With the administration seeking to put more and more things under government oversight yet seemingly reluctant to subject itself to scrutiny, the question is how much oversight do we have? Not much, I would argue. Oversight is one of those quantities that don’t add up like natural numbers, but behave like checksums. Unless there’s some way of independently evaluating claims, then simply regulating something doesn’t remove the moral hazard. It doesn’t do away with systemic risk. The first task of any information system is to ensure that what is being measured is real. Otherwise you go down, perhaps like Air France 447, from bad information. And in oversight, separate pathways are more important than putting the mechanisms in series. The AP reports on a plan to put more things under government oversight.

WASHINGTON – Senators sharply questioned yesterday whether President Obama’s plan to increase oversight of banks and other financial institutions was enough to prevent another economic meltdown.

The senators’ skepticism suggests the proposal was headed for a rewrite by a Congress sensitive to voter frustration with the government’s handling of the economy.

“They’re very angry, and they are worried. And they are wondering who’s looking out for them,’’ said Senator Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat and chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

And they are wondering who’s looking out for them. Sure. Well how about letting Chris Dodd look out for them? What’s wrong with that kind of oversight? If don’t like that answer the important question is to examine why.

One of the reasons the system of checks and balances works is that mutual suspicion is actually beneficial to the integrity of the system. Ultimately the unease about the firing of the inspectors general is that it undermines the diversity of the portfolio of information sources.