http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15015241/

Quote :

"'Google' your tax dollars Bush signs law creating online database of government spending WASHINGTON - President Bush said Tuesday that Americans will now be able to "Google their tax dollars," as he signed a law to create an online database for tracking about $1 trillion in government spending on grants and contracts. The law is aimed at preventing wasteful spending by opening the federal budget to greater scrutiny. The information is already available, but the Web site would make it easier for those who aren't experts on the process to see how taxpayer dollars are being spent. "Information on earmarks will no longer be hidden deep in the pages of a federal budget bill, but just a few clicks away," Bush said in a signing ceremony. "This legislation will give the American people a new tool to hold their government accountable for spending decisions. When those decisions are made in broad daylight, they will be wiser and they will be more restrained." Blogger pressure wins out Bush signed the bill in the Old Executive Office Building next to the White House, sitting before lawmakers and Internet bloggers who helped get it through Congress. Senate leaders had tried to pass the bill in early August but Rep. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, and Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., blocked passage by lodging secret "holds" on the bill. The bloggers tracked down those responsible for the delay and the senators let the bill advance under the pressure. The law calls for the Web site to go online by Jan. 1, 2008. It will list federal grants and contracts greater than $25,000, except for those classified for national security reasons. "The Web site will allow our citizens to go online, type in the name of any company, association, or state or locality and find out exactly what grants and contracts they've been awarded," Bush said. "By allowing Americans to Google their tax dollars, this new law will help taxpayers demand greater fiscal discipline," Bush said. Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed."

Easily the biggest thing the Bush administration has passed that I've agreed with. Effective and rapid implementation will warrant two thumbs up.

9/26/2006 2:52:12 PM

This is good. This is very good.

9/26/2006 2:59:27 PM

While this is ultra nice and I like the direction, this is still bothersome

Quote :

"except for those classified for national security reasons"

which practically means the entire defense budget.

9/26/2006 3:01:15 PM

Line Item 2345: ULTRA SECRET MISSLE SYSTEM


yeah, lets disclose that

9/26/2006 3:03:17 PM

It's bothersome, but I think the direction will ultimately lead us to want a new definition of "national security reasons" eventually...

9/26/2006 3:05:28 PM

Quote :

"The law is aimed at preventing wasteful spending by opening the federal budget to greater scrutiny."

i like this

i dont like that its not coming until 2008 though

9/26/2006 3:08:40 PM

give it to google. They'll have it online over night.

9/26/2006 3:13:53 PM

Quote :

"except for those classified for national security reasons"

You'd be suprised just how little of the defense budget falls under this. Most of the big ticket items are simply too large for the government to hide (large weapons procurements for example).

9/26/2006 3:15:05 PM

Like the Aurora. They'd been paying for it for so long that it eventually sneaked into declassification when they forgot to black the aircraft out of a public budget request.

Be that as it may, one way to interpret this data is to say that they're about to make less than half of your taxes accessible. The federal budget's about $2.2 trillion or so, and if less than $1.2 trillion is defense, I still wonder where it goes.

9/26/2006 3:18:32 PM

defense != classified

9/26/2006 3:24:36 PM

Right. So, where's the missing trillion?

9/26/2006 3:25:43 PM

oh I see what you're saying.


That goes to the pockets of the oil execs.


but really, I wonder where that extra trillion is. I doubt $1T is classified.

9/26/2006 3:27:41 PM

Exactly. And don't read answers into my questions.

Where the hell's the missing $1 trillion?

9/26/2006 3:34:27 PM

Gamecat, looks like our letters berating the Alaskan senator for the secret hold were one more straw on his quivering back.

We should team up to berate more senators. What issue you want to go with next?
I've been berating mine for the online poker shit for years now.

9/26/2006 4:31:58 PM

This is a bad ass idea, kudos to Bush for getting this going.

9/26/2006 5:02:26 PM

^

9/26/2006 5:04:52 PM

Go figure, Bush does something good and we give him credit.

9/26/2006 5:05:34 PM

So bush is wasting money on a system that lets you see how the government wastes money?

But all and all, doesn't sound bad.

