Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 18:28:11 -0800 To: GovAccess@well.com From: jwarren@well.com (Jim Warren) Subject: GovAccess.257: campaign $, community, NARA, OCC, taxes, health, ... CONTENTS Like the Mean Ol' Prison Warden Snarled in that Classic Movie, "I'm back!" Federal Elections Commission Puts *Some* Campaign $$$ Info on the Web Posing Questions to Presidential Candidates for Our Future -- When We Find Any San Jose Mercury News' Mercury Center Offers Public-Access Voter Information Common Cause/Mass Opens Voter Information Website New Hampshire Primary Monitor -- for $15 Listserv for Folks Interested in Community-Building American Library Association Updates Library Bill of Rights National Archives and Records Administration Now Online Comptroller of the Currency Offers Bank and Reinvestment Info on the Web Richard Gephart's Tax Reform Debate Website (versus NTU's Reality Check) Flat-Tax: Anyone Know of Information Sources or *Useful* Forums? Flat-Tax, Income Tax, Nat'l Sales Tax: A Website for those Discussions Tax Share vs. Income Share -- Hard Data(?) in Place of Media/Political Hype Moderated Listserv about Single-Payer Universal Health Care Government-Granted Knowledge Monopolies versus Public Health Some of the Organizations that Censor-Prone Clinton & Congress Ignored Unclassified Milspecs Now on the Web Govt for Sale: Modern NYC Public Records -- For Those Who Can Afford It Suprise! Teachers' Union Calls for Curbs on [Net-aided] Distance Education &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Like the Mean Ol' Prison Warden Snarled in that Classic Movie, "I'm back!" I've finally dug out from under *some* of the backlog, mountained while I [perhaps foolishly] tried to get the "serious," *perceived*-viable Repooblican prexy candidates to debate each other online, just as though they were candidates for the *end* of the 20th Century, rather than horse-n-buggy candidates zealously entrenched in the televised past. Sen. Dick Lugar was the only well-known politician willing to risk *modern* exposure via net *dialogue* -- even if it would have only been with the other candidates. Most of them, however, will be happy to emit fast volumes of their commentary, as long as it's in a non-challengable medium such as websites. Some, such as Dole, even refuse to make an email address available -- but will offer you *his* opinions via webpages. Oh well, nothing ventured; nothing gained. Have some interesting follow-on input, insights (mine and others') and suggestions that I'll circulate in future GovExcesses. But now, some of the backlog. --jim &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Federal Elections Commission Puts *Some* Campaign $$$ Info on the Web Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 22:47:39 -0600 From: Chris Casey Here's one that your GovAccess readers will want to know about. http://www.fec.gov It debuted on Valentine's Day and I think it promises to be a very useful resource for anyone interested in following election '96 on the Net. [WORTH A LOOK! - a good first step. I clicked right over and tried it out. Has *summary* loot data readily available, with *very* interesting graphs of individual, PAC and "other" loot volumes for all federal prexy and congressional candidates -- but searching for specific contributors and/or all contribs to specific candidates remains nontrivial, *big* time, via big ZIPped files ... that my Netscape browser reported that it couldn't find, much less download. Additionally, the available data only goes as far as the end of last year (which may or may not be current; I don't remember what the fed's irregular filing deadlines are). --jim] &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Posing Questions to Presidential Candidates for Our Future -- When We Find Any Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 17:12:06 -0600 (CST) From: thehode@txdirect.net (William Hammond) >I'm new to your forum, but may I suggest that you submit five questions to >each Republican candidate for President, and the same five to Pres. Clinton >via email and ask them to respond to you (for redistribution to) by a >certain date. Give them three days, for example, to 1) state their >positions on leading us into the electronic future and 2) answers to five >specific Q's. Hopefully, it will lead them into substantial discussions in >the newsgroup - even if it's not live. [Great ideas. However: For a number of timing and organizational reasons, my original proposal for the online presidential debates was that the candidates, themselves, would pose their questions to one another -- that, this time, there would be no "danger" of outside questioners. However, most of our coy candidates were much too wary to be lured into this radical new medium. Why should they -- when they can use output-only television propaganda. As to submitting the questions to them by email, first one must ferret out actual email contact pathes that might reach *some* substantive decision-maker in a campaign. Turns out, that ain't easy in any cases, and is almost impossible in most of 'em. But, *someday* we'll have some modern candidates for the 21st Century ... just not among the Republican front-runners in *this* century. --jim] &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& San Jose Mercury News' Mercury Center Offers Public-Access Voter Information From: BKoon@aol.com Date: Sat, 3 Feb 1996 22:47:44 -0500 Subject: Mercury Center Voter Link Voter Link, our coverage of and voter guide to the 1996 election goes up Sunday. It will be available at http://www.sjmercury.com/news/politics Mercury News Assistant Foreign Editor Allen Houston and Assistant City Editor Scott Houston are the movers behind this site. Bruce Koon, Managing Editor Mercury Center &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Common Cause/Mass Opens Voter Information Website Date: 01 Feb 96 13:21:35 EST From: James Paisner <76470.1231@compuserve.com> To: Jim Warren >>Jim Warren asked: >>BTW, how did you get a human at the Forbes campaign? I've never gotten >>anything except recordings -- and no call-backs, even as a columnist. Must be my winning charm. ;-) CC/Mass is in mid-launch of our web page. There will be lots of info about politics as usual (ugh!) on it. The URL is: http://www.tiac.net/users/comcause It is still under construction, but already contains some good stuff. Please pass the word! &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& New Hampshire Primary Monitor -- for $15 Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 09:14:34 -0500 From: Primary Monitor One last, shameless pitch for New Hampshire Primary Monitor -- the best online source of news about the first-in-the-nation primary. The action is heating up, and we give you front row seats, with a database that includes thousands of stories written by New Hampshire journalists, enough poll results to make your head spin, press releases uploaded from the campaigns, ad analyses, invaluable lists of contacts and more. Check it out at http://www.cmonitor.com/primary For the next couple of days, enter username = lastcall and password = primary to check it out. Then sign up, for only $15 for an individual. Geordie Wilson editor &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Listserv for Folks Interested in Community-Building Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 22:06:32 CST Sender: NEW-LIST - New List Announcements From: Jack Graham mv2spk on listproc@InterNex.NET Moved to Speak - Community Building MV2SPK is an open, unmoderated discussion list for people who have been to a Community Building Workshop sponsored by FCE, the Foundation for Community Encouragement. Also, for people who are interested in Scott Peck's methods of community building as in his books "The Different Drum" and "World Waiting to be Born." Open, honest, civil dialog is the model - an on-going community. To subscribe, send the following command in the BODY of email to listproc@InterNex.NET subscribe mv2spk YourName For example: subscribe mv2spk John Smith Owner: Jack Graham &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& American Library Association Updates Library Bill of Rights Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 08:58:00 -0800 From: "Carl M. Kadie" CC: fight-censorship+@andrew.cmu.edu I have the recent version 2.0 draft in ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/library/computer.draft.ala I'll create: ftp://ftp.eff.org/pub/CAF/library/computer.ala as soon as I get a copy of the final policy statement. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& National Archives and Records Administration Now Online Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 17:36:47 -0600 (CST) From: Debra Steidel Wall Subject: National Archives Online Resources Sender: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum NARA LAUNCHES NEW ONLINE RESOURCES The National Archives and Records Administration has released two new public access services and a new agency homepage that allow, for the first time, the public to search NARA databases over the Internet. *** NARA AUDIOVISUAL INFORMATION LOCATOR (NAIL) DATABASE**** The NAIL database contains 81,000 series and item-level descriptions of material held by the Still Picture Branch and the Motion Picture, Sound, and Video Branch , as well as information about ordering copies. Data come from existing databases and from card catalog scanning projects, and will continue to grow. Address: http://www.nara.gov/nara/nail.html **** GOVERNMENT INFORMATION LOCATOR SERVICE (GILS) DATABASE**** The GILS database is NARA's response to OMB Circular 96-01 that mandates that all Federal Agencies make available online information about automated information systems and a catalog of information products by January 1, 1996. Address: http://www.nara.gov/gils/gils.html or Z39.50: gils@wais.nara.gov **** NARA HOMEPAGE **** The existing gopher-based homepage has been replaced with a new front end that utilizes World Wide Web technology. Address: http://www.nara.gov/ Comments, suggestions, and criticisms are encouraged and needed. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Comptroller of the Currency Offers Bank and Reinvestment Info on the Web Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 16:07:42 EST From: Paul Havemann Bank Regulator Goes On-Line The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Administrator of National Banks, is on the web at http://www.occ.treas.gov/ . As a bank regulator, the OCC's site offers "a wide range of information about bank supervision," with info by and about the OCC (bios, PRs, publications, regional office addresses, etc). Also available are CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) performance ratings, which will be of interest to community activists and others. What's more, members of the public can now electronically file FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) and Privacy Act requests with the OCC at FOIA-PA@occ.treas.gov, and can submit comment letters in response to Federal Register proposals at regs.comments@occ.treas.gov. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Richard Gephart's Tax Reform Debate Website (versus NTU's Reality Check) Date: Wed, 07 Feb 96 09:21:37 -0500 From: David Hakala http://www.house.gov/democrats/taxplan/taxplan.html He's inviting online debate of the 10% flat tax. [For what it's worth, I was somnambulistically channel-swapping on the satellite in the last day or so, and stumbled into C-SPAN just in time to hear the Exec Dir of the National Taxpayer's Union go into some detail about how Gephart was among those who most often voted for spending increases, and also among those who least often voted for spending decreases. He may talk the talk of fiscal responsibility, but he don't seem to walk the walk. Oh well, it's not *his* money ... it ours' -- and our childrens'. --jim] &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Flat-Tax: Anyone Know of Information Sources or *Useful* Forums? From: LownB@aol.com Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 22:48:19 -0500 Hi Jim! Great job you're doing. Keep up the good work. I was wondering if there is any info on the so called *flat tax* out there besides how much the government will save? [Aside from the following item, if someone passes along info about such a listserv or forum - preferably including a *brief* summary of their impression(s) -- I'll share it a forthcoming GovAccess. --jim] &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Flat-Tax, Income Tax, Nat'l Sales Tax: A Website for those Discussions From: LewisPA@aol.com (Peter Lewis) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 23:52:31 -0500 I have been reading about the flat tax recently, and I came across an interesting Web page that belongs to an organization called Citizens for an Alternative Tax System. They are proposing elimination of the income tax and substituting a national sales tax of 16-18%. The part I like the most is that we won't need the IRS any more and we won't have to tell them all the details of our personal lives. They have some interesting things to say and I thought your other readers might be interested. Here's the URL: http://www.intac.com/~gbaren/cats.html &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Tax Share vs. Income Share -- Hard Data(?) in Place of Media/Political Hype From: YISROEL.MARKOV@EY.COM Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 13:45:48 -0500 The following information on the distribution of the [federal only!] tax burden is culled from the IRS data by the Tax Foundation. Bear in mind that adjusted gross income is gross income (including interest and capital gains) less deductions for self-employment tax and health insurance, IRA deductions, and foreign-earned income exclusion. Also, the figures conceal mobility between income groups. E.g., when people sell their homes (and don't qualify for the once-a-lifetime $125,000 gain exclusion) or businesses upon retirement, the capital gain usually bumps them into the top 10% or higher for that year only. With that in mind... INCOME GROUP SHARE OF TAX SHARE OF INCOME AVERAGE TAX RATE ------------ ------------ --------------- ---------------- Top 1% 28.8% 13.8% 27.7% Top 5% 47.3 27.8 22.6 Top 10% 58.8 39.1 20.0 Top 25% 79.2 62.5 16.8 Top 50% 95.2 85.1 14.8 Bottom 50% 4.8 14.9 4.3 Relate this to the net worth data previously provided in GovAccess and the conclusion is not surprising: the rich own disproportionately more assets (relative to their portion of income) because they are better at retaining wealth. Makes sense: suppose person A makes $50,000 (after taxes) and spends $45,000 on basic necessities, and person B makes $75,000 and spends the same. B makes 50% more than A, but his investable income is 500% greater. "Tax the rich, feed the poor, till there ain't no rich no more" :) | Yisroel "Izzy" Markov, CPA yisroel.markov@ey.com | | Voice: (617) 859-6909 | | Ernst & Young LLP, Boston Fax: (617) 859-6207 | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------| | :) ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI. | ["A good tax is what others pay; a bad tax is what I pay." --unknown (jim)] &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Moderated Listserv about Single-Payer Universal Health Care Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 16:36:46 CST Sender: NEW-LIST - New List Announcements From: James Ramsell SINGLE-PAYER on majordomo@peak.org Discussions on universal health care SINGLE-PAYER is a moderated discussion of a universal health care system. Benefits are discussed, i.e, better service, reduced bureaucracy, coverage of every American citizen, reduced cost to those paying for care, and how cost escalation is controlled. From time to time, detractors views will be discussed with information from trustworthy sources to set the record straight. Polls show that the majority of Americans support such a system. To subscribe, send e-mail to majordomo@peak.org and in the BODY of the message put: subscribe single-payer Owner: James Ramsell ramselj@peak.org &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Government-Granted Knowledge Monopolies versus Public Health To: internet_censorship@monad.net Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 21:49:10 -0800 (PST) From: MichaelP Subject: Intellectual property against the public interest On Jan 19, NY Times reported on the unlocking of the genetic code for Staphylococcus aureus, a common cause of hospital infections, and that the discovery will be made available to scientists until a patent is secured, at least 18 months hence. Today Jan 23, two MD's wrote in to say "The death rate from infectious disease in the United States increased almost 60 percent between 1980 and 1992. How many preventable deaths and illnesses may be occurring during delays necessitated only to protect a dubious area of private property?" The MD's were respectively, a professor at the University of Massachusetts and a dean emeritus, U. of Michigan School of Public Health. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Some of the Organizations that Censor-Prone Clinton & Congress Ignored Now that the giant telecomm corps have completed their purchase of the Telecommunications "Reform" Act, with massive bi-partisan support and eagerly signed into law by Prez Clinton, here's a note from last month of *some* of the public-interest citizen organizations that those well-paid incumbents ignored. --jim Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 00:21:30 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh cc: fight-censorship+@andrew.cmu.edu Subject: Groups opposing telecom bill On Thu, 25 Jan 1996, James Love wrote on the telecomreg mailing list: > A member of Congress is interested in knowing what groups, firms or > associations oppose the telecom bill, as it presently stands. Quite a > few groups, including the long distance coalition, seem to have folded > their tents. ... James: Dozens of groups oppose the telecom bill. A good number of their representatives or members are on the fight-censorship mailing list, to which I've copied this message. An incomplete list, courtesy of VTW, is attached below. We're opposing the telecommunications bill for multiple reasons. One is that the "indecency" provisions in Section 502 would criminalize Constitutionally-protected online speech. Another is that this ostensibly "deregulatory" legislation would cripple the continuing growth of the Internet industry by subjecting it to an unprecedented amount of government interference and intrusion. -Declan // declan@eff.org // My opinions are not in any way those of the EFF // American Civil Liberties Union * American Communication Association * American Council for the Arts * Arts & Technology Society * biancaTroll productions * Boston Coalition for Freedom of Expression * Californians Against Censorship Together * Center For Democracy And Technology * Centre for Democratic Communications * Center for Public Representation * Citizen's Voice - New Zealand * Cloud 9 Internet *Computer Communicators Association * Computel Network Services * Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility * Cross Connection * Cyber-Rights Campaign * CyberQueer Lounge * Dorsai Embassy * Dutch Digital Citizens' Movement * ECHO Communications Group, Inc. * Electronic Frontier Canada * Electronic Frontier Foundation * Electronic Frontier Foundation - Austin * Electronic Frontiers Australia * Electronic Frontiers Houston * Electronic Frontiers New Hampshire * Electronic Privacy Information Center * Feminists For Free Expression * First Amendment Teach-In * Florida Coalition Against Censorship * FranceCom, Inc. Web Advertising Services * Friendly Anti-Censorship Taskforce for Students * Hands Off! The Net * HotWired Magazine * Inland Book Company * Inner Circle Technologies, Inc. * Inst. for Global Communications * Internet On-Ramp, Inc. * Internet Users Consortium * Joint Artists' and Music Promotions Political Action Committee * The Libertarian Party * Marijuana Policy Project * Metropolitan Data Networks Ltd. * Michigan Electronic Communities of Concerned Adults * MindVox * MN Grassroots Party * National Bicycle Greenway * National Campaign for Freedom of Expression * National Coalition Against Censorship * National Gay and Lesbian Task Force * National Public Telecomputing Network * National Writers Union * Oregon Coast RISC * Panix Public Access Internet * People for the American Way * Republican Liberty Caucus * Rock Out Censorship * Society for Electronic Access * The Thing International BBS Network * The WELL * Web Review Magazine * Wired Magazine * Voters Telecommunications Watch [Common Cause and other watchdog organizations have reported that the telecomm giants spent *millions* of dollars in "donations" to the President and members of their Congress who had any significant control over this bill. More than a few of us have wondered what interesting examples of donation timing between the public statements of opposition and later statements of support will surface, from incumbents seeking re-election, once the contribution reports are finally filed and some diligent souls can slog through them to see how this citizen-free special-interest legislation was engineered. --jim] &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Unclassified Milspecs Now on the Web Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 13:34:41 -0600 (CST) Subject: Dept. of Defense Index of Specs & Stds. on Internet Sender: Public-Access Computer Systems Forum To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L From: ctozier@dtic.mil (Claire Tozier) The Department of Defense Index of Specifications and Standards (DoDISS) is NOW available on the Internet on the Defense Printing Service homepage - Defense Printing Service Detachment Office (DPSDO) Philadelphia (URL: http://www.dtic.mil/dps-phila). The DoDISS, which is searchable, lists the unclassified Federal and Military specifications, standards, and related standardization documents, and those non-government standards adopted for DoD use. To directly access and search the DoDISS, use URL: http://www.dtic.mil/dps-phila/dodiss To access this information you need a forms compatible Web browser. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Govt for Sale: Modern NYC Public Records -- For Those Who Can Afford It Date: Mon, 22 Jan 1996 22:46:45 -0800 (PST) From: "J. T. Johnson" Subject: NYC selling tax payer's data If you get PC Week, look at the Jan. 15 issue, p. 94, lower left corner. The good city of New York is running an an: "Request for Information: Marketing City Databases." It says: "...[NYC] is seeking information on ways the City can offer, market and sell its most frequently publicly accessed and requested data, specifically enhanced data." I suppose "enhanced" means, as in "enhanced with your tax dollars." [Citizens *BEWARE!* The new term that's becoming popular with loot-hungry bureaucrats who want to sell *modern* [online] public access to public records for maximum profit -- rather than for the cost of providing the public access -- is that it's "enhanced" information ... simply by being computerized for their internal need and convenience, computerized at tax-payer expense, after being collected at tax-payer expense, usually under force of law. It's sorta like pretending that *printed* information is "enhanced," while hand-scribed information is standard. Another example of Government Against the People. --jim] &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Suprise! Teachers' Union Calls for Curbs on [Net-aided] Distance Education Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 13:46:13 -0600 (CST) From: "Sloan, Bernie" Subject: Distance Learning To: Multiple recipients of list PACS-L The American Federation of Teachers will be publishing a paper in late February dealing with distance education. The paper will be titled "Teaming Up With Technology: How Unions Can Harness the Technology Revolution on Campus," and was developed by the AFT's Task Force on Technology in Higher Education. The current issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education (1/26/96, p.A20) reports on a draft version of the AFT paper. The article ("Faculty Group Calls for Caution and Curbs on Distance Education") begins "Higher Education's largest faculty union wants to put the brakes on distance education", and later notes that "Union activists say it's time that someone injected a little skepticism into the discussion." There's also a reference to library services. In paraphrasing remarks by the Task Force's chair, the article notes that "actually going to a library to conduct research is better for students." &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& "The basic idea which runs right through modern history and modern liberalism is that the public has got to be marginalized. The general public are viewed as no more than ignorant and meddlesome outsiders, a bewildered herd." --Noam Chomsky [via rpoole@nav-arch.com] Mo' as it Is. --jim Jim Warren, GovAccess list-owner/editor (jwarren@well.com) Advocate & columnist, MicroTimes, Government Technology, BoardWatch, etc. 345 Swett Rd., Woodside CA 94062; voice/415-851-7075; fax/<# upon request> To add or drop GovAccess, email to Majordomo@well.com ('Subject' ignored) with message: [un]subscribe GovAccess YourEmailAddress (insert your eaddr) For brief description of GovAccess, send the message: info GovAccess Past postings are at ftp.cpsr.org: /cpsr/states/california/govaccess and by WWW at http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/states/california/govaccess . Also forwarded to USENET's comp.org.cpsr.talk by CPSR's Al Whaley. May be copied & reposted except for any items that explicitly prohibit it.