Push for Government Openness on Right and Left

NY Times' Terrorist Tip Sheet ^ | July 3, 2006 | JASON DePARLE

[neverdem]

WASHINGTON, July 2 — Exasperated by his party's failure to cut government spending, Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, is seeking cyberhelp.

Mr. Coburn wants to create a public database, searchable over the Internet, that would list most government contracts and grants — exposing hundreds of billions in annual spending to instant desktop view.

Type in "Halliburton," the military contractor, or "Sierra Club," the environmental group, for example, and a search engine would show all the federal money they receive. A search for the terms "Alaska" and "bridges" would expose a certain $315 million span to Gravina Island (population 50) that critics call the "Bridge to Nowhere."

While advocating for openness, Mr. Coburn is also placing a philosophical bet that the more the public learns about federal spending, the less it will want.

"Sunshine's the best thing we've got to control waste, fraud and abuse," he said. "It's also the best thing we've got to control stupidity. It'll be a force for the government we need."

But Mr. Coburn's plan, hailed by conservatives, is also sponsored by a Democrat, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, and applauded by liberal groups that support activist government. The result is a showcase of clashing assumptions and the oddest of coalitions, uniting Phyllis Schlafly, a prominent critic of gay rights, with the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

Liberal groups, while also praising openness, are hoping for a new appreciation of what government does, like provide clean water and feed the hungry. "We need to remind people where Uncle Sam helps us each day," said Gary Bass, director of OMB Watch, a liberal group that got its start monitoring the Office of Management and Budget.

[garbageseeker]

Another propaganda piece from the NY Pravda. When will it never end.

[Jameison]

" Exasperated by his party's failure to cut government spending"

Huh?
The RATS have voted over and over again against Republican initiated attempts to cut spending in the congress, and refuse to even countenance any Social Security reform to cut down the huge and ballooning expenditure there.
When did it become an exclusive "Republican failure"?

[Jameison]

"Another propaganda piece from the NY Pravda"

Yup.
That's why the poster also called it The "NY Times' Terrorist Tip Sheet".
A very accurate description.

[KantianBurke]

The free pills for granny act ring a bell? How about the $15 BILLION US taxpayer dollars squandered for AIDS in Africa? Or the infamous ex Rep. Delay quote "there's no pork left to cut in the budget." Yeah, its all the Rats fault - rolls eyes -

[Jameison]

"Yeah, its all the Rats fault - rolls eyes -"

Rubbish.
You will of course show me where it says "all the RATS fault" is in my post, yes?

[redpoll]

Mr. Coburn is also placing a philosophical bet that the more the public learns about federal spending, the less it will want

IMHO, absolutely incorrect. The unseen consequence of this bill will be to create vast new consituencies based on greed and envy prompted by the spending listed on the Internet. Someone looking at the so-called bridge to nowhere will be prompted not to condemn Ketchikan for wanting more living space on the island next door but be compelled to ask for his or her own bridge to nearby land to develop themselves. Lots of people live on the other side of rivers, lakes, ravines, and canyons with undeveloped land on the other side that begs for development. Another example: Someone looking at the $50 million for the National Hog Processing Museum in Sandflat, Nebraska, won't be appalled at the cost. He'll want his own $50 million for his own museum in his own town paid for by Uncle Sugar.

If I can see this flaw I can't see why someone else hasn't brought it up.

The solution: limited goverment. The government should only be doing a limited list of things, period, and the rest should be done by the states or the people. In fact, a limited federal goverment would eliminate most of the pork, lobbying concerns, and waste immediately - and you'll never get rid of human greed, corruption, and envy, anyway so you might as well limit the damage to a few key areas.

[Darkwolf377]

I know I should put on the ol' flame suit for this, but I don't see how $15 billion to fight AIDS is squandered money. But then, the loudly-proclaimed Christianity around here seems to disappear when we talk about that kind of stuff. Finding a solution for AIDS--which could lead to all kinds of associated cures--isn't as important as bridges to nowhere.

More to the point, you had to go a long way to criticize the other poster, who said not one word about it "all being the Rats fault". The point, a good one, is how the comment that "his party" is responsible for the excess spending is incomplete and untrue. But I guess you needed to get some eye-rolling off your chest, so who cares about the facts?

[Darkwolf377]

IMHO, absolutely incorrect. The unseen consequence of this bill will be to create vast new consituencies based on greed and envy prompted by the spending listed on the Internet. Someone looking at the so-called bridge to nowhere will be prompted not to condemn Ketchikan for wanting more living space on the island next door but be compelled to ask for his or her own bridge to nearby land to develop themselves. Lots of people live on the other side of rivers, lakes, ravines, and canyons with undeveloped land on the other side that begs for development. Another example: Someone looking at the $50 million for the National Hog Processing Museum in Sandflat, Nebraska, won't be appalled at the cost. He'll want his own $50 million for his own museum in his own town paid for by Uncle Sugar.

Let 'em--these projects are already known, particularly the Bridge project. I don't see how more knowledge of specific projects is a bad thing. People have ALWAYS had the ability to want similar projects for themselves, they've been asking for excess spending for THEIR particular interests forever.

I just can't take anymore of this "Government knows better, you just don't worry your little head about where the money's being spent" paternal government crap. I know you aren't advocating that per se, but it's exactly what results from this lack of transparency.

For the same reason, I don't want restrictions on campaign cash; I want 100% transparency, on the Net, all donations reported. I don't need the government keeping secrets for "my own good".

If I can see this flaw I can't see why someone else hasn't brought it up.

Because an open-book budget of our tax money isn't a flaw.

