On Monday, March 15, the Department of Justice celebrated the first anniversary of Attorney General Eric Holder’s 2009 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) guidelines. Issued this week last year, the Attorney General’s guidelines were supposed to usher in President Obama’s “new era of open government” by establishing a “criteria governing the presumption of disclosure” and creating “effective systems for responding to requests.”  After a year under the new guidelines, Judicial Watch has experienced little improvement in government transparency or accountability.

Held in the Great Hall at the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice Building, the “celebration” was roughly an hour long, and featured several self congratulations by FOIA representatives from the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Office of the United States Trade Representative. Attorney General Eric Holder made some short remarks touting the Justice Department’s work in creating a new era of transparency. According to Mr. Holder, President Obama has “delivered” on his pledge “to restore the sacred bond of trust that should exist between our nation’s government and its citizens.” Holder also announced that the Justice Department will present an Open Government Plan on April 7th. The celebration did not feature a question and answer portion.

Judicial Watch has not encountered the idyllic open government that Eric Holder referenced in his celebratory remarks. In fact, the Justice Department, and specifically the Attorney General’s Office, has stonewalled Judicial Watch in a number of recent FOIA requests. Last month, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit against the Department of Justice to obtain documents related to Eric Holder's decision to prosecute terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other 9/11 conspirators in New York federal court. The lawsuit is the result of a complete failure by the Attorney General’s Office to comply with the statutory requirement to respond within a 20-day time period. Judicial Watch’s experience demonstrates that noncompliance is common practice with the Attorney General’s Office.

Monday’s celebrants highlighted their accomplishments, without addressing or even acknowledging any problems with Obama administration transparency (other than the occasional ‘there is more work left to be done’ comment). In fact, a recent analysis finds that government secrecy has actually increased under Obama. Indeed, the first year of the Obama administration is ripe with examples of absent accountability and selective transparency. From the secrecy surrounding Obama’s czars, to the backroom deals in the health care legislation, there is little cause for celebration over a “new era of open government.”

The financial crisis has tested the United States’ underlying economic and free market principles, and significantly challenged government transparency and the public’s right to know. During the past year, Americans have demonstrated an unprecedented interest in the operations and activities of the Federal Reserve, Department of Treasury, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Judicial Watch has been actively pursuing documents from those departments and agencies in the public interest by use of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). In some instances, Judicial Watch has gone to federal court to compel the government to produce records.

Obtaining documents has not been easy. While the FDIC reports that it has granted 1507 out of 2045 FOIA requests in full, it has also employed stonewalling tactics such as administratively closing FOIA requests, or demanding payment of over $43,000 for records. In one particular case, the FDIC seemed to have not even read Judicial Watch’s FOIA request before closing it, citing language not used in the request as an excuse. After several months of requests and administrative appeals, Judicial Watch was able to wrestle some documents from the FDIC and Treasury. To date, the only Treasury component to comply was SIGTARP; meanwhile, the FDIC's release consisted of a mere 10 pages with massive redactions. Both the FDIC and Treasury still maintain their grip on several more pages, raising speculation that the they do not think themselves bound to the law in the case of the financial crisis.

The documents Judicial Watch obtained relate to the Public Private Investment Fund (PPIF). The Los Angeles Times reports Department of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s explanation that PPIF (or Public Private Investment Program: PPIP) is “[the] program [that] allows Treasury to partner with leading investment management firms to increase the flow of private capital into the market for legacy securities and give taxpayers a chance to share in the profits.” Meanwhile, Reuters relays Special Inspector General of TARP (SIGTARP) Neil Barofsky’s remarks that “aspects of PPIP make it inherently vulnerable to fraud, waste and abuse, including significant issues relating to conflicts of interest facing fund managers, collusion between participants and vulnerabilities to money laundering."

One of the major censures of PPIF is the fact that it required months of deliberation before it could be enacted. Another criticism is the fear that loans covered under the program would not be sold for profit. Finally, the program may allow banks to buy toxic assets from other TARP banks, raising concerns about whether the banks are simply swapping toxic assets. In an article on Reuters, Felix Salmon examines this fear quoting Congressman Bauchus stating that the scenario permits “colluding to swap assets at inflated prices using taxpayers’ dollars.”  Salmon further notes

Looked at this way, the combination of letting banks bid on each others’ toxic assets, along with the weakening of mark-to-market rules, will serve to maximize opacity, minimize the chances that insolvent banks will be revealed as such, and render the government’s stress tests an exercise in rubber-stamping utterly unrealistic balance sheets.

The documents obtained by Judicial Watch reveal two general themes: problems with oversight and problems with transparency. First, SIGTARP seems impotent in its oversight of Treasury and while important dialogue is occurring through formal letters, Treasury’s resistance makes such oversight an overture rather than a practical tool. Second, similar to the Bloomberg financial news agency’s  objection in its lawsuit that  the Federal Reserve was unjustifiably concealing bank identities, Treasury records show that the obfuscation extends to the point that code names are used, and Neil Barofsky had to demand identification in order to conduct proper oversight. Notable highlights of these themes from the documents include:

The US Department of the Treasury: Summary Response to SIGTARP REcommendations (July 2, 2009) 

Treasury shares the FRBNY’s [Federal Reserve Bank of New York] view that granting the oversight agencies access to the books and records of beneficiaries would discourage participation in the TALF [Term-Asset Backed Securities Loan Facility] program and is therefore not the best way to address the underlying concerns raised by this recommendation.

Re: Additional SIGTARP PPIP Recommendations (June 19, 2009) 

Similarly, we do not believe that proposed standards for the interaction between the PPIP and TALF programs adequately address our previously expressed concerns regarding dilution of the haircut and “skin in the game.” We also continue to be concerned that the dangers presented by the failure to implement an ethical wall will only be exacerbated by increasing the PPIF leverage through the TALF program.

Re: S-PPIP Follow-up (From Neil Barofsky) 

I take it from the use of the word ‘final’ that you are not seeking additional comments. This is somewhat surprising. Last Friday Herb asked us to hold off on making additional comments, and in particular in submitting written comments, assuring us that we would have an opportunity to be heard before anything was finalized. A quick review of the term sheets indicates that there are potentially significant problems in several areas, including the failure to address some of the core issues we have been discussing regarding conflicts as well as more basic concepts such as providing our office with sufficient access. We will, of course, provide you with written comments in advance of the finalization of the deal documents. Of course, should you then adopt those recommendations, it may require a signification deviation from the final term sheets.  (Email Dated June 17, 2009)

Re: Schedule as (June 13, 2009 between Neil Barofsky and Matthew Bass, Office of Financial Stability) 

I would like an unredacted set. I will not distribute it, even internally
...

Throughout our process, we have redacted/ used code-names for fund managers and specific individuals in materials we distribute internally for confidentiality purposes. We intend to continue this until final selection is made. You should still be able to assess the protections we will have re Key Person tests without specific names. Please let us know if this an issue or you feel otherwise.  (Email dated June 13, 2009)

Re: Additional SIGTARP PPIP Recommendations (June 10, 2009) 

Simply put, absent a wall, it is likely that advance information about buy and sell decisions could readily be used for the benefit of the other funds managed by  the PPIF manager at the expense of the general market and, eventually, of the PPIF itself...

One of the arguments repeatedly advance by Treasury in opposition to a wall is that the firms would not risk harming their client investors or their reputations by making decisions contrary to the interests of the PPIF. Unfortunately, we believe these observations do not reflect the realities of the marketplace. As we have noted in our meetings, similar comments were made regarding such formerly high regarded firms as Enron, WorldCom, and Refco, to name a few...

We cannot fairly assess the vulnerabilities that such increased power presents without first knowing whether the PPIF manager will be walled off from the rest of the firm’s business.

Re: SIGTARP Quarterly Report Recommendations 

As your recommendations make clear, there are risks associated with investing in or lending against legacy assets, which in part why markets for them are currently frozen.

The few documents provided show tension over the ability to supervise and regulate the financial programs and facilities. By not releasing the additional documents, the government leaves the public to wonder-- what exactly do those documents contain?
 

Judicial Watch reported in an earlier post Retrofitting Foreign Policy: Space Race with China about China’s improving space capabilities. China has forged ahead with its space program in what may appear to be a 21st century space race. China’s manned space missions are not only a symbolic feat to present them as equals with other major international partners, but also allow them to surge ahead with technology and science. President Obama’s elimination of the Constellation Program further empowers China’s space potential.

NASA documents obtained by Judicial Watch demonstrate a concern that space primacy could shift to China:

(NASA Administrator Trip to China Summary 2006)
It was not possible to assess Chinese capabilities in human spaceflight since the NASA delegation was not allowed to visit facilities related to human space flight....

Note: The Minister of Science and Technology asked if China could participate in the ISS Program. The Administrator responded that no such invitation was contemplated by the ISS partnership, noting at length the absolute requirement for openness and transparency among all ISS partners regarding human space flight activities. 

 (RTQ: 06-XXX 8/30/06)
Adding any additional partners to the International Space Station program would require a formal decision by the U.S. government and consultation and agreement among the governments of all the International Space Station partners. We currently have no plans or ongoing discussions in the U.S. government or with our international partners to pursue any Chinese participation in this program….

While NASA applauds China’s significant achievements in human space flight, NASA currently has no plans for cooperation with China in human spaceflight related activities.

(November 13, 2007 Memorandum for the Chief of Staff)
it is my considered judgment that China will have the technical and budgetary wherewithal to conduct a manned mission to the surface of the moon before the United States plans to return….The bare fact of this accomplishment will have an enormous, and not fully predictable, effect on global perceptions of U.S. leadership in the world…

The next decade will be a period in which U.S. primacy in space will already be in question. After shuttle retirement in 2010, and prior to deployment of Orion/Ares in 2015, we will be paying roughly $200 million per year, on average, to Russia to transport American astronauts and cargo to and from the International Space Station....

China clearly recognizes the value of space activities as a driver for innovation, a source of national pride, and an enhancement to its stature in the world.  As such, they are likely to continue their robust space activities with or without cooperation with the U.S. and other nations.

China may present one of the few options for space exploration as NASA withdraws. While the U.S. has indicated its reservations about China, China’s ability to present an alternative to the waylaid U.S. program may appeal to other Space-faring nations. If there is a potential space race between China and the U.S., the U.S. may have just forfeited and such symbolism may be even greater than any symbolism associated with reaching the Moon.

In light of NASA’s transition documents, President Obama’s decision to cancel the Constellation Program leaves the United States in a rather vulnerable position with dependency on Russia, forsaking of science programs, and empowering China. It is no wonder that, according to New York Times, major NASA players are now considering a “Plan B” to compensate for the short-sighted decision. 

The International Space Station was a joint venture in the 1990s between Europe, Russia, Japan, and the United States. It was as symbolic as it was functional. While the ISS does not retain the lure of its former glory days and the U.S. space programs do not captivate the public’s imagination, the endeavor is still a significant diplomatic and research operation. The NASA 2009 Report about International Space Station Science reveals that

Advances in the fight against food poisoning, new methods for delivering medicine to cancer cells, and better materials for future spacecraft are among the results published in a NASA report detailing scientific research accomplishments made aboard the International Space Station during its first eight years. 

Despite the ISS’s continued relevance, its existence may be jeopardized by President Obama’s elimination of the Constellation program. While President Obama’s space station plan may be for private enterprises to provide crew, those private enterprises certainly lack the capability and may lack the profit incentive to reach that goal. It took the United States and Russia several years and disasters to hone their expertise. China has made incredible leaps within a short amount of time, but its achievements reflect the strong state support it receives. While there are many private entrepreneurs, none have successfully tested a flight yet. As noted in the previous blog posting, the U.S. must currently rely on its petulant international partner, Russia, to reach the ISS.

In the worst case scenario, the U.S. would no longer be able to maintain a presence at the ISS. Without U.S. presence, the ISS may begin to falter, which would cause problems for ISS science. NASA documents obtained by Judicial Watch establish the fears of an ISS without U.S. presence:

(Proposed Anomaly for NASA in Initial FY 2009 Continuing Resolution Extension of NASA Exception to INKSNA) NASA and the U.S. commercial sector are aggressively developing new domestic U.S. crew transportation capabilities that will remove the dependency on Russian vehicles. However, NASA’s current projected date to bring U.S. crew transportation and rescue capabilities online is now 2016 when the U.S. Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle will have reached Full Operational Capability, and U.S. commercial providers of crew transportation and rescue services are not expected to have demonstrated the equivalent capability to meet ISS mission needs before 2016.

(Amendment to the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act: Sectional Analysis) The United States would not have an American "presence" aboard the ISS, either in terms of astronauts or access to research facilities for the U.S. scientific community, if we could not purchase crew transportation and rescue services from Russia, as no non-Russian crew transfer vehicles will be available until the CEV [orion crew exploration vehicle] reaches full operational capability or a U.S. commercial provider demonstrates the capability to meet ISS crew transportation and rescue needs. Given NASA’s operational, engineering, safety and other responsibilities for the ISS, NASA is concerned whether the ISS could remain fully operational for any significant time period absent an American presence….

In addition, this limited relief being requested (i.e., through the life of the ISS) may be necessary even after a U.S. commercial capability is available, because some potential U.S. commercial providers of cargo services and of crew transportation and rescue services have Russian contractors or other relationships with Russian entities that, without this amendment, could trigger the Act’s "extraordinary payment" prohibition.

(RTQ: 09-12 5/28/09) In the near term, NASA must secure crew transportation from an experienced and qualified provider that has a demonstrated capability, in order to ensure a continued U.S. presence aboard the station.

The official correspondence reveals that at least up until May 2009, U.S. presence at the ISS was a priority. Furthermore, the Non-proliferation Act noted the operational and diplomatic reasons that U.S. presence need be through NASA. Unfortunately, President Obama’s elimination of the Constellation program may also put the ISS and the science that benefited the world at risk. 

With the dawning of 2010, President Obama released the 2011 budget, delivering his election promise of “change” in at least one significant area: space exploration. The 2011 budget eliminates funding to NASA’s Constellation program, with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Peter Orszag emphasizing, "We are proposing canceling the program, not delaying it.” The strategic shift will supposedly allow NASA to focus more on other space technology and earth science. This shift is provoking some controversy about whether the U.S. is misguided by its fear of global warming especially with the recent climategate scandal. Although President Obama has abandoned President Bush’s roadmap for space, he has not asserted one of his own. Even with any potential plan (as speculated by media reports), such a dramatic shift is likely to have repercussions.

President Bush’s “Vision for Space Exploration” was the foundation for replacing the Shuttle aircraft with a newer vehicle -- the Constellation program with the Ares booster and Orion spacecraft. Over the past two decades, the Shuttle has transported U.S. crews to the International Space Station and allowed the United States to collaborate with Russia, Europe, and Japan on research objectives. In an effort to modernize the program, the Bush administration envisioned the new program with a concrete goal of returning to the Moon. The program, however, encountered obstacles and several delays, increasing the gap of time in which the United States would need to rely on station partners to reach the station with crew and cargo.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, the Constellation program only costs 0.5 percent of the entire federal budget (US budget is roughly $3.8 trillion in 2011); meanwhile the cost of eliminating the program in terms of unrealized potential and work with risk to US primacy may be more than any potential savings. In terms of the economy, thousands of American jobs will be impacted, as reported by Wall Street Journal. The Washington Post, however, reports that NASA Chief Financial Officer, Beth Robinson, believes that the shift will provide more jobs, but it is unclear what those jobs may look like. Another factor is the question of what to do with NASA’s knowledge and expertise on space exploration. Will NASA share or sell this knowledge to private space companies that have yet to successfully test a flight? Will the experts find their employment in other nations?

Prior to the budget's release, Judicial Watch began investigating the space transition and has ongoing litigation with NASA to obtain records. NASA documents obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act convey three current US manned space operation struggles that are exaggerated by President Obama’s change. In a blog series, Judicial Watch will examine the U.S.’s growing dependency on Russia for space operations, the danger to the International Space Station, and the possibility of China surpassing the U.S. with space primacy. 

Part I: Growing Dependency on Russia

President Obama’s budget cut of NASA’s Constellation program cripples the manned flight operations of the United States in favor of a growing dependency on Russia’s space program. This move is particularly disconcerting given Russia’s growing departures from international cooperation and commitments to democratization (i.e. the Georgian conflict, the centralization of power by Putin and his surrogates, suppression of rights at home, and even allegations of contributing to the global financial crisis). The ramifications of Obama’s manned flight program cuts further undermine what was once a rock-solid U.S. supremacy in space exploration.

NASA documents obtained by Judicial Watch show that the delays result in U.S. reliance on Russia with a cost of roughly $200 million per year, constant contract modifications, complete reliance in terms of urine processing, waste removal, hardware replacements, training, etc. Additionally, U.S. and Russian collaboration resulted in communication problems, cost challenges, and Soyuz craft “anomalies.” The dependence on Russia also raises non-proliferation concerns in terms of extraordinary payments. Documents obtained from NASA include the following highlights:

(April 23, 2008) It appears at first look that several anomalies repeated from Soyuz TMA-10….Given the similar level of reliance that NASA and other ISS partners place on the Soyuz TMA system for crew transportation services, I propose that NASA have a member on the Russian commission that is examining the recent Soyuz TMA anomalies…Since the Soyuz is a critical transportation system for the ISS partnership, particularly once the Space Shuttle retires, it is in our mutual interest to ensure that we have fully understood and dealt with the root cause of the recent ballistic re-entries.

(November 30, 2006) Our requirements as documented in Modification 149, have not changed and we have yet to receive a proposal from Roscosmos. Your letter dated March 13, 2006, stated that ‘Agenda on upgrading production and technical facilities…will be submitted in the near future.’  Eight months have elapsed and still we have not received a written proposal.

(July 30, 2007) With regard to rescue training for shuttle delivered astronauts, there is no provision allowing Roscosmos to charge more for the certification of an astronaut as flight engineer 1 (FE1), nor is there any provision allowing NASA to pay less for certification should training at the FE2 level only be provided….Consistent with our discussions the week of July 16, 2007 in Moscow, please continue to provide this training as purchased.

(RTQ: 09-12 5/28/09) Since the procurement of seats in a Soyuz vehicle requires an advance commitment of approximately three years, in early 2009, NASA and Roscosmos have been discussing procurement of additional Soyuz crew transportation and related services after the existing contract commitment.

(Amendment to the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act: Sectional Analysis) Pursuant to the IGA and subordinate agreements, NASA has an obligation to its non-Russian ISS Partners to provide crew rotation and rescue services during the life of the ISS. Currently, the Russian vehicle Soyuz is the sole provider of rescue services, with the Space Shuttle providing crew transportation. After Shuttle retirement, the partnership will be dependent on Russia to provide both crew transportation and rescue services with Soyuz...

The highlights show the problems with the U.S. relying on Russia when both partners expected the US.. to recover its capabilities in the near future with the Constellation program. Without an alternative program in place, Russia has even greater leverage over the United States and the problems may multiply.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security estimates that approximately 10.8 million “unauthorized immigrant[s]” resided in the U.S. in January 2009 with 910,000 entering between 2005 and 2008. This illegal immigration accompanies dangerous smuggling, various illicit activities, significant costs to communities, and political ramifications. In an effort to mitigate some of the accompanying problems, the U.S. government employs a variety of programs. While some of these programs are well known (like the border fence which Judicial Watch is actively investigating with ongoing litigation), a few of the lesser known programs include Operation Scheduled Departure, initiated under the Bush administration, and the Operation Against Smugglers Initiative on Safety and Security (OASSIS), modified under President Obama. 

Judicial Watch obtained records on Operation Scheduled Departure under the Freedom of Information Act, but U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement redacted 70% of the information and more than a year after Judicial Watch’s appeal, has failed to render a decision in violation of the law.

As a pilot initiative in August 2008, Operation Scheduled Departure offered fugitive aliens an opportunity to voluntarily turn themselves in and receive transportation to their origin country (on a need basis). Documents obtained by Judicial Watch include the program’s call log from August 2008. The log contains a whopping 29 inquiries many of which are unrelated to the program. The following call log highlights demonstrate a challenge to the voluntary and incentive aspects of the program:

USC caller married alien wife in Peru, wants a divorce w/o adjusting

Caller has an alien friend who wants to participate, alien willing to travel to Pilot city

Caller states her neighbor has a Final Order and also wants to report other illegal aliens

Caller from the HOPE community program, alien w/them, wants to be deported to Russia

How her mother can return after deportation, mother in Mexico

The released documents also contain information on the cost and mission of the program. The administrative cost for the experiment was $255,196.50 which included roundtrip airfare and lodging for ICE employees. The cost becomes more relevant as the documents reveal that the mission was to buoy support for other enforcement operations: 

 The program demonstrates ICE’s cooperative efforts and if unsuccessful will demonstrate the need to continue conducting targeted fugitive alien enforcement operations 

While Scheduled Departure appears to have been a wasteful and manipulative operation by the government, OASSIS’s recent inclusion of marijuana smuggling is a weak attempt at enforcement. OASSIS is a Customs and Border Patrol program initiated in 2005 to prosecute human smugglers. The 2009 change employs Mexico to prosecute marijuana smugglers. The documents obtained by Judicial Watch reveal:

the expansion of the program into other areas of concern for both countries avoids the fact that data exchange requirements for the current program have not been agreed to, and have recently been amended again by the PGR [Procuraduría General de la República].  

 Apparently, we are being pressed to add narcotics to OASSIS.

OASSIS already involved 1524 cases between August 2005 and May 2009. Extending the program to cover marijuana smuggling will increase the caseload, but may not curb the dangerous narcotics smuggling present on the border. While the government works to enforce its laws on the border and counter the present dangers, neither of these two highlighted programs have the teeth to adequately get a grip on the situation. 

The Georgia and Russia conflict dominated headlines during the summer of 2008, and for many Americans distinguished the American southern state from the Caucasus that gained independence with the Rose Revolution in the early 90s. The conflict offered Presidential candidates a foreign policy opportunity prior to the November elections (including Senators McCain and Biden). After a nearly year long battle involving litigation to receive documents from the United States European Command, Judicial Watch received records related to Congressional Delegations to Georgia. 

The obtained documents provide insight into the US assessment and perception of the region. Eucom released an unclassified secret “Scene Setter” from September 2006. The document summarizes assessments of the Defense Ministry noting certain “hawkish” reputations, the “autonomous” operations of certain military leaders, and general opinions of other leaders. The contents of the document, however, are not fully disclosed as many items are redacted under national security exemptions. A few particularly interesting excerpts include:

* The recent visits of Senators Lugar and McCain, and their very strong pro-Georgian statements, may  have buoyed President Saakashvili's hopes that pressure can be brought on Russia that would give the diplomatic efforts a ray of hope. 

* Georgian military officials are far more comfortable with their forces under U.S. command.

While conditions may have changed since Judicial Watch’s original request and since the 2008 conflict, the documents, nonetheless, demonstrate that the US had been monitoring the situation prior to the conflict and that Georgia is not necessarily the independent player it would like to be. Georgia still poses a precarious situation for the region with its desire to be legitimized by extending military cooperation in Afghanistan through NATO, its adversarial position with Russia, leadership emanating from autonomous and hawkish military commanders, and reliance on the United States.

Almost a year ago on February 4, 2009, Congress, with the approval and urging of President Obama, passed an act to delay the switch to digital television. The switch was originally scheduled to take place in February 2009, Congress voted to delay the switch by four months, presumably because the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had run out of funds for the transition. But documents uncovered by Judicial Watch reveal that the digital television delay could have cost taxpayers an unnecessary $450 million in stimulus funds. 

The main reason given for both the delay and the need for additional funds was that FCC couldn't afford to redeem consumer coupons. The coupons, each worth $40, were issued to the public in order to buy the digital convertor boxes necessary for the switch. On January 8, 2009, John Podesta wrote a letter to Congress on behalf of Obama's transition team, asking to delay the switch.  Podesta said that the initial $1.5 billion set aside to redeem the coupons had run out, and "over 1 million coupon requests sit on a wait list, unable to be fulfilled." But in order to redeem all the coupons on the wait list, it would have cost only $40 million, not $650 million.  Even if, as the Presidential Transition Team estimated, "the number could climb to over 5 million unhonored requests," it still would have required only $200 million to redeem the coupons. So why did Congress give FCC another $450 million in stimulus money?

According to FCC, most of the stimulus money was actually caused by the delay.  In FCC's draft of how it would use the funds, it stated that "If congress delays the February 17, 2009 cutoff date...there will be significant expenditures necessary." While $250 million in stimulus funds was reserved to pay for coupon redemption, FCC estimated that "an additional 10 million coupons will be requested during a 90 day delay, and...will require $240 million in additional stimulus support."  The additional expenses included:

1. Additional Coupons: $240 million
2. Better Coupon Program Administration: $70 million
3. Field Support: $65 million
4. Paid advertising: $25 million

Not only is it unclear why FCC needed $650 million when $250 million would have sufficed, it is also debatable whether FCC even needed all of the $250 million. The FCC worked with Susan Crawford, White House Special Assistant for Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy, in order to receive the stimulus funds, but in an email an FCC official told Crawford that "we could free up about $12 million," but it would "require a legislative 'tweak.'" In response, Crawford assured FCC that the $650 million allotted in stimulus funds would "survive," and that she was working with FCC's Chief Counsel, Bruce Gottlieb, to ensure that FCC would receive the money in its entirety. Her email said, "Bruce is helping us create legislative language that will make sure that the right amount of money goes directly to the FCC."

Given this evidence, it seems extremely unlikely that $650 million in taxpayer money was required to delay a decision that had been made and planned for in 2005. In addition, the switch was supposed to be used to increase public safety, which makes a delay seem doubly worrisome. The entire purpose of the switch was to clear more analog air space (or spectrum) to use for emergency communications.Congressman Joe Barton, Ranking Member on the Committeeon Energy and Commerce, opposed the delay and released a statement:

Not only will consumers be more confused after [a delay', but a delay in the transition will jeopardize the spectrum cleared for First Responder communications. As early as  five years before 9/11, public safety officials called for more spectrum to be made available for better and more effective communication among emergency services.

Tragically, the lack of such spectrum partially led to many unnecessary deaths among those responding to the 9/11 attacks in New York. That is why the 9/11 Commission's 2004 report endorsed then-pending legislation that would have cleared the public safety spectrum years ago...

Despite claims to the contrary...the DTV delay bill does not create a workable carve-out for public safety spectrum. In order for emergency services to use the spectrum they were promised, television broadcasters must stop analog broadcasts on those channels.

In addition, Barton added that "all 50 states" were already using technology freed up by additional analog space, and questioned why the federal government is still incapable of using the technology.

The documents produced by FCC raise numerous questions as to the necessity for the delay, and the amount of money needed for it. By its own admission, FCC could have produced $12 million of its own funds to ease the expenses, and only $250 million maximum was needed to redeem coupons.  All the other expenses claimed were caused by the delay. Not only did the three month delay cost taxpayers an unnecessary $400 million, it also compromised public safety.

This example of the misuse of stimulus funds is extremely concerning, especially given the Senate's recent proposal to increase the national debt limit to $14.3 billion.  Congress and Obama's administration have not shownthat they can manage distributing funds to necessary causes, or that increasing government spending will have any positive impact on the economy. These documents, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, give the American people a very good look at how effective Congress' stimulus strategy has been so far.

FCC Documents on the Digital Television Delay

• Digital Television Documents, Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3
• Part 4