Federal tax expenditures are now fully digitized and easily searchable with a new tool released yesterday by SubsidyScope, a project of the Pew Charitable Trusts. Tax expenditures are (essentially) federal spending made through the tax code and amount to the rough equivalent of 1/4 of the federal budget. The website behind Pew's Tax Expenditure Database was developed by the Sunlight Foundation, and contains federal income tax expenditure estimates from 10 years of budget documents for all economic sectors.

The Advisory Committee on Transparency, a project of the Sunlight Foundation, recently hosted a panel discussion on increasing tax expenditure transparency, which featured William Beach of the Heritage Foundation, Thomas Hungerford of the Congressional Research Service, Lori Metcalf of the Pew Charitable Trusts, Eric Toder of the Urban Institute, and Jesse Feinberg from Rep. Mike Quigley’s office. Background information on tax expenditures is available here. The video is available below.

Every morning, when you step into a plane, train, car or bus, your trip is probably subsidized – directly or indirectly –by the federal government. Yet while transportation spending is projected to total $119 billion this fiscal year (including stimulus money), it receives relatively little scrutiny.

Today, Subsidyscope launches its transportation site, which will highlight overlooked stories, from expensive projects in sparsely populated areas to which public transit agencies get the most money. The site will also give you a chance to find these stories yourself. We’ve created a searchable database allowing users to find transportation subsidies by state; by type of recipient (for-profit company, for instance); and by mode (highways, public transit, etc.), among other options. You can also type in a search term, such as the name of a company or a type of fuel, for a more targeted approach.

We’ve developed an innovative way to identify programs we think are subsidies. Using tags, we’ve excluded transportation programs that are primarily safety- or enforcement-related; users can take our approach or ignore our suggestions and slice the data another way by choosing different tags.

Here are a few of the interesting things we’ve found so far:

• From fiscal years 2000 through 2008, the government spent far more on highways than on other modes. Highways received 76 percent of the direct expenditures; public transit came in a distant second at 16 percent.
• From fiscal years 2000 through 2008, Alaska received more transportation funding per resident -- $8,167 – than any other state. This was almost eight times higher than California, which saw the lowest per-capita spending ($1,031).
• Last year, tax breaks to employees for parking cost the government an estimated $2.92 billion in lost revenue. Tax breaks for employer-provided transit passes, in contrast, amounted to only $480 million last year. While the gap is narrowing, employers still subsidize driving over transit by a margin of six-to-one.
• Bombardier Transit, a multinational company headquartered in Germany, received $3 million to create a high-speed “demonstration fossil fuel passenger locomotive” in the village of Clinton, NY
• The state of Wisconsin received $5,843,878 in Highway Planning and Construction funds from FY 2000-2009 for improvements near the General Motors Janesville Assembly Plant. GM closed the plant this year, putting more than 2,000 people out of work.

In the coming weeks, transportation stories will appear regularly on the site. We’ll present information graphically whenever possible, using interactive maps, charts and visualizations. And we’ll post relevant reports and documents from government and other sources. We hope you’ll use the site to make your own discoveries.

Here are some of the more interesting media mentions of Sunlight and our friends and allies over the past week:

Alan Fram with the Associated Press wrote about how the health insurance industry is fighting to prevent the Congress from passing a health care overhaul that includes a government-run plan to compete with private insurers. Fram cites data from the Center for Responsive Politics to show how health insurers have made $41 million in campaign contributions to current congressional lawmakers since 1989, “with more than half going to lawmakers on the five House and Senate panels writing this year’s health bills.” Since the beginning of 2008, insurers have spent $145 million on lobbying.

The New York Times' Jack Rosenthal, in writing the paper’s “On Language” column, mentioned how Andrew Raseij, Sunlight’s senior technology advisor and co-director of Personal Democracy Forum, is pushing for a federal law that redefines “public” to mean searchable and readable online. U.S. Rep. Steve Israel (N.Y.) is drafting just such legislation. Rosenthal also noted how the Senate does not disclose campaign-contribution information to the Federal Election Commission in an electronic form. “That means it must be digitized by the commission, by which time the next election may well have come and gone. Transparent? Yes, but also emasculated,” Rosenthal wrote.

Federal Computer Week’s Ben Bain wrote about how the Obama administration is asking federal agencies to gear their spending plans for science and technology in fiscal 2011 toward projects designed to drive economic growth, create energy independence, improve health, and bolster security, according to recently issued general guidance. Peter Orszag, Obama’s OMB director, outlined the new emphasis in an August 4th memo (PDF). Craig Jennings, a senior federal fiscal policy analyst with OMB Watch, said the memo is an indication that science and technology will be high priorities for the administration.

Colin Barr at Fortune magazine wrote about how skeptics are questioning a claim made by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner last Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” Geithner said taxpayers have made a small profit, $6 billion, on their investments in banks via the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Barr quotes Marcus Peacock, Pew’s project director of Subsidyscope saying the government isn’t doing enough to document what’s happening with the money. Peacock said government data collection projects are often “pockmarked” with omissions and outright errors, a pattern that hasn’t been broken with the financial bailouts. Despite the administration’s public embrace of transparency, it has failed to provide full and understandable disclosure of its actions in TARP, Peacock said.

The Brattleboro (Vt.) Reformer editorialized about the Blue Dog Coalition’s effect on the health care debate in Congress, using Dan Eggen’s article in last Friday’s edition of The Washington Post. The editorial notes Eggen citing Party Time’s compilation of records of political fundraisers since 2008. “America has been waiting for more than 60 years for universal health care. (The) Blue Dogs wouldn’t mind if it took another 60 years to give Americans what every other advanced nation in the world now has,” the editorial says. “This is yet another example of how our current system of legalized bribery, otherwise known as campaign contributions, distorts the democratic process.”

Beth Sussman, writing at the National Journal’s “Under the Influence” blog, OpenCongress' redesign. She quotes OpenCongress’ David Moore, “You never hear somebody at a bar talking about clause 56 in H.R. 3200.” So OpenCongress “enables peer-to-peer communication about the best information on bills in Congress.” Sussman reports how the site now has an email form, so you can send an email to contact lawmakers about legislation, a tracking tool so you can compare how you would vote on a piece of legislation with how your representative has voted and a personalized list of legislation you may support or oppose. “There was a real opportunity to bring together this confusing government data with helpful data and what people were saying about it,” David said. The site aims to “make all the information about Congress more accessible to people who aren’t necessarily Congress-buffs.”

USA Today wrote about documents made public by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) that showed how Amtrak wanted to fire its independent Inspector General, who was effectively forced to resign several weeks ago. The IG and the rail carrier had feuded since it was revealed in 2006 that Amtrak had spent more than $100 million in mismanaged fees to private lawyers over a five year period, allegedly violating Amtrak billing rules.

The Lincoln (Neb.) Journal Star editorialized about the need for congressional lawmakers to read legislation they are voting on. They mentioned how Sunlight is one of a number of organizations advocating that Congress put all legislation online 72 hours before they conduct a vote. The editorial called on Nebraska’s congressional delegation to support such a proposal.

Here are a few of the more interesting media mentions of Sunlight and our friends and grantees from this past week:

Federal law prohibits lobbyists and those that hire them from giving gifts or campaign contributions to congressional lawmakers. No such law exists prohibiting them from spending unlimited amounts to honor lawmakers or contributing to non-profits connected to them. Quite a limitation on the distinction, if you ask me. However, Congress passed ethics rules in 2007 requiring for the first time that lobbyists must report all such payments. On Monday, USA Today's Fredreka Shouten and Paul Overberg reported on the paper's comprehensive analysis of lobbying reports that found 2,759 payments, totaling $35.8 million, were made in 2008. They quote Ellen Miller, Sunlight’s executive director, "It's another example of the many pockets of a politician's coat." The spending amounts to an "end-run" around campaign-finance laws "that are designed to limit the appearance of undue influence." National Public Radio's "All Things Considered" interviewed Clay Johnson, Sunlight Labs’s director, about U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley's (Iowa) use of Twitter to criticize President Obama's call for action on health care. Grassley’s message: "Pres Obama you got nerve while u sightseeing in Paris to tell us 'time to deliver' on health care. We still on skedul/even workinWKEND." Clay said, "He may not be the most prolific writer in 140 characters or less, but there's something really authentic about it."

NPR Interview

Federal News Radio interviewed Daniel Schuman about how the U.S. Supreme Court's nine-year old Web site is hard to navigate, difficult to use and in need of a significant upgrade. Daniel had blogged about the SCOTUS site last week. You can listen to the interview here.

Federal News Radio interview

Journalists used Center for Responsive Politics data to show how two important congressional battles are shaping up. With the debate over health reform intensifing, The New York Times’ Robert Pear looked at the political spending of doctors. Since the 2000 election cycle, their political action committee has contributed $9.8 million to congressional candidates with Republicans got more than Democrats in the four election cycles before 2008, when 56 percent went to Democrats. Congress is also considering legislation that would mandate the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to regulate and approve the use of tobacco. Halimah Abdullah with McClatchy Newspapers reports that CRP data shows that among the 17 senators who voted against tasking the FDA with the tobacco regulatory role are top recipients of campaign contributions from the industry.

The Washington Post’s Paul Kane and Carol D. Leonnig researched the House lawmakers’ annual financial disclosure reports released Wednesday. They found lawmakers had significant investments in the financial institutions that took billions of dollars in taxpayer bailouts at the end of last year, raising conflict-of-interest questions. They quote Melanie Sloan, director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, as being critical of congressional lawmakers investing directly in companies they oversee. "You wonder if they're voting on things because it's good for the country or because it would increase their personal wealth," Melanie said.

Bara Viada at National Journal's "Under the Influence" blog reported on and links to Party Time's post about how the National Republican Campaign Committee inadvertently included a fundraising event for a Democratic lawmaker, U.S. Rep. Gary Peters (Mich.), on a list of fundraising events the party committee sent out earlier this week. Roll Call's (subscription required) Emily Heil and Elizabeth Brotherton, writing at their "Heard on the Hill" column, also report on Party Time's catch, as did Politico’s Glenn Thrush.

ProPublica’s Christina Jewett reported on the Project for Government Oversight’s call on the FDA’s inspector general to investigate the agency in light of its failure to stop contaminated syringes from reaching the market. An earlier report said the FDA’s inaction allowed 74,000 contaminated syringes to be shipped. “Authorities connected four deaths and 162 illnesses to the syringes,” Jewett wrote.

At his Joho the Blog, David Weinberger, live blogged a talk Clay participated in yesterday at the New Media Academic Summit held by public relations firm Edelman at Georgetown University. When asked how government and others can be encouraged to produce data in open formats Clay responded, "I’m more focused on just getting the data out. I don’t care about the format. We should tell them just to do it in plain text, if that’ll get it out faster. Once the government starts pumping it out we can have the debate about which standards."

InformationWeek’s Thomas Claburn reports on a court case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit over the issue of whether e-mail messages deserve the same privacy protection as telephone calls. He notes that Electronic Frontier Foundation, the ACLU of Ohio, and the Center for Democracy and Technology filed an amicus brief in the case, Warshak v. USA, in support of added privacy protections.

T. J. Kelleher, writing at science magazine Seed’s "Week in Review" editorial, looked at Data.gov, the federal government’s site that promises to provide free access to data generated across all of its agencies. Kelleher asked, “Where’s the sunshine?” Kelleher mentions Sunlight Labs' Apps for America 2 contest, which is encouraging developers to build tools that will enable the common citizen to engage with the information Data.gov will be making available.

