Why Does George Bush Hate Honest Government?

Shareholders would never accept a corporation's financial statement if it hadn't been independently audited, so why should taxpayers? Fortunately, since 1978, the Inspector General law has been on the books, which means that government agencies are routinely subject to the government equivalent of the independent audit. Those inspector generals have, for the most part, been busy under this administration, uncovering waste, fraud, and political malfeasance. Still, the law is due for a tweaking to keep the politics and corruption out of the process, and the White House has already promised to veto any such improvements (no surprise there). From an editorial in today's NY Times:

In a bipartisan rebuff of White House hubris, the House has overwhelmingly endorsed an overhaul of the inspector general process to insulate it from the waste, fraud and political meddling that are a hallmark of the Bush administration.

The vital measure would strengthen the independence of inspectors general so they can blow the whistle on internal agency abuses without fear of retribution. It sets seven-year terms and narrows the grounds for removing an inspector general to specified causes, not political vagaries. It also strengthens the budget resources of investigators, and creates an oversight council that would encourage professionalism but also investigate allegations about abusive inspectors. ...

The House voted 404 to 11 for reforms, despite the White House’s threat of a veto. The Senate should show comparable determination to see fraud and abuse weeded out by in-agency investigators.

It's hard to imagine people not voting for a measure that would help root out waste and fraud in government, but then I thought it would be hard for people to vote against access to health care for children. For that reason, I suggest you contact both of your senators and urge them to vote for an independent and professional inspector general system.