Time: Sat Sep 13 08:18:41 1997
by usr05.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id IAA20217;
Sat, 13 Sep 1997 08:14:26 -0700 (MST)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 08:14:17 -0700
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: IRS: Shut Them Down NOW!!!!
Okay, America, it's time to wake up, and
smell the roses. The IRS is coming
apart at the seams. It's time for a
total boycott, nationwide.
Start sharpening those wooden stakes.
They work much better than silver bullets!!
/s/ Paul Mitchell
http://supremelaw.com
>Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 08:01:18 -0700
>From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
>Subject: SLS: THE ULTIMATE TAX REFORM: JANUARY 1, 2000
>Bcc: <wkalivas@rust.net>,sls
>
>Down the tubes in a bit bucket.
>
>They are strangling themselves
>in their own "codes" (COBOL, Fortran,
>C, Assembly, PL/I, etc.)
>
>Halleluia!!
>
>/s/ Paul Mitchell
>former systems programmer
>
>
>>I know this is long, but it's worht a look. Any of you programmers out
>>there care to comment??
>>
>>From: jmcnally@bigdog.fred.net
>>Date sent: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 10:42:20 -0400 (EDT)
>>Subject: REMNANT REVIEW of September 5, 1997
>>
>>Gary North's
>> REMNANT REVIEW
>>emailbonus: Matt. 6:33-34
>>year2000@garynorth.com
>>
>> Preparing the Remnant for the far side of the crisis
>>
>>Vol. 24, No. 9 590 September 5, 1997
>>
>> I am hereby lifting the copyright of this issue of
>> Remnant Review. This one I want you to send to your
>> friends, neighbors, boss, Congressman, and anyone
>> else who might want advance information on the end,
>> at long last, of the 16th Amendment: vetoed by Year
>> 2000 noncompliant computers. Photocopy it, print it,
>> whatever. Then visit my Web site for full documen-
>> tation (under "Government"):
>>
>>THE ULTIMATE TAX REFORM: JANUARY 1, 2000
>>
>> What I am about to report will verify what I have been saying all
>>year. If this doesn't constitute proof, I don't know what can persuade
>>you. From this point on, anyone who tells you that the Millennium Bug
>>is not a big deal, or who says, "We'll just have to wait and see about y2k,
>>there's no need to hurry," simply doesn't know what he's talking about.
>>Ignore him.
>>
>> On August 21, I stumbled into the most amazing government
>>document I have ever seen. I had read a brief news story about a
>>company that had applied for a contract to work as a subcontractor for
>>the IRS in a restructuring of its computer systems. The IRS admitted to
>>Congress last January that its $4 billion, 11-year attempt to modernize
>>its computer systems had failed. Here was a follow-up story. So, I went
>>to the company's Web site to find more information. This led me on a
>>merry chase across the Web.
>>
>> Finally I landed on the IRS's page -- specifically, its page
relating to
>>its PRIME project. There were pages of blue links to documents, each
>>one with a strange name or the name of a state. It was not clear to me at
>>first what I had discovered. So, I started clicking links. I found
nothing
>>that I could understand, link after link: government bureaucratese.
>>Then I hit pay dirt: the mother lode, my friends -- what we have been
>>waiting for since 1913. Deliverance. Free at last, free at last! THE
>>IRS'S MAINFRAME COMPUTERS -- 63 OF THEM, PLUS
>>MICROCOMPUTERS -- ARE ON THE BRINK OF TOTAL
>>COLLAPSE. Yee-hah!
>>
>> This amazing admission appears in an innocuously titled document,
>>"Request for Comments (RFC) for Modernization Prime Systems
>>Integration Services Contractor" (May 15, 1997). The author is Arthur
>>Gross, Associate Commissioner of the IRS and Chief Information
>>Officer, i.e., the senior IRS computer honcho. It was Mr. Gross who
>>went before Congress in January to admit defeat.
>>
>> Mr. Gross now says that the IRS is no longer capable of operating its
>>own computer systems. The IRS has over 7,500 people involved in just
>>computer maintenance, with a budget a $1 billion a year (Appendix B.
>>p. 2), yet they can no longer handle the load. And so, says Mr. Gross,
>>some of them are going to get fired. You can imagine the continuing
>>morale problem that this announcement will cause! The IS (information
>>systems) division will be, as they say, DOWNSIZED. From now on, the
>>IRS must achieve the following:
>>
>> . . . shifting the focus of IS management to a
>> business orientation: servicing customers with
>> exponentially increasing technology needs,
>> implementing massive new technology applications
>> on schedule within budget while managing the
>> downsizing of the IS organization
>> (Appendix B. p. 2).
>>
>> Do you think that people slaving away in their cubicles, trying to fix
>>the Millennium Bug, will respond favorably to this notice? "Fix it, and
>>then you're out!" Mr. Gross knows better. So, with this amazing
>>document, he calls on private industry to come in and TAKE OVER
>>THE ENTIRE IRS COMPUTER DIVISION. This is what Mr. Gross
>>calls "a strategic partnership" (p. 1). The new partners will have to fix
>>the Millennium Bug. The IRS will give them exactly eight months, start
>>to finish: October 1, 1998 to the end of June, 1999.
>>
>> The IRS's Digital Augean Stables
>>
>> Perhaps you have had trouble on occasion getting information from
>>the IRS about your account. After reading this document, I now know
>>why. The information is held in what the IRS calls "Master Files" (p.
>>4). These files are held in the Martinsburg, West Virginia, computer.
>>This computer receives data sent in by 10 regional centers that use a
>>total of 60 separate mainframes. These mainframes do not talk to each
>>other. Or, as Mr. Gross puts it, they are part of "an extraordinarily
>>complex array of legacy and stand-alone modernized systems with
>>respect both to connectivity and inoperability between the mainframe
>>platforms and the plethora of distributed systems" (p. 4). This is
>>bureaucratese, but I do understand the word, INOPERABILITY.
>>
>> The tax data build up in the local mainframes for five business days.
>>Then they are uploaded to West Virginia. This may take up to 10 actual
>>days. Then the Martinsburg computer sends it all back to the regional
>>computers in the Service Centers. Then the information is made
>>available to the "Customer Service Representatives" (p. 5), i.e., local tax
>>collectors. The elapsed time may take two weeks.
>>
>> But . . . it turns out that the actual source payment documents are
not
>>sent to the Master Files. Neither is "specific payment or tax
>>information." This information stays in what the IRS calls
>>STOVEPIPED SYSTEMS, meaning stand-alone data bases "which, for
>>the most part, are not integrated with either the Master Files or the
>>corporate on-line system, IDRS" (p. 5). Separate tax assessments for the
>>same person can appear in six separate systems, and these do not
>>communicate with each other (p. 5). "Further, each system generates
>>management reporting information which is not homogeneous, one with
>>the other . . ." (p. 7). To help us visualize this mess, and much larger
>>messes, the document includes charts. These charts are so complex that
>>my printer was unable to print out the 116-page document -- probably
>>not enough RAM. I had to get two other people involved to get one
>>readable copy.
>>
>> I have included one of these charts on the back page, just for fun.
Go
>>ahead. Take a quick look. No need to get out your magnifying glass
>>just yet. Then comes the key admission: "These infrastructures are
>>largely not century date compliant . . ." (p. 11). The phrase "century
>>date compliant" is the government's phrase for Year 2000-compliant. In
>>other words, THE IRS'S COMPUTERS ARE GOING TO CRASH.
>>Now hear this:
>>
>> In addition to three computing centers, (Memphis,
>> Detroit and Martinsburg) the latter of which is a
>> fully operational tax processing center, the IRS
>> deploys a total of sixty mainframes in its ten
>> regional service centers.
>>
>> None of the mainframes are compliant, thereby
>> necessitating immediate actions ranging from
>> systems software upgrades to replacement (p. 9).
>>
>>It gets worse:
>>
>> A still greater and far reaching wave of work
>> in the form of the Century Date Project is
>> cascading over the diminishing workforce that
>> is already insufficient to keep pace with the
>> historical levels of workload. For the Internal
>> Revenue Service, the Century Date Project is
>> uniquely challenging, given the aged and non-
>> century compliant date legacy applications and
>> infrastructure as well as thousands of undocumented
>> applications systems developed by business personnel
>> in the IRS field operations which are resident on
>> distributed infrastructures but not as yet
>> inventoried (p. 13).
>>
>> Notice especially two key words: "undocumented" and "inventoried."
>>"Undocumented" means there is no code writer's manual. They either
>>lost it or they never had it. "Inventoried" means they know where all of
>>the code is installed. But it says: "not as yet inventoried." How much
>>code? Lots.
>>
>> The IS organization has inventoried and scheduled
>> for analysis and conversion, as required, the
>> approximately 62 million lines of computer code
>> comprising the IRS core business systems. With
>> respect to the business supported field
>> applications and infrastructures, however, we do
>> not know what we do not know. Until central field
>> systems and infrastructures are completed, the IRS
>> will be unable to analyze, plan, and schedule the
>> field system conversion (p. 13).
>>
>> I love this phrase: WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT WE DO NOT
>>KNOW. This is surely not bureaucratese. Now, let's put all of this into
>>a clearer perspective. The Social Security Administration discovered its
>>y2k problem in 1989. In 1991, programmers began to work on
>>correcting the agency's 30 million lines of code. By mid-1996, they had
>>completed repairs on 6 million lines (CIO Magazine, Sept. 15, 1996.)
>>Got that? It took five years for them to fix 6 million lines. But the IRS
>>has 62 million lines THAT THEY KNOW ABOUT, but they don't know
>>about the rest. It's out there, but there is no inventory of it.
>>
>> Consider the fact that they have not completed their inventory. The
>>1996 "California White Paper," which is the y2k guide issued by the IS
>>division of the California state government's y2k repair project, says that
>>inventory constitutes 1% of the overall code repair project. Awareness
>>is 1%. So, after you get finished with inventory, YOU HAVE 98% OF
>>YOUR PROJECT AHEAD OF YOU. Meanwhile, the IRS has not yet
>>completed its inventory.
>>
>> The IRS has led the American welfare state into a trap. The Federal
>>government, like the U.S. economy, will be restructured in the year
>>2000. Most Americans will be in bankruptcy by 2001, but they will be
>>free.
>>
>> Meanwhile, the news media are all a-dither about the Clinton-
>>Congress accord on taxes, which will balance the budget in 2002. As
>>George Gobel used to say, "Suuuuuure it will." Who is going to collect
>>revenues in 2000?
>>
>> Please Help Get Us Out of This Mess!
>>
>> The next section of Mr. Gross's report I find truly unique. When was
>>the last time you read something like this in an agency's report on its
>>own capacity? (The next time will be the first.)
>>
>> THE CHALLENGE: THE INFORMATION SYSTEMS (IS)
>> ORGANIZATION LACKS SUFFICIENT TECHNICAL
>> MANAGEMENT CAPACITY TO SIMULTANEOUSLY
>> SUPPORT TODAY'S ENVIRONMENT, EFFECTUATE THE
>> CENTURY DATE CONVERSION AND MANAGE
>> MODERNIZATION (p. 13).
>>
>> This states the IRS's problem clearly: its computer systems are just
>>barely making it now, and the Year 2000 Problem will torpedo them.
>>
>> Mr. Gross then announces the IRS's solution: quit. The IRS has
>>now admitted that "tax administration is its core business" and it will
>>now "shift responsibility for systems development and integration
>>services to the private sector . . ." (p. 54). But first, it must find
some
>>well-heeled partners.
>>
>> "The IRS has acknowledged that its expertise now and in the future
>>is tax administration." This means that "the IS organization must be
>>rebuilt to preserve the existing environment and partner with the private
>>sector to Modernize the IRS" (p. 13). I love it when someone capitalizes
>>"Modernize." Especially when it really means "officially bury."
>>
>> Then the coup de grace: "Any reasonable strategy to move forward,
>>therefore, would focus on managing the immediate crisis -- 'stay in
>>business' while building capacity to prepare for future Modernization"
>>(p. 14). Then comes part 2 of the report:
>>
>> The Next Eighteen Months:
>> Staying in Business and
>> Preparing for Modernization
>>
>> Mr. Gross knows that there is a deadline, and it isn't 2000. It's
>>months earlier. He has selected June, 1999. Most organizations have
>>selected December, 1998. This allows a year for testing. Mr. Gross is
>>more realistic. He knows late 1998 is too early. The IRS can't do it. (I
>>would say that late 2008 is too early. The IRS has tried to revamp its
>>computer system before.)
>>
>> . . . the IRS must undertake and complete major infrastructure
>>initiatives no later than June 1999, to minimally ensure century date
>>compliance for each of its existing mainframes and/or their successor
>>platforms. At the same time, the IRS must complete the inventory of its
>>field infrastructures as well as develop and exercise a century date
>>compliance plan for the conversion replacement and/or elimination of
>>those infrastructures. (p. 19).
>>
>> Then comes an astounding sentence. This sentence is astounding
>>because it begins with the word, IF. (Note: RFC stands for Request for
>>Comment.)
>>
>> IF THE INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS BECOMES
>>AVAILABLE, UPDATES WILL BE PROVIDED TO POTENTIAL
>>OFFERERS TO ASSIST IN DEVELOPING RESPONSES TO THE
>>RFC.
>>
>> If...? IF...? He is warning all those private firms that he is inviting
>>in
>>to clean up the mess that they may not be given the code analysis. But
>>code analysis constitutes the crucial 15% of any Year 2000 repair job,
>>according to the California White Paper. Then, and only then, can code
>>revision begin.
>>
>> Meanwhile, the IRS system's code is collapsing even without y2k.
>>The programmers are not able to test all of the new code. Mr. Gross
>>calls this "Product Assurance." This division, he says, has "sunk to
>>staffing levels less than 30 percent of the minimum industry standard . .
>>. ." This makes it "one of the highest priorities within the IS
>>organization, given that, today, major tax systems are not subjected to
>>comprehensive testing prior to being migrated to production" (p. 15). In
>>short, Congress passes new tax code legislation, and the IRS
>>programmers implement these changes WITHOUT TESTING THE
>>NEW CODE. Now comes y2k. As he says, "the Century Date
>>Conversion will place an extraordinary additional burden on the Product
>>Assurance Program." I don't want to bore you, but when I find the most
>>amazing government document I've ever seen, I just can't stop. Neither
>>could Mr. Gross:
>>
>> Regrettably, the challenge is far more overarching: to modernize
>>functioning but aged legacy systems which have been nearly irreparably
>>overlaid by and interfaced with a tangle of stovepiped distributed
>>applications systems and networked infrastructures (p. 55).
>>
>> I'll summarize. The IRS has got bad code on 63 aging mainframe
>>systems, plus micros. It has lost some of the code manuals. It does not
>>know how much code it has. It must now move ("migrate") the data
>>from these y2k noncompliant computers -- data stored in legacy
>>programs that are not y2k compliant -- to new computers with new
>>programs. These computers must interact with each other, unlike
>>today's system. Bear in mind that some of this code -- I have seen
>>estimates as high as 30% -- is written in Assembler language, which is
>>not understood by most programmers today: perhaps 50,000 of them,
>>worldwide (Cory Hamasaki's estimate). Then everything must be tested,
>>side by side, old system vs. new system, on mainframe computers, before
>>anyone can trust anything. (This assumes that extra mainframes are
>>available, but they aren't.) Warning:
>>
>> Beyond the magnitude of the applications system migration, the
>>complexity and enormity of the date conversion that would be required
>>necessitates careful planning and risk mitigation strategies (e.g.,
parallel
>>processing). While the risks inherent in Phase III may be nearly
>>incalculable given the age of the systems, the absence of critical
>>documentation, dependency on Assembler Language Code (ALC) and
>>the inevitable turnover of IRS workforce supporting these systems, it is
>>essential to plan and execute the conversion of the Master Files and its
>>related suite of applications (p. 30).
>>
>> I'll say it's essential! The key question is: Is it possible? No.
>>
>> Can you believe this sentence? "The risks inherent in Phase III may
>>be nearly incalculable . . ." What does he mean, "may be"? They ARE.
>>
>> Meanwhile, Congress keeps changing the Internal Revenue Code.
>>This creates a programming nightmare: coding the new laws. So, how
>>big is this project? Here is how Mr. Gross describes it: "Modernization
>>is the single largest systems integration undertaking in world eclipsing
>>in breadth and depth any previous efforts of either the public or private
>>sector. Given the fluid nature of the Nation's Tax Laws, Modernization
>>is likely to be the most dynamic, creating even greater complexity and,
>>in turn, compounding the risks" (p. 54). Many, many risks.
>>
>> Two questions arise: (1) Who is going to fix it? (2) At what price?
>>The answer? He has no answer. All he knows is that this project is so
>>huge that NORMAL COMPETITIVE BIDDING WILL NOT WORK.
>>For this project, the IRS is not saying what its "partners" will be paid.
>>It's open for negotiation.
>>
>> You may be thinking: "Boondoggle." I'm thinking: "Legal liability
>>in 2000 larger than any company's board of directors would rationally
>>want to risk, unless they think Congress will pass a no-liability law in
>>2000." Here is Mr. Gross's description of the special arrangement. Pay
>>close attention to the words "competitive process." He bold faces them; I
>>do, too.
>>
>> Our challenge, therefore, is to FORGE A BUSINESS PLAN AND
>> PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP in accordance with federal
>> governmental procurement laws and regulations ABSENT THE
>> TRADITIONAL LEVEL OF DETAILED REQUIREMENTS
>> TYPICALLY ESTABLISHED AS THE BASIS OF THE
>> COMPETITIVE PROCESS (p. 60).
>>
>> He calls on businesses to create a "DETAILED SYSTEMS
>>DEVELOPMENT PLAN" (p. 60). He goes on: "In general, the IRS
>>seeks to create a business plan which: Shares risk with the private
>>sector; Incents [incents???!!!] the private sector to either share or
>>assume the 'front end' capital investment . . ." (p. 60). Read it again.
>>Yes, it really says that. THE IRS WANTS THE PRIVATE SECTOR
>>TO PUT UP MOST OR ALL OF THE MONEY TO FIX ITS ENTIRE
>>SYSTEM.
>>
>> This is why the minimum requirement for a company to make a bid
>>is $200 million in working capital. It has to have experience in
>>computers. It must be able to repair 5 million lines of code (p. 70).
>>
>> How complex is this job? The complexity is mind-boggling: a seven-
>>volume "Modernization Blueprint." To buy it on paper costs $465, or
>>you can get a copy on a free CD-ROM. Needless to say, I got the CD-
>>ROM.
>>
>> So, you think, at least the IRS is getting on top of this problem.
>>Suuuuure, it is. The contract award date is [let's hear a drum roll,
>>please]: October 1, 1998 (p. 73). How realistic is this? You may
>>remember Mr. Gross's deadline: June 1999. So, he expects these firms
>>to be able to fix 62 million lines of noncompliant code, if they can find
>>the missing code in the field offices, even though the IRS has lost the
>>documentation for some of this code, in an eight-month window of
>>productivity. Social Security isn't compliant after seven years of work
>>on less than half the IRS's number of lines of code.
>>
>> The IRS is facing a complete breakdown. Its staff can't fix the
code.
>>The IRS wants private firms to pay for the upgrade and manage the
>>computer systems from now on. It does not know how much code it has.
>>It does not have manuals for all of the old code. It does not even know
>>how to pay the firms that get the contracts: either by "contractually
>>agreed upon fees" or "pursuant to measurable outcomes of the
>>implemented systems" (p. 61). It has called for very large and
>>experienced firms to submit comments by October 1, 1997.
>>
>> In short, the IRS does not know what it is doing, let alone what it
has
>>to do. It only knows that it has to find a few suckers in private industry
>>to bear the costs of implementing a new, improved IRS computer system
>>and then assume responsibility for getting it Year 2000-compliant
>>between October 1, 1998 and the end of June 1999. ("There's one born
>>every minute.") Here are 12 companies that have expressed interest:
>>Anderson Consulting, Computer Sciences Corporation, EDS
>>Government Services (EDS is not itself y2k compliant), GTE
>>Government Systems, Hughes Information Technology Systems, IBM,
>>Litton PRC, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Northrup Grumman
>>Corporation, Ratheon E-Systems, Tracor Information Systems
>>Company, and TRW. The list is posted at:
>>
>>http://www.ustreas.gov/treasury/bureaus/irs/prime/interest.htm
>>
>> Conclusion
>>
>> It's all over but the shouting. The IRS is going bye-bye.
>>Accompanying it will be the political career of Mr. Gingrich and the
>>historical reputation of Mr. Clinton. Bill Clinton will be remembered as
>>the President on whose watch the Federal government shut down and
>>stayed shut down. First Mate Newt will try to avoid going down with
>>the ship of state, but he won't make it. And as for Al Gore . . . . Well,
>>maybe he can get a job herding cattle on the Texas ranch of his ex-
>>roommate at Harvard, Tommy Lee Jones. Think of it: not "Gore in
>>2000," but GORED IN 2000. Mr. Information Highway will hit a dead
>>end.
>>
>> On June 30, 1999, the IRS will know that its computers are still
>>noncompliant. On the next day, July 1, fiscal year 2000 rolls over on
>>the Federal government's computers and on every state government's
>>computer that has not rolled over (and shut down) on a bi-annual basis
>>on July 1, 1998. Almost every state: about half a dozen will roll over on
>>October 1, 1999.
>>
>> In 1999, chaos will hit the financial markets, all over the world --
>>assuming that this does not happen earlier, which I do not assume. The
>>public will know the truth in 1999: THE DEFAULT ON U.S.
>>GOVERNMENT DEBT IS AT HAND. The tax man won't be able to
>>collect in 2000. The tax man will be blind. Consider how many banks
>>and money market funds are filled with T-bills and T-bonds. Consider
>>how the government will operate with the IRS completely shut down.
>>Congress hasn't thought much about this. Neither has Bill Clinton.
>>
>>
>>
>>**********************************************
>>To subscribe or unsubscribe, email:
>> majordomo@majordomo.pobox.com
>>with the message:
>> subscribe ignition-point email@address
>>or
>> unsubscribe ignition-point email@address
>>**********************************************
>>http://www.telepath.com/believer
>>**********************************************
>>
>>
========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine
tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best
Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone
Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
========================================================================
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail