What a government shutdown means to you

[Jolie Rouge]

Adam Martin – Wed Apr 6, 7:25 am ET

The ongoing standoff in Washington over the federal budget is now less than three days away from its deadline, with Republicans and Democrats still locked in disagreement in the House of Representatives. If the parties can't pass a spending plan by the end of Friday, money will stop flowing from federal coffers, and the government will start to shut down on Saturday. But what does that mean, exactly?

For the general Public : Unless you are one of 4.4 million people who work for the federal government, you probably won't notice the shutdown at first, especially since many federal offices are closed on the weekend anyway. Employees considered essential — including soldiers, security personnel and intelligence workers — will remain on the job, but operations like the Smithsonian will close. As the New York Times points out, "the National Zoo will close but the lions will get fed." Federal courts will stay open for at least a couple of weeks, operating from funds they have on hand. "After that, who knows?" courts spokeswoman Karen E. Redmond told the Times. The Post Office will stay open, as it is owned, but not operated by the federal government, but the IRS will close. That means many people waiting on refund checks will have to keep waiting. However, Social Security checks will go out.

For federal employees : Some or all of the 1.9 civilian government employees could be furloughed if they are deemed non-essential. According to the Washington Post, "any workers scheduled to take paid leave would not be able to, and some would be eligible for unemployment benefits if a shutdown continued for more than a few days."

Furloughed congressional staffers have been paid in the past, the Times reports, "but the political climate now is different, and lawmakers might be less willing to do so." If the shutdown lasts more than a week or so, members of the military — deemed essential personnel — may have to go to work without pay. Reports the Post: "If the current funding expires on Friday, in the middle of the military’s two-week pay period, the Defense Department would distribute paychecks for the first week."

For Congress : A group of 21 Senate Democrats is trying to pass a bill to halt pay for Congress and the President, but that seems unlikely, the Post reports.

“Our bill is simple: If we cannot do our work and keep the government functioning, we should not receive a paycheck,” the Senate Democrats wrote to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). “If we cannot compromise and meet each other halfway, then we should not be paid.”

Michael Steel, a spokesman for Boehner, responded that House Republicans’ “goal is to cut spending, not shut down the government – and we’ve passed a bill to just that,” a reference to the $61 billion in proposed cuts passed by the House in February but later rejected by the Senate.

For state governments : States that are far more cash-strapped than they were during the government shutdowns of 1995 and 1996 will have a very hard time. Not only will state programs funded by federal grants — such as higher education, research, and law enforcement training — likely be delayed or stopped, but the trickle-down effect of unpaid government contracts, closed national parks and shuttered federal offices would mean local industry and tourism would suffer.

Both parties claim they want to avoid a shutdown at all costs, and as Reuters points out, the public will blame both equally if one occurs. The Associated Press talked to some economists who said a shutdown could drag the economy back into a recession "very quickly." We've got a little less than 72 hours to get the bill passed, so lawmakers, roll up those sleeves and get to compromising.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/atlantic/20110406/pl_atlantic/whatgovernmentshutdownmeansyou36386

Wait..... you mean to tell me that these d-bags in congress get paid and our soldiers work for free. I don't think so. I think its time to fire some politicians real soon starting from the top.

---

So let me see if I get this right. The government is going to continue to collect the same amount of taxes from us citizens...then they are going to stop providing services that tax payer money is paying for....then if you are government worker you are going to get your taxes taken out of the check that you are not getting??? Am I missing something? How did this country make it from 1775 to 2000 and only have 7 trillion dollars in debt...then from 2000 to 2010 create 7 more trillion dollars in debt. As a veteran who has 2 combat tours in Iraq with PTSD, why am I and people like me not getting compensation for our service to our country yet politicians are always seen wearing nice suits, driving nice cars, living in nice home...ect., funded by tax payers!! I thought the government was a representation of the people! So how is it so many Americans are struggling to pay for huge bail out plans and then being made to forcibly not get paid because of furloughs due to lack of responsible government spending. If a soldier has to work for free or not get compensated for their service because of a government shut down, then what does this say about the state in which our country is in! I wonder how many of our politicians have homes in foreclosure!? How many of our representatives cannot afford basic life necessities?

---


...should not receive a paycheck... If they cannot pass a budget and keep the economy running they are useless at their jobs and need to be FIRED IMMEDIATELY. REMOVED FROM OFFICE.

---

Time to stop clinging to one political party or the other and come to the realization that both Dems and Repubs are not helping this country. Rather, they are messing things up.

[Jolie Rouge]

Andrew Taylor, Associated Press – 32 mins ago

WASHINGTON – House Republicans advanced legislation Thursday to avoid a government shutdown for one more week, cut spending and fully fund the Pentagon, but the White House labeled the measure a distraction and said President Barack Obama would veto it.

Obama said in a statement he believes "we need to put politics aside and work out our differences" on a spending plan that covers the government through September, when the current budget year ends.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, quickly countered with a statement saying he was "confident that those Democrats who believe it is important to fund our troops and make real spending cuts will prevail upon Senator Reid and our commander in chief to keep the government from shutting down."

The exchange occurred shortly before Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., were due at the White House for their second sit-down with the president in a little more than 12 hours.

It marked a sour turn in talks that all three men said Wednesday night were showing promise.

With a partial shutdown looming for Friday at midnight, it was not clear whether it represented a significant breakdown in the negotiations or a final round of maneuvering before a deal was struck.

Obama has already signed two stopgap bills, containing a total of $10 billion in cuts, to allow time for negotiations on a bill to close out the budget year.

Republicans want more cuts as part of any deal, bringing the total to perhaps $40 billion, as well as non-spending items that would curtail the reach of the Environmental Protection Agency and cut off federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

Before departing the Capitol, Boehner urged the House to pass legislation to cut $12 billion, fund the Pentagon through the end of the year and keep the government running for a week.

"There is absolutely no policy reason for the Senate to not follow the House in taking these responsible steps to support our troops and to keep our government open," he said.

Boehner accused the White House of backsliding, adding that there hadn't been as much progress as it appeared after the late-night meeting Wednesday.

"It's really just more of the same. We're going to have real spending cuts. I don't know what some people don't understand about this," he said.

Reid said otherwise, although he, too, made it clear he wants to avoid a shutdown that the White House says would cause problems for combat troops overseas and delay Internal Revenue Service refunds for taxpayers at home.

"The issue is ideology, not numbers," he said.

He criticized Republican proposals to limit the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency and prohibit the use of federal or local funds to pay for most abortions in the District of Columbia.

"These matters have no place on a budget bill," he said.

California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the House democratic leader, took issue with the Republicans" decision to include defense money in the bill.

"For them to want to disguise their bad proposal by hiding behind our troops is really a disservice to our troops," she said.

Despite Reid's assertion that the two sides largely had agreed on spending cuts, Boehner said partial agreements were not possible.

Boehner recently floated $40 billion in cuts, more than the $33 billion that the negotiators had adopted as a framework. But it was less than the $61 billion in a House-passed bill.

Other policy issues pressed by Republicans include blocking money to put in place Obama's health care bill; effectively stripping the EPA from enforcing rules on global warming, cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay and lakes in Florida; and limiting enforcement of last year's financial overhaul law.

Obama emerged from the negotiations late Wednesday night to declare that differences between Republicans and Democrats had narrowed somewhat. He also said only urgent action could avert a shutdown.

Even a brief shutdown could affect a wide range of Americans, from troops fighting abroad who are awaiting their pay to tourists planning trips to national parks.

The move by Boehner to advance a one-week interim budget measure angered his Democratic negotiating counterparts and came after negotiations at the White House moved slower than had been hoped.

Boehner's move appeared aimed at shifting political blame if a shutdown occurs, but the announcement of Thursday's vote angered Democrats who felt talks were progressing.

It's also about the last piece of leverage Boehner had, using the Pentagon budget to put political pressure on Democrats and to seek to blame them for a shutdown. But after a shutdown, Boehner's options appear to become more limited.

"I have yet to talk to anybody, member or staff, who's been able to explain to me how Boehner's leverage increases during a shutdown," said GOP lobbyist Jack Howard, who worked for House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., during the last shutdowns in 1995-96.

Democrats said privately that the White House was infuriated after Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas — the No. 4 House Republican — accused Obama of leaving the talks to focus on his re-election campaign in official appearances in Pennsylvania and New York City.

Obama had ruled out the weeklong measure Republicans intend to push through the House, and Senate Democrats have labeled it a nonstarter. Republican officials said the details of the bill could yet change. But passage of any interim measure is designed to place the onus on the Democratic-controlled Senate to act if a shutdown is to be avoided.

At issue is legislation needed to keep the day-to-day operations of federal agencies going through the Sept. 30 end of the budget year.

A Democratic-led Congress failed to complete the must-pass spending bills last year, setting the stage for Republicans assuming power in the House in January to pass a measure with $61 billion in cuts that even some GOP appropriators saw as unworkable. It was rejected in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

In event of a shutdown, officials said military personnel at home and abroad would receive one week's pay instead of two in their next checks. Among those affected would be troops in Iraq, Afghanistan and the region around Libya.

Tax audits would be suspended — welcome news to some, no doubt — but there were unhappy tidings for others. Income tax returns filed on paper would pile up at the IRS, and refunds would be delayed as a result.

National parks would close, as would the Smithsonian Institution and its world-class collection of museums clustered along the National Mall within sight of the Capitol. Officials were less clear about the Cherry Blossom Festival, scheduled for this weekend in Washington.

Democrats have ruled out agreeing to stop funding the year-old health care overhaul or to deny Planned Parenthood all federal money. Reid has said he will not agree to any of the EPA curbs.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110407/ap_on_re_us/us_spending_showdown

It would be nice & a show of leadership if the first 13% cut was congressional & executive branch salaries. I know it would not be a large sum, but it would show leadership. While they are at it they might reign in their pension & medical costs too. 4 or 8 years to get a pension for life is too sweet of a deal.

---

It appears that many of you are finally getting it. The congress is the first to ask americans to make sacrafices, but what sacrafices are the congressmen making. I agree lets start by cutting their salaries, healthcare, pensions, and other heffy benefits that we the american taxpayers pay for. Why don't the congress disclose the annual budget dollars it cost for all their benefits collectively? Not to mention how much money is it costing with all this stop-go spending measures? It seems to me that congress is wasting more money on spending than saving.

[Jolie Rouge]

White House says shutdown will delay pay to troops
Richard Lardner And Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press – Thu Apr 7, 12:33 am ET

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration warned Wednesday that a federal shutdown would undermine the economic recovery, delay pay to U.S. troops fighting in three wars, slow the processing of tax returns and limit small business loans and government-backed mortgages during peak home buying season.

The dire message, delivered two days before the federal government's spending authority expires, appeared aimed at jolting congressional Republicans into a budget compromise. Billions of dollars apart, congressional negotiators were working to strike a deal by Friday to avert a shutdown by setting spending limits through the end of September. The last such shutdown took place 15 years ago and lasted 21 days.

President Barack Obama telephoned House Speaker John Boehner on Wednesday, and Boehner's office said the speaker told Obama he was hopeful a deal could be reached.

As the talks continued, the White House sought to put the prospect of a shutdown in terms people would care about, warning even that the beloved National Cherry Blossom Festival Parade in the nation's capital would be wiped out. The Smithsonian Institution and national parks around the country would also be closed.

A shutdown would come at an especially busy time for the Smithsonian. The Cherry Blossom Festival, which concludes this weekend, draws many tourists to an area near the museums. The Smithsonian counts about 3 million visits each April and has already sold 23,000 IMAX movie and lunch combos to school groups for the month.

Under long-standing federal rules, agencies would not be affected that provide for U.S. national security, dispense most types of federal benefit payments, offer inpatient medical care or outpatient emergency care, ensure the safe use of food and drugs, manage air traffic, protect and monitor borders and coastlines, guard prisoners, conduct criminal investigations and law enforcement, oversee power distribution and oversee banks.




Mail deliveries would continue in the event of a shutdown. U.S. postal operations are not subsidized by tax dollars.

According to the shutdown scenario described by the administration, the government would have to significantly cut staffing across the executive branch, including workers at the White House and civilian employees at the Defense Department; close to 800,000 workers would be affected. Congress and the federal court system will also be subject to a shutdown.

At the Pentagon, defense officials were finalizing plans that would lay out how the department would deal with a shutdown. But they already have acknowledged that U.S. military troops — including those in war zones — would receive one week's pay instead of two in their next paycheck if the government were to close.

Military personnel at home and abroad would continue to earn pay, but they wouldn't get paychecks until there was a budget agreement and government operations resumed.

Col. Dave Lapan, a Pentagon spokesman, said that the Pentagon would be open on Monday and would be staffed. He said decisions on which Defense Department employees must report to work would depend on their jobs, rather than where they were based.

Key national security responsibilities, including operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya and earthquake assistance to Japan, would not be interrupted by a shutdown, the Pentagon said.

The CIA also would not close, though it would be drawing down some nonessential personnel to be in compliance with federal law, according to a senior intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss matters of intelligence.

Officials familiar with the shutdown say essential counterterrorism functions in other parts of the intelligence community would continue, like monitoring of the terrorist watch lists and essential intelligence collection and analysis.

In the event of a shutdown, the Justice Department said it would be forced to stop or significantly curtail most civil litigation, community outreach to victims of crime and the processing of grants.

But other Justice Department functions would continue, including efforts to combat drug trafficking and gun violence. All 116 federal prisons would remain open and prison staff would continue to work. At the department's headquarters and in U.S. Attorneys offices, all criminal cases would continue without interruption.

At the Internal Revenue Service, the tax filing deadline remained April 18 — delayed three days because of a local holiday in Washington. Tax audits, however, would be suspended if there were a shutdown.

The IRS wouldn't process paper returns during a shutdown. Those expecting a refund should file their returns electronically and ask that the money be deposited directly into their bank accounts. Tax payments were welcome, though it was still unclear whether help lines for taxpayers would be staffed.

Social Security payments would continue to be delivered, and applications for benefits would continue to be processed, Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue said.

Astrue said Social Security headquarters and regional offices would be closed. Some limited services would still be available at field offices, but the details were still being worked out, he said.

Medicare would still pay medical claims for its 48 million recipients, who are mainly seniors but also several million younger people who are permanently disabled or have kidney failure. Payments to doctors, hospitals and other service providers could be delayed, however, should a shutdown continue for several months.

At the National Institutes of Health, groundbreaking medical research would experience a disruption. Patients already being treated at the NIH's famed hospital in Bethesda, Md., would continue to get that care, but new patients could not be admitted. Likewise, no new studies of drugs or other treatments could begin.

The Federal Housing Administration, which guarantees about 30 percent of home mortgages, would stop guaranteeing loans. The issuance of government backed loans to small businesses would be suspended, according to the White House.

The Obama administration said the impact on the housing market would be more severe than in 1995, the last time there was a government shutdown. The Federal Housing Administration accounts for 30 percent of the mortgage market, nearly three times the amount 16 years ago.

The nation's 15,700 air traffic controllers would keep working, as would many of the Federal Aviation Administration's 6,100 technicians who install and maintain the equipment for the nation's air traffic control system.

FAA inspectors who oversee airlines' compliance with safety regulations probably would continue to be at work. But it was unclear Wednesday whether the safety inspectors assigned to aircraft manufacturers would be told to stay on the job. Support personnel at the agency would be told to stay home.

Almost all of the Federal Transit Administration would close and that means local transit agencies would have to wait longer to get federal aid. Most of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which issues auto recalls and makes grants to states for safety campaigns, would also close.

Operation of the International Space Station would be unaffected. NASA's Mission Control in Houston would continue to work around the clock to keep watch.

But it was unclear what impact there might be on preparations for the final two space shuttle missions, said NASA spokesman Bob Jacobs. Endeavour is due to lift off April 29, Atlantis on June 28.

Among other consequences cited by the administration:

_The Environmental Protection Agency would cease issuing permits and stop reviewing environmental impact statements, which would slow the approval of projects.

_Most government websites would not be updated, unless they were deemed essential.

_Federal courts would be unable to hear cases as clerks, stenographers, bailiffs, security guards and other employees would not be at work.

___

Associated Press writers Lolita C. Baldor, Anne Gearan, Joan Lowy, Lauran Neergaard, Stephen Ohlemacher, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Brett Zongker in Washington and Marcia Dunn in Cape Canaveral, Fla., contributed to this report.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110407/ap_on_re_us/us_government_shutdown

[Jolie Rouge]

When the going gets tough, the president…gets on a plane ASAP!

Via WaPo, the president zooms as the shutdown looms: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/44/post/despite-spending-impasse-obama-to-head-out-of-washington/2011/04/05/AFpsdknC_blog.html


A fiery President Obama insisted Tuesday that if he and congressional leaders couldn’t reach a deal to avert a government shutdown, “I want a meeting again tomorrow here at the White House.”

“I will invite the same folks that we invited today,” he added. “And if that doesn’t work, we’ll invite them again the day after that. And I will have my entire team available to work through the details of getting a deal done.”

Obama’s team may not include the president himself. Despite the impasse in Washington over federal spending, the president as of early Wednesday was scheduled to give two speeches outside of Washington: one on energy in the Philadelphia suburbs, then another Wednesday evening to a group of black political activists in New York.

If the schedule remains intact, it will be the president’s first trip outside the capital since he officially declared Monday he will seek a second term. And while Obama (D) and his aides have repeated said he will not focus on his campaign in the next few months, his schedule may contradict those words.

Yes, Obama’s actions contradicting his words is the norm we’ve all grown to know and love.

[sunniekiss]

I just read we are going to bail-out the postal system. This is simple math people...stop spending more money than you bring in. then you don't get on a plane & go campaign. Stay put, roll up your sleeves & get this budget done. The saftey of our troops & country are a priority not a campaign rally. SMH!

[SLance68]

Just hope everyone remembers this when the 2012 elections come around!!!!!!!!

[jasmine]

covers the government through September....

I believe this is what my boss was talking about, our daycare facility is also an early headstart center, if continued funding does not continue, and they don't pass some law come September, then we have a huge chance that our facility will shut down, because the headstart program is government ran. We need the funding to continue for these children. Not only for our children, but for all the people with jobs that work there. The majority of the money we get is from the headstart program.

[Jolie Rouge]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/bg040811dAPR20110408034538.jpg

[newwiccan]

We're an Army family and our next pay check is half of what it should be. We'll be fine for a short amount of time but there's so many lower ranking people who won't be.

[iluvmybaby]

The frightening thing is, we dont know how long this shut down will be, could be days, could be weeks.....could be longer. And, Govt workers cant pay their bills in IOUS. Specifically, armed forces forces should be paid, PERIOD.

[Jolie Rouge]

'Historic' deal to avoid government shutdown
David Espo, Ap Special Correspondent – 9 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Perilously close to a government shutdown, President Barack Obama and congressional leaders reached a historic agreement late Friday night to cut about $38 billion in federal spending and avert the first federal closure in 15 years.

Obama hailed the deal as "the biggest annual spending cut in history." House Speaker John Boehner said that over the next decade it would cut government spending by $500 billion, and won an ovation from his rank and file -tea party adherents among them. "This is historic, what we've done," agreed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., the third man involved in negotiations that ratified a new era of divided government.

They announced the agreement less than an hour before government funding was due to run out. The shutdown would have closed national parks, tax-season help lines and other popular services, though the military would have stayed on duty and other essential efforts such as air traffic control would have continued in effect.

On side issues — "riders," the negotiators called them — the Democrats and the White House rebuffed numerous Republican attempts to curtail the reach of the Environmental Protection Agency and sidetracked their demand to deny federal funds to Planned Parenthood. Anti-abortion lawmakers succeeded in winning a provision to ban the use of federal or local government funds to pay for abortions in the District of Columbia.

Lawmakers raced to pass an interim measure to prevent a shutdown, however brief, and keep the federal machinery running for the next several days. The Senate acted within minutes. The House worked past midnight, so the federal government was to be technically unfunded for a short period of time, but there would be little — if any — practical impact

The deal came together after six grueling weeks and an outbreak of budget brinksmanship over the past few days as the two sides sought to squeeze every drop of advantage in private talks. "We know the whole world is watching us today," Reid said earlier in a day that produced incendiary, campaign style rhetoric as well as intense negotiation.

Reid, Obama and Boehner all agreed a shutdown posed risks to an economy still recovering from the worst recession in decades. But there were disagreements aplenty among the principal players in an early test of divided government — Obama in the White House, fellow Democrats in control in the Senate and a new, tea party-flavored Republican majority in the House. "Republican leaders in the House have only a few hours left to look in the mirror, snap out of it and realize how positively shameful that would be," Reid said at one point, accusing Republicans of risking a shutdown to pursue a radical social agenda.

For much of the day, Reid and Boehner disagreed about what the disagreement was about. Reid said there had been an agreement at a White House meeting Thursday night to cut spending by about $38 billion. He said Republicans also were demanding unspecified cuts in health services for lower income women that were unacceptable to Democrats. "Republicans want to shut down our nation's government because they want to make it harder to get cancer screenings," he said. "They want to throw women under the bus."

Boehner said repeatedly that wasn't the case — it was spending cuts that divided two sides. "Most of the policy issues have been dealt with, and the big fight is about spending," he said. "When will the White House and when will Senate Democrats get serious about cutting federal spending."

By midday Friday, 12 hours before the funding would run out, most federal employees had been told whether they had been deemed essential or would be temporarily laid off in the event of a shutdown. Obama canceled a scheduled Friday trip to Indianapolis — and a weekend family visit to Colonial Williamsburg in Virginia — and kept in touch with both Boehner and Reid.

The standoff began several weeks ago, when the new Republican majority in the House passed legislation to cut $61 billion from federal spending and place numerous curbs on the government.

In the weeks since, the two sides have alternately negotiated and taken time out to pass interim measures.

Originally, Republicans wanted to ban federal funds for Planned Parenthood, a health care services provider that is also the nation's largest provider of abortions. Federal funds may not be used to pay for abortions except in strictly regulated cases, but supporters of the ban said cutting off government funds for the organization — currently about $330 million a year — would make it harder for it to use its own money for the same purpose.

Democrats rejected the proposal in private talks. Officials in both parties said Republicans returned earlier in the week with a proposal to distribute federal funds for family planning and related health services to the states, rather than directly to Planned Parenthood and other organizations. Democrats said they rejected that proposal, as well, and then refused to agree to allow a separate Senate vote on the issue as part of debate over any compromise bill.

Instead, they launched a sustained campaign at both ends of the Capitol to criticize Republicans. "We'll not allow them to use women as pawns," said Sen. Patty Murray, a fourth-term lawmaker from Washington who doubles as head of the Democratic senatorial campaign committee.

For Congress and Obama there are even tougher struggles still ahead — over a Republican budget that would remake entire federal programs, and a vote to raise the nation's debt limit.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ap_on_re_us/us_spending_showdown

Everyone's screaming for accountability for teachers. Well, more imperatively, we should DEMAND accountability from our legislators. Their hours spent with lobbyists (and the resulting money/voting that stems from this shady activity), their voting records, incomes, every cent of their benefits and pensions, and every corporation and special interest group which contributes to their campaigns - and how much is contributed, again comparing it to their voting - should be published in a VERY public place for all to see. You talk about being accountable for the results of your work? Washington and state politicians should be the first ones to answer for their actions. Make their jobs as transparent as glass, then sit back and watch them squirm like the worms they are.

--

They can play with our benefits, but why is it I have not heard a word about Congress cutting theirs? It may be the tip of the iceberg, but it would be a start if they would pay for their own health care, like we do, and set up a retirement plan for themselves that better resembles our choices -- instead of simply taking all they can from us at no expense to themselves. A pay cut wouldn't hurt things either.

---

Let's start by rolling back salaries of House & Senate members, forcing them to pay a higher out of pocket co-pay on all medical services and needs, plus sharply cutting their retirement benefits.

If government has become too big then let's start cutting right there in Washington DC. I'd bet two bits that the suggested cuts would NEVER happen. They want to cut spending for education, seniors, etc., etc. but they themselves would refuse to throw any of their "benefits" into the pot to save even $1.

[jasmine]

I wonder what all the 38 billion dollar cut included

[pepperpot]

Obama hailed the deal as "the biggest annual spending cut in history." House Speaker John Boehner said that over the next decade it would cut government spending by $500 billion, and won an ovation from his rank and file -tea party adherents among them. "This is historic, what we've done," agreed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., the third man involved in negotiations that ratified a new era of divided government.



By midday Friday, 12 hours before the funding would run out, most federal employees had been told whether they had been deemed essential or would be temporarily laid off in the event of a shutdown. Obama canceled a scheduled Friday trip to Indianapolis — and a weekend family visit to Colonial Williamsburg in Virginia — and kept in touch with both Boehner and Reid.


Obama was out campaigning for most of the negotiations and debates.....but he'll take credit for this "most historical" event anyway.........:headshake

If they didn't have the Repubs pushing them against the wall, how much of a spending increase would have gone on? :rolleyes: But Obama hails the deal! :puke:

[Bliss]

OBAMA! This is exactly why stupid people shouldn't be able to vote.

[Jolie Rouge]

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes? You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don't set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does. One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 235 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank. I excluded all but the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislation's responsibility to determine how he votes.


Don't you see how the con game that is played on the people by the politicians? Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party. What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of the speaker, who stood up and criticized the president for creating deficits.

The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating appropriations and taxes. Boehner is the speaker of the House. He is the leader of the majority party. He and his fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetos it, they can pass it over his veto.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 235 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem, from an unfair tax code to defense overruns, that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Military are in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya, it's because they want them in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya . There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take it. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exist disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation" or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do. Those 545 people and they alone are responsible. They and they alone have the power. They and they alone should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided they have the gumption to manage their own employees.

~~ anonamous

[Jolie Rouge]

Obama to lay out spending plan
Laurie Kellman, Associated Press – 7 mins ago

WASHINGTON – One budget deal down, President Barack Obama and Congress began to pivot Sunday from the painful standoff over this year's spending to a pair of defining debates over the nation's borrowing limit and the election-year budget.

Much will be revealed at midweek, when the House and Senate are expected to vote on a budget for the remainder of this fiscal year and Obama reveals his plan to reduce the deficit, in part by scaling back programs for seniors and the poor. Across the dial on Sunday, messengers from both parties framed the series of spending fights as debates over cuts — a thematic victory for House Republicans swept to power by a populist mandate for smaller, more austere government. "We've had to bring this president kicking and screaming to the table to cut spending," said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., on "Fox News Sunday."

Presidential adviser David Plouffe said Obama has long been committed to finding ways for the nation to spend within its means. He confirmed that the president would unveil more specifics for deficit reduction with a speech Wednesday that would reveal plans to reduce the government's chief health programs for seniors and the poor. "You're going to have to look at Medicare and Medicaid and see what kind of savings you can get," Obama adviser David Plouffe said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, called Obama's planned speech "an apparent recognition that the budget plan he submitted to Congress ... fails to address our dire fiscal challenges."

In a press release Sunday, Sessions said any revision to the 2012 budget submitted by Obama in February "must be presented in a detailed, concrete form" for scrutiny by the House and Senate budget committees and the Congressional Budget Office.

The presidential speech on Wednesday is part of official Washington's shift from the standoff over spending through September to next year's budget and beyond. Alone and together, the prospects of raising the debt ceiling and passing a 2012 spending plan are politically perilous, a knot that lawmakers will spend the coming months trying to unravel. That means competing plans to shore up the nation's long-term fiscal health in a debate many predict will make Friday's nail-biter look minor.

For all the forward focus Sunday, congressional officials still were analyzing Friday's 348-70 vote to fund the government through the week. Operating under it, aides were putting to paper the longer-term bipartisan accord to fund the government through September. It wasn't clear that the vote would remain the same on the spending bill for the next six months.

The late hour of Friday's handshake left lawmakers little time to react. House members of both parties who voted for the funding through the week could not say on Sunday that they'd vote for the plan to fund the government through September.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., who voted "yes" Friday to extend funding this week while the final compromise was written, said he was nonetheless undecided on whether he'd vote for the final deal. On ABC's "This Week," he said he didn't think the six-month compromise would pass.

On the other side of the aisle, Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., also a "yes" vote on Friday, would not commit to voting for the six-month deal either.

Pence praised House Speaker John Boehner for fighting "the good fight."

"It sounds like John Boehner got a good deal, probably not good enough for me to support it, but a good deal nonetheless," Pence said on ABC.

Friday's tally also offered a look at Republicans likely to be the staunchest opponents of any compromises on spending and policy.

Twenty-eight of the "no" votes were cast by Republicans. Sixteen of those are members of the 87-member freshman class. Also voting no: Tea Party star and possible presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.

"This short-term was just `same ol', same ol" for Washington," one newcomer who voted "no," Rep. Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, wrote on his Facebook page.

The $38.5 billion in cuts, Huelskamp wrote, "barely make a dent" in years of trillion-dollar deficits and the nation's $14 trillion debt. Additionally, the measure lacked the policy riders he sought, such as one to strip Planned Parenthood of federal funding, though by law no federal money goes to its abortion services.

All told, Huelskamp wrote, the measure "ignores the fundamental reasons I and my fellow freshmen members of Congress were sent to Washington in November of last year."

Plouffe said the president understands the mandate to dramatically cut spending. On talk show after talk show, he pointed to December's bipartisan deal on tax cuts with Friday night's agreement on this year's budget as evidence that both parties can govern together when they want to.

"Compromise is not a dirty word," Plouffe said on ABC.

The president, Plouffe said, would address ways to reduce the deficit and the long-term, $14 trillion debt. He gave few specifics, but he said the president believes taxes should go up on higher-income Americans and cuts to Medicare and Medicaid will be necessary.

Obama's speech will come as the debate shifts to the far more delicate ground of the government budget for next year — when the president and most of Congress are up for re-election.

Republicans said Friday night's deal in no way means they're ready to compromise on the fiscal debates ahead, starting with the House Republicans' $3.5 trillion spending plan for next year.

The GOP blueprint, unveiled last week by Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., would slash federal spending by $5 trillion or more over the coming decade and repeal Obama's signature health care law. It would leave Social Security untouched but shift more of the risk from rising medical costs from the government to Medicare beneficiaries. It also calls for sharp cuts to Medicaid health care for the poor and disabled and to food aid for the poor.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110411/ap_on_bi_ge/us_spending_showdown

[Jolie Rouge]

Obama sizes up options for health care cuts
Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press – Mon Apr 11, 5:53 pm ET

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's plans to curb health care costs that drive the deficit would mean less taxpayer money for providers and more costs for beneficiaries as he draws from bipartisan ideas already on the table.

But don't look for his speech Wednesday to endorse a Medicare voucher system or turning Medicaid over to the states, as leading Republicans have proposed.

Conceding the GOP's point that government needs to cut and health care is one of the first places to look, Obama will try to change the direction of a deficit debate that threatens to get away from him. The president is using his speech to lay down broad principles and trace a path that could lead to compromise, but he won't unveil a detailed program.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Monday that health care savings are essential to control the deficit. The spokesman indicated Obama would build on the work of his debt commission, whose recommendations he initially refrained from endorsing. Carney also praised a small group of senators from both parties, known as the Gang of Six, that is trying to set up a framework for a divided Congress to reach compromise on deficits.

"The president understands very well that health care spending is a major driver of our deficit and debt problem," Carney said. "He believes ... we can achieve those savings in ways that protect the people that these programs are supposed to, and were designed to, support and help."

One proposal in the debt commission's report last year would rework Medicare's deductibles and copayments so that most beneficiaries have to pay a share of their everyday bills — cost shifts that in a few years would add up to more than $100 billion in taxpayer savings. In exchange, Medicare recipients would get better protection against catastrophic costs.

Another called for scaling back the tax deduction for workplace benefits, which many economists say would be like putting the entire health care system on a diet. It's strongly opposed by unions, a major Democratic constituency.

And the wild card: curbs on jury awards in malpractice cases. Democrats and Republicans have been rigidly divided on the issue, an arm-wrestling match between GOP-leaning doctors and trial lawyers who tend to back Democratic candidates. A breakthrough could help in other areas.

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said "there is virtually no likelihood" Obama will endorse a voucher plan for Medicare or block grants for Medicaid. But medical malpractice is another story. "He has already said he is open to ideas there," said the South Dakota Democrat, an adviser to Democrats on health care.

Obama probably won't drill down to that level of detail on Wednesday. Republicans already laid down their marker.

Later this week, the House will debate a plan by Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., which would fundamentally change government health care programs that touch virtually every family, covering about 100 million Americans.

Instead of Medicare, people now 54 and younger would get a government payment to buy private insurance when they retire. The Medicaid health insurance program for low-income people would be converted into a block grant, allowing each state to design its own program. But the poor would lose the right to coverage under federal law and middle-class retirees might not be able to keep up with future health costs.

Ryan's plan has been praised for its boldness. Even some who vehemently disagree with the specifics have credited the congressman for having the courage to start an adult conversation with the American people about the real costs of their health care programs.

Obama's approach would display another attribute commonly ascribed to adults: caution. A Medicare remake would probably require a mandate from the voters that neither party can claim.

"You don't have to dismantle the program in order to save it," said Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., a member of the debt commission. But he acknowledged that there would have to be "real cuts that will be painful."

In normal circumstances, the debt commission's ideas would be considered far-reaching. Compared to Ryan's plan, they're incremental. They leave the big health care programs in place, as well as Obama's overhaul, which Republicans would repeal.

Obama is also expected to indicate his support for the efforts of six senators seeking deficit deal. In the group: three conservative Republicans, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Mike Crapo of Idaho; two moderate Democrats, Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Mark Warner of Virginia; and a liberal Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois.

One of the ideas they are considering would trigger the recommendations of the deficit commission, if Congress doesn't meet certain targets for spending, taxes and deficits.

Until now, the Gang of Six has worked in obscurity on what many consider a thankless task. The presidential seal of approval could improve their chances.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110411/ap_on_re_us/us_obama_health_care

comments

Congress keeps ignoring the elephant in the room; Millions of illegals are using our government sponsored county hospitals. Leaving hospitals with large bills unpaid, for services rendered to those millions of illegals. The illegals lie about their status and get free food stamps and healthcare on the USA legal citizens and taxpayers dime.

Hey Mr. President, Congress and big businesses, Get rid of the millions of illegals and put Americans and legals back to work making living wages. Stop pandering to millions of law breakers. Than one move, will fix the healthcare system, by getting rid of the free loaders!

[Jolie Rouge]

I wonder what all the 38 billion dollar cut included

Most people won't notice these big budget cuts
Andrew Taylor, Associated Press – 59 mins ago

WASHINGTON – It's touted as the biggest one-time rollback of domestic spending ever, but most folks will be hard-pressed to notice.

After all, it's just 1 percent of what the government will lay out this year.

The number of security officers at airports won't be reduced. National park campgrounds won't close. There will still be enough meat inspectors to prevent temporary plant closures. Disadvantaged schools won't see cuts in federal aid. And stiff cuts to grants for community action agencies serving the poor were averted. Basically, the things most people expect from the government won't change very much if Congress approves the cuts unveiled Tuesday, the details from that late-night deal that kept federal operations going.

For starters, the budget cuts come after two years of generous increases awarded to domestic accounts when Democrats controlled both Congress and the White House. And they total only $38 billion out of the $3.8 trillion the government will spend on everything this year, including Social Security and other retirement programs.

If the government were a family living on $60,000 a year, that's equal to a $600 cut.

Democrats had earlier warned the original House measure — it would have cut more than $60 billion — would have had draconian effects including widespread furloughs of federal workers, temporary shutting of meat processing plants, delays in processing Social Security applications and a big cut in the maximum Pell Grant for college education. Most of the more stringent cuts originally passed by the House have been reversed, and the maximum Pell Grant still will be $5,550 for the next academic year.

Remaining are items like $14 billion in cuts to accounts previously used for congressional earmarks, a $2.9 billion cut to President Barack Obama's high-speed rail initiative and $812 million from construction of new courthouses and other federal buildings. But there will be no more Pell Grants for summer school. Local police chiefs will find it harder to win federal grants for equipment upgrades and emergency preparedness training — they were cut by $1.2 billion. Non-profit groups looking to open new community health centers will have $600 million less to compete for. And it just got more difficult for rural towns seeking grants to build new drinking water and wastewater treatment plants. Grants for them were cut by $1 billion.

Such cuts won't seem like the end of the world to many, though, as the government faces a $1.6 trillion deficit for the current fiscal year.

"It's a step removed from the daily lives of most people," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

What is more, it turns out that many of the cuts officially unveiled on Tuesday are illusory. Almost $18 billion — just less than half — involve simply mopping up pools of unused money spread across the budget. While still counting as cuts, the money from those pools can be used to shore up day-to-day agency budgets and other programs like health research. Admittedly, those cuts don't reduce the deficit. "There's a huge chunk of money here that is ... spending that wasn't about to go out the door, so the impact is going to be smaller than we anticipated based on what the purported size of the cuts were," said Democratic budget expert Scott Lilly of the left-leaning Center for American Progress.

But Lilly and others warn that the remaining cuts will have an impact over time. Deferring federal building construction means higher maintenance costs. Cuts to water and sewer grants mean the backlog of such projects will just get larger. And, more immediately, the Legal Services Corporation, which provides legal help to those who can't afford it, would serve fewer people. The same would be true for job training programs, community health centers and a program that mentors the children of people in prison.

The bill is just the first round. Republicans are moving to pass a broader budget plan this Friday that calls for cuts across the budget — including Medicare and Medicaid — and a deeper round of cuts to apply to the agency budgets covered in the pending bill covering the next six months of government spending..

In the next round, it will be more difficult to protect programs like heating aid for the poor and subsidies for money-losing air travel to rural airports. But plenty of lawmakers and interest groups will try.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110413/ap_on_re_us/us_spending_showdown_impact;_ylt=AsckmWUR24wOMc1TH ZJg_eGs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNyMnEwbHFsBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwM TEwNDEzL3VzX3NwZW5kaW5nX3Nob3dkb3duX2ltcGFjdARjY29 kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzIEcHQDaG9tZV9jb 2tlBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA21vc3RwZW9wbGV3bw--

comments

Start cutting with Congress ... Slash your congressional salaries by five percent. Each congressman should be forced to reduce his congressional staff by ten percent ... That should be easy, as I watch them during C-Span attending to their Blackberrys, instead of the meetings.

---

What does it tell you that a "1% cut" is the "biggest rollback ever?"

before the agreement they were talking dooms day and not they say will will hardly notice it. What a show, and the American people still believe in this clowns. Government has no "reverse gear." First it hurst the economy then it pillages it.

---


"And they total only $38 billion out of the $3.8 trillion the government will spend on everything this year...If the government were a family living on $60,000 a year, that's equal to a $600 cut."

ya but if i would have done something like this the bank would probably take my $60,000 and my home for my debts.

---

So Congress cut $38 billion when we have a $54 billion deficit per week! They couldn't even cut a full weeks deficit. Both parties are a joke and we are headed into bankruptcy. Boehner needs to be replaced A.S.A.P. Obama and yes-man Gates are turning us into Portugal and Greece. The day will come when no one will loan us money. God help us!

[Jolie Rouge]

ZERO SALARY FOR CONGRESS
Why Not Link Pols' Pay Level to Ours?
Ted Rall – Tue Apr 12, 8:03 pm ET

MIAMI--Most Americans don't like Moammar Kadafi or Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. But that might change if they knew their paychecks. The leaders of Libya and Iran get $9,516 and $3,000 a year annually, respectively.

Obama collects $5,505,509--a whopping $22,022 per day.

Who's the real out-of-touch dictator?

As the U.S. enters its third year of economic collapse, real unemployment has surged past levels that triggered revolts in Tunisia and Egypt. Yet neither the President nor members of Congress seem worried. They're not even discussing the possibility of a bailout for the one-third of the workforce that is in effect structurally unemployed. Do you wonder why?

Maybe they don't know what's going on. As the saying goes, it's a recession when you've gotten laid off. For members of Congress, who are raking it in, these are boom times.

Congressmen and Senators are insulated by huge salaries--$174,000 and up--that put them out of touch with and unaware of the problems of the 97 percent of Americans who earn less. Out of 535 members of Congress, 261 are millionaires.

It can't be easy for Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, to feel our pain. According to campaign disclosure documents filed in 2010, her net worth is somewhere between $46 million and $108.1 million--and she's only the 10th richest member of Congress. The top honor goes to Representative Darrell Issa, also from the Golden State but a Republican. Estimates of Issa's net worth range between $156.1 million and $451.1 million.

Years ago the SEC floated the idea of a maximum wage for the CEOs of publicly traded corporations. If their pay was capped at, say, 20 times that of the lowest-paid employee, it wouldn't be long before the whole pay scale went up. The SEC pay cap didn't go anywhere. But there's the germ of a smart--and fair--idea there, one that could help Congressmen feel what it's like to be an ordinary American during a time of poverty and mass layoffs.

Our elected representatives set the minimum wage, work standards, healthcare benefits, union organizing rules and thousands of regulations that determine the salaries and working conditions for tens of millions of American workers. As things stand now, the president and members of Congress have no personal incentive to improve those things for us. After all, they're all set. They're rich.

Paul Abrams writes: "Many Republicans ran for office declaring they would run the government 'like a business'...

If they are serious, however, there is one way [Congress] can operate like a business. Cut their base pay and provide large incentive bonuses should the economy hit certain goals." A nice thought, but why not follow this line of thinking to its logical conclusion?

It is high time to set a Maximum Wage for Congress, the president and other high-ranking elected representatives. The Maximum Wage for Congress should be set at the lowest pay received by an American citizen.

As long as one American citizen is homeless and unemployed, the Maximum Wage would be zero.

Similarly public officials ought to receive a Maximum Benefit set at the lowest/worst level received by an American citizen. If one U.S. citizen receives no healthcare benefits, so it would go for members of Congress. If one U.S. citizen does not have free access to a gym, members of Congress would lose theirs.

I have a hunch that our lives would get better in the blink of an eye.

Of course I could be wrong. Perhaps it's really true that America somehow can't afford socialized healthcare (even though there's always plenty of cash for wars). If that's the case, personal incentives won't convince Congress.

Still, that's OK. It's only fair that our leaders be forced to tough it out as much as we do.

We're all familiar with the arguments for paying six-figure salaries to politicians:

They have to maintain two homes, one in D.C. and one in their home district. It reduces the temptations of corruption. They should focus on their jobs, not how to pay their kids' college tuition. People who are not wealthy ought to be able to afford to serve. The best and brightest won't want the job if the pay is terrible.

To which I say:

Live modestly. Couchsurf. If you take a bribe, you'll be jailed--so don't. Everyone worries about bills; shouldn't Congressmen? The current salary structure has resulted in a Congress full of millionaires. As for attracting the best and brightest--look at the fools we've got now.

Besides, there is no reason why the president and his congressional cronies shouldn't be able to keep their current wonderful salaries and perks under a Maximum Wage. All they'd have to do is create an economy that shared those bounteous treats with everyone else.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucru/20110413/cm_ucru/zerosalaryforcongress;_ylt=Amr1gZq4jmOs5lB94utAEVU o_aF4;_ylu=X3oDMTM3NjFlMGlzBGFzc2V0A3VjcnUvMjAxMTA 0MTMvemVyb3NhbGFyeWZvcmNvbmdyZXNzBGNjb2RlA2dtcHJkZ QRjcG9zAzUEcG9zAzUEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yaWVzBHNsawN 6ZXJvc2FsYXJ5Zm8-

[Jolie Rouge]

Those of you who were worried that Congress and the president got way too overzealous with their spending cuts yesterday can rest easy. As you’re about to discover, absolutely essential spending remains intact and fully funded.

April 14, 2011
$20 million USAID grant goes to produce Pakistani Sesame Street
http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/08/20m-american-government-grant-goes-to-produce-pakistani-sesame-street/#ixzz1JVJpbht9

As American politicians debate the possible de-funding of American public broadcasting, the U.S. government is spending big bucks to bolster entertainment in foreign countries. USAID has dedicated $20 million to remake “Sesame Street” for Pakistani children. The four-year series will feature 78 episodes in Urdu and 56 in other local languages. The show, called “SimSim Humara,” will be set in a bustling village.

According to a report in The Guardian, the show aims to have “strong female characters and carry an implicit message of tolerance but will feature no pro-American propaganda or overt challenge to hardline religious sentiment.”

The Guardian reports that civilian foreign aid to Pakistan is at $1.5 billion a year, having been tripled by the Obama administration.

Larry Dolan, USAID’s Director of Education for Pakistan, told The Guardian, “Teaching kids early on makes them much more successful when they get to school. And this programme will have the capacity to encourage tolerance, which is so key to what we’re trying to do here.”

Dolan continued, “In terms of bang for the buck, reaching 95 million people is pretty important. This is much more than a TV programme, far more ambitious than a Sesame Street series.”

comments

Is it any wonder why we are in such a financial mess! Why are we sendng our tax dollars to a foreign country when our money is needed here? And what do they mean by “tolerance” If we are talking about the permissiveness of open homosexuality and gay rights then the plot grows. And where is this funding coming from? Why are we giving our money away instead of selling the program. None of this makes any sense.

According to recent testimony provided by USAID’s Administrator for International Development, Rajiv Shah, 70,000 children will die as these critical dollars are directed instead to fund this expenditure … or was he being a wee-bit disingenuous?

-----

Miss Piggy to Pakistan? There are two Christian women in jail in Pakistan for proselyting and we are sending Miss Piggy?

---

If Sesame Street is going to be shown in Pakistan, they better make signifigant changes to the characters and the story lines.

First off, Elmo’s voice is overly sissy for a male character. Secondly, Bert and Ernie’s living situation should exclude a shared room, since they are 2 adult male characters living together.

Oscar the Grouch should have a hezbollah symbol somewhere on his costume, since he is extremely grouchy and resembles most of the angry sentiment on the Gaza streets.

Miss Piggy should be covered in a burka or at least lose the makeup and stop wearing those revealing party dresses that she often does. Secondly, because most muslims consider Jews to be equivalent to pigs, won’t Ms. Piggy be hated and thought of as Ms. Jewy by the audience anyway?

Barkley the dog shouldn’t be shown, for I think the middle east views dogs as unclean and inferior animals as compared to camels and goats. However, how can dogs really compare to goats, when goats provide milk, meat and companionship to herders in Pakistan.