They don't publish every public record and have no intention of doing so.
Because doing so isn't free. It takes time and resources, which means money. If a full release plan were implemented, after the first release of something big that shouldn't have been released (opps, all those private tax returns were buried in some miscellaneous filings), a major double-check system would be put in place raising the costs even more. Taxpayers don't want to pay for things they don't feel directly benefit them, and this would be seen as spending a lot of money so that info only desired rarely is available, namely seen as a big waste. It would also open a major can of worms when people start processing all the info to find and monetize what may be in there, just like the websites today that get arrest records and mug shots and charge people to remove them.
There is a certain amount of anonymity that happens due to being lost in the crowd. Sure you could be identified if someone looked, but they have to look. Imagine if the government put cameras everywhere (some say you don't have to imagine) with public feeds (in this scenario the cameras are public so their feeds are too), don't be surprised when people start taking all of it, running various algorithms like facial recognition, then selling their results or promise to destroy undesirable results. If all government documents were directly accessible, I think we would see some major abuses happen, and then people would be scurrying to fix those problem they created, and pointing fingers to find whom to blame.
As the others say, this is a very pointed attack on FOIA requests.
I think it probably occurred to the powers that be that it could have the effect of reducing the number of FOIA requests since it reduces the way their use can be monetized, but I don't think it is a "very pointed attack on FOIA requests." I think as many others have already said, the data belongs to the public but most of the data the government has isn't released for cost reasons, since it hasn't been reviewed to determine if it is allowed to be released. Once the review has occurred and it is now confirmed the data is releasable (the main impediment to its release before), the public's data should be made available to the public. Do you disagree with that last sentence?
Think of it like a legal case where the public is being denied access to a section of a public forest for no good reason (in the opinion of one member of the public), and he sues to gain recreational access to the area. If he wins, does he get exclusive use of the area, and the rest of the public is still barred entry unless they bring their own lawsuits? No, the one legal victory would give access to everyone since it was just that no one had yet forced the issue to examine the reasons for access to be withheld.