Recovery.gov To Get $18 Million Redesign

barbarai notes a report by ABC News's Rick Klein: "For those concerned about stimulus spending, the General Services Administration sends word tonight that $18 million in additional funds are being spent to redesign the Recovery.gov Web site. "Recovery.gov 2.0 will use innovative and interactive technologies to help taxpayers see where their dollars are being spent," James A. Williams, commissioner of GSA's Federal Acquisition Service, says in a press release announcing the contract awarded to Maryland-based Smartronix Inc. according to the ABC news blog."

Comments

cash4cronies

[Anonymous Coward]

$18 mil for a website and in a total coincidence the contract goes to a company run by people who have given tens of thousands of dollars to house majority leader Steny Hoyer (D)

Re:cash4cronies

[Red Flayer]

$18 mil for a website and in a total coincidence the contract goes to a company run by people who have given tens of thousands of dollars to house majority leader Steny Hoyer (D)

And the same company gave tens of thousands of dollars to the House majority leader when the House was controlled by Republicans.

This is not a partisan issue, I hope you weren't trying to make it into one. Because that would dodge the core issue.

This is just another example of a fundamental flaw in how campaign finance works in the US, and the current party in power shares the culpability with the prior party in power.

Re:cash4cronies

[ShakaUVM]

>>This is just another example of a fundamental flaw in how campaign finance works in the US, and the current party in power shares the culpability with the prior party in power.

Out of curiosity, since corporations can't vote, why should they be allowed to donate money to campaigns at all?

Re:cash4cronies

[cml4524]

Two things:

1) Corporate personhood: the notion that a corporation is a person entitled to the same rights as a natural person, or some subset of those rights (e.g. due process, free speech, etc.)

2) Money as free speech: the notion that campaign donations are a form of constitutionally protected speech

Therefore, a person - or company legally recognized as a person - cannot be restricted from donating money to a campaign because that would be an infringement on their constitutionally-recognized right to free political speech.

The legitimacy of this position, and either of its two components individually, has been and continues to be a matter of substantial debate.

Re:cash4cronies

[Hijacked Public]

Because the sort of person who requires a bribe in exchange for awarding a contract probably doesn't care who has a foot in the door, they care only about the bribe.

Duke Cunningham made lists and, although there were some advantages of scale in his bribe menu, there were no 'foot in the door' clauses.

Re:cash4cronies

[jmorris42]

> This is not a partisan issue, I hope you weren't trying to make it into one.

Agreed. It is a general problem.

> This is just another example of a fundamental flaw in how campaign finance works in the US,

Here is where we part company. It has exactly zero with campaign finance. You are upset about a symptom of the problem. The problem is the size and scope of government. A Congresscritter makes a lot more than an average slob but compare the 535 members of the legislative branch with the 500 leaders of the 'corporate branch' (CEOs of the Fortune 500) of our society and ponder. But at those levels it is about POWER as much as MONEY. Which group has more power? Now you begin to understand why a seat that pays so little is worth spending several million every two years to keep. And why the corporations will invest so much into politicians.

When the corporations very survival depends on the whims of political class it would be stupid not to invest as much time and energy into controlling that factor as they spend on any other aspect of success with so much potential to affect the bottom line. Take the example everyone here loves to hate, MSFT. Until the government took such an intense interest in their operations their Washington DC office was vestigial, now it is a major presence. Just like every other major corporation, they either want to deflect the government's gaze or get their snout into the public treasury.

And it will be ever thus until we put the government back into it's proper place. Make the government small enough that a House seat isn't worth millions and the money will go away. Nothing else will work, no law will stop clever people who have so much at stake. At least no law that leaves the 1st Amendment intact and do we really want to go there?

Re:cash4cronies

[DarKnyht]

If you look up the history of that, it became that way because of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. To quote wikipedia (I know, but you can find better sources):

The Supreme Court never reached the equal protection claims. Nonetheless, this case is sometimes incorrectly cited as holding that corporations, as juristic persons, are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.[2] Although the question of whether corporations were persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment had been argued in the lower courts and briefed for the Supreme Court, the Court did not base its decision on this issue. However, before oral argument took place, Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite announced: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."[3] This quotation was printed by the court reporter in the syllabus and case history above the opinion, but was not in the opinion itself. As such, it did not have any legal precedential value.[4]

Nonetheless, the persuasive value of Waite's essentially ultra vires statement did influence later courts, becoming part of American corporate law without ever actually being enacted by statute or formal judicial decision.[5][clarification needed] For these reasons, it is literally an unprecedented extension of constitutional rights to US corporations.[2]

Re:cash4cronies

[rho]

When somebody tells you that a corporation is considered a person, that person is talking out of their ass.

A corporation is a legal entity. It is not a person. It shares some privileges with people, but that's a different thing altogether. Somebody, once, used the analogy of "a corporation as a person" and now we've got a lot of half-witted nonsense floating around because of it.

Next person that tells you "a corporation is like a person", ask them how many businesses they've incorporated. If it's zero, you're perfectly within your rights to kick them in the knee.

Re:cash4cronies

[rho]

This is just another example of a fundamental flaw in how campaign finance works in the US, and the current party in power shares the culpability with the prior party in power.

I've a question: how come it's always obviously graft when Republicans do it, but it's a sign that the system is flawed when Democrats do it?

Why can't it be simple vote-buying no matter who does it? And why hasn't tar-and-feathering made a comeback yet?

Re:cash4cronies

[sumdumass]

Actually, he probably with me and is shocked because no one is bitching about the administration, no bid contracts, millions of dollars being spent and payoffs to those responsible for the contract.

I guess maybe if haliburton or cheney was a name in the story, everyone would be pissed.

Re:cash4cronies

[Deosyne]

You don't buy politicians, you subscribe to them.

Re:cash4cronies

[Golias]

Actually, he probably with me and is shocked because no one is bitching about the administration, no bid contracts, millions of dollars being spent and payoffs to those responsible for the contract.

I guess maybe if haliburton or cheney was a name in the story, everyone would be pissed.

Yep. I maintain that it is THE LEFT, after working so hard to elect Obama, who should be most pissed off at him right now. On economics, foreign policy, and even civil liberties, he's doing nearly everything which we were all supposed to be so enraged at Bush over, and in many cases, taking things farther.

As a libertarian, I kind of expected him to keep ballooning the federal spending and ruin what's left of the tattered economy which Bush left him. Right on schedule there, and I don't feel let down about it because I never had my hopes up.

What I find disappointing is that the unlawful detentions without trial, the wire-taps, the cronyism, the pointless foreign warmongering & gunboat diplomacy, the war on drugs, the denial of gay rights, the staged Q&A sessions, etc. etc. etc. ... all chug along with as much momentum as ever.

But hey, we (the taxpayers) now own a shitty car company, so I guess there's that.

Re:cash4cronies

[sydbarrett74]

You don't buy politicians, you subscribe to them.

PaaS = Politicians as a Service.

Re:cash4cronies

[Sean0michael]

Only persons who can vote should be allowed to donate to campaigns. Can corporations vote? Nope - so no donations from them.

Then we ought not to tax corporations either. No taxation without representation!

Where's the Money Going?

[virtigex]

Will we be able to see where the money is going to redesign this web site? Will this amount of money be sufficient to ensure that it doesn't get hacked for, say, 24 hours, or do we have to pay extra for that?

First Item on list...

[Anonymous Coward]

$500 million: compiling a report on how much we are spending to report on what we spend...

WTF?

[Guspaz]

$18 million to redesign a website? WTF are they doing with it?

From TFA, they're going to spend $9.5 million over the next 6 months or so. Assuming $75k salaries for the web developers/DBAs/etc (generous), they'd be hiring 250 people to design a website.

And Americans wonder why they have such a big deficit.

Re:WTF?

[Nerdposeur]

If you think you have to hire web developers in the city where you live, you don't understand the web.

Re:WTF?

[aengblom]

$18 million to redesign a website? WTF are they doing with it?

From TFA, they're going to spend $9.5 million over the next 6 months or so. Assuming $75k salaries for the web developers/DBAs/etc (generous), they'd be hiring 250 people to design a website.

And Americans wonder why they have such a big deficit.

I'm guessing this isn't just build the web site, it's to build and run it through January 2014 (See the GSA press release). Remember, they have to buy equipment and bandwidth too, although I'm betting the biggest issue is collecting, entering and sorting the massive amounts of data related to all the projects. Still sounds like a lot of money.

Re:WTF?

[locallyunscene]

So the headline, and summary are misleading? It's not "18 Million for Website", but "18 Million for Design, Build, and Maintain a Publicly Accessible National Repository of All Gov't Spending for the next 5 Years"? Man, that's just not catchy enough to make a good headline.

Headline's good for a laugh, but it's a bit of a troll.

$18 million for a website

[frovingslosh]

Well, they can certainly say "come and see where you tax money is being wasted", one needs look no farther than the website.