[Edited on September 26, 2006 at 5:14 PM. Reason : ]

9/26/2006 5:13:17 PM

Quote :

"bgmims: Gamecat, looks like our letters berating the Alaskan senator for the secret hold were one more straw on his quivering back. We should team up to berate more senators. What issue you want to go with next? I've been berating mine for the online poker shit for years now."

Anything that prevents disclosure.

I'm personally miffed about the reclassification of previously declassified documents that are disappearing from the national archives.

9/26/2006 5:51:36 PM

wow. gg bush.

9/26/2006 7:59:48 PM

The other trillion in govt spending might go to salaries and yearly funds for the different crap this bureaucracy has to offer. If what's being made available with this site is just the grants & contracts, the rest is probably humdrum boring stuff like how much white house secretaries get paid to do business.

9/26/2006 8:05:02 PM

I applaude Bush on signing this.

Yes, a non-republican applauding Bush for something. Don't be too surprised, I'm probably one of the most objectives shitfucks here.

9/26/2006 8:40:48 PM

Quote :

"While this is ultra nice and I like the direction, this is still bothersome Quote : "except for those classified for national security reasons" which practically means the entire defense budget."

it's a pretty small portion of the defense budget, relative within the defense budget itself...

it will be more pertinent to the Intel agencies and their budgets, which are almost entirely classified



oops didnt see redguard had already posted that response....didnt read the thread after state409c

[Edited on September 26, 2006 at 8:52 PM. Reason : .]

9/26/2006 8:50:19 PM

so yes, gg to bush for signing the bill. but keep in mind that the President just signed it - it was a bill written and sponsored by Barack Obama (D-IL) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) and unanimously passed by the senate. Even if Bush hadn't signed it (unless he vetoed it, yeah right), it would have become law anyway. Bush would be an idiot not to jump on board this wildly popular bill (with the public) with his approval ratings in the shitter.

9/26/2006 8:55:31 PM

Quote :

"it was a bill written and sponsored by Barack Obama (D-IL) and Tom Coburn (R-OK) and unanimously passed by the senate"

touche

9/26/2006 8:59:59 PM

Quote :

"Rep. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, and Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., blocked passage by lodging secret "holds" on the bill."

Funny that neither of them voted against it. They just wanted to derail it.

9/26/2006 9:05:29 PM

Kinda makes you wonder how many other good ideas have actually stalled because of the same kinds of behavior...

9/26/2006 11:20:06 PM

This will be just as prone to political fraud and bureaucratic manipulation as any other so called government accountability program.

9/27/2006 12:30:32 AM

I could agree with you, but I'd have to know what you've based your opinion on first.

9/27/2006 1:25:13 AM

hooray for token gestures

9/27/2006 1:48:15 AM

Token gestures pave the way for real gestures.

They are better than nothing. Besides, political change always comes in small chunks (well, most of the time anyway).

9/27/2006 1:55:13 AM

In Democracies this is how the system operates, folks. This is the modern equivalent of Government in the Sunshine Acts. Clearly, even in the 1970s open government was only a token gesture, but there's far more information about the purse available today than there was before. It's not Congress' fault most Americans are too damned lazy to turn their bitching into anything meaningful...

9/27/2006 2:36:31 AM

This reminds me of the proposal I heard about on NPR the other day where members of congress would be required to post their schedules via their websites. Not to say they couldn't just post something to appease the mob but it's a nice step towards better accountability. To quote the Hawks from an earlier issue "Only the guilty have something to hide".

9/27/2006 3:08:45 AM

I don't like that "Only the guilty have something to hide thing." It's okay if it's applied to public sector type stuff like government funds and court records, but when people try to justify it for stuff like covering the country in cameras or monitoring programs or shit like that (which tends to intrude a bit more on private and public areas) it's being used improperly.

[/rant]

9/27/2006 3:21:26 AM

No, I'd agree with the sentiment. Perhaps only the guilty do have something to hide.

But the State is as Constitutionally bound to presume your innocence until it has established and proven probable cause to the contrary. The public forums of media and Internet have no such binding contract except a faint twinkle of a social contract left in a few people's minds. And for good reason.

There's a whole lot of guilty in the world. Politicians are all guilty of lying. That's why I think Soap Boxers lie sometimes. We confuse ourselves with politicians because we find ourselves defending their ideas sometimes, even though we don't totally believe them. So we lie. Like politicians do.

Politicians lie like it's their elected or economically-reinforced job or something. This is why they lie in government, corporations, and all media. Eventually, they run out of passion, and that's where the lies creep in. They've got to have an opinion, which is tough without passion, so they substitute a lie and have to keep it up. Just like to a wife or husband they'd cheat on, they lie to themselves. Or at least keep believing whatever they believed when they were lazy and gave up researching.

Frankly, I'm tired of seeing liars from most points of view. Lying doesn't take courage. Lying gets people to blow themselves up for a cause that may stall out and lose momentum. Lying gets people to believe their state will be #1 for the rest of history. Or is #1 when its people are starving under the grip of dictatorships. Lying makes people their football team will win a bowl game even though they have no chance.

Lying is easy. Courage is a harder sell when fewer people have it. Telling the ugly truth takes courage. In few avenues that employ politicians do you find the courage derived from telling the ugly truth venerated in a decentralized manner very well.

[Edited on September 27, 2006 at 3:39 AM. Reason : ...]

9/27/2006 3:37:26 AM

Rabble rabble rabble?

9/27/2006 3:48:12 AM

Quote :

"The law is aimed at preventing wasteful spending by opening the federal budget to greater scrutiny."

Quote :

"except for those classified for national security reasons."

Kinda makes me wonder if we will see a spike in information deemed classified in order to hide pork barrel spending.

9/27/2006 9:31:36 AM

Quote :

"Rabble rabble rabble?"

Rabble rabble rabble indeed.

9/27/2006 9:32:46 AM

Quote :

"This is good. This is very good. "

9/27/2006 9:32:55 AM

My personal experience with classification of Defense items:

I graduated in '04 and got a job with a defense contractor. So far I'd have to say that almost every single person I've worked with and almost every single contract we work on is at least classified 'secret'. I've also been told that since around 2000 that the number of contracts classified as at least 'secret' has gone up immensly.

Apparently before 2000 almost every project I've worked in was not classified, but has now been made classified. I've heard this about more projects/contracts than the scope of my own work as well.

9/27/2006 9:46:42 AM

^ Really? Hmm... I wonder if it's just your particular contractor and the nature of the work you do. Having worked for a large defense contractor myself (up there in the top five), I can tell you that the vast majority of the sales we made to the government were not classified. Buried under reems of paper (ironically because of the laws like FAR requiring government contractors to disclose their spending on government contracts) for sure and not disclosed until after the bidding process, but most of what we did was in the open for examination.

Won't deny that there weren't a few classified programs here and there, usually satellite programs (think intelligence agencies) and specific cutting edge or experimental technologies (I don't know the specifics), but again, the vast bulk of expenses go into big ticket procurements such as aircraft and tanks, which are pretty visible for anyone who cares to dig through the paperwork.

9/27/2006 10:45:48 AM

In simple terms, the guilty do have something to hide. The public has the right to act on their skepticism, presume guilt, and all that. But the government has no such right when dealing with its citizens. I was just particularly struck by the point of Mindstorm's rant, and wanted to build on it.

9/27/2006 11:10:37 AM

Quote :

"In simple terms, the guilty do have something to hide."

like their major

9/27/2006 11:12:28 AM

Ladies and gentleman, start your engines! Let the latest TreeTwista10 trollfest BEGIN!

9/27/2006 11:13:33 AM

you want me to post all the PMs I sent you and the responses? all asking 1 simple, straightforward question...which was...What did you major in at State? Yet you refuse to answer? Why refuse to answer such a simple question?

9/27/2006 11:15:24 AM

I hope you do post those PMs.

It'd make me laugh my fucking ass off.

9/27/2006 11:15:57 AM

What relevence does someone's major have with their ability to field intellegent discussion?

9/27/2006 5:51:20 PM

Well see, if you're not a scientist and didn't major in the sciences, you don't understand the scientific method.

If you're not a journalist and didn't major in journalism, you can't understand journalistic methodology or intent.

If you're not a salesman and didn't major in business, you don't understand how businesses function.

If you're not a religious person and didn't major in theology, you can't grasp how theology operates.

If you're not a politician and didn't major in political science, you can't fathom what forces govern the political process.

9/27/2006 5:57:13 PM