Online Budget Database Planned by White House 304
prostoalex writes "The President of the United States feels Americans should be able 'to Google their tax dollars', and has signed a law that will create an online database to track federal spending. According to the Associated Press, the 'law is aimed 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.'"
In other news... (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah, I'm sure the numbers will be really accurate (Score:5, Insightful)
Toilet Seat - $30,000
Knowing what your government is spending your money on?
Priceless.
But seriously, there is no way the numbers will be anywhere close to being remotely accurate.
The government will never tell you where your money goes.
Sorry, but they won't.
This is not news, this is wool being pulled over your eyes.
Congress cuts funding (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Meh. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is purely a political move. Unless he plans on putting every single budget item on the Internet (including every item in the Defense budget), there is no way this is ever going to be used as anything but propaganda to cut Bush's least favorite programs.
Greatly Needed (Score:5, Insightful)
Info is already available (Score:3, Insightful)
You can get a lot of info from the GAO [gao.gov]. Unfortunately, W doesn't seem to be albe to get them to spin the numbers in his favor, hence this bill.
Grass-roots Effort (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Meh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Title is extremely misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, I'm sure the numbers will be really accur (Score:5, Insightful)
Citizen, repeat after me:
Visual budget overview (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.thebudgetgraph.com/ [thebudgetgraph.com]
Of course (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, Joe Q Public won't know that Item X was actually attached to a spending bill in 1998 and is legislated to be in there for 20 years. He'll just go in, see "Hammer - $500" and blame the current Democratic administration.
Re:Proof (Score:2, Insightful)
That's just how it goes (Score:3, Insightful)
I've given up on correcting people on it for the most part, it is just how it goes.
Re:Meh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course not. However, he's presenting a selective view of things. Granted politicians do that all the time, but people expect that. They don't expect databases to have a political slant.
It comes down to this: when does truth matter? It's not the truthfulness of data in the database that's necessarily at issue. What's at issue is making people think they're informed when in fact they're misinformed. Metadata makes all the difference.
Re:In other news... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Obfuscation Incoming. (Score:3, Insightful)
The solution, of course, would be to allow citizens to annotate the entries for their fellow citizens, and to rate the contributions of their fellow citizens to allow popular opinions the visibility they deserve.
Actually, I think the solution to all this is a free market. But what do I know...
Re:That's just how it goes (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't disagree with the gist of your post, but I always have to correct people when they say the president has nothing to do with the economy. First of all, the President appoints the Chair of the Federal Reserve, who more than any other single person on Earth can directly manipulate the economy to achive specific goals.
He also acts as probably the most significant factor when it comes to affecting consumer confidence. Policy proposals that on paper would have a neutral economic effect can have a very benefical or negative effect depending on how well the President sells that policy to the public.
One of the criticisms levied against both Presidents Bush is that they were not effective at convincing the general public they were concerned about economic well-being or were working to improve things. Indeed, rather than doing so they both simply tried to explain that the President doesn't have much power over the economy. Contrast them with Reagan and Clinton, who both had very different outlooks and economic policies but through sheer force of charisma convinced mainstream America that the economy would improve (regardless of whether they were doing anything tangible to bring about such an improvement).
There is also the matter of budgetary power, which varies greatly depending on whether the President's party is in control of Congress. Yes, Congress officially is the one who controls the budget, but when both branches are controlled by the same party, the President is the one in the driver's seat, as his proposed budget is usually introduced by party loyalists with few changes. When the parties are in opposition, the President can only control a few major budget matters through the use of the bully pulpit and the veto, but the Congress will take more of the credit or blame for the overall budget during that time.
It is these times of opposition where you'll have the most disagreement over who deserves credit -- obviously by my example above (Reagan/Clinton), I tend to credit the President more than the Congress, since I think consumer confidence matters more to overall economic performance than any particular part of a reasonable federal budget.
Re:The President believes? (Score:3, Insightful)
The populace tends to stay terribly uninformed...but enough noise has been made about "They have Dubya Em Dees!" "Ooops, ok well Saddam and Bin Laden were working together!" "Ooops, well uhm...we are bringing freedom to the..." Yeah...people are starting to catch on that this guy can't seem to breath a word of truth about much of his policy.
Even a growing wave of his own party is turning against him...I suspect history will not be kind to Condi, Rummy, and the Shrub. And what the hell happened to Cheney anyways...you don't hear shit about him anymore...safely tucked away after the Halliburton stuff came out.