Do you think Obama has done a good job with the financial transparency of our tax money?

Financial transparency within the government has become much easier to manage than before. The Internet has provided the public with the possibility of checking how tax payer’s money is distributed among different sectors of our government an addition to how it’s being spent. That way, public officials who are held accountable can become transparent behind the walls of government.

Transparency procedures include financial disclosures, statements, open meetings, budgetary meetings, audits etc. Transparency is a good idea, and thanks to the Internet, members of the media can now televise transparency, and broadcast all government expenditure to the public.

As tax payers, we want to know how the tax money is being used and how every penny is accounted for. However, transparency is not a new idea; some would argue that it was Republican Governor. Matt Blunt of Missouri or Bobby Jindal of Louisiana who started making government expenditure available on the Internet, but is it really the same transparency that we came to know under the Obama’s administration?

Transparency in politic is the process by which officials of the government set rules and regulations in order to monitor how tax payer’s money exchanges hand within different branches of our government. Therefore, without knowing how much money was transmitted originally from the initial hand, we couldn’t call that transparency; this would be more like pretentiousness. Making unjustified or excessive claim that transparency exist when in fact no one truly knows how much money was initially transferred from the hand of the Federal Reserve.

The possibility of tracking every step of that money from the hands of the FR to local & states government is precisely the transparency that has become visible under the Obama's administration. They have broadcasted their fiscal responsibility & spending at the whitehouse.gpv. We can cross reference their spending by visiting other liable websites that monitors government spendings.

No one is attempting to debate that transparency within the government never existed before, but in the manner in which the Obama's administration has strengthened transparency by creating a website especially for that purpose has not existed before. This shows a willingness to gain support for accountability. I suspect that thehttp://whitehouse.gov is initiated as a way for the administration to protect themselves from being accused of discrepancies.

Likewise, if you’re a person who blogs online, it will become applicable for you to display your real name as the blogger, because by disguising yourself you have conveyed to the public that you either hiding something or you’re not telling the truth or afraid that if you speak on the truth you’ll be dismissed from your job which may be the most reason why some one would choose to deny his identity.

I will not argue that no president beside Obama has strengthened transparency within the US government body. That would not be a good position to take, just because no former presidents have exploited the Internet to broadcast transparency like the Obama’s administration have done, doesn’t mean it never existed.

Transparency or not, former president Clinton left office with a surplus, and to most tax payers, that’s all we need to know. After all, most of us had a job under Clinton so in that case we cannot say that he didn’t do well. He wasn’t the greatest of- course, he made his share of mistakes, but nonetheless he did what was right for most of his people.

Some of us may argue that how can President Clinton leave office with a surplus when we’re over our heads with debt. That would be a great question to ask. But if you want to monitor performance you can’t pass on $ 20 thousands owed to a person, and say to that person you’re responsibly to repay the whole $20 thousand dollar before you can show progress. Realistically speaking, that person may live his entire life working towards that goal and still don’t know whether or not progress has been attempted. But if that person never borrowed any money but reduce the $20 thousand owed to $15, we can say that he left office with a surplus of $ 5.000. It may not have been an overall surplus after the $ 20,000 is payed, but a surplus that is relevance with the total budget that was handed to him.

If we look at the role of a president as being able to make sure that their citizens live a better life than they would be less for a president to worry about, but when we’re a powerful country like the US or China our role as a president doesn’t rest in our back yard. We have invested too much in other countries for our role as president of the United State or China to rest just in our back yard. If that was the case we would not have required of our citizens to study foreign policy issues.

Let’s jump back to transparency before we lose sight of the initial topic. Now, was transparency strengthened to that extent under Clinton? I will not doubt that it did, but by no way does it mean that the potential for tax payer’s money to exchange hands under the discussion table of government was not possible under Clinton. There is no forms of government that doesn't allow some level of corruption, it may not be intentional but for the most part if we dig deep will find it.

That led us to ask on question; why is it that the Obama's administration so strict with the American tax payer’s money that some States would rather refuse being stimulated than to accept the money from the administration? How strict is the administration really, because as of right now, every dollar given to State representatives are being supervised under the microscope.

Not only have they monitored every government transaction, but they have also monitored those companies that they have stimulated. The president appointed Earl Devaney as the choice to lead the Recovery Act of Transparency, and Accountability Board. A man who has the experience, and capability to track down every dollar spent.

This guy Earl Devaney is a former Secret Service agent who is best known for his record of rooting out corruption as an Inspector General (IG) at the Interior Department. Devaney said “it's not enough just to detect fraud and waste -- we've got to prevent it before the act.” And when you think about it he is right, because to prevent any faulty act of being committed, it's more advantageous to stop it before it happens. We have to be able to foresee every opportunity where fraud can be possible, and permanently detour it from its direct course.

This guy has a great reputation for this job, but however, for true transparency to be fully reinforced, even Earl Devaney would need to be monitored. They say where there’s a will there’s a way, and without monitoring Earl Devaney, his will can direct his way into the American tax payer’s pocket. This by no way suggests that Mr. Earl Devaney has the wrong intention, but it imply a possibility which could become possible if no true transparency had been present.

To look at transparency at a different angle, can we say perhaps Obama is cultivating his territorial ground for the next election? Would that be an unreasonable claim to make or is this claim right on target. And even if it's not true, would it be wise for the president to think of his first term in office as a campaigning term or would he be wrong for thinking that.

If we think about it good we'll come to realized that it's not advantageous for any US president to make his most important decisions under the first term when he is always thinking about how could his performance lead him to a competitive advantage into the next election – reasonably speaking he can’t make his most important decision under the first term, if he did that decision must be one that is approve by both sides of the two party system.

Since everything he says and do or even attempting to say is consequential for the next election isn’t it logical for him to view his first term as a campaigning term. Besides, everything he does in his first term will be use as report card to judge his previous performance, so in that sense he's right for chosen his word carefully. Therefore, how can we blame him for being a rhetoric when being a rhetorical figure in politic is precisely how a politician can avoid being pulled under the bus by his opponents.

I believe it was Prof. Manfred Max Neef who mentioned that a president has to make decision within a short term period when in fact all the consequences, impact, and solutions are long term. Taking Prof. Manfred Neef into consideration how can we expect change in such a short time would be a good question. Logically speaking that's not possible, especially when political debates can delay change in government. Whereas, a president can change the policies which they perceived is in the best advantage of the country's future, the next administration can come along and change these policies back around again, so now you tell me, what happen to the long term prospect of the previous administration?

Some would say that president Obama already received an A+ for the transparency strategy that he had laid down via the World Wide Web. Others can also argue that Obama came up with this transparency platform because he knew if he even mistakenly squeezes his butt cheeks ( figuratively speaking - humor) the wrong way, the republicans would stick him.

In that case, some can see the Internet transparency thing that the Obama’s administration employed as a precocious attempt from getting stick by the Republicans with bad publicity which can damage his chance for being re-elected.

Politic is already a bowing subject, let's not forget to add humor to make it pleasant for the future generation to gain interest in politic.