jump to navigation

How Much of the Deficit Did Obama Inherit? February 6, 2010

Posted by geoff in News.
trackback

A friend of mine who delights in yanking my chain sent me an excerpt from a blog posting at the Economist, which presented this chart (===>) from CBPP.org and said:

That’s a damning chart. It implicates a lot of people, including some of the same Congressional Democrats who are now joining Republicans in assailing the president for budgeted deficits, but who voted for the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Politically, this is a pretty important chart.

And if you look at the chart, you’d be hard pressed to disagree – it’s painfully clear that the Bush tax cuts and the wars are the largest and most enduring contributors to the deficit.

Save for the fact, that is, that this analysis is crap.

The Tax Cuts.The chart above comes from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities – a lefty think tank who generated the chart for their report titled “President Obama Largely Inherited Today’s Huge Deficits.” Reviewing their report, the first thing that strikes you is that although the Bush tax cuts are due to expire in 2010, the report assumes that they’ll be extended by the Obama administration. But they still attribute the costs to the Bush administration. My opinion is that if the Obama administration extends the tax cuts, then: 1) they obviously find value in the tax cuts (so it will be interesting to watch those who villainized Bush for his tax cuts try to explain why suddenly it’s the smart thing to do); and 2) they assume ownership of the cuts from that point on.

Most conservatives would agree that Bush’s tax cuts should have been funded through a cut in federal spending, rather than via deficit spending. So Bush’s contribution to our deficits and debt should certainly not be overlooked. But calling decisions made by the current administration “Bush-era tax cuts” is unfair and misleading.

The Deficit Calculation. A second problem lies in the way the deficit is calculated. Normally one adds up revenues, subtracts outlays, and the result is the surplus (hah!) or the deficit. But the CBPP analysis simply added up the costs of their favorite categories to arrive at a deficit. To illustrate the problem, consider the results for FY08.

Based on the CBPP’s approach for estimating the cost of economic downturns, we can take the predicted revenue just prior to the start of the fiscal year, and subtract the actual revenue for FY08. That gives us -$246 billion. Iraq/Afghanistan War appropriations amounted to $187 billion for that year, and the cost of Bush’s tax cuts is taken as $247 billion (tax cuts + AMT relief, per CBPP).

I’m sure you can see the problem here. That totals to $680 billion, but the deficit for 2008 was only $455 billion. What the CBPP did was take their least-favorite policies and add the the costs of those policies up until they matched the 2009 deficit. That’s not a proper way to compute a deficit, as it will only be accurate for the calibration year: 2009.

The Economic Downturn. The CBPP points out that the economic downturn was not the fault of the current administration, and that was certainly initially true. However, it has been argued that the atmosphere of hostility to business created by the administration has aggravated the downturn over the past year. It should be noted, too, that the Bush administration was faced with a similar problem, which led to the tax cuts that the CBPP deplores.

Future, Past, and Present. The costs for the 8 years of the Bush administration have been cataloged and are a matter of record. Save for varying interest rates on their portion of the debt, they will not change. But the Obama administration has only 1 year of costs under its belt, with the promise of much more to come. A second stimulus package could add another $0.5 – 1 trillion to the deficits over the next 3 – 4 years.

Further, the administration’s current deficit-swelling proposals have not been included in the estimate. The health care bill(s), with their mythical economies and hidden costs, and the cap-and-trade bill, for example, will affect the deficit either through outlays or receipts.

Conclusion. Basically the CBPP’s “politically important” chart is only useful for politics. It does not give a realistic or fair assessment of deficits and their sources. That’s not surprising, considering their obvious agenda.

Comments»

1. Retired Geezer - February 6, 2010

Yay, Geoff.
Thanks for spending the time to refute this.

2. Michael - February 6, 2010

A more fundamental problem with this CBPP “analysis” is that liberals always score tax cuts as a zero sum game, i.e., they assume hypothetical lost revenue by means of simple arithmetic. They turn a blind eye to the mountain of evidence suggesting that properly targeted tax cuts can actually increase revenue by stimulating the economy and minimizing incentives for counter-productive tax avoidance strategies. They should have learned about this from JFK’s tax cuts, which resulted in a gusher of new revenue for the federal government. I seem to recall that the Bush tax cuts had exactly this effect — meaning, the revenue actually realized from those rich bastards the lefties love to tax went up substantially. If tax rates are reasonable, people don’t feel the need to hide money in the Cayman Islands, or keep it parked as unrealized capital gains.

