5 ms·

Today I filed my tax return showing all the money that came in and every minute expense required to make that money. Why can't we hold the government to the sam

Today I filed my tax return showing all the money that came in and every minute expense required to make that money. Why can't we hold the government to the same standard? There should be one (huge) annual spreadsheet published showing how much money came in (federal, state, and local levels), with a detailed accounting of where every penny went, just like I am required to do for my business to claim deductions.

Clownshoesms 10y ago
I agree, I think absolute transparency should be a given with any democratic government. One reason, aside from national security to a hopefully minor degree, is to cover their behinds when stupid things are done (and they're done an awful lot in the public service). I think if we had a crystal-clear/omniscient view of the wastage that goes on in various governments, we'd be collectively appalled.
- parasubvert 10y ago
  "I think if we had a crystal-clear/omniscient view of the wastage that goes on in various governments, we'd be collectively appalled." I think the opposite. Most people already believe the government is incredibly wasteful, there's a much greater opportunity in highlighting where it surprisingly efficient. This will serve to blow up many ideological truisms.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - crusso 10y ago
    Individuals have very personal views of finances. When people are asked how they should spend their own money, they're very careful with it and analyze expenditures and benefits carefully. On an individual basis, money is spent efficiently and people understand that. As the responsibility for spending money is removed from the individual, efficiency plummets. Government jobs are the ultimate in a lack of accountability. Voters don't have the visibility to see what politicians and other government workers spend money on. The one entity that should effectively provide oversight on how the government spends our money is the government itself - and they're loathe to limit their own power. Then on top of all that, even voters aren't spending their own money when they make voting decisions. They're mostly rationalizing that their voting decisions are affecting the other guy, like "the rich".
    - clavalle 10y ago
      > When people are asked how they should spend their own money, they're very careful with it and analyze expenditures and benefits carefully. On an individual basis, money is spent efficiently and people understand that. We seem to know very different people. While it is true that the market has a tighter feedback loop, that does not ensure good individual decisions. It just means that individuals are punished for bad decisions and rewarded for good decisions quickly. This is a nice feature of the market but that doesn't mean that it is the only system that can have tight feedback loops. Look at the military for a good example of a non-market structure that has a tight feedback loop and, generally, does very well outside of the market system. The government may lack some features of the market that doesn't mean that it cannot be as accountable. Good data and analysis for the people is one nice step toward greater government accountability.
      - crusso 10y ago
        > We seem to know very different people It's all relative. > Look at the military for a good example of a non-market structure that has a tight feedback loop and, generally, does very well outside of the market system. The military has some meritocratic elements, but then again it's hugely wasteful: http://fortune.com/2015/08/14/f-35-joint-strike-fighter/ http://fortune.com/2015/08/14/f-35-joint-strike-fighter/ > The government may lack some features of the market that doesn't mean that it cannot be as accountable And how are the accountability mechanisms going to be implemented? Obviously the vote doesn't work. Data might be slightly helpful, but people don't vote based on data. Look at this Trump election. It was hardly a data driven result. Really the main problem is that voters aren't very accountable for their decisions. Voting is just a tribal team sport thing.
  - muerdeme 10y ago
    Agreed. There is a very interesting and recent EconTalk podcast that touches on this. A great majority Americans are proud to be taxpayers, but many also feel that the money is spended wastefully. When interviewed in depth, this often reflects partisan misunderstanding. EconTalk: Vanessa Williamson on Taxes and Read My Lips https://overcast.fm/+JDN9N7o https://overcast.fm/+JDN9N7o
abritinthebay 10y ago
Realistically? National security. I know that sounds like a cop-out but if you think about it, it makes sense that the government has to classify some things. The question is where does the line get drawn. I agree it's too far to one side right now but the extreme you suggest is far far on the other extreme.
- jezclaremurugan 10y ago
  Why can't military spends be in one classified bucket and the rest be open and 100% transparent? I don't think information on how much is spent on roads, healthcare, police, education will affect security.
  - thomastjeffery 10y ago
    Because that's 550 billion dollars. A very significant portion of that does not need to be secret.
    - walljm 10y ago
      And a lot of it isn't. https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/mthTreasStmt/backissues.htm https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/mthTreasStmt/b... breaks out how military spending is allocated to some level of detail.
- grandalf 10y ago
  > Realistically? National security. This is absolutely not the case. Sure there are some classified programs but the majority of government spending and money flows should be 100% transparent. It's not because there is some degree of corruption and those involved wish to evade accountability.
  - abritinthebay 10y ago
    > the majority of government spending and money flows should be 100% transparent. Agreed. But that wasn't what the parent was suggesting and not what I was arguing against.
atmosx 10y ago
A bitcoin-type ledger with known account numbers would be great for public offices. Even though you can have a nefarious category like "Office Contractor Expenses" which acts like a black hole but at least there can be some sort of minimal scrutiny.
- shimon_e 10y ago
  hmmm... if anyone has any connections to Jared Kushner maybe we could recommend to him to create a blockchain for government budgets under his office of american innovation.
justin66 10y ago
> federal, state, and local levels (don't forget the counties!) The reason that cannot work is that when you get below the state level, you're dealing with governments that might or might not have enough money and motivation to do proper accounting, staffed by people who might or might not have actually gone to college. Mandating they contribute to the "national spreadsheet" would represent an unprecedented imposition on local governments. Not that it's necessarily a bad idea, but I'm guessing it's unconstitutional if it comes from the federal government.
- grogenaut 10y ago
  If they can't track their basic budget how can they be fiscally responsible? Small govt's don't have the luxury of just printing more money.
  - justin66 10y ago
    Do you believe all local governments are fiscally responsible?
    - zie 10y ago
      I believe they try. I don't believe they always succeed.
    - grogenaut 10y ago
      No but I do believe they have a harder time going into debt.
      - justin66 10y ago
        They have a harder time paying back debt.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > The reason that cannot work is that when you get below the state level, you're dealing with governments that might or might not have enough money and motivation to do proper accounting, staffed by people who might or might not have actually gone to college. Because of state and federal funding rules, local governments are generally not only already providing detailed public accountings in documents that nobody bothers to read, but also providing detailed reports of their spending and revenue to state and federal authorities (who periodically audit parts of them) as a condition of basic funding. They absolutely can and do track income and expenses at very fine levels, and report them with very fine breakdowns (often different breakdowns of the same spending representing different control agencies demands.)
dragonwriter 10y ago
> There should be one (huge) annual spreadsheet published showing how much money came in (federal, state, and local levels), with a detailed accounting of where every penny went, just like I am required to do for my business to claim deductions. Except for some things like certain national security parts that are specifically protected by law from detailed disclosure, federal, state, and most local governments make and publish those, though they aren't in the form of spreadsheets, and they aren't consolidated into a single national combined publication.
- ekianjo 10y ago
  they could put a black box for such expenses and still give the detail for everything else.
  - mulletbum 10y ago
    Wouldn't people be able to deduce the spend on this black box section?
    - emddudley 10y ago
      Yes, and we already do. The security concern is more about individual items within the defense budgets.
    - pizza 10y ago
      https://openspending.org/black-budget https://openspending.org/black-budget
- samstave 10y ago
  One isue I have with this is that "national security" can be a blanket for bullshit... for example, would they report on the purchase of Stingrays? License plate scanners that the municipalities 'require' private companies to install?
walljm 10y ago
Though not comprehensive in that it doesn't cover state/local government, the federal government does publish a monthly statement that does go into a fair bit of detail: https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/mthTreasStmt/backissues.htm https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/mthTreasStmt/b...

