Today the cafeteria started adding a nickel if you admit to putting a squeeze of lemon in your hot water. I kid you not. This is literally nickel-and-diming us. OK, so they have a cost - 69 cents per lemon where I shop. But are they going to start charging for every squirt of honey, every bag of sugar or sweetener, every pack of mustard or soy sauce? How about all those non-reusable plastic knives, forks, and spoons? And I really, really doubt that the cafeteria workers see a penny of the higher prices, or I might feel differently about the price increases.

What would your idea solve?
A needless irritance

Simply outrageous that the cafeteria would charge you for things you take from them. Unconscionable.

It is only fair that they charge. Lemons don't grow on trees you know

Change the name of the Office of the Ombudsman; some are, afterall, not men.My idea is to change the name of the Office of the Ombudsman to Office of the Ombudspeople to reflect the fact that not all ombudsman are men. In addition, the title for each person in the office can be shorten to "Ombuds" or merely "buds" because afterall, they are everyone's buds.

What would your idea solve?
Gender Inequaltiy

The email was included within messages exchanged Nov. 13, 2010, between Clinton and one of her closest aides, Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin. At the time, emails sent from Clinton's BlackBerry device and routed through her private clintonemail.com server in the basement of her New York home were being blocked by the State Department's spam filter. A suggested remedy was for Clinton to obtain a state.gov email account.

"Let's get separate address or device but I don't want any risk of the personal being accessible," Clinton responded to Abedin.

Clinton never used a government account that was set up for her, instead continuing to rely on her private server until leaving office.

...

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said the November 2010 email cited in the inspector general audit was one of more than a dozen work-related emails that his group identified that Clinton sent or received but later failed to turn over the State Department.

"Contrary to her statement under oath suggesting otherwise, Mrs. Clinton did not return all her government emails to the State Department," Fitton said. "Our goal is to find out what other emails Mrs. Clinton and the State Department are hiding."

CNN Money’s “fact-checkers” Cristina Alesci and Laurie Frankel ended up with egg on their faces on Wednesday after they rated as “false” a well-established and proven Clinton Cash fact involving Hillary Clinton’s State Dept. approving the transfer of 20 percent of U.S. uranium to the Russian government, as nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.

Under the guise of “fact-checking” Donald Trump’s Wednesday speech, Alesci and Frankel purported to verify whether “Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20% of America’s uranium holdings to Russia while nine investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.”

Alesci (pictured, right) and Frankel (left) rate the claim as “false” and allege “there’s no hard evidence of a quid pro quo.” The CNN Money “reporters” also conceded that “CNN several times has asked the Clinton Foundation to confirm whether the nine investors who benefited from the deal also contributed to the foundation, but the foundation has yet to respond.”

...

[However] in a 4,000-word front page story written over a year ago, the New York Times’ Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Jo Becker and Mike McIntire verified the Clinton Cash uranium revelation in stunning detail, including charts and graphs laying out the flow of millions of dollars from the nine investors in the uranium deal who flowed $145 million to Hillary’s family foundation.

...

Yet through willful ignorance or an unusual lack of journalistic curiosity, Alesci and Frankel didn’t think to ask the obvious: which of the eight other agency heads needed to approve the deal were receiving $145 million to their family’s charity at the time of such a pivotal decision? And did Hillary Clinton’s State Department report the glaring conflict of interest before granting its approval of handing over 20 percent of American uranium to Putin’s Russia? Why didn’t Hillary Clinton recuse her agency from voting, knowing that her charity was receiving $145 million from nine investors in the deal?

Those questions apparently did not occur to Cristina Alesci and Laurie Frankel.

Also, in addition to the $145 million being funneled to the Clinton Foundation before the CFIUS approval, why was a Kremlin-backed bank bankrolling a $500,000 speech in Moscow for Bill Clinton while his wife led the Russian reset? As even the progressive New Yorker magazine put it, “But there is a bigger question: Why was Bill Clinton taking any money from a bank linked to the Kremlin while his wife was Secretary of State?” Shockingly, CNN Money fact-checkers Alesci and Frankel make no mention of the Kremlin-backed $500,000 Clinton speaking payment.

Nor did CNN’s crack “fact-checkers” mention that the Clinton Foundation received $2.35 million in hidden, undisclosed donations from Ian Telfer, the former head of the Russian government’s uranium company—another fact that multiple liberal news outlets have confirmed.

Indeed, as Bloomberg, Washington Post, New Yorker, ABC News, New York Times, and myriad other Establishment media have all confirmed, Clinton Cash’s most explosive revelations are accurate.

Apparently, CNN’s Cristina Alesci and Laurie Frankel are among the last to know.