Slashdot Mirror

From the appropriations document:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) – NASA is funded at $16.8 billion in the bill, which is $1.6 billion below last year’s level and $1.9 billion below the President’s request. This funding includes:

        $3.65 billion for Space Exploration which is $152 million below last year. This includes funding above the request for NASA to meet Congressionally mandated program deadlines for the newly authorized crew vehicle and launch system.
        $4.1 billion for Space Operations which is $1.4 billion below last year’s level. The legislation will continue the closeout of the Space Shuttle program for a savings of $1 billion.
        $4.5 billion for NASA Science programs, which is $431 million below last year’s level. The bill also terminates funding for the James Webb Space Telescope, which is billions of dollars over budget and plagued by poor management.

Meanwhile, in the same document:

Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) – The bill provides $2.7 billion for the PTO – the full requested level. This funding is equal to the estimated amount of fees to be collected by the PTO during fiscal year 2012, and is an increase of $588 million or 28% above last year’s level. The bill also includes language that allows PTO to keep and use any fees in excess of the estimated collected amount, subject to standard Congressional approval, and includes language requiring PTO to report on efforts to reduce the patent application backlog

(Bolding is mine)

Stop a space telescope, cut back NASA funds while retiring a space shuttle... increase patent office funding... This is just a normal day in the office chaps...

All these well-thought out posts, and not one Senator or Representative will ever see them.

  Come on people, bitching on slashdot will NOT fix this.

Write your Representative:
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

Write your Senator:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/common/faq/How_to_contact_senators.htm

Doesn't that directly conflict with article 1, section 9, clause 5 of the constitution?

The clause rather simply and clearly states:
No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

The first one is from a published report, ("Jailed Without Justice", published by Amnesty International, page 20, very easy to find if you google it) which lists the original source as: "Testimony of Kara Hartzler, Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, before the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Immigrantion, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law Hearing on Problems with ICE Interrogation, Detention and Removal Procedures, Second Session of the 110th Congress, 13 February 2008, serial Number 110-80, available at: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/printers/110th/40742.PDF"

He worked at $1/day, a birth certificate costs $30, so that's at least a month assuming he was working full time every day. Not sure if he would have, I'm not all that familiar with the prison system. Also doesn't count time spent being transferred and such (which ICE does very frequently and without notice). I suppose I did make a slight mistake though in the time, as the original does only say "over a month". And yes, I suppose it would be state, not federal government that he purchased it from, the original doesn't specify.

The second case is from the Summer 2011 issue of "Free For All" published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania. Article was "Pennsylvania's Secret Prisoners". Unfortunately, I'm not finding it available online anywhere, and the name in the article was changed.

Yeah, I expected you to go down that path since it's the standard criticism to the Ryan voucher plan and nothing to do with what's under consideration here. This isn't about vouchers to purchase health insurance this is about a cash substitute that can only be used to purchase treatment.

I checked quote a few links on that through Google, and all of them say it's about vouchers to purchase insurance. In fact once of the links I checked was Ryan's own website where he himself says quote "a voucher with which to purchase insurance".

And beyond that, what you describe makes absolutely no sense. The majority of people aren't sick and wouldn't need to use even a fraction of the voucher in any given year, while on the other hand a $10,000 dollar voucher would have exactly ZERO VALUE for someone who requires a $40,000 surgery if they don't have $30,000 of their own cash in hand. It's not like you can use it to buy one-fourth of a surgery, and then go home and band-aid your organs back into your body.

Ryan's plan to control health care costs is to deny heath care to anyone with an existing heath issue (voucher or no voucher no insurance company is going to sell them coverage), and to deny health care to anyone who can't afford the price difference between his voucher and an actual insurance plan.

The plan you described would far worse, giving effectively no health care at all to anyone who has anything much more serious than a broken arm. You can't buy a voucher's worth of a surgery and go home. You can't cure a cancer worth of treatment.

It's the same reason the Republican proposals about "tax-free health savings plans" are ridiculous. Lots of people die without ever needing it, while anyone who actually does need it gets effectively no care the moment the surgery or effective treatment costs more than they've personally saved up. The whole issue with heath care is that you don't need it until you need it, and the moment you so need it... some drunk driver hit&runs you or you get some nasty disease or your baby is born needing surgery to repair a heart defect... then it's the rare huge bill all at once. One that can't be covered by a savings account, and which doesn't begin to be covered by giving everyone a voucher, unless those vouchers were pooled together as insurance payments.

--

He voted against the law.

http://tomgraves.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=224632

Good for him. Maybe he's raising the technical issue as a last-ditch effort to obstruct it.

He voted against the law. http://tomgraves.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=224632

You can get the roll call votes here
House: here
Senate: here

Senate Vote Results

House Vote Results

Yes it is. It's illegal to detach it, except for authorize repairs. IT is ALSO illegal to use it to misrepresent the mileage for any reason. This means there it's not just a civil matter; which it was prior to the law.

" A person may not -
                (1) advertise for sale, sell, use, install, or have installed,
            a device that makes an odometer of a motor vehicle register a
            mileage different from the mileage the vehicle was driven, as
            registered by the odometer within the designed tolerance of the
            manufacturer of the odometer;
                (2) disconnect, reset, alter, or have disconnected, reset, or
            altered, an odometer of a motor vehicle intending to change the
            mileage registered by the odometer;
                (3) with intent to defraud, operate a motor vehicle on a
            street, road, or highway if the person knows that the odometer of
            the vehicle is disconnected or not operating; or
                (4) conspire to violate this section or section 32704 or 32705
            of this title."

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/49C327.txt

Well my congressman is a physicist, neener neener.

I'll take that over somebody who believes that some big invisible guy in the sky is controlling everything.

Just raise the income tax back to pre-Regan era levels

I would say I'm amazed at the economic illiteracy of /.'ers, but it's not really a surprise given political discourse these days. I'll let the Joint Economic Committee do the talking for me. http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

During the 1980s ERTA had reduced personal tax rates by about 25 percent, while the Tax Reform Act of 1986 chopped them yet again.

after the high marginal tax rates of 1981 were cut, tax payments and the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent climbed sharply. For example, in 1981 the top 1 percent paid 17.6 percent of all personal income taxes, but by 1988 their share had jumped to 27.5 percent, a 10 percentage point increase.

The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.

The 1993 Clinton tax increase appears to [sic] having the opposite effect on the willingness of wealthy taxpayers to expose income to taxation. According to IRS data, the income generated by the top one percent of income earners actually declined in 1993.

according to the FY 1997 Clinton budget submission, individual income tax revenues as a share of GDP will be lower during the first four years of the Clinton tax increase, which include the effects of the 1990 tax increase, than under the last four years of the Reagan tax changes (FY 1986-89)

Even so, individual income tax revenues rose from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989.

Strangely appropriate to this story - there is a 'rebuttal to Sutton' from the NBPC (as far as I can tell, it's like a union for Border Patrol?), that attempts to offer an opposing view termed as 'Fact' opposed to Sutton's 'Reality' .

It seems to contain more than a few half-truths - claims that the prosecution case relies almost entirely on a convicted drug smuggler, "hardly a trustworthy source", using the word almost to obscure the fact that the other eye-witness was a fellow Border Agent. But it's worth seeing as an example of how short-sighted this whole 'Fact Agency' idea is.

The churches my wife's dragged me to had people wearing anti-gay-marriage and pro-Prop 8 T-shirts, and the leadership openly spouted that philosophy. After getting sick of this kind of stuff, my wife's stopped dragging me to church at all.

You mean churches are teaching the Bible? For shame! How dare those evil Christians teach the book that their entire religion is based on!

Either way, opposing gay marriage is not "bashing homosexuals". Marriage is seen as a religious institution. Homosexuality is not. The two don't mix so churches tend to be against it. Churches bash homosexuality, not homosexuals, and they are against homosexuality because it's a sin in the eyes of the church. Churches tend to "bash" all sin. For example, my church has come out far more strongly against gossip than they have against homosexuality. Is the church bashing little old ladies now?

Also I have never heard of a church support "killing non-Christians, invading other countries to establish imperialism, etc." You're just making that up.

As for the Tea Partiers, all you have to do is look at what their representatives in Congress are voting for. I don't give a rat's ass what individual TPers at events are saying, you have to look at who they choose to represent them, and what they do. All I see is a lot of anti-abortion crap, no ending of funding for all these wars, and no real solutions to the budget problem.

You mean that REPUBLICANS are against abortions? Yes, I said Republicans because there is no one in Congress that lists their party affiliation as "T". How dare those bastards stand for something they got elected on!

