Recovery.gov To Get $18 Million Redesign 434
barbarai notes a report by ABC News's Rick Klein: "For those concerned about stimulus spending, the General Services Administration sends word tonight that $18 million in additional funds are being spent to redesign the Recovery.gov Web site. "Recovery.gov 2.0 will use innovative and interactive technologies to help taxpayers see where their dollars are being spent," James A. Williams, commissioner of GSA's Federal Acquisition Service, says in a press release announcing the contract awarded to Maryland-based Smartronix Inc. according to the ABC news blog."
Re:cash4cronies (Score:3, Informative)
> This is just another example of a fundamental flaw in how campaign finance works in the US, and the current party in power shares the culpability with the prior party in power.
A fair, reasoned, objective response. This is slashdot! Not allowed!
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
$18 million to redesign a website? WTF are they doing with it?
From TFA, they're going to spend $9.5 million over the next 6 months or so. Assuming $75k salaries for the web developers/DBAs/etc (generous), they'd be hiring 250 people to design a website.
And Americans wonder why they have such a big deficit.
I'm guessing this isn't just build the web site, it's to build and run it through January 2014 (See the GSA press release). Remember, they have to buy equipment and bandwidth too, although I'm betting the biggest issue is collecting, entering and sorting the massive amounts of data related to all the projects. Still sounds like a lot of money.
Re:The Definition of "Design" (Score:1, Informative)
EXACTLY, I posted a similar message, 18 million doesn't go to the developers like people are saying. 18 million goes towards, infrastructure - servers, licensing, databases, employees. Licensing alone can hit well into the millions, easily. An internal IBM license can cost a business over 10 million without thinking twice.
People that aren't web developers probably have no idea what it takes to build a site.
Re:WTF? We're doomed (Score:2, Informative)
57.7%. He was actually a highly over-rated QB. In today's game, he'd be kicked off the team or relegated to a 3rd string backup role before he ever had a chance to start that HOF career.
Look at his first three years worth of stats:
1970: 218 attempts 83 completions completion percentage of 38.1 TDs: 6 INTs: 24
1971: 373 attempts 203 completions completion percentage of 54.4 TDs: 13 INTs: 22
1972: 308 attempts 147 completions completion percentage of 47.7 TDs: 12 INTs: 12
He'd be out of the league by the time his third year started these days.
Re:WTF? (Score:3, Informative)
Disclaimer: Small business owner, I am.
Re:cash4cronies (Score:5, Informative)
Two things:
1) Corporate personhood: the notion that a corporation is a person entitled to the same rights as a natural person, or some subset of those rights (e.g. due process, free speech, etc.)
2) Money as free speech: the notion that campaign donations are a form of constitutionally protected speech
Therefore, a person - or company legally recognized as a person - cannot be restricted from donating money to a campaign because that would be an infringement on their constitutionally-recognized right to free political speech.
The legitimacy of this position, and either of its two components individually, has been and continues to be a matter of substantial debate.
smartronix is obviously the right choice (Score:2, Informative)
Re:cash4cronies (Score:5, Informative)
If you look up the history of that, it became that way because of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. To quote wikipedia (I know, but you can find better sources):
The Supreme Court never reached the equal protection claims. Nonetheless, this case is sometimes incorrectly cited as holding that corporations, as juristic persons, are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.[2] Although the question of whether corporations were persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment had been argued in the lower courts and briefed for the Supreme Court, the Court did not base its decision on this issue. However, before oral argument took place, Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite announced: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."[3] This quotation was printed by the court reporter in the syllabus and case history above the opinion, but was not in the opinion itself. As such, it did not have any legal precedential value.[4]
Nonetheless, the persuasive value of Waite's essentially ultra vires statement did influence later courts, becoming part of American corporate law without ever actually being enacted by statute or formal judicial decision.[5][clarification needed] For these reasons, it is literally an unprecedented extension of constitutional rights to US corporations.[2]
Re:cash4cronies (Score:5, Informative)
When somebody tells you that a corporation is considered a person, that person is talking out of their ass.
A corporation is a legal entity. It is not a person. It shares some privileges with people, but that's a different thing altogether. Somebody, once, used the analogy of "a corporation as a person" and now we've got a lot of half-witted nonsense floating around because of it.
Next person that tells you "a corporation is like a person", ask them how many businesses they've incorporated. If it's zero, you're perfectly within your rights to kick them in the knee.
Re:WTF? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:cash4cronies (Score:3, Informative)
That's largely a myth. Corporations do have legal rights, but by no means is there "personhood" attached to coporations legal status. Especially in regards to campaign finance -- Corporations are very limited with regards to donations to political campaigns. Instead, individuals at corporations make the contributions. While it's similar to the corporation making the donation, this is why listings of contributions include the employer of the person who makes the contribution. Case in point, the company awarded this contract made -zero- contributions to anyone's campaign. The president, and other employees of the company, did. I worded my previous post poorly when I said that the corporation made contributions.
While this point definitely has merit, it has to be balanced against the cost of allowing cash to determine our elections, and the effect the cash has on awarding of contracts, drafting of legislation, etc. This is a big reason why we have restrictions on campaign finance.
Re:cash4cronies (Score:2, Informative)
Oh, this reminds me of a beaut I heard up here in Snowanada
It appears that a politician running for mayor in fair Calgary, Alberta, may accept funds from, say, land and commercial developers, for his campaign. What ever is left over is his/hers to keep, personally.
I bet they even get a discount on new homes in new developments...
Re:The Definition of "Design" (Score:5, Informative)
Ahem,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/05/katrina_what_the_media_missed.html
Summary:
No water Shortage.
No food Shortage.
No murders, rapes, etc.
It was all media bullshit that made for dramatic stories.
It may make you feel better to blame Bush for imaginary problems, but to the extend there were problems, Nagel and Blanco were the primary fuck ups. The most you can blame FEMA and Bush for is not telling the dipsticks in LA government to get the hell out of the way and then do what needed to be done.
Nagel should have evacuated the fucking city like he was asked to do.
Its already available (Score:2, Informative)
.. and they want a 2nd stimulus? (Score:4, Informative)
They can't even run a simple website without spending tens of millions of dollars and this is the same government that bankrupted social security. How many people would someone need to hire for $18,000,000 to run a simple website?
Now they want to put our great grandchildren further in debt by a second stimulus [boom2bust.com]?
I admitted I voted for Obama because I assumed he would balance the budget like Clinton. In addition, I figured anyone could be more fiscally responsible than Bush and Hannity and Rush's fanatic complaints about him being a big spending liberal would be way off. I was proven wrong. Instead I have another idea if you want to help the economy. Cut government spending. After we have lower interest rates from less panicy government bond holders we will have a revenue increase and once books are balanced the need to hire again will return. If no one wants something a big check wont help the economy. The market needs to fix it and the government needs to help the market rather than prohibit it by making them pay for socialistic recovery schemes.
Re:cash4cronies (Score:3, Informative)
neither can ex-cons and felons in most states.
Actually, it is only 11 states that restrict ex-cons from voting. [slate.com] And it is extremely wrong-headed to make that restriction because it breeds an unrepresented underclass.
Re:The Definition of "Design" (Score:1, Informative)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Really? You're going to use that to support yourself?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/09/why_im_thankful_for_george_w_bush_97369.html
One of his reasons for being thankful for George W. Bush is for BRINGING AL QUAEDA TO IRAQ.
Seriously.
Bill asked him if George W Bush was right about the surge and defeating al Qaeda in Iraq. Remember what Obama said?
"Before Bush invaded, there was no al Qaeda in Iraq."
You got it Sun Tzu, er, I mean Mr. President. The strategery worked as planned, just like Tommy Franks said it would "at a time and place of OUR choosing."
I mean seriously. You're using that website?