Covering the costs of war

One of my favorite quotes by Winston Churchill, the master of the epigram, goes: “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” He’s not saying anything blasphemous about democracy, but pointing out that for democracies to work effectively, voters need to be informed.

I completely agree. And that’s why the issue of governmental transparency is so important.

It seems so long ago, but when both candidates were campaigning each promised to increase transparency in the government. Admittedly, I didn’t believe either of them – I’m too cynical to think any campaign promise will be fulfilled.

But since President Barack Obama entered office, I’ve been happily surprised.
Within days, he set forth two executive orders and three presidential memorandums, including a reversal of a Bush administration policy that made it easier for governmental agencies to deny requests for records through the Freedom of Information Act.

Thee actions also led to the repeal of an executive order that allowed former presidents to claim executive privilege even after leaving office.

Again, I’m too cynical, so I thought it was a quick effort to maintain the face of change and show people he’s already mixing it up. “It’ll last till people calm down,” I thought.
OK, I was again happily surprised last week when reviewing Obama’s budget proposal.Well, happy in one aspect.

Obama has decided to put the price of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on the annual federal budget, further increasing transparency. Before the costs for the two wars was buried  in emergency supplemental bills.

The Bush administration got a lot of undue criticism, but it’s been rightfully pointed out that hiding the costs of war from the American people is misleading.

I’m not going to act like the federal budget was the only way information could become available to us – it’s the message it sends (also, it made the budget deficit seem smaller than it actually was).

Furthermore, I was especially glad to see Obama had stuck to his commitment at a time when he didn’t have to, a time when the public discourse wasn’t mentioning it.
(Of course, with this budget’s huge spending increase maybe he just figured “might as well just tack it on.” Sorry, the cynicism is coming out again.)

But it doesn’t stop there. According to Obama’s Freedom of Information Act memo on the matter of transparency, “(Government) agencies should take affirmative steps to make information public.

They should not wait for specific requests from the public ... Disclosure should be timely.”

So not only are we going to be given access to information, but they’re going to let us know when something comes up?

Even if the last bit about requiring government agencies to report information is a little too optimistic, the rest of the measures for increased transparency that the Obama administration has put into effect so far should be applauded for their efficacy, promptness, and independence from press pressure.