Networks

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Stupid 'liberal' expects government to solve yet another problem, for her.

0 helpful
92 replies

by absolutely

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

These idiots should learn the literal meaning of the word 'democrat'. For now, a clue: being a true 'democrat' would require [i]personal involvement[/i] in your own government, not endless creation of new bureaucracies. If 'the people' wanted to know what their representatives were doing, they could get their news from the C-SPAN channels, and they would collectively form a [i]market force[/i] that would compel news networks to provide the data described below, in order to remain in business. Instead, the market pays for gossip, sit-coms and 'news' stories about the weirdest, not the most important, events. You losers don't deserve the truth, on my dime, nor anybody else's.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/01/04/resetting_the_lobbyists_table.php

[i]Re-Setting The Lobbyists' Table
Ellen Miller
January 04, 2007

Ellen Miller is the executive director of the Sunlight Foundation.

?Ethics reform? always sounded to me like something having to do with etiquette: the polite and proper way to hold a fork or knife, set a table or respond to an invitation. Something, in short, given the vast array of things we have to worry about, that just isn?t all that important. But ethics reform is at the top of the 100 Hour proposals the Democrats will offer in the House this week. And that?s a good thing.

Changing how Congress does business, and who it does it for, particularly in wake of an election that demonstrated the public?s disgust with the corruption, is the single most critical thing Congress can do to establish faith in our democracy and the institutions that govern it. It may be too late to do that, but at least the new leadership wants to try.

The Democrats are promising more transparency so the public can see and understand what happens on Capitol Hill, greater separation of lobbyists and state and tighter enforcement of the new rules. This is good, indeed, very good.

With our politics still reeling from the crooked culture of Abramoff, DeLay, Cunningham, et al., we are looking at an initial proposal that will ban travel and gifts from lobbyists, and end secret earmarks by requiring lawmakers to disclose who secured them. The devil is always in the details, but at least the broad outlines of these initial proposals sound very solid.

In the age of the Internet, though, transparency means something more than what the leadership has yet to propose. It means using the new technology to broadcast what and how Congress is doing the nation?s business; who lawmakers meet with and why; and making information available in a way that consumers of that information want it?24 hours a day, seven days a week. It also means putting out information in ways so that ordinary people can connect the dots. And besides all that, Congress would be foolish not to use the Internet to engage citizens in the new conversation that is taking place.

Congress now files a myriad of reports, but much of it is effectively hidden from plain view?information filed in three-ring binders in basement offices of the Senate or House Clerk or in some obscure government office, or put online as unsearchable documents. Like mold, influence peddling and corruption grow best in the darkness, and for a long time Congress has liked it just that way.

But the times, the technology and what people are beginning to expect in the Age of the Internet, have changed. Congress must go further than what it is now contemplating.

First, all currently required public filings by lawmakers should be filed online, in a searchable and downloadable format within 24 hours of the time they are filed in paper form. There are many valuable disclosure forms already required which would add to transparency?if only we could find them! Making all filings available online, and increasing their frequency, is a logical and easy step forward.

Second, end offline, secret legislation. Bills and amendments should be posted online at least 72 hours before a vote, so that members of Congress and the public have time to read the bills before they are voted on. There should be no reason to continue the practice of adding last-second earmarks and riders that benefit the moneyed and even lawmakers? personal interests. The proposed rule requires disclosure of the sponsor of an earmark, and that information should also become available, immediately, online.

Finally, recognizing that members of Congress are not the only culprits who allow corruption and secrecy to fester on the Hill, there must finally be some meaningful lobbyist disclosure. Paid lobbyists should have to report who they meet with, and what they discuss, and report any connections they have with members of Congress. All lobbyists? reports should be filed on the Internet, within 24 hours of any meeting.

There is nothing radical about these proposals. In the era of new technology, these are all feasible and common sense steps towards making our Congress more open, accountable and modern. This kind of accountability of lawmakers to constituents could begin to repair the broken relationship between elected officials and their constituents. They might change how the House and Senate operate, too. And that?s precisely the point.[/i]

92 replies

by delbertpgh

The idea behind this article is that the lawmakers should post the text of the bills online so that anybody across the country can read them, do text searches, etc. You counter with the notion that you can learn all you need about your government from watching C-Span... like a TV channel could present a complete picture of Congress.

I don't see where the new bureaucracy you are worried about comes into this. It doesn't take a big staff to post text files on the web. The same bureaucracy is already at work, maintaining the text of the current bills under consideration, probably on computer servers. We just can't see it now.

You complain that "your dime" would be wasted on this proposal, that if the people were really concerned about this kind of information, they would constitute a market force that would have already brought it into distribution, as a free-enterprise operation.

You complain about the idea that government should make it easier for someone among the people to find out what it's doing. Internet technology now makes fuller disclosure cheap and efficient. Are you actually a libertarian, or do you support secrecy in government? Isn't this a democratic country, with citizens entitled to access to their government, or do you need to be a "market force" to deserve information and a voice?

by absolutely

Each of the first three replies suggests that my mention of C-SPAN implies that I believe it is "good enough". My intention was just the opposite. I believe that the fact that C-SPAN is [i]mandatory[/i] tells us that there is not a (significant) market demand for the valuable information broadcast on C-SPAN: other than the government mandate on cable companies to broadcast political debates as they occur, there is next to no economic demand for such "raw data". My conclusion is that since "the voters" are [i]the same people[/i] as "the cable television market", and the Constitution already guarantees us freedom of the press, then [i]what we don't buy in the free market, we have no right to expect "the government" to give to us.[/i]

The counter-argument is that Senators already have web pages. True enough. But, you all have jobs, right? Do you have any idea how much more money is spent ensuring compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley than was spent ensuring compliance with the accounting laws that existed before? New [i]requirements[/i] mean new expenditures, [i]always[/i]. If "the people" wish to require more, from an elected official or from anybody else, I say let them first try expressing their desires with purchases. Put your money where your loud mouth is!

Segregation, for example, ended because of the power of the boycott, not the power of legislation. Legislation only [i]followed[/i], as a formality, to codify the change that had been initiated by the free market.

by drowningnotwaving

[b]what we don't buy in the free market, we have no right to expect "the government" to give to us.[/b]

... that there should be NO free access to government information.

There should not be free web sites for the Houses or the Executive.

That there should be no free web sites from the various departments enabling me access to information.

It should be on some commercial media. If there aren't enough people to justify it's existence commercially, then your money shouldn't be spent pushing it out.

Sorry, but that is demonstrably plain and utter foolishness.

Your argument favours secret government, hidden agendas, access controlled solely by money and all the things that most free democratic people would argue strongly against.

And to somehow join an argument about open government access with separate legislation brought in to curb illegal and immoral activity in corporations (S-O) is drawing a long bow.

Why do you feel commercialising access to basic government information is in any person's best interest?

Or are you of the extreme position that every single function of the government should be "commercialised"?

by nicknielsen

is that you believe that we should spend our own money to determine what our government is doing, that government should not be required to provide information unless the requester pays for it? I see that as [u]anti[/u]-democratic.

[i]If "the people" wish to require more, from an elected official or from anybody else, I say let them first try expressing their desires with purchases. Put your money where your loud mouth is!

Segregation, for example, ended because of the power of the boycott, not the power of legislation. Legislation only followed, as a formality, to codify the change that had been initiated by the free market.[/i]

Has it not occurred to you that the congressional shake-up in the most recent election may have been the "free market" expressing itself?

Have you considered that implementing the proposals in the column you initially posted may actually [b]reduce[/b] spending by greatly reducing, or even eliminating earmarks? If the $1,000,000 earmarked for the Waterfree Urinal Conservation Initiative had been spent on implementing these suggestions, I suspect the resulting visibility would have greatly reduced the final $29-billion total. http://tinyurl.com/rm44w

Edit: correction, clarify

by delbertpgh

Corr.#1: CSPAN is not supported by any branch of government, nor did the government require it. It is offered as a public service by cable companies.

Corr.#2: Segregation was ended by one court decision after another, enforced by the Federal justice department. The Montgomery bus boycott, where the lack of black riders made the bus system unaffordable, forced open seating on buses in that city. It didn't end segregation anywhere else in Montgomery or on any other bus system. Law, and law enforcement by government agencies, did that. Legislation, protests, murder, and imprisonment both preceded and followed that boycott.

Your favorite force in human affairs seems to be people buying stuff. If there's a market demand for something, it's good and natural; if there's no market demand for it, it doesn't deserve to be born. There's a lot that's good and necessary that can't come to be in a competitive supply-and-demand situation; this is called market failure. I know that the term "market failure" must sink in your heart like arrows of bitter blasphemy, but you must acknowledge it. You depend on government for national defense and law enforcement (and, hey, how about the laws that law enforcement enforces, too!), but you depend on government for much more.

Most of what makes capitalism possible is the regulation that makes property rights enforceable and transferable; regulation that makes capital markets transparent and stable; law that creates the joint stock company, and gives it the same legal standing as a human being ("in-corporate" it, give it a body); regulation on how these companies can treat their shareholders, customers, and fellow citizens. Check out the horror stories of current Russian capitalism to see the obvious lessons of bad regulation. Like, when some investor buys up half of the company in the open market, and the corporate directors declare his shares nonvoting or invalid, and sell the whole deal to some insider.

In fact, in American capitalism 30 years ago, it was legal to buy 51% of a company, and then use your majority voting position on the board to transfer wealth out of the company and destroy the value of the other 49% of the shares. A portfolio management company I worked for saw its entire year's profit wiped out (at Christmas!) because they failed to respond to a tender offer, which would have given them a good price, and instead saw their client's holding reduced to near nothing. This was legal practice, and was so for many years, but now it's not. Sounds like good law to me.

The most successful economic model in world history, capitalism, exists only because it is safe in a cradle of laws, and is defended against its own natural excesses and bad judgement. Like a baby.

Capitalism isn't the only good we should expect out of government. But it is the one dearest to your heart, and I think, should make my point, even within your system of values.

by tonythetiger

that we'll have to pay for computers and internet access for everybody who doesn't have them, so they can view this information.

by drowningnotwaving

It's been proven to be effective in thousands of larger banks and corporations.

So it cannot be said to Not Work.

It's called self service.

And in this case here would be the benefits:

* It would be tax/cash flow positive within one electoral cycle = reduce tax !!!!
* It would reduce the overall size of government = reduce tax and less government !!!!
* It would increase participation in democracy !!!!
* Combined with the suggestion that commenced this thread, it would open the law makers to increased scrutiny = better democracy.

Tell me, which of those things do you NOT want to achieve?

by nicknielsen

or just ignore it? The information discussed in the column is not available on CSPAN; some of it is not publicly available at all. And where does your dime come into it? Where's the new bureaucracy? I didn't see any mention of either anywhere in the column. Are you simply assuming that a new bureaucracy will be created to do this?

The resources to implement these suggestions already exist. Congressmen already have their own web pages; simply require them to post their disclosure forms there. The Library of Congress uses THOMAS (http://thomas.loc.gov/) to post the contents of bills and legislation on-line; the suggestion would simply require that the final content be posted and legislators wait three days before voting on it as posted. Any added earmarks would be posted immediately and attributed to the sponsor. Lobbyists would be required to disclose their contacts, actions, and the content of their discussions. This is bad?

Each of the three suggestions makes sense. In fact, implementing these suggestions will allow people to become [b]more[/b] involved in their government by making both the process and the results more visible.

Edit: forgot the lobyists

by the admiral

"The information discussed in the column is not available on CSPAN; some of it is not publicly available at all."

If that is the case, then by all means, where is this information coming from if it is not publically avaialble at all. Are you saying that a media outlet is taking conjecture and making it fact?

If that is the case, then the arguement is beyond moot since there is no information that is available that substantiates the claim.

by nicknielsen

You can't get information about lobbyist spending. It is not released. Lobbyists are not required to release it.

I believe that was the point of this paragraph:

[i]Finally, recognizing that members of Congress are not the only culprits who allow corruption and secrecy to fester on the Hill, there must finally be some meaningful lobbyist disclosure. Paid lobbyists should have to report who they meet with, and what they discuss, and report any connections they have with members of Congress. All lobbyists? reports should be filed on the Internet, within 24 hours of any meeting.[/i]

That's the information I want to see on the web. And anybody who thinks this will cost tax money is a fool. As I said in the above post, lobbyists have their own d@mn money, let them pay for compliance.

I see now that while I have been discussing the article as a whole, others haven't. It explains a lot.

by drowningnotwaving

So,

The infrastructure ALREADY exists and is being used.

The STAFF already exist and are already typing up reports / law / minutes / whatever and saving them to some network somewhere already.

Only new costs are web design and servers. Both of which, in real terms, cost nothing.

The objective of this suggestion is to make more information more immediately and readily accessible to more people.

DO you think you have over-reacted to the problem?

When I read your title I thought someone had asekd for free driver education for the third world, or some heinous crime like that.

Increasing access to government information? Small price to pay (if indeed any physical price whatsoever) for improving the democratic process, wouldn't you say?

Or again, what is your alternative? Come on, dont let your "I'm in touch wth my left side so I'm just gonna complain" spoil your enthusiasm.

You don't seriously see it as a role for a television network to broadcast the complete process of government?

(Whilst this thread points to a specific US issue it is similar enough around the world, and the infrastructure is almost identical in developed western countries. And the need to more exposure of the entire government process is also necessary).

by absolutely

[i]Only new costs are web design and servers. Both of which, in real terms, cost nothing.[/i]

The "real terms" you assume are not real. In reality, to perform new tasks, the existing staff would have to either (1) abandon or reduce their work on existing projects or (2) expand. We're talking about government here, so we know that they'll take the second option, expand the staff to undertake the new workload while continuing the old also.

The unstated premise of the article is that expansion of government is not a problem, and I disagree. I picked this topic because the goal of an informed populace is a good one. The means Ms. Miller proposed to achieve that end, however, are disingenuous as a "solution" to government waste and corruption. If I overspend, or use my time at work frivolously instead of productively, I am not rewarded with an increase in pay, [i]nor an increase in responsibilities[/i].

"Increasing [i]access[/i] to government information" is not what she proposed: the Freedom of Information Act already guarantees such [i]access[/i]. If the public wanted it, and if the press pursued this information, that law would make it available. Market forces have not prompted the press to make such information available, and I say that if "the voters" are such irresponsible consumers of journalism, let them figure out how to make their voices heard with their finances before they resort to more coercive laws. There is already an excess of law, including but not limited to earmarks, and until "the people" as voters stop contributing to the problem of over-legislation and over-litigation, the excess of lawyers and dishonest politicians will continue, altered but unabated.

by delbertpgh

Of course it will cost money to distribute information about Congress and its work in progress. Government is responsible to the people under our system, and it is customary for government to make information available to the public, on a subsidized basis. It happens already. Always has.

The idea that Americans shouldn't be able to find out about their government unless some middleman can pocket money on the transaction is obnoxious to me. It attacks the people's freedom, makes the government not responsible, and erodes the ideal of a "public".

by absolutely

No, not law enforcement, nor militaries. Halliburton, and other corporations owned in the United States, should never sell munitions to [b]any government[/b].

Other than defense of personal liberties (the express purpose of the United States government) all other needs & wants of individuals should be the exclusive province of free enterprise. Call me extreme to your hearts' content. My reply is that I am extremely principled, and that your intended pejorative is taken as a compliment, as if you had called me 'geek' hoping that I would accordingly accept the moronic premise that my intelligence is cause for shame.

[i]
Your argument favours secret government, hidden agendas, access controlled solely by money and all the things that most free democratic people would argue strongly against.[/i]

How do those people spend their money? If they spend it on pulp fiction instead of on honest reporting, what right do they have to the truth?

by absolutely

All the information that Ms. Miller proposes to [i]require[/i] Senate and Congress to post at government expense is already available to the press. If "the people" truly wanted this information, there would already be a market demand for it and the Freedom of Information Act would be enough to get it in the "difficult" cases. Voters don't care, and don't deserve to limit the freedom of others, to have given to them what they won't exercise their own freedom to earn.

by nicknielsen

First, most of these documents are already filed in paper form. Scanning and uploading won't appreciably add to any associated costs.

Second, it is currently impossible for me (or anybody outside the greater D.C. area), to know exactly what is in a final bill as it is voted. Amendments and earmarks are introduced up until minutes before the vote. The 72-hour waiting period would allow everybody time to read and comprehend the bill and find out exactly who has sponsored what pork.

Finally, as I read the column, the only new information being collected would be from lobbyists. They have their own money, their own websites, and can d@mn well pay their own costs.

In another post, you cite the Freedom of Information Act. While the FOIA is excellent law, the time delays imposed by the request process make it impossible to obtain information in a timely manner. Additionally, the queried agency can (and often does) determine that the information should not be made public, usually forcing a lawsuit. I don't make enough money (nor do I have enough time) to do all this.

I want this information and I [b]can't[/b] get it from the local press because there is "no demand." If your local newspaper publishes it, good for them; mine doesn't. Because of "free market" principles, you would greatly hinder people's attempts to stay informed, condemning us to remain the "losers" we are. This is government, not the market; [u]we[/u] are government's boss, not the other way around.

