Obama plan may corrupt program on accountability

The incoming administration is already making plans to toss most remnants of the Bush presidency. Yet in one peculiar case, President-elect Obama has promised to keep a Bush policy shop creation, albeit in a highly mutated form.

The object of Obama’s disaffection is the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), a project that allows people a peek into how federal programs meet, or fail to meet, expectations. PART was initiated in 2003 by President Bush’s Office of Management and Budget, and it provided taxpayers with the first numbers-based performance analysis of the federal government. Anyone can visit www.expectmore.gov to see how well 1,017 programs stack up.

The PART process was such a hit that it earned the “Innovations in American Government Award” from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government in 2005. Other countries, including Scotland and Thailand, were so impressed they set about copying it for themselves. Given these plaudits from diverse entities with no connection to Bush or the GOP, Obama’s “reforms” make clear his real intent: to create another partisan ally in the fight to grow government.

Exhibit A: Obama would have programs measured on “congressional intent and feedback from the people served by government programs.” Never mind that the road to fiscal hell is paved with good intentions, especially congressional ones. If the standard for higher appropriations is set on wants and not proven results, a reconfigured PART will just be used as a megaphone by agency heads and interest groups to clamor for more resources.

Obama’s reasons for radically altering PART are simply off base. Campaign documents released in September cited critics who claimed that PART was “insular, arbitrary and is used to promote ideological goals rather than true performance standards.” Not the case. Here’s why Obama’s attacks on PART — as we currently know it — are wrong:

• Not arbitrary. PART reviews are not based on chance, whim or impulse. Programs are evaluated on four concrete factors: purpose and design, planning, management, and results. Independent federal examiners review answers to a set of 25 criteria solicited from each program’s managerial staff.

Programs are then rated “Effective,” “Moderately Effective,” “Adequate,” “Ineffective” or “Results Not Demonstrated.” Program managers are welcome to appeal a designation.

To see how this works, consider Amtrak, which is rated “Ineffective” partially because it “performs poorly both financially and operationally.” Amtrak’s problems are well documented in both government and media reports. While rail unions and transit boosters might not like Amtrak’s ineffective designation, it is far from arbitrary.

• Not insular. Because the reviews are compiled from answers to a fairly consistent set of questions, it has allowed analysts (both inside and outside of the government) to review useful performance data (both within and between) programs over a number of years.

If anyone is to blame for not fully integrating the analyses, it is Congress. For the concept of “performance budgeting” to truly work, appropriators need to take results into account. In 2007, for example, Congress restored funding for 25 “Results Not Demonstrated” programs that President Bush recommended for elimination.

Outgoing Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colo.) tried to bridge this disconnect by offering an amendment to last year’s budget negotiations that would have reduced the $17 billion in annual funding that Congress gives to “Ineffective” programs by 25 percent. Unfortunately, 64 lawmakers, many of whom made campaign-trail promises to be fiscally responsible, voted against this proposal. Sen. Obama was listed as “not voting.”

• Not ideological. While some critics have derided PART as a political hatchet for scalping programs the Bush administration didn’t like, PART’s designers focused on reviewing performance results alone, precisely so the system could seamlessly transition into the next administration regardless of party.

In fact, one of conservatives’ most vehement complaints about PART is that is doesn’t go far enough in questioning the appropriateness of the federal government’s involvement in a given area. PART never went near this type of review, but even so, Obama plans to “eliminate ideological performance goals and replace them with goals Americans care about.” As if keeping good taxpayer money away from ineffective programs isn’t something Americans value.

PART and www.ExpectMore.gov are useful tools, but it may be time to part ways with PART before it can be used against the taxpayers it was meant to serve. If we take at face value Obama’s campaign plans to manage PART, outgoing Bush staff should consider shutting down the program prior to Inauguration Day, and preserving its integrity for a more responsible caretaker.

Rasmussen is director of government affairs for the 362,000-member National Taxpayers Union (www.ntu.org).