Recovery.gov Not Very Transparent 222
Bob the Super Hamste writes "CNN is reporting that the page recovery.gov is
not as transparent as it claims to be. The examples pointed out are:
1. The user is greeted by a large pie chart that show the breakdown of money spent by 2 categories, state government distributions and local government distributions.
2. Finding projects involves a complicated search, information on projects is not actually hosted on recovery.gov
3. The format of the information available is of poor quality (the article specifically mentions a PDF document that was created from a scanned sideways copy of roadwork projects from New York state).
Given that this site was meant to make the spending of the new stimulus money more transparent to the citizens of the Unites States of America it seems oddly opaque. CNN does seem to praise the ability for government agencies to be able to exchange HTML based information between systems, which for government I would call a massive accomplishment.
I tried to find information for my state and searched for Minnesota. I got 4 matches, 2 of which were generic ones: one was the Minnesota state certification that is required for a state to receive funds and one that lays out public transportation spending for all states of which Minnesota gets $94,093,115."
Not very transparent? (Score:5, Funny)
That's because IE6 doesn't support alpha in PNG images. It's time to upgrade your browser, dude.
Yes they could make it much easier. (Score:5, Funny)
Finding projects involves a complicated search, information on projects is not actually hosted on recovery.gov
Instead of complicated search, just a pie chart showing a few categories. This money was wasted, this money was not wasted, we have no idea what happened to this money but we no longer have it and I could have sworn we had it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They certainly don't expect YOU to read it either...
It's about web design (Score:4, Informative)
The information is there; you just have to spend several minutes to find it. Of course, it's a massive challenge to bring all this info together -- I'm sure that's why they have only general summaries on the main page and leave the details up to the state pages (since the states have the nitty-gritty details). That's the lazy route, but it requires more work on the part of your visitors. For example, here's my state's highway projects [iowadot.gov] and our local road projects [iowadot.gov]. Apparently they're going to be doing an overlay on 218, which I take whenever I drive to/from Cedar Rapids; fixing the pedestrian bridge on US 1 that was damaged by the flood that I sometimes walk on; doing some repairs at the Melrose and Sunset intersection on the UI campus, which I drive through perhaps once a month; replacing a bridge I drive over fairly regularly in Coralville; and doing some reconstruction up in Cedar Rapids on a road I drive on about once a month. But I had to follow the link to the Iowa site and navigate around in there to get those documents.
Tough challenge = slow implementation.
pork site:gov (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If I'm not mistaken all US federal and state web sites are in the domain .gov
The Feds mainly use .gov, but the states often use .xx.us in which xx is the state abbreviation. (The states also use .gov sometimes, and even .xx.gov).
Districts and territories also often use xx.us subdomains, even those with top-level domains of their own. Sovereign Native American tribes use .nsn.us.
The federal government has a few second-level stuff.us domains, as well. This all makes global searching using Google's site modifier a pain in the tuckus.
Re:It's about web design (Score:4, Funny)
that was damaged by the flood that I sometimes walk on
Jesus? Is that you?
Re:Yes they could make it much easier. (Score:5, Informative)
3D pie charts that show only 2 numbers are the devil's work.
What this tells me more than anything else is that although they want to be transparent, the people who put this together know almost nothing about presentation of data.
Please, everybody, read Tufte [edwardtufte.com]. Even if you don't agree with everything that he says, think about his points.
Then, for the love of God, never, ever, create a 3D pie chart again.
Re:Yes they could make it much easier. (Score:4, Funny)
Man, this data presentation job sucks! Mocking McCain's computer-illiteracy [youtube.com] last year was sooo much more fun...
Re: (Score:2)
I may not be able to tell you where the money is going by looking at the site, but I sure can tell you where it's NOT going by looking at the site.
It's not going into finding ways to present complex information easily to US taxpayers. Of course, they could probably spend the better part of the deficit on such a task and it wouldn't be a whole lot better.
no kidding (Score:2)
I'm shocked. (Score:5, Funny)
The Fleecing of America (Score:4, Interesting)
US taxpayer money has *NEVER* really been tracked/reported fully and honestly. The public *NEEDS* to be aware of where their money goes. It is your money, your house, your car, your environment, YOUR GOVERNMENT and again, money.
Accounting/reporting where the money goes may be expensive - but can we afford not to?
Just please tell us where all this money is going. Be accountable for your actions. Be HONEST! The days of hiding shit are over.
Open Source Government.
Re:The Fleecing of America (Score:4, Funny)
Just please tell us where all this money is going. Be accountable for your actions. Be HONEST! The days of hiding shit are over.
Oh where, oh where art thou? How may I join thee in thy fantasy world?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Open Source Government.
Kinda tough to have that when even copyright law proposals are being labeled as matters of national security [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
well at least... (Score:5, Interesting)
...the source of the site is transparent:
http://www.recovery.gov/modules/system/system.module [recovery.gov]
Hmm they really might want to get that Drupal updated to 6.10!
Re: (Score:2)
well at least hes delivering on his promise of commitment to open source :P
anyways heres a paste copy [ttp] in case the sys admin have an ooops moment
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
damn you slashcode!
http://paste.pierce.tv/?p=j3mzg68t0v&pasteid=1689 [pierce.tv]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
all system files are exposed, for example: http://www.recovery.gov/modules/statistics/statistics.module [recovery.gov]
either they've set permissions wrong, or their .htaccess is failing, or...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:well at least... (Score:4, Funny)
What the fuck? (Score:2)
I'll confess that I haven't used Drupal. But shouldn't any self-respect web framework in 2009 not put source code under a publicly-accessible directory? I mean --- that's basic. People knew not to do that 15 fucking years ago.
Re:What the fuck? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Apache Server at www.recovery.gov Port 82
The problem is (Score:2)
PHP doesn't have a sensible way to set the path it uses for library scanning. And if it does, I've yet to see it in widespread use.
Re: (Score:2)
PHP doesn't have a sensible way to set the path it uses for library scanning. And if it does, I've yet to see it in widespread use.
I usually just set the include_path. Seems to work well for me.
Re: (Score:2)
PHP (and I suppose all other server scripting languages / cgis) can access all the filesystem, inside or outside the web. So what's the point having sensible files inside the web tree...
Actually, PHP for one usually can't access files outside the web root and the /tmp folder. This handy feature is called OPEN_BASEDIR and on web hosts, for example, is commonly enabled.
Better than nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If I were president, I would put transparency, corruption, and a balanced budget at the top of the list of priorities, because those are like tar that slows everything else down. Once you actually have a balanced budget you can see clearly how many resources you have available to put towards health care, what
Re:Better than nothing (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, it seems that now government officials need to have "experience" (i.e., they need to be properly trained in political corruption by former political experience). Normal people just wouldn't be able to do the job well, apparently. Stupid normal people.
Which is, I presume, why we get such smart legislation as banning talking on cell phones (without hands-free stuff) but NOT banning text messaging, etc. That one just happened to be recent in my mind. (it's a CA law)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect. Texting while driving is also illegal. If the operator used speech-to-text to send it and did not have to touch the phone, that might be an interesting gray area, but as it stands now the only exemption is for "push to talk" systems, and that expires in 2011.
Mal-2
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Obama is a socialist islamist from the corrupt Chicago machine (and besides his birth certificate is phony)".
He comes from the corrupt Chicago machine... you can not debate that, its fact! So I expect the same style of politics that brought us such greats as;
Rod Blagojevich
George Ryan
Richard M. Daley
and now....
Pat Quinn
Why do you think that Obama would be any different then the machine that raised him?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I just think it's the most amazing coincidence that we got the only competent and non-corrupt politician out of the entire state of Illinois in the White House. Dodged a real bullet there.
Re:Better than nothing (Score:5, Informative)
Obama's CIO didn't "step down because of corruption in his home team". He stepped aside for a few days after someone in his "home team" was suddenly and without warning arrested for charges that had nothing to do with the CIO. An arrest that was somehow timed to happen days after the CIO started, though the investigation was going on for months.
The CIO has no evidence against him, nothing indicating he ever did anything related to the arrest (which itself is not proof of that other guy's guilt). All he did was delay his start as CIO for a few days so that could all become clear. And now he's back, because it had nothing to do with him. Except perhaps he spent some time helping the investigation find its way around his old office, since he'd just been running it.
I understand you're not American. But if you're following the rest of our thrashing as closely as you evidently followed the "America's CIO's rocky start" story, you should look closer before you jump to conclusions. Because you were pretty wrong on that one, and the other one is much more important, and much more complex.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
but what ever. When I think Conservative, I think back to the basics. And Obama is NOT going back to the basics.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that the American system has ever really allowed an option other than the two party system
America has a three party system. Democrats, Republicans, and everybody else.
Only that third one isn't a party, and is filled with a lot of small "parties" that have less organization than a freshman congressman's first primary run.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Better than nothing (Score:4, Interesting)
I believe they're working on that - like a standardized format for all government documents using XML. I would have sworn there was something about that on /. a few months ago, though I could have had one too many hits from the snake.
Re: (Score:2)
Better yet, cut spending! (Score:4, Insightful)
The one thing that should be even more important than those, however, is cutting back spending. It's not enough to just have a balanced budget... Soviet Russia balance its budget all day long, but overall spending was so high that they sucked their citizens dry with taxes, rewarded people who didn't work at the same level as those who did, and generally stifled their economy. Your anology about tar is actually good, but it doesn't quite go far enough. Really, it should be: "The government is like tar. If it is cut back, society as a whole would run so much more smoothly."
PS - Does anyone realize that at the start of this decade, we had a two trillion dollar budget, and now it's four trillion? Does a 100% increase in ten years seem warranted? Does anything else in this country, whether it be individual incomes or corporate revenues, grow that fast? Does this seem sustainable? How many jobs have been destroyed by government (think of how many people could have been employed had that two trillion stayed in the private sector, rather than being sucked up by government)? This year alone, in a recession, several departments like "Housing and Urban Development" and the agriculture department got 45% percent budget increases. Does that seem right, when EVERYTHING else in America is scaling back? Is it sustainable?
New York's economy just shrunk by about 4%, while Washington's grew by 3%. Does that seem right? The 165 million spent by AIG on retention bonuses (note: not performance bonuses) was 1/1000 of the amount given them in the bailout. Meanwhile, congress passed the 800 billion stimulus bill, the massive Omnibus bill, and the earmark bill. Is this sustainable? Why are we nitpicking this tiny amount when trillions are being spent and squandered? Especially since both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been giving out bonuses just like this, and they were bailed out even more? Could there be any more hypocrisy on this? Of course, Fannie and Freddie are Chris Dodd and Barney Frank's favorite institutions, institutions they protected from President Bush, who believe it or not fought to reform them earlier in his second term, before anyone even knew this was all coming. What a mess we might have been spared had that actually happened, although we still would have had problems, since Bush was probably the fifth worst president on fiscal responsibility... right behind Lyndon Johnson, FDR, Jimmy Carter, and already the grandaddy of them all, Barack Obama, who's own budget projections show he will add more to the national debt in his first term than all other presidents COMBINDED. By the way, is that sustainable?
I would say, "Absolutely Not!", and that's why it is time for an immediate spending cut. And by the way Mr. President, we really do need an axe, not a scalpel.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
really?
how about if they tax 75% of your earnings? do you reply "oh well, at least they didnt take 76%!"?
when does bullshit stop being acceptable?
its a ploy to gain public support by showing us vague pie charts.
if 'transparent-enough' satisfies your definition of 'transparency' then i suppose that they met their goal.
Uh... you know that.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Uh... you know that.. (Score:5, Insightful)
None of this really surprises me.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When people were freaking about that legislation being scanned PDF only, there was an ASCII .txt version on Thomas the whole time just like with every other legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Other sites have pointed out that publishing PDFs containing scanned versions of the hardcopy of the legislation is more about giving the appearance of being "open" while frustrating those who want to do text searches on the legislation.
