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."
cash4cronies (Score:5, Interesting)
$18 mil for a website and in a total coincidence the contract goes to a company run by people who have given tens of thousands of dollars to house majority leader Steny Hoyer (D)
This is idiotic (Score:3, Interesting)
Whomever is purchasing this is a plain idiot: there is NO WAY a site costs that much.
I mean, guys, the horrid system for paying taxes in Mexico is only two million more expensive than what they are attempting here and hey, the mexican system sort-of works (it has to: gov only takes taxes through the site nowdays).
That one is also hugely overpriced, but also my country has very poor transparency in government spending: we expect this kind of things to happen here in thirdworldland: are you guys heading this way?
If so, as a fellow citizen of the world, I bid you: TURN AROUND NOW.
Demand, regardless of partisanship, to know exactly how and in what is all that and all other money being spent.
Demos did it very well with halliburton (and now THATS money: 20 mil is chump change for those guys), reps should drive this one to the last consequences accordingly: without a vigilant opposition, democratic governments cannot be called that anymore.
Drupal (Score:2, Interesting)
Death and Taxes Poster (Score:5, Interesting)
For that kind of money they could put a copy of the ``Death and Taxes'' poster:
http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/ [wallstats.com]
in almost every schoolroom and courtroom and courthouse in the country.
William
Re:cash4cronies (Score:5, Interesting)
>>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.
Out of curiosity, since corporations can't vote, why should they be allowed to donate money to campaigns at all?
Re:WTF? (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, for free... (Score:2, Interesting)
You can go here: http://www.treatyist.com/issue1/mystimulus.aspx [treatyist.com]
It's a cheesy ASP.NET app that lets you build your own stimulus package. You can pick out all sorts of cool stuff like windmill farms, nuclear power plants, fiestaware for everybody, camaros and the country of iceland.
It's not much more than a day's labor... but, if you want to imagine what could have been done with 800 billion dollars of stimulus money, it's kinda fun. It's my own stupid page but its relevant to the discussion and besides, its almost amusing to see how hopelessly confused Google is at it serving ads when trying to match text with iceland, fiestaware, and assault rifles...
Re:cash4cronies (Score:4, Interesting)
You can not come up with a website complicated enough to justify an $18 million price tag!
Every member of Congress who voted for Spendulous without reading it should be recalled or impeached!
Re:cash4cronies (Score:4, Interesting)
Most large corporations rely on Political Action Committees to raise money which is then donated to one of two groups.
1) Politicians who support that business sector, geographical area, or tax breaks. I really don't have a huge problem with that, essentially this is individuals donating money to people who will work to improve conditions for the business they work for. Though I would prefer to see a system where you can only donate if you can vote in the election, with the current situation of national and multinational interests that may not be possible. For example, the company I work for has offices all over the US but the main office is in Iowa, if taxes go up in Iowa that would effect all the employees no matter where they work.
2) Politicians who are willing to grant 'favors' in exchange for contributions. This is where the real problems begin. Pork barrel spending, pet projects, and downright bribes. The only way I can foresee this going away is to make all campaign contributions anonymous which at best would be an accounting nightmare. Either that or outlaw PACs and other groups that pool contributions into a single fund, but there would be nothing to prevent an unofficial system from springing up to replace them.
Re:The Definition of "Design" (Score:2, Interesting)
Remember, this is the kind of process they would bring to health care.
This is not flamebait, but a perfectly reasonable opinion on the ability of the American government to deliver the goods on any given program.
I am a citizen of a country where we have a reasonably cheap and good universal public health care system, and I've lived in the States and seen up-close-and-personal the appalling mess that is your current health care system, and how badly you need a universal system of the kind found in Germany, France, Australia, Canada, or elsewhere.
But the reality is that the American government has shown itself repeatedly unable to manage much of anything very well. There is a systemic dysfunctional culture that is the result of Party members focusing on Party priorities rather than anything that is good for the American people.
If the core problem of Partisan capture of the American government is not fixed, the odds of it being able to create anything other than a bigger mess with universal health care are depressingly high.
This is not a problem with universal health care, which everywhere has a lower cost and better outcomes than the American system: in Canada we pay less for our universal public system than Americans pay for their limited and inadequate Medicare and Medicaid systems, and we live long, more healthy lives. But if an organization as fundamentally broken as the American federal government tried to run such a system it would almost certainly screw it up entirely, based on recent experience in everything from Iraq reconstruction to the Yucca Mountain fiasco.
It's a pity that the nation that once was able to organize and execute the first human landing on the moon forty years ago is no longer able to do much of anything effectively, but until that problem is solved there is a legitimate argument to be made that a universal public health care system in the US should be the least of your priorities, because Americans just aren't up to the problem of running such a system effectively.
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Interesting)
Monthly Gross pay: $6,250.00
Direct Deposit Total $4,971.24
Employee Taxes $1,278.76
Employer Taxes $721.88
Processing Fees $46.80
Amount Electronically Transmitted $7,018.68
This doesn't include the $1200/month in health insurance costs I pay on single workers, or up to $2500-$3000/month I pay for married workers with a family. Throw in our 401k fees (all that the business shoulders) as well as the 401k match, and it gets pretty close to the number I specd pretty fast. Try to not come off as such a tool next time.
Re:cash4cronies (Score:3, Interesting)
The premise is more that they are separate people.