Here's a hint for you. The TEA Party supported them because they are fiscal conservatives. That is the official TEA Party platform, or it would be if there was such a thing as the TEA Party. If there were any pro-choice Democrats or Republicans who were as adamant about following the 10th Amendment, then they would receive TEA Party support as well. For example, the TEA Party endorsed Walt Minnick, a pro-choice Democrat, because he voted against Obamacare and the stimulus. However, Minnick rejected the endorsement because the open minded Democrats like yourself would have used it against him, and the endorsement was recalled.

... and no real solutions to the budget problem.

What would you suggest? Cutting funding from unnecessary programs like Planned Parenthood and NPR? It was tried. Why didn't that pass? The government nearly shut down and all I heard about was how the Republicans were going to shut down the gov't over NPR and abortion. Strange how I never heard that DEMOCRATS were going to let the government be shut down over NPR and abortion. Maybe we could start small, like cutting a mere $60 Billion from the budget? Yeah, that didn't go over too well either.

So it appears that it doesn't really matter what plans TEA Party supported candidates suggest. None of it will pass. So rather than saying that TP supported candidates have no plans, why don't you look up those plans and find out whose keeping them from becoming law. Once that is done, you can come back and explain who has no plans to balance the budget.

Really? Exactly what data are they sending back to Apple then?

http://markey.house.gov/docs/applemarkeybarton7-12-10.pdf

Actually the Progressive Caucus in the house has a plan to balance the budget in 10 years...by doing just such progressive types of expenditures and tax reforms. Nobody else even comes close to that, Obama or the GOP.

Food stamps are a net gain for the economy, for every dollar you put in you get $1.60 of economic output or there abouts. Unemployment payments are likewise positive budget factors. You get more out than you put in because of economic cascading effects. That is actual studied and proven by the CBO. The worst way to 'stimulate' the economy? tax cuts to the wealthy.

My point is that people aren't going to just stop lending to us overnight or for the foreseeable future - Defaulting on the debt, will cause them to stop lending to us pretty damned quick. So one step is guaranteed to cause financial disaster, the other might in time. Why the hell would you choose defaulting on the debt of those two options.

Investing in our country (and in others) so we can compete globally is the only way to grow ourselves out of this, we simply can't cut enough to solve the problems we face. It's funny how the GOP conservatives who usually 'rah rah' the American small businessman, seem to think they can't grow enough to help so we must cut our way to budget balance.

Tell us why you are prepared to trust Apple AND its partners and licensees (whom you may never know) not to abuse the information it has been collecting on you?

I don't trust Apple. When I was about to get an iPhone in January I indeed read the TOS and especially the letter Apple has sent to Congress last year, explaining its mechanisms and privacy policies. And I came to the conclusion that I don't need to trust Apple to be reasonably sure they will respect my privacy. Because the way they gather data seems to make invading my privacy quite impossible. Believe it or not, technical solutions to technical problems instead of "trust me!". Unheard of!

Really, I found their mechanisms to be surprisingly sophisticated (in a good way) and considerate. Random IDs generated on the iPhone twice daily for sending location data are so much better than Google sending the Unique Device ID and Carrier User ID to its servers that no amount of trusting Google could compensate for that.

And yes, I was surprised, I did not expect that. So: I don't trust Apple, but I think I don't have to trust them.

Don't know if this answers your question. But personally I think if you're looking for a company (or government for that matter) you can trust, you will be shafted sooner or later. Make sure you don't have to trust them. Technical details matter.

WRT to this location database on the iPhone: Well. If storing the locations of the cell towers means the iPhone don't has to ask the databases of Google or SkyHook over and over again for these coordinates, I rather have them on my iPhone. Because every time your phone asks SkyHook where a cell tower with a certain ID is, it neccessarily tells SkyHook where you are. Either you have a local DB for that or you connect to an external one. Tough choice. Either your phone tracks you or Google/SkyHook tracks your phone. I know what to prefer.

But just too many people have no idea how aGPS works and believe they can have their cake and eat it, too.

that was my thought. I was withholding judgement until Apple actually opened their mouths.
apparently they decided to stick their feet into their mouths.

It's called "quote mining". The explanation* for the location data is really quite straightforward. Apple isn't doing anything here that isn't also being done by Google, only the method varies.

*pdf warning

According to Apple, Apple sends itself your precise location data and shares that location data with whoever it wants to...

http://markey.house.gov/docs/applemarkeybarton7-12-10.pdf

As far as I know, Apple isn't the phone company and shouldn't be in the business of tracking its users from cell tower to cell tower or Wi-Fi to Wi-Fi.

What if Toyota or GM or Ford started tracking the users of its cars? How freaky would that be? Actually, if they partner with Apple, they can track you in your car. That Orwellian 1984 Ad from Apple, back in 1984, really makes sense now...except the roles are reversed. If Google does this too, then Rotten Google indeed.

Precise Orwellian location tracking, massive sales in authoritarian China...hmm...
http://techland.time.com/2011/04/21/iphone-growth-suddenly-soaring-in-china/

= 9J =

http://markey.house.gov/docs/applemarkeybarton7-12-10.pdf (around page 6)

This file does *not* track you. It tracks WiFi access points (and maybe cellphone towers). The data is used both by the OS for location services and for random users at random intervals by Apple to optimize their WiFi landmark databases. In this case iTunes asks you to transfer the file back to Apple (which you can accept or deny).

BTW, I'm totally disgusted by the witchhunt reflex here. Is this "News for Nerds" or "Lynchmob United"?

So the question comes down to: what's the purpose of the file? Does it exist for a legitimate reason? Or something more sinister? Since the file is never sent anywhere, it's hard to see how Apple directly benefit here.

http://markey.house.gov/docs/applemarkeybarton7-12-10.pdf

Page 6. Nothing new, really. And nothing evil either.

Its very telling that manufacturing, in general, rarely if ever had to rely on prison labor or slavery, unlike, say, agriculture.

...because land policies drove desperate peopl into the cities looking for any work. Read up on land enclosure and the history of the Industrial Revolution.

And China, the modern manufacturing powerhouse, makes use of prison labor.

Yes, a skilled machinist has a pretty decent jobs, and yes, the bias against manufacturing work is a bad thing. But there are some unpleasant fact at the root of the bias.

"For all the obsession about balanced budgets you rarely, if ever, hear the GOP pushing plans which would actually do it."

I'd suggest you take a look at Rep. Ryan's 2012 Budget Plan

Of course, as soon as you realize the plan actually outlines cuts outside discretionary spending, you'll likely change your tune and say that you can't cut non-discretionary spending (after just insisting that's what the GOP would do if it were serious about balancing the budget)...

Today, the House voted to adopt the resolution (H. Res. 200) that will allow it to consider the actual resolution to overturn the regulation tomorrow. Note the words "Providing for consideration" in the title of the actual vote.

Granted, the House is still likely going to vote for the measure, but saying it's already passed is inaccurate.

Before we shell out the cash, let's write our elected reps in congress and the justice department and try to halt the merger.
http://senate.gov/
http://house.gov/
http://justice.gov/

Here, no excuse: Representative and Senator.

Copy and Paste if you really can't be bothered:

Senator / Congress(wo)man [name here],

Please do whatever you can to stop the AT&T buyout of T-Mobile USA, it is bad for consumers and will hurt consumer choice. I do not want the buyout to go through and neither do you other constituents. [Optional: This is an important issue for me and if you do not take action, I will be forced to vote for a representative/senator who will better represent my interests in the future.]

Sincerely,
[Your real name]

Back in Nov I wrote my rep about the TSA's scanners. Here is a copy of his letter to the TSA. http://markey.house.gov/docs/homeland_security/markey_letter_to_fda_11.23.10.pdf

Is there a site or something that gives the vote records for subcommittees? If these articles are saying it was along party lines someone must have a list. If we can put names to decisions that's a lot more useful than blaming the entire party.

Assuming this was strictly on party lines here is the site of subcommittees, but some apparently didn't vote.

For the lazy here is the table of members. Take note of whether your representative is on the naughty list.

Republicans
Greg Walden (OR) Chair
Lee Terry (NE) Vice Chair
Cliff Stearns (FL)
John Shimkus (IL)
Mary Bono Mack (CA)
Mike Rogers (MI)
Brian Bilbray (CA)
Charlie Bass (NH)
Marsha Blackburn (TN)
Phil Gingrey (GA)
Steve Scalise (LA)
Bob Latta (OH)
Brett Guthrie (KY)
Adam Kinzinger (IL)
Joe Barton (TX)
Fred Upton (MI)


Democrats
Anna G. Eshoo (CA)
Edward J. Markey (MA)
Michael F. Doyle (PA)
Doris O. Matsui (CA)
Jane Harman (CA)
John Barrow (GA)
Edolphus Towns (NY)
Frank Pallone, Jr. (NJ)
Bobby L. Rush (IL)
Diana DeGette (CO)
John D. Dingell (MI)
Henry A. Waxman (CA)

Increasing spending (mostly on defense) while cutting taxes is called starving the beast, that was a strategy for Republicans under Reagan. It didn't really work though.

You want to talk about cutting spending for real, there is a plan for that: http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/ It can't be talked about because it touches the sacred cows of Social Security and Medicare, and without them there can't be any meaningful cuts.

Your children's children's children will continue to pay for the work I've done, because for someone else to do all the work of copying and distributing it they must pay me simply because "it" exists, even though I am not putting in any effort to the distribution of the product anymore. Right?

Yes. Right. Indeed. And it's the right thing to do.

Entitlement. Do the work once, get paid forever, and your kids never have to work. "It's the right thing to do" because you somehow think you deserve it, just like forcing everybody to pay taxes to feed the poor is "the right thing to do." Full-blown communism is "the right thing to do" because it (theoretically) produces a society with no poor, no hungry, no infirm that can't get care, no homeless... and no liberties, even if it worked economically.

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8. Check it yourself. Limited times.

Without the expiration of these rights, the light bulb would still be patented. Ford would have exclusive rights to most of what's in the automobile-- lots of automotive companies have patents on improvements to Ford's innovative designs from back in the early days of the automobile. Anything made on an assembly line would be far more expensive, because somebody would have an eternal patent on that.

Do you know why high schools and colleges perform The Crucible, Fiddler on the Roof, and Shakespeare as plays? Why not Beauty and the Beast?

Performances must be done by accredited schools using students in Grade 9 or under only. High schools with students older than ninth grade must contact Music Theater International directly.

Dance Studios and Summer Camps which are accredited by the American Camping Association may also perform the shows. These types of organizations will have some different license restrictions with respect to the age of performers, the number of performances allowed and the time frame during which the performances must take place.

Sorry, orders cannot be processed for Community Theatres, Children's Theatres or Performing Arts schools which do not have an academic curriculum.

Your purchase price includes the materials in the showkit plus unlimited performing rights for one year.

Because it's fucking expensive if you're dealing with anyone out of 9th grade. $550 for a 1 year license isn't bad; my voice teacher directed a high school play for Beauty and the Beast and said the license for the score and performance rights for high school kids cost over $50,000. Note that usually high schools don't do this; colleges do this.

Imagine if for Fiddler on the Roof your middle school had to pay $500, and for The Crucible you had to pay $800, and for Shakespeare you had to pay $200 (because Shakespeare is garbage), every year. So much for having three plays at every school every year, it'd be like $250,000. Never mind when people decide it's going to be $500 performance + $250 for each copy of the score-- you can't copy it yourself-- which means all 30 kids in this play ... oh, $7,500 for the materials. Oh and you damn well better not record the performance, unless you want to pay ANOTHER licensing fee; it's notable that the $550 you pay for Disney's material does NOT include recording rights!

Symphony orchestras are really big and only people with lots and lots of money would be allowed to cover or interpret classical music held by the Mozart Estate. Disney wouldn't actually exist, since most of their classic stuff is rip-offs of folk tales.

It is almost universally agreed by everyone who doesn't have a big stake in it that unlimited copyright terms are a big, big drain on the economy, and on culture by those who take the time to care about such things. Go back to college and ask your economics teacher.

Nevermind, some sites are just not updated yet. Even Thomas still shows it in committee still, but apparently there was a vote a few hours ago.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll026.xml

Here's the vote list:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll026.xml

Key Stats:

Republicans:
Yea: 210
Nay: 26

Democrats:
Yea: 67
Nay: 122

Republicans killed the bill my ass.

Good job Republicans! Wow, never thought I'd say that.. Well, after being in power for 17 of the last 20 years, it's about time you did something right.

Um... 90% of Repubs voted FOR extending it...! http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll026.xml

No one is calling Assange a terrorist or a combatant of any form, legal or illegal.

You would be wrong about thatwould be wrong about that. Examples from the horses mouth: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/hearing/ny03_king/kingsupportsprosecutionofwikileaks.html http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/301603

Write a letter or E-mail to your congressman and Obama? Call the state department and leave a voicemail that you want the US to support democratization (202) 647-4000

Since when are handguns allowed in airports? I mean besides Law Enforcement and Air Marshals. I'm assuming your not so stupid as to argue against them carrying guns.

OK, I'll bite. Yes, there should not be air marshals carrying guns on planes. And at least one Congrssman agrees with me. Its a complete and utter waste of money.
http://duncan.house.gov/2009/06/22062009.shtml

You might actually want to check and see who is actually sending in more money to the government. I am betting you think it is the poor or middle class. You would be wrong according to the reported government numbers. The bottom 50% earners are only paying 2.7% of the total income tax received. This is actual money sent in to the government. Where is the myth that the poor are paying more than others coming from?

If the bottom 50% of the earners are only paying 2.7% of the income tax that ends up to be even less of the total amount of revenue that the federal government actually gets. How do people say the "rich" are getting off scott-free and the middle class and the poor are actually paying for everything? The actual revenue numbers being reported by the federal government don't seem to support that statement.

Top 1% Pay 38% of all income tax
Top 5% Pay 59% of all income tax
Top 10% Pay 70% of all income tax
Bottom 50% Pay 2.7% of all income tax
47% of American Households didn't pay any income tax for 2009.

45% of all the revenues of the government in 2009 and 2010 were from income tax. Corporate tax revenue was 13% in 2009 and 9% in 2010 of total revenues. The federal government revenues from largest to smallest are Income Tax, Social Security and other payroll taxes, Corporate Tax. All the other taxes don't even add up to the Corporate Tax amounts.

So if you added corporate taxes to the top 5% then you are talking 71.7% of revenues in 2009. It would 67.7% of revenues in 2010. So it would appear to me that the "rich" in this country are paying significantly more than half of the cash needed/used for the government to run.

So exactly who are the "rich" that we are talking about? It is just the fat cats on Wall Street and the CEOs? I don't think so.

If you look at who the corporations are in this country you might be surprised. 99% of all corporations/firms in this country have under 100 employees. They make up 30% of the revenue of all US companies. If you move up to companies with under 500 employees now you are talking about 46% of all the revenue of US companies. So small businesses are paying roughly 30% of the corporate taxes and small-medium companies are paying roughly 46% of all the corporate taxes. I suspect that most of the people who own these businesses would be considered "rich" by most people, but they are not the wall street fat cats and typical CEOs that people think of as the "rich". I make that comment because I hear people saying the middle class is disappearing. If that is the case then I would assume that those who own their own business are considered "rich".

Please explain to me how this is suppose to work where the "rich" supposedly are not paying their fair share. I am not saying the distribution of earnings in the US is a good/perfect thing. I do think everyone still has a chance to make more money and own their own business today, if they are willing to work hard and take the risks required.

http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/smallbus.html
http://www.kiplinger.com/features/archives/how-your-income-stacks-up.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget
http://budget.house.gov/
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/index.html
http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/federal-revenue
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/07/income-tax-47-of-american_n_529059.html

http://washingtontechnology.com/articles/2011/01/11/house-websites-go-to-drupal.aspx

The House of Representatives will be moving all their sites to Drupal; the freshmen of the 112th Congress get theirs first. Here's one example:

http://brooks.house.gov/

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/15C50.txt
-CITE- 15 USC Sec. 2302 02/01/2010
-EXPCITE- TITLE 15 - COMMERCE AND TRADE
        CHAPTER 50 - CONSUMER PRODUCT WARRANTIES
-HEAD- Sec. 2302. Rules governing contents of warranties
(...)
No warrantor of a consumer product may condition his written or implied warranty of such product on the consumer's using, in connection with such product, any article or service (other than article or service provided without charge under the terms of the warranty) which is identified by brand, trade, or corporate name;

(some exceptions, etc...)

The original idea behind the Anglo-Saxon term of "copyright" was just that - the (exclusive) right to copy something.

Yes, in Britain. Not in the US. The constitution describes why congress is given the power to grant copyright. "Section 8, Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"

I would suggest obligating them to have any and all holdings in a blind trust. That's actually almost a de facto requirement in the US right now, in order to comply with disclosure rules.

