Show Me the $700 Hammer
The folks over at the editorial page of the Washington Times are disappointed in the recently unveiled Office of Management and Budget Web site containing data on federal contracts, grants and loans, USAspending.gov.
It's not that the data presented on the site isn't useful. USAspending.gov provides "real insight into government's operations," the paper's editorial writers say. They also laud "the ease with which ordinary Internet users can ask questions, begin searches and find information."
So what's the problem? More detailed data would be nice, the paper says. And then comes the real issue: "Nor are $700 hammers and new "Bridges to Nowhere" easily discoverable on this site, we're sorry to report."
At the end of the day, it's all about the horror stories, isn't it?
COMMENTS
Post a Comment
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Staff Correspondent Alyssa Rosenberg takes a look at news affecting the management and operations of the massive federal bureaucracy.
Maybe there were no $700 hammers and no bridges to nowhere. As a contracting official I'm getting real disappointed that more isn't told about the contracts we award that are working and at a reasonable cost to the tax payer. I'm all for transparency and I believe that the Transparency Act is long overdue. However, it would be nice to see an editorial about how well the government's overworked and underpaid contracting officers, contract specialists, and purchasing agents work to be good stewards of the people's money.
Helen Posted Thursday, January 3, 2008 8:14 AMActually, there never was a $700 hammer. The hammer was part of a kit that contained some fairly high priced items in it. A congrssional aide was asked to break down the cost of all the items and took the short cut of just dividing the total cost by the number of items. Voila - a $700 hammer.
Dana Posted Thursday, January 3, 2008 9:00 AMHelen,
You are right on the money. We spend so much time looking for the sensationalism of it all. The VAST majority of civil servants look at money spent / authorized as if it were our own (because we know it is!). There is never enough recognition of those who are so deserving. I'm a fed financial analyst and know what you have to do - so let me say THANKS to you!
Guy
Guy Posted Thursday, January 3, 2008 6:59 PM