The solution: limited goverment. The government should only be doing a limited list of things, period, and the rest should be done by the states or the people. In fact, a limited federal goverment would eliminate most of the pork, lobbying concerns, and waste immediately - and you'll never get rid of human greed, corruption, and envy, anyway so you might as well limit the damage to a few key areas.

Above, you described a constituency that would see these projects and instantly demand "their" projects, a result so cataclysmic financially that you don't want this kind of transparency.

And yet that same constituency is going to support LESS government? Please explain how this miraculous conversion is going to take place, from "I want a bridge!" to "No one should get bridges, not even me!"

[liliesgrandpa]

The Republicans are supposed to control the Presidency, House, and Senate. They are supposed to control the leadership, the heads of all committees. It seems to me that the Rats didn't have problems leading when they were in charge.

What's missing - a backbone!

A RINO President leading RINOs in the Congress, and you have out of control spending, with the Rats able to watch and laugh.

[Jameison]

"The Republicans are supposed to control the Presidency, House, and Senate. They are supposed to control the leadership, the heads of all committees"

Republicans don't control the two thirds of the Senate needed to stop RATS filibustering of drilling for oil at ANWR for example, or a whole slew of vital votes that have been blocked by RATS filibustering.


"It seems to me that the Rats didn't have problems leading when they were in charge."

Republicans never filibustered judicial nominations, nor had that ever been done in the history of the US Senate, until these moonbats RATS led by The Swimmer in this current US Senate.
Plus, I'd argue that any tax cuts under BJ Klinton were pushed by the Republican congress.

[Jameison]

"A RINO President leading "

We don't have a RINO president.
We have a president who is about as tough on terrorism as you can get, and has stayed true to the course, despite constant attacks on the WOT by The Al Quaeda Times led, drive-by media.

[DustyMoment]

Anything to try to distract from their treasonous hit piece on terrorist funding. What a worthless waste of paper and ink!!

[redpoll]

A government that has no limits on spending will always have people lined up at the trough for a drink. Of course I agree that government should be 100 percent transparent. I agree with this one guy who said, "Robbing Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul." In the same way, no limits on government largess will always produce no limits on requests.

In the same way, a limited government - such as the one we are supposed to have - can only buy "what's on the list," so to speak. Just call me old fashioned. Or a Constitutionalist.

[liliesgrandpa]

"Republicans don't control the two thirds of the Senate needed to stop RATS filibustering of drilling for oil at ANWR for example, or a whole slew of vital votes that have been blocked by RATS filibustering."

Real leaders could make the Rats stand up and really filibuster (talk for hours on end to stall a vote). Instead the rats just say "we filibuster" and they all move on to the next item. Just keep one Republican (is there one with a backbone?) in the room until the rat wears out and then take a vote.

[liliesgrandpa]

"We don't have a RINO president."
Please. This president has been a big government, big spending, RINO liberal.

He has Ted Kennedy write the education bill.

Free drugs any one?

Spending - through the roof.

Gave away the first amendment.

Sold his veto pen on e-bay as one freeper noted.

Harriet Meijer?

I do give him credit for the other SCOTUS nominees, and half credit for the war on terror. If he was serious about the wot,

why do we still give aid to the Palestinians, and the Muslims?

Why do we try to give Israel to the Palestinians?

Why can't we call a RINO a RINO?

[Jameison]

"He has Ted Kennedy write the education bill"

The No Child Left Behind Bill is not perfect, but it has plenty of good points in it, like school vouchers
Plus the president didn't have the votes needed to get his Boill pased without the backing of some RATS.

"Spending - through the roof."

Umm..Bills are voted in by the congress


"Gave away the first amendment."

Huh?
Like The Slimes publishing classified vital American state secrets so Al Quaeda can get evn more money to come kill Americans?

Hey, keep the DU/Kos talking points coming will ya?
Why stop now? You are on ride blowing hot air.

[liliesgrandpa]

"Spending - through the roof."

Umm..Bills are voted in by the congress

Have you heard of a veto pen? Leadership?

Did you know that Bush is the one who pushed through the biggest increase in government since LBJ, the prescription drug program. That alone will cost my grandkids billions over the coming years.
"school vouchers"
Can you get school vouchers for your kids, probably not. There are probably very few vouchers out there, unless the school is really bad (in comparison to other bad schools).
Can you use those vouchers for a Christian school?
Can you use those vouchers for home schooling?

You don't have a problem with Ted Kennedy writing the education bill?

"Gave away the first amendment."

You haven't heard of the McPain Fiendgold bill?

"Hey, keep the DU/Kos talking points coming will ya?
Why stop now? You are on ride blowing hot air."

DU talking points to point out liberal actions of a RINO? They must be getting more conservative than I thought.

[Jameison]

"Have you heard of a veto pen? Leadership?"

I believe I have..
It believe it might have something to do with leading country through a nasty war against an implacable foe, that is as vicious and as rabid as any foe this country has ever fought (if not more so), and that is determined to murder as many Americans as possible.
I think leadership might also have something to do the ability to prosecute a war and motivate our troops despite having practically the entire media, and the "polls" against you, and prosecuting it to the logical conclusion till victory is achieved.
But hey, that's only me.

Veto? Now if you were in power, I suppose you'd use the veto pen anytime you woke up in the morning with a bad headache, even with your own party is in the majority in both The House and the Senate.
Luckily for this country, you are not the President.

[Jameison]

"Can you get school vouchers for your kids, probably not"

Now how would you know that?
You work for the New York Slimes, who know also claim to know that all the Al Quaeda people already knew about exactly how the American government was tracking their finances?