Re: Plain Language

Subject: Re: Plain Language
From: Sella Rush <sellar -at- APPTECHSYS -dot- COM>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 13:42:01 -0700

Agree, George. When I heard about this, my first thought was that for once
someone in politics is taking a long view (beyond the next election). (Of
course, Gore is probably thinking about the next 10 years....)

Now the question will be whether the long-term savings will actually be
realized or whether they'll get bogged down in process. We'll see. Think
I'll go check the federal job board....

Sella Rush
mailto:sellar -at- apptechsys -dot- com
Applied Technical Systems (ATS)
Bremerton, Washington
Developers of the CCM Database

-----Original Message-----
From: George F. Hayhoe <george -at- GHAYHOE -dot- COM>
To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU <TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU>
Date: Tuesday, June 09, 1998 7:54 AM
Subject: Plain Language

>
>As with any other initiative, the plain language requirement will involve
an
>up-front investment, and technical communicators and others may well
benefit
>as a result. However, as several studies have shown, revising form letters,
>forms, and other government publications so that they communicate clearly
>will SAVE taxpayer money in the long term.
>
>I know that I look forward to a time when it might be possible to prepare
my
>own tax forms and save the large amount I'm currently paying a CPA each
>year.
>
>--George Hayhoe (george -at- ghayhoe -dot- com)




Previous by Author: Re: Question: 1099 status and agencies
Next by Author: Re: not a slam
Previous by Thread: Plain Language
Next by Thread: indexing


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads