HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com (Dewey Coffman)
Subject: Email to Congress [repost from alt.activism]
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:26:42 GMT
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com
Organization: IBM, Austin, TX. US of A.

	Ongoing discussion about the Single Point of Contact Bill [PASSED?]
	voted on last years that will give/gave Congress a "email" address 
	to use.  We may all need to send letters urging them to move up to the
	1990's. -dewey
	ps. Anyone know anything more here?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mattair@sun44.synercom.hounix.org (Charles Mattair)
Newsgroups: alt.amateur-comp,comp.org.eff.talk,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: E-Mail Access to Congress (Was Re: Clinton Office Requests Comments
Date: 5 Jan 93 18:52:41 GMT
Organization: Synercom Technology, Inc., Houston, TX

> Good Idea.  What's the address again...  BTW, in a previous life when I was 
> a cable television activist, I tried to get Senator Al Gore's D.C. fax 
> number and was told, in no uncertain terms, that it wasn't for public use.  
> Harraumph.  Next time I pay my taxes I just may deduct that portion of then 
> that I believe go to buy him fax paper <arf!>

Decided to see what my congresscritters had to say about this.  First call to
Mike Andrews (Bentsen's replacement, almost).  Nobody had ever heard of the
Internet (sheesh).  Try Phil Gramm and spoke to their systems manager.

EMail - I really couldn't tell but I got the impression Congress really doesn't
think it's on the net.  The idea of connections to an untrustworthy (that is,
non-governmental) site was unthinkable.  He did tell me they all have CC:Mail
but it was strictly intra-congress.  Comment from Andrews office was "We all
have Lotus and WordPerfect."

FAX - they would like to but....  The perception is there are too many of us
out here with FAXs, computers and money to pay phone bills.  He related the
story of one congressman who decided to keep in touch with his district by
FAX - after six weeks of 24 hours a day, they turned the machine off and
changed the phone number.  Gramm has a machine for use by the public (I was
given the number) - they give it out if you ask for it but will not volunteer
it.
-- 
Charles Mattair		 			mattair@synercom.hounix.org
Any opinions offered are my own and do not reflect those of my employer.
Cheap, fast, good - choose two.
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Date: 12 Jan 93 13:40:23 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <tWmhs*my1@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:

>In article <1993Jan6.062011.20416@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, fred j mccall 575-3539 writes:

>> At the very least I'll wait till they actually do something bad before
>> I pillory them for it -- and that applies to both the current
>> administration and the incoming one.  You want to attack people for
>> what you claim the WILL do, with no evidence at all to support you,

>Really?  No evidence.  Please explain to us how Slick Willie (the man who thinks
>almost all government programs except defense need to be expanded dramatically
>while at the same time wanting to create massive new ones for health care, etc.)
>can reduce the deficit?

And has he failed to reduce the deficit yet?  No, of course he hasn't,
SINCE HE ISN'T EVEN IN OFFICE YET.  As I said, unlike you, Jim, I wait
for someone to do (or fail to do) something before I start criticizing
them about it.  I don't criticize them based on ideological fantasies,
the way you do.

>On second thought, don't bother.  We've read your fantasies before.

Yes, fantasies like Clinton not being in office yet, so how can he
have broken all the promises about what he'd do when he was in office. 

>Well Fred, as I wrote before, just wait and watch.  The real question is can
>the ongoing recovery survive the massive tax and regulation increases that
>Slick Willie and company are about to implement?

And you no doubt have an inside line to the Clinton cabinet, so you
know that this is going to happen.  Sure you do, Jim.  It's this kind
of shallow, knee-jerk thinking that leaves the impression that you
MUST just be a front for someone else who wants to say something
stupid but doesn't want to say it as 'themself'; no real human being
could be THAT shallow and stupid.

So, just who ARE you a false front for?

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Social Security
Date: 6 Jan 93 06:27:13 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1993Jan5.170358.1226@digi.lonestar.org> gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo) writes:

>I say, if you want to reform the system and make things equitable,
>make the payoff optional. Let those who want their entitlements have 
>them, at least, say, people over forty or fifty.  Hand out lump sums
>to everybody else - i.e. those under the cutoff age and those
>over it who choose to take the money.  If you want, put it in an 
>IRA and even mandate a matched employer-employee contribution of 
>some amount in order to "protect" people from themselves.  I bet 
>that enough people would accept the money and opt out of SS and 
>into a self directed account that we could ease ourselves out of 
>this mess and into something more sensible with minimal pain.

Oh, I think you're right about the number of people who would accept
the payout.  This leaves you with a couple of problem, though.  First,
you have just made a huge payout from the Social Security fund --
perhaps even more money than it currently contains, since the thing is
only ACTUARIALY sound.  You're liable to have to take a massive hit on
general tax revenues to be able to give all the people currently
paying in their money back, since that money is supposed to be used to
fund CURRENT requirements of the system.  There's a surplus, but I
question whether it's enough to give everyone their money back who
would want it.

Secondly, once you let all those people opt out, how do you fund the
people who are left?  You have a large number of people who are close
enough to retirement that they are probably going to stay -- or they
are currently drawing benefits and are certainly going to have no
large incentive to stop.  The current soundness of the plan relies on
the revenue stream from all those folks who would probably opt out of
the system.  

In general, I agree with what you're proposing, but I don't think the
payout is practical.  I think you're going to be faced with simply
writing those past contributions off.  If you don't, you're still
going to wind up robbing Peter to pay Paul, because you're going to
have to fund the liabilities of the Social Security system out of the
general tax revenues.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com (Michael Reed)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Social Security
Date: 8 Jan 93 14:59:18 GMT
Reply-To: reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com
Distribution: tx
Organization: Western Geophysical Research & Development

In article <8364@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
|> In article <1753@airgun.wg.waii.com> reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com writes:
|> >2) Although individuals stop paying the retirement portion of the
|> >FICA tax after earning $55K, their employer keeps paying on every
|> >dollar of payroll.  So, for employees the marginal rate above
|> >$55 is not 0, but around 7.5%.
|> 
|> Nope. I just spoke to my mother, who, among other things, manages the payroll
|> for her company. The employer's contribution stops when the employee's does.
|> 
|> There is an FICA tax above $55K: the Medicare portion (1.65%, or so; I don;t
|> remember the number) continues until $125K.

A quick call to my mother, who among other things, deals with the
Social Security Administration for the order of nuns that employ her,
reveals that I was indeed wrong.  (Yes, even nuns have to pay taxes.)
What confused me was the changing jobs scenario John Haugh mentions in
his post: my father did that several times and had to file with the
IRS to get his money back after he hit the limit for the year.  In
that case the govt. gets more than it deserves from the employers.

-- 
The above are my own opinions and mine alone.

*****************************************************************************
Dr. Michael Reed,
Western Geophysical, Research and Development Group
reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com
(713) 964-6322                     FAX: (713) 964-6372
*****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com (Dewey Coffman)
Subject: Re: Preview of 73rd Texas Legislature
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:59:23 GMT
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com
Organization: IBM, Austin, TX. US of A.

In article <C0pJny.1Gyw@austin.ibm.com>, johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
|> |> 	2) Lower the legal definition of drunk to 0.08 %. "That would
|> |> 	   mean that a 180lb man could only drink three beers instead
|> |> 	   in an hour instead of four before taking the wheel"
|> 
|> This is really stupid.  Breath alcohol level is a poor indicator of
|> intoxication -- it's just a lot easier to prove in court.
	
	You may be right, the intention is good, but that doesn't make it
	right. I'm all for keeping "drunks" off the road. What else would
	do this, instead of this law? 
---
Dewey Coffman		ibmpa!vpdbox.austin.ibm.com!dewey%ibminet.awdpa.ibm.com
Consulting @ IBM			dewey@ctci.com
11400 Burnet Rd				All opinions are mine.
Austin, TX 78758-3493, USA		(512) 823-6463
===============================================================================
	"Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated." -Locutis of Borg
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Preview of 73rd Texas Legislature
Date: 12 Jan 93 13:50:00 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <C0pJny.1Gyw@austin.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:

>In tx.general article <1993Jan10.201222.2568@sooner.ctci.com>, dewey@sooner.ctci.com (Dewey Coffman) writes:

>|> 	2) Lower the legal definition of drunk to 0.08 %. "That would
>|> 	   mean that a 180lb man could only drink three beers instead
>|> 	   in an hour instead of four before taking the wheel"

>This is really stupid.  Breath alcohol level is a poor indicator of
>intoxication -- it's just a lot easier to prove in court.

Doesn't Texas allow the option of insisting on a BLOOD test rather
than a Breathalyzer?  One of the bits of legal advice attorneys used
to give where I used to live was to insist on a blood test if you were
sure you were innocent (because breath tests can read high,
particularly if you have just consumed a drink) and choose the
breathalyzer if you thought you were probably guilty because it was
easier to show that they are unreliable and could be wrong.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: swisher@cs.utexas.edu (Janet M. Swisher)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Texas alcohol laws
Date: 8 Jan 1993 10:45:37 -0600
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Distribution: tx
NNTP-Posting-Host: boogie.cs.utexas.edu

>|> johniac@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>|> : Texas has some of the stupidest and convoluted alcohol laws I've ever
>|> : come across, and the MADD gang and Judith Zaffrini and trying to give
>|> : us a few more.

>In article <C0I86M.F30@world.std.com>, cramer@world.std.com (William
D Cramer) writes:
>|> I've been living out of the state for a couple of years -- could 
>|> you elaborate on which laws you categorize as the "stupidest and 
>|> convoluted"? (not a flame, just curious)

In article <C0JKtt.14sE@austin.ibm.com> dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com writes:
>	I can't comment on what John Iacoletti was talking about, but
>	how about:
[stuff deleted]
>	3) Any Beer over 4% cannot be given away as samples, therefor
>	   the Celis Brewery cannot give you a sample of the Gran Crue.
>	   This "beer" also has to be labled "Malt Liquor".

I believe the "malt liquor" labelling law is a Federal regulation.  So
a "real" bock beer sold in this country has to be labelled "bock beer
style malt liquor".

However, some Texas alcohol laws I find annoying include:

-- You can't buy alcohol before noon on Sunday.
-- Packaged "hard" liquor can only be sold in liquor stores, which
must close by nine pm.

Public health and safety issues aside, I find this sort of thing
simply inconvenient.  I moved here from Illinois, where I was
accustomed to picking up a bottle of whatever was running low in my
liquor cabinet when I went to the grocery store, at whatever time that
happened to be (though I think the all-night stores closed their
liquor sections after midnight).  At least Texas is not as bad as
Virginia, where liquor is sold only in state-run ABC stores.

Also, the TABC apparently has pretty wide-ranging powers over
establishments that have liquor licenses.  I heard on the news
recently that here in the nominal "live music capitol of the world",
clubs on 6th St. are getting TABC citations for playing music too
loud.

I would be interested to see statistics relating severity of state
liquor laws with rates of the things those laws are intended to
prevent (DWI, alcoholism, public drunkenness).




-- 
Don't take life so serious ... it ain't *no how* permanent. -- Porkypine. 
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com (Dewey Coffman)
Subject: Ross Perot on CNN/United We Stand Membership Drive
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 15:56:25 GMT
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com
Organization: IBM, Austin, TX. US of A.


	Ross Perot was on CNN (Larry King Live) last night rolling 
	out the United We Stand Political information group. They will 
	diseminate info to the "people" so they can make informed decision.

	United We Stand
	PO Box 6
	Dallas, TX 75221
	Send $15

	or Call
	1-800 925-4000 and charge it on your Credit Card.

	You can donate more, but it doesn't get you anything extra.

	FYI
---
Dewey Coffman		ibmpa!vpdbox.austin.ibm.com!dewey%ibminet.awdpa.ibm.com
Consulting @ IBM			dewey@ctci.com
11400 Burnet Rd				All opinions are mine.
Austin, TX 78758-3493, USA		(512) 823-6463
===============================================================================
"Lead or Leave" 800-99-CHANGE, Citizens Against Govt. Waste(CAGW) 800-872-3328
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: dewey@sooner.ctci.com (Dewey Coffman)
Subject: Budget Deficit Stats
Summary: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics, someone should post a chart.
Organization: CTC, Inc., Austin, TX. U.S. of A. 78757-3109
Distribution: tx
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 00:25:56 GMT

     Budget Deficit Statistics, WASHINGTON (AP)

   Some statistics contrasting the actual budget deficits of the past 13 
years with the reductions promised by the Reagan and Bush administrations.
   Federal fiscal years begin on Oct. 1 of the previous calendar year.
For example, fiscal 1981 began on Oct. 1, 1980. Thus, each president's
first year in office is spent operating under a budget fashioned by
his predecessor.
   Last actual deficit under President Carter:
   Fiscal 1981: $79 billion.

   Actual deficits under President Reagan:
   Fiscal 1982: $128 billion.
   1983: $207.8 billion.
   1984: $185.4 billion.
   1986: $221.2 billion.
   1987: $149.8 billion.
   1988: $155.2 billion.
   1989: $152.5 billion.

   Actual deficits under President Bush:
   Fiscal 1990: $221.4 billion.
   1991: $269.5 billion.
   1992: $290.2 billion.
   1993 (estimate): $327.3 billion.

   Some deficit projections made by Reagan and Bush in budgets they
have presented to Congress:
   A $500 million surplus in fiscal 1984, projected by Reagan's fiscal
	1982 budget presented in 1981.
   A $168 billion deficit in fiscal 1985, projected by Reagan's fiscal
	1983 budget presented in 1982.
   A $1.3 billion surplus in fiscal 1991, projected by Reagan's fiscal
	1987 budget presented in 1986.
   A $12.3 billion surplus in fiscal 1992, projected by Reagan's fiscal 
	1988 budget presented in 1987.
   A $23 billion deficit in fiscal 1993, projected by Reagan's fiscal
	1989 budget presented in 1988.
   A $2 billion surplus in fiscal 1993, projected by Bush's fiscal
	1990 budget presented in 1989.
   A $20 billion surplus in fiscal 1993, projected by Bush's fiscal
	1991 budget presented in 1990.
   A $20 billion surplus in fiscal 1996, projected by Bush's fiscal
	1992 budget presented in 1991.
   A $188 billion deficit in fiscal 1997, projected by Bush's fiscal
	1993 budget presented in 1992.
   A $320 billion deficit in fiscal 1998, projected by Bush on Jan. 6,
	1993.
				####
-- 
Dewey Coffman dewey@ctci.com  All opinions expressed are unrelated to reality.
CTC, Inc.			  "That voodoo stuff don't do nothing for me."
"If you fail to plan, plan to fail" 	PANIC: waiting for a good idea.
From: wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu (Rick Russell)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Social Security
Date: 7 Jan 1993 04:25:14 -0600
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
Distribution: tx
NNTP-Posting-Host: tamsun.tamu.edu

In article <1753@airgun.wg.waii.com> reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com writes:

>1) Life expectency is measured from birth.  Men who live to retirement
>age will on the average live to be a few years older than 72 (the life
>expectency of males).  Women who live to retirement age will also, on
>the average, live past 79.  I don't have the figures for how long the
>average retiree collects SS, but it will be longer than the 7 years
>for men retiring at 65.

Are you *absolutely sure* about this? I'm no expert on demographics or
population statistics, but my impression from a lot of history classes
(where professors like to dote on life expectancy) is that life
expectancy is measured *without* infant mortality... only kiddies that
survive to 5 years old are taken into account in the life expectancy
numbers.

As a quick real world check, look at the middle ages. Depending on
location and time, life expectancy was about 35-45 years, but *infant
mortality* (death 0-5 years) was 3-4 out of 5 births. If the infant
mortality rate was included in the life expectancy stats, you'd expect
most adults to live to 120 years or so, so the average of 3 dead
babies + 1 dead adult would be about 30 years.

Well, that's how I reason it, anyway.



-- 
#      Rick Russell | TAMU Meteorology | wrr3118@tamsun.tamu.edu       # 
#     "I am Elfy of Atlantis." "I am Jo-Jo of Munchkinland."           #
#     "We are Elfy and Jo-Jo!"                                         #
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Repost from alt.beer(Beer laws in Texas)
Date: 12 Jan 93 13:24:41 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <exuptr.598.0@exu.ericsson.se> exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:


>>- Their support of roadblocks to screen for drunk drivers without
>>  probable cause.

>Although I can see the viewpoint that this is a violation of personal 
>rights, I believe that it can do more good than harm in high-risk areas (
>like on Grenville Ave in Dallas).

>I'm for the preservation of individual rights, but I think these rights are 
>abused a lot these days.  We should ask the question, "If you don't want to 
>have screening, why not?  Are you afraid they will catch *you*?"

No, this is exactly the question we SHOULDN'T ask.  Why, pray tell,
should someone believing that we shouldn't suspend the Constitution
just because someone thinks there is 'good cause' a reason to make the
assumption that they drive drunk?  I think it is a more appropriate
question to ask the people who want to wad up the Constitution and
throw it away just which right is NEXT on their little list of rights
they want to not allow to those who disagree with them.  

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com (Dewey Coffman)
Subject: YACIDR(Yet Another CallerID repost)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:43:26 GMT
Distribution: tx
Reply-To: dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com
Organization: IBM, Austin, TX. US of A.
Keywords: CallerID


	Anyone ELSE taking note of all these and into some 
	REAL (ok, quasi-real) data in your letters to Legislators 
	or the PUC?
	-dewey
======================================================================
In TELECOM Digest V13, #8 I read the following concerning Caller ID
penetration.
 
Colorado (Richard Lucas):    Heavy Demand at initial offering.
Nevada   (Centel)       :    10% penetration
IBT      (Moderator)    :    Very popular service long term
New Jersey (NJ Bell)    :    4.6% penetration (no blocking available)
 
Colorada has PUC mandated restrictions about blocking availability
and, as I remember, so does IBT. I am unsure about Nevada -- does
anyone know if blocking availablity is mandated there?
 
I realize that initial demand in Colorado doesn't necessarily
translate into similar long term demand, but for the sake of argument,
assume it does.  Let's also assume that Nevada has mandated blocking
availability.
 
That would mean that Caller ID penetration is higher in those areas
with mandated blocking than in the area that doesn't have any blocking
at all available. By more than double in the case of Nevada!
 
Perhaps PacBell is making a marketing mistake by not offering caller
id even though mandated blocking restrictions would apply? Perhaps
their total revenues would be higher than if no blocking at all was
available?
------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Gorman - SWBT
*opinions are mine, any resemblance to official policy is coincidence*
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: jfh@rpp386 (John F. Haugh II)
Subject: Re: Sum taxes? (was Re: Social Security)
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Organization: Los Tejanos SCUBA Club and Beer Joint, Austin, Tejas
Distribution: tx
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:48:46 GMT

In article <C0qECG.KCL@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>	I'd be curious to find out ...
>1. Did you include sales tax, gas tax, etc.

Yes.  I usually make estimates for sales and gasoline taxes.  I ignore
most of the excise taxes since I don't buy that many car tires ...
(Got to pay for that war, you know ;-)

>2. What % of your gross income did this represent?

Last year it was something on the order of 55 to 60 percent.  It looks
to be about the same this year, to a few points lower.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                  [ PGP 2.1 ] !'s: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151           [ DoF #17 ]        @'s: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
"If we make SS need based, can we change the name to: Failing Incompetents
    Compensation Allotment?"  -- Dr. Michael Reed
Newsgroups: tx.politics