In this task, you are given news articles and you need to generate a highlight, i.e., a short summary, with a maximum length of 10 lines.
--------
Question: (CNN) -- Look out air travelers. A congressional slugfest over the U.S. deficit is threatening to trigger higher airfares and widespread slowdowns at the nation's airports. Remember that big fight in Congress last year over the national budget deficit? Eventually Congress and the White House agreed to scheduled budget cuts that are so deep that lawmakers would be forced to come together on tough choices. Washington wonks call these cuts "sequestration." Related story: Sequestration is the 'dumbest thing' The Federal Aviation Administration is in the cross hairs for sequestration -- with a possible $1 billion in mandatory cuts scheduled to occur as soon as January. The FAA chief warned of the impact of such cuts. And a new study says the cuts would result in fewer air traffic controllers, customs officers and security officers. The FAA's sweeping overhaul of the U.S. air traffic system also would take a hit. NextGen, as it's called, is aimed at improving efficiency and increasing safety. "If the sequester were to occur, we would face some very drastic cuts in services and these investments," said FAA acting administrator Michael Huerta, in an October speech. "These cuts would impact air traffic control services, NextGen implementation, and aircraft certification -- all of which are critical to our ability to move forward with aviation in this century. "They would result in significantly less efficient and less convenient air travel service for the American traveling public. We will always, however, maintain the highest levels of safety." It's anybody's guess -- and up to Congress -- whether the cuts will actually happen. But groups representing pilots and the aerospace industry say it's time to get nervous. Opinion: Clock ticking on defense cuts . Marion Blakey, who headed the FAA during the George W. Bush administration and who now leads an aerospace industry lobbying organization, warned in August that just the threat of the cuts is already having a chilling effect. Consumers should be worried, she warns. "This will affect their ability to fly when they want and how they want," Blakey says. "It will certainly be a drag on the airlines, which then will incur great cost, which then will be passed on to the consumer or it will cut into the carriers' very meager profits and that's not healthy." Blakey's group, the Aerospace Industries Association, and Econsult Corp. released a study in August that paints a worst-case scenario, including possible closure of 246 airport control towers, 1,500 fewer air traffic controllers and the loss of 9,000 security screeners and 1,600 customs officers. Obviously, fewer controllers, screeners and customs people would throw a wrench into an already stressed air travel system. "A billion dollars is a body blow to the FAA," Blakey says. For industry planners, Blakey says January is right around the corner, and making industry decisions amid such uncertainty comes with an economic price that will affect the consumer. Not only would airline passengers feel the cuts, but pilots of small aircraft, known as general aviation, or GA, will see ramifications, both in safety and efficiency, says Melissa Rudinger, senior vice president of government affairs at the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. The cuts could include the shut down of more than 200 control towers, "which operate almost exclusively at GA locations," she says. "It's unclear to us how the FAA would go about literally closing the doors and turning out the lights," she says. "But there's definitely a safety risk that would have us concerned." Safety would not be an issue, Blakey says. "I have every confidence they'll keep it safe," she says, although she expects FAA controllers will slow traffic at small airports by reducing hours of operation and capacity. "I do not anticipate that the FAA will reduce hours and personnel at the nation's big air traffic control centers and the TRACON radar tracking centers," she says. For now, many in the aviation industry are taking a wait-and-see attitude. "There is a great deal of uncertainty about whether sequestration will actually happen and what the real impact would be on commercial aviation," writes a spokeswoman for the airline industry trade group Airlines for America. Other groups aren't talking at all. The National Air Traffic Controllers Association wouldn't comment in August, and the FAA referred questions to the Office of Management and Budget. The OMB has 30 days to analyze the sequestration legislation and to make recommendations to the White House. An internal OMB memo (PDF) in July said sequestration would be "highly destructive to national security and domestic priorities, as well as to core government functions," and that Obama has submitted deficit reduction proposals to Congress aimed at avoiding the cuts. The cuts would delay deployment of the multibillion-dollar NextGen program by at least a decade, according to the study. "It's a very big deal to keep that on track," Blakey says. "It's going to get hit; it's just a question of how much." This is not just about FAA, Blakey says. Think about the idea of cutting 9,000 Transportation Security Administration screeners. "How do you like the lines now? How are you going to like them then?" She says, "People would like to treat this as a hypothetical or a simple congressional debate." But the threat will grow, she warns, unless "people step up and try again to address the long-term issues" surrounding the nation's debt and deficit -- or they postpone the FAA cuts to give themselves more time for a compromise.

Answer: Budget battle may result in slower air travel, higher fares .
FAA cuts could lead to fewer controllers, security and customs officers, study says .
Ex-FAA chief: Fear of the cuts is already having a chilling effect .


Question: New Delhi (CNN) -- Here's the best way to understand the new India in 30 seconds. Watch this commercial—or better yet, if you don't understand Hindi, read on. A smarmy-looking politician addresses a rural gathering, promising to give the people access to water. His speech is interrupted by a boyish young man, a villager, who pulls out his smartphone and plays a YouTube video for all to see: it's the same politician, making the same promises at the last election, years ago. "I might be from the village," cries out the young man, "but don't think you can fool me!" The commercial—marketing an Indian mobile service provider—cuts to its familiar Hindi jingle, loosely translated as "no making fools of us anymore, no making fools of us." The story struck me because it weaves together some important trends and forces in India as the nation undertakes the biggest elections in world history. The first trend is the immense proliferation of Internet-enabled smartphones. In most Western countries, people have discovered the Internet and grown with it in stages: from painfully slow dial-up connections, to broadband, to Wi-Fi, to 4G mobile Internet. India's story has been very different. Until recently only a small elite—about a tenth of the population—could access the Internet, mostly through PCs. Even today, there are only 57 million broadband  subscribers in the country, according to the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, or TRAI. By comparison, there are about 900 million mobile subscribers—a recent boom. Many of these mobile users are buying cheap smartphones and data packages to access the Internet. The offshoot is the opposite of what happens in the West: Hundreds of millions of Indians have never used a PC—and likely never will—but they can now begin to access the Internet on their phones. The Internet is aspirational in India; it's the new motorbike or washing machine. The second trend is the rise of rural India. Again, according to TRAI, 40% of mobile subscribers are now in villages and small towns. Even with the recent boom, rural subscriptions are still growing at more than twice the rate of urban ones. These rural subscribers, as the commercial shows, often don't speak English. But there's no longer a great shame in being unable to speak the language of their colonial masters; instead, there's a new pride and confidence in India's many regional dialects and languages. There's new rural money, and a yearning to be stakeholders in their futures and to fight for more accountable government. The third trend is India's youth bulge. More than 100 million voters in India's elections are first-timers who turned 18 in the last five years. Half of all Indians are under age 30; the average age in India is 28. Many of these young, brash Indians have cast off the fatalism of their forefathers. Growing up in an India of fast growth and development, they have more confidence in their culture, identity and language. Put that together with trends No. 1 and No. 2, and the result is amplified. For the first time in India's history, a majority of Indians are connected and engaged. They know about the skeletons in every politician's closet—and that information is power. Some suggest that these trends mean India's elections will be fought and decided on social media. Politicians have taken their cue, rushing to every platform available: Twitter, Facebook and Google Hangouts. The numbers seem staggering at first. Facebook says Narendra Modi, the front-runner to be India's next prime minister, is the second most "liked" politician in the world (13 million likes), after U.S. President Barack Obama (40 million likes). According to Twitter, there has been a 600% increase in political Tweets from India in the last year. Since January the two biggest parties, the BJP and the Congress, have grown their Twitter followings by 55% and 351% respectively. India's Internet and Mobile Association says a strong social media campaign could swing up to 4% of votes. Commentators have cited that data to brand India's elections the country's first-ever "social media election." For now, I'm skeptical. Some of the outreach attempts have been amateur at best: As Vox.com pointed out, the BJP's Twitter handle last week auto-tweeted anyone who mentioned the party on Twitter, including me and hundreds of others. In any case, the number of actual social media users represents a tiny percentage of the Indian electorate. Facebook says it has 100 million users in India: it sounds like a lot but it accounts for less than a tenth of Indians. One reason for this -- apart from limits to Internet access -- could be that Twitter and Facebook remain English language services, relatable to a small subset of Indians. Unlike China, which has a Chinese-language microblogging service called Sina Weibo, with hundreds of millions of users, India for now has no such indigenous, umbrella platform. Why? India is no monolith. There are dozens of languages, and an equal number of different Indias. Despite India's growth and increased connectivity, which suggests a more unified nation, the country may actually be becoming more regional-focused, with more pride in local languages, trends and politicians. This is also why I think it's far too early to call India's elections for any one politician or party. The three trends of mobile reach, the rural rise and the youth bulge are each combustible forces bubbling in a cauldron of uncertainty. Indians may want accountability and change, but it's too soon to tell which way that will manifest itself. It remains unclear whether Indians will vote for their regional interests, or cast their ballot thinking about a macro national picture. Watch India's elections very closely. They're immensely consequential—for India, and the world. But placing too much importance on social media chatter could be misleading. Calling these elections too early could be embarrassing, too. It is, as the ad-jingle goes, a fool's errand.

Answer: A commercial shows India voter catching a politician recycling old, unfulfilled promises .
Ravi Agrawal: The power of mobile technology is helping shape India's elections .
He says other key trends include the new prominence of rural areas and of young voters .
Agrawal: It's a mistake to try to predict the outcome based on these trends .


Question: HARARE, Zimbabwe (CNN) -- Zimbabwean lawmakers on Monday narrowly voted for Lovemore Moyo as speaker of the parliament -- making him the first opposition lawmaker to hold the position in the country's history. Morgan Tsvangirai's MDC faction has a slim majority following parliamentary elections. "This is historic as it ceases to be a rubber-stamping house," Moyo said after winning the position. "It will ensure that progressive laws are passed. I promise to be professional." Moyo -- the national chairman of the main Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) party -- received 110 votes while his only opponent, Paul Themba-Nyathi, received 98 votes. The speaker of the parliament is the fourth most powerful post in Zimbabwe. Themba-Nyathi represented the splinter MDC faction led by Arthur Mutambara, but he had support of President Robert Mugabe's ZANU-PF party. The vote took place hours after Mugabe swore in lawmakers, five months after they were elected. Two members of the main MDC -- led by presidential candidate Morgan Tsvangirai -- were arrested as they arrived at the opening session, but they were released after a short time, according to a government spokesman. An MDC official said the arrests were part of the "sinister agenda of this regime" to "tilt the balance of numbers in their favour during the voting for the speaker of parliament." One of those detained -- Shuwa Mudiwa -- appeared back in parliament, but the other member -- Elia Jembere -- was not seen, according to sources. Government spokesman Bright Matonga said Jembere had been accused of rape, but that he has been released from custody. A third member -- Elton Mangoma -- escaped an arrest attempt when other party members came to his rescue, MDC officials said. Attendance at the session of parliament is important since the membership is closely divided between the MDC and the Mugabe's ZANU-PF. The ruling ZANU-PF party lost its majority in the 210-seat parliament in elections in March, but vote recounts and political violence have delayed the body from convening until now. Final results gave 100 seats to an MDC faction led by Morgan Tsvangirai, the party's presidential candidate. President Robert Mugabe's ZANU-PF got 99 seats. An offshoot of the main MDC party, led by Arthur Mutambara, won 10 seats. An independent candidate won one seat. Tsvangirai, who was locked in a bitter presidential contest with Mugabe, had objected to Mugabe's decision to convene parliament, saying it could "decapitate" power-sharing talks that have been on hold for the past two weeks. Still, Tsvangirai said he would attend the swearing-in ceremony. MDC party spokesman Nelson Chamisa said all MDC members elected to parliament were expected to attend "except those few MPs who are still in hiding." CNN's Nkepile Mabuse in Johannesburg, South Africa contributed to this report.

Answer:
Moyo received 110 votes, opponent Paul Themba-Nyathi received 98 votes .
Themba-Nyathi represented the splinter MDC faction led by Arthur Mutambara .
MDC's Shuwa Mudiwa and Elia Jembere arrested outside parliament building .
Ruling ZANU-PF party lost majority in 210-seat parliament in March elections .