Corporations are nothing more the collections of people acting in liberty and enterprise in a collective way. Being a separate person means that the actions of the corporation which is not the result of the investors actions do not travel back to the investors. However, it doesn't absolve anyone who acted on behalf of the corporation or within it. So if the owner of a business incorporates, and still runs the business, they are not shielded from all liability because of the incorporation, but their silent partners will be to the extent beyond their investments.
If we were to get rid of the person aspect, then it's likely that you could be sued for Exxon's actions simply because you have their stock in your retirement account and took no part in whatever action happened. This question goes deeper then the ability to have speech on the laws and policies that would effect a corporation. This is because it is illegal to destroy or damage your corporation and it's ability to profit when others are invested in it too. The danger here is that certain political policies have the potential to do harm to some companies and if a corporate entity isn't separate, then your voting and political support could be interpreted to be harming or damaging the profitability of the corporation and you may have to support something you don't agree with to escape both civil and criminal repercussions.
Re:cash4cronies (Score:3, Interesting)
While corporations have personhood, I think it was the pesky 14th Amendment that brought this about, that does not mean they should have the right to vote. Yes, they have free speech rights but not necessarily participation in the electoral process.
I would go further and say that no organization should be able to contribute to a campaign, only individuals. So the DNC, nor the RNC nor any other body of people can give money. Sure it sucks for your favorite interest group but the power of groups is rotting our system.
Now, money as free speech has bothered me ever since the Supreme Court ruled it as such. Can one person be allowed to have more free speech than another? Does Bill Gates have a right to more free speech than a school teacher?
Re:The Definition of "Design" (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember, this is the kind of process they would bring to health care.
Ok, this is oftopic but I'll respond anyway, just because I've lost friends because they had no health care. You may be right and they may fuck it up royally, but just because government does something doesn't always mean they do it badly. They only do it badly if the people they hire to do it are incompetent.
My city's government (Springfield) owns our power company, CWLP (whose manager, Todd Renfrow, is a dead ringer for Mr. Burns; do a google image search). We have the cheapest and most reliable electricity in the state. The problem isn't bad government, the prpoblem is bad PEOPLE in government. It took five days to get water to the Superdome because Bush hired an incompetent crony to run FEMA. Had we a competent President who appointed people for skillsets rather than good old buddies, Katrina wouldn't have been the clusterfuck it was.
But when you elect people to government who think that government is always the problem and never the solution, you're not going to have very good government.
Re:cash4cronies (Score:4, Interesting)
So which is it?
> Party doesn't matter,
and
> Every member of Congress who voted for Spendulous without reading it should be recalled or impeached!
You do know how the votes went on Porkulus, right? Or could you be bothered to actually, ya know, know what the hell you are talking about?
Porkulus got zero Republican votes in the House and three RINOs in the Senate. Senator Arlen Specter received so much heat from his vote he finally came out of the closet and became the moderate Democrat he has always voted as. Senators Collins and Snowe are both from Maine, and aren't really Republicans in any modern meaning of the word. So yes, Party did matter.
I'm with ya as far as wishing a pox on both their houses, but it is for very different reasons. Democrats are essentially an enemy of liberty these days, period. Republicans are wishy washy, unprincipled and frightened of their shadows. However, except for the old country club Republicans and east coast RINOs, most Republicans would like to do the right thing, at least when first elected.... but they need some balls... and to avoid the temptations of Washington. That is an easier problem to fix than making Democrats not be evil.
Re:cash4cronies (Score:4, Interesting)
When somebody tells you that a corporation is considered a person, that person is talking out of their ass.
Actually, no. They might well be citing established case law, including SCOTUS decisions, that very clearly bestow personhood on corporations.
Here is your reading assignment... http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/ [reclaimdemocracy.org]
Re:cash4cronies (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, he probably with me and is shocked because no one is bitching about the administration, no bid contracts, millions of dollars being spent and payoffs to those responsible for the contract.
I guess maybe if haliburton or cheney was a name in the story, everyone would be pissed.
Yep. I maintain that it is THE LEFT, after working so hard to elect Obama, who should be most pissed off at him right now. On economics, foreign policy, and even civil liberties, he's doing nearly everything which we were all supposed to be so enraged at Bush over, and in many cases, taking things farther.
As a libertarian, I kind of expected him to keep ballooning the federal spending and ruin what's left of the tattered economy which Bush left him. Right on schedule there, and I don't feel let down about it because I never had my hopes up.
What I find disappointing is that the unlawful detentions without trial, the wire-taps, the cronyism, the pointless foreign warmongering & gunboat diplomacy, the war on drugs, the denial of gay rights, the staged Q&A sessions, etc. etc. etc. ... all chug along with as much momentum as ever.
But hey, we (the taxpayers) now own a shitty car company, so I guess there's that.
Re:The Definition of "Design" (Score:3, Interesting)
just because government does something doesn't always mean they do it badly.
The track record of the US federal government in the past 20 years is appallingly bad, and pointing fingers at specific members of the Party is misleading and distracting from the central issue, which is that the US federal government is systemically broken.
The Yucca Mountain debacle is iconic in this regard: members of both wings of the Party failed over multiple administrations and changes in congressional control to effectively implement a solution for disposing of nuclear waste. This cannot be blamed on particular individuals, but on the system of government itself.
Until you guys figure out how to free your federal government from Party control, you're going to continue to see messes like Katrina. Not because you just happen to elect crappy people, but because the Party ensures that the people you elect will always be answerable to the Party, and not the people.