The federal position of inspector general is one few people know about. But IGs are government watchdogs who look out for taxpayers by exposing waste or misuse of taxpayer funds. For instance, it was an IG report that exposed outlandish spending by the Government Services Administration at a conference in Las Vegas a few years ago.

Earlier this month, more than half the federal government’s 78 IGs wrote a letter to Congress complaining that the Obama administration was stonewalling, making it more difficult for IGs to gather evidence and do their job. Unlike much of what happens in Washington, D.C., these days, the issue is not partisan, since two-thirds of Obama’s own IGs signed the letter complaining about “serious limitations” in doing their work. Most often, the IG complaints were tied to being told requested documents are “privileged.” High-profile IGs, including those at the Department of the Treasury, Justice Department, Homeland Security Department and National Security Agency, were among those signing the critical letter to Congress.

The complaints about restrictions, stonewalling and denial of access to documents is only the latest in what has become a trend when it comes to the Obama administration following through on the president’s lofty pledge to be the most transparent administration in history.

The words are appealing, but the actions of the administration tell a different story. In some cases, the administration has had IGs or other officials behind critical reports fired. In other instances, the Obama White House has dragged its feet, seemingly refusing to fill empty IG positions. Fewer IGs and more obstacles to investigations mean less criticism.

Similar complaints are coming from other sources. The Associated Press reported last year that “The Obama administration more often than ever censored government files or outright denied access to them last year under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act.”

Former New York Times editor Jill Abramson has said the Obama administration is the most secretive she has ever covered.

During recent West Coast fundraisers, White House correspondents who had been on Air Force One were left at the airport while Obama attended the parties with wealthy donors. Christi Parsons, the new head of the White House Correspondents’ Association, said “We think these fundraisers ought to be open to as least some scrutiny, because the president’s participation in them is fundamentally public in nature.”

Senator Obama would probabbly have agreed, especially if the complaints were about President Bush and fundraisers. But for President Obama, what happens at these $25,000-a-ticket events is something the public has no right to know about.

This administration has also been more aggressive than others in going after people within the government who leak information to the press. The Obama administration has prosecuted more whistle-blowers under the Espionage Act than any other administration. The Associated Press reported a year ago that the Obama White House had censored more Freedom of Information Act requests, claiming national security interests, than any other administration.

Last month, a letter signed by the Society of Professional Journalists and more than 35 news organizations complained that the White House was using censorship at federal agencies to restrict the public’s ability to know what its government was doing.

Granted, every administration wants to control the message the public receives and, at times, limit access. But the Obama administration vowed to be different — and now it is turning out to be not only no better, but actually worse than past administrations.