"Good Morning America" correspondent Claire Shipman on Tuesday actually suggested that Americans "pitch in" $2000 to help pay off the deficit or even give up their lattes. Reporting on the news that the U.S. federal deficit is projected to rise to $482 billion in 2009, Shipman seriously proposed: "Now, we came up with a few GMA solutions to try to put this in perspective. If every American were to pitch in $2,000, we could pay off this year's deficit."
Continuing the absurd "solutions," Shipman elaborated, "Or, if we handed over, each of us, 500 gallons of gasoline or, in terms we could all really understand, if every American gave up 666 lattes for a year, we could pay off this year's deficit." Leaving aside the slightly demonic 666 suggestion, there was one piece of advice left out of the ABC reporter's piece: At no point did she talk about wasteful government spending or the possibility of cutting back on entitlement programs. Shipman also took a shot at President Bush, calling the deficit "a parting gift from one president to the next of the most unwelcome sort." Conservatives may have complained about some of Bush's spending, but he certainly didn't act without the help of many Democrats in Congress.
The GMA correspondent also highlighted clips from an upcoming deficit documentary called "I.O.U.S.A." The film features interviews with liberal billionaire Warren Buffett, disgruntled ex-Bush administration official Paul O'Neill and Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin. The segment featured a snippet of the documentary with O'Neill whining, "The vice president told me that we don't have to worry about deficits. I got fired for having a difference of opinion." Although the film's website describes the movie as "consummately nonpartisan," Reuters has asserted, it "may be to the U.S. economy what 'An Inconvenient Truth' was to the environment."
"Good Morning America" is hardly in a position to complain about deficits. This is the program that has repeatedly featured segments designed to promote costly universal health care. On June 18, 2007, co-host Diane Sawyer declared, "Well, today we are announcing a GMA commitment to take a hard look at the health insurance industry, to get some answers about those policies we keep hearing about, about what happens to sick people in a time of need." On February 20, 2007, co-host Robin Roberts slammed the insurance companies as greedy.
What would ABC suggest if America adopts universal health care? Tax increases in the form of $4000 donations from Americans? More cutting back on coffee? Perhaps GMA could worry a little more what the government is doing to waste money and a little less about asking Americans to skip their lattes.
A transcript of the July 29 segment, which aired at 7:07am, follows:
DIANE SAWYER: In the headlines this morning, another projection of a huge federal deficit. The White House says it is going to balloon to half a trillion dollars in 2009, setting a new record. Numbers hard to comprehend. So, what does this mean for average Americans? We asked GMA senior correspondent Claire Shipman to spell it out for us this morning. Claire?
CLAIRE SHIPMAN: Good morning, Diane. Well, first of all you should know this reverses what had been a downward trend in deficit spending for the last couple of years. Part of it is because of a big stimulus package that is supposed to help the economy, but that is not the only reason it's so big and it's reached a level that has economists worried. Call it a parting gift from one president to the next of the most unwelcome sort.
ABC GRAPHIC: Record High Deficit: What does it Mean For You?
JIM NUSSLE (Director of Office of Management and Budget): The deficit is projected to rise to $482 billion.
SHIPMAN: Oh, yes, deficit spend something back again, big time. And that number, should we play it again?
NUSSLE: The deficit is projected to rise to $482 billion.
SHIPMAN: --Is a record. The biggest deficit in history since $413 billion in 2004. But guess what? The real number is even bigger. A few things left out of the creative White House accounting, the war, unemployment costs, Medicare fees, the new housing bill. Bringing the grand total to about $600 billion.
DAVID WALKER (CEO, Peter G. Peterson Foundation): If we can start making tough choices sooner rather than later and work on a bipartisan basis, we can defuse the ticking time bomb. And if we don't get it, I think it's probably only a matter of time before we face a real economic crisis.
SHIPMAN: David Walker is the Paul Revere of deficit doom. A documentary out next month "I.O.U.S.A" features him trying to jolt the country into alarm another with over financial heavyweights.
PAUL H. O'NEILL (Former Treasury Secretary) : The vice president told me that we don't have to worry about deficits. I got fired for having a difference of opinion.
SHIPMAN: The filmmakers hope to make the deficit a campaign issue but it's a tough message. Americans, well acquainted with brutal home accounting these days, know what the deficit means.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN ON THE STREET: We make a certain amount and we spend a certain amount so it's the difference between the two.
SHIPMAN: But, what to do?
UNIDENTIFIED MAN ON THE STREET: I don't know. Either make more or spend less.
SHIPMAN: What does it mean for these two? [Pictures of Obama and McCain.] They'll have a harder time making good on campaign promises for one thing. They may both have to consider dialing back tax cuts. Now, we came up with a few GMA solutions to try to put this in perspective. If every American were to pitch in $2,000, we could pay off this year's deficit. Or, if we handed over, each of us, 500 gallons of gasoline or, in terms we could all really understand, if every American gave up 666 lattes for a year, we could pay off this year's deficit. Robin?
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
666 says it all:)
July 29, 2008 - 12:13 ET by TruthMonger666 says it all:)
I promise to drink 0 lattes
July 29, 2008 - 13:45 ET by Hero SquadI promise to drink 0 lattes in the coming year.
That is down from 0 lattest that I've consumed in the current year.
However, I will not give up black coffee for... for... all the tea in... no, forget it.
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
same for me - and probably
July 29, 2008 - 14:41 ET by TruthMongersame for me - and probably most non-moonbat liberals:)
Yeah, really.
July 29, 2008 - 21:27 ET by Scout FinchMy form of caffeine comes from home brewed Folgers in my favorite old green Fiestaware coffee mug. Or Folgers brewed in the coffeemaker at work.
Guess that means I gotta send a $2000 check instead, huh?
better idea
July 29, 2008 - 12:22 ET by ChuckM from PAI have a better idea, every Democrat (and any one else who wants big government) donate their salary to the government. We would have a surplus, the dems could have their big government, and everyone would be happy, wouldn't they?
even better idea - close
July 29, 2008 - 12:31 ET by TruthMongereven better idea - close all gov social programs and turn them over to non-profits - who do the job twice as well for half the money:)
I like that idea. But,
July 29, 2008 - 14:07 ET by ChuckM from PAI like that idea. But, sadly, we will still need some government, so for that, let those that want to pay taxes, do so and freely.
we need the fed gov for
July 29, 2008 - 14:47 ET by TruthMongerwe only need the feds for interstate roads/commerce and kickass military functions
scaling this back to where it belongs would reduce our fed budget by about 2/3rds
and we would simultaneously notice a dramatic increase in the quality of social services via personal and caring non-profits, while freeing up billions for economic development - instead of bloated bureaucracy maintenance
There was a bill introduced
July 29, 2008 - 12:33 ET by ricklailThere was a bill introduced one time called I believe the Put Up or Shut Up bill where one who felt they didn't pay enough taxes could pay more to the government. What happened to it?
Be kind to your kids. They'll be choosing your nursing home.
Everybody thinks they pay
July 29, 2008 - 13:46 ET by Hero SquadEverybody thinks they pay too much for taxes. It's the other guy that should pay more.
*****
"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will
I don't recall anyone in the
July 29, 2008 - 12:29 ET by athoughtor2I don't recall anyone in the MSM talking about the gift of a recession that Clinton left Pres Bush. Or the how much Clinton cut back on intell and the military...Or how bad our responses were to the various acts of terrorism perpetrated on the American people...Or the fact that OBL was still at large thanks to Clinton and his fight terrorism as a crime administration....
Donate?...why?
July 29, 2008 - 12:31 ET by HeavyChevyWill someone kindly point the good folks at GMA to the nearest rehab center because they are obviously on something!
Tell the gov to stop pissing our dollars away taking care of everyone but Americans! Problem solved!!!!
"9 out of 10 doctors agree that flag burning is the number one killer of liberals."
Well, Scott...
July 29, 2008 - 12:38 ET by Wildcatter1980...You beat me to the punch. My reaction to your headline was, "Why not cut back on the size of government and the amount of government spending?"
The obvious benefit of small, limited government that focuses on national security and protecting the rights of individuals is that in the long run, more money will stay in private hands instead of the potentially more wasteful public sector.
Shipman should just shut up
July 29, 2008 - 12:44 ET by ForeverOnTheRight(sarc on) Shipman should just shut up and look hot, instead of opening up her mouth and letting us know how little there is between those pretty ears. (sarc off)
Everything is about lattes
July 29, 2008 - 12:54 ET by KillgraveEverything is about lattes with these freaks. It is like milk of the gods to them.
I tell you what, once these liberals give up their precious, precious lattes for the good of the country, I will start taking them seriously.
Maybe.
Buy a latte, donate to government
July 29, 2008 - 13:12 ET by CobraManTalk about stupid ideas!
Hay GMA, all the things you mention generate tax revenue, including federal, state, and local tax revenue. It also generates civilian revenue in the form of income, which is also taxed. If we do as you suggest and "donate" the purchase amount to the federal government, then those sales won't be made and all that income and tax revenue won't be generated and everyone will be worse off. Most Americans can‘t really afford buying those products AND “donating“ the equivalent amount to the federal government. If you put that “donation“ ahead of purchases, which will be eliminated, the deficit or tax and income revenue? Do you really want to tell that 18-year-old college student that he or she lost their job because you told Americans to “donate” their money to government instead of buying the products that provide those jobs?
You want to lower the deficit? Tell Congress to stop spending its revenue faster than it is created. That's just good old common sense. It’s also the only thing that will work.
Tell Congress to stop
July 29, 2008 - 13:22 ET by Dan The Man 2Tell Congress to stop spending its revenue faster than it is created. AMEN Conress is the one who controls the purse so the President has little to do with runaway spending. Of course he does sign the check.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Signing the check
July 29, 2008 - 13:32 ET by CobraManThe President has to sign that check. If he didn't, he'd be violating the law and he would be impeached faster than you can say "Downing Street Memo."
Except there's this little known idea
July 29, 2008 - 13:35 ET by sarcasmoCalled the "veto." It works against overspending much like a toothbrush works against tooth decay & cavities. IE only if it's actually used. In fact, also like a toothbrush, using it regularly could lead to greater popularity than the non-user currently experiences...
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Another little idea
July 29, 2008 - 13:40 ET by CobraManThere's another little idea called "overriding a veto" and Congress is known for passing a bill with a "veto-proof" margin. While not as common as a presidential veto, they have been used in the past to FORCE the president to spend tax revenue. Once again, the fault lies with Congress.
That doesn't describe
July 29, 2008 - 13:45 ET by sarcasmoThis administration's sorry Virgin Veto Pen record for Bush's entire first term. And yes, by "Virgin" I mean "not once."
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Beware of excess vetos, that tends to backfire
July 29, 2008 - 14:33 ET by CobraManThe president has veto authority, but that doesn't mean that the president should use that veto ability unless there's a good chance that the veto will be successful. Overriding a veto is an added expense to the taxpayers and it interferes with the normal process of Congress making the laws and the President enforcing them. Not that I am suggesting that the President stop using the veto process altogether, but he should use it with great caution and after serious deliberation.
But as far as government spending goes, Congress makes those decisions and not the President. Excess spend will stop only when Congress decides to do so, the President has very little to do with it. So, if you want to place blame, place it where it starts and that's with Congress.
I'm not absolving congress at all
July 29, 2008 - 14:41 ET by sarcasmoBut I repeat: Not one veto. Not one. The veto is part of our Constitutional system of checks and balances, and Bush failed to use it once in his entire first term despite an incredibly irresponsible congress. Fiscal conservatives like me still aren't thrilled.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
I'm with you all the way on
July 29, 2008 - 14:50 ET by TruthMongerI'm with you all the way on this one sarc
no vetos whatsoever, for absolutely no reason
and no credit from the left will ever be realized from it
there will be absolutely no Republican benefit - but tons of damage has been done, with more yet to come
Run for President
July 29, 2008 - 14:58 ET by CobraManThe President makes the decision whether to veto a bill or not. Not you, not I, and certainly not Congress or the Courts. The veto process is at the sole descretion of the President. I voted for President Bush in 2000 because I wanted him to make decisions like these. I vote for his reelection in 2004 because I agree with most of those decisions. That's how it works, and I have to say that's it's been working well for over 200 years.