By the way, how come Reagan and the Republicans are not getting credit from these lefties for reducing the deficit through the creeping annual tax increase since 1986 as the AMT continues to reach down into the middle class? That’s right, our hero Reagan signed that tax increase into law, and it is hitting more people every year.

3. Michael - February 6, 2010

In other words, Geoff, I believe that you have erred when you opined that “this analysis is crap.” You have unfairly slandered crap, which, after all, serves a useful purpose. I trust that you will do the right thing and issue a retraction.

4. doc - February 6, 2010

Whoa, look at the big brain on Michael. Seriously though, you nailed it, sir. I think many dims are actually that stupid that they cannot see the growth or supply side argument for tax cuts. Then there are those who do know it but are too dishonest to ever actually admit it. If higher taxes are so great for the feds budget AND the economy, why don’t we just tax everything at like 80% ? That should work, right? We proles just have to work a little harder for the greater good. 8)

5. geoff - February 6, 2010

Trying to measure the supply side benefits is a tough task – it’s like trying to measure “jobs saved or created.” So I ran away in fear.

6. Michael - February 6, 2010

Turds everywhere are still awaiting your apology.

7. geoff - February 6, 2010

Turds everywhere are still awaiting your apology.

I suppose I should have specified “liberal crap.” I presume that would have been acceptable?

8. Conservative Turds - February 6, 2010

Thank you, Geoff, for manning up and admitting your mistake.

9. xbradtc - February 6, 2010

Can’t Geoff just punch Michael in the poon and call it a day?

10. Michael - February 6, 2010

Brad, this site is devoted to civil discourse on matters of public importance, as I have previously explained here.

Your suggestion that Geoff should resort to the unseemly behavior of a ruffian, and thus demean our conversation to the level of a thread at The Hostages, is unwelcome, sir.

11. Kent - February 6, 2010

Wow Geoff, I had no idea you gone off to embrace running dog capitalist imperialism. As I must clearly be an unrepentant socialist Marxist in your world view, I guess I’ll just have to defend my pinko commie brethren at the CBPP.

First off, I’m guessing that the projected deficit line in the graph came from the Congressional Budget Office, not the administration, since the CBO is credited in the graph.

It looks like the CBPP backed out certain categories of costs in the CBO projections, based on what the CBO had assumed. It seems odd that the CBO or CBPP would assume that certain things would remain steadystate, but I don’t know the rules for making these sorts of budget projections.

What I do know is there is a very simple explanation for the missing 225 billion in your 2008 projection — it would have been a budget surplus. Without the Bush tax cuts and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, we would have continued the surpluses that the crazy commie Bill Clinton left us with. God knows, we might have even paid off most of the national debt. Silly Democratic idea. Good Republicans know that profligate deficit spending and tax cuts for the richest Americans is the only true path to righteous living.

After all, the Republican reduction of the top tax rate from 70% in 1980 to 35% is what managed to reduce the share of national wealth held by the middle class by a factor of three, while increasing the share of wealth held by the top 0.01% by a factor of 6.

Thank goodness the middle class is so gullible.

The Republican clarion call for freeing markets from needless regulation certainly energized the financial sector. I’m sure none of us regrets the multi-billion dollars bonuses those Wall Street wizards paid themselves while driving our economy off a cliff and throwing 8 million working class stiffs out of work. It was just good fun.

12. Randall Hoven - February 6, 2010

Two questions

(1) Where does anyone get the number for what the tax rate cuts “cost”?

(2) Where does anyone get the number for what Iraq/Afghan wars cost?

Revenues after Bush’s tax rate cuts settled into the post WWII average of about 18.3% of GDP by 2006. To say they would have been more than that, and to put a number on it, without the tax rate cuts is anal extraction, or modern economics.

To my knowledge, the government does not separate war costs from all other defense costs. War costs are also guesses.

13. pendejo grande - February 6, 2010

Make sure and kick your friend in the poon for all of the rest of us.

14. doc - February 6, 2010

who farted? Oh, it’s just a liberal blathering. Carry on.

15. Log Cabin - February 6, 2010

It’s just more media generated noise to provide Captain Zero political cover in his absolute screwup as President.

Look for more and more of this nonsense as his policies continue to destroy the free market system. He is absolutely the biggest disaster to ever be elected in this country.

16. Michael - February 6, 2010

After all, the Republican reduction of the top tax rate from 70% in 1980 to 35% is what managed to reduce the share of national wealth held by the middle class by a factor of three, while increasing the share of wealth held by the top 0.01% by a factor of 6.

That right there is the problem with lefty thinking. They don’t care if they impoverish everyone, as long as the “shares” of their shrinking, debt-funded pie, get equalized. Notice that Kent did not, and can not, claim that the middle or lower classes actually fared poorly while the rich got richer.

It’s actually the rich getting richer, in an open free market capitalist economy, that fuels progress for the poor. As Milton Friedman kept pointing out, historically, it is the only system that has worked for the poor.

The leftards will always be whinging about income distribution, while we focus on wealth creation.

17. BrewFan - February 6, 2010

Kent and his ilk think rich people are all like Scrooge McDuck and put all their treasures in the big vault and sit in there all day and count their money. It never occurs to them that rich people spend their money and not-so-rich people innovate and risk and provide goods and services for the them, eventually becoming rich themselves. I am so thankful that I am not eaten up with the kind of class envy Kent has. I guess one of the benefits of being a Christianist is I am happy with what God has blessed me with so I don’t find it necessary to sit around and grouse about those who are better off.

18. BrewFan - February 6, 2010

Oh, and BTW, hi Log Cabin! Long time no see. Don’t be a stranger.

19. geoff - February 6, 2010

Without the Bush tax cuts and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, we would have continued the surpluses that the crazy commie Bill Clinton left us with.

That’s just silly. The surpluses were unsustainable, as everyone who didn’t buy into the “Economy 2.0” meme knew. Just as the housing market bubble was just a bubble. The crash of both of them brought immense economic pain ($5 trillion lost in market crash, $4 trillion lost in real estate through last March). The fact that both Presidents and both Congresses didn’t do more to mitigate those situations when they were merely threats creates enough blame for Republicans and Democrats alike.

20. Michael - February 6, 2010

I still give Clinton a lot of credit for NAFTA and welfare reform. After HillaryCare failed, he tacked right and was probably the best conservative president we have had since Reagan.

21. defendUSA - February 6, 2010

Wow. Kent must need an econ 101 refresher. Seems a dirty *R*r-r-r-r-re-publican enacted tax cuts all across the board that resulted in the highest tax revenues ever in 2005. I believe that means those nasty, hard- working rich people were then able to take the money and reinvest it in the company and oops, SOB, create jobs!! Amazing how that works, isn’t it?

Kent, if you are so hell bent on all things being equal and you’ve got some disposable income say, about 6k, I could by half of my daughter’s tuition for next year…Aaw!! You don’t want to help…not your problem? Uh-huh. You’ll just wait until the government mandates you help because otherwise you could really give a rat’s ass about what is “fair”,right? Typical liberal mindset.

This is precisely why Conservatives give freely with their money to charities or what have you and willingly. We get it. Too bad you don’t, and when your collective ass is hauled to the oppression and taxation, loss of liberty line with the rest of us, let me know how THAT’s workin’ for you…

22. geoff - February 6, 2010

I’m guessing that the projected deficit line in the graph came from the Congressional Budget Office

That’s incorrect. The deficit line comes from CBPP. For example, the August 09 CBO projection (which was the most recent report used by CBPP) has the on-budget 2019 deficit at $834 billion. The CBPP shows it as $1.355 trillion.

It looks like the CBPP backed out certain categories of costs in the CBO projections, based on what the CBO had assumed.

Also incorrect. The CBPP made their own estimates of cost, with their own set of assumptions.

What I do know is there is a very simple explanation for the missing 225 billion in your 2008 projection — it would have been a budget surplus.

Or, in terms of the Laffer curve, it would mean that the tax cuts paid for themselves.

Nobody knows what the economy would have done, and what federal revenues would have been, had the tax cuts not been implemented. Bush could easily claim, as Obama has done, that things would have been horrendously worse had his policies not been implemented.

After all, the Republican reduction of the top tax rate from 70% in 1980 to 35% is what managed to reduce the share of national wealth held by the middle class by a factor of three, while increasing the share of wealth held by the top 0.01% by a factor of 6.

Who cares?

23. geoff - February 6, 2010

Kent, BTW, is the very same chain-pulling fellow I mentioned at the outset. Please play nice, though with his rancorous opus here, you don’t have to be too nice.

24. Michael - February 6, 2010

We need to refocus our attention from income distribution to a more important subject — blowjob distribution.

See, I think that cool liberal guys like Kent are getting way more than their fair share of blowjobs from hippie chicks. I can’t prove this scientifically; the evidence is anecdotal (lib guys bragging in bars) but it is convincing.

This situation is not fair. Hippie chicks should be blowing a lot more elderly conservative cock than they are currently servicing.

25. Michael - February 6, 2010

Am I right about this? C’mon, of course I am.

Tell me, Dave, Geoff, Brewfan.

Or lurkers like GrumpyUnk.

Have you gotten a blowjob from a hippie chick in the last decade?

Yeah, me neither. That’s not right, that is just not social justice.

26. Michael - February 6, 2010

My point being —

Equality of outcome is a ridiculous objective.

Equality of opportunity is the goal that matters.

27. Michael - February 6, 2010

That’s why, in America, Stephen Hawking had the chance to become a superstar.

Do you think he could have done that anywhere else?

I don’t.

28. scottw - February 6, 2010

Michael, this site is devoted to civil discourse on matters of public importance, as I have previously explained here.

29. G. May - February 6, 2010

Why is it that Clinton gets credited with surplusses when the Congress controls spending? I’m sure guys like Kent remember who controlled congress for most of Clinton’s presidency.

This woeful, yet popular basic misunderstanding of how our government works doesn’t seem relegated to any particular group. It is rather inconvenient for leftists to acknowledge that congress is responsible for spending, since they’ve controlled the money pit since 2006.

A cursory examination of the timeline of our current financial woes seems to suggest a rather unpleasant correlation for lefties and Democrats in light of these facts.

30. geoff - February 6, 2010

Have you gotten a blowjob from a hippie chick in the last decade?

That has been a real problem for many years.

Though I do have the Mrs. shout out “Drop acid not bombs!” and “Flower power” to spice up those moments of intimacy.

31. Kent - February 6, 2010

Such responses to real facts… name calling and specious “facts”.

First, inflation-adjusted household income for a 50%tile family has been almost perfectly flat since 1980. When you take into account the huge increase in the cost of medical care/insurance, actual disposable income for the middle class has decreased significantly. Meanwhile, a top 0.01%tile family makes 5 times more than they did in 1980.

I’m nicely in the top 5% of household incomes. Trust me, the guys up at 0.01% aren’t working five times harder than they did in 1980. They just convinced everyone else to change the rules so they could make more. A lot more.

As Randall pointed out, revenues after Bush’s tax rate cuts settled into the post WWII average of about 18.3% of GDP by 2006 — but what Randall didn’t say is that federal government expenses rose from 18% when Clinton left office to 27% by 2008. That’s Republican fiscal responsibility in action.

Read this Bush White House analysis of how government deficits are going to explode even worse:

Click to access citizens_guide.pdf

Blaming it all on Obama has got to be better than facing facts.

32. geoff - February 6, 2010

Meanwhile, a top 0.01%tile family makes 5 times more than they did in 1980.

Who cares?

That’s Republican fiscal responsibility in action.

You’ll find few fans of 2001-2009 Republican fiscal policy here. Except that the year since that period has been far, far worse.

33. geoff - February 6, 2010

Such responses to real facts… name calling and specious “facts”.

I think your opening was pretty inflammatory, so stop your whining and man up. Or wee wee up, if that’s your style.

34. Kent - February 6, 2010

As for G. May wondering why Clinton gets the credit for balancing the budget — that’s because he did balance the budget. Every single Republican voted against it. The Democrats got trounced in the mid-term because Clinton convinced them to raise taxes to balance the budget.

The Republicans have not balanced a budget since Reagan came in. Cut taxes, spend, spend, spend, and then cut taxes some more.

Fiscal responsibility is more than an attack ad.

35. geoff - February 6, 2010

Read this Bush White House analysis of how government deficits are going to explode even worse:

Trying to remember who blocked Social Security reform . . . and medical tort reform . . . Can’t quite recall, but I know it starts with a “D.” Something about entitlement spending not being an emergency…

36. Michael - February 6, 2010

Such responses to real facts… name calling and specious “facts”.

Kent, we have all figured out that you are a homo. Thus, your opinion does not matter.

37. Kent - February 6, 2010

I can’t believe you’re reduced to name calling as well Geoff. “Wee wee up?” I observed that most of the folks posting are flaming, rather than digging in and using real data. My guess is that response means the data isn’t on their side.

