Slashdot Mirror

That figure covers 114 separate contracts (see http://usaspending.gov/explore?tab=By+Prime+Awardee&fiscal_year=all&idvpiid=HHSM500200700015I&typeofview=transactions )

All these contracts are with the same "HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, DEPARTMENT". It seems like they itemized the whole work as a serious of smaller contracts. With the general governmental corruption and inefficiency it is quite believable that they could waste half a G$ on a single IT system.

That figure covers 114 separate contracts (see http://usaspending.gov/explore?tab=By+Prime+Awardee&fiscal_year=all&idvpiid=HHSM500200700015I&typeofview=transactions ) Not to suggest that it still wasn't overly expensive, but consider the fact that the system is a national transaction application that has to dip into numerous other federal data sources - and has a mission criticality above and beyond facebook. Still, many of us could have done it better and cheaper, but then again very few of us would actually enjoy working for the federal government and conducting our business the way any federal contractor is required to.

Read about it here.

Yours In Baikonur,
Kilgore T.

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=
(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

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.

Because next people will be saying, "Why do we need to send another probe to Mars? Haven't we already done that. Why not use the money on project on something else more useful? Maybe an extra billion for program X."

Sorry, but out side of slashdot and a few other geeky sites, how many of the general public know about spirit and opportunity STILL being on mars and roving around? Next question, how many actually care

NASA's budget already is only $18B a year. The state of New York Dept of Health got $29B last year. http://www.usaspending.gov/

1 LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION ... $29.748500571 Billion
2 THE BOEING COMPANY ... $18.231538802 Billion
3 GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION ... $12.318737574 Billion
4 NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION ... $11.900713440 Billion
5 RAYTHEON COMPANY ... $11.156782353 Billion

Now you may already know this, but if not, another hour of research won't kill you, but each of those companies is very diversified in the types of products the provide to their customers. They work on everything from appliances, to housing, to spacecraft. However, a little more research and a little intuition will show you that these companies are, above all else, arms developers. And the majority of their contracts coming from the federal government are those dedicated to developing the new, powerful, absurdly capable weapons that would have been useful in the Cold War, which ended ~20 years ago. If you add up the total monetary value of the contracts provided to these five companies for FY 2009, you see that, together, $88.356272740 Billion (with a B) was awarded to companies that are essentially developing technology to fight a war that fizzled out 20 years ago. Now of course, neither economics or politics are as simple as I am making this out to be, but it does illustrate a point. While these companies probably are also getting plenty of money for advancing science and engineering in general, the mass majority of the spending by the federal government is spent ramping up what is already the most powerful and capable military in the world right now.

Suppose, for a second, that the war-machine lobby groups could be quelled long enough that the exorbitant level of funds being diverted to arms development and obscure wars on ideas (terrorism, drugs, etc.) could, instead, be cut significantly and diverted instead to, as you put it, meaningful science pursuits. We could, quite easily, save money on a federal level AND fund space exploration (manned and unmanned) AND fund alternative energy AND fund stem cell research AND fund computer infrastructure development etc. Instead, however, we have allowed our federal government to be infiltrated and overtaken by corrupt, greedy, selfish corporate interests. Thus, rather than funding valuable, civil science and tech, we have a government whose spending levels are out of control. A good amount of that spending goes towards funding wars that are sketchy at best, and a dormant lion of a military that needs nothing more than a twitchy trigger finger on its leash to free an unholy uproar of annihilation and chaos.

In short, our current priorities are the only thing that keep our country from properly funding the sciences that both you, and I, find valuable simultaneously

Hell the federal government can't account for the money it's spending

Really? They seem to have a handle on it to me.

Like this? http://www.usaspending.gov/fpds/tables.php?tabtype=t2&subtype=t&year=2009 Or any of the other easily available charts on the site...

Actually, my mistake, this is the correct link:

Microsoft Corporation Contracts

The initial search (linked in parent) for some reason included the "United States Government" in the search results for Microsoft as a parent company.

I'd be far less concerned about the tens of millions ($52m in 2009) going to Microsoft and more worried about the tens of billions ($26b in 2009) going to companies like Lockheed Martin where $11b of it weren't even competed contracts.

You mean something like this?

Microsoft Contracts

I mean come on, the search by contractors was only one click from the main page ;)

Looks like the evidence wasn't up for long. http://it.usaspending.gov/customcode/ now reports: You don't have permission to access /customcode/ on this server.

