Another Word For It Patrick Durusau on Topic Maps and Semantic Diversity

January 1, 2013

The 560+ $Billion Shell Game

Filed under: Government,Government Data — Patrick Durusau @ 8:49 pm

I have completed another round of analysis on the OMB Report Pursuant to the Sequestration Transparency Act of 2012 (P. L. 112–155), which I started with Fiscal Cliff + OMB or Fool Me Once/Twice (Appendix A) and Over The Fiscal Cliff – Blindfolded (Appendix B).

560,157 (in $millions) or 560.157 $billion are hidden in the O (Opaque) MB report. How?

“Hidden” in the sense that money is taken from an unknown government account and transferred to another government account (the one that says “Exempt, 255(g)(1)(A) — intragovernmental”).

In other words, we know where the money went, but not where it came from.

Let’s walk through the first account in Appendix A to illustrate how “Exempt, 255(g)(1)(A) — intragovernmental” would be calculated:

Senate, 001-05-0110 Salaries, Officers and Employees, Sequestrable BA 176 Sequester Percentage 8.2 Sequester Amount 14

If 50 $million is paid out of the Senate account into another government account, it is “Exempt, 255(g)(1)(A) — intragovernmental” and listed at the “other” account as exempt (in Appendix A, Appendix B identifies it as exempt under the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended (BBEDCA).)

In the O (Opaque) MB, approximately 560.157 $billion, was transferred from one government account to another, but it isn’t possible to trace the transfers.

Open the data file, Appendix-A-Exempt-Intragovernmental-With-Appendix-B-Pages. It only contains accounts with “intragovernmental” exemptions.

Filter column J for amounts > 0 and sum the results. (I have included page numbers for Appendix A and Appendix B to assist in your verification of the data.)

Another 1.066 $billion is contained in negative exemptions under “Exempt, 255(g)(1)(A) — intragovernmental.”

Filter column J for amounts < 0 and sum the results. What a negative exemption means? You guess is as good as mine. Twenty One accounts where Appendix A says exempt (but no reason) and Appendix B says not exempt.

  1. 001-15-0100
  2. 001-15-4296
  3. 001-25-0101
  4. 001-25-4325
  5. 001-25-4346
  6. 005-65-1955
  7. 006-48-5583
  8. 006-48-5584
  9. 006-60-0551
  10. 006-60-0552
  11. 006-60-5396
  12. 019-20-0233
  13. 009-38-0118
  14. 024-70-0701
  15. 025-09-0206
  16. 010-22-1700
  17. 010-95-1127
  18. 015-25-4159
  19. 015-45-0947
  20. 026-00-0112
  21. 028-00-4156

Filter on column R = x. I used “x” to denote that Appendix A says exempt but Appendix B disagrees.

Finally, there are four (4) accounts in Appendix A that don’t appear in Appendix B.

  1. 202-00-3112
  2. 026-00-0109
  3. 027-00-0100
  4. 028-00-0100

Filter on column S = x. I used “x” to denote Appendix A has an account number not found in Appendix B (apparent typos in B.)

Totals are for “Exempt, 255(g)(1)(A) — intragovernmental” accounts only. The actual count on missing accounts, etc., is higher on the full data set.


Additional resources:

Text of

255(g)(1)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended (BBEDCA):

Intragovernmental funds, including those from which the outlays are derived primarily from resources paid in from other government accounts, except to the extent such funds are augmented by direct appropriations for the fiscal year during which an order is in effect.

Budget “Sequestration” and Selected Program Exemptions and Special Rules (Congressional Research Service) by Karen Spar is heavy reading but very helpful.


Update:

Refried Numbers from the OMB

In its current attempt at sequester obfuscation, the OMB combined the approaches used in Appendices A and B of its earlier report and reduced the percentage of sequestration. See: OMB REPORT TO THE CONGRESS ON THE JOINT COMMITTEE SEQUESTRATION FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013.

Coming in 2013!

Filed under: Topic Maps — Patrick Durusau @ 5:33 pm

Opening the year with a preview of coming attractions!

1 January 2013: The next data drop on the OMB Sequestration report, to round out the data sets I posted as Fiscal Cliff + OMB or Fool Me Once/Twice and Over The Fiscal Cliff – Blindfolded.

January 2013: In the first half of January I have a proposed TR that I will be posting for discussion purposes. Not a new work item but a draft to discuss whether it should become a new work item.

Provoked in part by the ongoing failure of semantic projects to keep up with “big data.” As you probably suspect, topic maps play a key role in that draft.

January 2013: Expect a clean version of the TMRM, 13250-5 to appear.

February 2013: WG 3 Teleconference – Main points on the agenda will be the proposed TR draft and what projects or PR needs to be done for topic maps. The amount of semantic diversity is growing by leaps and bounds so topic maps are even more relevant today than when the effort first began.

March 2013: Agenda for the June F2F meeting of WG3.

April 2013: As you have seen from some of my posts, I have been suggesting places where topic maps could enhance open source software projects. Conversations will start earlier in the year but I am targeting April of 2013 as the time frame to have good news from one or more projects.

I suspect that may drive conversations in WG3 about specifying more complex merging conditions for topic maps.

May 2013: Topic map videos, along the lines of the MOOCs that have become so popular. Suggestions for topics (sorry) always welcome.

June 2013 WG 3 F2F meeting in Bellevue Washington. Prof. Lee has graciously agreed to chair the WG3 meeting, to discuss meeting together with WG5 (Prof. Lee’s WG). And to continue discussions about other matters relevant to topic maps.

Other goodies will be appearing but want to keep some of them as surprises!

Hope everyone has started a Happy New Year!


I forgot to hit the publish button for the original version of this post last night. I guess I was in a hurry to see the LSU game. 😉

« Newer Posts

Powered by WordPress