SCHMIDT: But you could just publish — you could just publish what people are doing, and we could figure out where the money’s going. All you have to do is put these things on Web sites.
FRANK: They are going to be.
SCHMIDT: One of the ways — in fact, one of the issues with TARP was it wasn’t generally known where the money went. If we simply — as part of your work got every single dollar and where it went, we could prove whether your argument is right or your argument is right.
DEMINT: But you assume we can actually track that stuff.
(CROSSTALK)
FRANK: Excuse me. Can I just say, first of all, our guys — I would say, putting on a Web site, you’re not entirely disinterested…
SCHMIDT: Of course.
FRANK: … but that’s OK. Fred might want us to mail them to everybody, deliver them — deliver them in a package. But the point is, we’re going to do that.
In fact, the new inspector general, who was set up — we’ve set up a special inspector general. Confirmation was delayed in the Senate. And Mr. Barofsky is now about to demand of every recipient of TARP, past and future, that they do exactly what you say and that we will publish on our Web site.
So there was — I agree. It was not — I think it was better to have had it than not, but it is going to be done.
SCHMIDT: But my point is, you could change — you could change the way we…
(CROSSTALK)
FRANK: I’m saying we’re doing it.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHMIDT: … change the way…
FRANK: Did I not agree with you?
SCHMIDT: Yes.
(LAUGHTER)
FRANK: We’re doing it.
SCHMIDT: Chairman, the fact of the matter is, that if the government simply told everybody what you all were doing…
(CROSSTALK)
SCHMIDT: … and then people could track it and figure out whether it’s actually working…
(CROSSTALK)
FRANK: But we are going to do that.
SCHMIDT: … we could get through these classic fights that you all have.
STEPHANOPOULOS: As you know…
FRANK: Well, no, I differ — differ with you on that. Please. Let’s not obviate democracy. There are legitimate different philosophical differences between Jim DeMint and myself. Please don’t treat them as some sideshow.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And we will hear — we will hear more about the…
FRANK: They’re important to democracy.
Rep. Frank, may I (respectfully) suggest that the concept of transparency and an informed government is not going to obviate democracy – rather, it will bring more power to the people to be able to ask their representatives to be more accountable. Think of it as an ROI on government action.
In Eric’s world, ROI is all about the long-term value of the marketing campaigns that improve over time. In politics, action in DC is (usually) about the short-term stimulus and political theater. I voted for a change in DC – one about transparency, responsibility and integrity – and all elected officials should know…the election is in 18 months.
Sanford,
Reading the transcript, it appears that Frank is in agreement with transparency (“we will publish on our Web site.”) Is comment about “obviate democracy” appears in response to Schmidt’s civic plea to “could get through [bypass] these classic fights that you all have.”
Jon
Great post! I watched something similar on Meet The Press last Sunday. I think you’re right that transparency is a ROI. I don’t think this will happen unless there is tremendous pressure from multiple constiuencies around the country. Even if there was a website built I doubt it would be maintained for very long, most likely it would be abandoned by the next chair of the committee etc. There would also be some types of national security issues that may arise, showing people how you spend your money is a bit like showing your hand in a game of poker. In fact I don’t think this would work in the long term unless it was passed into law. But I like the idea a lot.