|---|
| Law enacted | 20 years ago |
| Analysis released | Recent |
| Reporting deadline today | 30 days |
| Proposed deadline | Three days |
| Anniversary month | September |
The table sets out the gap between what the law established and what the data show. The law set a standard of visibility. The data have not kept pace.
Where the paper stands
The paper backs smaller government and transparency, and is against agencies writing their own authority and mandates on private life, even when they were created through bipartisan effort.
The data gap is not a failure of good intentions. It is a failure of execution. The federal government awards money through a network of intermediaries, and each layer of distribution loses some of the record of where the money started. There is no data available to show how Medicaid dollars land in individual towns, and the broadband program has not published where its funds were spent. Without that information, it is impossible to know whether the money reached the places it was supposed to reach.
The Expedited Transparency Act is a modest proposal, but it is the right direction. Faster reporting is better than slow reporting, and three days is far better than 30. But speed alone will not fix the data gap. The bigger problem is that the federal government does not consistently collect the data it needs to produce meaningful itemized bills. That requires a change in how agencies operate, not just a change in reporting deadlines.
Source material: “Obama and Coburn built the receipt. It’s time to demand the itemized bill,” the Washington Examiner.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.