
Data.gov & 7 Other Sites to Shut Down After Budgets Cut - apievangelist
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/datagov_7_other_sites_to_shut_down_after_budgets_c.php?sms_ss=hackernews&at_xt=4d94f75bc010e25d%2C0
======
knowtheory
It is extremely ironic then, that the Canadian open data movement has held up
the US as an example of transparency and openness, and a model for the sorts
of disclosure that the Canadian federal government should live up to.

This is such a momentous leap backwards, i just don't know where to begin.
There is no other source for this data. We're still figuring out the best use
for it, but if the government doesn't provide it in this manner, the only way
we're going to get access to it is via laborious and time consuming FOIA
requests. And then, only if you know the data exists.

This really is fucked.

~~~
mberning
I know what you mean. I find it incredibly frustrating that we HAPPILY go
after minuscule savings on things like data.gov and NPR, meanwhile it is 100%
taboo to talk about cutting big budget areas like the military. In my opinion
we need to be looking at the big 3 because that is where we have the best
opportunity to make significant improvements.

Defense

Social Security

Medicare/Medicaid

~~~
j_baker
It sucks, but the truth of the matter is that cutting back Defense, Social
Security, and Medicare are touchy issues that can't be done easily. Far easier
to cut back things like data.gov, which will only upset a few Silicon Valley
techies.

It seems to me that at this point, they're looking for _politically_ low-
hanging fruit rather than _fiscally_ low-hanging fruit.

~~~
jdp23
Exactly. Many techies avoid politics and activism or fail to learn the skills
to do it well. The learned helplessness leads to becoming the low-hanging
fruit.

~~~
tomjen3
The solution isn't to get involved in politics, it's to put an end to this "if
you haven't died by the age of 18, you get to cast a vote". At least a four
year requirement of a four year STEM degree at an accredited university should
prevent people who aren't used to dealing with facts from getting us all
killed.

Democracy is a great idea so long as you limit whom you consider "the people".

~~~
knowtheory
You are clearly on the _wrong_ website.

Given the number of people employed in our industry without a university
degree — many of whom are leaders in their subject matter area — i think your
proposal is not just obviously discriminatory, but spitting into the wind of a
gale of contrary evidence.

Get out, see the world, go talk to people in places and industries where a
university education isn't paramount, and then tell me again that they should
be denied a right to vote.

------
eli
This is a misleading headline. Nothing has happened yet.

From the source article:

 _The White House requested $35 million for the e-government fund in 2011. The
House allocated only $2 million in its bill, H.R. 1. The Senate, meanwhile,
would provide $20 million for the e-government fund._

[http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=35&sid=2327798](http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=35&sid=2327798)

It's a budget fight, similar to the ones going on at hundreds of agencies
right now. There's a lot of posturing going on around the budget, but
considering the project results in a net savings for the government, I hope
that common sense will prevail.

~~~
anigbrowl
Agreed, but some of the sites are set to lose funding in a few weeks amid a
febrile political atmosphere. My understanding is that the main expense areas
are hosting/infrastructural overhead, developer salaries, and normal
office/administrative overhead which is a fact of life in DC.

The pessimist in me thinks that keeping the inner workings of government in a
state of murky obscurity furthers the interests of some more cynical
politicians.

~~~
eli
This is a good point, but actually _most_ of the federal government is set to
lose funding and shut down next week unless something happens in Congress.

~~~
thasmin
Most of the federal government has been schedule to shut down "two weeks from
now" for a while.

------
jamesbkel
What a shame.

I can't imagine there's a significant financial burden imposed by Data.gov
(can't speak to the other services). I mean, the data collection certainly is
the most expensive component... and from what I understand that keeps going
independent of Data.gov. Presumably, the data is collected for programs beyond
Data.gov - only more reason to keep maintaining the site since the marginal
cost is minimal.

Data.gov has been a useful resource for both my own work (marketing &
sociological research), but more importantly is a great way to find free,
_relevant_ data for cutting one's data analysis chops - either as student or
professional.

As a stats nerd, I find this very depressing.

[edit: As an amusing aside regarding my " _relevant_ " data comment. A few
years ago I was trying to develop a viz technique that I knew some potential
clients would like, but I lacked a good data set that fit the requirements. I
eventually ended up using R and other various free tools to create
visualizations of fish weight and length depending on various conditions such
as geography, water temp and a few others I forget. I certainly learned a lot,
but I certainly would have benefited by having a data set that was both
relevant in the real world and met the contraints of my problem.]

~~~
pgdn
"I can't imagine there's a significant financial burden imposed by Data.gov"
You allude to what I think is the main question ... what are the actual costs
of running this site? In an era of misinformation and judgment calls I think
this knowledge is absolutely crucial. Anyone know where to look? I assume
Data.gov itself wouldn't contain such valuable and transparent information :>

------
anigbrowl
More detail here:
[http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2011/03/23/transparency-t...](http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2011/03/23/transparency-
technopocalypse-proposed-congressional-budgets-slash-funding-for-data-
transparency/)

I haven't made any apps with data.gov, but I refer to it regularly for
research material and statistical data and have found many useful resources
that I would not have thought to look for otherwise. It's far from perfect,
but seeing small improvements all the time and it's certainly easier to have a
single resource for feed discovery.

Cutting the budget for this seems perverse, at best.

------
hendler
I don't claim to understand. Maybe there are problems with the ambition of the
project, not the cost. Or maybe not enough people actually use it.

But, shutting down a visionary (and probably inevitable) effort to open and
modernize government feels like a backlash.

~~~
protomyth
I think a lot of the ire is more directed at recovery.gov and data.gov is
caught in the crossfire.

------
VladRussian
from the sources it seems to be a doing of the House. Do we have any
Republican here? Can such a person elaborate on the merits of this decision,
please.

~~~
jacoblyles
I find myself voting for the GOP more and more as the US budget deficit yawns
ever larger (please don't hate me for it), so perhaps I can shed some light on
the issue.

Most likely cuts to these programs were included in a multi-thousand page
budget bill. The Republicans elected to Congress had a choice between two
budget bills, one of which spent $30 billion less. Following the will of the
voters who granted them a historic electoral sweep in November, they chose to
pass the smaller one. The decision to cut these particular programs was made
by one of the hundreds of lobbyists, aides, and government agency employees
that had a hand in writing the bill.

The congress people who voted for the cuts did not go down the list of federal
programs making cost/benefit analyses to decide which programs to cut. Rather,
they were presented a large package and asked to make a yes or no decision.
Politics is not as rational as the rest of the entries in this discussion
imply.

These information programs are tiny for now (though federal programs have a
way of metastasizing) and they probably provide more benefit than cost. It is
a bad policy decision to cut them, but if the alternative is making no cuts to
the budget then the whole package may be worth it.

I agree that $30 billion of cuts does next to nothing to shrink the deficit.
Sadly, there is little momentum behind my man Rand Paul’s proposal to cut $500
billion, or Paul Ryan’s roadmap to reduce future Social Security and Medicare
deficits. The Republican leadership is playing budget theatre, passing tiny
cuts that make them look good without touching the politically sensitive
programs that really need shrinking. On the other hand the Democrats are
playing budget denial, fighting to keep and expand every line item on the
budget. Neither approach is very appealing to me. We need a plausible path to
avoid national bankruptcy without raising taxes to uncompetitive levels.

~~~
jbooth
Not for nothing, but the last time we had a balanced budget there was a
Democrat in the oval office. Expiring the Bush tax cuts would cut the deficit
in about half over the next 10 years, and we could hit up the military, farm
subsidies, actually send GE a tax bill and bank on a little GDP growth for the
rest. It's actually not that hard to close if you're willing to look anywhere
besides "cutting domestic discretionary even though THAT ENTIRE BUDGET is less
than the deficit".

And, FWIW, many individual congressional republicans may have effectively had
"a choice between 2 budget bills", but one of those bills (the one we're
discussing) was entirely written by Republicans. So it's not like their hands
were tied here, someone made the decision to go after this.

------
DrHankPym
Was Data.gov really that expensive to maintain? What is this cut really
saving? $20 / month?

~~~
Ainab
If you only consider hosting, but gathering data and formating takes more than
$20.

~~~
ilikepi
"over the last few years data.gov has cost $8.3 million; the cloud computing
initiative has cost $1.4 million; and USASpending.gov has cost $13.3 million"

[http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2011/03/23/transparency-t...](http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2011/03/23/transparency-
technopocalypse-proposed-congressional-budgets-slash-funding-for-data-
transparency/)

So yeah, a bit more than $20/mo, but relative to the budget as a whole....

~~~
Estragon
So, a few hours in Iraq/Afghanistan, then...

------
andrewgleave
This is very disappointing.

Later this month I'll be releasing the first open data project for the country
where I currently live – the Isle of Man.

I used data.gov as an example of what can be done, why it's important, and
also to get initial funding for the project.

------
smogzer
Well maybe they are putting together a better site that makes up for all of
those and also enable the citizens to vote and/or give ideas where they want
their money spent, or just enable the voters to keep the money if they do not
have representation.

~~~
bmelton
That is, I believe, the worst possible idea.

"[A democracy] can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote
themselves largesse from the public treasury."

~~~
Duff
We're pretty much there. Probably 60% of the average family's spending is on
housing, fuel and food. All of which are heavily subsidized.

------
neovive
It wouldn't be surprising to see private tech companies sponsor or subsidize
these programs going forward.

------
motters
Without transparency cronyism and bad governance can flourish.

------
p09p09p09
No problem, Wikileaks and Anonymous will pick up the slack.

