Love you +TechCrunch
, but doing a little more digging on what the data act really contained really shed some "sunlight" (love subject matter jokes) on how ridiculous it is, and how naming it "data act" is not supposed to be ironic. Let me take a deep breath, because i actually took about 20 minutes to read the actual bill...
I came across paragraphs that basically just redefine words so that, for example, a "meeting" that you would have to show a receipt for can be rephrased as "conference" and be government scrutiny free! Pretty freaking stupid.
It creates a completely new committee of 5 politically appointed (chairman gets big bucks to do shit he should already be doing) people, with only 3 to be from one party....so basically the 3 people of one party will have all control while the other 2 end up serving no purpose. And only one gets in a year....so im curious as to how it would even operate until at least 5 years away.
Also, it transfers full control of usaspending.gov
to this new commission and suddenly, a majority of 3-2 can redefine what "spending" is. If they want to list you, it seems there are ways to get around that if you have enough money. Also, all this data farming gets privatized, leaving all private info on the forms submitted by businesses (yep...more regulations and forms for businesses) in the hands of companies that may not have adequate internet security.
So, this commission can decide to show transparency on those receiving government subsidies but completely ignore those getting any tax breaks, so all decreases in government revenue through tax cuts wont count as spending, therefore wont be listed on this new "transparent" system.
Its all bs. If they only cared about improving interagency communications, they'd just do it and wouldn't need to create a new executive branch committee that pays wages, farms out services, and ends up being able to use such information for political reasons to drum up political fervor against private institutions that may jive with their ideology.