Congress Has Voted Proactively To Remain Clueless About Technology
from the well-isn't-that-great... dept
The Office of Technology Assessment existed in Congress from 1972 until 1995, when it was defunded by the Newt Gingrich-led "Contract with America" team. The purpose was to actually spend time to analyze technology issues and provide Congress with objective analysis of the impact of technology and the policies that Congress was proposing. Remember how, back when there was the big SOPA debate and folks in Congress kept talking about how they weren't nerds and needed to hear from the nerds? Right: the OTA was supposed to be those nerds, but it hasn't existed in nearly two decades.Rep. Rush Holt thought maybe it would be a good idea to change that, and proposed an amendment that would have allocated some funds to bring back the OTA. And Congress voted it down (164 - 248), because, really, who would want a more informed Congress concerning issues that deal with the underpinnings of economic growth and innovation?
It's a puzzling move given how often people comment on Congress's shortage of technical expertise — and it speaks to the way Congress view technical expertise as a luxury rather than a necessity. When they zeroed out the OTA's funding in 1995, Holt says, the new Republican majority "actually said Congress shouldn't have any special perks. As if having a congressional agency that provides advice is a perk."The real problem is that Congress doesn't think it needs to pay for objective advice on tech issues, because it already gets subjective advice on tech issues from lobbyists.
The problem, Holt continues, isn't that Congress doesn't have access to technical advice. To the contrary, there's an endless parade of people wanting to advise Congress on technical issues. But much of the advice comes from lobbyists and other paid advocates who might not have the public's best interests at heart. A staff of in-house technical experts could help members of Congress distinguish good advice from advice that is merely self-serving.Nice work, Congress. I'm guessing those against this can argue that they've "privatized" the technology advice they get, letting the market decide. Right?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: congress, office of technology assessment, ota, rush holt
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Elections in this country are nothing more than a popularity contest where the winner in he/she who pays the most to get popular. That's the only explanation for reelecting people that are obviously unqualified for office, and continue to ignore their oaths.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anyone curious how much Congresscritter have to pay for their internet, cell phones, cable? I think it might help explain the bubble they operate inside of.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ikitelli nakliyat
[ link to this | view in thread ]
That's like turning to a computer salesman to fix your computer. :(
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I have been on this for 3 years..
I can't figure out why these folks think they know it all and refuse something that would greatly increase their knowledge.
http://ducknetweb.blogspot.com/2013/09/jon-stewart-discusses-little-paper.html
The link above is just one of many I have written on the topic. I did though, during his fake filibuster get on the Twitter feed and tweeted intelligent items w/links and picked up about 3 more Congressman to follow me that day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Okay, time for a rant that would make Karkat proud.
I can't even comprehend the utter imbecility of these people downvoting something that would actually HELP THEM understand the technological issues that they are having thrown at them and for good damn reason! Industry and their lobbyists are abusing our laws, our judicial system, and our political system to keep themselves on top, when it's about damn time they made some damn gangway for other, newer people who actually understand half a shit of what their doing! This is only the tip of my rage iceberg, but I'm going to cut this off here so I can go do something else rather than continue to waste my time ranting at people who can't even freaking hear me, let alone understand why I'm so ticked off about this! So as a parting shot:
YOU LOSE! GOOD DAY SIRS!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"Holt's amendment would have allocated $2.5 million to re-start OTA.
And Holt emphasizes that $2.5 million is a tiny amount of money compared to the amounts good technical advice can save taxpayers. For example, Holt notes that one OTA report recommending an overhaul of the Social Security Administration's computer system led to hundreds of millions of dollars in savings."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Response to: cubicleslave on May 5th, 2014 @ 9:22am
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Duplication in government seems to happen a lot, would we be better off with a clearing house for these efforts?
It also looks like all the people pushing to refund the OTA are progressives who wish to use it to steer their agenda.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Response to: cubicleslave on May 5th, 2014 @ 9:22am
Is it bad if I can't tell if the other side would agree with the argument I use to mock them with like this?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Informed advice
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 5th, 2014 @ 9:28am
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Can you tell the difference?
Here is a picture of congress.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Okay, time for a rant that would make Karkat proud.
They WIN!
Who is getting spoon fed cash and whom is getting fed the rules?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Response to: cubicleslave on May 5th, 2014 @ 9:22am
Building a new bridge with an expected lifetime of 30 years is so much more publicity than extending the lifetime of the already existing to 60 years and saving billions in that way. It doesn't matter what side is suggesting it.
The argument for/against objective information institutions and oversight in general are usually twosided: The public reason which is "pork" when against or "necessary oversight" when for. The unofficial where arguments against oversight/objective information are when lobbyists are aplenty (the value of extorting them on such an issue is good) and the argument for creating more economic incentive for companies to buy lobbyists (when lobbyism from the industry is scarce and you need more sources to extort).
It is the political influence markets self-correction mechanism. It works as intended!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's not just tech that got axed by Newt 2 decades ago
But the real reason Newt Gingrich and Republicans wanted to get rid of those experts is that many of them frequently found in their analysis that Republican policy wouldn't do what was promised.
For example, economists and tax experts said that the GOP's tax cuts wouldn't bring in more tax revenue by stimulating the economy. Can't have experts in government saying your entire basis for a tax cut is wishful thinking that won't become reality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Response to: cubicleslave on May 5th, 2014 @ 9:22am
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
as if'
And how many OTHER Gov./CORP agencies are there that DO THE SAME...telling the GOV. what is being done and what is happening.. We could get rid of 90% of our gov. If we got rid of all the groups and facilities..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
probably a good thing
I think the closure of OTA is a good thing because it's one less revolving door in Washington -- one less agency to be infiltrated and corrupted by corporate lobbyists.
Was it a coincidence that right after OTA's closure, the federal government started going after Microsoft for monopolistic practices. Had M$ captured OTA, and the agency had not been disbanded, it's very possible that Bill Gates would never have had to undergo that famously embarrassing deposition.
All federal regulatory and advisement agencies and departments, despite often being founded under good intentions, will eventually become under pressure to turn into the guard dogs for legacy industries, and therefore tasked with suppressing innovators and upstarts.
OT: I've noticed on several occasions that Techdirt articles have tended to pop up within a few days after a certain "off-topic" topic was introduced in the reader comments section. Either it's amazing coincidence, or are Techdirt readers (unknowingly) shaping the site's direction through their comments?
Like this one:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140501/09002327089/larry-lessig-launches-crowdfunded-superpac -to-try-to-end-superpacs.shtml#c503
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Can you tell the difference?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Newt
Amirite?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
This is what I tell my family when they start throwing around cliches like 'Pushing the XYZ Agenda on this country'
It's reached the point of absurdity where I'm now tempted to carry around a bag full of agendas with different symbols. So I might be able to 'push my agendas' on some unsuspecting rube.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Okay, time for a rant that would make Karkat proud.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
What would you replace it with? Would you really leave them to the tender mercies of Wall St.? They've been itching to get their hands on our money for decades. Don't give it to them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's not just tech that got axed by Newt 2 decades ago
Except that if your wages are too damn low you end up having to claim welfare to keep yourself and your family afloat, which creates a net loss in revenues.
And if you're more likely to get richer by playing the stock market than investing in a business, what are you going to do, however generous you are? Why, invest in the stock market, of course!
And that's why Supply-side economics doesn't work, friends and neighbors. It assumes there will always be a demand side, that everyone has equal access to the market on both sides, and it denies the cumulative effects of distortion.
Even there was an open market, making it fair in a consumer society would require us having enough disposable income to take part in it. As it is, some of us are struggling to put bread on the table. Tell me again how we can all benefit from a system that requires that only those who earn the least money have to pay tax to support those who earn the most.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Whose money could be saved?" "Social security is funded by a tax and we all pay into it". Again, you answered your own question.
"What would you replace it with?". To answer that, I'll just say this country got along fine for many, many years without Social Security.
[ link to this | view in thread ]