Or, to be fair, it could simply be because scanned hardcopies are easily available and therefore used as a first version, since speed is deemed to be important in this project. As I recall, many organisations with the need to handle large amounts of documents do it this way - they scan letters from clients, court documents and everything else, put it in a database and runs it through OCR if deemed necessary.
I think what we need here is a slightly more balanced outlook. I know it is traditional in public dis
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the thrust of your segment is "Look! They lied! This site is broken and will never be fixed! I can't USE IT!"
Do you think the first thing you are going to do is go ask your techie how to use the site more smoothly?
Check the timeline... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Check the timeline... (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a bit more of the timeline from the site... I seem to remember reading that there's no standard format defined for this data, so expect to see a bunch of garbage initially. If you want an easily manipulated database you might have to *shudder* get involved.
July 15, 2009
Recipients of Federal funding to begin reporting on their use of funds
May 20, 2009
Federal Agencies to begin reporting their competitive grants and contracts
May 15, 2009
Detailed agency financial reports to become available
May 03, 2009
Federal Agencies to make Performance Plans publicly available
Federal Agencies to begin reporting on their allocations for entitlement programs
March 03, 2009
Federal Agencies to begin reporting use of funds
February 19, 2009
Federal Agencies to begin reporting their formula block grant awards
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I seem to remember reading that there's no standard format defined for this data, so expect to see a bunch of garbage initially. If you want an easily manipulated database you might have to *shudder* get involved.
They have defined the standard format for this data, as well as many of the procedures required, and then put the instructions to the agencies and departments up on the site. See the detailed guidance memorandum [recovery.gov].
If you ask me, that is very transparent.
a curious attack (Score:5, Insightful)
recovery.gov is not as transparent as it claims to be. The examples pointed out are: 1. The user is greeted by a large [pie] chart that show the breakdown of money spent by 2 categories, state government distributions and local government distributions.
That's not an example.
information on projects is not actually hosted on recovery.gov
Did someone promise it would be?
I would call [the information-exchange] a massive accomplishment
Strange title to this story, then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:a curious attack (Score:5, Funny)
Something the open source community should lead on (Score:2)
is spinning up or co-opting something similar to wiki leaks. We can get the text of most the bills passed in PDF and maybe in other forms. It would be difficult but I think challenging them is the best route. Using this site they get a cop-out. Some will claim it is better than nothing but that isn't true, they will hide behind a guise of transparency without giving any. Oh it might be there but there are other routes to get it. Why are we trusting them to do this?
Heck, I would love to see every Cong
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Heck, I would love to see every Congressman's page on Wikipedia updated with all the earmarks for their districts and states and their vote on the bill which funded them.
You mean like this [house.gov]?
Congressional rules already require members to report their earmarks. More such rules are in the works.
And why such hating on earmarks? Earmarks in and of themselves are a good thing because they allow members to bring very local concerns and needs into the federal budgeting process. Sometimes the executive branch doesn't quite understand the local situations on the ground. That's why Congress controls the purse strings.
As long as earmarks are disclosed and go through some kind of vet
Not as easy as you might think (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Tough, you have to do it, so make it easy. Put everything in a spreadsheet when you start drafting the contract; no expense goes in the contract without being entered in the spreadsheet.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be under the impression that all organizations have the same data, kept in the same way, cut the same way.
It is not nearly as easy as you think.
You grab 4 large companies, and I will show you six different ways to do the books.
Re: (Score:2)
"Also, if you get too detailed into pricing you start getting into competitive information, and companies don't like it when you release that information (it might even be unlawful to release it). "
Then the law needs to be changed. The use of public money must NOT be a secret. If the commercial partners can't cope with sunlight, they can cope with not getting our tax money, and someone else can take their place. Fair's fair.
Yes, it happens everywhere right now. Secret trade treaties, secret outsourcing deal
Re: (Score:2)
"...and companies don't like it when you release that information"
to which I have always said "Too fucking bad."
Fine, don't like that, don'
t do business. The government has a lot of projects and they will find someone who doesn't mind to get bids from.
It's just not one of those things that should be kept from the taxpayers.