38. geoff - February 6, 2010

As for G. May wondering why Clinton gets the credit for balancing the budget — that’s because he did balance the budget.

From The Cato Insitute (1997)

So just who deserves the credit for the nation’s improved fiscal health, President Clinton or the Republican Congress?

The surprising answer: neither of them. The 1993 tax increases did reduce the budget deficit, but not by nearly as much as the White House claims.

the truth is that domestic spending is now growing at only a slightly slower pace under Republican rule of Capitol Hill than it did when the Democrats ran Congress.

The galloping economy has played a major role in reducing the deficit by sweeping record levels of tax revenue into the treasury over the past two years. This year, federal revenues are running about $110 billion above those of 1996.

39. Kent - February 6, 2010

Social Security reform was about letting everyone put their social security savings in the stock market. That would have been popular in 2009.

Medical tort reform is the ultimate red herring. Everyone who’s looked at it, left and right, agrees that it would reduce health care costs 1%, at best. That is a drop in the bucket compared the the multi-100% increases that we’ve had in the past 20 years, and that are projected to continue unless we make some very fundamental changes.

40. Michael - February 6, 2010

Actually, I agree with Kent at #39. Tort reform is a red herring and lawyers like John Kerry do not really siphon off that much from the system. They might actually do some good.

That does not mean that Kent is not a fag.

41. geoff - February 6, 2010

I can’t believe you’re reduced to name calling as well Geoff.

You didn’t say this?

Wow Geoff, I had no idea you gone off to embrace running dog capitalist imperialism. As I must clearly be an unrepentant socialist Marxist in your world view, I guess I’ll just have to defend my pinko commie brethren at the CBPP.

or this?

Good Republicans know that profligate deficit spending and tax cuts for the richest Americans is the only true path to righteous living.

House rules: Live by the snark, die by the snark.

“Wee wee up?”

I figured that if it was good enough for the President, it was good enough for you.

I observed that most of the folks posting are flaming

Of course. You’re 4 years too late to have a serious discussion at a blog. There have been thousands of trolls from both sides wreaking havoc at opposition blogs. It has poisoned the waters for reasoned debate.

So now people shoot on sight. Especially with the inflammatory response you offered.

42. Kent - February 6, 2010

Sure, Clinton benefited from a great economy that pushed the budget into surplus. That’s not my point. He balanced the budget, and took heavy damage from the Republicans for doing so.

Republican administrations, on the other hand, don’t actually seem to worry much about balancing the budget. When GHW Bush raised taxes to reduce (not eliminate) the deficit, he got crucified on the right.

If we are going to spend the money, we have to take it in.

By the way, some folks actually claim that part of the reason the economy boomed under Clinton was the sense of fiscal responsibility that was being exercised in Washington. Silly people.

43. Michael - February 6, 2010

There have been thousands of trolls from both sides wreaking havoc at opposition blogs. It has poisoned the waters for reasoned debate.

That’s not right. I am willing to have a reasoned, fact-based debate with Kent.

As soon as he admits that he is a poofter.

44. Michael - February 6, 2010

Republican administrations, on the other hand, don’t actually seem to worry much about balancing the budget.

Dammit, Kent, for a nancy boy, you keep scoring some good points. That is why all us Tea Party types are pissed off at the Republican establishment.

45. geoff - February 6, 2010

Social Security reform was about letting everyone put their social security savings in the stock market. That would have been popular in 2009.

It was about giving them the option to do what they wanted with their own money. 2009? So far it’s been a blip. And all outcomes are risky – right now Social Security is doomed before I get anything from it, let alone half my value.

Everyone who’s looked at it, left and right, agrees that it would reduce health care costs 1%, at best.

That’s the estimate based on halving tort costs from 2% to 1%, known as the “direct” tort costs. The cost of defensive medicine, however, is much more significant:

The cost of ‘defensive’ medicine – tests, procedures, referrals, hospitalizations, or prescriptions ordered by physicians fearful of lawsuits – is huge and widespread, according to a study by the Massachusetts Medical Society and UConn Health Center researcher Robert Aseltine Jr.

The study is based on a survey – believed to be the first of its kind – that was completed by more than 900 physicians in Massachusetts. It asked about their use of seven tests and procedures: plain film X-rays, CT scans, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasounds, laboratory testing, specialty referrals and consultations, and hospital admissions.

About 83 percent reported practicing defensive medicine, with an average of between 18 percent and 28 percent of tests, procedures, referrals, and consultations and 13 percent of hospitalizations ordered for defensive reasons.

46. Kent - February 6, 2010

Not sure what a “poofter” is.

My initial post used silly language at both the left and right. I had not intended the language to be inflammatory, only the facts.

If my tone in that post was seen as name-calling, I truly do apologize. Not my intent to be nasty.

47. Michael - February 6, 2010

Not sure what a “poofter” is.

I was calling you a queer.

Hey, Kent, I like you. You are actually a thoughtful liberal, and those are hard to find. Feel free to comment here any time.

48. Michael - February 6, 2010

Plus, any friend of Geoff is OK with me. Even if they are gay.

49. Kent - February 6, 2010

Defensive medicine is a real issue. A much bigger issue is that doctors and hospitals get paid by the procedure/test. Under the current rules, if a hospital works hard to implement great medicine and reduce costs, it also reduces its own revenues. Doctors and hospitals have no incentive to change until we change the rules — which requires health care reform.

It’s like paying lawyers by the hour instead of a fixed fee for a case. An hourly billing structure only motivates the lawyer to make the costs higher. That’s why big companies are moving to a fixed-fee billing basis with their outside counsel. And part of why lawyer’s take-home is going down.

50. geoff - February 6, 2010

If my tone in that post was seen as name-calling, I truly do apologize.

That’s not how you do it – you call Michael a self-abusing money-grubbing hypocrite and continue on. Calling names is fine, as long as you’re willing to accept the blowback.

Hey, Kent, I like you. You are actually a thoughtful liberal, and those are hard to find. Feel free to comment here any time.

Michael, by the way, is the boss of this site.

51. geoff - February 6, 2010

Doctors and hospitals have no incentive to change until we change the rules — which requires health care reform.

I don’t know anybody who’s opposed to improvements in health care, especially those improvements that would promote service over profit. But most conservatives don’t believe that a public option, individual mandate, or federal-level boards lie along the path to those improvements.

52. Kent - February 6, 2010

In truth Michael, I’m a registered Independent. Knee-jerk liberals annoy me as much as rabid right-wing xenophobes.

I just don’t like people trying to hang all the problems of Bush-era fiscal irresponsibility on Obama. As far as I can tell, he’s doing the best he can, having been dealt a lousy hand. I trust his economic instincts much more than McCain’s. Electing “let the banks fail” McCain would have been a real Herbert Hoover moment.

Nor do I like how the Republican right has worked so hard to polarize politics and the electorate.

Obama’s instincts are probably left of center, but his actual governing has been remarkably centrist, in the tradition of Bill Clinton. I don’t like how the right wing demonized Clinton for being, in reality, very moderate. It’s ugly to watch that process happening all over again.

53. geoff - February 6, 2010

If we are going to spend the money, we have to take it in.

The plan was to stop taking it in so we’d have to stop spending it. That, however, would have required some sort of sensitivity to deficits.

That insensitivity amazes me: the latest CBO projections are terrible – the worst in the history of the nation. Doesn’t matter whose fault it it, the press should have been screaming about the unprecedented badness of the predictions.

Not so much.

54. Michael - February 6, 2010

Defensive medicine is a real issue.

No shit. Cathy just got back from two weeks in Colorado, an extended visit because her Dad came down with pneumonia.

This happens because he is 94, and can’t swallow properly. Stuff gets in his lungs. So, now he is in an expensive step-down facility from the emergency room where he is intubated to maintain feeding. Meanwhile, Cathy’s Mom is talking to a lawyer to figure out how to work the Medicare/Medicaid system in order to pay her own bills. She may have to paint the house and buy a new car to work the system.

Go figure.

55. geoff - February 6, 2010

Well, I’ve been stiff-arming the family this evening, but my arm is getting tire. So I’m going to have to succumb to family pressure and sign off.

Evening, gents.

56. Kent - February 6, 2010

All the meaningful rule changes for cost control were buried deeper in the Health Reform Bill than most folks bothered to go.

The real issue was trying to cover all US citizens. Either you believe that everyone should have a minimum level of health care or not. Most of the US actually does. It’s one of those Judeo-Christian things.

Forcing everyone to have health insurance is actually cheaper. What happens now is that hospitals are the health care provider of last resort. The poor go there and get care, very expensive care. It would be much better for overall health care costs if the poor got proper primary care.

