Slashdot Mirror


US Open Government Sites To Close

SEWilco writes "US government sites which promote open government are going to shut down soon due to not enough funding being directed at them."

41 of 385 comments (clear)

  1. But it's a good idea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Can we donate? I'm serious.

    1. Re:But it's a good idea... by oldmeddler · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sure thing. PM me and I'll send you my PayPal info and make sure the money gets to the right place.

    2. Re:But it's a good idea... by TheABomb · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
    3. Re:But it's a good idea... by Seumas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's because they only usually think taxes are too low for *other* people.

    4. Re:But it's a good idea... by TheABomb · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, so far in FY 2011, they've gotten $530,856.55.

      And the old joke is true: they all gave 55 cents.

      --
      MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
    5. Re:But it's a good idea... by nomadic · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's because they only usually think taxes are too low for *other* people.

      Don't know about that, the limousine liberals who right-wingers and slashdotters like to excoriate frequently are advocating for tax increases for their own tax bracket.

    6. Re:But it's a good idea... by Dyinobal · · Score: 3, Informative

      You already donate it's called taxes.

    7. Re:But it's a good idea... by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would happily pay my income adjusted contribution if it meant I wouldn't have to listen to people bitch about it anymore and stop cutting important social programs like nutrition assistance.

    8. Re:But it's a good idea... by publiclurker · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, son, when you get out of your mommies basement you will soon discover that most of those people are simply trying to get by, like the family one block over from us who's dad lost his job and mom is trying to take care of a two year old while recovering from chemotherapy and a double mastectomy. then again, blaming the victim always makes the morally bankrupt like you feel better, as you think it absolves you of any need to be a contributing member of society.

    9. Re:But it's a good idea... by TheLink · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
    10. Re:But it's a good idea... by nadaou · · Score: 3, Insightful

      slander stated as fact with unfounded assertions for a rather uncreative run of the mill troll. shame on the fools who modded you up -- please mod up new and interesting trolls for us to enjoy, not the old tired ones; nostalgia not withstanding.

      and just in case you were actually serious, we also had less countries with the bomb in '79. (hey, at least my metric is verifiable) That must be the DoEd's fault too according to your logic? A rather lot has changed since then, and you can really ignore all the other changes in society and tie the causation to the management of this afterthought of a gov't dept? really?

      Sagan is dead. Long live Sagan.
      http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html

      --
      ~.~
      I'm a peripheral visionary.
    11. Re:But it's a good idea... by jdgeorge · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We're now spending 3 times as much on education, adjusted, as 25 years ago, yet the results are no better. Perhaps we should put more effort into insisting on quality outputs rather than increasing inputs -- tossing more money -- into the edu operation...

      Who is "we"? Do you mean federal, state, local government? Are you talking about pre-college education, or college/university/vocational education?

      Without any of that information, I don't understand your assertion or proposoal at all.

  2. Bitter Irony by SilverHatHacker · · Score: 4, Interesting
    From the article:

    We need at least another $4 million just to keep USASpending.gov operating this year.

    $4mil to keep a website going for one year? Think if I called them up and offered to do it for 3 they'd take it?

    --
    Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
    1. Re:Bitter Irony by MoonBuggy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      $4 million? A pittance! Apparently a paid registration system costs ten times that.

      Servers and hosting cost a few thousand to a few tens of thousands per year, full time developers and admins cost a less than $100k per year. All I can say is that whoever managed to walk off with the rest of the cash has got it made.

    2. Re:Bitter Irony by SilverHatHacker · · Score: 5, Informative

      An investment firm is hiring mathematicians. After the first round of interviews, three hopeful recent graduates - a pure mathematician, an applied mathematician, and a graduate in mathematical finance - are asked what starting salary they are expecting. The pure mathematician: "Would $30,000 be too much?" The applied mathematician: "I think $60,000 would be OK." The math finance person: "What about $300,000?" The personnel officer is flabberghasted: "Do you know that we have a graduate in pure mathematics who is willing to do the same work for a tenth of what you are demanding!?" "Well, I thought of $135,000 for me, $135,000 for you - and $30,000 for the pure mathematician who will do the work."

      Same principle applies here, I suppose.

      --
      Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
    3. Re:Bitter Irony by icebraining · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Data.gov probably uses more money gathering and curating the tons of data they offer than with hosting.

    4. Re:Bitter Irony by elfprince13 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ....which is what he was linking to.

    5. Re:Bitter Irony by Sir_Sri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      4 million dollars would pay 30-40 people. That's not a whole lot, considering all of the data that has to be collected, checked, massaged into the right format, made compliant with accessibility rules, press dealings, server support, IT support for staff, and so on. I'm not an american so I'm not all that familiar with how funding is allocated in detail, but the site seems to spend a lot of time on awards, and sub award reporting. Presumably 'awards' could be easily extracted from regular budget documents but sub awards can't? There's seems to be a lot of time devoted to analysis of the data as well (which could drive costs up a lot if you have a few PhD's in stats or econ doing the analysis), in addition to building the flash visualization stuff.

      On top of all of the sort of obvious stuff I'm sure there's a lot of legal there too. You can't always just go and blab what contractors you're giving money to, or if you can you need to verify the information you're going to say about the company. There can be a big difference between a deal with a company that is myurl.net and myurl.com, and you don't want to say they got 10 million dollars when they got 1, or 100.

      As with all any large outfit, the more money you spend accounting for the money you're spending, the less is available for the actually things you're trying to do. It becomes a balance between the legitimate need to know where money is going, and the equally legitimate need to not waste 50 cents on every dollar documenting where you spent the other 50 cents. It seems like most everything on this website is available elsewhere, not necessarily easily. Whether or not a few millions of dollars in data aggregation on top of billions in accounting for trillions in spending is providing good value, especially when it's not my money, is beyond me.

    6. Re:Bitter Irony by Seumas · · Score: 3

      When they first rolled out the ridiculously expensive series of drupal sites (of which recovery.gov was one and so was the federal IT spending site), they claimed they needed something like $10m per year just to run it. (JUST recovery.gov, I believe).

      I guess they had to pay all those expensive Drupal licensing fees, huh?

  3. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ironic. Shut down the websites that watchdog government spending due to lack of funding. I'm shocked.

  4. This Is Pointless by mlingojones · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are three giant money-sucking programs that need drastic cuts if we want to do anything about the budget: Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense.

    The few million dollars these sites cost to run is a drop in the bucket compared to those three programs.

    1. Re:This Is Pointless by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you put all of the FICA taxes and T-bills owned by the Social Security Administration towards what they're supposed to be going for, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, are doing collectively just fine right now, and will continue to be more-or-less just fine for decades.

      The problem is that instead the significant surpluses in FICA were used to cover up even-more-massive deficits in the general treasury. And where and when those deficits came isn't a mystery: In short, blame can be laid pretty squarely at the feet of Ronald Reagan (notice the huge inflection point between 1945 and 2010).

      Basically, Reagan claimed he could cut taxes without affecting revenue. The effect of trying this was that he effectively proved that this was utter nonsense. But everybody likes paying less in taxes, so people who pointed out that it was nonsense were effectively told "Shhhh! Don't give the game away".

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:This Is Pointless by lennier · · Score: 4, Insightful

      three giant money-sucking programs that need drastic cuts if we want to do anything about the budget: Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense

      Mmm, because a disease-racked, starving underclass is the perfect foundation for a stable and prosperous democratic society. But if we at least fund the military, the desperatly hungry, plague-ridden rabble with no jobs and no future will at least be well-trained in modern urban combat and the overthrow of oppressive (or just annoying) regimes.

      Nothing about this bold social plan could ever possibly go wrong!

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    3. Re:This Is Pointless by causality · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do we need to cut anything? Think hard about where money comes from - under the fractional reserve system, banks can multiply deposits by 10. Why shouldn't govt do the same?

      They are doing that. It's called inflation and it's the biggest hidden tax of them all. For those who consider this a top priority, it's also an incredibly regressive tax. That's because most wealthy people have their money tied up in appreciating assets that scale with inflation. Most everyone else has their money in bank accounts. It's hard to live within your means, slowly build wealth, and move up when the money you are saving is constantly devalued. It's one of many forces that help to limit upward mobility and ensure that those who work hard and are not currently wealthy are unlikely to become wealthy.

      The economic problem is not the central problem of mankind. The advance of knowledge and innovation is. How can we encourage the natural curiosity and sense of wonder that leads to creative solutions? The mentality of "Katie bar the door" is not conducive to invention.

      The problem with that is that when a nation starts going bankrupt, the majority population becomes so busy trying to do things like avoid starvation that there remains little time and energy to advance knowledge and invent new things.

      What govt should do is provide a basic income (as founding father Tom Paine proposed in 1795's "Agrarian Justice") and stimulate innovation through challenges (of course private businesses such as Google, Netflix etc. can hold challenges too).

      If it would work that would be nice. There are a few problems that quickly come to mind and there are likely more than that. One is that this would require a huge investment of trust in the government. Providing a realistic income to every last adult in the nation would require a government even larger and more powerful (legally and economically) than the one we have now. I look at the assholes in power and I see little more than incompetence and insatiable hunger for power. If we are going to put this much more trust in our politicians then we need better politicians.

      The other problem is that very large systems based on extremely centralized micromanagement of human behavior tend not to work out. The only reason corporations can pull that off is because they are dictatorships and each member is relatively easy to eliminate and replace. Then consider that the only challenges that would receive funding are those you can get large, bureaucratic committees staffed with politicians to agree with and support. Proposals involving a scientific discipline are exceedingly unlikely to be reviewed and approved by people who actually understand the science. Then you'd still have all the usual problems of cronyism in which the politicians' buddies and supporters have an easier time getting a challenge approved.

      In conclusion, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter, Alexander Hamilton held that debt is a blessing, Lincoln printed over $400 million greenbacks, and the Panic of 1837 followed Jackson's paying off the national debt.

      Reagan proved that most corporations who are given generous tax breaks would rather give that money to their shareholders than the rank-and-file employees actually performing the work. Hamilton was a supporter of centralized banks and fiat currency and debt is an integral and unavoidable component of that arrangement. Lincoln's greenbacks were interest-free currency because Lincoln was wise enough to foresee the inevitable collapse of a system in which money has interest attached at the moment it is created, namely because there is never enough money in circulation to pay back the debt.

      The Panice of 1837 wasn't caused by Jackson paying off the national debt. The Panic was caused by drastic inflation that happened over a length of time that was followed by sudden intense defla

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    4. Re:This Is Pointless by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are three giant money-sucking programs that need drastic cuts if we want to do anything about the budget: Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and Defense. The few million dollars these sites cost to run is a drop in the bucket compared to those three programs.

      At least Medicare and Social Security are doing something for American citizens.

    5. Re:This Is Pointless by riverat1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually federal spending as a percentage of the GDP is not significantly different now than it has been historically. The tax burden has shifted quite a bit though. Corporations used to account for about 30% of federal income tax receipts and the wealthy used use to have a top marginal rate well over 50%. Now the burden has shifted toward the middle class. After all, Bill Clinton balanced the budget and had a surplus when he left office and that was only with an extra 4 or 5% tax on high income earners. But then we had a major commitment of our military without raising taxes to help pay for it as we have in past wars. 3/4's of the federal debt was accumulated under Republican's because all they want to do is cut taxes but they're afraid to cut the spending by a commensurate amount because they know they'd be out on their asses at the next election if they did. Cheney said "Deficits don't matter." but what the Republican's really mean is they only matter when there's a Democratic president so they can make political hay out of them.

    6. Re:This Is Pointless by sarhjinian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nothing about this bold social plan could ever possibly go wrong!

      Well, America could implement, say, the kind of health care plan that any other western nation has and probably cut Medicare expenses (and overall health spending, public and private) and still come out ahead, or at least be able to fund social security in a sustainable fashion. But of course, you can't have a single-payer system that comprehensively covers all your citizens. Oh, no. That's socialism, and we can't have that! It's wrong for the government to employ a bunch of doctors and nurses and have themgo around and heal people!

      You can, mind you, have the government employ a huge, well-armed and trained military force to kill people. That's perfectly ok.

      --
      --srj/mmv
    7. Re:This Is Pointless by sarhjinian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The rest of the western world has more government-provided services, generally has less government intrusion and, interestingly, spends less doing so. All of this is because they don't have a pathological fear of government that forces everything to be done below-board and half-assed.

      To put it succinctly, America has the government is citizens deserve.

      --
      --srj/mmv
    8. Re:This Is Pointless by StopKoolaidPoliticsT · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you put all of the FICA taxes and T-bills owned by the Social Security Administration towards what they're supposed to be going for, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, are doing collectively just fine right now, and will continue to be more-or-less just fine for decades.

      In 1967, a Democratic Congress (247-187 House, 64-36 Senate) passed legislation (an amendment to the Social Security Act) that was signed by Democratic President Lyndon Johnson, which declared that any government program running a surplus would transfer that surplus to the general fund with a promise that the general fund would repay the program in years that the program was running a deficit.

      Those brand new Great Society entitlement programs had vastly exceeded their projections within two years and combined with the escalation in Vietnam meant that the US was going to be racking up huge deficits and the people in power wanted to paper over their mistakes so they could get re-elected (by not calling them mistakes and screwing over future generations, whom wouldn't be able to retaliate against some either already retired or dead politician in the future). In 1971, entitlement spending passed military spending, despite being in the middle of a war, and has vastly outgrown military spending ever since.

      But by all means, blame Reagan and only Reagan even though as far back as the early 60s, he was warning us about the future insolvency of the entitlement system.

      --
      Stop Koolaid Politics
    9. Re:This Is Pointless by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, we should eliminate the cap on Social Security taxes that are currently at about $100K. People who make over $100K a year have more to spare than people making less - the cap is exactly backwards to sanity. Once the cap is gone, there'll be plenty of money for everyone to ensure nobody starves to death when we stop working at 65. Keep in mind that lots of us used to starve to death before SS. Lots of us used to starve to death.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    10. Re:This Is Pointless by Nursie · · Score: 3, Informative

      More libertarian lies and fantasies.

      Yes, you got where you are all by yourself, with no contribution from the society around you, you big strong independent libertarian you. You'd have done just as well living in a cave on your own, I bet. To address your points -

      Voluntary giving suffers from resources being squandered by many charities, it also suffers from funds only going to those whom are either currently in the spotlight or whom are considered moral/worthy by others, not necessarily those in most need. Government is not perfect by a long way, especially when it comes to efficiency, but it is generally consistent and tries to be blind.

      And you genuinely think that giving people a reasonable safety net, providing for health and basic food, makes them grow up lazy and dependant? That if we just whipped that out from under those most in need they'd suddenly pull themselves up by their bootstraps?

      And someone who suffers due to their own bad decision-making thinks that entitles them to take my property away from me, but that is not selfish? Why?

      And someone who benefits immensely from the society around them thinks that entitles them to keep every red cent and fuck the rest of you, that's not selfish and childlike in your eyes?

      In closing, don't lecture me about selfishness because that's your favorite talking point. You just make yourself look like a presumptious ass. The next time you want to do that, learn something about the person you're talking to and you'll wind up with a lot less egg on your face.

      Funny, I don't feel any egg there. Nor do I believe for a second your claims about your many virtues, or that those values are widely held amongst libertarians.

      Relying on the vagaries of charity in order to help the poor does not work. We have a lot of history to show this.

  5. But there's plenty of money by countertrolling · · Score: 3, Insightful

    for social media propaganda and sockpuppet accounts... Eh.. whatever. The whole thing is such bullshit

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  6. Who needs to fund Open Government initatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When sites like WikiLeaks do that for you for free?

    1. Re:Who needs to fund Open Government initatives by alex67500 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Heard of them recently? Gone really quiet all of a sudden...

  7. Re:As a kiwi. by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Informative

    Who stopped trying?

    The specific people who are responsible for funding the Open Government sites are the members of teh majority of the U.S. House of Representatives.

    Those are the people who have "given up". They haven't given up on protecting their friends from being taxed, though. "Open Government" is for dirty hippies, anyway, so why should they care, right?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  8. Less non-corporate info by SpzToid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Special interest groups own Washington. Consistent, open data and an informed public are usually at odds with these special interest groups. It was a milestone to get these initiatives started in the first place, but in this climate? I mean, NPR got cut, and while that might not sound like much, decent radio as we know it just DIED across most of rural America; and its the radio that often tied whole communities together.

    There's a reason America has the best government money can buy.

    No one should be immune to cuts. But should such information programs be killed off with nothing to replace them with? If nothing else, such websites help dispute so much of the opinionated pundit talk that Fox 'News' airs for hours and hours during Prime Time. There's those medical Death Squad panels you hear about, looking to save money by cutting medical support for old people, and then there's the facts.

    --
    You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
  9. Re:Dumb Cunts by Sarten-X · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's because people like you hate reason, are driven by emotion...

    Rage is an emotion. It's that feeling you have when someone has offended you beyond your ability to understand. It often manifests as an intense desire to cause physical harm to the offending person(s), with little to no concern for any mitigating circumstances.

    Perhaps the woman in question has a vision or coordination problem. Perhaps she's distracted thinking about other things. Perhaps you should have been a proper gentleman and made sure you were well out of her path, that she may go any way she likes. Perhaps, for a few fleeting moments, you could let a trivial inconvenience pass by you, and not demonize someone you know remarkably little about.

    What moral principle says that someone should be so privileged that they can risk injuring others without even trying to be responsible and should never ever suffer any consequence of that?

    That's a very good question. Why should anyone be given the ability to risk injuring anyone else, especially around the face, which is of high social importance?

    Given that you've shown you know nothing about the other side of the story, and appear unable to empathize, why should you be the sole judge of who should be injured and who shouldn't?

    --
    You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  10. More hope, more change, more broken promises by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 5, Informative

    Every fucking politician is a lying duplicitous scumbag, and we should be able to sue their asses when they break their promises.

    Verbal contracts are binding in my state, I think campaign promises should fall under those rules.

  11. yes, but by turkeyfish · · Score: 4, Insightful

    this is precisely what republicanism and "shrinking the government" is all about. Of course, they are even more clever by slipping in all their favorite kickback schemes into the defense budget that no one dares touch for fear of being labeled anti-American. Its the perfect scam. No or a shrinking government lets them get away with anything they want and you and I get to pay for it in further reductions in regulations and services that may potentially save the lives of millions. Republicans are good at recognizing that millions can starve or die as long as they get their millions.

  12. War by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Informative

    $4 million is what. 20 minutes in Iraq/Afghanistan? A day in the "War on Drugs"?

  13. Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And yet somehow there's always funding to rain $600,000 missles down on some 3rd world nation. Oh, well. I guess they fund what matters to them.