Why is the orange Jesus hiding public spending?

[Hari Seldon]

Loading…

www.politico.com

So my wingnut friends, why are we hiding what our government spends?

 

[Individual]

Fiscal Data Explains Federal Spending

Check out @FiscalService Fiscal Data’s new federal spending page! #FederalSpending

fiscaldata.treasury.gov

 

[Individual]

Loading…

www.politico.com

So my wingnut friends, why are we hiding what our government spends?

Or, is this more what you're looking for?

 

[Econ4every1]

Or, is this more what you're looking for?

No, that's not what he's looking for. The site in question is a public website for approved apportionments from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The website was created to comply with a congressional mandate to make apportionment documents publicly accessible.

This is the data that the administration has removed (and is still unavailable as of the date of this post):

 

[Individual]

No, that's not what he's looking for. The site in question is a public website for approved apportionments from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The website was created to comply with a congressional mandate to make apportionment documents publicly accessible.

This is the data that the administration has removed (and is still unavailable as of the date of this post):

View attachment 67583979

That site has been moved to connect.gov

 

[Econ4every1]

That site has been moved to connect.gov

Well, that's one way to put it. another is to say that it moved and information that was available on the pervious site site is no longer available on the new site. So while bad-faith R's tell people the site was moved (which is technically true while hiding the real reason, that information has been removed from the old site) the sites are not the same, which is the accusation in the OP.


Let's double check. Gemini?




And if you aren't sure, we can use the Wayback Machine
Here is an example from Feb....



Interesting, to get access to the new site you need to log in....



Sure looks like the OP is right.

If we go the law in question

(b) <<NOTE: Web posting. Reports. 31 USC 1513 note.>> Not later
than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Office of
Management and Budget shall complete implementation of an automated
system to post each document apportioning an appropriation, pursuant to
section 1513(b) of title 31, United States Code, including any
associated footnotes, in a format that qualifies each such document as
an Open Government Data Asset (as defined in section 3502 of title 44,
United States Code), not later than 2 business days after the date of
approval of such apportionment, and shall place on such website each
document apportioning an appropriation, pursuant to such section
1513(b), including any associated footnotes, already approved the
current fiscal year, and shall report the date of completion of such
requirements to the Committees on Appropriations and the Budget of the
House of Representatives and Senate.

(c) Each document apportioning an appropriation pursuant to section
1513(b) of title 31, United States Code, that is posted on a publicly
accessible website pursuant to such section shall also include a written
explanation by the official approving each such apportionment stating
the rationale for any footnotes for apportioned amounts:
Provided, <<NOTE: Classified information.>> That the Office of
Management and Budget or the applicable department or agency shall make
available classified documentation referenced in any apportionment at
the request of the chair or ranking member of any appropriate
congressional committee or subcommittee.

Which can be found here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2471/text Page 136 Paragraph C, and D.

To meet the bad faith argument before it's made, is it public facing website? Well, the public can get to the login page...

Can you find the information? If you can't, it's not "public".

 

[Individual]

Well, that's one way to put it. another is to say that it moved and information that was available on the pervious site site is no longer available on the new site. So while bad-faith R's tell people the site was moved (which is technically true while hiding the real reason, that information has been removed from the old site) the sites are not the same, which is the accusation in the OP.


Let's double check. Gemini?

View attachment 67584055


And if you aren't sure, we can use the Wayback Machine
Here is an example from Feb....

View attachment 67584056

Interesting, to get access to the new site you need to log in....

View attachment 67584059

Sure looks like the OP is right.

If we go the law in question

(b) <<NOTE: Web posting. Reports. 31 USC 1513 note.>> Not later
than 120 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Office of
Management and Budget shall complete implementation of an automated
system to post each document apportioning an appropriation, pursuant to
section 1513(b) of title 31, United States Code, including any
associated footnotes, in a format that qualifies each such document as
an Open Government Data Asset (as defined in section 3502 of title 44,
United States Code), not later than 2 business days after the date of
approval of such apportionment, and shall place on such website each
document apportioning an appropriation, pursuant to such section
1513(b), including any associated footnotes, already approved the
current fiscal year, and shall report the date of completion of such
requirements to the Committees on Appropriations and the Budget of the
House of Representatives and Senate.

(c) Each document apportioning an appropriation pursuant to section
1513(b) of title 31, United States Code, that is posted on a publicly
accessible website pursuant to such section shall also include a written
explanation by the official approving each such apportionment stating
the rationale for any footnotes for apportioned amounts:
Provided, <<NOTE: Classified information.>> That the Office of
Management and Budget or the applicable department or agency shall make
available classified documentation referenced in any apportionment at
the request of the chair or ranking member of any appropriate
congressional committee or subcommittee.

Which can be found here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2471/text Page 136 Paragraph C, and D.

To meet the bad faith argument before it's made, is it public facing website? Well, the public can get to the login page...

Can you find the information? If you can't, it's not "public".

First, why have you a need to label me as a "bad-faith R" when I simply responded with what I found trying to access the site in question?

As for the information, I didn't bother to create a login and wouldn't know if the information is available had I done so, not knowing what was being sought. Perhaps someone who is interested might create a login and inform us if what is being sought can be found.
The links I provided in earlier posts provide what I look for.

 

[Econ4every1]

First, why have you a need to label me as a "bad-faith R"

Go read again, I didn't call you a bad faith R.

Quote:

So while bad-faith R's tell people the site was moved...

Bad faith R's specifically being those that would make that argument. The reason I added it was to preempt responses from anyone who might make that claim.

As for the information, I didn't bother to create a login and wouldn't know if the information is available had I done so, not knowing what was being sought.

Then perhaps you should have begun with a clarification of the question before you began providing answers.

As to what's being sought. The only thing on the site that was shut down was providing were detailed spreadsheets on how the money allocated by Congress has been spent by the government. Ya know, transparency. Biden and Dems proposed the law and got it passed, R's are trying to hide the information. Who is shocked? Not me.

Perhaps someone who is interested might create a login and inform us if what is being sought can be found.
The links I provided in earlier posts provide what I look for.

Want to take bets the same information is not there?