Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Alan MacHett" <machett AT ibiblio.org>]

I should have been more explicit.  I know the budget isn't black, not all
of it at least.  I know it's publicly available.  However, as James
Manning said, it's mostly over my head.  Those are a lot of numbers to
keep track of, and they don't mean particularly much to me.  That's why I
think it wise to hear input from the people who best know the financial
status of a given department -- the people in that department.  If the
public doesn't care, then nothing changes; and if they think something's
wrong, then they can mention it to their representatives to try to
influence next year's budget.

But, in truth, I realize it's all moot.  I overlooked one particular word
in the article:  "discussions", as in "Chambers broke a federal rule
against public comment on budget discussions".  And I have to agree with
James Manning that such a rule makes sense from the standpoint of
controlling the already out-of-control lobbies.

--Alan

James Dasher said:
> The budget's not "black", it's freely available online.

James Manning said:
> That seems legitimate to me, insofar as the budget isn't finalized
> yet.  Keeping the process hidden indeed has its pros and cons, but a
> totally exposed process would seem to end up with companies/entities
> taking budget line-items, pitching them as "killing children", putting
> up some TV spots and letting the flood of calls to congress do their
> work for them.
>
> I dunno - at some point there's a reason we're a republic.  I know *I*
> am not versed enough in all the issues to intelligently weigh in on
> federal budgets, and hence I try to elect people that I have
> confidence in to do such a job.  Can they be influenced?  Sure,
> lobbies exist, Sierra/Greenpeace and Microsoft/Intel alike, and that's
> disturbing, but I'm not sure a fully democratic budget process would
> actually be an improvement.
>