Inspector General Web site

The IGs are sticking together. They have their own Web site.

More later,
Russ

If your government agency's Inspector General keeps nagging you about being corrupt, fire him!

In 1978, Congress decided some government agencies needed their own individual watchdogs to ensure that agency personnel didn't waste money or behave unethically. As a citizen, you might think the ability and character to do the right thing was part of the reason the leaders and underlings of various federal agencies were appointed/hired. Apparently not so according to an article in today's New York Times. Instead, a number of inspectors general are getting grief from the heads of their agencies for doing their jobs.

Section 2 of the act outlines the purpose of an inspector general as:

§ 2. Purpose and establishment of Offices of Inspector General; departments and agencies involved

In order to create independent and objective units--

(1) to conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of the establishments listed in section 11(2);

(2) to provide leadership and coordination and recommend policies for activities designed (A) to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration of, and (B) to prevent and detect fraud and abuse in, such programs and operations; and

(3) to provide a means for keeping the head of the establishment and the Congress fully and currently informed about problems and deficiencies relating to the administration of such programs and operations and the necessity for and progress of corrective action;

The Times article cites complaints from the very people inspectors general are required to report to: heads of the establishment (agency). It seems the heads of federal agencies have been effected profoundly by the Bush presidency. They seem to believe that everything they do or order done is right because they say so.

More later,
Russ

Government Corruption is bad for Business: Quick, somebody tell the Republicans!

The Financial Express, an English language daily in Bangladesh covering international, regional and national business, ran an editorial yesterday (Dec. 26) citing government corruption as the primary reason investors are reluctant to invest in Russian ventures.

The piece, labeled an editorial and written by Arkady Ostrovsky in Moscow, cites reports by Paris-based think-tank the Organisation for Economic Development and Co-operation, Transparency International, the Berlin-based corruption watchdog, and a joint study by the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) has also recorded an increase in the number of "unofficial payments" for licences and state procurement contracts. Unofficial payments? Those would be bribes.

Why worry about what a financial newspaper in Bangladesh has to say about the Russian government? First of all, it's not just The Financial Express saying it. It's several international groups that study business and government corruption. Someone arguing the other side can question their credibility, their data, and their methods, but two of the groups are directly related to international business. Second, a fairly sound argument can be made that government at all levels in the United States is more corrupt than it's been in a while (can't say it's all the Republicans' fault, but it has happened on 43's watch), and more business friendly that it's been in a while.

It can't happen here? It can if we let it.

More later,
Russ