The Snake begins to eat it's tail
 

Panel chairmen fighting mad over snubs by Pelosi

By Jared Allen
Posted: 01/15/09 07:44 PM [ET]

Senior House Democrats have a message for their Speaker: We’re mad as hell, and we’re only taking it this one last time.

As congressional Democrats take the lead in responding to the sinking economy, subcommittee and even some full-committee chairmen — who normally wield significant influence in writing legislation — have been forced to wait on the sidelines as monumental bills are written in Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) office.

That often leaves room for cursory input from lawmakers who have carved out expert niches for themselves.

Many of these members are complaining louder and more often to Democratic leaders that a return to regular order, where bills are written in committee, is long overdue. And some warn that if the closed-door, truncated legislative process doesn’t end with the economic recovery bill, frustration could boil over, perhaps onto the floor.

“This is really set to come to a head soon,” said Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), who chairs the Energy and Commerce Oversight subcommittee. “The question is: Are we actually going to get a chance to legislate? There’s an opportunity to turn this corner, but we have not done that yet.”

A number of Democrats have said caucus meetings are growing contentious as promises from their leaders to return to a regular process have again been postponed because of “emergency” legislation.

Last week, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) indicated that he “expected” a number of committee markups on the stimulus bill, including a possible markup in the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

On Wednesday, though, Democratic leaders unveiled a plan to have the $825 billion bill marked up by only two committees: Ways and Means and Appropriations.

Many frustrated Democrats, while sensitive to the need to enact these bills quickly, feel like they’ve been frozen out of the process.

continues
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...009-01-15.html

When you use the word "its" - think. If you mean IT IS, then use an apostrophe. Anything else, don't.

It's (IT IS, see?) a really simple rule.

So in the sentence, "The snake begins to eat its tail" the meaning is not, "The snake begins to eat it is tail" so therefore the apostrophe is not necessary.

Just a tip. Of a tail maybe.

Floccinaucinihilipilificatrix!

Yea, I always screw that up thinking it is to show possession, when that should be reserved for nouns and pronouns. My bad.

Scully (from the X-Files) had one of those tattooed on her butt or there 'bouts. Kewl.

re: the original post. . . .
Call the Whaaaaaambulance

:lol2: you may eat those words.

Or rather they may eat their words.

Wow. Floccinaucinihilipilification

If you think this is worthless you get what you deserve economically.

Apostrophe: it's for contraction.

Glad to see you back bro. Dive in.

Possessive Apostrophe S: Nouns do. Possessive pronouns don't. So as not to get mixed up with contractions. The rule isn't even arbitrary; it's got a reason.

So ambiguity only pops up with a contraction constructed on a noun -- and you resort to context to determine meaning.

One should always keep a copy of Strunk & White near to hand. Despite its decretal tone, which can irritate a little, only one or two of its usage ukases have obsolesced since it was written for the help of incoming freshmen in the nineteen-twenties.

Floccinaucinihilipilification? Oh come on -- how many times have you seen me do just th... oh, I can't go on.

:D thanks for that.

I always think, "Look, it's an apostrophe!"

OK...what's going on with UG lately? He's been cracking far too many funnies around this place. Have you been into the happy gas UG?? :D

I was watching the Ways and Means committee debate this legislation the other day. While most republicans wanted ammendments that included tax cuts that would help rich people, the last one was by a guy who wanted to allow people (like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet) to opt out of Medicare. They voted it down, and I don't understand why. Rich people, really rich people like that, don't need or use Medicare, or Social Security. So why should they not have that option? I really just didn't get it. It isn't forcing it, it is voluntary. I was thinking of writing them a letter about it...

Opt out of receiving it, or opt out of paying for it? If you make enough money you already don't qualify to receive either, so I can only assume it was the latter.

Opt out of receiving it. And yes, I think they do make you take SS and Medicare, even if you are wealthy and don't need it. I could be wrong though. But I think that's what they were saying. Everyone still has to pay in.

It is an entitlement that everyone qualifies for based on age.