Letters: Blood Alcohol Content Levels, Micro-Housing
NEAL CONAN, HOST:
It's Wednesday, and time to read from your comments. Last week, we talked LZ Granderson, who opposes a proposal to lower the blood alcohol content limit from .08 to .05.
Josiah Rousch(ph) in Clifton Park, New York, had a different idea. He wrote: Let's increase access to public transportation in areas where people are heavily reliant on driving to bars and other social areas where drinking's involved. Instead of arresting people - especially repeat offenders - let's change behavior in a more pragmatic way.
Alex in Saint Louis wrote: I'd be willing to bet the majority of car accidents are caused by people well over the age existing .08, rather than below the current threshold. Better enforcement of the existing law is what's needed, not lowering the standard. And don't get me started on phones and texting while driving.
We also talked about the future of micro-housing here in the U.S., and asked about your experience living in tiny spaces.
Richard Gould(ph) wrote from Guangzhou, China: Interesting show, but in most of the rest of the world, that's just called housing. Visit the most populated cities in Asia and the developing world, and housing under 500 square feet is the norm.
Kevin Cruz(ph) wrote: Does anyone want to live this way, or is this a case of having to live this way? If the latter, aren't we treating a symptom, not the real problem?
And for Grace Ramirez(ph), tiny living was part of the best years of her life. I loved living in my small studio in Dupont Circle in D.C. for five years in the mid-2000s. It was approximately 400 square feet, which is big compared to some of the other callers. My kitchenette and bathroom were tiny, but all I needed. It was big enough to have a few friends over, and the world of D.C. was at my doorstep.
And during last week's Political Junkie segment, we got a lot of response after Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway misstated the role the IRS plays in Obamacare, and when I pointed out the error, misstated the facts again.
Liz in Riverside, California, was among those put off by my response. She wrote: I was surprised and disappointed at you're dismissive no, it's not, in your response to the conservative woman's statement on the role of the IRS in Obamacare. I'm not a Republican, but I found your remark rude and thoughtless.
Barbara Scoglind(ph) in North St. Paul, Minnesota, was among those with a different view: Just because eligibility for insurance affordability programs will be determined by the modified adjusted gross income from the applicant's previous year's tax return doesn't mean the IRS controls the Affordable Care Act. And if someone doesn't' file taxes, there are alternative methods to determine their eligibility. Also, am I and my husband the only sane people who think there is nothing wrong with the IRS scrutinizing the tax-exempt applications for organizations who argue that the federal government has no right to tax in the first place and who advocate for legal an illegal tax-dodging?
If you have a correction, comment or question for us, the best way to reach us is by email. The address is email@example.com. Please, let us know where you're writing from and give us some help on how to pronounce your name. If you're on Twitter, you can follow us there @totn. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.