Looking at the Dashboard, I just see pretty charts and graphs with vague things like "Normal", "Needs Attention", and "Significant Concerns" with percentages.

I would like to see dollar figures and who is actually getting the money. For example, I want to be able to click on the red "Significant Concerns" and see exactly why that's the case.

My second point: if you F/OSS folks don't like your creations being used by folks and not getting credit or money, then you should put explicit terms in your license that state what exactly you demand. People are not mind readers and just throwing it out on the net with some sort of GPL license and expect folks to just give you money or credit isn't going to happen: you have to demand it. Whining about it on Slashdot doesn't count.

P.S. To whoever wrote this edit box script: you suck!

I went poking around, and almost immediately found, marked in red for "Significant Concerns", the following project:

CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN COMPLEX/TACTICAL WARNING - ATTACK ASSESSMENT

Why leave off California? Anyway, I think a more valid comparison would be total dollar spent (see here -- the ranking is pretty much the same) rather than just the largest projects this year. Also, what you really should be doing is looking at net Federal expenditures per state, i.e. the difference between the Federal taxes paid and the Federal grants received. That would tell you whether Minnesota is actually subsidizing New York. The site in question doesn't cover that issue, but here's a pdf from The Tax Foundation that does. Look over the data yourself, but it looks to me like New York is subsidizing everyone else.

This is a good first step towards accountability.

Personally, I'd like to vote on the overall budget expenditures for the big 20 departments. We shouldn't be surprised when departments and programs we love don't get much funding while others we dislike very much do. Most citizens don't have any valid idea how much money goes into any program. Most think we spend 50% on the military and 10% on NASA. Those numbers were significantly lower a few years ago (22%/0.5%). The thing that bothers me most is Social Security is like 55% of the total budget. That's just crazy. Wild swings in spending shouldn't be allowed even if we vote. No more than a 5% change in any department per year, so they can smoothly transition to the next annual budget amounts up or down.

We need to carefully monitor http://it.usaspending.gov/?q=content/investments-rated-agency until all of them are reporting. Only a few (less than 5) out of 30+ departments are currently reporting.

Perhaps I'm crazy.

The summary is misleading. As best I can figure out, the site tracks ALL government spending, not merely IT. It's a little confusing because they provide a special tool just for IT investments -- the "IT Dashboard" -- which gives you some additional reports. But information about all (non-classified) spending is included on the main site. If you're interested in the DoD, look here.

2 NEW YORK STATE DEPT OF HEALTH NY $18,335,672,042 Percent of total: 5.764%
3 TEXAS HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION TX $13,514,862,175 Percent of total: 4.248%
4 PENNSYLVANIA DEPT OF PUBLIC WELFARE PA $11,168,181,944 Percent of total: 3.511%

The other states fall in at around or less than 1%. I understand those states are high population but that should mean more tax income to the state. So you're telling me that someone who lives in Minnesota is paying Federal taxes to support New York Health Dept and Texas Human Services Dept? I really don't like that when states like Texas are all about "smaller government" and "lower taxes" or that people flock to NYC to be at the "center of the world" yet their taxes don't reflect that cost and other states pick it up. So what, you just shift your debt off to other states and freeload on Federal relief? From the data, around 2007 this started becoming a huge disparity between states. Why? You switched to Vista? Ridiculous.

Nice the dems are back in charge. Continuing on Gore's invention of the internet, Obama invented http://www.usaspending.gov/ [usaspending.gov]

Actually, Obama was one of the inventors of that site.

Welcome to USASpending.gov
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act) requires a single searchable website, accessible by the public for free that includes for each Federal award

If we look a the Wikipedia article for that Act:

The bill was introduced by Senator Tom Coburn, for himself and Senators Barack Obama, Tom Carper and John McCain on April 6, 2006.[1] After two "secret holds" placed by Senators Ted Stevens, a Republican, and Robert Byrd, a Democrat were revealed and removed[4][5], it was passed unanimously in the Senate on September 7, 2006 and by the House on September 13, 2006. The bill was signed into law by President George W. Bush on September 26, 2006.[6]

Note that this bill is a bi-partisan initiative: Coburn-R, Obama-D, Carper-D and McCain-R introduced this bill.

Same can be said for leaving files unattended while the receptionist goes to flirt with the new doctor.

We can't let that be a reason to use technology to help people be healthier.

Nice the dems are back in charge. Continuing on Gore's invention of the internet, Obama invented http://www.usaspending.gov/

.

