The report summary states:

IRS Collection Practices. The National Taxpayer Advocate’s 2006 Annual Report to Congress raised a number of concerns about IRS collection practices. Joint working groups have been established to work on five issues – levies, allowable living expense standards, installment agreements, offers in compromise, and early intervention techniques. However, the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate remains concerned about additional collection issues, including resorting to seizures before all viable collection alternatives have been exhausted, under-utilization of partial-pay installment agreements, and excessive delays in collection that exacerbate taxpayer delinquency problems because of the accumulation of interest and penalties. The IRS is working with the Office of the Taxpayer Advocate to address these concerns, and the collaboration will continue in FY 2009.

Other areas of emphasis for FY 2009 identified in the report include monitoring the private debt collection program, working with the IRS to assist taxpayers with disproportionate tax liabilities due to alternative minimum tax resulting from the exercise of incentive stock options (known as “ISO/AMT” tax liabilities), working with the IRS to address problems and inefficiencies in the correspondence examination program, and updating a 2003 report on the standards and structure of federal ombudsmen offices.

The full 190-page report may be found here.

In recent testimony before Congress, the National Taxpayer Advocate reiterated her call for repeal of the IRS’s authority to use private collection agencies (PCAs) to collect delinquent taxes. The National Taxpayer Advocate has identified the Private Debt Collection (PDC) program as a serious problem facing taxpayers and the tax administration system in her last three Annual Reports to Congress. In these reports, we have expressed a number of concerns about the PDC initiative, including potential taxpayer rights violations and the transparency of PCA procedures to the public and to congressional oversight.

In this report, we identify three new concerns about the PDC initiative:

• The IRS’s own collection actions account for a significant portion of the PDC program’s full-paid accounts;

• The IRS has left cases in the control of PCAs for much longer than originally intended; and

• The IRS has not provided a clear reconciliation of PCA accounts.
. . .
Since the inception of the program, the National Taxpayer Advocate has raised numerous concerns about the PDC initiative. She has focused on three, in particular:

• The PDC program is probably a money loser when foregone revenue is taken into account;

• The IRS’s cost estimates of the PDC program are incomplete; and

• The IRS’s inventory of “easy” cases for PCAs to work has dried up.

The report goes into detail on each of these points. One that is particularly interesting is how cost-ineffective using private debt collectors is compared to using regular IRS employees.

Here is the NTEU's take

Independent Taxpayer Advocate Details Serious Problems with IRS Private Tax Collection Program

Washington, D.C.—The National Taxpayer Advocate, an independent voice within the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), has found serious new problems with the agency’s use of private tax collectors—including an issue that sharply undercuts the fundamental premise of the program.

In a mid-year report to Congress, Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson—who has previously called for the program’s end—said the IRS is now giving to private tax collectors outstanding cases involving complex issues that IRS employees are currently working to resolve. Further, the report found that IRS costs are underreported and that the IRS’s own collection actions account for a significant portion of the revenues attributed to the private collection program.

“Placing these types of cases with the (private tax collectors) runs directly counter to the premise on which the program was based—namely, giving (them) only the easy types of cases the IRS itself would not work,” Olson told Congress. She called that “disturbing, because this initiative was premised on the IRS having large numbers of cases that a simple phone call could resolve.”

President Colleen M. Kelley of the National Treasury Employee Union (NTEU), who has been leading the fight to end the privatization of this inherently governmental function, called the Olson report “damning evidence of the folly of continuing this costly and misguided program.”

Further, the NTEU leader said, the Olson analysis “shows that a significant portion of the money claimed to have been collected by the private companies came in to the Treasury as the result of the IRS’s own collection actions. It is clear there is no supportable rationale for continuing this program.”

Olson was sharply critical of the cost-benefit ratio of the IRS program, providing data suggesting that the use of private tax collectors costs the government about $78 million a year in foregone revenue.

Moreover, she said, the IRS—which is overseeing the program with 54 of its own employees—is failing to separately track all expenses related to it. “As a result,” she said, “the costs of the program are understated by an unknown amount.”

The Taxpayer Advocate also took the IRS to task for extending the period during which the private collectors may retain a given case. “It is unclear why the IRS would run the risk of leaving taxpayers’ confidential tax information with outside contractors for extended periods of time when the contractors are taking no productive action on the case,” she said.

Olson noted that of the nearly 43,000 cases placed with the private collectors for at least a year, only 21 percent have had “a meaningful disposition”—and nearly 40 percent of those dispositions were the result of a payment generated by IRS action—not the actions of the private collection agencies.

“The Taxpayer Advocate has found that the costs of this program are higher than the IRS is reporting and the revenue is far lower,” President Kelley said. “This is an unsustainable program and I echo the call of the independent National Taxpayer Advocate to immediately end this sham.”

• NTEU,
• federal-employees,
• privatization,
• debt-collection,
• IRS

Here is a the NTEU take on the battle over privatizing Homeland Security's Human Resource work. The lucky Privateer is Lockheed-Martin.

On Friday, it was reported:

The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee yesterday criticized the Transportation Security Administration for its decision to outsource management of the more than 40,000 transportation security officers employed by the agency.

Lockheed Martin announced July 8 that it had been awarded an eight-year, $1.2 billion contract to manage the TSA’s Integrated Hiring Operations and Personnel Program. The company said it will develop and deploy a personnel system that supports the recruitment, hiring, payment and promotions of all TSA employees.

On Thursday, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., who chairs the homeland committee, criticized the TSA for outsourcing the work.

“At present, I fail to understand how this contract will benefit the Transportation Security Officer workforce, and what the contract will actually require the vendor to do to alleviate the known problems at TSA,” Thompson wrote to TSA Administrator Kip Hawley.[emphasis added]

link

In my opinion and experience, it makes no sense to contract out personnel departments, human resource functions, HR - call it what you will. Nothing is more important to the success of an organization that its people. And the only way to thrive is to treat your employees professionally and appropriately.

In addition, you need to be on the same team. The essence of privatization is that you are not on the same team. The point of the contract is to make money for the contractor. So even at best, it creates divided loyalties. At worse, it creates chaos.

Here is more of the story, followed by the position statements of the NTEU.

And GovExec.com reported:

Thompson, in a five-page letter, requested information on 14 concerns related to employment practices and policies, worker morale and contract terms. Many of the inquiries originated in findings published in two recent reports by the Homeland Security Department Office of the Inspector General.

“I am concerned that the TSO workforce is suffering from a problem-plagued environment, which has led to fatigue and low morale,” Thompson wrote.

“As the backbone of your agency, these frontline employees deserve clear guidelines, proper training, career development and a safe and healthy work environment. I am certain that you share my concern for their well being. However, these problems cannot be ‘outsourced’ away,” Thompson wrote.

The NTEU's Position

The NTEU's position on this boondoggle could not be clearer. Of course it is in the union's interest to oppose privatization, but, given the abysmal track record for privatizing federal work, their interest coincides with our interest.

TSA Chooses the Wrong Path in Contracting Its Human Resource Duties, Kelley Says

Washington, D.C.—The leader of the union representing Transportation Security Administration (TSA) employees at three major airports today called a decision by TSA to award a massive contract to perform its human resource activities over the next eight years “another step down the wrong path by a troubled agency.”

“TSA is planning to spend $1.2 billion on this eight-year deal. I wonder how many TSA employees could be hired from the profit made by Lockheed Martin? And air travelers across the country should be wondering how that money could be used to reduce congestion at security checkpoints in our nation’s airports,” said President Colleen M. Kelley of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU).

The $1.2 billion contract, which in part consolidates work being performed by various other private contractors, was awarded to Lockheed Martin Corporation. It includes support for recruitment and hiring; the handling of employee records; the processing of paychecks, as well as health and retirement benefits; and research into strategic workplace planning.

“TSA may well be the worst of the worst, when it comes to human resource issues and this contract will do little to change that,” Kelley added.

President Kelley said NTEU is in discussions with members of Congress about this contract, and that a number of them have expressed an interest in examining the need for and wisdom of such a move by the agency.

TSA is a unit of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which consistently ranks at or near the bottom among major federal agencies in Office of Personnel Management surveys on issues impacting employee satisfaction with their workplaces. In May 2008, a DHS Inspector General report detailed serious failings in TSA’s internal dispute resolution process.

A major part of the continuing problems at TSA—which have led to a dangerously high turnover rate—is centered on its much-maligned, confusing and subjective pay system. Even recent modest changes in that system have done little to address employee concerns about fairness and transparency in pay matters.

President Kelley has argued strongly for a variety of key changes at TSA—including moving employees to the General Schedule pay system and granting them the same rights to bargain collectively that are widespread throughout DHS.

NTEU is supporting H.R. 3212, introduced by Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), which would grant such rights by statute; at present, the head of TSA has the sole discretion to decide whether or not to grant TSA employees collective bargaining rights. To date, the answer has been no.

Such rights would give this important group of employees who play a major role at the front lines of the nation’s security a meaningful voice in their pay, scheduling, awards and other important workplace issues. It would, the NTEU leader has argued, go a long way toward cutting unacceptably high attrition and establish much-needed stability in an important position.

Here is the second NTEU press release on this issue:
Key House Chairman Voices Concerns over TSA Contracting Human Resource Functions; Workforce Issues

Washington, D.C.—The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee has voiced his serious concerns with a $1.2 billion Transportation Security Administration (TSA) private sector contract to perform a wide range of human resource activities over the next eight years—and he wants answers to a raft of questions about the matter.

The letter from Committee Chairman Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss.) to TSA Administrator Kip Hawley comes one day after President Colleen M. Kelley of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) was sharply and publicly critical of the TSA contract with Lockheed Martin Corp. NTEU has been working with the Homeland Security Committee to provide information from frontline employees on workplace issues.

“The profit Lockheed Martin will make from a $1.2 billion deal could be used to increase staffing and reduce congestion at our nation’s airports,” President Kelley said. “Is that not a much better use of taxpayers’ money?”

TSA is plagued by high turnover and low morale, stemming in large part from a pay system widely seen as confusing and subjective, as well as a workplace where their voices are not heard on such important issues as training and scheduling.

In a five-page letter to Hawley, Rep. Thompson called TSA’s Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) “the backbone of your agency,” and said these front-line employees “deserve clear guidelines, proper training, career development and a safe and healthy work environment.”

He added: “I am certain that you share my concern for their well-being. However, these problems cannot be ‘outsourced’ away.”

As President Kelley pointed out yesterday, the TSA contract would put Lockheed Martin in a position of supporting TSA recruitment and hiring; handling employee records; processing paychecks, and health and retirement benefits; and providing research into strategic workforce planning. Rep. Thompson has asked for information—by July 31—on these and a number of other matters relating to the contract.

The lengthy letter was one of two sent this week by Rep. Thompson to Hawley on workplace matters within the committee’s jurisdiction.

The initial letter seeks detailed information on staffing, operations and others matters relating to the TSA Office of Ombudsman. This letter comes in the wake of a report by the TSA inspector general about problems with the dispute resolution mechanism at TSA. President Kelley was sharply critical of TSA when that report was made public in late June.

“This report provides clear evidence of the need for collective bargaining rights for TSA employees including an effective and negotiated grievance procedure and having issues heard and decided by a neutral and outside third-party arbitrator,” the NTEU leader said. NTEU is leading the fight for legislation that would provide TSA employees with such rights.

Among other problems, the IG report cited instances of TSA managers using intimidation to discourage employees from taking advantage of internal processes—including use of the Office of Ombudsman. One employee, the IG said, allegedly was reprimanded for talking with the Ombudsman’s office—and then reprimanded a second time when he complained about the first reprimand to the same office.

“Without an effective and independent office that is empowered to be both advocate and defender,” Rep. Thompson wrote, “TSA employees will continue to face challenges in the workplace without appropriate institutional support.”

“The key to creating a stable, functioning agency able to meet its important responsibilities to the American people is for TSA employees to be granted collective bargaining rights,” President Kelley said. NTEU supports a measure, H.R. 3212, that would provide for such rights—which are presently widespread throughout the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). TSA is a unit of DHS.

The DHS Inspector General's May 2008 report describes problems with DHS current operation of its HR function.

No doubt, there will be more in the near future.

• labor,
• unions,
• National-Treasury-Employees-Union,
• NTEU,
• federal
• employees,
• privatization,
• contracting
• out,
• government,
• DHS,
• Homeland
• Security,

Finally, assurances by officials at food safety agencies like the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have been exposed as probable lies. But, are the officials who made those assurances being held accountable?

U.S. government officials are not alone in misleading consumers about the safety of the food supply. But, as the New York Times noted in a 2004 article, “Instead of learning from the mistakes of other countries, America now seems to be repeating them.”

France, Spain, Italy, Germany and Japan banned imports of British beef -- yet they denied for years there was any risk of mad cow disease among their own cattle. Those denials proved false, once widespread testing for the disease was introduced. An investigation by the French Senate in 2001 found that the Agriculture Ministry minimized the threat of mad cow and ''constantly sought to prevent or delay the introduction of precautionary measures'' that ''might have had an adverse effect on the competitiveness of the agri-foodstuffs industry.'' In Tokyo, a similar mad cow investigation in 2002 accused the Japanese Agriculture Ministry of ''serious maladministration'' and concluded that it had ''always considered the immediate interests of producers in its policy judgments.'' - New York Times, January 2, 2004

If we do not begin to hold government officials accountable for making what appear to be reckless public health claims, we can expect such abuses to continue - potentially with graver consequences if terrorists take advantage of the hubris.

Importantly, newspapers reporting the GAO’s recent findings failed to name the officials who gave empty assurances to consumers even as thousands of consumers, many of them children, sickened or died from foodborne illness. Those who repeated unproven claims in order to protect industry profits at the expense of public health seem destined to escape meaningful accountability. But, their deeds should not be allowed to disappear from the public memory. Listed below are names and claims no consumer should ever forget.

Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, FDA Commissioner, HHS
“…the United States still has the safest food supply in the world, according to FDA Commissioner Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach.”
- Washington Post, November 7, 2007

Richard Raymond, Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety, USDA
“We work closely with our sister agencies – such as the FDA – to ensure that the U.S. food supply remains the safest in the world."
- May 9, 2007 Congressional testimony
“I know that our food supply in America is the safest in the world, and it is by far safer than it's ever been.”
- The National Provisioner, September 1, 2005

Mike Johanns, Secretary, USDA
“The research funded by these grants will help us to find new and innovative ways to ensure we continue to have the safest food supply in the world,” Johanns said.
- Food & Drink Weekly, October 3, 2005

Garry L. McKee, FSIS Administrator, USDA
“Working together we can all assure that we continue to have the safest food supply in the world.”
- January 5, 2004 FSIS letter to industry (AR-News)

Ann Veneman, Secretary, USDA
"As far as I know, there has not been a credible threat against our food," she said when pressed about the GAO report. "But that is what our job is all about -- to make sure that the American food supply remains the safest in the world, and so we are maintaining a high alert to protect our lives and liberty."
- Nation's Restaurant News, March 31, 2003

Catherine E. Woteki, Under Secretary for Food Safety, USDA
Before I begin, I would like to thank you for your past support--not just for Fiscal Year 2000, but particularly since 1993, when food safety programs were significantly expanded. Your support has greatly helped to ensure that the U.S. food supply remains one of the safest in the world, thus fulfilling our responsibility to the American people.
- Congressional testimony, March 21, 2000

Dr. Jane E. Henney, FDA Commissioner, HHS
"The Clinton administration has consistently demonstrated its commitment to food safety and ensuring that the United States continues to have one of the safest food supplies in the world," said Dr. Jane E. Henney, FDA Commissioner. "Today's efforts should go a long way toward preventing illness that has been attributed to eggs in the past."
- HHS news release, November 30, 2000

Donna E. Shalala. Secretary, HHS
"While the U.S. food supply remains one of the safest in the world, these new findings further support what we have said all along: the public health burden of food-borne disease is substantial," said HHS Secretary Donna E. Shalala.
- CDC news release, September 16, 1999

Dan Glickman, Secretary, USDA
“The more we improve the world's safest food supply, the more value we add to U.S. agriculture and the greater the contribution we make to the public health.”
- USDA press release, February 23, 1999
]]> crooks/thieves/miscreants http://www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=2181 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 18:15:17 -0400 http://www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=2182 I like to trawl for new reports and studies up on various sites. There are several that caught my interest over at Open CRS. Two deal with current issues in the economy, and one is a report on Public-Private Partnerships to build roads and other transportation infrastructure.

First, for those who have not heard of Open CRS, here is a summary of what they do.

American taxpayers spend nearly $100 million a year to fund the Congressional Research Service, a "think tank" that provides reports to members of Congress on a variety of topics relevant to current political events. Yet, these reports are not made available to the public in a way that they can be easily obtained. A project of the Center for Democracy & Technology, Open CRS provides citizens access to CRS Reports that are already in the public domain and encourages Congress to provide public access to all CRS Reports.

CRS Reports do not become public until a member of Congress releases the report. A number of libraries and non-profit organizations have sought to collect as many of the released reports as possible. Open CRS is a centralized utility that brings together these collections to search.

Unfortunately, there is no systematic way to obtain all CRS reports. Because of this, not all reports appear on the Open CRS web site. CDT believes that it would be far preferable for Congress to make available to the public all CRS Reports.

And now, here are the reports. You can read the full report at the link given for each.

This first report uses a question and answer format to walk Jane Q. Public through the intracies of part of the financial fallout from the mortgage crisis.

Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's Financial Problems: Frequently Asked Questions No.RS22916 (July 15, 2008)

Recent turmoil in the housing and financial markets have caused concern over the future of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are chartered by Congress as governmentsponsored enterprises (GSEs) and are widely believed to have an implicit guarantee from the federal government. Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulsen, Jr. has proposed legislation to increase the two GSEs’ line of credit with Treasury from its current $2.25 billion each to an unspecified higher amount and to allow Treasury to purchase stock from Fannie and Freddie. The Federal Reserve has taken actions to allow Fannie and Freddie to borrow directly from the Fed.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) — the GSEs safety and soundness regulator — has repeated assurances that Fannie and Freddie have adequate capital, but as highly leveraged financial intermediaries Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have limited resources against losses.

And while we are on the subject of money, how about US trade policy, which has created a money funnel sending US jobs abroad. Or, on the other hand, are just bowing to the inevitible and done the work of the invisible hand.

The Future Role of U.S. Trade Policy: An Overview No.RS22914 (July 14, 2008)

The United States has become increasingly integrated with the rest of the world economy. This integration has offered benefits and presented challenges to U.S. business, agriculture, labor, and consumers. Those who can compete in the more integrated economy have enjoyed opportunities to broaden their success, while those who are challenged by increased foreign competition have been forced to adjust and some have exited the market or relocated overseas. Some observers contend that, in order to remain globally competitive, the United States must continue to support trade liberalization policies, while assisting those hurt by trade. Others have raised doubts over whether free trade policies benefit the U.S. economy (e.g., some blame such policies for the large U.S. trade deficit, declining wages, and growing income disparity).

Many contend that trade liberalization works only when everyone plays by the rules and have urged the aggressive enforcement of U.S. trade laws to address unfair trade practices. Still others maintain that such issues as labor rights, the environment, and climate change should be linked to trade policies. These competing views are often reflected in the struggle between Congress and the Executive branch in shaping U.S. trade policy. This report provides an overview and background on the debate over the future course of U.S. trade policy and will be updated as events warrant.

Finally on highway privatization, I have to say, having looked at the footnotes, that this is a very narrow overview of the subject. It virtually ignores the heavy tax subsidies and other give aways - and acts as if noncompete agreements are just part of normal competitiveness. But noncompete agreements get rid of competition. I notice that they cite Poole and his home "think" tanks, the Far Righwing Reason folks. They may claim this is just a think tank, but anyone who reads their products can see that they are evangelists for privatization. No actual thought involved.

Public-Private Partnerships in Highway and Transit Infrastructure Provision No.RL34567 (July 09, 2008)

Growing demands on the transportation system and constraints on public resources have led to calls for more private sector involvement in the provision of highway and transit infrastructure through what are known as “public-private partnerships” (PPPs). A PPP, broadly defined, is any arrangement whereby the private sector assumes more responsibility than is traditional for infrastructure
planning, financing, design, construction, operation, and maintenance. This report describes the wide variety of public-private partnerships in highways and transit, but focuses on the two types of highway PPPs that are generating the most debate: the leasing by the public sector to the private sector of existing infrastructure; and the building, leasing, and owning of new infrastructure by private entities.

PPP proponents argue that, in addition to being the best hope for injecting additional resources into the surface freight and passenger transportation systems for upkeep and expansion, private sector involvement potentially reduces costs, project delivery time, and public sector risk, and may also improve project selection and project quality. Detractors, on the other hand, argue that the potential for PPPs is limited, and that, unless carefully regulated, PPPs will disrupt the operation of the surface transportation network, increase driving and other costs for the traveling public, and subvert the public planning process. Some of the specific issues raised in highway operation and costs include the effects of PPPs on trucking, low-income households, and traffic diversion. Issues raised in transportation planning include noncompete provisions in PPP agreements, unsolicited proposals, lease duration, and foreign control of transportation assets.

On the question of new resources, the evidence suggests that there is significant private funding available for investment in surface transportation infrastructure, but that it is unlikely to amount to more than 10% of the ongoing needs of highways over the next 20 years or so, if that, and probably a much smaller share of transit needs. With competing demands for public funds, there is also a concern that private funding will substitute for public resources with no net gain in transportation infrastructure. The effect of PPPs on the planning and operation of the transportation system is a more open question because of the numerous forms they can take, and because they are dependent on the detailed agreements negotiated between the public and private partners. For this reason, some have suggested that the federal government needs to more systematically identify and evaluate the public interest, particularly the national public interest, in projects that employ a PPP.

And, consider, why aren't these reports made public? Why do they have to go through this intermediary?

• privatization,
• budget,
• economy,
• trade,
• CRS,
• Open-CRS

You know the kind. Everything is electronic. So while I was in the stall, the electronic toilet, which must be set to sense when someone comes in and give them so much time and then flush, managed to flush several times during what was not an inordinate length of time there or a time that involved more than the basic necessities of visiting a toilet. It managed to flush as I came in, then as I was enthroned (which is unnerving), and as I was adjusting my garments. I find it's not unusual for this sort of toilet to flush at all times except when flushing would be the right and proper thing to do.

I wondered just how much electronics, water, and energy got over-used in that one visit, especially compared to the old fashioned mechanical system, which seems to work fine - pushing a button, flipping a lever, etc. That old-fashioned system takes only human energy, and it is a darned sight more accurate about just when to flush.

How much in terms of energy, transportation, assembly, etc in the costs of the electronics in that toilet? Where were they made, what materials were used in them? What is the damage to the earth?

Then once out of the stall, I was dependent on the kindness of strangely functioning electronics to give me some soap to wash my hands (which blobbed out in enormous quantities), turn on the water (only one temperature which was scalding), and give me a towel (after a lot of hand waving per instructions and then I got enough towel for a number of visits). It would make a good scene in a comedy by Charlie Chaplin transported to our modern times.

So, again, what are the costs in energy, building expense, transportation, jobs, etc? These suckers are expensive too. Just the electronic sensor and we're talking nearly $500 for the part. For example, the Toto TET1DNCS-32 Commercial Electronic Toilet Flushometer Valve, 1.6 Gpf, 1 1/2" V.B. - Chrome costs $438 - discounted from $584.00. That's just the valve. One valve. Toilet not included.

And then I thought back to the great northeastern blackout of 2003. There were enormous economic losses as a result.

This is a clip from CBS that first day. While they show what happens with transportation - or lack thereof - they missed out on what happened as the days went by. Everything that depended on electricity was gone.

It was a very hot time in the summer. No air conditioning. Refrigerators started to get hot and food to rot. People with gas stoves could cook - even though the electronic ignition might not. As long as you had matches.

The blackout covered such a large area, it was almost impossible to escape its impact. For one thing, there was the problem of lack of information as radios, televisions, and the internet were dead. And then there was the problem of getting gas, since the pumps couldn't pump, and credit cards couldn't be processed. You had no idea whether you could drive anywhere that was any better, and even if you did know, you probably couldn't gas up the car to get there.

As it went on, things just got worse and worse. Cell phones could not be recharged. Eventually landlines died. Cash registers could not function, so most business shut down. Charge cards could not be verified. Water could not be purified in many places.

Or take this example,

5:15 p.m. Arrived at the Motel 6 (livin' large on a shoestring) only to be told by a city worker in the parking lot that the power was out in the area. The desk clerk then emerged from the motel's dark foyer and said that we wouldn't be able to check in as all the locks were run on electricity (whatever happened to the days when a good old fashioned metal key could open a door instead of a credit card?).

link

But get your head back into that washroom. It would still get used, but the toilets, now, instead of flushing all the time, would not flush at all. People would need to keep using them. They would get filled and be filthy. And soap? Not available? Water? Not available. A very unhygenic situation.

Suddenly a 21st century restroom would be like a quick visit to the sort of scene you'd expect to see in 18th or19th century slums. All that stands between the modern and this scene is power and how it is used. Meanwhile all the restrooms with mechanical appliances would still work.

This sound trivial, I know, but expand its meaning as we modernize. Think about how fragile life becomes with so much basic infrastructure dependent on the perfect functioning of electronics. Think how vulnerable we are - unnecessarily so in many cases by the installation of electronics when human power will do.

Just think about the many places where the use of electricity to make something work will cause havoc when it doesn't. How about those automatic doors at so many buildings these days? How about sealed buildings that depend on electricity to be habitable? How about card keys, key pads, and other electronic guards on buildings.

Start thinking about it, and the list can get pretty long.

And think about sustainability and the power sucked up each minute by those electronic eyes, always on, waiting to give us more flushes than we need or want. Is this a wise use of resources when electronics are not necessary?

Is this the way we should be going? Is anyone asking these questions when they design these buildings?

So maybe we all need to get our minds in the [electronic] toilet before it's too late.

• electricity,
• electronics,
• environment,
• climate,
• buildings,
• design,
• blackout,
• toilets

Well, it's pretty embarrassing. Plutonium is, after all, so they say, the most deadly substance on earth. Not exactly the best way to make a good impression on the visitors.

You want to wash your hands of the whole thing, or at least wash off the plutonium powder that got on your hands. And you know it's not the best impression.

So, well, you maybe finesse the facts just a bit so as not to make a big deal about it.

But then plutonium starts turning up around Boulder:

The Boulder Daily Camera reports that residue from the spill of a "small amount of plutonium" last week at the National Institutes of Standards and Technology in Boulder, Colorado has been found on the floor and tabletops.

The plutonium may have been released into the sewer system after two employees "washed plutonium-containing powder off their hands and into a sink" on June 9.

link

And, even more embarrassing, there's a letter from the House Science and Technology Committee asking you what happened.

Dear Dr. Turner,

We are writing this letter to express our concern over the accidental release of plutonium at NIST’s Boulder Laboratory on June, 9. We are relieved to learn there were no immediate injuries due to the incident, however we are troubled by changing information, that health and safety protocols were not strictly followed, and that clear and accurate information regarding this incident is still not available.

And a hearing.

And even a congressional webpage for the hearing complete with links to witness statements. link

Well, it just shows to go ya, doesn't it, if it's not one thing it's another.

• NIST,
• plutonium,
• public-health

And so we have Faith-Based Worker Protection from the Faith-BasedDepartment of Labor (DOL). Which means you gotta take that you're being protected at faith value, I gather.

The Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division is charged with collecting underpaid and unpaid wages and enforcing violations of the minimum wage and overtime laws (plus prohibitions on child labor). In addition to collecting wages owed, the WHD has the power to prosecute employers in court and to assess and collect penalties from employers as well as other sanctions.

According to a new GAO study that is so not how itis done in this administration. The way it now works is the employer fails to pay wages, admits it wasn't paying, says it doesn't have th emoney to pay, and the WHD tells the law violating employer, "Aw, Gee! Sorry to Bother You." And then the WHD tells the victim to find a lawyer and sue.

GAO identified case studies that show WHD inadequately investigated complaints from low-wage and minimum wage workers alleging that employers failed to pay the federal minimum wage, required overtime, and failed to pay employees their last paychecks. Examples of inadequate WHD responses to complaints included instances where WHD inappropriately rejected complaints, failed to adequately investigate complaints, or neglected to investigate until it was too late. The table below provides examples of several case studies.

Here are some examples from the new GAO study. GAO found that there has been:

(1) a decrease in enforcement activities at WHD amidst a decrease in investigative staff,

(2) WHD’s failure to make effective use of its current compliance tools and strategies, and

(3) the agency’s inability to demonstrate performance results.

The stories of the people hurt by these failures are clear examples of harming the least among us.

Night attendant at assisted living facility/ Ohio

• A homeless woman receiving free room and board while working as a night attendant at a nursing home alleged her employer had failed to pay her wages for an entire year.

• According to WHD, the employer admitted it had failed to pay any wages to the night attendant and considered the room and board to be pay, but stated it did not have any money to pay the back wages.

• WHD dropped the case and advised the night attendant of her right to file a private lawsuit.

• The employer was still in business as of June 2008.

Pool maintenance technician/ Florida

Last paycheck – minimum wage

• Pool maintenance technician alleged that he did not receive his final paycheck from his employer.

• Employer admitted to the WHD investigator that they did not pay the employee’s last paycheck but refused to pay employee.

• WHD dropped case and advised the worker of his right to file a private lawsuit.

Cashier/ Florida
Last paycheck – minimum wage

• Gasoline station cashier alleged he did not receive his final paycheck from his employer.

• According to WHD, the employer agreed that it owed the cashier his last paycheck, but asked the WHD investigator to call back later to resolve the complaint.

• WHD dropped the case after several subsequent calls to the employer were not returned.

• WHD advised the cashier of his right to file a private lawsuit.

Among other things, problems, GAO found that WHD had:

(1) inappropriately rejected complaints based on incorrect information provided by employers,

(2) failed to make adequate attempts to locate employers,

(3) did not thoroughly investigate and resolve complaints, and

(4) delayed initiating investigations for over a year and then dropped the complaint because the statute of limitations for assessing back wages was close to expiring.

Here is how GAO describes the new normal at WHD.

We data-mined WHD’s WHISARD database and found thousands of cases with characteristics similar to the case studies we reviewed. For example, we found more than 16,000 cases, called conciliations, which were similar to some of our case studies because they were opened and closed within 3 days. In addition, we found more than 100 cases that were closed because WHD could not locate an employer, and hundreds of cases that were assigned to an investigator more than a year after the complaint was received.
. . .
We found that in all of the case studies reported in this testimony, WHD inadequately investigated complaints. We identified case studies where initial screening by WHD officials incorrectly rejected valid complaints due to reliance on documentation provided by employers, WHD failed to locate employers implicated in complaints, and WHD’s investigations were limited to phone calls made to the complainant’s employer. We also found examples of complaints that WHD did not attempt to investigate for over a year, eventually dropping the case because the statute of limitations was close to expiring.

The investigative report includes narrative description case after bungled case. For the love of humanity, how can they do this? Yep! Read 'em and weep!

Department of Labor: Case Studies from Ongoing Work Show Examples in Which Wage and Hour Division Did Not Adequately Pursue Labor Violations GAO-08-973T, July 15, 2008

The companion testimony is Fair Labor Standards Act: Better Use of Available Resources and Consistent Reporting Could Improve Compliance GAO-08-962T, July 15, 2008

Here is the GAO's summary of the information included there.

From fiscal years 1997 to 2007, the number of WHD’s enforcement actions decreased by more than a third, from approximately 47,000 in 1997 to just under 30,000 in 2007. According to WHD, the total number of actions decreased over this period because of three factors: the increased use of more time-consuming comprehensive investigations, a decrease in the number of investigators, and screening of complaints to eliminate those that may not result in violations. Most of these actions (72 percent) were initiated from 1997 to 2007 in response to complaints from workers. The remaining enforcement actions, which were initiated by WHD, were concentrated in four industry groups: agriculture, accommodation and food services, manufacturing, and health care and social services. WHD’s other two types of compliance activities—partnerships and outreach—constituted about 19 percent of WHD’s staff time based on available data from 2000 to 2007.

WHD did not effectively take advantage of available information and tools in planning and conducting its compliance activities. In planning these activities, WHD did not use available information, including key data on complaints and input from external groups such as employer and worker advocacy organizations, to inform its planning process. Also, in targeting businesses for investigation, WHD focused on the same industries from 1997 to 2007 despite information from its commissioned studies on low wage industries in which FLSA violations are likely to occur. As a result, WHD may not be addressing the needs of workers most vulnerable to FLSA violations. Finally, the agency does not sufficiently leverage its existing tools, such as tracking the use and collection of penalties and back wages, or using its hotlines and partnerships, to encourage employers to comply with FLSA and reach potential complainants.

The extent to which WHD’s activities have improved FLSA compliance is unknown because WHD frequently changes both how it measures and how it reports on its performance. When agencies provide trend data in their performance reports, decision makers can compare current and past progress in meeting long-term goals. While WHD’s long-term goals and strategies generally remained the same from 1997 to 2007, WHD often changed how it measured its progress, keeping about 90 percent of its measures for 2 years or less. Moreover, WHD established a total of 131 performance measures throughout this period, but reported on 6 of these measures for more than 1 year. This lack of consistent information on WHD’s progress in meeting its goals makes it difficult to assess how well WHD’s efforts are improving compliance with FLSA.

• poverty,
• money,
• work,
• labor,
• wages,
• DOL,
• WHD,
• GAO

I just could never figure this out. Information technology, IT, data, what is more important to keep close to you and away from others than private information and the machinery that runs your agency?

As time passed more and more security breaches occurred, and some were even reported in the general media.

There was the break in at Tri-West, resulting in the theft of computers with data on medical care and benefits for one-third of our military. The security of this office was so poor that the thieves were able to make multiple trips in and out without raising any alarms.

And despite all this the problems with IT and data privatization just kept on coming. There was the giving contractors root access to the IRS computer system, and meanwhile the contractor's employees - in violation of the contract - installed chat and other software that opened a big honkin' highway that hackers could have used to do whatever they wanted.

And it just kept happening.

In 2006, GAO issued a damning report on just unbelievable losses as a result of contracting out information technology. For example, the FBI privatization contract with Trilogy was found in 2006 to have these "qualities" (link):

FBI’s review and approval process for Trilogy contractor invoices, which included a review role for the General Services Administration (GSA) as contracting agency, did not provide an adequate basis to verify that goods and services billed were actually received and that the amounts billed were appropriate, leaving FBI highly vulnerable to payments of unallowable costs. This vulnerability is demonstrated by FBI’s payment of about $10.1 million in questionable contractor costs we identified using data mining, document analysis, and other forensic auditing techniques. These costs included first-class travel and other excessive airfare costs, incorrect charges for overtime hours, potentially overcharged labor rates, and charges for which the contractors could not provide adequate supporting documentation to substantiate the costs purportedly incurred.

FBI also failed to establish controls to maintain accountability over equipment purchased for the Trilogy project. These control lapses resulted in more than 1,200 missing pieces of equipment valued at approximately $7.6 million that GAO identified as part of its review. In addition, in its own inventory counts, FBI identified 37 pieces of Trilogy equipment valued at approximately $167,000 that had been lost or stolen.
. . .
Given the poor control environment and the fact that GAO reviewed only selected FBI payments to Trilogy contractors, other questionable contractor costs may have been paid that have not been identified. If these control weaknesses go uncorrected, future contracts, including those related to Sentinel — FBI’s new electronic information management system initiative — will be highly exposed to improper payments. In addition, the lack of accountability for Trilogy equipment calls into question FBI’s ability to adequately safeguard its existing assets as well as those it may acquire in the future.

This is the FBI, not the local daycare, for goodness sakes. And they just got taken to the cleaners by these scam artists.

Now GAO has done a follow up study to assess how things are going with the FBI and its IT system contract. Things are better - though, recall, this would be better over a deep nadir of quality.

Here is GAO's description of the background conditions:

In May 2001, FBI initiated a major IT upgrade project known as Trilogy to modernize its IT infrastructure and systems and provide needed applications, including a modern investigative case management system, to help FBI agents, analysts, and others do their jobs. In March 2004, after scheduling delays, cost overruns, and a failure to deliver the envisioned case management system component which became known as the Virtual Case File (VCF), you asked us to audit the costs of the project, which then totaled approximately $537 million. Our audit of Trilogy costs identified significant internal control deficiencies over the processing, review, approval, and payment of invoices as well as the accountability and control over assets purchased under the Trilogy project.

In order to improve this situation, the

FBI is now acquiring and deploying a new automated case management system, known as Sentinel, to replace the case management system that was to be delivered as part of the Trilogy project. Sentinel is being developed in four phases at an estimated cost of $425 million and is scheduled to be completed in May 2010. Phase 1 of the project was completed in June 2007

Here are some of the results found to exist now.

To test the accuracy and completeness of this database, we attempted to match the records in it with FBI’s official PMA records and vendor invoices. At the time of our test, most of the records we reviewed from the database contained discrepancies. The bar codes, serial numbers, cost, and other key information for the accountable property items recorded in the database did not agree to PMA records and vendor invoices. Furthermore, these discrepancies had not been detected by the [Sentinel Program Management Office (PMO)] PMO, indicating that it did not have adequate procedures for independently monitoring the accuracy and completeness of the contractor records upon which it was relying to create FBI’s official property record.

So, in other words, contractors checking on the work of contractors. And not exactly doing great work:

Our testing did not identify any missing assets. However, we found 20 property records for which there were valuation discrepancies between the contractor database, PMA, and the supporting vendor invoices. We referred these records to the PMO to investigate and resolve.

Here are some issues GAO mentions but which I find of great concern for quality and cost effectiveness.

1. Lockheed Martin is the contractor. There have been so many problems with their work as a contractor, it is amazing they ever get new contracts.

2. The contract is cost-plus and time-and- materials. Now if ever there were a big invitation to come on in and party hearty on someone else's dime it is a cost-plus contract. There are no incentives to keep costs down, no real ones certainly in this contract. GAO suggests there are some limits to prevent problems, but the record for this sort of contract is just not good.

3. The contractor has subcontracted the work to other contractors who are paid on a cost-plus and time-and-materials basis. Every time you further contract work, that means a longer and longer chain for ensuring oversight and greater costs. It also means a loss of control. The records is that oversight does not happen, let alone adequate oversight.

Here's what GAO says.

Lockheed Martin was awarded the Sentinel development contract in March 2006 through a governmentwide acquisition contract. The contract is a cost-plus award fee contract under which task orders will be issued for each phase of the project to be completed. Under a cost-plus award fee contract, costs incurred by the contractor that are allowable, reasonable, and allocable to the contract are reimbursed and fees may be awarded to the contractor based on acceptable performance. Under this type of contract, the government assumes most of the cost risk. The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) requires agencies to mitigate this risk through adequate government oversight during the performance of the contract. In addition, the contractor must have adequate accounting systems to record and bill costs.

The Sentinel project and PMO are supported by five other contracted firms. These companies are providing administrative and engineering services to support the requirements definition, acquisition, and development support for the Sentinel system. Two of these firms were awarded cost-plus award fee contracts while the other three were awarded time and material (T&M) contracts. Under a T&M contract, the government agrees to pay fixed per-hour labor rates and to reimburse other costs directly related to the contract, such as materials, equipment, or travel, based on cost. Again, the government assumes the cost risk because the requirement for the contractor is to make a good faith effort to meet the government’s needs within a ceiling price. Accordingly, the government must monitor contractor performance to ensure efficient methods and effective cost controls are being used.

Here is what GAO found - sort of an absence of evidence, which is NOT evidence of absence of problems. And lots of ifs.

We determined that these policies and procedures, if properly implemented, should reduce the risk of improper payments to Sentinel contractors. In testing the implementation of these controls, we found the PMO had effectively implemented its invoice-processing controls. We did not identify any questionable contractor payments.
. . .
Based on our review of Sentinel invoice processing policy and procedures, examples of underlying documentation, and interviews with PMO staff, we found the PMO has established requirements for the Sentinel project that meet internal control standards for invoice review and approval. These requirements are responsive to the recommendations for correcting the invoice-processing deficiencies we identified in our prior Trilogy work and, if implemented properly, will help to ensure accurate and proper payments for goods and services purchased for the project.

The GAO found problems in the Asset-Tracking Database Sentinel created. Note that it failed to comply with the contract's requirements, not a good sign. Instead of creating its own asset-tracking database, Lockheed Martin's asset-tracking database was used.

And the result? . . . Problems, discrepancies, missing information.

The PMO did not establish its own asset-tracking database, as required by its policies and procedures, to track Sentinel equipment purchased by Lockheed Martin. Instead, the PMO decided to utilize, with some modification, the asset-tracking database developed and administered by Lockheed Martin. Using a contractor to create and maintain the asset-tracking database can be an effective control mechanism provided that appropriate managerial and oversight measures are taken to independently verify that all equipment has been accurately recorded in the database. The PMO uses this contractor database to create FBI’s official property record in PMA.

To test the accuracy and completeness of this database, we attempted to match the records in it with FBI’s official PMA records and vendor invoices. At the time of our test, most of the records we reviewed from the database contained discrepancies. The bar codes, serial numbers, cost, and other key information for the accountable property items recorded in the database did not agree to PMA records and vendor invoices. Furthermore, these discrepancies had not been detected by the PMO, indicating that it did not have adequate procedures for independently monitoring the accuracy and completeness of the contractor records upon which it was relying to create FBI’s official property record.

Other problems observed included a haphazard system of recoding bar codes from property items, problems with timeliness and accuracy of recording property, and other discrepancies.

To obtain assurance that the PMA records were complete, we matched the records in the corrected Lockheed Martin asset-tracking database to the records in PMA and found six accountable property items that were captured in the database but not recorded in PMA. When assets are not recorded in the property system, there is no record of their existence when physical inventories are performed. This limits the effectiveness of the physical inventory in detecting missing assets. We provided a list of these six assets to the PMO to research and resolve. PMO officials provided us an explanation for each of the six items on the list. One asset was improperly bar coded and one was not an accountable property item. The PMO was in the process of uploading the other four assets into PMA. These assets will be included in the 2008 inventory of Sentinel equipment which began in early 2008.

GAO made a number of recommendations which track these problems.

So there are improvements, but still persistent and predictable problems.

Now, tell me again why privatization is so good for the American people?

The report is Financial Management: FBI Has Designed and Implemented Stronger Internal Controls over Sentinel Contractor Invoice Review and Equipment Purchases, but Additional Actions Are Needed GAO-08-716R, July 15, 2008

• privatization,
• GAO,
• contractors,
• contracting
• out,
• FBI,
• Lockheed
• Martin,
• data,
• information,
• crime,
• natinal
• security

Union news doesn't tend to make the MSM, no matter how important. So I guess it's no surprise that, with the exception of the New York Times, I have seen no maintstream news stories on the innovative and historic union merger and creation of the first global union. On July 3, the US union the United Steelworkers and the UK's Unite the Union.

NYTimes Steven Greenhouse reported:

The new union, to be called Workers Uniting, will represent more than 2.8 million workers in the steel, paper, oil, health care and transportation industries. Officials said the union plans to hold trans-Atlantic negotiations with companies including the oil conglomerate BP, and ArcelorMittal, the giant steel maker.
. . .
Under the merger agreement, the steelworkers and its trans-Atlantic partner, Unite the Union, will maintain their individual identities but will work to meld their activities and organizations. The new union will have a joint steering committee and an executive director to coordinate trans-Atlantic activities, although each union will continue to have its own president at least for a few years.
. . .
In the past year, the two unions have discussed strategies for saving manufacturing jobs in the United States, Canada, Britain and Ireland, and joint collective bargaining with employers in the paper, chemical and titanium industries. The new union plans to set up operations in Colombia to help protect union members there from violence, in Liberia to aid rubber workers, and in India to help impoverished shipbuilding workers, officials said.

Of course, the business media have noticed. link They know this merger matters to the balance of power. And that goes to the bottomline.

And Workers Independent News' Labor Radio have also covered the story.

In a press video, Unite’s General Secretary Derek Simpson explained why the global union is necessary:

[Simpson]: "At the end of the day that has got to be the objective. How do we fight back against global capital, multi-national, global companies?"

United Steelworkers President Leo Gerard said the union will strengthen the power of current members:

[Gerard]: "The significance for our current membership is going to be able to have an expanded voice to be heard all around the world."

I hope you will ask your local radio stations to carry Labor Radio and consider making a contribution to support their work. And you can listen now to their current broadcast.

Here are the announcements from the United Steelworkers and from Unite the Union.

And here is the website for Workers Uniting - including a list of their joint campaigns.

* Cut My Pay - No Way! NHS Day of Protest - 18 July 2008
Unite members across the country will take part in day of protest against the NHS pay offer on the 18th July 2008. Workers will be campaigning around the slogan – ‘Cut my pay - No way!’.

* Campaigns to Win
In today’s competitive marketplace, USW recognizes that labor-management cooperation is vital to achieving productivity, profitability and good pay and benefits for workers. Unfortunately, not all employers recognize this.

* Unite campaign on tips and service charges - beware the deadly scams

Waiting staff in Unite want to eradicate some of the scams regularly applied by employers in restaurants and hotels when it comes to distributing tips left by customers. Join our campaign to support restaurant and hotel workers get the tips they have rightfully earned.

• labor,
• unions,
• work,
• USW,
• Unite-the-Union,
• Workers-Uniting,
• collective-bargaining

Most of us in the northern hemisphere and in the US are in the throes of summer. And for most of us that means heat and possibly humidity. Beating the heat, while enjoying summer, while not running up the electric bills, while being kind to the environment is a challenge.

In my house, we have taken these challenges seriously for a number of years. We have no air conditioning. Yet on even hot and humid days the house is usually comfortable.

So here is what I have found works.

First, I will assume you have proper insulation. If not, take if from me, it makes a huge difference, especially in the attic.

Open the screened windows (and maybe even doors) at night - close them by day.

We have double-hung windows. We open an array of them either from the top or bottom to get circulation. Most nights are cool enough that we are comfortable during the night. And sleeping with the windows open is one of the pleasures of summer. Listening to the crickets, night hawks, and other night singers and nature is something I miss in the winter. Same with the dawn chorus - although I do like it a big closer to 6 than 5. I find listening to the breezes comforting.

When we know the day will be hot, we close the windows and doors.

But not only do we close them, we have insulated blinds. One problem with windows is solar gain. Our blinds are duette blinds.

What I like about them is they admit light, they look stylish in a Japanese sort of way, and they have an r-value that insulates the windows. We also got blinds that open top-down and bottom-up. They cost more, but it's worth it in terms of flexibility in controlling temperatures. So, for example, if we have a window open at the top, we can have the blind open only at the top to keep out sun but admit air.

It helps to have an outdoor thermometer that can be read from inside to make all these calculations.

This scheme also works in the winter - except we are not opening windows. The blinds insulate, and we can open them to admit sun for solar gain and light.

As I say, by using this regime, I regularly come home to a house that feels as if it were air conditioned, it is that cool.

Room fans

Room fans - in particular ceiling fans - are amazing. I've never had them before, but now I am sold on them. Except for the very worst nights, they allow for a cool peaceful sleep. We have them in all bedrooms and have variable speed models. Usually the lowest setting is just right. And often we can turn them off part way through the night.

The electricity to run a fan all night is far less than air conditioning.

Whole house fan

This is the first house where I have had a whole house fan, and it is just great. It can suck in cool / cooler outside air and drops the temperature by multiple degrees. It gets air moving. And it exhausts the air into the attic, which I think makes us cooler.

We do have an automatic attic fan, but I still think the whole house fan helps cool the attic quickly. Some mornings, we turn it on to get the house as cool as possible before closing it up.

The only negative thing about the whole house fan is that it's noisier than I would like.

Plants

Having some tall trees that cool the area is great. I asked an arborists about trees and cooling, and he said that when you have a critical mass of trees, the temperatures will be at least 10 degrees cooler than with no trees. Ten degrees is the difference between comfort and misery.

It takes years to grow a tall enough tree if you don't have them now. Consider though planting for the future. And balance quickness of growth with longevity. Many fast growing trees live short lives, and if they are close to the house, they are a danger.

Consider also trellises and growing vines up them to provide shade to the first floor and maybe some food. Consider shorter fast growing trees closer to the house and larger ones farther out.

I have become a fan of Tulip Trees (Liriodendrum), Catalpas and Dawn Redwoods (Metasequoia) as fast growers that are beautiful and not as softwood as other fast growers.

Cooking

Cooking can add a lot of heat and humidity. Plan menus accordingly. Consider lazy cooking. Cook in big batches and then eat leftovers. Cook at night and finish the next day. Eat cold foods.

Heat generating activities

One of the biggest heat and eletricity hogs is a drier. So hang your clothes up and out. I also hang clothes indoors in cool weather, adding humidity to the air. If they are too stiff for you, put them in the drier for a few minutes.

Basement

One of my new considerations is the basement as a reservoir of coolness. So I will open the door up at night when it is especially cool to let cool air sink down there.

Go outside

A few years ago, I was sympathizing for the very hot weather when I was having work done on my house. The guys told me that because they are out in all kinds of weather it doesn't bother them. They adjust.

I think they are right. I am in a situation now where I can walk to work. By walking to work in summer and winter, I feel less of the harshness of the weather. In addition, I often find that I may get a bit negative about going out in extreme weather, but once I'm out it's not so bad. The thought is worse than the reality, in other words.

What are your suggestions?

So that's my take on getting cool in summer. How to be comfortable, spend less being comfortable, use less electricity, and live more in touch with nature and the environment.

• summer,
• environment,
• ecology,
• green-living,
• climate