Yes, not EVERYTHING should be open.
The whole process is not transparent (Score:5, Interesting)
I would rather see the law making process more transparent, just look at the stimulus bill:
source: http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/hiding+the+sausage [downsizedc.org]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Sorry I left "scam" in there, didn't mean to present the site's bias in my post.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
By trying to hide the bias, you are giving the appearance that the information isn't biased. I fact, leaving it in there is a STRONG indicator it needs to taken with a grain of salt...the size of your head.
For a moment I will assume it's accurate.
You know what? considering the time they have had and the amount of change this is, I think they did a good job.
If they are doing this crap 18 months from now they might have a point.
Of course, I am not happy with the stimulus bill. I understand there thinking, but
Re:The whole process is not transparent (Score:5, Insightful)
The time they had? I think they had more time than they wanted you to think. When a politician says "we need to pass this bill now! we need to spend money now!" and when the bill is so long that most of the people that voted on it didn't even read it ...
I really don't see how waiting 48 hours (two days) would have killed the economy. Oh my goodness, we had to wait 48 more hours before waiting several more months before getting stimulus money.
If it wasn't bad enough that it's just spending more money than we actually have to somehow fix the problem of spending more money than we should be, on top of that it's been railroaded through Congress on the basis of a presumed crisis. I'm not saying there aren't people struggling or that the economy didn't "crash" but this is not the worst thing since the Great Depression (at least not yet, but the people saying that aren't forecasting with doubt, they're saying it IS ...) - of course, it was superficially inflated to begin with. What I am saying is that top democrats/leading democrats appear to have taken this "crisis" as an opportunity to push their agenda and "sell" it to the public using fear (including ridiculous numbers by Pelosi, who twice referred to "500 million jobs" being lost every month, etc).
Re: (Score:2)
You missed my point.
getting this information on the web and getting ti presented in a neat way is new. They are basically changing a lot of momentum. This takes time.
This crisis is worse then the great depression. It's pulling down the whole world.
I knwo people are used to see these huge lines in grainy B&W movies. But it's wasn't like you couldn't get around and that nobody was working.
You have probably seen the classic B7W picture of the women looking off into the distance with her kids around? you ca
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"do you have a cite for that Pelosi quote?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UR5M5teyQ0 [youtube.com]
It's also worth nothing that the Great Depression was a global problem too [wikipedia.org].
Secondly, politicians keep saying that this is going to be worse than the great depression, if it isn't already. They're saying, as you are repeating, that companies are losing jobs fast and that the unemployment rate might hit a whopping 8 or 9 percent in 2009. In 1982 the unemployment rate surpassed 10% [stlouisfed.org] and in 1932, during the great depression, the
Re: (Score:2)
Without defending or criticizing Bush (can't we focus on the current administration's faults or whatever instead of constantly comparing it to Bush? Makes no sense, but even the Obama administration is doing it), I think there is an important distinction to make between the two presumed "crisis." This does not have bearing on how either administration handles it, but simply a distinction between the two "reasons" for actions.
Having what amounts to an attack (with real and more or less immediate deaths by
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly! Why don't more people see that?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the fallacy of keynesian economics to focus only on consumption.
What got us into this mess was over consumption caused by credit expansion. We don't need consumers to spend right now. We need to liquidate our debts, sell off toxic assets, allow unprofitable businesses to fail and start SAVING again. Capital comes from savings, a concept that seems foreign in short-sighted keynesian economics. People think that by saving they're hoarding and the money is sitting idle. This is false. When people save the
Re:The whole process is not transparent (Score:5, Insightful)
youre comparing a hobo's shit with a beautiful princess's shit. theyre both shit, and it doesnt matter which one dumped first.
i wish people would stop using the last administration's fuckups to excuse the current administration's fuckups.
Ahh, Cracked's Nirvana fallacy at work. (Score:5, Insightful)
Go read this [cracked.com]. Here, let me quote:
Pathetic when Cracked is out there teaching such basic lessons... *sigh*
I dont know about you (Score:2)
Uh, we have never had any transparency before (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For the most part, the answers have never really been secret. It's just been a matter of knowing what questions to ask.
Whereas with the FOIA, you have to request the information you want, this is meant to be openly available to all.
Wise man once say... (Score:2)
... something about public speaking: 10% content, 90% appearance.
And don't compare him to Kennedy. J.F. didn't have shit falling out of his mouth when he spoke.
Isn't the sniping a little early? (Score:2)
I've heard a lot of criticisms of the current administration, for all of its flaws, a mere 2 months into its run. The rule of thumb has always been it takes about 3 months for a President to get everyone in place and to get running. Add to that we're in the midst of a near financial meltdown and people are nitpicking about the precision of data covering trillions in expenditures on a federal website about 2 months old? Give it time.
State's Haven't Allocated Yet! (Score:2, Informative)
I live in Minnesota. I also happen to have worked on transportation issues for many years. I know a bit about how this all works.
Most of the ARRA transportation money comes through the Surface Transportation Program, which is based on a formula for state and mode allocation. The $94,093,115 for public transportation in Minnesota comes from that formula. The money goes to the state's Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and DOTs. The MPO for the Twin Cities is a combination of the Metropolitan Cou [metrocouncil.org]
Change Takes Time... (Score:2)
The criticisms seem quite valid. At the same time, it's not surprising that all of the existing data wasn't in easily consumed formats, much less the same format.
Give them time...
Welcome to the glorious USA (Score:2)
So you say your government's fucking its citizens up the ass for a buck ?
I say cry me a river. What were you expecting, free ponies?!
One man in a suit cannot change the world, especially when that man is merely a spokesperson for Corporate America.
Re: (Score:2)
No, he didn't say that. He said that they are putting an unprecedented amount of information out, and it's a little difficult to navigate. sounds like it might ahve taken minutes.
oh, the horror.
One man in a suit can change the world. /. that doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about, can't.
One whiny bastard on
Wow! (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it's actually gone backwards (Score:2)
I distinctly remember a pie chart on one of those sites showing how the bailout money was going to be spent. The biggest category was something ridiculous like "tax relief", so I used the feedback link to ask why they bothered collecting the money at all if they were just going to use it to relieve taxes. I never got a response, but I'm absolutely sure the graph was there and that I sent the "feedback" on it.
classic propaganda (Score:3, Insightful)
the obama administration is attempting to be transparent. this is hard. it involves complicated financial arrangements. such that is very easy to poke holes in how complicated arrangements are attempted to be communicated in simple ways. its frankly impossible without finding someone somewhere who complains. the only way to be accurate, is to regurgitate all the fine detail, which if course, would also be criticized as being too complicated
in other words, you can't win
meanwhile, BEFORE the obama administration, there was not any attempt to be transparent at all. so the obama administration, rather than being lauded for trying to do something hard and asked for by the public, is portrayed in negative ways by partisan hacks because it falls short of the ideal
hey, rather than kick them because you hold them to high standards, why don't you congratulate them and thank them for making such dramatic progress over all previous administrations?
as time gtoes on, if obvious and straightforward progress is not met, then jump all over their case. meanwhile, what is it, march 2009? two months time?
thank you obbama administration, and good job. ignore the usual unsatisfiable cranks
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm just saying it would be nice if the law were a little more succinct so that we could see the details of the laws getting passed.
If that were the case, they wouldn't be able to pass a Child Healthcare bill with millions allocated to impotence research... etc...
Also they wouldn't be able to create a reserve of laws that was sufficient to incriminate any citizen at any time.
Re: (Score:2)
Which may be why he would it to be more succinct.
I think it will become more succinct, and I think people are getting very, very sick of 'riders'.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The Constitution does one thing and one thing only:
It describes in the broadest possible terms the structure and powers of the federal government. It was crafted by statesmen and politicians who were instinctively wary of binding their heirs to specifics.
The Constitution is not about legislation. Statute law. It is not about regulation. Administrative law.
Re: (Score:2)
YOu know XML isn't magic, right? andf that it takes a lot of time to define? And that you are get information from many different agency no two of which are a like?
We will get there, but THAT will take years.