I fully agree with your small-government principles, but with government this big, I want to see into all the corners. These proposals will help.

edit: punctuation, clarity

by absolutely

I don't TRUST them to tell me the truth, just because a law exists. More laws mean more possible loopholes, [b]and[/b] I haven't seen the free market approach tried in earnest yet. I see '57 channels and nothing on'. I see Jerry Springer, South Park, a couple shows I enjoy ('Bones' & 'Monk'), but a vastly disproportionate focus on entertainment over enlightenment. If people want any control over their own lives, they must be informed. This is not a viewpoint I'm trying to [b]impose[/b], but one I recognize - as an unalterable fact of reality. No amount of wishing or legislating or enforcing can cause 'the truth' to be deposited to me without effort. I know and accept this fact. What's your glitch?

by delbertpgh

Newspapers are profit-making business enterprises, no matter what social mission they may acknowledge. If your newspaper publishes ream after ream of congressional documents, it will find a small readership, but not enough to find support of sponsors. Thus, the quantity of info will have to be trimmed back, and selected for its appeal, to attract enough readers to merit a sponsor; or it will have to be subsidized by the other news areas.

Enterprises that permanently subsidize unprofitable sidelines have to price their mainline services so high that they tend to become uncompetitive. They either go broke, or cut the losing sideline.

by absolutely

Laws were passed and riots did occur, but it was the boycott that made the difference. Outside of Alabama, it was the [i]possibility[/i] of other boycotts, hanging like a death threat over the heads of businesses, that ended segregation. Decades later, Jesse Jackson only needs to [i]say the word boycott[/i] to have Nike, Reebok and Toyota do whatever he tells them to do about their hiring ratios. How much money would the government have to spend investigating, proving and prosecuting, in order to achieve the same end result? Boycott is more efficient, and allows individuals to choose for themselves whether or not they believe that Toyota, Nike, or Reebok deserves to be punished, or is, in their judgement, making an acceptable effort to do business ethically. Better on two counts already. Can you think of others?

[i]I know that the term "market failure" must sink in your heart like arrows of bitter blasphemy, but you must acknowledge it.[/i]

You do not know that. Market failure is the failure of the collective, and not something I take personally. What I acknowledge is that when the market fails, the individuals who comprise the market have failed. Possible solutions are to remedy our ignorance as individuals or to misplace our responsibility onto government. I know that one of these approaches has the potential to work for "the people" and that the other does not.

by absolutely

Or, do you prefer to just leave your assertions unsupported by fact, and therefore [b]meaningless[/b]?

by absolutely

[i]"If your newspaper publishes ream after ream of congressional documents, it will find a small readership, but not enough to find support of sponsors. Thus, the quantity of info will have to be trimmed back, and selected for [b]its appeal[/b]..."[/i]

Now, ask yourself, its appeal [b]to whom[/b]? Why, to the taxpayers/voters/market of newspaper buyers, of course! They are [b]one and the same [i]populace[/i][/b], and they already [b]have[/b] freedom of the press. They already [b]have[/b] the freedom to get this information. [b]They have already proclaimed their disinterest, by [i]failing[/i] to avail themselves of these rights[/b]. Screw 'em!

by absolutely

[i]The idea that Americans shouldn't be able to find out about their government unless some middleman can pocket money on the transaction is obnoxious to me.[/i]

And the idea that Americans shouldn't be able to find the solution to any new problem unless some middleman can pocket money on a new law is obnoxious to [b]me[/b]. What either of us find "obnoxious", however, is irrelevant. What is right?

When I get suspicious about a 'Bridge to Nowhere' I can write to John Stossel, an example of a journalist of the type who would publicize this type of information. If the people care, they respond accordingly: they can write to their Senators (and, if enough [i]individual[/i] citizens do so, they do take heed), and they can vote for those who [i]do not pander to local constituents seeking short-term windfalls[/i] at the expense of the populace's long-term interests. Individuals are not [i]powerless[/i] to influence policy, but most are too lethargic to write a monthly letter to a Representative about what they believe is the single most important issue. What if you did? Have you tried it? For how long?

Until you try and exhaust the options already available, how dare you presume to limit somebody else's options for your convenience?!

by nicknielsen

[i]to limit somebody else's options for your convenience?![/i]

I could ask you the same. I tried to remain as informed as possible while stationed around the world in the military; I spent my own (limited) funds to subscribe to hometown newspapers and regional news magazines to stay in touch with my representatives' actions. And now, when there is a chance that all this information and more could be available on the web in a central location, you would say nay because it could cost a few extra dollars?

Talk about limiting options for your own convenience!

Edit: runaway italics

by absolutely

I'm not the one proposing a new law. I'm not the one proposing a new limitation on the actions of others. My approach to any political problem, even this one, is to begin by looking for unnecessary obstacles to my own freedom before looking for new obstacles to others' freedom.

by tonythetiger

[i]Talk about limiting options for your own convenience![/i]

[b]Options[/b] are by definition not necessities.

by nicknielsen

Do you not consider it a necessity to know what your government is doing?

Added: I can't comprehend why anybody would disapprove of government making itself as open as possible.

by tonythetiger

[i]Do you not consider it a necessity to know what your government is doing?[/i]

Just like a good boss doesn't micro-manage his employees, a good citizen doesn't micro-manage his government. You both (citizen and boss) 'hired' the people you thought were the best for their particular job. When I [b]want[/b] to check up on my employee (government), I know how to do so without creating a drain on other bosses (citizens).

[i]I can't comprehend why anybody would disapprove of government making itself as open as possible.[/i]

It is already open. Making it more open will cost more than what the increased openness is worth.

Analogy: Why doesn't every computer come with 16 gigabytes of RAM and a 900 terabyte hard drive?

Because most people don't want to pay for something they're never going to use.

by absolutely

[i]Who's buying depends on what's on sale.[/i]

& what's on sale depends on what you've been buying

Why should I offer for sale what you have shown no interest in buying from me?

by absolutely

remarkable [b]disinterest[/b] in this very category of information already. Why should I now be willing to pay [b]a single red cent[/b] more in tax, to enable you to have information you have shunned in the past?

by nicknielsen

[i]I don't TRUST them to tell me the truth, just because a law exists.[/i]

Who is them? Individual government agencies? Individuals in government agencies? Watchdog groups such as Common Cause, Freedom Forum, or Citizens Against Government Waste? Who? Are they all liars?

How is a citizen supposed to stay informed if he can't get the information? This information is not READILY available. I can get it, but it's difficult and it takes time; many people don't have either the time or money. I have to write in and ask about my Congressman's financial disclosure forms. It can take up to a week after a bill is amended for that amendment to be posted on the web. There is essentially no lobbyist disclosure. Why not? Why isn't this on the web in a single location? I want to know how my Congressman votes, what bills he sponsors, and who has been donating to his campaign (and why) before Election Day.

You keep emphasizing television. I don't want this information from television. Television is an entertainment medium and the free market is working as it should. Morons watch TV, so by and large, we get moronic television. Television as current affairs and political "enlightenment" is pretty much limited to the fixed focus cameras of C-SPAN, and Sunday morning shows on the news networks. Every one of those networks (even Fox with their "We report. You decide" mantra) decides what to report so as to influence our decisions. If all that information is available on the web, I can sort through it myself and decide for myself.

by absolutely

I think yours is just a specific case of my equally true generalization.

I respect what I perceive as your genuine desire to be a responsible citizen, but I think you're wasting your time looking after your intellectual inferiors. They are also your inferiors in character. They do not put forth the effort you do to form a cogent argument, and do not deserve your time. But that is your choice to make, not mine.

They certainly do not deserve my time, and that is my choice to make, not yours.

by tonythetiger

to anyone who wants it. Why should we pay to deliver it to the door of the few who too lazy to go get it themselves?

by absolutely

[i]Why should we pay to deliver it to the door of the few who too lazy to go get it themselves?[/i]

I don't care about numbers when the principle is invalid. Whether few or many, those expecting to benefit from my labor without payment can eat dung.

by drowningnotwaving

The stated intention of your previous posts, combined with the detail of some of the other posts in this, make you a blind fanatic.

"Blind" because in putting up the shutters to any alternate ideas you must, by necessity, end up with results that cannot be optimum, in the long term.

And that's just stupid.

In your IT studies did you ever study any game theory?

Do you seriously think, in the end game of your credit-card-government, that you personally will be rich enough to be allowed to vote?

by tonythetiger

You can go to any government office and ask to look at almost any document and you will be allowed to.

If you want copies of the documents, a small charge for copying is not out of line.

If you want it researched, sorted, collated, and stapled, you should expect to pay a little more.

Delivering it to your home is an extravagance.

It is not the government's job to cater to [b]your[/b] whims at [b]my[/b] expense.

by nicknielsen

[i]You can go to any government office and ask to look at almost any document and you will be allowed to.[/i]

So I can go to my Town Hall and ask to look at a copy of H.R. 4900 and they will have it? What a pitiful generalization.

It is government's job to make the process of governing as open as possible. This should be the whim of every informed voter.

by tonythetiger

use tax money to reimburse your transportation costs for driving to the Town Hall to ask![/sarcasm]

If [b]you personally[/b] want the information, [b]you personally[/b] should shoulder the costs of obtaining/copying the information. You do not have a right to impose those costs on anybody else!

by absolutely

It isn't so onerous a task that more needs to be done to make it easier for citizens to get this data. If you want to see HR 4900, go to thomas.loc.gov and search for HR 4900. You will be told that this is an invalid bill number. Funny example.

by drowningnotwaving

They'd do it tomorrow.

Go and read a case study called (something like) American Hospital Supplies.

It was the first ever large-scale case of free self service provision and has been used as the model for many thousands of small-, medium- and large-scale projects globally ever since.

Let's use some numbers:

If spending $5 billion of your tax dollars over one electoral cycle would save you many $10s of billions each year in the future, would you consider that a worthwhile project to REDUCE your taxes?

by tonythetiger

has, through their representative, free access to any non-classified information in the posession of the government. I truly am amazed that you can take something that is [b]free[/b], fatten it up with billions of dollars of tax money, and claim with a straight face that it is going to save money!

by drowningnotwaving

I'm sure you've heard of the process, if (obviously?) not participated in one.

I do it daily for my job. Have done for 23 years.

I could tell you specifically how it would be acheived and where the direct costs would be taken out of the government machinery.

Sorry, but I think your apparent unwillingness to even consider spending money now to reduce expenses later will get in the way of any reasonable discussion.

by tonythetiger

no matter how you try to spin it. It is not the government's job to shove information down the citizens' throats. Information that not even all citizens want! If you want the information, get it. "Get" is something YOU do, with YOUR effort, not with MY money!

Geez, with your line of thinking, there should be a government employee holding a respirator to every citizen's mouth because they shouldn't have to expend the energy to expand the muscles controlling their lungs in order to get the 'free' air!

The government never has, and never will do with less money voluntarily (even the supposed tax cuts ended up putting more money in government coffers). We have to FORCIBLY put them on a diet!

by absolutely

The rights of people who have not earned money are deemed to supersede the rights of those who have earned it, leaving earners deprived of our wealth without due process. Until that is remedied you can take your game and your theory and get the he11 out of my way.

by absolutely

[i]I could tell you specifically how it would be acheived and where the direct costs would be taken out of the government machinery.

Sorry, but I think your apparent unwillingness to even consider spending money now to reduce expenses later will get in the way of any reasonable discussion.[/i]

Until you [b]do[/b], I will not believe that you [b]could[/b] tell us "specifically how it would be acheived and where the direct costs would be taken out of the government machinery." If you want to be taken on faith, start a church. If you want to convince me, tell me the facts.

by absolutely

[i]In the age of the Internet, though, transparency means something more than what the leadership has yet to propose. It means using the new technology to broadcast what and how Congress is doing the nation?s business; who lawmakers meet with and why; and making information available in a way that consumers of that information want it?24 hours a day, seven days a week. It also means putting out information in ways so that ordinary people can connect the dots. And besides all that, Congress would be foolish not to use the Internet to engage citizens in the new conversation that is taking place.[/i]

There are already hundreds of channels on the television, an [i]existing[/i] broadcast medium, which was capable of transmitting the same data [i]decades ago[/i]. Nobody cared enough then to make such content desirable. What has transpired to make them care today? The Internet? How? The more commercial media that [i]don't[/i] broadcast such content, the stronger my case that a government-paid equivalent would also be an unviewed waste of money. Sorry, Ms. Miller, but you won't have better politicians until you have a better populace.

by nicknielsen

[i]You losers don't deserve the truth, on my dime, nor anybody else's.[/i]

I know you were wrong, so I must apologize for not immediately seeing that she was also wrong. So sorry to waste my time.

by absolutely

to be a professional journalist. I don't have extra protections under the freedom of the press clause, to demand [i]the truth[/i] under the Freedom of Information Act. It's her job to get the facts straight.My role as a citizen is only to critique her, and the government, when they don't do theirs properly.

by gavin.bullock

As an observer from the UK, I found these proposals sensible and well within the capabilities of modern governments to do. In any self-respecting democracy, the provision of accurate information on the proceedings of both houses should be unquestioned. In my country, Hansard (the official document of the proceedings of the House of Commons) is available online, though I think there is a lot to do in this area. The Blair government does not like transparency and recently announced curtailments to our limited Freedom of Information Act.

The New Labour government tried to introduce a bill ostensibly to reduced red tape on industry but in fact would have given the executive enormous powers to initiate new legislation and amend established legislation without the intervention of parliament. Blair and his cabinet would have had dictatorial powers. The draft bill was not widely available for scrutiny. This was eventually picked up by the press but nearly too late. The outcry effectively neutered it.

Knowledge is power and knowledge of what our legislators are doing is essential to a healthy democracy. I really don't know what market forces have to do with it except that some people seem so obsessed with them that they probably apply them to brushing their teeth. Our leaders are constantly banging on about democracy yet in the USA and the UK, democracy, if not hanging by a thread, is pretty sick. These proposals would add another 'check' to your famous checks and balances. Like System Restore in Windows, they seem ineffective when really needed.

by absolutely

I don't mean to [i]ignore[/i] the phrase "but nearly too late" that you included, but my counterpoint is that [i]the press did its job[/i] and the bill [i]was[/i] neutered. So, you had a near miss, and I understand that can be scary. But, it did get caught, and through the existing mechanism. I see a logical contradiction in giving more responsibility to the government [b]as a solution to the problem of an untrustworthy government[/b]. If you distrust me, would you give me more responsibility, or pay more money to the press to report on my suspicious behavior? Why, with all the powers governments already have, would you be [b]more[/b] trusting of it than of an individual?

[i]I really don't know what market forces have to do with it except that some people seem so obsessed with them that they probably apply them to brushing their teeth.[/i]

Market forces can tell you what people care enough about to buy. They already do not buy this information when it is available for $1 or less in newsstands. $1 represents about 12 minutes of labor for a minimum wage earner, yet still people are uninformed. I agree that there is a problem, but the citizens have already shown that no matter how "available" information is, they prefer ignorance.

by absolutely

"The market" and "the voters" are both abstractions. Both refer to the same citizens, in this case the citizens of the United States. What they buy with the money they have tells me their priorities. They don't care enough to spend [b]their own[/b] money on being informed, therefore they don't care enough to spend [b]my money[/b] in the form of taxes on same.

by absolutely

I understand the phrase "credit-card-government" to mean a government that spends more money than it has in its budget, and credit-card spending in general to denote spending by an entity in excess of its value. Please explain why my reluctance to increase government spending is considered by you as [i]advocacy [b]for[/b][/i] credit-card government. Possibly there is something I have misunderstood about the colloquialism, but I believe that the problem is actually in your reasoning.

by drowningnotwaving

See, this is why I have been emphasising (granted - quite possibly "harping on about") the need to understand HOW to implement these things.

The ideas are great. The world's had millions and billions and trillions of great ideas.

How do you make them real?

At one end of the spectrum, you could possibly make it so easy and beneficial that Joe Voter goes YES you're brilliant I will be better off, here's my vote.

At the other end, you could have another revolutionary war.

The reality will be somewhere in the middle. That involves time, education, understanding and compromise.

If you have a zero-compromise approach to the implementation then, well, good luck. Perhaps that colony on the outer moon is looking very acceptible.

But 'selling' the idea to get the voters / pollies / power-brokers / influentially-self-interested is as important as the idea itself.

If you don't understand that need, then the question of "why vote?" has significant validity.

Tony - to answer your question and hopefully get you thinking considerably outside the square - the changes I'd suggest are generically possible in about every single western democratic government.

I can assure you, you do [b]not[/b] get it for free now whatsoever. You pay billions and billions of dollars today. Right now. Real cash/tax. Not paper money or accounting adjustments.

And Absolutely, I absolutely agree with your previous point that the Public Sector is not likely to embrace their new-found "change" wholeheartedly. A planning committee will advise the subcommittee who has put forward a suggestion for a 5-year trial in s'hitsville North Dakota.

But as you always said, the government is the BOSS. Then CAN force it through if they have the will, and if they think it will win them the next election.

But if you think that public sector change is impossible from the get-go, then the entire discussion becomes somewhat moot.

Do you agree that there is a degree of communication / selling / marketing (please select your own word if you are not comfortable with these) to get your ideas to work?

Do you really want them to happen, or is it genuinely just more fun to get into the tussles? Which is okay too, of course.

by absolutely

I believe you're quoting somebody else, or taking something out of the proper context. I think citizens are the boss, inasmuch as we truly live in a republic. If the government is boss, we live in some sort of dictatorship, be it oligarchy or mediocracy or what have you. I also don't "think that public sector change is impossible from the get-go" and I'm starting to get tired of correcting your paraphrases of my words. Please quote me when attributing words to me, because these two examples are miles off the mark.

To your two closing questions:

(1) [i]Do you agree that there is a degree of communication / selling / marketing (please select your own word if you are not comfortable with these) to get your ideas to work?[/i]

I agree that communication is necessary to, well, communicate an idea to the populace. But no, I'm not interested in "'selling' the idea to get the voters / pollies / power-brokers / influentially-self-interested" as you describe. All people have interests, of course, but my view is that there are certain interests that government has no right to involve itself in, and my purpose on this thread is to emphasize that in a participatory government, [b]individual[/b] citizens have responsibilities that cannot be dumped on an elected official or an advocacy group. The colonies developed with town hall meetings, and the present state of self-government is farther removed from that model than is healthy for a representative government.

2. [i]Do you really want them to happen, or is it genuinely just more fun to get into the tussles? Which is okay too, of course.[/i]

I think the whole right-left political debate is moronic, and focused disproportionately on issues that have nothing to do with anything anybody cares about, [b]except[/b] when we read them in the news, and reflexively treat them as relevant, because our "leaders" are making noises about them. I noticed years ago that the noises made by politicians had nothing to do with anything I cared about, [b]except[/b] the abstract moral implications. I'm always on the side of "live and let live" and non-interference with anybody who isn't directly interfering with me. My conclusion: that all that is really needed is the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and a few local laws (traffic & such) to keep the peace, because the major abstractions have already been solved, but there is an overabundance of lawyers combined with a dearth of informed citizens who are not lawyers, thus the legally-savvy minority stir up controversy just to have issues to legislate & try. It's sickening, and the solution has to be with the citizenry in general. Right now, they're getting what they deserve. They need to begin deserving better.

by drowningnotwaving

Sorry for the confusion. I meant it to be a lot more 'micro', not examining the broader picture of democracy.

What I meant was, the government are the boss in terms of introducing change to the entire public service structure.

Do you think a process of town hall meetings will work, or is necessary to implement basic, day-to-day change?

Quick eg:

Let's say your Secretary of Agriculture decides to embrace the free market, and remove subsidies from farmers and fishermen.

Is it reasonable that my elected representative and government actually has the task of delivering this?

Surely that is a basic foundation of the democratic process, is it not?

Do I have to vote on every single issue?

The point is: if you want to see long term change in the makeup of the public service and what you spend your tax money on, someone has to do it and force it through.

You don't seriously expect 75% of the public sector to drop their pens and go and start new enterprises, just because it is a good idea??

The town-halls worked in the quaint past. Although arguably they almost never represented a one-man-one-vote vision of democracy.

Even Jefferson had a deep mistrust of the growth of cities and the ability for the "dream" to survive the changing nature of society. I read that. Quite compelling and needs to be remembered when we hark back to the good old days.

Do you think the very changing nature of the "social form and makeup", from then to now, brings with it a need to adapt the "model"?

by absolutely

[i]Do you think a process of town hall meetings will work, or is necessary to implement basic, day-to-day change?[/i]

Definitely not. Minor adjustments to the monolith of government are made frequently, without town hall meetings, so I would be a fool to believe that what I know is happening [i]cannot possibly be happening[/i] in the world as I know it to be!

LOL.

But, have you noticed how it has become fashionable for candidates to vocalize about "broad, sweeping reform" - of selected topics such as campaign financiering and ethics? They are of course replying to a [i]market demand[/i] brought to them by the press, and the interest of the public in those stories presented to us, by the press. But, the pols want to make the changes within the power structure they have created - a power structure under careful scrutiny now because of the appearance that it exists for their own convenience, to the detriment of the populace.

I'm not interested in helping them. I say they have demonstrated themselves worthy of having less power, and the press, although imperfect, more trustworthy than the agents of the government, which have direct power to accept bribes and abuse their power accordingly, just by being able to keep a secret. I do not by any stretch believe that the publication of the data Ms. Miller mentions is a bad idea. I am further to the extreme of distrust for the government, however, and believe the better solution is to extend laws, and improve enforcement of existing laws, allowing [i]the press[/i] to know what is being legislated. I trust their economic interest in convincing us that they are doing their jobs, because they [i]don't[/i] have the powers of government to secretly re-write rules, or call in favors, etc. If the legislature is passing a lot of [i]laws[/i] that are protected state secrets, then our country must by definition be acting immorally. There should be no secrets in any legislation, but in military and espionage organizations only. With the government in charge of reporting, there would be no "ping" in such a case. With the press exclusively responsible for reporting, there would at least be the news of "data refused".

[i]Do you think the very changing nature of the "social form and makeup", from then to now, brings with it a need to adapt the "model"?[/i]

Yes, actual town hall meetings are impractical for largish towns, and totally unsuitable for a national government. But, active citizen involvement is still necessary, whatever the scale of government becomes. The more that citizens self-govern, the less [i]justification[/i] can be smuggled into debates that a large government is necessary. It simply isn't.

by tonythetiger

[i]Tony - to answer your question and hopefully get you thinking considerably outside the square - the changes I'd suggest are generically possible in about every single western democratic government.[/i]

I'm only interested in one government.

[i]I can assure you, you do not get it for free now whatsoever. You pay billions and billions of dollars today. Right now. Real cash/tax. Not paper money or accounting adjustments.[/i]

Yes, 'free' was not the right word. I meant 'For no additional charge'.

[b]You[/b] seem to think that the information should be at the fingertips of everybody, and that [b]everybody[/b] should pay for it, even though I can state with a great deal of confidence that [b]everybody[/b] doesn't need or want the information (at their fingertips or otherwise). I am vehemently opposed to this notion or any similar notion that will take my work product away from me and gives it to someone who didn't earn it, and if that opposition leads to civil war, so be it. I'm game!

by drowningnotwaving

... and your sentence is for you and your offpsring to pay unreasonable taxes to someone else until the end of time.

Mind you, if that graph on Wiki re: the amount of taxes you actually pay was anywhere near accurate, then you pay extremely little taxes in the first place! [b]What are you complaining about?[/b]

That would have to be one of the lowest effective taxes in the western world (if correct, of course)!!

Jees, if you can't build an empire of riches on that kind of income then what more do you need?

by absolutely

You have proven that [i]the information[/i] is available [i]on the Internet[/i]. What did you say your point was?

by nicknielsen

But if you can provide links to lobbyist disclosures in the detail identified in the original column or to full financial disclosure documents for both the House and Senate, I'll be surprised.

I can follow the bills, albeit with a delay. But I'd really like to know who is paying for them.

by tonythetiger

[i]Jees, if you can't build an empire of riches on that kind of income then what more do you need?[/i]

And your myopia can't see past the dollar signs. It's not about money, it's about liberty.

by absolutely

Winners want only to be free to earn what our effort and skill are worth. Losers want to interfere with winners for no reason but your own laziness. I salute you, TonytheTiger.

by absolutely

I'd really like to be part of an informed, active populace. Until I see that, I have no compassion for the populace, nor any interest in providing better for their convenience than they even attempt to earn for themselves.

by drowningnotwaving

.

I've just checked this thread and others ...

The overwhelming majority of notes you raise is about [b]money[/b] !!!!!!!

It's always "They want to spend MY taxes". "On My dime". "Take MY money and give it to the poor". "I want to opt out of PAYING for someone else", "Don't use my money for your social programmes", "steal money from someone else's wallet and put it the beggar's cup" etc, etc, et bloddy cetera.

Tony you correctly point to my using money as a manifestation of the 'dream'.

It was only one but you jumped loudly. Fair enough.

Now don't do a Max. Please try to see your own consistencies and inconsistencies for what they are.

Go and count up your own notes, points and arguments and I'd be very confident that money, its use, its misuse or its saving, is by far the highest and single most consistent manifestation of your "dream".

by absolutely

but about [b]my money[/b]. That which you earn, you may prioritize as you wish. What I earn is for me to do with as I please with [b]no input of any kind from you[/b].

by drowningnotwaving

but you can't get away from the fact that the substantive manifestation of your dream is based around money and YOUR ability to do with YOUR money as you see fit.

That isn't a BAD thing!! Just see it and say it for what it is.

Truly and completely "opting out" is neither feasible nor reaslistically possible. Even max finally stated that after blowing his way thru arguments to the contrary.

Unless you have a $HITLOAD of money. Buy an island. Opt out. Unless of course it's called the Bikini Atoll and someone wants it to test their ...

by absolutely

Until I have a sufficient load of money, I will have to settle for stating my disagreement with premises that hold that I have some obligation to do other than pursue [i]my[/i] happiness.

by tonythetiger

the 'money' part of "my money", it's the 'my' part of "my money" that I am concerned with. I don't want anyone else's.

[i]Go and count up your own notes, points and arguments and I'd be very confident that money, its use, its misuse or its saving, is by far the highest and single most consistent manifestation of your "dream".[/i]

Apparently you think that I am, or want to be, "filthy rich". You'd be wrong on both counts. I'm firmly "upper lower" or "lower middle", depending on where you draw the line, and I have absolutely no designs on changing "my place". My "dream" is simply to live my life, and continue to help those who want to help themselves. Money is merely one of the tools. It's not an end.

by florida_kes

The same for those pesky national museums too! Give them all to Disney...they can run those much more effectively as well!

by nicknielsen

Keep'em ignorant so they keep voting for the same morons with the same socialist beliefs who will take more money out of your pocket.

To me, that's either selfish, stupid, or misguided; to be polite, I'll say misguided, but believe otherwise.

by tonythetiger

but ours is paid for 100% with donations and grants from local businesses.

[added: I apologize for this mis-statement. When I joined "Friends of the Library" I thought that's what they meant. Their funds are [b]in addition to[/b] the public funds the library receives.

by absolutely

But I question, as part of a populace/journalism market which buys gossip publications that can 'magically find' the identities of all minor celebrities who have ever done a foot fungus commercial, why there is not an [i]economic demand[/i] for the same information about [i]politicians'[/i] meetings. The public taste for information funds paparazzi intrusions such that actors & singers have to get restraining orders to live in peace, and Princess Diana's death is blamed in part on making a hasty retreat from a rabid throng of tabloid trash. Does that same media market/populace deserve to have information provided to us, after we have exercised our Constitutional freedoms, including the freedom of the press, to [i]not[/i] buy hard news, but to ignore it in favor of the frivolous trash being published and broadcast right now?

I agree fully that an informed populace tends to make for better voters. But if you simply provide information to the populace, such as we are now, we will not be only informed. We will still be as indifferent as ever, and I question the civic value, as compared to the economic cost, of an informed but indifferent populace. Until they care enough to [i]pay[/i] for the news, they don't deserve to [i]have[/i] it.

by nicknielsen

[i]Does that same media market/populace deserve to have information provided to us, after we have exercised our Constitutional freedoms, including the freedom of the press, to not buy hard news, but to ignore it in favor of the frivolous trash being published and broadcast right now?[/i]

I know your answer, I just don't know mine yet.

by absolutely

That pretty well confirms it. I thought I had posed basically the same question in the original post, but I guess I didn't make clear what I consider the 'bottom line'.

This discussion is closed to new replies.