Anita said    >>>>>I find it quite interesting that the national media
(CBS in particular) has just started reporting on what the government
shutdown has meant to the Smithsonian and the National Gallery. The
reporter seemed to be upset that a private fund was being used to allow
the Vermeer show to stay open.>>>>

Whether one is upset or not depends upon one's political perspective of
this budget issue.  Closing the government is like holding its workers and
those who depend on them for welfare, social security, pensions, and
services hostage. The longer the government is closed and the more people
starve, the more likely President Clinton and others with a conscience are
to give in on the issue.  When museums and other agencies find money
elsewhere the tactic's value is lost.  The Treasurer of the U.S. has been
criticized by some Republicans for finding money or juggling books so
interest can be paid on government bonds. Isn't that what he is supposed
to do--keep us out of default?

It doesn't surprise me that politicians would sooner see a few miserable
humans freeze or starve so they can win political mileage and it really
doesn't surprise me that the Washington press would not also criticize the
National Gallery for opening Vermeer using private money.  They
(reporters) have points of view, as well, and their bias often shows.

This is no small issue. The Republican Congressional leadership has lost
tremendous ground politically on this one issue.  It was a terrible
political mistake to approach it like they did as most of their moderate
supporters will attest.  All of the personal criticisms of Clinton that
they leveled--he can't lead, he can't take a stand, he has never used the
veto, he can't make up his mind, etc.--all have been neutralized on this
issue as he stands his ground--better still for voter relations as he
tries to compromise. It's like when Bush was called a wimp.  It was
inevitable he would go to war somewhere to prove he was not a wimp. In the
current situation, the majority of the American people have gained respect
for Clinton on this issue and lost respect for Gingrich.  Therefore, the
Republicans have been forced to stand firm and they have forced Clinton to
do so also. The American people care as much about "government employees"
(as a general term) as they do about lawyers and the guy at the driver's
license bureau. So politically, they don't count much in this as hostages.
(Sorry friends at Smithsonian, NPS and NGA). Besides, the average guy in
Peoria thinks they can go to the credit union and borrow against those
wages they will almost certainly get eventually. The goal is to bring
pressure on the President by making "real people" hurt.

Besides, for those of you who live in Washington, you are probably well
aware that one local network affiliate has not been too kind or too fair
in how it reports on the NGA.  I know because as a consultant to the NGA I
was subject of one of their so called investigative reports. Even with
facts and truth presented to them on a platter, they chose to present a
controversial story that sold advertising time. Controversy sells. Praise
doesn't.

Shame on you National Gallery people for coming up with money to do your
job and educate and please the public.  You should know better. Jump right
into the political process and turn off that heat so all those pictures
rot. Send those guards home.  If you only knew how your efforts to keep
the museum operating hurt Congressman Newt and Senator Helms, you might be
more considerate.  ; ) .

As a consultant to several government museums, I'm a victim, too.  Due to
the shutdown, I have over $20,000 outstanding that is as much as 120 days
overdue, due to the two shutdowns and general inefficiency that is
typical.  That Newt sure knows how to win over us voters.  But then, with
those high salaries we all make in the museum world, we'll all be in that
tax bracket that gets that big tax break he's planned.  And we all are so
well paid, we'll be able to benefit from that capital gains tax reduction,
too. Sure glad I'm getting a big tax break.  I'll need it to pay the
increased premium on my health insurance--you know the one!  It's that one
with a $2,000 deductable that costs a family of three $1,500 per
quarter--up $500 a quarter just since the health reform measure was
defeated.
Sorry for being so "political".  I guess I'll just go relax by reading
some of my Newsgroups on CompuServe.  Oops!  Sorry. I forget.  They've
been censored.

Steve Keller  ([log in to unmask])
Museum Security Consultant (with an attitude)
(and former Congressional staff members who understands how the game is
played).