Because companies have been earning billions from the war without needing to pump oil.

http://oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2687&catid=44:legislation

See some of the posts above:

"Recently, however NSF has funded some more questionable projects - $750,000 to develop computer models to analyze the on-field contributions of soccer players and $1.2 million to model the sound of objects breaking for use by the video game industry."

http://republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut/Review.htm

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/daily-outrage/2010/12/daily-outrage-more-why-our-economy-going-extinct

Who, in their right mind, would grant $750K towards video games over ANY OTHER GRANT?? At the very least *someone* in the NSF ought to be held accountable.

Well, in this case, they are actually looking for things that are arguably outside the NSF's original intent. They are citing stuff like $1.2 million to model the sound of objects breaking for use by the video game industry as the type of cuts they are looking for.

We can probably think if this more as cutting waste by fraud or something then cutting to save money. It took a while to find exactly what they were talking about without it being filtered through a bunch of biased interpretations first.

Well here's a hint, you don't target the hundreds of thousands per individual science grant, that people will oppose simply upon the basis that they don't understand the science behind them nor it's potential benefits. Just imagine some idiot decrying research into the genetics of fruit flys, how dumb can you be not to realise how that genetic research can be used in other fields and even used in that field itself to control a pest that destroys hundreds of millions of dollars worth of food every year hint dumb enough to be a vice presidential candidate apparently.

You also don't shut off your video player and stop reading the screens in front of you in order to save energy or something then go on Slashdot and rant in a way that makes it appear you did just that.

They clearly state both in the video and the article with it that they aren't attacking the NSF in general over it's contributions to basic science, but research going to private industry and things like rigging a soccer game. They are asking for submissions of stuff like that, it will be openly reviewed and taken from there. But the stressed that they are for the basic science research so your fruit flies would likely be safe, (unless they are sending the money to france to be benefit the french economy again in which case, it might be an issue).

Want to save money than tackle the big ticket items first, aircraft, ships and tanks designed to fight a world war the no longer exists and even if it did, would simply result in mutual nuclear annihilation. So no new planes, tanks or ships for a decade, make do with what is already in the arsenal which is greater than the rest of the world combined. Also an end the the exorbitant cost of militarising the police, the only result of which is to generate tens of millions of dollars of successful lawsuits for the excessive use of force.

Why don't you look at the site a little. It doesn't seem as if they are trying to save money rather then eliminate wastes money. There is a difference. It's one thing for you to walk into a store and look at two identical things made by the same company in the same package with two difference price tags on two of the packages and you decide to buy the more expensive one. It's another thing entirely when you are using someone else' money to do that. I mean would you be fine with your landlord or bank upping your rent/mortgage payment because they wanted to fund a sport team somewhere?

So what is YouCut all about, obviously one thing and one thing only to direct peoples eyes away from the billion dollar wasts, such as no bid contracts, the military industrial complex and bridges to no where and get them focused on things they don't understand and they feel superior about when they laugh at them. The ignorant wallowing in the ignorance.

Perhaps you should actually look at it before speaking to it. Obviously you have some predetermined notions and aren't letting the facts speak for themselves. You should strap your knee to the chair to save you face and surf the sight unbiased them speak about it.

This is just one proposal.

Currently up for vote, to be submitted to the house:
Eliminate Unnecessary Congressional Printing -- Potential savings of $35 million + over ten years
Refocus National Archives Activities On Preserving Federal Records -- Potential Savings of $10 million next year and $100 million over ten years
Terminate Broadcasting Facility Grant Programs that Have Completed their Mission -- Potential Savings of $25 million in the first year, $250 million over ten years

If these aren't to your liking, then you can go and submit your own suggestion here:
http://republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut/YourIdea.htm

And again for those that can't RTFA or even visit the site, here are the previous ideas that were presented to the House to be cut:
Week One: Cut the New Non-Reformed Welfare Program ($25 Billion Savings)
Week Two: Eliminate Federal Employee Pay Raise ($30 Billion Savings)
Week Three: Reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ($30 Billion Savings)
Week Four: Sell Excess Federal Property ($15 Billion Savings)
Week Five: Prohibit Hiring New IRS Agents to Enforce Health Care Law ($15 Billion Savings)
Week Six: Taxpayer Subsidized Union Activities ($1.2 Billion Savings)
Week Seven: Prohibit Stimulus Funding for Promotional Signage (Tens of Millions)
Week Eight: Prohibit Sleeper Car Subsidies on Amtrak ($1.2 Billion Savings)
Week Nine: Bipartisan Proposal to Terminate AEITC ($1.1 Billion Savings)
Week Ten: Require Collection of Unpaid Taxes From Federal Employees ($1 Billion Savings)
Week Eleven: Reduce Government Employment to 2008 Levels ($35 Billion Savings)
Week Twelve: Terminate the TARP Program Prohibiting Any Additional Bailouts
Week Thirteen: Terminate Taxpayer Funding of National Public Radio
Week Fourteen: Eliminate Unnecessary Congressional Printing

This is one of the first weeks where I did not see ideas that would cut billions out of the federal budget.

