Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to groupPost Subject:
Add Visa pages to US passport
After getting successive complaints from the Aruba and the Lativia
customs official on my passport running out of space for Visa stamps,
I finally sent it to the State Department at the beginning of the
month to get more blank pages added. The Aruba customs official only
complained somewhat jokingly. But the Lativia customs official was
very unfriendly during my last trip. I can't afford to have my
passport in the State Department for 6 weeks so I sent along $60 for
expedited service. The processing time for expedited service is two
weeks.
The SD received my application on March 5. I tracked it with the USPS
certified mail. As my next travel date of March 22 is approaching, I
am getting jittery. I called the SD inquiry line. The automated
phone answering system didn't get me anywhere. You just can not get a
human to answer the phone. My email to the SD asking for status of my
application went unanswered too. So much for our tax dollars. I
guess it all goes to paying for the war no one is working in the SD
anymore.
What to do?
customs official on my passport running out of space for Visa stamps,
I finally sent it to the State Department at the beginning of the
month to get more blank pages added. The Aruba customs official only
complained somewhat jokingly. But the Lativia customs official was
very unfriendly during my last trip. I can't afford to have my
passport in the State Department for 6 weeks so I sent along $60 for
expedited service. The processing time for expedited service is two
weeks.
The SD received my application on March 5. I tracked it with the USPS
certified mail. As my next travel date of March 22 is approaching, I
am getting jittery. I called the SD inquiry line. The automated
phone answering system didn't get me anywhere. You just can not get a
human to answer the phone. My email to the SD asking for status of my
application went unanswered too. So much for our tax dollars. I
guess it all goes to paying for the war no one is working in the SD
anymore.
What to do?
"yaofeng" <yaofengchen@gmail.com> writes:
> After getting successive complaints from the Aruba and the Lativia
> customs official on my passport running out of space for Visa stamps,
> I finally sent it to the State Department at the beginning of the
> month to get more blank pages added. The Aruba customs official only
> complained somewhat jokingly. But the Lativia customs official was
> very unfriendly during my last trip. I can't afford to have my
> passport in the State Department for 6 weeks so I sent along $60 for
> expedited service. The processing time for expedited service is two
> weeks.
>
> The SD received my application on March 5. I tracked it with the USPS
> certified mail. As my next travel date of March 22 is approaching, I
> am getting jittery. I called the SD inquiry line. The automated
> phone answering system didn't get me anywhere. You just can not get a
> human to answer the phone. My email to the SD asking for status of my
> application went unanswered too. So much for our tax dollars. I
> guess it all goes to paying for the war no one is working in the SD
> anymore.
>
> What to do?
>
NOt sure at this point - next time, do it while you're out of the
country at an embassy or consulate. I had mine done in Windhoek,
Namibia, in about 5 minutes.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew J Perrin - andrew_perrin@unc.edu - http://perrin.socsci.unc.edu
Assistant Professor of Sociology; Book Review Editor, _Social Forces_
University of North Carolina - CB#3210, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3210 USA
New Book: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/178592.ctl
> After getting successive complaints from the Aruba and the Lativia
> customs official on my passport running out of space for Visa stamps,
> I finally sent it to the State Department at the beginning of the
> month to get more blank pages added. The Aruba customs official only
> complained somewhat jokingly. But the Lativia customs official was
> very unfriendly during my last trip. I can't afford to have my
> passport in the State Department for 6 weeks so I sent along $60 for
> expedited service. The processing time for expedited service is two
> weeks.
>
> The SD received my application on March 5. I tracked it with the USPS
> certified mail. As my next travel date of March 22 is approaching, I
> am getting jittery. I called the SD inquiry line. The automated
> phone answering system didn't get me anywhere. You just can not get a
> human to answer the phone. My email to the SD asking for status of my
> application went unanswered too. So much for our tax dollars. I
> guess it all goes to paying for the war no one is working in the SD
> anymore.
>
> What to do?
>
NOt sure at this point - next time, do it while you're out of the
country at an embassy or consulate. I had mine done in Windhoek,
Namibia, in about 5 minutes.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew J Perrin - andrew_perrin@unc.edu - http://perrin.socsci.unc.edu
Assistant Professor of Sociology; Book Review Editor, _Social Forces_
University of North Carolina - CB#3210, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3210 USA
New Book: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/178592.ctl
On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 11:30:38 -0400, clists@perrin.socsci.unc.edu
(Andrew J. Perrin) wrote:
>"yaofeng" <yaofengchen@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> After getting successive complaints from the Aruba and the Lativia
>> customs official on my passport running out of space for Visa stamps,
>> I finally sent it to the State Department at the beginning of the
>> month to get more blank pages added. The Aruba customs official only
>> complained somewhat jokingly. But the Lativia customs official was
>> very unfriendly during my last trip. I can't afford to have my
>> passport in the State Department for 6 weeks so I sent along $60 for
>> expedited service. The processing time for expedited service is two
>> weeks.
>>
>> The SD received my application on March 5. I tracked it with the USPS
>> certified mail. As my next travel date of March 22 is approaching, I
>> am getting jittery. I called the SD inquiry line. The automated
>> phone answering system didn't get me anywhere. You just can not get a
>> human to answer the phone. My email to the SD asking for status of my
>> application went unanswered too. So much for our tax dollars. I
>> guess it all goes to paying for the war no one is working in the SD
>> anymore.
>>
>> What to do?
>>
>
>NOt sure at this point - next time, do it while you're out of the
>country at an embassy or consulate. I had mine done in Windhoek,
>Namibia, in about 5 minutes.
The Passport offices are swamped with a huge surge of applications due
to the new traveller requirements.
Being a proper government agency, they made no plans whatsoever for
this surge which a retarded sloth could have predicted was coming.
Last news article I read said aplications were up over 25 per cent
from last year and that this was doubling the time it takes to
process....which tells you something right there..a 25 per cent load
increase ought to generate a 25 per cent time increase...I've often
wondered what thw weather is like on Planet Bureaucracy.
Jim P.
(Andrew J. Perrin) wrote:
>"yaofeng" <yaofengchen@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> After getting successive complaints from the Aruba and the Lativia
>> customs official on my passport running out of space for Visa stamps,
>> I finally sent it to the State Department at the beginning of the
>> month to get more blank pages added. The Aruba customs official only
>> complained somewhat jokingly. But the Lativia customs official was
>> very unfriendly during my last trip. I can't afford to have my
>> passport in the State Department for 6 weeks so I sent along $60 for
>> expedited service. The processing time for expedited service is two
>> weeks.
>>
>> The SD received my application on March 5. I tracked it with the USPS
>> certified mail. As my next travel date of March 22 is approaching, I
>> am getting jittery. I called the SD inquiry line. The automated
>> phone answering system didn't get me anywhere. You just can not get a
>> human to answer the phone. My email to the SD asking for status of my
>> application went unanswered too. So much for our tax dollars. I
>> guess it all goes to paying for the war no one is working in the SD
>> anymore.
>>
>> What to do?
>>
>
>NOt sure at this point - next time, do it while you're out of the
>country at an embassy or consulate. I had mine done in Windhoek,
>Namibia, in about 5 minutes.
The Passport offices are swamped with a huge surge of applications due
to the new traveller requirements.
Being a proper government agency, they made no plans whatsoever for
this surge which a retarded sloth could have predicted was coming.
Last news article I read said aplications were up over 25 per cent
from last year and that this was doubling the time it takes to
process....which tells you something right there..a 25 per cent load
increase ought to generate a 25 per cent time increase...I've often
wondered what thw weather is like on Planet Bureaucracy.
Jim P.
nobody@spamcop.net wrote:
> The Passport offices are swamped with a huge surge of applications due
> to the new traveller requirements.
>
> Being a proper government agency, they made no plans whatsoever for
> this surge which a retarded sloth could have predicted was coming.
>
> Last news article I read said aplications were up over 25 per cent
> from last year and that this was doubling the time it takes to
> process....which tells you something right there..a 25 per cent load
> increase ought to generate a 25 per cent time increase...I've often
> wondered what thw weather is like on Planet Bureaucracy.
They closed some processing centre for visas in the US middle of last year.
So our working visas had to be processed.... in Vermont. (We work in the
Western US). No, of course they did not increase that centre's
staffing/resourcing/any-bloody-thing.
So many many people had to re-book flights (this is not free) plus now we
were travelling in "high" season when airfares double. Also there were trips
to capital cities to deal with the US Consulates (tricky... you have to book
interviews months in advance, need certain paperwork etc etc etc), and had
to go multiple times.
Retarded Sloths are evidently not plentiful in the US government. Pity.
--
ant
Don't try to email me;
I'm borrowing the spammer du jour's addy
> The Passport offices are swamped with a huge surge of applications due
> to the new traveller requirements.
>
> Being a proper government agency, they made no plans whatsoever for
> this surge which a retarded sloth could have predicted was coming.
>
> Last news article I read said aplications were up over 25 per cent
> from last year and that this was doubling the time it takes to
> process....which tells you something right there..a 25 per cent load
> increase ought to generate a 25 per cent time increase...I've often
> wondered what thw weather is like on Planet Bureaucracy.
They closed some processing centre for visas in the US middle of last year.
So our working visas had to be processed.... in Vermont. (We work in the
Western US). No, of course they did not increase that centre's
staffing/resourcing/any-bloody-thing.
So many many people had to re-book flights (this is not free) plus now we
were travelling in "high" season when airfares double. Also there were trips
to capital cities to deal with the US Consulates (tricky... you have to book
interviews months in advance, need certain paperwork etc etc etc), and had
to go multiple times.
Retarded Sloths are evidently not plentiful in the US government. Pity.
--
ant
Don't try to email me;
I'm borrowing the spammer du jour's addy
nobody@spamcop.net wrote:
.a 25 per cent load
> increase ought to generate a 25 per cent time increase...
If only all things in life had linear predictability.
What if they more people due to the higher load?
What if something in the process changed?
.a 25 per cent load
> increase ought to generate a 25 per cent time increase...
If only all things in life had linear predictability.
What if they more people due to the higher load?
What if something in the process changed?
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:45:22 -0700, Mike Hunt <postmaster@localhost>
wrote:
>nobody@spamcop.net wrote:
>.a 25 per cent load
>> increase ought to generate a 25 per cent time increase...
>
>If only all things in life had linear predictability.
>What if they more people due to the higher load?
>What if something in the process changed?
>
>
What if they had shown some brains and anticipated the extra load and
any procedural changes planned for it? This is *their* silly game and
it's not like a bunch of us all up and decided one day to send in tons
more apps on our own.
They need to make it work rather than sit back and say "Too bad, so
sad...you missed your great Aunt's 100th birthday..well, you can
always go next year..."
Demand more from your government, you are paying for it..whehter you
want to or not so you might as well require it actually work properly.
Jim P.
Remember, every penny spent by the government is taken from you at
gunpoint. Think not? Call up the IRS and tell you to stick their tax
forms where the sun shines not and that you ain't paying any more and
see if the peple who show up to "talk" to you aren't armed.
wrote:
>nobody@spamcop.net wrote:
>.a 25 per cent load
>> increase ought to generate a 25 per cent time increase...
>
>If only all things in life had linear predictability.
>What if they more people due to the higher load?
>What if something in the process changed?
>
>
What if they had shown some brains and anticipated the extra load and
any procedural changes planned for it? This is *their* silly game and
it's not like a bunch of us all up and decided one day to send in tons
more apps on our own.
They need to make it work rather than sit back and say "Too bad, so
sad...you missed your great Aunt's 100th birthday..well, you can
always go next year..."
Demand more from your government, you are paying for it..whehter you
want to or not so you might as well require it actually work properly.
Jim P.
Remember, every penny spent by the government is taken from you at
gunpoint. Think not? Call up the IRS and tell you to stick their tax
forms where the sun shines not and that you ain't paying any more and
see if the peple who show up to "talk" to you aren't armed.
nobody@spamcop.net wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:45:22 -0700, Mike Hunt <postmaster@localhost>
> wrote:
>
>
>>nobody@spamcop.net wrote:
>>.a 25 per cent load
>>
>>>increase ought to generate a 25 per cent time increase...
>>
>>If only all things in life had linear predictability.
>>What if they more people due to the higher load?
>>What if something in the process changed?
>>
>>
>
> What if they had shown some brains and anticipated the extra load and
> any procedural changes planned for it? This is *their* silly game and
> it's not like a bunch of us all up and decided one day to send in tons
> more apps on our own.
>
> They need to make it work rather than sit back and say "Too bad, so
> sad...you missed your great Aunt's 100th birthday..well, you can
> always go next year..."
>
> Demand more from your government, you are paying for it..whehter you
> want to or not so you might as well require it actually work properly.
In many ways the problem is that they are not taking enough money. I
suspect the passport folks would have liked to gear up with some temps
for the crush. That would have needed an appropriation though. Not
something the Publicans in Congress last year were likely to want.
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:58:53 -0500, "Frank F. Matthews"
<frankfmatthews@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>nobody@spamcop.net wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:45:22 -0700, Mike Hunt <postmaster@localhost>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>nobody@spamcop.net wrote:
>>>.a 25 per cent load
>>>
>>>>increase ought to generate a 25 per cent time increase...
>>>
>>>If only all things in life had linear predictability.
>>>What if they more people due to the higher load?
>>>What if something in the process changed?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What if they had shown some brains and anticipated the extra load and
>> any procedural changes planned for it? This is *their* silly game and
>> it's not like a bunch of us all up and decided one day to send in tons
>> more apps on our own.
>>
>> They need to make it work rather than sit back and say "Too bad, so
>> sad...you missed your great Aunt's 100th birthday..well, you can
>> always go next year..."
>>
>> Demand more from your government, you are paying for it..whehter you
>> want to or not so you might as well require it actually work properly.
>
>In many ways the problem is that they are not taking enough money. I
>suspect the passport folks would have liked to gear up with some temps
>for the crush. That would have needed an appropriation though. Not
>something the Publicans in Congress last year were likely to want.
The passport process is funded entirely through its fees, thus is a
self-supporting program and does not use tax funds. THat's one reason
they charge so much for the silly things.
If you dig a bit on the State Dept. web site you'll find the source
for that...so, more fees coming in means more money to increase staff
proportionally and automatically..they farm out a *lot* of the work to
contractors who can very easily add more staff as it doesn't involve
the tedious civil service hiring route.
(Does anyone else feel itchy at having your personal data in the hands
of outsourced unknowns not beholden to the government oath a civil
servant takes?)
Jim P.
<frankfmatthews@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>nobody@spamcop.net wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:45:22 -0700, Mike Hunt <postmaster@localhost>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>nobody@spamcop.net wrote:
>>>.a 25 per cent load
>>>
>>>>increase ought to generate a 25 per cent time increase...
>>>
>>>If only all things in life had linear predictability.
>>>What if they more people due to the higher load?
>>>What if something in the process changed?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What if they had shown some brains and anticipated the extra load and
>> any procedural changes planned for it? This is *their* silly game and
>> it's not like a bunch of us all up and decided one day to send in tons
>> more apps on our own.
>>
>> They need to make it work rather than sit back and say "Too bad, so
>> sad...you missed your great Aunt's 100th birthday..well, you can
>> always go next year..."
>>
>> Demand more from your government, you are paying for it..whehter you
>> want to or not so you might as well require it actually work properly.
>
>In many ways the problem is that they are not taking enough money. I
>suspect the passport folks would have liked to gear up with some temps
>for the crush. That would have needed an appropriation though. Not
>something the Publicans in Congress last year were likely to want.
The passport process is funded entirely through its fees, thus is a
self-supporting program and does not use tax funds. THat's one reason
they charge so much for the silly things.
If you dig a bit on the State Dept. web site you'll find the source
for that...so, more fees coming in means more money to increase staff
proportionally and automatically..they farm out a *lot* of the work to
contractors who can very easily add more staff as it doesn't involve
the tedious civil service hiring route.
(Does anyone else feel itchy at having your personal data in the hands
of outsourced unknowns not beholden to the government oath a civil
servant takes?)
Jim P.
nobody@spamcop.net wrote:
> (Does anyone else feel itchy at having your personal data in the hands
> of outsourced unknowns not beholden to the government oath a civil
> servant takes?)
Given the carelessness of some civil servants, does it matter.
Recently someone I know recently received an email and a followup letter
via USPS indicating the payroll information of the entire command was on
a missing laptop. It cautioned employees to check their credit. No, the
goverment didn't offer to pay for these credit reports. To top it off,
this was a military command (TRADOC)
This news story describes it:
http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/dp-now-computer.m26,0,5637293.story?coll=dp-news-local-final
> (Does anyone else feel itchy at having your personal data in the hands
> of outsourced unknowns not beholden to the government oath a civil
> servant takes?)
Given the carelessness of some civil servants, does it matter.
Recently someone I know recently received an email and a followup letter
via USPS indicating the payroll information of the entire command was on
a missing laptop. It cautioned employees to check their credit. No, the
goverment didn't offer to pay for these credit reports. To top it off,
this was a military command (TRADOC)
This news story describes it:
http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/dp-now-computer.m26,0,5637293.story?coll=dp-news-local-final
On Mar 28, 12:07 pm, nob...@spamcop.net wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:58:53 -0500, "Frank F. Matthews"
>
>
>
>
>
> <frankfmatth...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >nob...@spamcop.net wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:45:22 -0700, Mike Hunt <postmaster@localhost>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>nob...@spamcop.net wrote:
> >>>.a 25 per cent load
>
> >>>>increase ought to generate a 25 per cent time increase...
>
> >>>If only all things in life had linear predictability.
> >>>What if they more people due to the higher load?
> >>>What if something in the process changed?
>
> >> What if they had shown some brains and anticipated the extra load and
> >> any procedural changes planned for it? This is *their* silly game and
> >> it's not like a bunch of us all up and decided one day to send in tons
> >> more apps on our own.
>
> >> They need to make it work rather than sit back and say "Too bad, so
> >> sad...you missed your great Aunt's 100th birthday..well, you can
> >> always go next year..."
>
> >> Demand more from your government, you are paying for it..whehter you
> >> want to or not so you might as well require it actually work properly.
>
> >In many ways the problem is that they are not taking enough money. I
> >suspect the passport folks would have liked to gear up with some temps
> >for the crush. That would have needed an appropriation though. Not
> >something the Publicans in Congress last year were likely to want.
>
> The passport process is funded entirely through its fees, thus is a
> self-supporting program and does not use tax funds. THat's one reason
> they charge so much for the silly things.
>
> If you dig a bit on the State Dept. web site you'll find the source
> for that...so, more fees coming in means more money to increase staff
> proportionally and automatically..they farm out a *lot* of the work to
> contractors who can very easily add more staff as it doesn't involve
> the tedious civil service hiring route.
>
> (Does anyone else feel itchy at having your personal data in the hands
> of outsourced unknowns not beholden to the government oath a civil
> servant takes?)
>
> Jim P.
I feel just as "itchy" about having incompetent government bureaucrats
having it, oath or no oath.
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:58:53 -0500, "Frank F. Matthews"
>
>
>
>
>
> <frankfmatth...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >nob...@spamcop.net wrote:
>
> >> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:45:22 -0700, Mike Hunt <postmaster@localhost>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>nob...@spamcop.net wrote:
> >>>.a 25 per cent load
>
> >>>>increase ought to generate a 25 per cent time increase...
>
> >>>If only all things in life had linear predictability.
> >>>What if they more people due to the higher load?
> >>>What if something in the process changed?
>
> >> What if they had shown some brains and anticipated the extra load and
> >> any procedural changes planned for it? This is *their* silly game and
> >> it's not like a bunch of us all up and decided one day to send in tons
> >> more apps on our own.
>
> >> They need to make it work rather than sit back and say "Too bad, so
> >> sad...you missed your great Aunt's 100th birthday..well, you can
> >> always go next year..."
>
> >> Demand more from your government, you are paying for it..whehter you
> >> want to or not so you might as well require it actually work properly.
>
> >In many ways the problem is that they are not taking enough money. I
> >suspect the passport folks would have liked to gear up with some temps
> >for the crush. That would have needed an appropriation though. Not
> >something the Publicans in Congress last year were likely to want.
>
> The passport process is funded entirely through its fees, thus is a
> self-supporting program and does not use tax funds. THat's one reason
> they charge so much for the silly things.
>
> If you dig a bit on the State Dept. web site you'll find the source
> for that...so, more fees coming in means more money to increase staff
> proportionally and automatically..they farm out a *lot* of the work to
> contractors who can very easily add more staff as it doesn't involve
> the tedious civil service hiring route.
>
> (Does anyone else feel itchy at having your personal data in the hands
> of outsourced unknowns not beholden to the government oath a civil
> servant takes?)
>
> Jim P.
I feel just as "itchy" about having incompetent government bureaucrats
having it, oath or no oath.
On Mar 28, 12:58 am, "Frank F. Matthews"
<frankfmatth...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> nob...@spamcop.net wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:45:22 -0700, Mike Hunt <postmaster@localhost>
> > wrote:
>
> >>nob...@spamcop.net wrote:
> >>.a 25 per cent load
>
> >>>increase ought to generate a 25 per cent time increase...
>
> >>If only all things in life had linear predictability.
> >>What if they more people due to the higher load?
> >>What if something in the process changed?
>
> > What if they had shown some brains and anticipated the extra load and
> > any procedural changes planned for it? This is *their* silly game and
> > it's not like a bunch of us all up and decided one day to send in tons
> > more apps on our own.
Of course let's not forget those perpetual "last minute" foks who
waited and waited then complained about the lines.
> > They need to make it work rather than sit back and say "Too bad, so
> > sad...you missed your great Aunt's 100th birthday..well, you can
> > always go next year..."
>
> > Demand more from your government, you are paying for it..whehter you
> > want to or not so you might as well require it actually work properly.
Good luck. This is the way governments work. Why? No competition. You
can't go to a different government branch to get your passport.
Government agencies simply don't care about providing service. They
don't have to.
A note of caution for those demanding that the government provide
their health care. Does anyone really think it will be different?
> In many ways the problem is that they are not taking enough money. I
> suspect the passport folks would have liked to gear up with some temps
> for the crush. That would have needed an appropriation though. Not
> something the Publicans in Congress last year were likely to want.
Hmmmm. This would be the Congress that the Dems are running?
<frankfmatth...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> nob...@spamcop.net wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:45:22 -0700, Mike Hunt <postmaster@localhost>
> > wrote:
>
> >>nob...@spamcop.net wrote:
> >>.a 25 per cent load
>
> >>>increase ought to generate a 25 per cent time increase...
>
> >>If only all things in life had linear predictability.
> >>What if they more people due to the higher load?
> >>What if something in the process changed?
>
> > What if they had shown some brains and anticipated the extra load and
> > any procedural changes planned for it? This is *their* silly game and
> > it's not like a bunch of us all up and decided one day to send in tons
> > more apps on our own.
Of course let's not forget those perpetual "last minute" foks who
waited and waited then complained about the lines.
> > They need to make it work rather than sit back and say "Too bad, so
> > sad...you missed your great Aunt's 100th birthday..well, you can
> > always go next year..."
>
> > Demand more from your government, you are paying for it..whehter you
> > want to or not so you might as well require it actually work properly.
Good luck. This is the way governments work. Why? No competition. You
can't go to a different government branch to get your passport.
Government agencies simply don't care about providing service. They
don't have to.
A note of caution for those demanding that the government provide
their health care. Does anyone really think it will be different?
> In many ways the problem is that they are not taking enough money. I
> suspect the passport folks would have liked to gear up with some temps
> for the crush. That would have needed an appropriation though. Not
> something the Publicans in Congress last year were likely to want.
Hmmmm. This would be the Congress that the Dems are running?
Tchiowa wrote:
> On Mar 28, 12:58 am, "Frank F. Matthews"
> <frankfmatth...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
snip
>
>>In many ways the problem is that they are not taking enough money. I
>>suspect the passport folks would have liked to gear up with some temps
>>for the crush. That would have needed an appropriation though. Not
>>something the Publicans in Congress last year were likely to want.
>
>
> Hmmmm. This would be the Congress that the Dems are running?
>
The Publicans were running things in both congress and the executive
side when the planning lapse occurred.
"Frank F. Matthews" <frankfmatthews@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>The Publicans were running things in both congress and the executive
>side when the planning lapse occurred.
Ah yes... And the Dem's are stumbling all over themselves to correct it, aren't
they? Oh wait, they seem to be far more interested in holding hearings on why
the President fired some political appointees in the Justice Dept and
positioning themselves for the 08 elections.
>The Publicans were running things in both congress and the executive
>side when the planning lapse occurred.
Ah yes... And the Dem's are stumbling all over themselves to correct it, aren't
they? Oh wait, they seem to be far more interested in holding hearings on why
the President fired some political appointees in the Justice Dept and
positioning themselves for the 08 elections.
On Apr 3, 10:55 am, Rick Blaine <d...@bother.com> wrote:
> "Frank F. Matthews" <frankfmatth...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >The Publicans were running things in both congress and the executive
> >side when the planning lapse occurred.
>
> Ah yes... And the Dem's are stumbling all over themselves to correct it, aren't
> they? Oh wait, they seem to be far more interested in holding hearings on why
> the President fired some political appointees in the Justice Dept and
> positioning themselves for the 08 elections.
The planning lapse occurred inside the bureaucracy that infests
Washington regardless of who is in charge. It's why people who stop to
think about it don't want the Federal government running things like
TSA and *really* want to keep them out of the health care business.
> "Frank F. Matthews" <frankfmatth...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >The Publicans were running things in both congress and the executive
> >side when the planning lapse occurred.
>
> Ah yes... And the Dem's are stumbling all over themselves to correct it, aren't
> they? Oh wait, they seem to be far more interested in holding hearings on why
> the President fired some political appointees in the Justice Dept and
> positioning themselves for the 08 elections.
The planning lapse occurred inside the bureaucracy that infests
Washington regardless of who is in charge. It's why people who stop to
think about it don't want the Federal government running things like
TSA and *really* want to keep them out of the health care business.
"Tchiowa" <tchiowa2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The planning lapse occurred inside the bureaucracy that infests
>Washington regardless of who is in charge. It's why people who stop to
>think about it don't want the Federal government running things like
>TSA and *really* want to keep them out of the health care business.
Isn't that the truth!
>The planning lapse occurred inside the bureaucracy that infests
>Washington regardless of who is in charge. It's why people who stop to
>think about it don't want the Federal government running things like
>TSA and *really* want to keep them out of the health care business.
Isn't that the truth!