The public option was not in the bill.

Federal level boards? You mean those death panels that were going to kill grandma? The terrible truth is that the only way we are going to change the rules that will lead to cost reduction is through federal level boards. These changes are going to take hard work, and lots of fine tuning. That kind of stuff can’t be hardcoded in congressional language. It has to happen iteratively.

57. BrewFan - February 6, 2010

The terrible truth is that the only way we are going to change the rules that will lead to cost reduction is through federal level boards.

I actually though you were doing a good job defending the indefensible until you went down this path. Here is some good reading for you:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704259304575043861057904360.html

Kent, do you ever wonder why you are trying to convince others that policies that have always failed are now, somehow, going to work?

58. Michael - February 6, 2010

What happens now is that hospitals are the health care provider of last resort. The poor go there and get care, very expensive care.

True, and the emergency rooms are legally required to admit them. Which means they make up the difference with our employer-provided and tax-subsidized insurance premiums.

Let’s just kick a few hundred thousand of those poor people to the curb and let them die. That will teach them not to waste money on lottery tickets, or play with guns, or be poor, and maybe school them to buy some major medical insurance instead. Plus, when they die, they will not breed.

Win-win for everyone.

59. geoff - February 6, 2010

A 5-minute reprieve…

Forcing everyone to have health insurance is actually cheaper.

It’s not cheaper, it’s just more subsidized through the enslavement of the young and healthy.

The poor go there and get care, very expensive care. It would be much better for overall health care costs if the poor got proper primary care.

That’s been a claim for decades, but in Massachusetts that turned out not to be true at all:

More people are seeking care in hospital emergency rooms, and the cost of caring for ER patients has soared 17 percent over two years, despite efforts to direct patients with nonurgent problems to primary care doctors instead, according to new state data.

The simple fact is that subsidized care will invariably lead to more demand. Invariably.

The public option was not in the bill.

Not in the Senate version, you mean.

Federal level boards? You mean those death panels that were going to kill grandma?

No, I don’t mean that strawman. I mean the federal boards that will provide “cost-effective guidelines” for treatments. There are two problems: first, all the supposed cost savings are faultily based on terminal patient care statistics from Dartmouth; and second, the guidelines will soon influence the tort system, so that any doctor deviating from the recommendations will be legally vulnerable.

That means that your medical condition will be shoehorned into the one-size-fits-all treatment regimen established by people who have never met you.

The terrible truth is that the only way we are going to change the rules that will lead to cost reduction is through federal level boards.

Really? The only way? I don’t believe that in the least.

60. Tushar - February 6, 2010

If food, clothing and shelter are the basic necessities, and the Govt does not poke it’s nose when I purchase them, why is healthcare treated differently? Why is it suddenly so dang important that the Govt has to step in? Lack of food,clothing and shelter would kill me faster and more surely than lack of healthcare. If Kroger, J.C Penney and Pulte homes are adequately catering to my basic needs, why can’t the Govt leave me alone as I try to get my healthcare from private entities?

61. Kent - February 6, 2010

My wife is a pediatrician in a state that adopted universal insurance for children about ten years ago. It took a few years, but low-income parents who had gone to free clinics and ER’s got used to the idea that they had a primary care doctor — and that was the first resource they should use.

Massachusetts has way too many specialists and not enough primary care doctors. Entirely the wrong balance, and a good way to ensure higher health care costs.

Despite all that, the overwhelming majority of MA residents like their new universal health care, including a slight majority of MA Republicans.

62. BrewFan - February 6, 2010

Despite all that, the overwhelming majority of MA residents like their new universal health care, including a slight majority of MA Republicans.

You’re not going to get away with that weak sauce here Kent.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/massachusetts/massachusetts_26_consider_state_s_health_care_reform_a_success

63. Kent - February 6, 2010

Signing off guys. I downloaded the latest David Weber Advanced Reader Copy of “Mission of Honor” from Baen. It’s too good to be distracted away from.

64. Stan in Sugar Land - February 6, 2010

The one negelected or seemingly unkown point about the Clinton budget “surpluses” was that these were not the result of Clinton’s policies. These were the result of Dole’s commission to “save social security.” And Dole’s huge social security tax increases are the gift that keeps on giving – automatic increase each and every year, R & D pols love it! I just wish folks would realize where the so called budget surpluses came from – remember gore’s “lockbox!” So now Social Security is broke – no joke and the fools in DC keep right on spending and hiring more fat-assed bureaucrats to run our lives!