I may not be thrilled on all of his decisions as to which bills to veto and which to allow to be signed into law uncontested, but that doesn't mean I find fault with the President's decisions or blame the President for simply following the will of Congress. If you don't like any President's decisions then there is a way to rectify that, ether vote against him or run for president yourself and then, if successful, YOU get to make those decisions.
Nope, not an option.
July 29, 2008 - 15:10 ET by sarcasmoI'm not running for President any more than I'm quitting complaining about Presidents. Get used to it...
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
You make the argument that
July 29, 2008 - 13:47 ET by Dan The Man 2You make the argument that it does not matter if the President veto's or not. We could also make the same argument of sending not police to your home because the burglar will not be there when they get there. And an investigation will be pretty much useless because many of these guys get off easy anyway. And even if he goes to jail, jail is just a school for criminals. So it is useless.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
That's an invalid argument
July 29, 2008 - 14:25 ET by CobraManYour argument is invalid as no criminal can VETO the law and they are unable to OVERRIDE any law enforcement authority. The President can veto a bill, and Congress can override that veto. Just how does that compare to criminals breaking into your house?
My argument is that all spending bills originate Congress and it is they who vote to authorize federal spending in excess of the tax revenue that is collected, not the President. I can’t blame the President for doing what Congress has told him to do in a bill. I place all the blame with Congress
The argument you seemed to
July 29, 2008 - 14:35 ET by Dan The Man 2The argument you seemed to be making is the Presidnts veto is useless because the Congress can make a veto proof bill. So I argued that one should use all of the available resources and methods. I used the argument of police protection as an allegory to not availing oneself of the resources.
If the President does not veto a bill then he is just as cuppable as teh Congress.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
My argument
July 29, 2008 - 15:03 ET by CobraManMy argument is exactly as I laid it out. Congress authorizes the expenditures of federal tax revenue, not the President. Therefore I place all blame with Congress.
My response to the veto post was to show that a presidential veto is not the final step in the process and a veto is not the cure-all to Congress's excessive spending.
Sweet and simple. My wife
July 29, 2008 - 15:08 ET by Dan The Man 2Sweet and simple. My wife can make a budget but she cant spend it without my authorization. But she can just spend it anyway. Now if I say go ahead I am complicit in her actions, but if I say no then I can say I told you so when it breaks.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
More bad analogies
July 29, 2008 - 15:42 ET by CobraManCan you wife OVERRIDE your veto of her budget and thus FORCE you to “athorise” spending that you don’t like, just as Congress can do to a presidential veto of THEIR spending bills? No? I didn't think so. So that's another bad analogy.
You keep trying to place blame on the President, but that’s not going to wash with me.
The Constitution places all tax and spend authority with Congress and not the President. So whom should I blame when Congress overspends? I blame Congress, as it is their sole responsibility to create the budget and they do this through the use of spending bills. You want to blame the President for not vetoing those spending bills? Well, that’s fine but it ignores the fact that the fault lies with Congress for creating those bills and not the President.
You definitely dont
July 29, 2008 - 21:49 ET by Dan The Man 2You definitely dont understand a humorous story to explain the situation. I smell troll, thought I farted but it is definite troll.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Shipman makes no sense
July 29, 2008 - 13:23 ET by goldbough"...if we handed over, each of us, 500 gallons of gasoline or, in terms we could all really understand, if every American gave up 666 lattes..."
I don't drink any type of coffee so I don't understand. She should have put "we could all really understand" before gallons of gas at least. But how can I hand over 500 gallons of gas to the government? How can giving up buying something (lattes) reduce the deficit? Wouldn't the govt want us to buy more things so it can receive more taxes?
Incredibly fair and balanced
July 29, 2008 - 13:29 ET by needleI would never have believed that ABC would be suggesting an even and level tax of $2,000 for everybody in the country regardless of age, race, gender, sexual preference (or activity), religion, or income.
That is fair and balanced beyond my wildest dreams!!!
Now watch; They will say they did not mean that.
Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat.
Two Grand Too Grand
July 29, 2008 - 13:37 ET by Copperhead RidgeHey! the government has already confiscated well over $2,000 of my pay this year. They'll get me for another $2,000 before the end of the year.
Claire? Are you writing a check?
If I remember right, Walter Williams stated in a National Review column a few years ago that a person could do the same by burning a $100 bill and sending it to the government. If it was Williams, he explained it very well. I'm neither an economist nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn, so I'll just leave it at that.
Latte sure is expensive
July 29, 2008 - 13:37 ET by YahooWatcherMore expensive than gasoline apparently. How come the CEO's of Dunkin Donuts and Starbucks aren't getting hauled in front of congressional committees?
Send an e-mail to Henry
July 29, 2008 - 13:50 ET by KillgraveSend an e-mail to Henry Waxman. That gap-toothed Ferengi needs something to do.
Why couldn't these idiots
July 29, 2008 - 13:48 ET by KillgraveWhy couldn't these idiots round up the latte count to 667, or round it down to 665? Why 666?
TM is right. GMA is in league with Lucifer.
Assuming 210 work days a year
July 29, 2008 - 13:56 ET by sarcasmoThat's a few more than three(!) lattes per day, every single working day. Is the USA (leaving Seattle aside for the moment) or even the ABC News Room really that wired???
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Latte flows from the teats
July 29, 2008 - 14:02 ET by KillgraveLatte flows from the teats of liberalism like the milk of the she-wolf to Romulus and Remus.
I'll defend caffeine here...
July 29, 2008 - 14:22 ET by sarcasmoNot only is it apolitical, tasty, and useful; coffee has an ancient, proud history of inspiring prohibitionist control freakery by officials with too much time/tax-money on their hands. What's not to like??
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Oooo I have one....
July 29, 2008 - 14:21 ET by c5thenAll network TV correspondents and journalists are taxed at 50% until the deficit is gone?
How about that?
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
c5, I will see your 50% and
July 29, 2008 - 14:31 ET by bassndudec5, I will see your 50% and raise you another 25%.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
just a few days
July 29, 2008 - 14:40 ET by SouthJersey1953All network TV correspondents and journalists are taxed at 50% until the deficit is gone?
They way they are overpaid, it would only take a few days pay.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN ON THE STREET
July 29, 2008 - 14:27 ET by YahooWatcherThis guy is a genius. I would vote for him instead of McCain or Obama.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN ON THE STREET: We make a certain amount and we spend a certain amount so it's the difference between the two.
SHIPMAN: But, what to do?
UNIDENTIFIED MAN ON THE STREET: I don't know. Either make more or spend less.
LOL, Thanks UMOTS.
AM I GOING CRAZY HERE?
July 29, 2008 - 14:47 ET by Gigantor"It takes two people to lie Marge"
"One to lie and one to listen...."
We, the citizens, do "donate" to the government.......................
IT'S CALLED TAXES.
THESE PEOPLE ARE F**KING IDIOTS
All that money the government confiscates from it;s populace and it pisses it away. These idiots are horrible money managers, waste that isn't bordering on criminal, because it is criminal. Yeah, ok, I will "chip in" 2,000 ot the govt, oh wait, I already had that taken at gun point from me in the form of payroll taxes, FICA and all the rest. What kind of world do these morons live in?
donating with guns at our
July 29, 2008 - 14:53 ET by TruthMongerdonating with guns at our heads
or just try skipping your donation some time:)
the IRS is not constitutionally legal, btw
Say again?
July 29, 2008 - 15:20 ET by CobraMan"the IRS is not constitutionally legal, btw "
Perhaps you should read the Constitution before making statements like this.
Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Amendment 16:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
The Constitution authorizes Congress to collect taxes and the IRS is Congress's way of ensuring that this authority is exercised in accordance with established law. So how can the IRS be "unconstitutional" as you claim?
Tell that to Wesley Snipes
July 29, 2008 - 15:28 ET by YahooWatcherThe IRS was 100% legal in that case.
Laziness
July 30, 2008 - 08:17 ET by UnsaneSure it is. If not, take it to court. Some judge will hear your case I am sure. And here is betting you wouldn't be saying that if the IRS were, say, only in charge of collecting fines.
It is easier to whine constantly about how the IRS is unconstitutional, and so on, rather than to reform it so that it is not the least intimidating (like instituting reforms akin to those Steve Forbes suggested). One of those approaches appeals nicely to laziness. Guess which one?
(Isn't "not constitutionally legal" a bit redundant?:-) )
Whoever casts a vote for Barack Obama is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever fails to vote against him is nothing more than a moral coward.
Another $2,000? First
July 29, 2008 - 15:36 ET by FoolicanAnother $2,000?
First show some fiscal responsibility. Budget the money you already have. Get rid of this stupid Social Security scheme; it's redistribution of wealth and I'm certainly not going to see a penny.
Foolican...I have paid SS
July 29, 2008 - 15:46 ET by bassndudeFoolican...I have paid SS sense 1965, and I want what I have paid into that thing. They can get rid of it after I get my money out of it. True, I will never get it all out, and had I the option, and was able to save that amount on my own, I would have retired on my investments when I was 40 or 50, and been wealthy. But I did not have that option, and unless your ready to refund my money with my petty 2 1/2% interest...
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Claire Shipman
July 29, 2008 - 17:26 ET by david999If Claire Shipman makes say a million dollars a year and the average wage in the USA is $45,000 and she wants us to pay $2,000 a piece then I say that Claire should pay her "fair" share of$40,000
Plus she can include her
July 29, 2008 - 17:34 ET by bigtimerPlus she can include her leftist husband Jim Carney who works for Time Rag and have him cough up and contribute to-boot.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Shipman needs MORE confiscation
July 30, 2008 - 08:12 ET by UnsaneScrew that. If Shipman makes a million a year, and per capita is $40-45K or so, then she can pay about $960,000 in taxes to the federal government. Because that would be FAIR. Right, Claire???
Whoever casts a vote for Barack Obama is nothing more than a common thief. Whoever fails to vote against him is nothing more than a moral coward.
Shipman call for Buffet . .
July 29, 2008 - 18:38 ET by jdhawkShipman call for Buffet . . .
Giving
July 29, 2008 - 20:42 ET by cocodrieLiberals are generous only with other people's money. Hanoi John gave a whopping one tenth of one percent of his millions and the Clintons gave fifteen million to themselves via the Clinton foundation.
Generous Liberals
July 29, 2008 - 21:00 ET by the strugglerSince were supposedly a 50-50 country why don't every liberal just pay $4000
If I'm remembering
July 29, 2008 - 23:38 ET by SvenIf I'm remembering correctly, several years ago Gov. Mike Huckabee (sp) heard complaints from many Democrat/Libs that they believed Americans didn't pay enough in taxes.
He threw their complaint right back at them and instituted a way where by citizens could write a check out to the AK State Government. As you can guess, many of these same Libs--who are very generous with everyone elses money--didn't write any personal checks out to help pay for their beloved social programs.
I believe my memory is correct on this.
Big Latte
July 30, 2008 - 00:06 ET by owlpelletsPleeease!!!!!!!!
Rush needs a segment on how this doofus just went after "Big Latte" Who pays benefits for the new legion of unemployed Baristas?
I always wanted to get into politics, but I was never light enough to make the team.
Donate to Government
July 30, 2008 - 07:53 ET by Cool ArrowWe shouldn't dismiss this idea so quickly.
The Govenment is welcome to every penny I will spend on latte for the coming year.
I know it will be tough going another year wihout ever having experienced a latte, but since it helps the goverment, I'll do it.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE