Same.
|
Someone's always got a complaint.
If the government didn't establish a way to inform the public of how the money was spent and how oversight was conducted, people would complain about that. Damned if you do, and so on.
That's because people are well-trained to pass the buck and complain when the buck gets passed someplace they don't like.
|
|
Someone's always got a complaint.
If the government didn't establish a way to inform the public of how the money was spent and how oversight was conducted, people would complain about that. Damned if you do, and so on.
They do have a way, it is called the Congressional Record, along with the Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Government Accountability Office. But for some reason, none of those are sufficient to the task to "root out waste, inefficency, and unnecessary spending".
Oh right, this is an "unprecedented effort". Nobody has ever made quite this degree of effort to spend money, so naturally they must create yet another oversight board to brag about how they are spending it.And it is not like Congress, including the vote of the current President, did not give away what could be the same amount less than six months ago with barely existent oversight, so naturally they also have to show just how much they have learned.
Damned if you don't, damned if you do it but poorly, and damned if you think throwing money at a problem with an "oversight board" and a website will prove you are not doing it poorly.
And thrice-damned does indeed describe this.
Since NAFTA the price of back bacon's gone down, eh.
Neither does a bottle of Budweiser and three drunk frogs...
Bud, I had that once.
Sorry, but what is wrong with getting investment in physicial infrestructure and education. These are things that your country needs desperately.
What is wrong with your president attempting to make that spending transparent?
While you do have the Congressional Record, the Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Government Accountability Office; most people will never even begin to look at the reports of these organisations. The whole point of this initiative is to engage people. Given most western democracies voter turn out this kind of thing is almost certainly a good idea as it engages peoples interest.
Hell, if i had one serious complaint about the spending plan, i would say that they should take 100 b of tax relief and boost education healthcare and education and 'infrastructure and science' with a large chunk of that going into research into the 'pure sciences'.
Imagain what we could achieve if we put 100 b into fusion research. We might see commercial fusion powerplants in my life time. Now that would be very cool.
Imagain what the world would be like with 100 b being spent on improving education standards in schools. Lower crime rates, more employment and other benifits.
Imagain america with 100 b spent on health. People not loosing their homes because they cant afford health insurance and have to choose between paying their morgage and buying their cancer drugs...
Ah, yes! An entire nation of healthy people now smart enough to know what they're missing!
And just think! Beautiful roads and bridges everywhere! Why, it's enough to make a Roman weep! Of course, no-one will have any money to buy the new fusion-reactor car or the rods to power it, but damn do we have nice roads!
Rome could not have survived without its roads. Just as no country will be able to survive without good communications infrastructure in the future.
Being the first to develop workable fusion reactors would allow America to sell the technology. Alternatively, they could use their monopoly of the technology to lower manufacturing costs across the nation and out produce every open else while massively reducing their dependence on increasingly expensive oil.
Oh, and I really should not have to explain this, but Fusion does not use 'rods' it uses hydrogen plasma. You are thinking of fission, which illustrates my point about education very nicely.
...Oh, and I really should not have to explain this, but Fusion does not use 'rods' it uses hydrogen plasma. You are thinking of fission, which illustrates my point about education very nicely.
Hey, Ms Smarty Pants--I don't know how you got your 'education,' but Fusion uses only the highest quality fruits, to create rich tasty juices, smoothies and yoggies. Visit our juice bar at the Edgware Mall and get a healthy dose of fruit vitality! Only £1 during Happy Hour!
And thrice-damned does indeed describe this.Almost makes me wonder if Canada is "hiring." Almost.
Yeah .... Gotta work on getting my wife her citizenship ....
O Uncle Sammy
O Don't yew cry fer me
For I come from Massachusetts
With a tax bill on my knee ......
|
|
Sorry, but what is wrong with getting investment in physicial infrestructure and education. These are things that your country needs desperately.
Nothing is wrong with them.
Too bad they are such a small portion of the $1.5 trillion porkfests that have been passed.What is wrong with your president attempting to make that spending transparent?
Nothing. The problem is wasting money on it.
While you do have the Congressional Record, the Office of Management and Budget, the Congressional Budget Office, and the Government Accountability Office; most people will never even begin to look at the reports of these organisations. The whole point of this initiative is to engage people. Given most western democracies voter turn out this kind of thing is almost certainly a good idea as it engages peoples interest.
If people will not look at the reports of those groups, why would you expect them to look at the reports of this new group?
If those groups are already creating reports, why can they not be used and posted?Hell, if i had one serious complaint about the spending plan, i would say that they should take 100 b of tax relief and boost education healthcare and education and 'infrastructure and science' with a large chunk of that going into research into the 'pure sciences'.
As opposed to wasting it on yet another committee and more projects?
And those are nice, but they are useless without increasing basic manufacturing.Imagain what we could achieve if we put 100 b into fusion research. We might see commercial fusion powerplants in my life time. Now that would be very cool.
That would also be rather silly.
Technological investment is for what is here and now, not for pie in the sky extreme edge theories. You might as well throw money away on warp engine research as do that.Imagain what the world would be like with 100 b being spent on improving education standards in schools. Lower crime rates, more employment and other benifits.
Merely improving education does not automatically produce any of those things. There must also be the basic manufacturing infrastructure available to provide the jobs.
Imagain america with 100 b spent on health. People not loosing their homes because they cant afford health insurance and have to choose between paying their morgage and buying their cancer drugs...
The U.S. already has catastrophic health care insurance. Posing that as a panacea is merely more of the same fearmongering that was used to ram the $1.5 trillion porkfests through in the first place.
Manufacturing.
Manufacturing, manufacturing, manufacturing.
Plus infrastructure, education, and a consumer based, trickle up, economic relief package.
As long as the need for American manufacturing support is not made, all this will do is through yet more good money after bad.
On your idea that manufacturing is the key. How exactly do you think that America is in any position to compete in free trade with the Bric? Short of introducing protectionist policies you just can't do it and protectionism is the last thing the world needs right now. Hell, increasing manufacturing at a time like this could well be disastrous as it might well create a glut of product, which will drive down prices and cause massive deflation.
On the idea that fusion is a pip dream, i think you'll find that ITER disagrees with you. Commercial is almost certainly going to be available within 50 years at current rate of development. Fusion is not an 'edge theory'. It is mainstream physics and already the joint research project by the European Union, Japan, the People´s Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and the USA.
On education: The data disagrees with you. When countries have decent education, systems they tend to have low crime rates, more employment, better health and less belief in gods. Research can provide jobs just as surely as manufacturing can.
Dude, you have charities which operate in the 3rd world providing basic healthcare to people in america, that isn't fear mongering, its a travesty. There are a great many people in the states who need healthcare reform and need it now. Get a sense of social justice.
Devil's Advocate:
Education is not the key.
If everyone is highly educated, who will do the jobs today's highly educated people won't touch? When everyone has a Masters, then a Masters loses all meaning. Kant established the idea that there must be, in any industrialized nation, a enlightenment tipping point. Otherwise, we evolve from a society of material haves and have nots, to an intellectual equivalent, simply replacing one class system for another.
There's another set of guys who liked the equally-educated, godless society: Marx and Mao.
*BEEP*
When humans do not wish to work, we robots will pick up the slack, taking more and more responsibility until you become irrelev ...
....errr really happy and free to do whatever you fleshbags like to! Yeah that's it!
Devil's Advocate:
Education is not the key.
If everyone is highly educated, who will do the jobs today's highly educated people won't touch? When everyone has a Masters, then a Masters loses all meaning. Kant established the idea that there must be, in any industrialized nation, a enlightenment tipping point. Otherwise, we evolve from a society of material haves and have nots, to an intellectual equivalent, simply replacing one class system for another.There's another set of guys who liked the equally-educated, godless society: Marx and Mao.
Who said anything about every one having a Higher education?
I certainly never did. I am refering to a having system where 100% of adults are able to tell you how long the earth takes to orbit the sun.
Because you know 50% of adults not being able to answer a question i as a six year old was able to answer is shocking and detromental to the united states. Hell, a 6 year old should be able to answer that, and explain why that results in the seasons.
Everyone knows the sun goes around the earth, and the seasons change because Persephone does the house arrest thing down in Hades; and winter is sometimes longer because Punxsutawney Phil sees his shadow.
|
|
On your idea that manufacturing is the key. How exactly do you think that America is in any position to compete in free trade with the Bric? Short of introducing protectionist policies you just can't do it and protectionism is the last thing the world needs right now. Hell, increasing manufacturing at a time like this could well be disastrous as it might well create a glut of product, which will drive down prices and cause massive deflation.
If there is free trade, then America can compete. The problem is, there is not free trade. China forcefully devalues its currency, Japan engages in excessive protectionism and patent annexation, and even the EU is not as devoted to free trade as people like to pretend. When only one nation practices free trade it instead becomes a doormat, and a bankrupt doormat at that.
On the idea that fusion is a pip dream, i think you'll find that ITER disagrees with you. Commercial is almost certainly going to be available within 50 years at current rate of development. Fusion is not an 'edge theory'. It is mainstream physics and already the joint research project by the European Union, Japan, the People´s Republic of China, India, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and the USA.
Fifty years means throwing billions at it to try and have it available in a year is pipe dream, and a ludicrous pipe dream at that.
On education: The data disagrees with you. When countries have decent education, systems they tend to have low crime rates, more employment, better health and less belief in gods. Research can provide jobs just as surely as manufacturing can.
First, suggesting education as a tool to promote atheism is an example of the fanatic extremism of secularism, and how it can be just as dangerous as religious extremism.
Second, education does not in an of itself automatically cause employment. Proclaiming it an automatic panacea is a prime example of the flawed logic that drives secularist ideologies to flawed theories like Marxism and the Austrian School. Pure research is insufficient to maintain an economy. This has been demonstrated quite obviously in the US where companies prefer to import researchers at cheaper wages and less benefits rather than pay American citizens creating a severe unemployment problem among highly educated people.Dude, you have charities which operate in the 3rd world providing basic healthcare to people in america, that isn't fear mongering, its a travesty. There are a great many people in the states who need healthcare reform and need it now. Get a sense of social justice.
Dude, you have the American government operating in the 3rd world, providing basic and advanced healthcare, as well as emergency assistance when needed. If you wish to call it a travesty that all that money could instead be spent to provide better healthcare for Americans but is not, go right ahead. I guess your sense of social justice failed its perception check on that one.
You also fail to recognize that just ranting about an emergency, even calling it a "travesty", or whatever semantically loaded term you prefer, does not in fact mean throwing money at it and advocating government intervention in the way you advocate will in anyway actually resolve the issue. Indeed, most often such actions just make things worse. Get a sense of social perspective.
You know, as far as US education goes...
--85% of adult Americans have at least a high school degree today, up from just 25% in 1940. Similarly, 28% have a college degree, a fivefold gain over this period. Today's U.S. workforce is the most educated in the world.
--Americans read more books, per capita per year, than any other nation.
--American universities still graduate more US citizens in the fields of science and engineering than any other country does their own citizens; more US-trained scientists go on to win acclaimed awards and prizes in their respective fields, as well.
It's a shame the media revels in showing us a half-dozen underachievers who can't spell potato, and then we all decry the entire system of education.
Well, of course! America is an evil, god-ridden, ignorant narcissistic fascist empire! Anyone can see that! Look at all the hostile annexation and pillaging of countries they have done! Why they even stole the Elgin Marbles from Greece ...oh wait, no that was the UK.
Well, they annexed three-quarters of the known world, creating massive social injustice that simmers to this day ...oh no wait, UK again ..
Well, just look at the concentration camps where they slaughtered millions of innocents! ..oh no .that was the Nazis ..
Well, they sponsor children's shows that extol the virtues of world domination and the extermination of the Jewish race! Oh wait, that's the Hamas government in Palestine ...
Well, they blow up historical archaeology sites because they offend their fundamentalist beliefs ..oh wait that was the Taliban ...
Well, they are so primitive on women's rights that religious police run about hitting any women who shows an ankle with a wooden rod! ..Oh wait, no that's Saudi Arabia ...
Well, they murder anyone who dares to even say the slightest thing against their religion .... oh no wait, that's the Wahabbi Sunnis and the fundamentalist Shiites.
Well, they practice clitoral cicumcision on their women! Oh no, wait, fundamantalist Muslims again...
Well, they are so culturally snobbish they made foreign loan words in their language illegal! No, no that was the French ....
You know ... America isn't perfect. But to borrow a phrase from a book I'm sure some of you hate the mention of: Before removing the mote in thy neighbor's eye attend to the beam in thine own.
|
|
You know, as far as US education goes...
--85% of adult Americans have at least a high school degree today, up from just 25% in 1940. Similarly, 28% have a college degree, a fivefold gain over this period. Today's U.S. workforce is the most educated in the world.
--Americans read more books, per capita per year, than any other nation.
--American universities still graduate more US citizens in the fields of science and engineering than any other country does their own citizens; more US-trained scientists go on to win acclaimed awards and prizes in their respective fields, as well.
It's a shame the media revels in showing us a half-dozen underachievers who can't spell potato, and then we all decry the entire system of education.
Well, see, there you go.
If people really were educated in America they would know those things about the U.S., despite the best efforts of the mediatainment industry colluding with partisan political interest groups to create the false image of a system in crisis or failure to advance their various agendas.Or maybe it just demonstrates the failure of those who believe it to employ the critical thinking skills they insist everyone but themselves is lacking.
|
|
You know ... America isn't perfect. But to borrow a phrase from a book I'm sure some of you hate the mention of: Before removing the mote in thy neighbor's eye attend to the beam in thine own.
Excesses of government, economics, philosophy, theology, race, and nationalism are only crimes when committed by the U.S., or a select few U.S. allies at any particular time.
For every other nation and group they are proper expressions of self-affirmation in the face of American (sometimes generic Western) oppression and imperialism (cultural, economic, and colonial annexation).I learned that from the mediatainment!
|
|
You know, as far as US education goes...
--85% of adult Americans have at least a high school degree today, up from just 25% in 1940. Similarly, 28% have a college degree, a fivefold gain over this period. Today's U.S. workforce is the most educated in the world.
--Americans read more books, per capita per year, than any other nation.
--American universities still graduate more US citizens in the fields of science and engineering than any other country does their own citizens; more US-trained scientists go on to win acclaimed awards and prizes in their respective fields, as well.
It's a shame the media revels in showing us a half-dozen underachievers who can't spell potato, and then we all decry the entire system of education.
Well, see, there you go.
If people really were educated in America they would know those things about the U.S., despite the best efforts of the mediatainment industry colluding with partisan political interest groups to create the false image of a system in crisis or failure to advance their various agendas.Or maybe it just demonstrates the failure of those who believe it to employ the critical thinking skills they insist everyone but themselves is lacking.
Sam,
Or it is a case of using statistics that don't show what they purport to show. For example, the one on Americans read more books per capita. Without questioning it's accuracy (which having no source I am completely unable to do), what does this mean? If Americans are reading My Pet Goat and the rest of the world is reading James Joyce's Ulysses, who would you say were the better educated ones, even if Americans reads the book twice? This is clearly an over-exaggeration, I admit, but it makes the point that you have to question what statistics are actually telling you rather than blithely assuming they mean what you want them to.As to the number of graduates and prize winners, is that a proportion or an absolute number? If the latter, well, what a shock. America is bigger by a factor of 5 over any other developed, industrialised country so it's not surprising, now is it? If the former, it's a good point. But from what the good Prof showed us, we can't tell which it is (although the language seems to be about an absolute number).
Perhaps your own critical thinking skills are not being fully applied because you violently disagree with an untrue stereotype?
|
|
Sam,
Or it is a case of using statistics that don't show what they purport to show. For example, the one on Americans read more books per capita. Without questioning it's accuracy (which having no source I am completely unable to do), what does this mean? If Americans are reading My Pet Goat and the rest of the world is reading James Joyce's Ulysses, who would you say were the better educated ones, even if Americans reads the book twice? This is clearly an over-exaggeration, I admit, but it makes the point that you have to question what statistics are actually telling you rather than blithely assuming they mean what you want them to.
So without a source you assert a severe disjunction between the quality of what is being read.
How exactly would you qualify blithely over-exaggerating with no demonstrable data in an effort to indict a viewpoint that you do not agree with?As to the number of graduates and prize winners, is that a proportion or an absolute number? If the latter, well, what a shock. America is bigger by a factor of 5 over any other developed, industrialised country so it's not surprising, now is it? If the former, it's a good point. But from what the good Prof showed us, we can't tell which it is (although the language seems to be about an absolute number).
It is a factor of 2.5 for Japan and somewhat under 4 for Germany for population.
As for proportion, go right ahead and produce applicable data. Once again you want to challenge an assertion without having to produce any evidence to support your challenge.Perhaps your own critical thinking skills are not being fully applied because you violently disagree with an untrue stereotype?
Perhaps.
But then for most people, critical thinking usually requires some basis for making assertions other than support of an untrue stereotype. With, by your own admission, nothing to actually support your position, all you have is dissent for the sake of attacking the positions of others as a basis for your claims. While that could qualify as many things, critical thinking would not generally be considered one of them.Meanwhile:
Of 789 individuals and 20 organizations, 309 Americans and organizations have won Nobel Prizes. Even discounting the 75 that were born in other countries, the 234 out of 809 is nearly 29%, massively below the more than 6 times the 4.5% of the world population the U.S. represents.
36 of the top 50 universities in the world are in the U.S..
Yes, those are just more statistics, but it would take just a bit more than calling them wishful thinking to establish that they do not actually represent a significant statistical variance that supports an assertion of the overall quality of the American education system.
|
|
Sam,
Or it is a case of using statistics that don't show what they purport to show. For example, the one on Americans read more books per capita. Without questioning it's accuracy (which having no source I am completely unable to do), what does this mean? If Americans are reading My Pet Goat and the rest of the world is reading James Joyce's Ulysses, who would you say were the better educated ones, even if Americans reads the book twice? This is clearly an over-exaggeration, I admit, but it makes the point that you have to question what statistics are actually telling you rather than blithely assuming they mean what you want them to.So without a source you assert a severe disjunction between the quality of what is being read.
How exactly would you qualify blithely over-exaggerating with no demonstrable data in an effort to indict a viewpoint that you do not agree with?As to the number of graduates and prize winners, is that a proportion or an absolute number? If the latter, well, what a shock. America is bigger by a factor of 5 over any other developed, industrialised country so it's not surprising, now is it? If the former, it's a good point. But from what the good Prof showed us, we can't tell which it is (although the language seems to be about an absolute number).It is a factor of 2.5 for Japan and somewhat under 4 for Germany for population.
As for proportion, go right ahead and produce applicable data. Once again you want to challenge an assertion without having to produce any evidence to support your challenge.Perhaps your own critical thinking skills are not being fully applied because you violently disagree with an untrue stereotype?Perhaps.
But then for most people, critical thinking usually requires some basis for making assertions other than support of an untrue stereotype. With, by your own admission, nothing to actually support your position, all you have is dissent for the sake of...
Sam,
And what makes your interpretation of the same statistics better?That was my point, which, as usual, you missed in your rush to prove the other person wrong. Your interpretation has no more basis than mine. There is insufficient data provided to support either proposition. But thanks for proving my point that if there's an interpretation that agrees with you it's right when it has the same lack of evidence as the proposition you don't support.
And that's the end of my involvement. As I even admit in the last paragraph, the stereotype is untrue, as most stereotypes are, but that doesn't mean you should use dodgy statistics to oppose it or support it.
|
Irony
I've been reading the site and I really don't see what is remotely controversial or ironic about it.
Description of the site from the FAQ:
What is ironic about that?
The FAQ also contains links to the Congressional Budget Office, the White House website, and the Library of Congress in case you would like to do additional research. The website you linked is just a centralized location for information.
Q: I want to help. What can I do?
A: Over the course of the spring, increasing amounts of information will become available on Recovery.gov that will show where the money is going. We are counting on you to peruse that information and tell us what you find. Please share your stories, your ideas, and your comments. They will then be sent to the Board for their review.
That sounds fairly transparent to me.
---
Also, you seem to be under the impression that some huge new group was created and funded for oversight. The only new organization I see is the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, which is mentioned repeatedly on the website (and the final paragraph I quoted above) and was created in section 1521 of the Act. (If that link doesn't work, you can find a link to a .pdf of the entire act on the Recovery.gov website. That is where I found it)
According to the bill, the unfortunately acronymed "RAT board" the members are:
(b) MEMBERS.—The members of the Board shall include—
(1)the Inspectors General of the Departments of Agriculture,Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Justice, Transportation, Treasury, and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration;
and
(2) any other Inspector General as designated by the President from any agency that expends or obligates covered funds."
Inspectors General are already Federal employees & they are already being paid to perform "audits, investigations and inspections". Along with their normal duties, the IGs that sit on this newly created board will be responsible for oversight involving the distribution of funds from this specific piece of legislation.
You can find more information about the Inspectors General on their website.
Information about the chairman of the board:
(a) CHAIRPERSON.—
(1) DESIGNATION OR APPOINTMENT.—The President shall—
(A) designate the Deputy Director for Management of the Office of Management and Budget to serve as Chairperson of the Board;
(B) designate another Federal officer who was appointed by the President to a position that required the advice and consent of the Senate, to serve as Chairperson of the Board; or
(C) appoint an individual as the Chairperson of the Board, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
(2) COMPENSATION.—
(A) DESIGNATION OF FEDERAL OFFICER.—If the President designates a Federal officer under paragraph (1)(A)or(B) to serve as Chairperson, that Federal officer may not receive additional compensation for services performed as Chairperson.
(B) APPOINTMENT OF NON-FEDERAL OFFICER.—If the President appoints an individual as Chairperson under paragraph (1)(C), that individual shall be compensated at the rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of the Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United States Code.
Emphasis mine.
So the people on the board aren't getting any extra money to do the job they were already being paid to do. They are just getting extra authority and responsibility. The only person who could potentially get paid would be the chairperson, but only if the President appoints someone who is not already a Federal officer to the position.
You can argue all you'd like over how the money is being spent, but I really don't see anything non-transparent about it. My only complaint is that maybe the government isn't advertising the Recovery.gov website enough. I didn't hear about it until just now. I'm actually glad you pointed it out. Thank you.
|
|
Sam,
And what makes your interpretation of the same statistics better?That was my point, which, as usual, you missed in your rush to prove the other person wrong. Your interpretation has no more basis than mine. There is insufficient data provided to support either proposition. But thanks for proving my point that if there's an interpretation that agrees with you it's right when it has the same lack of evidence as the proposition you don't support.
And that's the end of my involvement. As I even admit in the last paragraph, the stereotype is untrue, as most stereotypes are, but that doesn't mean you should use dodgy statistics to oppose it or support it.
What makes your challenge relevant?
That is what you missed in your rush to prove other people wrong. Your challenge has no basis at all.Likewise you missed that I actually addressed issues you challenged but had no data at all to support. How exactly you interpret your question as to whether number of awards is per capita or just a simple count then dismiss a demonstration of it being per capita as "dodgy" is beyond me. Perhaps it is an aspect of the non-critical thinking you endorse. For which;
You are also missing that using the standard you wish to use to defend your position, no data at all is valid, and no legitimate conclusions at all can be drawn. If you want to go that far to indict critical thinking as a whole then you make any reasoned discourse impossible and leave the field to battling sensationalist claims.
So no Paul, I will not a priori assign higher value to your dissent simply because you wish to dissent. While a caveat over using interpretations of data is relevant, a blanket rejection of all data makes any argument based on such an assertion completely irrelevant.
|
|
I've been reading the site and I really don't see what is remotely controversial or ironic about it.
The irony was in the placeholder message, telling us how yet another government commission would be a paragon of oversight and control of wasteful spending.
Also, you seem to be under the impression that some huge new group was created and funded for oversight. The only new organization I see is the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, . . .
First, you seem to believe the board members will not need staffs to work for them.
Second, you missed the Recovery Independent Advisory Panel, which is Subtitle C, and directly follows the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board.Inspectors General are already Federal employees & they are already being paid to perform "audits, investigations and inspections". Along with their normal duties, the IGs that sit on this newly created board will be responsible for oversight involving the distribution of funds from this specific piece of legislation.
Yes they are.
But while the Chairperson of the Board, if a federal employess, is not entitled to additional compensation, no such statement is made regarding the other members of the board.So the people on the board aren't getting any extra money to do the job they were already being paid to do. They are just getting extra authority and responsibility. The only person who could potentially get paid would be the chairperson, but only if the President appoints someone who is not already a Federal officer to the position.
Again, that applies only to the Chairperson.
And indeed, the President could appoint some political ally who would be entitled to full pay.Of course, none of that addresses the costs of the hearing, the website maintenance, the reports, the other employees, and everything else being done redundantly by the Board and the Panel. Those things will actually cost money. With a focus on "transparency", the intent is overtly political. Color me unimpressed by the President and Democrats in Congress spending money to try and prove they are spending money responsibly or somesuch.
|
|
First, you seem to believe the board members will not need staffs to work for them.
Second, you missed the Recovery Independent Advisory Panel, which is Subtitle C, and directly follows the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board.
No, I seem to believe that since the board members are already Inspector Generals, they already have a staff working for them.
Second, you are right. I did miss the Recovery Independent Advisory Panel, which is made up of:
(c) QUALIFICATIONS.—Members shall be appointed on the basis of expertise in economics, public finance, contracting, accounting, or any other relevant field.
Five people. If they are already Federal employees then they don't receive any additional compensation beyond their normal pay.
Yes they are.
But while the Chairperson of the Board, if a federal employess, is not entitled to additional compensation, no such statement is made regarding the other members of the board.
True, but there is also nothing in there that says they will get extra money. All of the other positions allow for non-federal employees to be hired/appointed. Those positions specify that if they are filled by existing federal employees then those employees do not get extra pay. The board members are the only positions that HAVE to be federal employees. So read in the context of the rest of the document, I would assume that the board members, being federal employees, will not receive any extra compensation.
I could certainly be wrong.
And indeed, the President could appoint some political ally who would be entitled to full pay.
True, but that political ally would have to be cleared by Congress. So it isn't as if President Obama could sneak some unqualified hack in there in the dead of night without anyone noticing.
Of course, none of that addresses the costs of the hearing, the website maintenance, the reports, the other employees, and everything else being done redundantly by the Board and the Panel.
Those things will actually cost money.
Well, yes. Of course they will. If you want a oversight then you are going to have to pay for it. Considering how much a lack of oversight cost us during the whole "post-invasion Iraqi reconstruction" period (Something like 9 billion dollars unaccounted for?), I'd argue that a few hearings and a website are worth the investment.
As for the whole "redundant" thing, I think you are oversimplifying the situation. The board/panel created by this act are a temporary administrative agency (set to terminate on Sept. 30, 2013) set up to provide transparency and oversight for money being spent by a specific piece of legislation. There are other government agencies that provide oversight (in one form or another) but comparing the general oversight provided by, for example, the GAO to the very specific oversight provided by the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board is a little more complicated than simply saying "they both do it so it is redundant".
With a focus on "transparency", the intent is overtly political. Color me unimpressed by the President and Democrats in Congress spending money to try and prove they are spending money responsibly or somesuch.
...and that is where I bow out. It looks like you already made up your mind about this one.
|
|
No, I seem to believe that since the board members are already Inspector Generals, they already have a staff working for them.
A staff for their regular job.
That does not mean those people will be stuck with doing a second job without their consent.Second, you are right. I did miss the Recovery Independent Advisory Panel, which is made up of:
(b) MEMBERSHIP.—The Panel shall be composed of 5 members who shall be appointed by the President.
(c) QUALIFICATIONS.—Members shall be appointed on the basis of expertise in economics, public finance, contracting, accounting, or any other relevant field.Five people. If they are already Federal employees then they don't receive any additional compensation beyond their normal pay.
And if they are not they get salaries according to schedule.
True, but there is also nothing in there that says they will get extra money. All of the other positions allow for non-federal employees to be hired/appointed. Those positions specify that if they are filled by existing federal employees then those employees do not get extra pay. The board members are the only positions that HAVE to be federal employees. So read in the context of the rest of the document, I would assume that the board members, being federal employees, will not receive any extra compensation.
I could certainly be wrong.
Given the history of Congressional and Executive pay raises, a healthy sceptism in such matters is very much warranted.
True, but that political ally would have to be cleared by Congress. So it isn't as if President Obama could sneak some unqualified hack in there in the dead of night without anyone noticing.
Unlike with ambassadors of course.
Oh wait . . .Well, yes. Of course they will. If you want a oversight then you are going to have to pay for it. Considering how much a lack of oversight cost us during the whole "post-invasion Iraqi reconstruction" period (Something like 9 billion dollars unaccounted for?), I'd argue that a few hearings and a website are worth the investment.
Paying for it once is fine. Paying for it twice, sure. Paying for three times is a bit questionable. Paying for it four times, particularly under the aegis of controlling overall waste, is more than a bit suspicious.
As for the whole "redundant" thing, I think you are oversimplifying the situation. The board/panel created by this act are a temporary administrative agency (set to terminate on Sept. 30, 2013) set up to provide transparency and oversight for money being spent by a specific piece of legislation. There are other government agencies that provide oversight (in one form or another) but comparing the general oversight provided by, for example, the GAO to the very specific oversight provided by the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board is a little more complicated than simply saying "they both do it so it is redundant".
It is not. Read the sections on the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board again. They are getting their primary information from the GAO and the other existing oversight groups. All they are doing is producing reports and holding hearings for a particular subset of spending that is already covered by those other groups. That is the very definition of redundant.
...and that is where I bow out. It looks like you already made up your mind about this one.
As opposed to you not having already decided this is a great thing and waving off any criticisms?
Has anyone else noticed that the long-winded explanations that people are using to justify their opinions have virtually nothing to do with the website in question? :)
In any event, my primary complaint about the website is that it has two different graphs, each stating that $288 billion dollars of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act are going towards tax relief. However, on the bottom of this page, there's a little disclaimer, which states the following:
Tax Relief - includes $15 B for Infrastructure and Science, $61 B for Protecting the Vulnerable, $25 B for Education and Training and $22 B for Energy, so total funds are $126 B for Infrastructure and Science, $142 B for Protecting the Vulnerable, $78 B for Education and Training, and $65 B for Energy.
Now I'm not an economist, so maybe I don't understand what this little disclaimer is saying. However, I do know that these numbers don't add up to $288 billion. So is this a mistake of some kind, or am I missing something?
Citizen DoveArrow! Congratulations! You've just been chosen as a contestant on the very next exciting episode of The Running Man...!
Citizen DoveArrow! Congratulations! You've just been chosen as a contestant on the very next exciting episode of The Running Man...!
I haven't seen the movie you're referring to, so I'm not really sure if you're making fun of me, the website, or the current governor of California. :)
|
|
In any event, my primary complaint about the website is that it has two different graphs, each stating that $288 billion dollars of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act are going towards tax relief. However, on the bottom of this page, there's a little disclaimer, which states the following:
"Tax Relief - includes $15 B for Infrastructure and Science, $61 B for Protecting the Vulnerable, $25 B for Education and Training and $22 B for Energy, so total funds are $126 B for Infrastructure and Science, $142 B for Protecting the Vulnerable, $78 B for Education and Training, and $65 B for Energy."
Now I'm not an economist, so maybe I don't understand what this little disclaimer is saying. However, I do know that these numbers don't add up to $288 billion. So is this a mistake of some kind, or am I missing something?
The math works. You are just misreading the sentence. It may help if you look at the Tabular View of the chart.
It isn't a breakdown of that category. The little disclaimer is pointing out that some of the money in the "Tax Relief" and "State and Local Fiscal Relief" categories deal with matters at least partially covered by another category.
For example: $111 billion is listed in the "Infrastructure and Science" category, but $15 billion of the "Tax Relief" category money will be tax relief for infrastructure and science. So the total amount being spent on infrastructure and science will be $126 billion.
Does that make more sense, Dove?
Does that make more sense, Dove?
It does. Thank you.