If that's what you're waiting for, than you might want to have a look at this article about http://www.usaspending.gov/... It's an eye opener...

This comment (and the GP) illustrates the point that people's expectations for the US government are often much lower than justified. This reflects the fact that there is much in the government that is thoughtful, competent, efficient, and honorable.

If that's what you're waiting for, than you might want to have a look at this article about http://www.usaspending.gov/... It's an eye opener...

Here are just a few highlights from Barack Obama's career as a US Senator: specific pieces of legislation, what they meant and how they were passed.

The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act

Introduced by Sen. John McCain in May 2005, and cosponsored by Sen. Edward Kennedy. Barack Obama added three amendments to this bill.

While the bill was never voted on in the Senate, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Acts of 2006 and 2007, respectively, drew heavily upon the wording of this bill.

The Lugar-Obama Cooperative Threat Reduction.

Introduced by Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Dick Lugar and Sen. Tom Coburn.

First introduced in November 2005 and enacted in 2007, this bill expanded upon the successful Nunn-Lugar threat reduction, which helped secure weapons of mass destruction and related infrastructure in former Soviet Union states.

Lugar-Obama expanded this nonproliferation program to conventional weapons -- including shoulder-fired rockets and land mines. When the bill received $48 million in funding, Obama said, "This funding will further strengthen our ability to detect and intercept illegal shipments of weapons and materials of mass destruction, enhancing efforts to prevent nuclear terrorism."

Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006

This act of Congress, introduced by Senators Obama and Coburn, required the full disclosure of all entities or organizations receiving federal funds in FY2007.

Despite a "secret hold" on this bill by Senators Ted Stevens and Robert Byrd, the act passed into law and was signed by President Bush. The act had 43 cosponsors, including John McCain.

The act created this Web site, which provides citizens with valuable information about government-funded programs.

Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act

This law helped specify US policy toward the Congo, and states that the US should work with other donor nations to increase international contributions to the African nation.

The bill marked the first federal legislation to be enacted with Obama as its primary sponsor. Following this legislation's passage, Obama toured Africa, traveling to South Africa, Kenya, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Chad. He spoke forcefully against ethnic rivalries and political corruption in Kenya.

Honest Leadership and Open Government Act

In the first month of the 110th Congress, Obama worked with Sen. Russ Feingold to pass this law, which amends and strengthens the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.

Specificially, the changes made by Obama and Feingold requires public disclosure of lobbying activity and funding, places more restrictions on gifts for members of Congress and their staff, and provides for mandatory disclosure of earmarks in expenditure bills.

The House passed the bill, 411-8, on July 31. The Senate approved it, 83-14, on Aug. 2. At the time, Obama called it "the most sweeping ethics reform since Watergate."

Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act

Following the Republican-sponsored voter intimidation tactics seen in mostly black counties in Maryland during the 2006 midterm elections, Obama worked with Sen. Chuck Schumer to introduce this bill.

The bill has been referred to the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Obama said of the bill, "This legislation would ensure that for the first time, these incidents are fully investigated and that those found guilty are punished."

Passing legislation to create a website for the people to track Federal spending isn't something to brag about?

Passing legislation to keep weapons out of the hands of terrorists is not something to brag about?

Getting lobbying and ethics reform passed is nothing to brag about?

What about his accomplishments in the IL legislature? Do those not count either?

I honestly don't care if you vote for him or not but don't go spreading this crap that he has no track record and no experience. That's just a cop-out and a way to dodge a real debate about the issues and challenges we face.

How about a few?

1) The Lugar-Obama Cooperative Threat Reduction
2) Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (check out this site)
3) Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (here's a story about it)

He's had the spine to stand up for himself quite well against the HRC and Republican attack machines. He's also one of the few politicians I've ever seen that can retain some semblance of class while going on the offensive. I rather enjoyed "I honor John McCain for his achievements, even if he chooses to deny mine"

I see weaknesses in every candidate, including Obama. Anyone who doesn't see some weakness in their candidate of choice is a partisan hack.

On balance though I think he has the right combination of intelligence and strength to lead this country. On balance I think that most of his ideas are good ones and he realizes that we can't keep arguing with each other while ignoring the rise of China and India if we wish to remain a global power. His plan to end the war on science and make education a long term priority should appeal to anyone that wants to see the United States remain competitive on the global stage.

Do you think he's stupid? Do you think he's weak? If so I think you are in for a rude surprise.

Yes, but you must remember that a Democrat in Texas is called a Republican everywhere else.