US Open Government Sites To Close 385
SEWilco writes "US government sites which promote open government are going to shut down soon due to not enough funding being directed at them."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
US Open Government Sites To Close
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion
Re:As a kiwi. (Score:4, Informative)
The specific people who are responsible for funding the Open Government sites are the members of teh majority of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Those are the people who have "given up". They haven't given up on protecting their friends from being taxed, though. "Open Government" is for dirty hippies, anyway, so why should they care, right?
Re:Bitter Irony (Score:5, Informative)
An investment firm is hiring mathematicians. After the first round of interviews, three hopeful recent graduates - a pure mathematician, an applied mathematician, and a graduate in mathematical finance - are asked what starting salary they are expecting. The pure mathematician: "Would $30,000 be too much?" The applied mathematician: "I think $60,000 would be OK." The math finance person: "What about $300,000?" The personnel officer is flabberghasted: "Do you know that we have a graduate in pure mathematics who is willing to do the same work for a tenth of what you are demanding!?" "Well, I thought of $135,000 for me, $135,000 for you - and $30,000 for the pure mathematician who will do the work."
Same principle applies here, I suppose.
Re:But it's a good idea... (Score:5, Informative)
Sadly, that's not a joke. [pay.gov]
Re:But it's a good idea... (Score:5, Informative)
Don't know about that, the limousine liberals who right-wingers and slashdotters like to excoriate frequently are advocating for tax increases for their own tax bracket.
More hope, more change, more broken promises (Score:5, Informative)
Every fucking politician is a lying duplicitous scumbag, and we should be able to sue their asses when they break their promises.
Verbal contracts are binding in my state, I think campaign promises should fall under those rules.
Re:This Is Pointless (Score:2, Informative)
If you put all of the FICA taxes and T-bills owned by the Social Security Administration towards what they're supposed to be going for, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, are doing collectively just fine right now, and will continue to be more-or-less just fine for decades.
Not true.First, the T-bills are a legal fiction. Second, the medical care programs and to a lesser extent Social Security all have rapidly expanding costs.
Re:This Is Pointless (Score:3, Informative)
If you put all of the FICA taxes and T-bills owned by the Social Security Administration towards what they're supposed to be going for, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, are doing collectively just fine right now, and will continue to be more-or-less just fine for decades.
In 1967, a Democratic Congress (247-187 House, 64-36 Senate) passed legislation (an amendment to the Social Security Act) that was signed by Democratic President Lyndon Johnson, which declared that any government program running a surplus would transfer that surplus to the general fund with a promise that the general fund would repay the program in years that the program was running a deficit.
Those brand new Great Society entitlement programs had vastly exceeded their projections within two years and combined with the escalation in Vietnam meant that the US was going to be racking up huge deficits and the people in power wanted to paper over their mistakes so they could get re-elected (by not calling them mistakes and screwing over future generations, whom wouldn't be able to retaliate against some either already retired or dead politician in the future). In 1971, entitlement spending passed military spending, despite being in the middle of a war, and has vastly outgrown military spending ever since.
But by all means, blame Reagan and only Reagan even though as far back as the early 60s, he was warning us about the future insolvency of the entitlement system.
War (Score:5, Informative)
$4 million is what. 20 minutes in Iraq/Afghanistan? A day in the "War on Drugs"?
Re:But it's a good idea... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:the end of Obama (Score:2, Informative)
On top of a lot of other things Obama has accomplished for which he'll be remembered, his Detroit bailout saved the US auto industry from total collapse, and over 1 million jobs with it. If he'd done what Republicans tried to force him to do, and what Bush/Cheney left him holding, he'd be remembered for the destruction of America's industrial economy.
Obama's failed to fight for plenty of important things, and has indeed fought for some bad things that continue the evil that Bush/Cheney launched us into. But to fail to recognize what he did fight to get is dishonest.
Re:But it's a good idea... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This Is Pointless (Score:2, Informative)
Actually federal spending as a percentage of the GDP is not significantly different now than it has been historically.
Not really sure what you mean by that. It's currently higher than it's been since WW2 [slashdot.org], and Eisenhower enacted some significant spending cuts and fiscal discipline to pay off all that debt.
Corporations used to account for about 30% of federal income tax receipts and the wealthy used use to have a top marginal rate well over 50%.
Corporations don't pay taxes (they pass them on to consumers), and the wealthiest pay a higher percentage of federal revenues (top 5% pay over 60% of the revenues) than at any time in history, despite having a lower rate than in the past. Of course, in inflation-adjusted dollars, those top marginal rates only impacted people making $3 - $4 million a year in income.
Re:This Is Pointless (Score:4, Informative)
More libertarian lies and fantasies.
Yes, you got where you are all by yourself, with no contribution from the society around you, you big strong independent libertarian you. You'd have done just as well living in a cave on your own, I bet. To address your points -
Voluntary giving suffers from resources being squandered by many charities, it also suffers from funds only going to those whom are either currently in the spotlight or whom are considered moral/worthy by others, not necessarily those in most need. Government is not perfect by a long way, especially when it comes to efficiency, but it is generally consistent and tries to be blind.
And you genuinely think that giving people a reasonable safety net, providing for health and basic food, makes them grow up lazy and dependant? That if we just whipped that out from under those most in need they'd suddenly pull themselves up by their bootstraps?
And someone who suffers due to their own bad decision-making thinks that entitles them to take my property away from me, but that is not selfish? Why?
And someone who benefits immensely from the society around them thinks that entitles them to keep every red cent and fuck the rest of you, that's not selfish and childlike in your eyes?
In closing, don't lecture me about selfishness because that's your favorite talking point. You just make yourself look like a presumptious ass. The next time you want to do that, learn something about the person you're talking to and you'll wind up with a lot less egg on your face.
Funny, I don't feel any egg there. Nor do I believe for a second your claims about your many virtues, or that those values are widely held amongst libertarians.
Relying on the vagaries of charity in order to help the poor does not work. We have a lot of history to show this.
Re:But it's a good idea... (Score:4, Informative)
OK here's a deal, I'll give you 144 USD (12 usd/month as per your link) one year after you fund and operate a similar site doing the same thing:
1) One that produces reports like this:
http://www.usaspending.gov/search?query=&searchtype=&formFields=eyJOYXRpb25hbEludGVyZXN0QWN0aW9uIjpbIkd1bGYgT2lsIFNwaWxsIDA0MTAiXX0= [usaspending.gov]
(and the other reports the original site provides).
FYI: that page is about spending related to the recent Gulf Oil Spill.
2) The data+reports have to be reasonably accurate and updated in a timely manner (from the various entities required, some potentially uncooperative or even hostile).
3) the site has to cope with the load when linked to by Slashdot or mainstream media. And have similar performance to the original site.
4) the site should be about as hard to hack/deface as a similar gov site (e.g. probably possible, but not too easy).
For comparison here's the Wikimedia annual report:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/AR_web_all-spreads_24mar11_72_FINAL.pdf [wikimedia.org]
Summary their expenses are about USD10 million. 3.5 million in salaries/wages.
While that's for multiple wikimedia sites do remember that much wikipedia content is created by volunteers for free.