Already exists

[Anonymous Coward]

There's already a website that clearly illustrates where the tax dollars towards stimulus are going, in innovative and exciting ways!

I think it's called goatse.cx, or something like that.

Irony

[kevinNCSU]

You have to wonder if these people have either a wonderful sense of irony or no understanding of the word at all. To pay 18 million to create a website that will show where our money is going is so ludicrous I thought I had clicked the bookmark to go to The Onion instead.

Re:Finally we get our bailout

[ColdWetDog]

Just so I know how to direct my rage properly: am I supposed to be mad that the government is going to launch a site to add sunshine to the recovery bill grant process, or that they couldn't make it appear online for free?

I don't know about you, but I'm going to be a little pissed off at a web site that cost eighteen million dollars and doesn't have blackjack and hookers (which I'm presuming is the case).

If you're gonna spend money, fine. But spend it on useful things.

Death and Taxes Poster

[WillAdams]

For that kind of money they could put a copy of the ``Death and Taxes'' poster:

http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/

in almost every schoolroom and courtroom and courthouse in the country.

William

Counterexample

[oldhack]

They've better not "improve" it like they are doing it to slashdot.

well...

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess is that its not 18 million on just developing the site. To get that high of a numer they are probably redoing their entire infrastructure. You're talking licensing which in a corporate envioronment can hit 10 million easy.

Then you're also talking paying developers to create custom applications, build databases, etc..

If you've ever worked in a corporate environment dropping 10 million on an infrastructure is nothing. Not saying its right or ok, just saying most people probably have no idea the cost of things.

Read the RFP

[gorbachev]

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=9745fb34e48a36a32b4fc589c3e371cb&tab=core&_cview=1&cck=1&au=&ck=

The Federal Business Opportunities website listed this opportunity a few weeks ago (could've been up longer than that, who knows).

It's not "just a website". It's a bit of a cluster**** in terms of number of data sources, what they expect to do with the data, etc.

I've done my time (never again!) with sorting through data from various data sources and while the actual programming part is *usually* not that difficult (assuming the data is not too badly malformed), but there are so many problems with processes, dealing with crap data, exceptions, etc. that if I were bidding for this work, I'd inflate my estimates quite a bit, too.

Re:The Definition of "Design"

[mcgrew]

Remember, this is the kind of process they would bring to health care.

Ok, this is oftopic but I'll respond anyway, just because I've lost friends because they had no health care. You may be right and they may fuck it up royally, but just because government does something doesn't always mean they do it badly. They only do it badly if the people they hire to do it are incompetent.

My city's government (Springfield) owns our power company, CWLP (whose manager, Todd Renfrow, is a dead ringer for Mr. Burns; do a google image search). We have the cheapest and most reliable electricity in the state. The problem isn't bad government, the prpoblem is bad PEOPLE in government. It took five days to get water to the Superdome because Bush hired an incompetent crony to run FEMA. Had we a competent President who appointed people for skillsets rather than good old buddies, Katrina wouldn't have been the clusterfuck it was.

But when you elect people to government who think that government is always the problem and never the solution, you're not going to have very good government.

Put it in perspective.

[copponex]

I get tired of these stories. You could claim it's a waste of money to spend 18 million for setting up a transparency website and then running it for a few years. But put these stories into perspective by visiting DefenseLink every day to view how much of your tax dollars are being "invested."

http://www.defenselink.mil/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=4067

Yesterday alone we awarded over 120 million dollars. The day before that we awarded over 500 million dollars in contracts - I got too disgusted to continue adding the numbers.

So, would I rather not waste 18 million dollars? Sure. But I'd rather spend it on something constructive than destructive. A website about government spending is way more valuable to me than another novel way to hunt and kill humans.

Re:The Definition of "Design"

[sycodon]

Ahem,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/05/katrina_what_the_media_missed.html

Summary:
No water Shortage.
No food Shortage.
No murders, rapes, etc.

It was all media bullshit that made for dramatic stories.

It may make you feel better to blame Bush for imaginary problems, but to the extend there were problems, Nagel and Blanco were the primary fuck ups. The most you can blame FEMA and Bush for is not telling the dipsticks in LA government to get the hell out of the way and then do what needed to be done.

Nagel should have evacuated the fucking city like he was asked to do.

Re:WTF? We're doomed

[MindlessAutomata]

Not all of us want a "progressive politician"--I don't want a politician making my own life decisions and choices for me, whether it's a corrupt one or one that honestly believes that nonsense.