“I want to see a stimulus package sooner rather than later. If it does not get done in the lame duck session, it will be the first thing I get done as President of the United States.”

So said President-Elect Barack Obama at his first press conference this past week.

Will subsidies for broadband be part of it?

The Telecommunications Industry Association recently urged Congress to include subsidies for broadband in the economic stimulus package. The membership of TIA are telecommunications equipment providers. They argue that subsidies for their products would be good for America.

Oh! - which allows me to mention how a group called BroadbandCensus.com is promoting a Nov. 18 conference on broadband here on this site (more info | register). They have sponsored info on pages like Public Law 110-385, The Broadband Data Improvement Act, and H.R. 3919, The Broadband Census of America Act of 2007, right where people interested in these topics will find it. (Click and check out their info in the right column.)

It’s a brilliant thing - sponsoring info here on WashingtonWatch.com. Here’s how to do it.

Anyway, enough fawning over a sponsor . . . .

The last stimulus package was passed in February and included rebate checks to taxpayers, returning about $540 per family on average. But it may not have been all that stimulative. Martin Feldstein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Reagan, recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal that it was a flop, with only 15% of the stimulus money going to new spending. (The rest went to savings or paying down debt - not bad things, but they came at the expense of driving up national debt.)

If an economic stimulus bill happens, maybe spending on infrastructure is better than cash payments out to people. We shall see. More to come, of course.

Congress has all the planning skills and foresight of a teenager.

Y’know how when mom and dad are coming back from their weekend away, the kid tries to do all the chores for the weekend in the last hour? That’s Congress.

So as we wrap up the current Session, Congress is racing to do all the things it should have done all year long. Members are throwing every pet project they’ve got at the leadership, hoping to get it through before the Congress ends.

Sure, we’ve got spending decisions for fiscal year 2009, and this financial services bailout, but let’s try to get through dozens of other bills at the same time.

Here’s a look at all the bills that were on the House floor just yesterday. Lots of them are simple and straightforward, but nothing kept Congress from addressing them all through the year.

Congress waited until the last minute and most assuredly isn’t showing these bills, or the really big issues before it, the care it should. We citizens haven’t gotten much of a chance to look them over either.

H.R. 3018
The Family Self-Sufficiency Act of 2007

H.R. 3402
The Calling Card Consumer Protection Act

H.R. 3232
The Travel Promotion Act of 2007

H.R. 6950
The Stephanie Tubbs Jones Gift of Life Medal Act of 2008

H.R. 1014
The Heart Disease Education, Analysis Research, and Treatment for Women Act

H.R. 6946
To make a technical correction in the NET 911 Improvement Act of 2008

H.R. 1343
The Health Centers Renewal Act of 2007
Costs $102.88 per family

S. 2932
The Poison Center Support, Enhancement, and Awareness Act of 2008

S. 1810
The Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act
Costs $0.17 per family

S. 1382
The ALS Registry Act
Costs $0.62 per family

H.R. 6568
The Tom Lantos Pulmonary Hypertension Research and Education Act of 2008

H.R. 6901
The Meth Free Families and Communities Act

H.R. 6469
The Organ Transplant Authorization Act of 2008

H.R. 1157
The Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2007

H.R. 758
The Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act of 2007
Costs $0.00 per family

H.R. 4544
The Code Talkers Recognition Act of 2007

H.R. 4120
The Effective Child Pornography Prosecution Act of 2007

H.R. 6045
The Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2008

S. 1046
The Senior Professional Performance Act of 2007
Costs $0.05 per family

S. 928
The Homeowners Protection Act of 2007

I was flipping through the channels on a DirecTV setup yesterday when I spied a most interesting campaign put together by the satellite TV provider itself. On the unused channels, there was an important message aimed at subscribers.

Big Cable companies are encouraging states across the country to charge satellite subscribers, like you, higher state sales taxes. This is unfair!

A bipartisan group of members of Congress have said, enough is enough! They introduced the State Video Tax Fairness Act (HR 3679 & S 3418) to prevent any state from charging higher taxes on satellite subscribers than on other video customers.

The message invites DirecTV subscribers to contact their members of Congress encouraging support for these bills.

It’s very interesting to see a company go straight to its customers with a public policy push, but you see it more and more. Ebay Mainstreet is one of the most prominent I’ve seen.

Anyway, the campaign is working to some degree. Take a look at the first comment on H.R. 3679, The State Video Tax Fairness Act of 2007. It’s from a guy who saw a message on his DirecTV system. The Senate version hasn’t seen quite as much action.

Here’s the current voting on H.R. 3679, The State Video Tax Fairness Act of 2007 and S. 3418, The State Video Tax Fairness Act of 2008. Click to vote, comment, learn more, or edit the wiki articles about the bills.

I wrote here six weeks ago about how the telecommunications subsidy programs run by the Federal Communications Commission were poorly run and subject to waste, fraud, and abuse.

Well, evidently, the FCC got the message and has cleaned up its act! Or started to . . . . Or at least they did something.

Today, the agency has debarred a Mr. George Marchelos from from the schools and libraries universal service support program (often called the “E-Rate program”) for three years. Marchelos was recently convicted of participating in schemes to defraud the E-Rate program and of engaging in bid rigging on E-Rate projects for certain school districts. (Here’s a look at part of his indictment.) He must be devastated that he can’t rig bids or defraud this particular corner of the government for a whole three years.

Interestingly, Marchelos was a witness at a congressional hearing on problems with the e-rate program back in 2004. (The House Commerce Committee says his testimony will be online “as soon as possible after the conclusion of the hearing,” which evidently is something more than three years.)

So you can go ahead and pay your telephone taxes again with the confidence of knowing that waste, fraud, and abuse have been squeezed out of this program - ummm, for three years at least.

This time it’s not a politician to blame for making exaggerated claims. It’s one of these coalitions that spring up when a certain set of people want a certain set of goodies from the government.

The Coalition for Free Broadband Now wants the Federal Communications Commission to auction of some of the electromagnetic spectrum under rules that would provide for free, “family friendly” wireless broadband service.

It’s touting a pair of bills, H.R. 5846, the Wireless Internet Nationwide for Families Act of 2008 and S. 3420, the Open Wireless Internet Act.

The FCC probably should get this spectrum out there for better use, but this really sounds like industrial planning. Just let it be bought and sold an a spectrum market like land is bought and sold so that it can find its most valued uses. OR put it out there for use by anyone - like they did with the spectrum that wifi works on.

Two things are for sure: 1) Somebody’s going to pay for it. There is no free lunch, and there’s no free broadband. 2) It’s not going to happen now. It’s now right now, and that free broadband isn’t here.

Free broadband? Yeah. And a pony.

Here’s the current voting on H.R. 5846, the Wireless Internet Nationwide for Families Act of 2008 and S. 3420, the Open Wireless Internet Act. Click to vote, comment, learn more, or edit the wiki articles about the bills.

Via Ars Technica, the Government Accountability Office recently issued a report entitled “Telecommunications: FCC Needs to Improve Performance Management and Strengthen Oversight of the High-Cost Program.” That’s a nice way of saying, “Things are going to hell in a handbasket!”

The FCC administers a small collection of subsidy programs for telecommunications that support rural telephone service, for example. This is the “high-cost” program referred to in GAO’s obscure title.

A thing called the Universal Service Administrative Corporation collects taxes from some phone bills and doles it out to telecom providers in the name of keeping phone rates affordalbe for everyone.

The GAO says, in its characteristic obscure way, “The high-cost program’s structure has contributed to inconsistent distribution of support and availability of services across rural America.” That means things are a mess.

With more than $30 billion having been spent since the program began a little over 10 years ago - yes, that’s billion with a “B” - GAO finds that the “FCC has not established long-term or intermediate performance goals and measures.” Again, a translation: they don’t know whether all the spending is doing any good.

Here are a few of the many bills meant to affect the FCC’s universal service programs, either growing them or shrinking them. Unfortunately, like our phone subsidies, this list is in no particular order. It’s in disarray too!

• H.R. 2054, The Universal Service Reform Act of 2007 (and a Senate version too)
• H.R. 6356, The Universal Service Reform, Accountability, and Efficiency Act of 2008
• S. 101, The USA Act
• H.R. 278, To amend section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 to provide that funds received as universal service contributions and the universal service support programs established pursuant to that section are not subject to certain provisions of title 31, United States Code, commonly known as the Antideficiency Act (and a Senate version too)

Yesterday the Senate passed H.R. 6304, The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, clearing it for the President’s signature. Among other things, it gave telecommunications companies immunity for allegedly participating in illegal wiretapping at the behest of the government. There are strong opinions on both sides of the issue. As you’ll see below, WashingtonWatch.com visitors were strongly opposed. And here’s Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold (D) speaking about how the bill affects privacy:

The President, of course, was strongly in favor. Click to see his statement:

As soon as the bill is signed into law, the bill page will have links to the final votes in both the House and the Senate. Use them to find your representatives and senators, and let them know what you think.

Here is the voting on the bill. Click to vote, comment, learn more, and edit the wiki article:

This week the Senate is scheduled to take up H.R. 6304, The FISA Amendments Act of 2008, the latest iteration of controversial legislation to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The bill passed the House on June 20th.

One of the most interesting elements of the debate is the apparently contradictory positions presidential candidate Barack Obama has taken with respect to the bill, and on the key issue of whether there should be legal immunity for telecommunications firms that may have assisted with illegal surveillance.

Today, one of the largest groups on Obama’s own interactive Web site is called “Senator Obama - Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity - Get FISA Right.” As the Washington Post reports, Obama responded to his online critics late last week. However, he may have gotten himself in deeper trouble.

Salon contributing editor and prominent blogger Glenn Greenwald, for example, took after Obama’s new statement last week, pointing out various inaccuracies and reversals in the Senator’s statement.

The legislation itself is important and interesting. The overlay of presidential politics makes it all the more so. Here’s the current vote on the bill. Click to vote, comment, or edit the wiki: