Document qmjj3wvJvqZrKjpnQMDV5vank

ROGER FOLEY SACRED COWS election George Bush and Michael Dukakis each received $46.1 million for their campaigns. Political parties also receive funds to cover national convention expenses. But a lack of public knowledge about the check off and the presidential cam paign fund has contributed to a decline in the number of people who check "yes,*" which directs a dollar of the taxes already owed to the fund. What's more, the checkoff amount has never been adjusted for inflation, even though a dollar in 1972, when the checkoff was created, is now worth 36 cents. These two factors are expected to trigger a sub stantial shortfall for the 1996 election and have led to pro posals to increase the check off amount. Working with six profes sional organizations, the FEC has targeted tax profes sionals, who prepare nearly half of all individual tax re- 0 IN UOTES "[T h e re a r e ] f e w lies m ore pronounced than the w ords uttered by fem inists " -- Rep Bill Dannemeyer (R -C alif), April 23. 1991 "There a r e f e w m ale character traits m ore loathsom e than sh o w in g disrespectfo r w o m en ." -- Rep. Dannemeyer one week later turns. In a random sampling the Internal Revenue Serv ice found that 18.8 percent of professionally prepared tax returns in 1989 failed to check either "yes" or "no," compared to 11.2 percent of returns completed without a professional. Failure to check a box is the equivalent of "no." Realizing that tax prepar ers are "on the front lines of the tax checkoff question," the National Society of Pub lic Accountants (NSPA) has urged its members to "rec ognize [their] obligation to help taxpayers make an in formed choice." Some tax preparers are prejudiced against the dollar checkoff. "The tax prepar er's bias is going to have an overwhelming sway on the taxpayer's decision," says Peter Berkery, director of federal affairs/tax counsel for the NSPA. Berkery esti mates that more than half of his group's 23.000 members have negative feelings about publicly funded campaigns. There's also a "screw the system" mentality among some clients, he says. Some tax preparers would rather skip the question al together. "If you figure 10 minutes to interview a client and five more minutes to ex plain that the checkoff doesn't affect your tax rate, most preparers, us included, just don't ask. Normally we leave it blank," says James J. Fromi, a tax preparer and president of Taxbyte. a tax software development firm. Other preparers take a different view, arguing that public financing increases the average taxpayer's polit ical power. Jeffrey Lane, a certified public accountant in Jessup. Md.. says, "If a taxpayer is especially dis gruntled with the politicians and the system, check `yes' to change it." --A.Y. CLEANING UP DISINFECTANTS The Environmental Protec tion Agency (EPA) is look ing into allegations that the manufacturer of a popular household disinfectant con cealed evidence that the so lution contained trace amounts of dioxin, an indus trial contaminant believed to pose health risks. There are different kinds of dioxin, which occur as by products in some chemical manufacturing. Scientists disagree about whether there is such a thing as a "safe" level of exposure. Monsanto discovered TCDD, the most potent form of dioxin, in its disin fectant. called Santophen. in the early 1970s. But Mon santo continued making the disinfectant and did not in form the makers of Lysol -- Lehn & Fink Products -- about the dioxin problem out of fear that the company would stop buying Santo phen, according to testimo ny given by Monsanto offi cials in a 1985 court case. Monsanto also did not in form EPA about the con tamination of Santophen with TCDD as required by federal law. according to Cate Jenkins, a senior scien tist in EPA's regulatory branch. EPA is reviewing Monsanto's failure to relay this information as part of a larger probe of allegations that Monsanto falsified health effects studies in an effort to hide potential health risks from exposure to dioxin. In 1983 Monsanto stopped manufacturing San tophen. But Dow Chemical and other companies began selling similar disinfectants. Today the offending chemi cal is used in some 127 cleaning products, including liquid Lysol. and all of them should be rested for dioxin, according to Jenkins. In 1985 scientists at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) stumbled onto the presence of dioxin in one cleaning solution when they July August 1991 Common Cause Magazine 7 NO SACRED COWS were developing a method for identifying TCDD in hu man fat tissue and other forms of dioxin showed up in their testing materials. It turned out that there was dioxin in the solution used to wash the jfloors in the building where the laborato ry was located -- and the so lution was identical to one previously made by Mon santo..In a paper published in 1986 the scientists said they ft "this cleaning solution does not present a health risk to workers"; at the same, time, however, they cited a |l975 study sug gesting a possible connec tion between exposure to it and a type of liver disease that has been linked to dioxin. [ Thus far EPA has yet to look into the question of whether a niimber of disin fectants are contaminated by dioxin, although Jenkins believes there's enough evi dence to suggest that the problem is widespread. She also raises concms about the possible stockpiling of Santophen. p n e Canadian company, Ostrem Chemi- cal, continued using the product untjl May 1990, ac cording to owner Roar Tungland. | Lehn & Fink says it tested samples of iLysol dating from the' use of Santophen between thej early 1970s and 1983 and found no dioxin. The company also says it is confident, based on assur ances from its current sup plier, that trie disinfectants it manufactures today are ` dioxin-free. But Jenkins still questions whether the1products are dioxin-free, Jgiven the seem ingly consistent contamina tion of disinfectants with the troublesome byproduct. --Anthony L. Kimery (Anthony Kimery is a Wash ington writer.) The U.S. Postal Service -- the butt of so many com plaints about inefficient service -- is on its toes in one way the average mail recipient might not appreci ate. The same system that en ables the Postal Service to forward your mail to a new address, also alerts scads of direct marketers -- from the folks at your favorite mail order company to those pes ky tricksters who say they have a special gift waiting if only you'll call -- to your new whereabouts. The system seems to work for better and for worse. For better: You get the mail you want and the Postal Service saves time and money by not delivering mail to the wrong address. For worse: Junk mailers you never wanted to hear from discover your new address and waste no time making use of it. Postal officials insist that they share change-ofaddress information only with those who already have your old address. But thanks to the large-scale selling and renting of customer lists among direct mail market ers, some companies that never knew you existed will have your particulars. ] The Postal Service for wards about 2.3 billiop pieces of mail a year fjpr the 40 million Americans ^ho move annually, at a cost of some $1 billion, says Bob Krause, director of the Postal Service's National Change of Address j (NCOA) system.. j NJeanwhile 19 companies, including some of the largest direct-marketing list man agement firms, pay the5Post al Service an annual fee of roughly $48,000 to receive computerized NCOA up dates every two weeks. These "licensees" then pro vide the updated informa tion to their customers, who pay for address changs for consumers already on their mailing lists. . j The Post Office places great importance on kep- ing address-correction 'infor mation secure, Krause says, and the licensees must1fol low strict guidelines oi| what they can do with it. They may not use the information to develop mailing lists. But direct marketers who prop erly obtain the information from the Post Office o its li censees can make it avail able to others with impunity Ann Zeller, vice presi dent for information and special projects of the Diret Marketing Association, cor cedes that firms can buy names from a direct mailer who has a consumer's new address. Evan Hendricks, editor c the Washington-based Pri vacy Times newsletter, is "very suspicious" of the sys tern. Without realizing it, in dividuals who complete change-of-address cards ar< "permanently giving away their addresses to anyone who asks for them," he says and that should be clearly * J ->-*?* v f * : ^ . . 2 / i cL --_ * - -j' -_rvvi'"'- h>' i -- i j j w - Ultimate cost of the Superfund toxic waste site cleanup program, as calculated by reporter F r a t Viviano of the Sm Fnmasca Chronicle: $1 triMea Soutce;;Hotline 8 Common Cause Magazine Jul\ Aimuv^'i1 V