Govt. Agencies Refusing to Provide Accurate Data on Cost of ‘Stimulus’ Signs
Even though over 40 percent of people who had “actionable complaints” about the use of stimulus money referenced the “recovery” signs, government agencies refuse to provide accurate information about the cost of the signage. This according to a letter sent by Reps. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Aaron Schock (R-IL) to Earl Devaney, the head of the Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board.
Three months ago, Issa sent a letter requesting an investigation into the signs — asking if the signs were required and what the total cost was. While the various inspectors general found that in most cases the signs were not required, they were encouraged in such a way as to make the distinction meaningless.
Six agencies — the Department of Commerce, the Department of Defense, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Transportation, the General Services Administration (GSA), and the Environmental Protection Agency — were asked to provide hard data on the cost of the signage. Most of the agencies surveyed did not provide the methods they used to come up with their “total cost assessments,” and yet certified the results as accurate anyway.
In one case, according to the latest letter sent to Devaney, EPA flatly refused to comply with the request and then directed Devaney to an estimate formed by sampling just nine projects out of a group of more than 4,000.
In its response to Devaney, EPA said:
As of July 2010, EPA did not have information on the total cost of posting signs, logos, or emblems related to the Recovery Act. Recipients are not required to report this information. Therefore, we cannot provide an assessment of the total cost of posting signs, logos, or emblems.
On July 15, 2010, the RAT Board sent a request to EPA’s Senior Accountable Official for Recovery to provide the assessment of total cost to the RAT Board by September 3, 2010. In response to the request, the OIG contacted a limited number of recipients and asked them about the signs that they purchased. The cost and type of signs varied greatly. … We did not verify the cost information provided to us.
In other words: “Not only do we not know how much the signs cost, we’re not really interested in finding out, and we’re not going to double-check to make sure we got the proper information from the people we gave money to.”
Issa and Schock are understandably disappointed in the response given Devaney.
The excuse made by the administration for the signage was, according to the Office of Management and Budget:
Signage is one of several ways to provide the public with full notice of how its tax dollars are being spent and advance the Recovery Act’s goals of openness and transparency. However, it is important that costs associated with signage are reasonable and limited. Signs should not be produced or displayed if doing so results in unreasonable cost or expense.
Guidance therefore intends to encourage — but does not require the use of signage where appropriate and in furtherance of openness and transparency.
Only two of the agencies surveyed provided sample sizes — EPA and the Department of Commerce — and in the case of EPA the sampling method was flawed, according to Issa and Schock:
As you may know, sample sizes of at least twenty randomly selected and unbiased data points are typically required to produce an estimate that contains any meaningful information about a given population. GSA provided an estimate of its spending on signs based only on a subset of its total stimulus projects, which does not constitute an accurate assessment of total cost. DOT reported a figure for total cost which is obviously an estimate but which provides no insight at all into the methodology used to obtain this number.
It is hardly transparency when federal agencies refuse to cooperate with inspectors general who are tasked with oversight. I would hope Devaney is as angry as I suspect Issa and Schock are.
Actually what I would really like to see is an investigation into those “Bump” signs sometimes found around road work. If you don’t see one, does that mean there won’t be any bumps to be concerned about? And what’s up with having them only right before or right at the bump in question — “What’s that sign — ‘Bum…’ Ouch, dammit, and was that my hubcap that just popped off!? There ought to be an investigation into the schmucks responsible for this!”
“You start with any bucket of money like this. The experts, the people who work in the fraud arena, say there will significant fraud, around 7% lost to fraud in most cases.”
you tax dollars at work
as you can see a troll has shown how much he cares about taxpayer dollars.
there are producers and there are parasites …I have no doubt into which group the troll falls.
This really frosts my coffee; This is Constitution Day!
For one thing, where’s there any mention of it on Pajamas Media?
Secondly; The current federal regime we have in Washington, is running roughshod over the States AND the citizens THEY are supposed to be working for.
This regime has to be curtailed, and it’s going to take drastic measures to counter their drastic actions. The movie “There Will Be Blood” comes to mind. And I’m sure there will be.
But, unless the citizens of this country rise up, and squash this regime of drunken thieves, we deserve every mistreatment dished out to us.
A very eloquent and simple to read article on our Constitution is at:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/09/the_us_constitution_an_agreeme.html
PLEASE READ!
Why should they account for anything? No one in our government thinks oversight is important…it’s only money.
Vote people out and put in people that will keep a checks and balance on OUR affairs!
Congress can stop funding any project and they can stop funding any agency. Congress can also pass a new law eliminating an agency. So why the hell are these two congressmen asking some troll for information when they should demand the information or defund the whole damn ageny. These Congressmen can draft a bill tomorrow.
First, Devaney is, by all accounts, a stand up guy trying to do a tough job.
Second, certainly they can draft a bill to defund EPA, and who, precisely is going to co-sponsor said bill? Who, precisely is going to vote for it?
Even should it, by some miracle that would leave God himself scratching his head and going “how’d they DO that?” pass the House and Senate both who exactly do you think is going to SIGN it? Will we then need another miracle of extra-biblical proportion to override the president’s veto?
Get real.
The only way this corruption gets reined in is for the average American to get down-right pissed off and start demanding accountability.
Phranc is right, these signs are only the tip of the iceberg.
Patrick
Its not the crime its the cover up.
There will be millions in fraud when it comes to these signs. I hope they keep the pressure on and heads roll.
Can you say: Contempt for taxpayers?
This article barely scratches the surface of the massive fraud being committed by one branch of the government, yet exposed by another. See http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10757.pdf. And this wasn’t published yesterday but months ago. Where are you watchdog press, including this one?
What did you expect when Obama put a guy in charge of Treasury who couldn’t even figure out how to pay his payroll taxes??
Why should the EPA do their job, tell us the people paying for these sins, what the actual cost is for the signs. Then they would have to account for the money they steal from the tax payers. Ask organized crime about their money and they can tell you exactly where all their money goes. As long as the Federal Reserve is protected by our elected officials, they will just keep stealing from us and we let them do it because the higher up the ladder you climb you receive more unaccounted for money. It is a joke for us to call other governments corrupt when we have the best thieves money can buy in political office right here in America!