Slashdot Mirror
Government Web Sites Are Not for the Incumbents
Hal Plotkin has a column pointing out a severe deficiency in how the U.S. government handles web sites - they are often designed more to promote current office-holders than to conduct governmental affairs. The practice of using official resources for partisan political purposes is not new - the big rush actually hit about 3-4 years ago - but we could make such better use of the web, if only...
Open Secrets is a great place to find the kind of info you're looking for. Even just a peak here is very revealing.
From MoveOn.org ("working to bring ordinary people back into politics") -- download your very own "Regime Change Begins at Home... VOTE!" poster.
Moderation totals that amuse me for one of my posts: Flamebait=1, Insightful=2, Funny=2, Overrated=1, Underrated=1
Democracy.org lets you find all your local candidates, their voting records and positions on issues, their addresses and websites, etc.
Moderation totals that amuse me for one of my posts: Flamebait=1, Insightful=2, Funny=2, Overrated=1, Underrated=1
Sorry. According to the 2000 Census, in 1999 the median salary for Americans was 41,944 Dollars per year. Not 15,000. This link has a lot of Economic info collected during the census. Also, did you know that 96% of taxes are paid by the top 50 % of Americans? Also, if you make over 50,000 a year you are in the top 25 % of wage earners in America. Here are several pages of statistical info on taxes. The point as it pertains to your arguement, the average american has not earned 15,000 a year for a long time. You can make that with no college education what so ever. If you get paid 8 an hour, you make 16,000 a year (roughly). If you get paid just 2 more an hour, around 20 a year. (all before taxes). Add 2 more to that an dyou make 24,000 a year. Point is, even fast food jobs can net you 15,000 a year and that's if you work fast food. You can get a job stocking groceries that pays more then that. You could also get a job as a package handler at UPS and that pays more. It's increasingly easier to make money in this country believe it or not. Those dot commers who are waiting for something can get a job at those type of places with their eyes closed. Don't laugh. It's money. While I agree that congressmen (let's not bash them shall we?...it would only bring us to their level) make too much cash and it's a crock that they vote for their own salaries (do I want more money? sure I will vote for that spending bill), I don't agree that alot of congressmen are not putting the best interests of the taxpayers first. Sometimes the voting public doesn't know what is best for themselves (not often but sometimes they don't have a clue). If you think your congressmen is not doing the job, you can vote him out. You do vote don't you? If more people voted, then the politicos would have to think of better ways to get into office and they might actually have to do what their voters say they should do.
Gorkman
The Web does not need to be simply another channel for PR. With Clinton-Gore the idea was partly PR but also what Mark Boncheck called Disintermediation. What we wanted to do was to have a clear channel between the politicians and the people, clear of press 'interpretation'.
The point is not that people are going to trust the politicians more than the press, they will not. However it does prevent the press from some of its wilder distortions. During the '92 campaign the media made much of 'fact checks', doing a reality check on the statements made by both sides. What they never told the people is that they relied 100% on press releases put out by the parties, this was an innovation of James Carville that the GOP quickly followed.
The point of Whitehouse.gov was that the people should have access to the same information as the journalists. That is why we put every whitehouse press release on the web site and through an email server and onto USEnet from day 1 of the administration. This was originally done at MIT and the site later moved to the EOP itself.
The two people mainly responsible for putting the government online were Gore and Gingrich. Gore genuinely believed in the Web and Internet, that is why the GOP had to invent the lie of his claiming to have invented it - to deny him the ability to discuss a major achievement.
Gingrich had a much harder challenge. The congress is divided in many ways, although the speaker controlls the house floor the committee chairs control their individual committees. Gingrich wanted the whole process of government to be transparent so the people could see what was going on. The committee chairs and the lobyists did not, any such democratising move would threaten their power. It would no longer be possible for last minute changes to be made to a bill in secret before it was rushed through committee. This is how many major legislative abuses take place. During the DMCA the lobyists for the RIAA inserted a clause to steal the returned rights of the artists. This was done behind closed doors without the knowledge of many committee members, let alone the people.
In comparison the UK hansard web site is genuinely open. The site was set up to eventually replace the printing and distribution of 'the vote' which is the collection of papers sent to MPs every day. As such the site has every bill and critically every proposed ammendment at the same time the members get it.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
41,944 is the median household income, according to the page you linked. Most households have more than person with income.
It's not what a median job pays, for example.
The question of how the typical American is doing financially can't be answered in a simple way. Any single number you look at can and should be subject to interpretation. The median income for full time males is 37K. What about men who can't get full time work? Or men who have to work more than one full time job?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
(1) A well-established system of matching funds already exists within the electoral system. Any party-based candidate who qualifies, including that Klansman, Communist, or Nazi, can have their campaign funded in part by your tax dollars.
(2) More generally, you have no power to control how or on what your taxes are spent. (Other than the occasional referendum and, indirectly, by electing representatives who reflect your values.) I not only disagree with, but find morally repugnant, some of the U.S.'s current big-stick approaches to foreign policy. But this gives me no right to withhold my taxes from those efforts. (Although some have tried in the past...)
(3) Limit the powers of the government and someone else steps in to fill that power vacuum. Guess who? Big business and those special interest groups you mentioned. Unless you're in a Capra movie, in which case Jimmy Stewart will step up to bat.