5 ms·

Senate blocks transparency, refuses to put bills online

29 points by miked 17y ago

drinian 17y ago
Much as I may disagree with Coburn on a lot of other issues, I'm glad that he's most committed to things like transparency. So far as I know, he hasn't tried to pull a stunt like this on religious or abortion bills. The party of Obama is not Obama's party, it seems.
JCThoughtscream 17y ago
One of the very, very few times I'm glad a Republican's saying "No" to something.
- ryanwaggoner 17y ago
  Come on, it's bad enough that we have articles like this on HN, but comments like this? Bad form.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    Hey, he didn't ask anyone to die in a fire, and he even capitalized the right words. This automatically makes the post better than anything on Reddit.
    - JCThoughtscream 17y ago
      ...man, I've no idea how to take "slightly better than a Reddit poster."
- Kadin 17y ago
  It would be worthwhile for anyone seriously concerned or interested in transparency to write or call their Senator--particularly if you have one on the Appropriations Committee--and let them know your feelings. Coburn may be a Republican, but I think this is an issue that transcends party affiliations. In this case, you're either in favor of transparency or you're in favor of backroom deal-cutting. It's unfortunate that Coburn is being left to hang over it.
  - roundsquare 17y ago
    Little bit of devil's advocate and a little bit of wrapping my head around the issue. provision requiring reports that agencies are required to send to the appropriations panels be made available to other lawmakers and to the public. This provision doesn't seem to require that potential bills be posted online but that all reports be put online. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that if someone wants to write a report with a controversial but accurate conclusion, they might decide not to if its going to be public. Unfortunately, privacy is often necessary for honesty. I think this is an issue that transcends party affiliations I agree. Edit: However, for HN, I hope we can keep party politics out of this. you're either in favor of transparency or you're in favor of backroom deal-cutting. I'd agree with this to some degree if the provision said something like "any bills that are proposed to be voted on and all ammendments, etc... should be posted online." In any event, I'm not convinced that anyhthing will change the way laws are made. If the rule is "anything official needs to be posted online" then more will go through unofficial channels and we'll still be in the dark. That being said, I wish I had a better way to truly increase transparency.
yannis 17y ago
>The top House negotiator, Rep. Ed Pastor, D-Ariz., didn't recall why his side insisted that the Senate drop the transparency provision. But a Democratic aide said later that there is concern that making every report public automatically might cause agencies to be less candid in their dealing with the Appropriations Committee. The aide required anonymity to speak candidly. Lovely debate, can anyone please post it online? :)
cameldrv 17y ago
Not Hacker News, and the article is not consistent with the title. Come on people, Hacker News is supposed to be at least a year behind Reddit.
- Kadin 17y ago
  The article focuses on Coburn's response to the transparency measure being dropped, but I don't think that's totally inconsistent with the headline. The HN headline is sort of the upshot, probably more interesting and relevant to those who aren't really interested in the intimate details of Congressional procedure and dickering.
  - cameldrv 17y ago
    The article is about Coburn's amendment to require that reports from the Executive branch be made public, not anything about not putting bills online. The title is not what the article is about, and it is not related to hacking.
miked 17y ago
My claim: Everything that the government does should be posted online, unless it violates one of the following: * true national security concerns * personal confidentiality * any monetary transaction information that might cost the taxpayer money by putting the treasury at a disadvantage in some prospective transaction. Objections? What am I missing?
- roundsquare 17y ago
  I posted this below but I'll put it here also. I think having every report written by the government posted online could potentially make it difficult to be honest in the reports. If a part of the government is commissioned to write a report, and they do honest researchand come to a controversial conclusion (e.g. something about a particular race), what happens if it goes online? People who find out about it will get angry at that part of the government (e.g. call them racist). With that in mind, I'd imagine they might write something less controversial but less honest. In the abstract, I agree with you, everything possible should be posted online. But until people respond to things reasonably, I don't know that it is feasible. I guess its worth pointing out that I'm not sure where I stand on this... as below, I'm sort of playing devil's advocate. Edit: Spelling, grammer.
  - miked 17y ago
    >> I guess its worth pointing out that I'm not sure where I stand on this... as below, I'm sort of playing devil's advocate. I also have some concerns about full transparency, just on the general basis that "the best laid plans..." often "gang aft aglay". But all bills should be posted online, where they can be easily found and searched, at least a week before the vote takes place. No ands, ifs, or buts. I'd also love to see time reports of our hard working public servants. You can discover a lot by softing through the details. >> I think having every report written by the government posted online could potentially make it difficult to be honest in the reports. Yes. Not sure what to do about that. Slightly OT, but I would love to see a law that requires every scientific paper that used public funding be posted online, for free, within a year of dead tree publication.

29 points by miked 17y ago

Much as I may disagree with Coburn on a lot of other issues, I'm glad that he's most committed to things like transparency. So far as I know, he hasn't tried to pull a stunt like this on religious or abortion bills. The party of Obama is not Obama's party, it seems.

JCThoughtscream 17y ago

One of the very, very few times I'm glad a Republican's saying "No" to something.

ryanwaggoner 17y ago
Come on, it's bad enough that we have articles like this on HN, but comments like this? Bad form.
- jrockway 17y ago
  Hey, he didn't ask anyone to die in a fire, and he even capitalized the right words. This automatically makes the post better than anything on Reddit.
  - JCThoughtscream 17y ago
    ...man, I've no idea how to take "slightly better than a Reddit poster."
Kadin 17y ago
It would be worthwhile for anyone seriously concerned or interested in transparency to write or call their Senator--particularly if you have one on the Appropriations Committee--and let them know your feelings. Coburn may be a Republican, but I think this is an issue that transcends party affiliations. In this case, you're either in favor of transparency or you're in favor of backroom deal-cutting. It's unfortunate that Coburn is being left to hang over it.
- roundsquare 17y ago
  Little bit of devil's advocate and a little bit of wrapping my head around the issue. provision requiring reports that agencies are required to send to the appropriations panels be made available to other lawmakers and to the public. This provision doesn't seem to require that potential bills be posted online but that all reports be put online. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that if someone wants to write a report with a controversial but accurate conclusion, they might decide not to if its going to be public. Unfortunately, privacy is often necessary for honesty. I think this is an issue that transcends party affiliations I agree. Edit: However, for HN, I hope we can keep party politics out of this. you're either in favor of transparency or you're in favor of backroom deal-cutting. I'd agree with this to some degree if the provision said something like "any bills that are proposed to be voted on and all ammendments, etc... should be posted online." In any event, I'm not convinced that anyhthing will change the way laws are made. If the rule is "anything official needs to be posted online" then more will go through unofficial channels and we'll still be in the dark. That being said, I wish I had a better way to truly increase transparency.

yannis 17y ago

>The top House negotiator, Rep. Ed Pastor, D-Ariz., didn't recall why his side insisted that the Senate drop the transparency provision. But a Democratic aide said later that there is concern that making every report public automatically might cause agencies to be less candid in their dealing with the Appropriations Committee. The aide required anonymity to speak candidly. Lovely debate, can anyone please post it online? :)

cameldrv 17y ago

Not Hacker News, and the article is not consistent with the title. Come on people, Hacker News is supposed to be at least a year behind Reddit.

Kadin 17y ago
The article focuses on Coburn's response to the transparency measure being dropped, but I don't think that's totally inconsistent with the headline. The HN headline is sort of the upshot, probably more interesting and relevant to those who aren't really interested in the intimate details of Congressional procedure and dickering.
- cameldrv 17y ago
  The article is about Coburn's amendment to require that reports from the Executive branch be made public, not anything about not putting bills online. The title is not what the article is about, and it is not related to hacking.

miked 17y ago

My claim: Everything that the government does should be posted online, unless it violates one of the following: * true national security concerns * personal confidentiality * any monetary transaction information that might cost the taxpayer money by putting the treasury at a disadvantage in some prospective transaction. Objections? What am I missing?

roundsquare 17y ago
I posted this below but I'll put it here also. I think having every report written by the government posted online could potentially make it difficult to be honest in the reports. If a part of the government is commissioned to write a report, and they do honest researchand come to a controversial conclusion (e.g. something about a particular race), what happens if it goes online? People who find out about it will get angry at that part of the government (e.g. call them racist). With that in mind, I'd imagine they might write something less controversial but less honest. In the abstract, I agree with you, everything possible should be posted online. But until people respond to things reasonably, I don't know that it is feasible. I guess its worth pointing out that I'm not sure where I stand on this... as below, I'm sort of playing devil's advocate. Edit: Spelling, grammer.
- miked 17y ago
  >> I guess its worth pointing out that I'm not sure where I stand on this... as below, I'm sort of playing devil's advocate. I also have some concerns about full transparency, just on the general basis that "the best laid plans..." often "gang aft aglay". But all bills should be posted online, where they can be easily found and searched, at least a week before the vote takes place. No ands, ifs, or buts. I'd also love to see time reports of our hard working public servants. You can discover a lot by softing through the details. >> I think having every report written by the government posted online could potentially make it difficult to be honest in the reports. Yes. Not sure what to do about that. Slightly OT, but I would love to see a law that requires every scientific paper that used public funding be posted online, for free, within a year of dead tree publication.