USASPENDING.GOV

Federal IT Budget 2010 – OMB

As of March 30th 2010. This keeps changing, they have quarterly refresh.

Only “major” investments reported to OMB. From the reported data it is evident that 50% of the investment categorized under “minor” goes unreported. This means nearly 50 % of the total IT Budget of $74.2 Billion for some  reason does not qualify to be reported promoting transparency.

Federal IT Budget 2010 in Billions
Agency Major Minor Total
DOD 9.6 23.42 33.02
DHS 4.9 1.3 6.2
HHS 2.3 3.66 5.96
DOC 2.1 1.52 3.62
TREASURY 2.3 0.76 3.06
DOT 2.4 0.61 3.01
DOJ 2 0.86 2.86
VA 2.6 0.23 2.83
USDA 1.4 0.94 2.34
ENERGY 1.6 0.52 2.12
OTHERS 7.3 1.88 9.18
TOTAL 38.5 35.7 74.2

Investments Reported By Agencies to OMB

Advertisements

Federal IT Dashboard – USA Spending

Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (S.2590)

The bill was introduced by Senator Tom Coburn, and Senators Barack Obama, Tom Carper and John McCain on April 6, 2006.[1]

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (S. 2590)[2] is an Act of Congress that requires the full disclosure to the public of all entities or organizations receiving federal funds beginning in fiscal year (FY) 2007. The website USAspending.gov opened in December 2007 as a result of the act, and is maintained by the Office of Management and Budget. The Congressional Budget Office estimates S. 2590 will cost $15 million over its authorized time period of 2007–2011.[3]

See where your 70 $ Billion IT spend in 2009 is going. Analyze and understand if your money could be put to better use, or the Citizens are getting what they deserve.

To read the data, one must realize that there are initiatives and investment directed at projects. By auditing the initiatives, a lot of murky projects can be discovered. Already VA has discovered about 45 such projects and immediately they have been put on hold. More such muck is bound to emerge in other agencies.

In this entire scheme of making things transparent, exists segment architecture that gets defined  by the “Federal Segment Architecture Methodology” (FSAM). 


Accountability Transparency

Accountability Transparency

Chasm in Federal Enterprise Architecture : FSAM & FEAF – The dilemma of divisive decisive

FEAF FSAM Chasm

The Chasm between FEAF & FASM

Following Questions arises between FEAF and FSAM :-

Does the above questions make Federal Enterprise Architecture a boon or bane?

First of all “Segment” definition seems to be seriously flawed and riddled with “empirical dilemma” because of which it renders itself not anything architectural. It has confusing classification scheme that seems to follow no construct nor order. Schemes like this when applied to investment profiles, they seem more like apparition than anything real meaningful numbers on the Federal IT Dashboard.

Also, it seems that there is unconscious fascism, underpinning the modality of bringing together people (architect ?? ) to define ‘The Federal Segment Architecture Methodology’ (Architecture??). Many times in such scheme of thing certain locational existence gives people “power” not necessarily genuine “purpose”. This provides authority to a certain group of people, who have no real cause nor motivation ‘Serving the Citizens’ in all humility.

Etymology

The term fascismo is derived from the Italian word fascio, which means “bundle” or group, and from the Latin word fasces; a fasces was a bundle of sticks used symbolically for the power through unity.[21][22] The fasces, which consisted of a bundle of rods that were tied around an axe, were an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of the civic magistrates; they were carried by his Lictors and could be used for corporal and capital punishment at his command.[22]

Furthermore, the symbolism of the fasces suggested strength through unity: a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is difficult to break.[23] This is a familiar theme throughout different forms of fascism; for example the Falange symbol is a bunch of arrows joined together by a yoke.[24]