If the politics of appropriations seems somewhat different lately, you aren’t the only one to notice. The Examiner notes that the signing of the federal spending database bill this week will allow taxpayers to find and identify wasteful spending and hold politicians accountable for their actions:

First, for most of our history, the vast majority of Americans lacked the time or resources to keep track of how the federal government was spending our tax dollars. Even with the coming of the spreadsheet programs, personal computers and the Internet’s infancy in the early 90s, it was all but impossible for any but the most determined and technically savvy citizen to see where the tax dollars were going. Among the most visible contemporary results of that situation are congressional earmarks in which anonymous Members of Congress are able to insert spending projects that can enrich campaign donors, family members, favored special interests or the Member himself. Coburn has called earmarks “the gateway drug to spending addiction.” Progress is being made on that front, too.

Now with Coburn-Obama, every citizen with access to the Internet will be within a few mouse clicks of knowing where their tax dollars are going and who is benefitting from them. Such access moves our democracy beyond Government 1.0 web sites that mainly just provide passive information and encourages more active and informed citizenry. Call it the dawn of Government 2.0. It is especially fitting that a database of federal spending — the blood flow of governance — marks the opening of the new era.

We’ve covered this topic many times here, but the point is well worth emphasizing. As the federal government grows, its accounting has become more and more opaque—to the point where even its architects have no real specific understanding of how the money gets spent. That development has put a barricade between government and the governed, and one could argue that the power inherent in such an incomprehensible budgetary system substantially reduces our freedom, at least in terms of informed consent.

John Fund notes that neither party has truly come to terms with the new era for openness, and that the party in charge will pay the price if they do not do so soon:

As modest as it is, the transparency bill spent much of August in limbo after Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens of Alaska, chief defender of the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," put a hold on it, using the tradition allowing any senator to secretly block a bill. These games feed the perception of an out-of-touch Congress and demoralize many GOP voters. "Every event I go to, someone complains about overspending and pork," says Rep. Chris Chocola of Indiana, one of the most embattled GOP incumbents. "They still don't think we get it." Many members simply don't believe the political costs of pork can ever exceed the benefits. Democrats have been largely silent. After all, they get about 45% of them even as a minority. "One man's pork is another man's steak," is how many members dismiss reform. …

The federal government is now an astounding 185 times as big in real terms as it was a century ago. A general sense that Republicans have forgotten why they were sent to Washington is a big reason why only 43% of Republicans approve of Congress in this month's Fox News poll. If Republicans can't better explain how they plan to get a grip on spending, many voters will conclude they both deserve and need a time-out from power.

The GOP contingent and a significant portion of the Democratic caucus addressed the issue last week, which perhaps indicates that some old dogs can still learn new tricks. The House passed a new rule defining earmarks and requiring earmark language to include the sponsor in the bill or conference report. While this does not create a searchable database that President Bush will sign into law, it does put all earmarks and their source into the Congressional Record. Combined with the new budget database, it will provide a powerful tool with which to investigate the influence of special interests.

All of this new oversight should cause some hesitation on the part of our representatives to associate themselves with needless outlays and vanity projects. Even more importantly, our efforts to put sunlight on processes that had been hidden in darkness for decades or longer will remind our legislators who works for whom in a representative democracy.

We have not yet won all the battles to shove the workings of federal appropriations into the open, but we have started well.