Here's a letter to the editor in The New York Times. It's by Mike Honda, the Democratic Representative from California. In the letter, he advocates a "Special Inspector General" for Afghanistan reconstruction.
Why? Because, as Mr. Honda puts it, ". . . too little oversight and accountability for billions of taxpayer dollars pouring in." Well, we certainly can agree with that. There should be Inspector General oversight when billions of taxpayer dollars are involved.
But, here's the most telling recommendation Mr. Honda makes, "Every American operation overseas involving billions of taxpayer dollars should be under the watchful eye of a permanent independent office, with its own special inspector general."
Why only overseas? Why not at home?
Please understand why this letter, seemingly unrelated to the high-speed rail project, appears here in this blog. Mr. Honda is a supporter of California's high-speed train project. He is a Democrat. This rail project will cost the State and Nation well over $100 billion dollars. If Inspector General oversight is being recommended for the Afghanistan conflict by Mr. Honda, with that conflict's momentous waste of billions, why shouldn't this domestic HSR "conflict" also be given such oversight?
Is this high-speed rail project in California in conflict? Have you been reading the newspapers lately?
How can Mr. Honda be right about one domain and not advocate the other in his own state? Furthermore, why aren't all the HSR advocates who are so vocal in their defense of this project, not also advocating such oversight? I include our local Democratic caucus, such as Congresswomen Eshoo and Speier.
As it happens, one of Democrat Jerry Brown's first acts, even prior to his assuming the Governorship, was to shut down the State Inspector General's Office. Laura Chick was the head of that office and she wrote a bitter letter to the Governor about this decision. While heading the office, Attorney General Chick had written a detailed critique of the CHSRA and many of their failings and mismanagement, with the inference that billions of taxpayer dollars would be wasted.
Perhaps Mr. Honda needs to be reminded that the two domains have a lot in common. Both Afghanistan and the California high-speed rail project involve billions of our dollars and therefore warrant close oversight and accountability. Both have a definite need for the adult supervision of an Inspector General.
======================
The U.S. in Afghanistan
Published: January 23, 2011
To the Editor:
Re “Biden Assures Karzai of Aid From U.S. Beyond 2014” (news article, Jan. 12):
If Americans stay in Afghanistan beyond 2014, then we need to clean up our act. With the resignation of Arnold Fields, appointed by President George W. Bush in 2008 as special inspector general for Afghanistan reconstruction, there is an opportunity.
Congress created this post to provide objective oversight of the war’s stabilization and reconstruction funds, but like so much about the war effort, there is not enough to show for it.
Afghans are witnessing a particular American failure: too little oversight and accountability for billions of taxpayer dollars pouring in. Billion-dollar projects granted in Washington end up in Afghanistan with a mere fraction of the money left. Extortion and corruption are ubiquitous along the American supply chain.
Every American operation overseas involving billions of taxpayer dollars should be under the watchful eye of a permanent independent office, with its own special inspector general.
A permanent special inspector general whose mandate transcends political timetables sends the message that transparency, efficiency and efficacy are priorities, and waste and corruption will not be tolerated. Do this and you begin to turn the tide of Afghan opinion, and get closer to the stability we set out to secure.
Mike Honda
Washington, Jan. 14, 2011
The writer, a Democratic member of Congress from California, is chairman of the Afghanistan Task Force of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
