Slashdot Mirror


Recovery.gov Not Very Transparent

Bob the Super Hamste writes "CNN is reporting that the page recovery.gov is not as transparent as it claims to be. The examples pointed out are: 1. The user is greeted by a large pie chart that show the breakdown of money spent by 2 categories, state government distributions and local government distributions. 2. Finding projects involves a complicated search, information on projects is not actually hosted on recovery.gov 3. The format of the information available is of poor quality (the article specifically mentions a PDF document that was created from a scanned sideways copy of roadwork projects from New York state). Given that this site was meant to make the spending of the new stimulus money more transparent to the citizens of the Unites States of America it seems oddly opaque. CNN does seem to praise the ability for government agencies to be able to exchange HTML based information between systems, which for government I would call a massive accomplishment. I tried to find information for my state and searched for Minnesota. I got 4 matches, 2 of which were generic ones: one was the Minnesota state certification that is required for a state to receive funds and one that lays out public transportation spending for all states of which Minnesota gets $94,093,115."

30 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. Not very transparent? by Yvan256 · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's because IE6 doesn't support alpha in PNG images. It's time to upgrade your browser, dude.

  2. Yes they could make it much easier. by rackserverdeals · · Score: 5, Funny

    Finding projects involves a complicated search, information on projects is not actually hosted on recovery.gov

    Instead of complicated search, just a pie chart showing a few categories. This money was wasted, this money was not wasted, we have no idea what happened to this money but we no longer have it and I could have sworn we had it.

    --
    Dual Opteron < $600
    1. Re:Yes they could make it much easier. by Mab_Mass · · Score: 4, Informative

      3D pie charts that show only 2 numbers are the devil's work.

      What this tells me more than anything else is that although they want to be transparent, the people who put this together know almost nothing about presentation of data.

      Please, everybody, read Tufte. Even if you don't agree with everything that he says, think about his points.

      Then, for the love of God, never, ever, create a 3D pie chart again.

    2. Re:Yes they could make it much easier. by mi · · Score: 3, Funny

      What this tells me more than anything else is that although they want to be transparent, the people who put this together know almost nothing about presentation of data.

      Man, this data presentation job sucks! Mocking McCain's computer-illiteracy last year was sooo much more fun...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  3. I'm shocked. by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm completely and profoundly shocked over this startling revelation.

  4. The Fleecing of America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    US taxpayer money has *NEVER* really been tracked/reported fully and honestly. The public *NEEDS* to be aware of where their money goes. It is your money, your house, your car, your environment, YOUR GOVERNMENT and again, money.

    Accounting/reporting where the money goes may be expensive - but can we afford not to?

    Just please tell us where all this money is going. Be accountable for your actions. Be HONEST! The days of hiding shit are over.

    Open Source Government.

    1. Re:The Fleecing of America by Hordeking · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just please tell us where all this money is going. Be accountable for your actions. Be HONEST! The days of hiding shit are over.

      Oh where, oh where art thou? How may I join thee in thy fantasy world?

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
  5. well at least... by mastergoon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...the source of the site is transparent:

    http://www.recovery.gov/modules/system/system.module

    Hmm they really might want to get that Drupal updated to 6.10!

    1. Re:well at least... by operator_error · · Score: 3, Interesting

      all system files are exposed, for example: http://www.recovery.gov/modules/statistics/statistics.module

      either they've set permissions wrong, or their .htaccess is failing, or...

    2. Re:well at least... by larry+bagina · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nah, Barack Obama's teleprompter didn't tell him how to set up the permissions.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  6. Better than nothing by scubamage · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Considering the alternative was having no website, I'll accept this. Given that it has to be compatible with a wide variety of systems that Americans worldwide will be using to access it, and it had roughly 2 months of dev time, anything better than a "HAHA WE STOLE YOUR TAX DOLLARS" is at the very least appreciated. Even in its current incarnation, its better than trying to find the numbers on your own. Its not super usable, but its better than nothing.

    1. Re:Better than nothing by CannonballHead · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unfortunately, it seems that now government officials need to have "experience" (i.e., they need to be properly trained in political corruption by former political experience). Normal people just wouldn't be able to do the job well, apparently. Stupid normal people.

      Which is, I presume, why we get such smart legislation as banning talking on cell phones (without hands-free stuff) but NOT banning text messaging, etc. That one just happened to be recent in my mind. (it's a CA law)

    2. Re:Better than nothing by scubamage · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Really it is just a start. Ideal would be to have a standard financial format for all government expenditures, that way we can create a website like google maps that charts everything that goes on.

      I believe they're working on that - like a standardized format for all government documents using XML. I would have sworn there was something about that on /. a few months ago, though I could have had one too many hits from the snake.

    3. Re:Better than nothing by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Informative

      Obama's CIO didn't "step down because of corruption in his home team". He stepped aside for a few days after someone in his "home team" was suddenly and without warning arrested for charges that had nothing to do with the CIO. An arrest that was somehow timed to happen days after the CIO started, though the investigation was going on for months.

      The CIO has no evidence against him, nothing indicating he ever did anything related to the arrest (which itself is not proof of that other guy's guilt). All he did was delay his start as CIO for a few days so that could all become clear. And now he's back, because it had nothing to do with him. Except perhaps he spent some time helping the investigation find its way around his old office, since he'd just been running it.

      I understand you're not American. But if you're following the rest of our thrashing as closely as you evidently followed the "America's CIO's rocky start" story, you should look closer before you jump to conclusions. Because you were pretty wrong on that one, and the other one is much more important, and much more complex.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  7. Uh... you know that.. by Lazyrust · · Score: 3, Informative

    You can rotate PDFs in Adobe Acrobat Reader, right? I thought CNN had a tech segment on their network? Couldnt they just ask the mail boy or someone how to spin the PDF so they could read it instead of have this melt down at their desk?

    1. Re:Uh... you know that.. by ksheff · · Score: 5, Insightful
      They certainly could have. Other sites have pointed out that publishing PDFs containing scanned versions of the hardcopy of the legislation is more about giving the appearance of being "open" while frustrating those who want to do text searches on the legislation. Those who want to do that have to take the extra step of running the images through an OCR process, which may introduce errors. The legislation had to be typed in somewhere, so they should be publishing the text version instead of scanned images.

      None of this really surprises me.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
  8. Check the timeline... by CoolCash · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you look at the time line you will see that July 15th, 2009 is when "Recipients of Federal funding to begin reporting on their use of funds."

    1. Re:Check the timeline... by tsm_sf · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's a bit more of the timeline from the site... I seem to remember reading that there's no standard format defined for this data, so expect to see a bunch of garbage initially. If you want an easily manipulated database you might have to *shudder* get involved.

      July 15, 2009
      Recipients of Federal funding to begin reporting on their use of funds

      May 20, 2009
      Federal Agencies to begin reporting their competitive grants and contracts

      May 15, 2009
      Detailed agency financial reports to become available

      May 03, 2009
      Federal Agencies to make Performance Plans publicly available
      Federal Agencies to begin reporting on their allocations for entitlement programs

      March 03, 2009
      Federal Agencies to begin reporting use of funds

      February 19, 2009
      Federal Agencies to begin reporting their formula block grant awards

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
  9. a curious attack by jamie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    recovery.gov is not as transparent as it claims to be. The examples pointed out are: 1. The user is greeted by a large [pie] chart that show the breakdown of money spent by 2 categories, state government distributions and local government distributions.

    That's not an example.

    information on projects is not actually hosted on recovery.gov

    Did someone promise it would be?

    I would call [the information-exchange] a massive accomplishment

    Strange title to this story, then.

    1. Re:a curious attack by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Funny

      as funny as a guy who works at slashdot pointing out how shitty the slashdot stories are?

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  10. Not as easy as you might think by Monkeyman334 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I work with contracts, and I can tell you that what you're asking for is not easy. A $100,000,000 contract is easily going to take up a wall full of filing cabinets. It's not like you have a spreadsheet and can just get an itemized list of all the line items. Also, if you get too detailed into pricing you start getting into competitive information, and companies don't like it when you release that information (it might even be unlawful to release it). You might think, why can't they pull a list of line items? Well, they might for the original contract, but what happens when they modify the contract? Well, you can't just delete the item, because the government often owes for the portion of work that was completed before the item was deleted. So ... the contractor puts together an estimate of how much they've spent already, the government evaluates it, and gives back just a portion. There are often so many changes that this is a full time job for 1 contract and it gets convoluted very quickly.

  11. The whole process is not transparent by hansamurai · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I would rather see the law making process more transparent, just look at the stimulus bill:

    • Obama promised not to sign bills that hadn't been posted online for the public to read for at least five days BEFORE the final vote was cast.
    • Speaker Nancy Pelosi, promised that the final version of the scam stimulus bill would be posted online for at least 48 hours before the vote.
    • The 1,073 page scam bill, with an extra 421 page Explanatory Statement, was delivered, still unfinished, at midnight Thursday.
    • The House passed the bill 14 hours and 24 minutes later.
    • The Senate did likewise 3 hours and 5 minutes after the House.

    source: http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/hiding+the+sausage

    1. Re:The whole process is not transparent by CannonballHead · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The time they had? I think they had more time than they wanted you to think. When a politician says "we need to pass this bill now! we need to spend money now!" and when the bill is so long that most of the people that voted on it didn't even read it ...

      I really don't see how waiting 48 hours (two days) would have killed the economy. Oh my goodness, we had to wait 48 more hours before waiting several more months before getting stimulus money.

      If it wasn't bad enough that it's just spending more money than we actually have to somehow fix the problem of spending more money than we should be, on top of that it's been railroaded through Congress on the basis of a presumed crisis. I'm not saying there aren't people struggling or that the economy didn't "crash" but this is not the worst thing since the Great Depression (at least not yet, but the people saying that aren't forecasting with doubt, they're saying it IS ...) - of course, it was superficially inflated to begin with. What I am saying is that top democrats/leading democrats appear to have taken this "crisis" as an opportunity to push their agenda and "sell" it to the public using fear (including ridiculous numbers by Pelosi, who twice referred to "500 million jobs" being lost every month, etc).

    2. Re:The whole process is not transparent by Gogo0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      youre comparing a hobo's shit with a beautiful princess's shit. theyre both shit, and it doesnt matter which one dumped first.
      i wish people would stop using the last administration's fuckups to excuse the current administration's fuckups.

  12. Ahh, Cracked's Nirvana fallacy at work. by Abcd1234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Go read this. Here, let me quote:

    The Nirvana Fallacy is when you dismiss anything in the real world because you compare it to an unrealistic, perfect alternative, by which it pales in comparison. It wouldn't be a problem, except it keeps us from getting anything done.

    Pathetic when Cracked is out there teaching such basic lessons... *sigh*

  13. Re:What the fuck? by BountyX · · Score: 4, Informative

    They implemented drupal on a winders server. By default, drupal comes with htaccess files that protects against this; however, since this is IIS, the htaccess files are no in effect. The windows administrator on the site never set the correct permissions in IIS. So no it has nothing to do with the distribution of the Drupal framework.

    --
    Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
  14. Re:Something the open source community should lead by David+Greene · · Score: 3, Informative

    Heck, I would love to see every Congressman's page on Wikipedia updated with all the earmarks for their districts and states and their vote on the bill which funded them.

    You mean like this?

    Congressional rules already require members to report their earmarks. More such rules are in the works.

