From: fork-admin@xent.com  Mon Sep 23 23:01:14 2002
Return-Path: <fork-admin@xent.com>
Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.example.com
Received: from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
	by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2610C16F03
	for <jm@localhost>; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 23:01:12 +0100 (IST)
Received: from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 23 Sep 2002 23:01:12 +0100 (IST)
Received: from xent.com ([64.161.22.236]) by dogma.slashnull.org
    (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8NLnpC03988 for <jm@jmason.org>;
    Mon, 23 Sep 2002 22:49:57 +0100
Received: from lair.xent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xent.com (Postfix)
    with ESMTP id 636B02941DA; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 14:42:08 -0700 (PDT)
Delivered-To: fork@example.com
Received: from 192.168.1.2 (smtp.piercelaw.edu [216.204.12.219]) by
    xent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C5E72941D8; Mon, 23 Sep 2002 14:41:37
    -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 192.168.30.220 ([192.168.30.220]) by 192.168.1.2;
    Mon, 23 Sep 2002 17:45:03 -0400
From: bitbitch@magnesium.net
X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.61) Educational
Reply-To: bitbitch@magnesium.net
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-Id: <13434889868.20020923174444@magnesium.net>
To: fork-admin@xent.com, "John Hall" <johnhall@evergo.net>
Cc: "FoRK" <fork@example.com>
Subject: Re[2]: Goodbye Global Warming
In-Reply-To: <000c01c26347$730dd770$0200a8c0@JMHALL>
References: <000c01c26347$730dd770$0200a8c0@JMHALL>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: fork-admin@xent.com
Errors-To: fork-admin@xent.com
X-Beenthere: fork@example.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:fork@example.com>
List-Subscribe: <http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork>, <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Friends of Rohit Khare <fork.xent.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork>,
    <mailto:fork-request@xent.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://xent.com/pipermail/fork/>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 17:44:44 -0400
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.3 required=5.0
	tests=IN_REP_TO,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST,NO_REAL_NAME,
	      QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,
	      SIGNATURE_SHORT_DENSE,US_DOLLARS_2,US_DOLLARS_4
	version=2.50-cvs
X-Spam-Level: 



How about this:   A bored FoRKer said:  "YAWN"

I believe Tom had it right.   Signal not noise.

I'll start:


              Los Angeles Times September 23, 2002 Monday
                   Copyright 2002 / Los Angeles Times
                            Los Angeles Times

September 23, 2002 Monday  Home Edition
SECTION: Main News Main News; Part 1; Page 13; National Desk
LENGTH: 1013 words
BYLINE: DANA CALVO, TIMES STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: SEATTLE

BODY:

The idea came at the end of a long, frustrating brown-bag session at a
public-policy think tank here.

The challenge was to save the city's child-care programs. Staring into
his empty coffee cup, the meeting coordinator's mind landed on an
unlikely solution: Put a tax--just a "benign" dime a shot--on
espresso.

That led to a petition signed by more than 20,000 Seattle residents,
and next year, voters will decide whether the tax becomes law, one
that taps right into Seattle's legendary addiction to coffee. This is,
after all, the town where Starbucks was born and where the $12 pound
of beans became a staple. There is one Starbucks for every 7,000
residents in Seattle, compared to one per 64,000 in New York. Seattle
also has two other major coffee chains, Tully's Coffee and Seattle's
Best Coffee, as well as countless cafes and espresso carts.

A recent poll showed that 74% of Seattle residents would vote for the
tax. "For people outside of Seattle who don't understand the
consumption of espresso, [the tax proposal] can be seen as crazy,"
said John Burbank, the think tank's executive director, "but it was
common sense."

Research by his nonprofit Economic Opportunity Institute showed that
people preferred a tax on liquor or beer over one on espresso. But
because of the large number of lattes and cappuccinos sold, a tax on
espresso could be lower than one levied on alcohol.

Burbank estimates the tax could generate $7 million to $10 million a
year. City Council aides dispute his figures, saying their research
shows the tax would bring in $1.5 million to $3 million a year.

Burbank's institute is funded by foundations and labor unions. The
think tank's mission is to promote public policy in the interests of
low-income people, and it has long championed child-care issues.

Burbank says the tax would restore cuts to the child-care programs
made earlier this year by Gov. Gary Locke. He also says it would
provide more low-income families with subsidies for child care,
improve preschool programs and increase teacher salaries.

At Bauhaus Books & Coffee, the sidewalk is dotted with tables of
customers for whom coffee is a half-day activity, not just a drink.

Espresso lovers like Chris Altman, who at a dime a day would spend an
extra $36.50 a year, said the investment is worth it. "I'm OK with
it," said the 35-year-old, stirring his iced latte. "The money's got
to come from somewhere."

Hope Revuelto, 25, was cooling her regular coffee ($1 because she
brought her own mug) and reading "Zen and the Art of Pottery." She
supports the initiative and said its critics are behaving as would be
expected of espresso drinkers: They want the most expensive thing on
the menu but resist paying 10 cents to help the needy.

Some say the tax isn't the issue; they just resent being singled out.

David Marsh, 45, a costume manager, drinks up to three espressos a
day, which means he'd be shelling out an extra $109.50 a year. "I, for
one, don't have kids, but I drink espresso," he said, as he sewed a
leather collar onto a chain-mail tunic. "I don't mind paying, but I
think everyone should pay."

Coffeehouses are steamed about it, and they've organized as
JOLT--Joined to Oppose the Latte Tax. Among the members are Seattle's
Chamber of Commerce and the city's two largest coffee franchises,
Starbucks and Tully's.

The tax would force coffeehouses to track sales of any beverage that
contains espresso, a task that could be an administrative nightmare
for smaller cafes, especially during the frantic morning rush. If
espresso counts come under suspicion, coffeehouse owners could face a
city audit.

University of Chicago economics professor Michael Greenstone said the tax doesn't add up. 

"The purpose of any tax is to be efficient and equitable, and this is
neither," he said. "On the efficiency side, it's surely going to lead
to costly efforts by both businesses and consumers to find ways to
avoid the tax. For example, Starbucks could claim that they are using
finely ground coffee, [instead of coffee run though an espresso maker]
and that consequently, they are exempt from the tax. Would they be
right? I don't know, but finding out will surely take lots of legal
fees that could have gone to child care.

"Of course, from a public-relations perspective, this is an ingenious
idea, and I mean that in a cynical way. They've pitted espresso
drinkers against child-care supporters, and who's going to side with
the espresso drinkers?"

In fact, the proposed tax has forced opponents into a political
two-step, where their criticism must remain a beat behind their public
stance of political correctness. In a liberal city like Seattle,
corporations continually advertise their commitment to social
activism, and throughout the debate over the initiative, JOLT members
prefaced their opposition with endorsements of good child care.

"Starbucks will continue to support early-learning and
childhood-development programs through the millions of dollars we
contribute annually," the company said. "However, Starbucks does not
understand why the Economic Opportunity Institute would recommend an
additional consumer tax on espresso beverages, or any other single
consumer product."

The City Council has yet to decide when the initiative will go before
voters next year. The initiative's authors say it is directed at
vendors; critics predict it will be passed on to consumers through
higher prices, effectively punishing them for their choice of coffee.
The tax would be applied to any drink with at least half an ounce of
espresso, including decaf. Drip coffee would be exempt.

Burbank says the tax would reach only a pre-selected group of
consumers who are wealthier than those who drink drip. So, he's been
pitching it as a modern-day Robin Hood tax, where the needy get a dime
every time the affluent spend $3 to $4 on an espresso.

It's the kind of political marketing that Fran Beulah, 43, finds
funny. "I drink espresso," she said, laughing, "and I am not rich."




JH> "I did not have sex with that woman."

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: fork-admin@xent.com [mailto:fork-admin@xent.com] On Behalf Of
JH> Mr.
>> FoRK
>> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 2:12 PM
>> To: FoRK
>> Subject: Re: Goodbye Global Warming
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "John Hall" <johnhall@evergo.net>
>> 
>> > A Green once said that if the Spotted Owl hadn't existed they
>> > would have had to invent it.
>> A Republican once said "I am not a crook".





-- 
Best regards,
 bitbitch                            mailto:bitbitch@magnesium.net


