Is a gov't MMFd safer than a reg MMFd & if the MMFd system gets < 1.00 for 1.00 in fund can a gov't Fd also <1

I think it largely depends upon (1) how much money you are putting into the MMF and (2) what exactly you mean by "safe."

FDIC (for banks), NCUA (credit unions), and SIPC (brokerages/exchanges) all provide a degree of safety for assets held in your name up to a certain dollar amount. So under $100k at a bank or $500k at a brokerage is reasonably safe from theft, fraud, or default.

With Money Market Funds the more practical consideration is how conservatively managed is the fund and the institution that sponsors it? As the current upheaval in mortgage, SIV's and the like show, some "traditional banks" can create an unholy mess of things, where as some "risky investment houses" stand firm with rock solid financial management.

Personally & professionally, I can't see why a small investor wouldn't do just fine with something like Vanguard's Prime Money Fund...or INGDirect savings...so long as those intitutions continue to be managed so conservatively.

I think for now a gov't MMF is safer. Theoretically, any MMF can break the buck but a gov't MMF is much less likely to do so. Many regular MMFs are up to 50% invested in mortgage related debt.

US Treasury MMF or a muni fund is even safer as "gov't" can include mortgage related issuers as well.