By Kiran Sreepada

At over $2 trillion, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) is the largest stimulus package ever enacted by the United States government, and aims to provide economic relief and aid to individuals, small businesses, large corporations, state and local governments, public health, education programs, and much more. One of the main reasons it took several days to pass was due to negotiations regarding oversight, or the lack thereof. Congressional Democrats wanted more oversight written into the law and were faced with some initial opposition from Republicans; eventually the bill was passed with language to designate an independent committee to oversee the funds. Recently, however, there has been rhetoric and action to weaken that oversight mechanism with the President firing the Inspector General (IG) in charge of the oversight and replacing him with someone more loyal, and more recently, the President replacing the IG at Health and Human Services for issuing a report that was critical of the administration. In case you are wondering, oversight cuts both ways with reports praising and criticizing any administration. Let us be clear – proper oversight always benefits the taxpayer. Oversight doesn’t just track where the money goes but also helps determine the effectiveness and results of a program. There is currently unprecedented authority to distribute money, and oversight helps prevent abuse, favoritism, and fraud. Specifically, without oversight how can we be sure that taxpayers or small businesses will be treated fairly?

Oversight must be non-partisan and independent of the political winds. While that is sometimes hard for many to grasp, it is, in fact, how most civil servants do their work. The members of an oversight body must be able to perform their duties with accountability, but without fear of retaliation. How can they do their job properly if they fear that the truth counters the Trump Republican party narrative? Oversight is often confused with regulation, but in this instance, we need more oversight. House Republicans have said that there is already oversight in the House, but having an apolitical oversight body is the best source of information for the Congress and the public.

When politics interferes with oversight, we find ourselves where we are today. As mentioned, the President recently demoted the person who was to head up the oversight body for the CARES Act, Glenn A. Fine. Mr. Fine was aggressively independent and critical of government overreach in both Republican and Democratic administrations. The President also replaced the IG at Health and Human Services, someone who also worked with Republican and Democratic administrations and was critical of both when appropriate. These aren’t the only instances in which the President has interfered with oversight and accountability. He fired the IG who reviewed the whistle-blower complaint that led to impeachment, nominated a loyal White House aide to a different IG post, said he would ignore parts of the new CARES Act, and separately attacked another IG who was critical of COVID-19 testing shortages. Many members of Congress have also chosen to be loyal to the President instead of acting on facts, promoting accountability and transparency, and prioritizing what is best for constituents.

We have been here before. The Recovery, Accountability, and Transparency Board was set up to oversee the nearly $800 billion in relief that was distributed following the onset of the Great Recession – the largest stimulus package in the U.S. until the CARES Act. The Board consisted of many Inspectors General from across the government, creating an independent, comprehensive, and successful oversight body that included Mr. Fine. The lessons from that experience were that the Board, and the accompanying data analytics center, played a large role in ensuring that the money was spent properly, and that fraud and waste were minimized. There is a higher risk of fraud with any emergency stimulus, but the Recovery Board was able to go beyond detecting fraud and actually prevent it in some cases.

Former Associate Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Robert Shea, and fraud risk management expert, Linda Miller, note that an estimated 22% of the funds that were distributed after Hurricane Katrina were at risk of being improper or fraudulent. Additional oversight helped minimize that number to about 3% following Hurricane Sandy. Perhaps more importantly, in addition to the overall point of having independent oversight, the experts aptly state that, “The lessons of the past, if properly implemented, can result in providing needed economic relief to millions of Americans while safeguarding those funds from fraud. But the emphasis on oversight must be built in and implemented from day one. If Congress misses the opportunity to institutionalize oversight into COVID-19 stimulus, money will not only be wasted, but it may well miss its target.”

Preventing fraud and having accountability is something we should all be concerned with, and proper oversight is our watchdog in making sure we make it through this crisis healthy on all fronts.