Interestingly, or rather, not surprisingly, the votes to make these cuts were nearly down party lines. I am not going to say that Republicans are more or less fiscally responsible, but rather it seems to me that no matter which party brings in the good idea, the other votes against it, almost in spite because the didn't think of it first.

There are always too many Democratic congressmen, too many Republican congressmen, and never enough U.S. congressmen. ~Author Unknown

I was wondering about that -- how much did the office of the minority whip spend to put together this program?

Well, it turns out that the House publishes their expenses every three months at http://disbursements.house.gov/ . "YouCut" doesn't appear to be explicitly budgeted. (Congress could learn a lesson from the NSF about transparency -- the NSF publishes expenditures for particular projects.)

So that leaves us to do some sleuthing and guesswork. Here are some puzzle-pieces that I found with about 10 minutes of searching:

• The main site is hosted by the House's IT department.
• The data-collection for their SMS poll is hosted by tatango.com.
• The data-collection for the NSF review is hosted on a staff member's personal GoDaddy.com server.
• The technical labor appears to be valued at ~$90k/yr, although it's not clear how much labor went into this particular project. (A man-day? A man-week? Six man-months?)

If the above facts are indicative of the project and its decision-making, then the project operates on a low-budget basis. Kudos for that.

Of course, "low budget" isn't good enough -- we need to get a return on investment. So what do we get? If the project produces an actively-engaged public which critically and broadly considers the costs and benefits of the national budget, then that would be a good return. If the project elevates the national discourse, then that would be a good return.

But I don't think we'll get that return. Look at the format of the site: each week, a Republican operative edits a list of 3-5 items that he thinks should be cut. This list includes options like "Prohibit Hiring New IRS Agents to Enforce Health Care Law" or "Terminate Taxpayer Funding of National Public Radio." Next, the list is published, and "the public" is asked to vote among these biased options. A week later, the tallies come in and -- surprise! -- the winning option is a Republican talking-point!

So what return will the public get on its investment in YouCut? Well, I guess we'll have some fodder to toss into the Republican machine, and that might help the Republican machine manufacture more outrage.

To recap, the public is investing an unknown (but relatively small) amount in the YouCut program to manufacture Republican outrage. Is that a good investment?

Since the blog linked in the summary is down, here is the link to the site itself: http://republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut/ I might be missing something but I don't see anything about the National Science Foundation, never mind being the "first target". The first chosen cut was something called "New Non-Reformed Welfare Program"

SSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We awe hunting Wepublicans. We don't need no stinking facts to get on ow way.

Since the blog linked in the summary is down, here is the link to the site itself: http://republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut/ I might be missing something but I don't see anything about the National Science Foundation, never mind being the "first target". The first chosen cut was something called "New Non-Reformed Welfare Program"

http://republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut/Review.htm

They specifically target NSF projects here. They suggest that regular people go through the NSF list of grants and report anything that they think is wasteful. Which will be everything. Regular people have no idea how much science costs or have any capacity to evaluate what is and is not sound science. Its such a fucking scumbag move.

I went to that site and entered my own submission - I told him he's a scumbag motherfucker. Not very gracious, but after watching his video, that's how I felt. I encourage other slashdot users to go there and add their own comments!
-Taylor

Since the blog linked in the summary is down, here is the link to the site itself: http://republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut/ I might be missing something but I don't see anything about the National Science Foundation, never mind being the "first target". The first chosen cut was something called "New Non-Reformed Welfare Program"

http://republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut/Review.htm

They specifically target NSF projects here. They suggest that regular people go through the NSF list of grants and report anything that they think is wasteful. Which will be everything. Regular people have no idea how much science costs or have any capacity to evaluate what is and is not sound science. Its such a fucking scumbag move.

I went to that site and entered my own submission - I told him he's a scumbag motherfucker. Not very gracious, but after watching his video, that's how I felt. I encourage other slashdot users to go there and add their own comments!
-Taylor