Clownshoesms 10y ago

I agree, I think absolute transparency should be a given with any democratic government. One reason, aside from national security to a hopefully minor degree, is to cover their behinds when stupid things are done (and they're done an awful lot in the public service). I think if we had a crystal-clear/omniscient view of the wastage that goes on in various governments, we'd be collectively appalled.

parasubvert 10y ago
"I think if we had a crystal-clear/omniscient view of the wastage that goes on in various governments, we'd be collectively appalled." I think the opposite. Most people already believe the government is incredibly wasteful, there's a much greater opportunity in highlighting where it surprisingly efficient. This will serve to blow up many ideological truisms.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- crusso 10y ago
  Individuals have very personal views of finances. When people are asked how they should spend their own money, they're very careful with it and analyze expenditures and benefits carefully. On an individual basis, money is spent efficiently and people understand that. As the responsibility for spending money is removed from the individual, efficiency plummets. Government jobs are the ultimate in a lack of accountability. Voters don't have the visibility to see what politicians and other government workers spend money on. The one entity that should effectively provide oversight on how the government spends our money is the government itself - and they're loathe to limit their own power. Then on top of all that, even voters aren't spending their own money when they make voting decisions. They're mostly rationalizing that their voting decisions are affecting the other guy, like "the rich".
  - clavalle 10y ago
    > When people are asked how they should spend their own money, they're very careful with it and analyze expenditures and benefits carefully. On an individual basis, money is spent efficiently and people understand that. We seem to know very different people. While it is true that the market has a tighter feedback loop, that does not ensure good individual decisions. It just means that individuals are punished for bad decisions and rewarded for good decisions quickly. This is a nice feature of the market but that doesn't mean that it is the only system that can have tight feedback loops. Look at the military for a good example of a non-market structure that has a tight feedback loop and, generally, does very well outside of the market system. The government may lack some features of the market that doesn't mean that it cannot be as accountable. Good data and analysis for the people is one nice step toward greater government accountability.
    - crusso 10y ago
      > We seem to know very different people It's all relative. > Look at the military for a good example of a non-market structure that has a tight feedback loop and, generally, does very well outside of the market system. The military has some meritocratic elements, but then again it's hugely wasteful: http://fortune.com/2015/08/14/f-35-joint-strike-fighter/ http://fortune.com/2015/08/14/f-35-joint-strike-fighter/ > The government may lack some features of the market that doesn't mean that it cannot be as accountable And how are the accountability mechanisms going to be implemented? Obviously the vote doesn't work. Data might be slightly helpful, but people don't vote based on data. Look at this Trump election. It was hardly a data driven result. Really the main problem is that voters aren't very accountable for their decisions. Voting is just a tribal team sport thing.
- muerdeme 10y ago
  Agreed. There is a very interesting and recent EconTalk podcast that touches on this. A great majority Americans are proud to be taxpayers, but many also feel that the money is spended wastefully. When interviewed in depth, this often reflects partisan misunderstanding. EconTalk: Vanessa Williamson on Taxes and Read My Lips https://overcast.fm/+JDN9N7o https://overcast.fm/+JDN9N7o

abritinthebay 10y ago

Realistically? National security. I know that sounds like a cop-out but if you think about it, it makes sense that the government has to classify some things. The question is where does the line get drawn. I agree it's too far to one side right now but the extreme you suggest is far far on the other extreme.

jezclaremurugan 10y ago
Why can't military spends be in one classified bucket and the rest be open and 100% transparent? I don't think information on how much is spent on roads, healthcare, police, education will affect security.
- thomastjeffery 10y ago
  Because that's 550 billion dollars. A very significant portion of that does not need to be secret.
  - walljm 10y ago
    And a lot of it isn't. https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/mthTreasStmt/backissues.htm https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/mthTreasStmt/b... breaks out how military spending is allocated to some level of detail.
grandalf 10y ago
> Realistically? National security. This is absolutely not the case. Sure there are some classified programs but the majority of government spending and money flows should be 100% transparent. It's not because there is some degree of corruption and those involved wish to evade accountability.
- abritinthebay 10y ago
  > the majority of government spending and money flows should be 100% transparent. Agreed. But that wasn't what the parent was suggesting and not what I was arguing against.

atmosx 10y ago

A bitcoin-type ledger with known account numbers would be great for public offices. Even though you can have a nefarious category like "Office Contractor Expenses" which acts like a black hole but at least there can be some sort of minimal scrutiny.

shimon_e 10y ago
hmmm... if anyone has any connections to Jared Kushner maybe we could recommend to him to create a blockchain for government budgets under his office of american innovation.

justin66 10y ago

> federal, state, and local levels (don't forget the counties!) The reason that cannot work is that when you get below the state level, you're dealing with governments that might or might not have enough money and motivation to do proper accounting, staffed by people who might or might not have actually gone to college. Mandating they contribute to the "national spreadsheet" would represent an unprecedented imposition on local governments. Not that it's necessarily a bad idea, but I'm guessing it's unconstitutional if it comes from the federal government.

grogenaut 10y ago
If they can't track their basic budget how can they be fiscally responsible? Small govt's don't have the luxury of just printing more money.
- justin66 10y ago
  Do you believe all local governments are fiscally responsible?
  - zie 10y ago
    I believe they try. I don't believe they always succeed.
  - grogenaut 10y ago
    No but I do believe they have a harder time going into debt.
    - justin66 10y ago
      They have a harder time paying back debt.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> The reason that cannot work is that when you get below the state level, you're dealing with governments that might or might not have enough money and motivation to do proper accounting, staffed by people who might or might not have actually gone to college. Because of state and federal funding rules, local governments are generally not only already providing detailed public accountings in documents that nobody bothers to read, but also providing detailed reports of their spending and revenue to state and federal authorities (who periodically audit parts of them) as a condition of basic funding. They absolutely can and do track income and expenses at very fine levels, and report them with very fine breakdowns (often different breakdowns of the same spending representing different control agencies demands.)

dragonwriter 10y ago

> There should be one (huge) annual spreadsheet published showing how much money came in (federal, state, and local levels), with a detailed accounting of where every penny went, just like I am required to do for my business to claim deductions. Except for some things like certain national security parts that are specifically protected by law from detailed disclosure, federal, state, and most local governments make and publish those, though they aren't in the form of spreadsheets, and they aren't consolidated into a single national combined publication.

ekianjo 10y ago
they could put a black box for such expenses and still give the detail for everything else.
- mulletbum 10y ago
  Wouldn't people be able to deduce the spend on this black box section?
  - emddudley 10y ago
    Yes, and we already do. The security concern is more about individual items within the defense budgets.
  - pizza 10y ago
    https://openspending.org/black-budget https://openspending.org/black-budget
samstave 10y ago
One isue I have with this is that "national security" can be a blanket for bullshit... for example, would they report on the purchase of Stingrays? License plate scanners that the municipalities 'require' private companies to install?

walljm 10y ago

Though not comprehensive in that it doesn't cover state/local government, the federal government does publish a monthly statement that does go into a fair bit of detail: https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/mthTreasStmt/backissues.htm https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/mthTreasStmt/b...