In This Issue : Enter the 3-letter anchor name, which will link to the articles below. (2) TITLE GOES HERE: Enter the article's title --> SUBHEAD --> Role of Federal Gov't at the Center of Post-September 11 Debates Economic Stimulus Package Charitable Giving Incentives May Be In Economic Stimulus Bill Will There Be a Stimulus Package that Actually Does? Nonprofit Sector IRS Publishes Guidelines For Election Year Activities IRS FY 2002 Workplan Targets Audits, Issues Agencies Behind In Developing Uniform Application Procedures McConnell Introduces Bill On Fraudulent Solicitations Federal Budget Appropriations Round-Up Information Policy and Technology Right-to-Know Reconsidered NARA Electronic Records Management Rule GOVNET NPTalk: Web Animation -- Is it right for you? Reader Responses Right-to-Know and Terrorists; Economic Stimulus and Energy SIDE BAR: Budget: CTJ - Stimulus Package Tax Cuts Would Nearly Double Bush Tax Cut; Economic Stimulus Hearing; Progressive LA Conference Role of Federal Gov't at the Center of Post-September 11 Debates There is no dispute that feelings of national unity since the September 11 terrorist attacks have been strong. For example, there is widespread support in Congress for an economic stimulus bill and for overhauling airport security. Yet just beneath the surface lies fundamental differences about the role of government that will likely make it difficult to achieve the objectives voiced with national unity, particularly with regard to these two pieces of legislation. The Gallup Organization released the results of a poll on October 12 that showed six out of 10 Americans now say they trust their government, a level not seen since 1968, and half want the government to do more to solve the country's problems. This percentage is the highest it has been in the nine years that Gallup has been asking the question. On the eve of the terrorist attacks, Gallup found 36% who wanted the government to do more. Whether the sharp uptick is temporary, however, only time will tell. However, it is consistent with public opinion research done before the attacks that found the public wanted to see the government invest more in the future of the country with federal resources. In many ways, the issue about the role of the federal government is an unresolved issue lingering from the last national election. It appeared to drop from the radar screen after September 11. But suddenly, as specific legislation appears, the viewpoints that represent essential ideological differences also appear. Few dispute the need to strengthen airport security. However, Senate Democrats are advocating a bill that federalizes baggage checking, noting that the privatization of such security has not worked. Creating a federal regime is anathema to conservatives that believe in downsizing government. As Majority Leader Richard Armey (R-TX) said in a post-tax cut July 5, 2001 message, "Did we Republicans come to Washington merely to slow the growth of leviathan government? Or did we come to shrink and re-limit it? I say we came here to shrink and re-limit it... Restraining government [through the tax cut] was step one. Step two is roll-back." (Emphasis not added.) At the same time, the public demands a government that serves to protect us. The conservative framework simply does not work in the aftermath of September 11. Yet Congress may become locked in a battle over federalizing or privatizing airport security, putting the needed legislation in jeopardy. The same can be said of the economic stimulus legislation that is discussed in other stories in this issue. It is widely supported that Congress should pass something that can help to stimulate the economy. But passage of such legislation will need to leap the ideological divide. Republicans that believe in less government argue vehemently that the stimulus should be done through tax cuts, including the acceleration of the large tax cut that was enacted earlier this year and large corporate tax cuts. Even though most economists note that such tax changes will not create immediate stimulus, Republicans remain grounded in such proposals. Of course, tax cuts -- even temporary ones -- leave less in federal resources to spend on programs. Progressives have been arguing that the stimulus requires immediate spending and, to the extent that there are tax cuts, they must be targeted to stimulate the economy. Providing support to state and local governments that are facing economic downturns and budget shortfalls is essential, they argue. Putting resources into infrastructure, such as high-speed rail, provides jobs and invests in our future. Providing resources for those affected by September 11 helps to stimulate the economy and is compassionate. Wise federal spending can payoff in long-term dividends and, at the same time, help immediately get the economy going. These two legislative initiatives -- airport security and economic stimulus -- represent a broader issue about the role of the federal government. We believe it is time to tell our elected leaders that we want a strong federal government, that it is time to wisely invest in our future -- whether that means strong federal regulation of airport security or new federal spending to stimulate the economy or other initiatives. Until we voice our opinion, national unity will likely translate into improved civility in Congress but with continued roadblocks on key legislation. Back to Top Charitable Giving Incentives May Be Part of Economic Stimulus Bill There is renewed discussion in Washington of the President's faith-based initiative. However, there seems to be little interest in Congress for addressing the charitable choice provisions this year. Instead, the focus has turned to the charitable giving proposals. On Capitol Hill there is discussion of including a charitable deduction for non-itemizers and funds for technical assistance to small community based charities in the economic stimulus package being debated (see related story, this issue). Many charities that serve low-income communities have expressed concern about ongoing donations, especially in the wake of the September 11 attacks. These charities provide services and assist those most impacted by the economic downturn. Some have argued that inclusion of charitable giving incentives in the economic stimulus package is a good way to provide relief across the board. The charitable giving incentives being discussed follow the plan in S. 592, a bill sponsored by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) and Rick Santorum (R-PA). It would allow a 50% deduction for non-itemizers that contribute over $500 in the first year after passage, increasing the deduction by 10% every year until it reaches 100%. It also would allow tax-free donations from rollovers of Individual Retirement Accounts and deductions for food inventory. The estimated cost is $50 billion over ten years. This formula could change, depending on the make-up of the total stimulus package. The version passed by the House in H.R. 7 would cost $13.3 billion over 10 years, and is too small to stimulate new giving. It was opposed by OMB Watch as too small to be meaningful. The prospects for movement on the giving bills have been revived by discussions between the administration and Lieberman and Santorum. If an agreement is reached, the charitable choice portion of the President's initiative, which would allow religious congregations to get direct federal grants, would be tabled, allowing the non-controversial giving incentives to move forward. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) has been holding off consideration of H.R. 7 because of its charitable choice provisions. Decisions are being made quickly on the stimulus plan. If you have a viewpoint, you should share it with your Senators and Representative. OMB Watch has established a vehicle to facilitate direct communication with your state and federal lawmakers. For more information on this issue, see OMB Watch's alert. Back to Top Will There Be a Stimulus Package that Actually Does? As Congress began its formal work last week on constructing an economic stimulus package, there was agreement on only a few items, foremost of which is that the bipartisan spirit of the last month has all but disappeared over the course of this debate. With each side accusing the other of being responsible for the demise of bipartisanship, it seemed that the primary cause was a mutual loss of focus on many of the economic stimulus principles the Administration and party leaders from both houses had agreed on less than two weeks ago, namely:

• The economic stimulus package should consist of temporary measures only and should not threaten the long-term budget outlook or raise long-term interest rates;
• It should be made up of both tax cuts and spending measures; and
• It should immediately address the economic effects of the events of September 11 including the further slow-down of the economy and the thousands of workers who have been laid off since September 11.

It was against this backdrop that the House Ways and Means Committee met on Friday, October 12 to begin to markup the "Economic Security and Recovery Act of 2001" (H.R. 3090) -- Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas's (R-CA) version of the President's proposal. The bill, which includes numerous tax breaks both for corporations and individuals, totaling $99.5 billion in FY 2002, was approved in the committee in a straight party line vote, 23-14. Among the tax reductions for corporations are:

• An increase in the amount a company is allowed to deduct in the first year of a purchase of property used in generating the company's income;
• Acceleration of the timeline companies use in calculating the depreciation in value of their equipment; and
• Repeal of the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).

The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated that the total cost of these corporate tax cuts, from 2002-2006, would be $112 billion. The elimination of the corporate AMT comprises 20% of the 5-year cost of the corporate tax breaks. We agree that temporary changes in depreciation scheduling and the "depreciation bonus" would give businesses an incentive to purchase new equipment and, thus, would be an effective economic stimulus. Repeal of the corporate AMT, on the other hand, is unlikely to do any immediate good for the economy, and permanent repeal will weaken our long-term budget picture. The total 5-year cost of those provisions aimed at individual taxpayers is $80 billion. The key proposed tax cuts for individuals are:

• A rebate (up to $300 for an individual) for those 35 million people who did not receive the rebate from the earlier tax cut bill because their incomes were low enough not to require an income tax payment in 2000;
• Acceleration to January 1, 2002, of the June tax cut package's drop of the 28% marginal tax rate to 25%, which was scheduled to take place in 2004;
• Reduction of the capital gains tax rates from 10% to 8% and 20% to 18%; and
• An increase in the individual AMT exemption

Among these, the acceleration of the drop of the 28% marginal tax rate is the most expensive. At a 5-year cost of $53.7 billion, it comprises 28% of the total $195 billion cost of the proposal, and while the reduction sounds like a "middle-class" tax cut, it actually benefits those who make more money, since it is people with higher incomes who will realize the full benefit of that tax bracket rate reduction. In response to what they described as being "frozen out" of the discussion, House Democrats will be issuing a substitute stimulus package later this week. According to a report in BNA, key elements of their proposal include:

• A rebate for the 35 million people who did not receive tax rebates earlier this fall (this component is the same as that put forth in H.R. 3090);
• A two-year -- instead of the Republicans' permanent -- waiver of the corporate AMT;
• $15 billion in expansion of unemployment benefits; and
• $17 billion to continue health care insurance for the unemployed.

House Democrats are said to be offsetting the cost of their stimulus package by freezing the next reduction in the top marginal rate, scheduled to occur in 2004. Democrats estimate that holding the top rate at its current level of 38.6% will impact 0.7% of all households and would raise $91 billion. It is not clear when the Senate will begin its work on the stimulus package, although Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) has noted that when it does the focus will be on the type of proposals to be included in the House Democrats' proposal. In addition, Daschle is looking to provide more money for national security projects, including strengthening the nation's response system to biological terrorism and its rail infrastructure. The House bill could be ready for floor debate this week. There are a number of measures we believe would be most successful at giving the economy a jumpstart while taking care of those who have already been hit by the effects of the slow-down: tax rebates for low-income families, who are most likely to spend them right away; expensing and depreciation tax breaks for companies that will use them to facilitate the purchase of new equipment; spending that will address the needs of unemployed workers in this very new new-economy, as well as on the improvement of existing and creation of new schools, rail infrastructure, and our public health system, which will help create jobs while it works to provide complete and long-lasting domestic security. Ultimately, however, without a commitment from all sides of the debate to crafting an economic stimulus package that will actually stimulate the economy, we will be left only with an expensive but ineffective tax cut package -- again. Read more on the economic stimulus packages of House Republicans and Democrats. Back to Top IRS Publishes Guidelines For Election Year Activities The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has published an updated staff training manual on election year activities by exempt organizations, including 501(c)(3) charitable and educational organizations and political committees exempt under Section 527. The last manual was published in FY 1993. While this Continuing Education Program (CEP) manual cannot be cited as a legal authority, it contains a rich store of information on the law and provides the public with the same guidance used by IRS staff. The Question and Answer format covers the history of restrictions on electoral activity, sanctions, allowable activity for 501(c)(3)'s and activities of individuals associated with them, relationships between 501(c)(3)'s and political committees, and reporting for Section 527 political committees. The full text is available on the IRS website. The CEP text also addressed some new issues, including issue advocacy and educational activity. The manual suggests that "more than just a positive or negative correspondence between an organization's position and a candidate's position" is required for a finding of [prohibited] campaign intervention in an issue advertisement, noting that there must be "some reasonably overt indication" of support or opposition. The deciding factor is whether a statement focuses on the issue or the candidate. To distinguish between educational materials that express a viewpoint on an issue and electioneering statements, the text suggests that four factors be considered:

• Whether a significant portion of the communication is unsupported by fact
• Whether distorted facts are cited
• Whether the communication contains inflammatory and disparaging terms and conclusions based on emotion instead of objective analysis, and
• Whether the approach does or does not take the audience's background or training into account. As always with IRS rules on electioneering, the facts and circumstances surrounding a communication or activity are used to determine if a violation of the prohibition for 501(c)(3) organizations has occurred.

The 2000 law requiring filing and disclosure by Section 527 political committees is reviewed in detail in the text, including treatment of separate segregated funds of 501(c)(4) organizations. The appendix includes examples of permissible and impermissible affiliations between charities, social welfare organizations and PAC's. Another chapter of the CEP text addresses accuracy in reporting on IRS Form 990, the annual information return for exempt organizations. The entire CEP text is available online in HTML or PDF formats. Back to Top IRS FY 2002 Workplan Targets Audits, Issues The Exempt Organizations unit (EO) of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced a new approach to compliance and determination of exempt status applications for FY 2002 in an announcement on October 5. The emphasis will move away from a general case load to a project-based approach that focuses on segments of the nonprofit community and a greater presence through outreach efforts and increased compliance activities. The announcement stated the IRS's intent to select 90 - 120 organizations from six segments for random audits. The segments are social services, religious organizations other than congregations, labor unions, social clubs, business leagues and community trusts. Among the top issues to be reviewed are 501(c)(3) organizations that are making improper contributions to candidates for office, filing and reporting compliance by 527 (PAC) organizations, and groups that have filed Form 990 but have not requested exempt status recognition. Regarding Internet-related activity, EO Director Steven Miller said they may address simple questions relating to corporate sponsorship rules, but did not mention action on lobbying or other advocacy related Internet communications. He also hopes to implement a flexible system for compliance checks where more information is needed without going through a full-scale audit. The full text of the FY 2002 IRS EO work plan is available on the IRS website. Back to Top Federal Agencies Behind In Developing Uniform Grant Application And Reporting Procedures In 1999, Congress passed the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act (FFAMIA), which requires federal agencies to develop simplified, uniform procedures for grant applications, reports and audits, including electronic options for nonprofits to both send and receive information. In May of this year the agencies, led by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), sent a report to Congress outlining their plans for implementation. (See OMB Watch's summary of the goals and targets in the plan.) The project has developed Federal Commons, a central federal website for grant information. It links to information on specific grant areas, such as education and housing, the payment management system and the federal audit clearinghouse. In addition, the Chief Financial Officers Council has created a Grants Management Committee to coordinate implementation activities, and provide information on the web. The May plan called for publication of a pamphlet on audit procedures, completion of a baseline examination of application requirements, and an assessment of the reasons for differences among agencies or programs, especially those that serve similar purposes. A similar examination of reporting forms and payment systems was also undertaken. However, at the beginning of October officials said the task is more complicated than anticipated, and the entire timeline will probably run about 90 days behind. The agencies' need to assist with responses to the September 11 attacks has also slowed the process. OMB Watch will continue to monitor grant simplification activities, and inform the nonprofit community of new developments. Back to Top McConnell Introduces Bill On Fraudulent Solicitations Responding to reports of fraudulent fundraising in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has introduced S. 1484, which would make it a federal crime to knowingly and fraudulently solicit donations for "an alleged charitable organization, or an alleged charitable or beneficial purpose" when a Federal disaster or emergency has been declared. The penalty for violation of this provision would be no less than five years in prison, a fine and an order to pay restitution to any victim. The bill also requires telemarketers soliciting donations to "promptly and clearly disclose" their purpose in seeking contributions, and gives the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) jurisdiction to require other disclosures it deems appropriate. Back to Top Appropriations Round-Up Congress passed its second continuing resolution (CR) on October 11, extending funding at FY 2001 levels through October 23. (The first CR, passed on September 25, expires tomorrow, October 16.) Given that only one FY 2002 appropriations bill has been sent through the House-Senate conference process, however, it seems unlikely that this CR will be the last. The appropriations process is still moving along rather slowly, as Congress continues to grapple with, among other issues, the economic stimulus package (see related story, anti-terrorism bill, and airport security legislation. On October 10, however, a House-Senate conference did approve the first appropriations bill of the year. The $19.1 billion Department of the Interior bill includes a ban on drilling in land designated as a national monument. The conference agreement, however, does not address the controversial efforts to permit drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and so the current ban will remain. The House is expected to vote on the Conference report later this week, although it is not clear when the Senate will get to it. On October 11, the House, by a vote of 373-43, passed the FY 2002 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. The bill provides for $123 billion to cover discretionary spending for the new fiscal year. The Department of Labor (DOL) received $14.1 billion in the bill, $2.45 billion of which will go to programs for training dislocated workers and other adult workers. Although several programs were cut, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) did receive some increases, including a 4% increase for Head Start, a 10% increase for the Child Care and Development Bock Grand (CCDBG), and a 6% increase for substance abuse and health programs. The Department of Education received a 16% increase and will operate at a $51.8 billion funding level this year. This reflects last week's agreement between the White House and Congress to officially raise the discretionary spending limit to include the extra $4 billion for FY 2002 education spending needs. The House Budget Committee approved a measure on October 11, which formally legislates the increase in the discretionary budget caps from $661.3 billion to $686 billion. It is not clear, however, what the next steps will be for this bill, or when the Senate will address it. Thus, as we move in to the third week of FY 2002, Congress still has 12 of 13 appropriations bills to settle in conference committees, only 7 of which have are ready. The House still must take up the Defense bill, and the Senate still has Defense, Labor-HHS-Education, Agriculture, Foreign Operations, and the District of Columbia. All bets are that at least a third CR will be needed before Congress has finished funding the government for FY 2002. Back to Top Right-to-Know Reconsidered Following the tragic events of September 11, right-to-know advocates, including OMB Watch, are re-examining criteria that should be used by government agencies in determining whether to make information publicly accessible. No one wants government or non-governmental web sites to provide information that could be used to harm the public. At the same time, it is government's responsibility to provide information that can serve to protect the public, including information that warns of potential dangers. The balance between providing information to safeguard the public and withholding information to thwart terrorism is a delicate one that needs greater attention. Consistent with our country's democratic principles of openness, transparency, and accountability, OMB Watch's general feeling is that the presumption should side with public access. Yet clearly access should not always win out, particularly in light of the increased terrorist threat. The Federation of American Scientists, for instance, recently removed from its web page maps and floor plans for various nuclear facilities. In this case, the Federation determined that the public benefit in providing the information was minimal since it was primarily used by researchers; yet potentially, it could be used in a terrorist attack. Moreover, the information was not publicly available elsewhere. This decision, following a considered weighing of the costs and benefits of disclosure, makes sense to us. Contrast this, however, to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Risk Management Plans (RMPs), which were recently removed from the agency's web site. These plans provide the public with information about the dangers of chemical facilities in our communities -- including each facility's hazard assessment, prevention program, and emergency response plan. Here, the decision to remove the data (because HREF="/ombwatcher/ombw20010917.html#chm">chemical facilities are seen as a possible terrorist target is hardly clear cut, and indeed, OMB Watch has argued against it. The EPA action is quite surprising given the most controversial part of the RMP's -- the worst case scenarios -- was not even on the EPA web site. This means that families across the country are robbed of information about dangers. Disclosure of toxic releases has been particularly effective. For instance, in the 11 years since facilities began reporting under the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) -- which provides data to the public on toxic releases and waste management practices -- total toxic discharges have declined 45 percent, thanks in large measure to public pressure. Looked at this way, disclosure of RMP information can be seen as a tool to address the terrorist threat (as well as the everyday threat chemical facilities pose to surrounding communities). After all, removal of RMPs does not remove the problem, namely chemical hazards. We are just sticking are heads in the sand, and in the process, thwarting free and robust debate that might lead to real improvements. Nonetheless, we recognize that disclosure of information can present risks in itself -- risks that should be considered next to the benefits of disclosure -- and as stated earlier, sometimes information will need to be withheld. Since Sept. 11, much has already been removed from government web sites, as this list indicates. (OMB Watch will continue to provide an inventory of how public access to government information is changing.) In trying to figure out the appropriate guideposts for what information to disclose and what to withhold, we invite you to provide us with any comments or ideas you have at HREF="mailto:ombwatch@ombwatch.org">ombwatch@ombwatch.org. Back to Top Request for Comments on NARA Electronic Records Management Rule On October 10, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) posted a Notice in the Federal Register requesting federal agency and public comment on an advance notice of a proposed rulemaking on how electronic records are managed, scheduled and preserved. This proposed rulemaking is in response to an October 2000 petition for rulemaking NARA received from the Public Citizen Litigation Group (Public Citizen). The notice fulfills a promise NARA made in January to solicit comment on two of the three proposed changes presented in the Public Citizen petition. The petition requested that NARA amend rules concerning the management, scheduling and preservation of text documents created in electronic form, including the provisions of General Records Schedule 20 concerning word processing and e-mail. One proposal under consideration concerns the requirement that record-keeping systems need to preserve the content, structure and context of a record. The other proposal requested that NARA mandate that before approving new electronic information systems or enhancements to existing systems that produce, use, or store text documents, agencies must conduct an initial appraisal of the records associated with the system and incorporate disposition instructions for such records into the electronic information system's design. NARA will accept comments until January 8, 2002, and will use the feedback to decide whether any regulatory amendment or other changes are necessary. Comments must be sent to: Regulation Comments Desk (NPOL) Room 4100, Policy and Communications Staff National Archives and Records Administration 8601 Adelphi Road College Park, MD 20740-6001. They may also be faxed to 301-713-7270 or sent via the Internet to comments@nara.gov. For further information contact: Nancy Allard at 301-713-7360, ext. 226. Back to Top GOVNET On September 10, 2001, President Bush's recently appointed cyberspace security advisor Richard Clarke announced plans for a new online government communications network called GOVNET, which would be separate from the Internet. The General Services Administration (GSA) has issued a Request for Information (ROI) for industry players to propose ideas for actually building and implementing the system. Though the announcement and issuing of the ROI was made almost one month after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Clarke has stated that planning for GOVNET actually started as far back as December 2000, when he served as President Clinton's National Security Council coordinator for infrastructure and counter-terrorism protection. GOVNET would be built upon existing Internet protocols. While it would not support all government communications, it would provide a unified messaging medium -- combining Internet telephony, fax, e-mail, and video among other content -- through which critical government communications among agencies could be distributed. GOVNET would not be tied to any other public, private, or Internet-related networks, including the academic/researcher-built Internet 2. The system, which for now would only stretch across the 48 contiguous states, also emphasizes security and encryption controls on par with those recommended by the National Security Agency (NSA). Skeptics and critics alike, however, stress that no system is foolproof. Vendors would have to design their products with respect to the overall systems in place, rather than simply submitting existing turnkey or "off-the-shelf" approaches. The federal government would have to own the telecommunications infrastructure, rather than simply lease telecommunications services, in order to control security. In order to ensure the tightest possible security, all staff and vendors involved would have to be thoroughly screened and monitored themselves to ensure that nothing is compromised throughout the design, implementation, and operating phases. This requires a delicate balancing act between determining the base of necessary information personnel across agencies and fulfilling public information needs, without making such a system ultimately difficult for government users. Proposals for GOVNET are due by November 21, 2001, but there will also be an information exchange meeting for potential respondents to discuss particulars around the ROI. Back to Top NPTalk: Web Animation -- Is it right for you? Web animation is witnessing a growth among nonprofit organizations. While potentially able to attract and engage larger numbers than traditional direct mail and e-mail campaigns, there are still questions as to whether it is useful and cost-effective for organizations. NPTalk recently spoke with firms behind some of the most popular nonprofit animation campaigns on the Web, to help groups determine if animated campaigns are right for their needs. Back to Top Reader Responses RE: A Post-September 11 Attack on Right-to-Know Being the rabid patriot that I am, I believe all Americans have the "right to know," especially when it comes to chemical plants and industries in their communities. I applaud your efforts. However, I do believe this information should not be randomly posted on a web site for access by every individual. Information about a company's practices and chemical uses and pollution abatement (or non-abatement for that matter) should be available to all "citizens" through a process that protects that information from getting into the wrong hands. I don't know what that process might be, but I am certain that we can collectively work together to develop a system that both provides the information we all need to know and yet deters (maybe not completely) individuals who seek that information for more sinister or terrorist plans. America is an open society and that is how we enjoy our freedom. But we cannot be blinded by that right and fail to see that some measures of protection have to be implemented. It is absolutely necessary for us to limit access to certain information, or have a better way of monitoring who is accessing such information. I don't think this challenges our freedoms. Instead of having information on a website where it is accessible by any individual, in any country, perhaps inquiries could be designed in your website for the information to be mailed to an individual's residence. This may not deter a terrorist, but it may help alert a company or authorities to someone who might use such information to hurt others. Orwellian, perhaps, but I don't think now is time for Big Brother paranoia. Becky Williams * * * * * * * I think the state agencies that pulled data from their web sites made a very wise choice! If someone needs that particular information, since it is public information, they can get it the old-fashioned way -- hard copy -- with proper I.D. Elizabeth Pitts * * * * * * * I believe you should voluntarily take your database offline until the main terrorist networks are dismantled. I understand this will take 2-4 years, but the potential for loss of life by the misuse of the information on this site is huge. While I find the info here fascinating, I can wait until the consequences of such attacks are made clear by our current response to the 11 Sept 01 WTC/Pentagon attack to see more. You may want to take out some specifics permanently though, to thwart home-grown terrorists. It will be a tough decision, but for now it should be easy. I would hate to find that in trying to prevent disaster, I was an integral part of making my own worst nightmares come true. For now, the risk is just too high, especially with the publicity. Thanks for your time, S. Marc Prince CNC Machinist/former NBC (Nuclear/Biological/Chemical) team specialist Atlanta, GA RE: Economic Stimulus Package Here's a proposal for an economic stimulus in light of the tragic events of September 11th and October 7th: President Eisenhower passed the National Highways Act in 1956 by convincing Congress that this generously funded federal works program was essential for our national security. As the Congress debates the components of a $75 billion economic stimulus package, in the wake of the tragic assault on our nation, serious consideration should be given to an investment in sustainable energy on the scale of the National Highways Act. With a solar panel on every roof in America, windmills down the center of our windswept Great Plains and sited off the shores of our gusty oceans, we would be well on our way to energy self-sufficiency. Rather than bail out the gas-guzzling airlines, we would be far better off subsidizing our auto industry to develop the infrastructure that would support the already technologically feasible hydrogen fuel cell to power our automobiles. We would then be free of the need to compromise our principles in order to maintain our access to oil from corrupt, undemocratic governments. We could cut our military spending and infrastructure substantially. Tens of thousands of new jobs would be created. We would avert the perils of global warming and would have a decrease in diseases as our air becomes more pure. A commitment to jump-start the economy with a National Sustainable Energy Act would bring many blessings to America. We know the technology is available. Why is this not being discussed seriously? Alice Slater Back to Top Notes and Sidebars House Stimulus Bill Would Nearly Double Bush Tax Cuts over Next 3 Years A new analysis issued by Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ) estimates that the economic stimulus package approved by the House Ways and Means Committee on Friday, October 12 would almost double the size of the Bush tax cut package signed in June. The CTJ piece also shows that in FY 2002, 41% of the tax cuts provided for in the stimulus package would go to the top 1% of all taxpayers and only 7% of the tax cuts would go to the bottom 3/5 of taxpayers -- the very segment of the population, whom most economists have advised are most likely to spend their tax rebates. (See related story, this issue.) Economic Stimulus Hearing The Senate Budget Committee will hold a hearing on economic stimulus Thursday, October 18 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Witnesses for the hearing have not yet been announced. Check the Budget Committee website for updates. Progressive LA Conference: The Campaign for America's Future and the Progressive Los Angeles Network (PLAN) are hosting a conference on October 20. "Progressive LA: The Next Agenda," will address 5 main issue areas: new parks in low-income neighborhoods; groundbreaking living-wage laws; progress towards a $100 million housing trust fund; new fleets of clean buses to replace polluting diesel; and a national strategy to fight recession and rebuild America. The conference will be held from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the California Science Center in Los Angeles. More information and registration materials are available online.