Feds Now Plans To Close 1,200 Data Centers 148
1sockchuck writes "The U.S. government now expects to shutter at least 1,200 data centers by the end of 2015 in its data center consolidation project. That's about 40 percent of the IT facilities identified in the latest update from federal CIO Steven VanRoekel. The number of government data centers has grown steadily — jumping from 1,100 to 2,094 and now to 3,133 — as the Obama administration has identified more facilities than expected, and expanded the initiative to target telecom closets. The CIO's office says it is on track to close 525 facilities by the end of this year, and has published a list of data centers targeted for closure."
Re:Figures (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to topsy-turvy land. We've actually been here for awhile, with "fiscal conservative" presidents and legislatures growing the national debt and supposedly "tax and spend liberal" presidents actually shrinking debt.
I support consolidating telecom facilities. Having facilities physically compromised is a bigger danger when there are more facilities, and having more facilities and presumably more equipment means more places one's information ends up, possibly leading to a greater chance that one's data won't remain secure to electronic penetration either.
Many years ago, Tennessee forced all of its state agencies on to one computer system for the bulk of State business. The agencies were very upset by this, but in the end it did save money and help keep records better because now agency X and agency Y were handling the same record, instead of having separate, different records that were never checked against each other. I'm sure there were problems, especially turf wars where agencies would fight over who "owned" the data and who could change things, but I'd bet it still worked better than having thirty individual agencies all with their own equipment that doesn't synchronize...
Re:Figures (Score:5, Insightful)
The government has grown wildly under all parties. Yeah, I know it is hard to troll when keeping reality in focus.
Re:Figures (Score:0, Insightful)
Umm, I don't know if you noticed or not, but Obama hasn't shrunk the debt at all--he's grown it at a pace worse than Bush.
Mind you, Bush was undeniably horrible. But the takeaway here is this: there is NO SUCH THING as a "small government Republican" anymore.
Re:Figures (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
...and supposedly "tax and spend liberal" presidents actually shrinking debt.
I don't know what the savings are with these DC closures...the article doesn't say. But tell me where in these numbers you see a liberal shrinking the debt http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm [treasurydirect.gov] - probably hosted on a server in one of the soon to be shuttered DCs...
Re:Figures (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama put the wars into the budget for the 1st time; that made it appear spending went up more than it actually did!
The revenue went down because of the depression that started under Bush and continues today; that means less money coming in while spending continues and in most cases can not and should not instantly reflect revenue. Then you have tax cut extensions which also lowered revenue.
Plus do not forget inflation undermining the dollar's value; a number which is no longer reported because it got so bad (again under Bush, but Obama would have probably done it too.) While this makes the debt amount seem lower in value it actually does more harm than good.
The economy stimulus was way too weak and way too foolish (republican tax cuts) and that cost us a huge amount only to soften the downward spiral and couldn't dig us out-- you have to take a big step backwards so then you can build up enough momentum to escape...
Re:Figures (Score:4, Insightful)
Welcome to topsy-turvy land. We've actually been here for awhile, with "fiscal conservative" presidents and legislatures growing the national debt and supposedly "tax and spend liberal" presidents actually shrinking debt.
I support consolidating telecom facilities. Having facilities physically compromised is a bigger danger when there are more facilities, and having more facilities and presumably more equipment means more places one's information ends up, possibly leading to a greater chance that one's data won't remain secure to electronic penetration either.
Many years ago, Tennessee forced all of its state agencies on to one computer system for the bulk of State business. The agencies were very upset by this, but in the end it did save money and help keep records better because now agency X and agency Y were handling the same record, instead of having separate, different records that were never checked against each other. I'm sure there were problems, especially turf wars where agencies would fight over who "owned" the data and who could change things, but I'd bet it still worked better than having thirty individual agencies all with their own equipment that doesn't synchronize...
I've been witnessing the consolidation, or at least attempt at, in California. Sometimes they run out of money for the consolidation effort and it is shelved for short term budget reasons against the wisdom of getting it done now to save much more down the road. Turf wars, well, the try to conceal their turf, 'if we don't look after it it'll be a mess' which needs to be beaten back for the greater good. A little pain now for gain later. Government can't keep growing.
I wouldn't utter a blanket curse at 'Conservatives' growing government - I've lived long enough to see each side of the aisle has its pet projects and is fully capable of spending like "drunken other-side-of-the-aislers" Reagan and GWBush both grew the size of the federal government by significant amounts, without finding a source for the funding, while Clinton (social liberal/fiscal conservative) actully slashed over 100,000 (I think it may have been as high as 300,000 from federal payroll - through consolidation and weeding out things which had lived beyond their mandate.)
Good to see some of this attention coming back. This is how you cut spending, not by some trumpeted bill in the House or turning the budget screws, but by ferreting out the redundancy or unneeded and removing it.
Useless data centers (Score:5, Insightful)
They are not needed anymore because:
1) the big hardware vendors already made their money
2) the contractors who installed and configured the hardware already made their money
3) the corrupt purchasing officials have already made their money from the bribes they got from the hardware vendors and the contractors
4) the software vendors will keep racking up software maintenance fees since all those physical servers will become VMs
It's called "greed computing".
In a word (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedom
Re:Figures (Score:5, Insightful)
So if there something wrong under a Democrat administration, it's the President's fault, but if there's something under a Republican administration, it's Congress's fault.
OK, I get it.
Re:Figures (Score:2, Insightful)
This.
It appears to me that Republicans engage in hypocrisy more than Democrats. I remember a common refrain "Why do you hate Bush so much?" whenever there was legitimate criticism of his policies. Those same people are now calling Obama a Nazi, a Communist (I am sure Hitler and Stalin would have a chuckle on that one), non-American, etc. etc.
Why do you hate Obama so much?
Modern Monetary Theory (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to topsy-turvy land. We've actually been here for awhile, with "fiscal conservative" presidents and legislatures growing the national debt and supposedly "tax and spend liberal" presidents actually shrinking debt.
It's bizarre how perverted the discussion has become due to the focus on deficit and debt. There is a reasonable political debate to be had on the question of whether government should be small or large. Should the government be responsible for maintaining basic infrastructure? For education? And so on.
But these questions should not be confused with discussions about the deficit and debt, at least on the federal level. The deficit is mostly endogenous. That is economist-speak for saying that the deficit is not directly controlled by political decision. Instead, it is largely the result of what happens in the private sector. If the private sector produces a lot of activity, this automatically results in higher tax payments and therefore a lower government deficit. If the private sector is running idle, tax revenue drops while at the same time federal outlays in social programs increase, hence the government deficit increases. Therefore, it is best to just let the deficit be whatever it needs to be. That is the approach of Functional Finance [wikipedia.org], which greatly influenced Modern Monetary Theory [pragcap.com].
Stop worrying about the deficit or the debt. They are meaningless, red herrings. Start worrying about real things instead, like crumbling infrastructure or high unemployment - both are things that can very easily be fixed simultaneously at the federal level, if the deficit terrorists are finally silenced.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, debt only became an "important" issue to congress once Obama took office even though Bush's policies are responsible for a majority of the debt growth during Obama's term in office. If one wants to see an accurate accounting of who raised the debt and who lowered it they need to take into account the economic conditions and policy decisions made by each president as some decisions have longer lasting effects and longer delays before they impact the economy. A simple but rough accounting would be to look at the budget office's 10 year forecast during a president's term in office as those at least try to deal with the long term implications of policy decisions.
Re:In a word (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedom to starve, Freedom to enjoy the fresh open air, freedom to be bullied by corporations ....
Small Government is bad it can't protect you
Big Government is bad it over protects you ... ..as always the median is the ideal