Federal Computer Week’s Ben Bain reported on Miriam Nisbet’s appointment to be the first director of a new office at the National Archives and Records Administration that will provide policy guidance to agencies for the handling of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and mediate disagreements about agency decisions not to grant requests. Some have referred to the new position as an “ombudsman” for FOIA, a development that open government advocates have welcomed wholeheartedly. Bain quotes Patrice McDermott, OpenTheGovernment.org’s director, as saying Nisbet has a deep knowledge of the issues and has strong ties to the open-government community. Patrice worked directly with Nisbet for four years at the American Library Association, Bain reports.

Tim Catts at AOL’s Daily Finance site reported that the ten banks cleared by the feds to buy back $68 billion in preferred stock investments they sold under the Treasury Department's rescue program aren't quite in the clear yet. They still have to settle on a price to repurchase hundreds of millions of warrants held by the government. Catts suggests his readers turn to SubsidyScope for a quick rundown of what goes into valuing a warrant.

In case you didn't see it, Jake Brewer, Sunlight’s engagement director, briefly profiles RaceTracker on The Huffington Post, the "non-partisan, fully-referenced, open-source and crowd-sourced wiki project that lists every candidate running in every U.S. Senate, House and governor's race" that soft launched yesterday.

Here are a few of the more interesting media mentions on Sunlight and our friends and grantees from this past week:

Sunlight Labs’ launch of the Apps for America 2: The Data.gov Challenge in conjunction with the Obama administration’s launch of Data.gov generated a great amount of media interest. The contest is a development and visualization challenge to see who can come up with the best application and visualization for data from Data.gov. In an editorial about Data.gov, The New York Times mentioned Sunlight and the Apps for America 2 contest. The Times "Bits" blog mentioned the contest too in a post about Data.gov. The San Francisco Chronicle's "Politics Blog," in a post about Data.gov, mentions the Apps for America 2 contest and quotes Clay Johnson, Sunlight Labs’ director, saying Data.gov itself is not meant for average people, but is geared more towards developers who will take the data and make it usable for the everyday person. Later in the week, Alyssa Fetini at Time magazine writes about Data.gov and the Apps for America 2 contest as well. She quotes Clay, "Government has made a move in the right direction — now it's time for us to show them what we can do."

Clay was a guest on the nationally-syndicated The Kojo Nnamdi Show, a program produced by National Public Radio-affiliated WAMU FM, where he joined a panel discussion on how non-profits and cities like Washington, D.C., are enlisting help from civic-minded developers to help make government data more open and usable. You can listen to the program here.

Peter Baker with The New York Times used data from the Center for Responsive Politics to show President Obama is continuing the practice of past presidents by awarding prestigious ambassadorships to top fundraisers. For instance, his emissaries to Great Britain and France raised respectively $550,00 and $800,000 for Obama’s election and inauguration. The Boston Globe’s Susan Milligan used CRP data to show how the business community, faced with Democratic congressional majorities, a Democratic president, and a voting public furious over Wall Street lapses, have shifted their campaign contributions dramatically toward the Democrats from the 2006 election through 2008.

The Associated Press’ Jim Abrams reports on a Congressional Research Service survey that found that federal employees in a wide range of agencies misuse travel cards to buy goods for their personal use, travel first-class or simply bilk the government. Abrams quotes Scott Amey, counsel with the Project on Government Oversight, "A private travel agency would be out of business running this kind of operation." Scott also said the CRS report points out the need for immediate improvements, including better oversight of all transactions and increased penalties for misuse. The Washington Times' Stephen Dinan reported on President Obama's failure to fulfill his promise to post bills on the WhiteHouse.gov for comment for five days before he signs them. Dinan notes Sunlight's push for a 72-hour waiting period for Congress, and quotes John Wonderlich, Sunlight’s policy director, saying the White House is not making it a priority to live up to the pledge. John said that Congress is where the actual changes to a bill can happen. By the time it gets to the president, he can only sign or veto it. In light of that, John said, some transparency advocates have questioned the value of Mr. Obama's five-day pledge. Michael Crowley, columnist at Reader's Digest, wrote about how leaders on Wall Street and Washington have let America down, and gives tips on what citizens can do to hold them accountable. He mentions Sunlight is a resource for keeping tabs on Congress. The (Baton Rouge, La.) Advocate editorialized about earmarks and quoted Bill Allison, Sunlight’s senior fellow, saying with 435 house lawmakers and 9,000 specific earmarks finding information about them can be difficult. The Wall Street Journal’s Amy Schatz reported on a government-advisory board that recommended the government adopt new practices and update current laws to better protect private information citizens send to government agencies or leave behind when they surf government Web sites. Schatz notes that the Center for Democracy and Technology proposed draft legislation that would help update privacy laws and regulation. Bara Vaida, writing at the National Journal's "Under the Influence" blog, highlighted a blog post by Nancy Watzman, director of Sunlight’s Party Time campaign, about health care lobbyists hosting fundraisers for lawmakers as they prepare to take up the health care reform debate next month. Nicholas Thompson at Wired's "Epicenter" blog wrote about the memo President Obama issued Wednesday on secrecy and transparency, and how he continues to reverse the Bush administration’s secrecy policies. Thompson links to a blog post written by Ellen Miller, Sunlight's director, about the memo. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review's Walter F. Roche Jr. reports that U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) was involved in a personal financial transaction with a federal judicial nominee, his Philadelphia neighbor whom he recommended, while the nomination was pending before his Senate committee and the full Senate. Roche interviewed Bill Allison about the matter. "Obviously the public should have known, and certainly his colleagues on the committee should have known. In a way, (Specter) pulled a fast one on them," Bill said. Roche notes that the transactions were three mortgages on a Georgetown condominium. And under a 1978 federal law and legislative ethics rules, congressional lawmakers are not required to disclose details of the purchase or financing of personal residences. Roche quotes Melanie Sloan, director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, "There is no logical reason for the exemption." Melanie also pointed out that for most people, a personal residence is their biggest asset. Bob Collins at Minnesota Public Radio links to Bill's Real Time Investigations report on how New York State Veteran’s Home at St. Alban’s, in Jamaica, N.Y., is using $109.5 million in Recovery Act spending to retrofit the facility for energy efficiency. “Just curious — let’s say the improvements cut the facility’s power bills by half,” Bill wondered. “How many years will it take for those savings to equal the cost of the $109.5 million spent to achieve those reductions?” Information Aesthetics writes about The Pew Charitable Trusts’ SubsidyScope, and how it is pulling together data on the financial institutions that are receiving benefits from the various U.S. federal programs in order to understand how and where taxpayer dollars are being spent. Thanks and see you next Friday.

Here are a few of the more interesting media mentions of Sunlight and our friends and grantees from this week:

Saturday evening, Ellen Miller, Sunlight’s executive director, appeared on CNN talking about Recovery.gov. She made the point that Recovery.gov needs to be updated in real time so people can keep government accountable as it happens, instead of after the fact. Below is the video of the segment:

The New York Times published an editorial calling for Congress to provide Congressional Research Service reports online for all Americans to access free. The Times ran the editorial a week after Ellen met with an editorial writer at the paper. Last week, The Times published an article about the campaign being waged by Open CRS, a project of the Center for Democracy and Technology, OpenTheGovernment.org and Sunlight to get Congress to agree to release all CRS reports to the public.

Cyrus Sanati wrote a post on The Time’s “DealBook” blog that highlighted and linked to SubsidyScope’s county-by-county analysis of how the government is distributing Troubled Asset Relief Program funds throughout the country. The Atlantic’s Chris Good, on their “Politics” blog, also wrote about and linked to SubsidyScope’s map. The San Francisco Bay Guardian’s “Politics” blog wrote about Sunlight grantee MAPLight.org launching their Los Angeles site,  where they reveal campaign contributions to Los Angeles City politicians. MAPLight.org’s new site shows how much interest groups like real estate developers, teachers unions and others contribute to city officials and to candidates running for city office. The site is the first of its kind for any U.S. city. As always, journalists used Center for Responsive Politics’ data to uncover how Washington works. The Wall Street Journal reports that Lockheed Martin, the country’s largest defense contractor, doubled the amount of money spent on lobbying in first quarter of 2009 as it did during the previous three months ($6.41 million during the first quarter, up 97% from the prior quarter's $3.26 million), all in an effort to prevent defense spending cuts. The “Environment Blog” at the U.K.’s guardian.co.uk highlight CRP in a post about how to follow the fossil fuel money on Capitol Hill. The New York Times editorialized that “It is time to follow the money — all of it,” in light of CRP’s report that U.S. Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania and two subcommittee colleagues, Peter Visclosky of Indiana and James Moran of Virginia, received more than $4 million in campaign contributions from PMA Group clients. In its June issue, Harper’s Magazine published an article by Nancy Watzman, director of Sunlight’s Party Time project. Nancy breaks down, bit-by-bit, a congressional lawmaker’s fundraising event invitation, revealing to those of us not accustom to writing politicians $2,500 checks what we’re missing. Speaking of Party Time, the Politico’s Chris Frates used data from the project to identify some of the bars and restaurants within easy walking distance of the U.S. Capitol where congressional lawmakers meet with lobbyists and other to raise campaign cash. Jose Vargas at The Washington Post compiled the second of his monthly report cards where he has a group of five online political observers grade WhiteHouse.gov. Last month’s report card produced an average grade of a C+. In this second round the group gave the administration an average of a solid B, with the individual graders giving a range from C to A-. Ellen and Andrew Rasiej, Sunlight’s senior technology advisor, participate as graders, and both gave WhiteHouse.gov a B-. If they were to grade the site on the basis of transparency alone, they would have given the site a C-, Vargas reported. Thanks! See you next Friday.

As the Deposit Insurance Fund – the fee-based safety net for customers of failed banks – shrinks alarmingly, regulators have tried to calm American taxpayers. After warning in a March 20 speech that bank failures could cost $65 billion over the next five years, Sheila Bair, chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, assured an audience of community bankers that “we won’t run out of money” thanks to new premiums the FDIC had imposed on them and their colleagues.

“Some ask: Why not get help from taxpayers?” Bair said. “Turning to taxpayer funding could open up a whole new debate about the degree of government involvement in the affairs of insured banks. And it would paint all banks with the ‘bailout’ brush.” Comforting, right?

Maybe not. While the insurance fund – down to a relatively meager $19 billion at the end of 2008 -- indeed may stay solvent, the FDIC has been quietly preparing for the worst, asking Congress to increase its line of credit from the U.S. Treasury (i.e., taxpayers) from $30 billion to $100 billion. Unnecessary, one hopes, but consider this precedent: After a string of thrift failures in the 1980s, the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) did, in fact, run out of money. Taxpayers ultimately absorbed roughly $125 billion in losses. FSLIC was abolished in 1989 and the FDIC began insuring deposits in thrifts as well as banks.

Current events are spookily reminiscent of the s-and-l crisis. As we report on the Subsidyscope Web site, 21 banks failed during the first quarter of 2009 alone, resulting in estimated charges to the insurance fund of almost $2.3 billion. Our running list of failed banks provides basic data for those who have a morbid interest in tracking the collapse of institutions around the country – and in watching the previously bloated insurance fund get smaller and smaller. For those curious about how and why a particular bank met its end, we offer, where available, a post-mortem called a Material Loss Review, prepared by either the FDIC or the Treasury inspectors general. The documents are packed with intriguing details, including measures of financial health that would never be made public if the institution were still alive.

One recent review reveals that the now-defunct and apparently ill-named Integrity Bank of Alpharetta, Ga., sank “primarily due to management’s aggressive pursuit of asset growth concentrating in higher-risk ADC [acquisition, development and construction] loans without adequate controls.” We also learn that the FDIC’s “supervisory actions were not timely and effective in addressing the bank’s most significant problems.” Not something Sheila Bair is likely to mention in her next speech.

While much media attention has been focused on the Treasury Department’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, there’s been far less coverage of other government bailout programs that have been under way since last fall.

As part of our project tracking government subsidies at Subsidyscope.com, we’ve attempted to delve into some of these programs, including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s $1.4 trillion Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program – which, incidentally, is twice the size of TARP.

The program is intended to allow financial institutions to borrow and lend more readily through two avenues. Under the Debt Guarantee Option, debt issued by June 30, 2009, maturing no later than June 30, 2012, is guaranteed by the FDIC. So far the FDIC has guaranteed $224 billion in new debt under this option, with the potential of reaching $1 trillion.

The second component, the Transaction Account Guarantee Option, gives full guarantees for certain checking and non-interest-bearing accounts through December 31, 2009. The FDIC reports that it’s guaranteed approximately $684 billion under this option so far.

So how could this program be a subsidy? Well, the government is essentially acting as a co-signer of each participating bank’s debt obligation and non-interest-bearing account, and it’s doing it for far less that what it would cost to hire a private insurer.

That’s not to say that the program is bad. According to a Treasury survey of the 20 largest banks receiving TARP money (which you can get on Subsidyscope.com), one factor that led to an increase in lending activity from November to December was the TLGP, which gave a boost to debt underwriting. Overall however, the Treasury report showed that banks slightly reduced their lending between October and December 2008 – not a great sign that the bailout is working.

We wanted to know which financial institutions were participating in the TLGP. Imagine our surprise when we learned that the only public information available is a list of the ones that aren’t participating. The FDIC’s reasoning is that it isn’t an “opt-in” program but an “opt-out” program. That’s like the CDC announcing a national epidemic by listing the cities that aren’t affected.

Seeking to make the TLGP more transparent, we filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the FDIC last December, asking for a list of all the financial institutions that are participating in the program, as well as the amount of their guarantees. In February, we got half of what we wanted.

The FDIC provided us with a list of more than 14,000 banks, bank holding companies, and thrift holding companies in the United States, showing which are and which aren’t participating in the TLGP. That list is now on Subsidyscope.com. The amounts of the guarantees however, were not disclosed. The FDIC cited two exemptions to the FOIA law: One for confidential business information (Exemption 4) and the other on agency reports regarding the supervision of financial institutions (Exemption 8). We’re still trying to get that information, and will post it if we succeed.

In light of President Obama’s call, on his first day of office, for greater transparency in government agencies —“in the face of doubt, openness prevails”— it seems the FDIC should disclose the amounts that are being guaranteed.

While the TARP program appears to be the main target of pundits and the media – ironically because Treasury has relatively open in its actions – keep in mind that sometimes it’s the wheels that don’t squeak that may also be getting greased.

Buried in prepared testimony by the director of the Congressional Budget Office on Jan. 28 are some eye-catching numbers that reflect the potential cost of the bailout for taxpayers. The CBO's Douglas Elmendorf told the Senate Budget Committee that $94 billion of the $293 billion allocated to banks and other institutions under the Treasury Department's Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) as of Jan. 22 could wind up being subsidies. In short, CBO analysts estimate that almost a third of the money spent by Treasury on stock purchases, loans and asset guarantees may not be recovered, meaning taxpayers would absorb the cost. And here's a more sobering statement, again from Elmendorf: "Of the $700 billion that the TARP is expected to disburse before the end of December of this year [2009], CBO anticipates that the subsidy cost (after adjusting for market risk) will be about $200 billion." The TARP Subsidies page of the Subsidyscope Web site provides a breakdown of all the CBO projections to date.