Vice President Dick Cheney is correct in his refusal to turn over records about the meetings on the Bush energy policy, not because of the doctrine of executive privilege, but because of the prospective impact of allowing the GAO to become the Congress’ political hunting dog against the executive branch.
The GAO’s position against Cheney appears to be that whenever a member of Congress requests it, the president and other members of the executive branch must disclose information of any policy meetings. Unacceptable overreach? I believe so.
The GAO is charged with ensuring the efficient expenditure of government dollars. As an accounting office, it carries out its mandate by auditing. All audits are initially samples, which are expanded if wrongdoing is found. But at this point, there has been no evidence, for example, that the Cheney task force inefficiently spent government money. So why has the GAO turned this into a “we need to know” expedition?
I would suggest that the correct process for the GAO, since its mission is supposedly that of a bipartisan watchdog, would be that if a member of Congress tells the GAO he has concerns that the Cheney task force expenditures were marked by largesse, the GAO would then perform an audit. But if a member of Congress were to ask, as they are now, whom Cheney met with, the GAO should refuse, because doing so politicizes the GAO. Then, the GAO could indeed respect the doctrine of executive privilege and its own obligation to oversee government expenditures. It would make clear that its job is not to find political grist for Congress about the Cheney task force.
