definitely, let's put it in some context [ this is the last I

[David Farber <farber@central.cis.upenn.edu>]

Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 23:37:09 -0500
To: farber@central.cis.upenn.edu (David Farber)
From: rjs@farnsworth.mit.edu (Richard Jay Solomon)


Putting it in some context:


>From: rick@cra.org (Rick Weingarten)
>Subject: Re: the implications of Republican control of the Congress


>The Republican Contract has to be put in some context.
>


>Senator Gramm has said clearly, for instance, that his main target for cuts
>is welfare.


That's 1 percent of the annual Federal budget. A tithe is a tenth. 0.01 is
smaller than 0.10. Did all the kids who had trouble with decimal points in
the 3d grade go on to become lawyers?


>of NIST for example. Their reactions to HPCC will, in some sense depend on


That's 0.3 percent of the annual federal budget. And, besides it's the Dems
who said that Newt wants to eliminate HPCC; Newt didn't specifically target
this program.


When do we get some useful signal-to-noise ratios?


Richard Solomon




and


From: clarkw@sam.neosoft.com (Clark R. Wilkins)


>Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 09:10:48 EST
>From: Michael Felker <mfelker@central.cis.upenn.edu>
>
>vis a vis the Mafia, I believe it should be restated as the Republican
>"Contract on America".  M.


It seems to me that this is at best a political cheap shot. How about some
reasoning rather than an off the cuff remark? The "contract" is an
agreement to bring 10 items to the house floor for a vote. It is NOT an
agreement to make all ten happen. It seems reasonable to me that we see
these issues get legitimate, open debate, rather than be hidden away in
secret committees.


Clark R. Wilkins <clarkw@sam.neosoft.com>