02.02.09

Re: Watching history in the making…

Tags: , , , , — Jeff @ 23:28

I agree with John that it’s good to see enacted legislation made more accessible to the public. (The referenced bill was available as always through the Library of Congress’s Thomas system, of course, but if you’ve ever attempted to use the system it’s, well, horrible. Permanent links are difficult if not impossible to find [I'm pretty sure the given URL isn't permanent, given the "temp" within it; I found it by searching for "ledbetter"], bill text is “splashed” into the page with no containing box to draw the eye or limit line length, search navigation text is preformatted [why?!?!], the “XML display” of a bill isn’t even sent as XML, and overall the site’s just ugly.) Engagement in the political process first and foremost requires knowledge: of the issues, of the bills under consideration, of the enacted laws, and of the people in the government.

(On a mostly tangential note, I commend the White House for linking to Cornell/LII’s Supreme Court collection archives for the Ledbetter decision in their Now Comes Lilly Ledbetter post [although I'm a bit mystified by their use of a visiting-third-party-site splash dialog]. I’ve found the LII collection to be an invaluable reference for reading Supreme Court syllabi, opinions, and dissents as I’ve grown more interested in the the Supreme Court and its legal processes. Compare the formatting of opinions at LII with that of Thomas, and it should be clear exactly how bad Thomas really is; the LII could really teach them a thing or two about designing a pleasant reading experience. And, of course, what kind of shill would I be if I didn’t include a donation link? :-) )

All that said, as I look at the White House blog, it seems like something’s, well, missing. Reviewing laws after they’ve been enacted is all well and good, but…isn’t that strikingly non-participatory? Once a bill’s passed and signed, it’s law — and the participation phase is over. It seems unlikely the issues in the Ledbetter act will return to legislative prominence for, at an absolute minimum, another two years. Are slight tweaks really likely to be made riders on other bills in the meantime? It seems unlikely. The time for true participation in a bill’s legislative process is prior to its enactment, yet I don’t see much on the White House blog regarding in-progress legislation that hasn’t been enacted (at least not in the way of links to the bills themselves; there’s a reasonable amount of advocacy).

Consider, for example, what is probably the most far-reaching and important bill under consideration right now: the $850 billion stimulus package. Why wasn’t the House version of the stimulus posted (before or after its approval, in intermediate or final form) on the White House blog? Why isn’t the Senate version posted now? (I had to track down both texts via readthestimulus.org.) This isn’t President Obama’s responsibility (rather, it belongs with the House and Senate as the overseers of the legislative process), but, particularly given his rhetoric on government transparency, it is certainly his duty. This simply goes to show that despite any politician’s rhetoric about transparency, we will always need third-party efforts to make the workings of government more transparent.

Some last food for thought: does a smaller government have less to hide (and thus require less overall effort to provide transparency)?

3 Comments »

  1. All bills and other government documents are available in the Federal Register.

    For example, HR-1 is available on this page: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/BillBrowse.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&wrapperTemplate=BillBrowse_wrapper.html&billtype=hr

    S-1 is available at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/BillBrowse.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&wrapperTemplate=BillBrowse_wrapper.html&billtype=s

    (But note that ARRA is spread throughout several Senate bills.)

    [Nice, wasn't aware of that site. However, as far as I can tell it's only posting bills after they've been approved by the House or the Senate — which is the problem I thought needed to be better addressed.]

    Comment by Samuel Sidler — 03.02.09 @ 00:36

  2. An appropriately small government does indeed require correspondingly little effort to achieve full transparency: “Congress met today for the constitutionally required annual meeting. No legislation needed, just like last year.”

    Comment by Anonymous — 03.02.09 @ 01:22

  3. [...] commented earlier about governmental transparency and cited the proposed stimulus bill as an instance where transparency had not yet been achieved. [...]

    Pingback by Where’s Walden? » An update on government transparency — 13.02.09 @ 11:02

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

HTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>