    And why such hating on earmarks? Earmarks in and of themselves are a good thing because they allow members to bring very local concerns and needs into the federal budgeting process. Sometimes the executive branch doesn't quite understand the local situations on the ground. That's why Congress controls the purse strings.

    As long as earmarks are disclosed and go through some kind of vetting process (which they do now), I have no problem with them.

    --

  15. It's about web design by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

    The information is there; you just have to spend several minutes to find it. Of course, it's a massive challenge to bring all this info together -- I'm sure that's why they have only general summaries on the main page and leave the details up to the state pages (since the states have the nitty-gritty details). That's the lazy route, but it requires more work on the part of your visitors. For example, here's my state's highway projects and our local road projects. Apparently they're going to be doing an overlay on 218, which I take whenever I drive to/from Cedar Rapids; fixing the pedestrian bridge on US 1 that was damaged by the flood that I sometimes walk on; doing some repairs at the Melrose and Sunset intersection on the UI campus, which I drive through perhaps once a month; replacing a bridge I drive over fairly regularly in Coralville; and doing some reconstruction up in Cedar Rapids on a road I drive on about once a month. But I had to follow the link to the Iowa site and navigate around in there to get those documents.

    Tough challenge = slow implementation.

    --
    "WANTED: Sinking ship seeks rats."
    1. Re:It's about web design by FiloEleven · · Score: 3, Funny

      that was damaged by the flood that I sometimes walk on

      Jesus? Is that you?

  16. Better yet, cut spending! by Crazy+Taco · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If I were president, I would put transparency, corruption, and a balanced budget at the top of the list of priorities, because those are like tar that slows everything else down. Once you actually have a balanced budget you can see clearly how many resources you have available to put towards health care, what can be sacrificed, etc. The government would run so much more smoothly.

    The one thing that should be even more important than those, however, is cutting back spending. It's not enough to just have a balanced budget... Soviet Russia balance its budget all day long, but overall spending was so high that they sucked their citizens dry with taxes, rewarded people who didn't work at the same level as those who did, and generally stifled their economy. Your anology about tar is actually good, but it doesn't quite go far enough. Really, it should be: "The government is like tar. If it is cut back, society as a whole would run so much more smoothly."

    PS - Does anyone realize that at the start of this decade, we had a two trillion dollar budget, and now it's four trillion? Does a 100% increase in ten years seem warranted? Does anything else in this country, whether it be individual incomes or corporate revenues, grow that fast? Does this seem sustainable? How many jobs have been destroyed by government (think of how many people could have been employed had that two trillion stayed in the private sector, rather than being sucked up by government)? This year alone, in a recession, several departments like "Housing and Urban Development" and the agriculture department got 45% percent budget increases. Does that seem right, when EVERYTHING else in America is scaling back? Is it sustainable?

    New York's economy just shrunk by about 4%, while Washington's grew by 3%. Does that seem right? The 165 million spent by AIG on retention bonuses (note: not performance bonuses) was 1/1000 of the amount given them in the bailout. Meanwhile, congress passed the 800 billion stimulus bill, the massive Omnibus bill, and the earmark bill. Is this sustainable? Why are we nitpicking this tiny amount when trillions are being spent and squandered? Especially since both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been giving out bonuses just like this, and they were bailed out even more? Could there be any more hypocrisy on this? Of course, Fannie and Freddie are Chris Dodd and Barney Frank's favorite institutions, institutions they protected from President Bush, who believe it or not fought to reform them earlier in his second term, before anyone even knew this was all coming. What a mess we might have been spared had that actually happened, although we still would have had problems, since Bush was probably the fifth worst president on fiscal responsibility... right behind Lyndon Johnson, FDR, Jimmy Carter, and already the grandaddy of them all, Barack Obama, who's own budget projections show he will add more to the national debt in his first term than all other presidents COMBINDED. By the way, is that sustainable?

    I would say, "Absolutely Not!", and that's why it is time for an immediate spending cut. And by the way Mr. President, we really do need an axe, not a scalpel.

    --
    Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.