65. BrewFan - February 6, 2010

in a state that adopted universal insurance for children about ten years ago.

Would you mind telling us which state? I ask because I never heard of that before. The only state I know that ever had that was Hawaii and they cancelled it after less than a year.

66. Kent - February 6, 2010

Didn’t see the Ramussen. Based my response on this:

Click to access WaPoKaiserHarvard_MassPoll_Jan22.pdf

Especially this question:

Washington Post-Kaiser-Harvard Massachusetts special election poll

26. As you may know, Massachusetts has a law that is aimed at assuring that virtually all Massachusetts residents have health insurance. Given what you know about it, in general, do you support or oppose the Massachusetts Universal Health Insurance Law?
(GET ANSWER, THEN ASK: Do you support/oppose it strongly or somewhat?)
Total Brown Coakley Non- Voters
68 51 87 64 Support NET
40 22 60 42 Strongly support
28 28 28 23 Somewhat support
27 44 8 29 Oppose NET
11 16 5 12 Somewhat oppose
16 28 3 17 Strongly oppose
5 5 5 6 Don’t know
* * * 1 Refused

67. xbradtc - February 6, 2010

Kent, toss us a link to the Weber you downloaded, please.

Or we’ll kill you and your dog.

68. xbradtc - February 6, 2010

Never mind. I found it.

Your dog gets to live.

Watch your back tho.

69. xbradtc - February 6, 2010

Kent, one reason, tho not the only one, that the 50-percentile inflation adjusted wages have remained flat is because while there is a huge increase in wages at the top, there’s also a huge influx of illegal aliens that earn very, very little, and not only skew earned wages themselves, but suppress wages for legal workers.

70. xbradtc - February 6, 2010

Another reason why wages have remained flat is that apart from wages, much of the cost of hiring a worker has gone up sharply. Even taking healthcare costs out of the equation, regulatory costs have risen. That money has to come from somewhere, and not surprisingly, it comes from wages.

71. G. May - February 6, 2010

Kent,

If one claims that the POTUS actually balances the budget, how is it possible to have a serious discussion with them? The President submits the budget, but ultimately the buck stops with congress. Why are you pleading for us to provide you facts, when your fundamentals are so obviously flawed?

Your observation of Clinton’s “centrism” is accurate, because he was a masterful politician. He started off left, the congress went with him, the public reacted, the Republicans gained control, so he drifted toward the center out of political necessity.

Your claim of Obama’s centrism is difficult to prove. One cannot judge by his accomplishments while in office, because they are so few and lacking in significance. His rhetoric is soaring, but remarkably bereft of substance. His only change in foreign policy from his predecessor’s is a change in rhetoric, which has yielded exactly nothing…at best. Obama basically lets congress do the heavy lifting in regards to absorbing the labels tossed his way, but his support for the initiatives that he dumps on them is enough of an indicator. There is very little the Congress has been crafting from the “center” and I dare you to prove otherwise.

There are really only two things that utterly demolish the idea that Obama is a centrist. First – fiscally he has taken his predecessor’s shift to the left and given it a violent shove in that direction. Second – just take one look at his appointments. The initial indications, post Scott Brown, are that he will not demonstrate Clinton’s mastery of politics and shift toward the center. Claiming Obama is a centrist is really only done by those on the far left.

And then there’s this nugget:

“Nor do I like how the Republican right has worked so hard to polarize politics and the electorate.”

As if the past eight years were just the epitome of civil discourse and not a cesspool of vile hatred and vitriol. It’s difficult to take you seriously when you make these silly observations.

72. xbradtc - February 6, 2010

“Nor do I like how the Republican right has worked so hard to polarize politics and the electorate.”

I think a far more realistic appraisal of Republican actions would be that they, unlike the Democrats, are beginning to grasp that much of the electorate is fed up with the level of spending, both current and projected, and the Republicans are simply smart enough to listen to the public. Their “obstructionist” policy has simply been a representation of the will of the electorate. And isn’t that how things are supposed to work?

73. G. May - February 7, 2010

I’d like to address the title of the article. One doesn’t even need to get into the numbers to debunk this nacent myth. Obama voted in favor of every single spending bill that went through Congress during his short tenure.

When it comes to fiscal matters, I’m utterly mystified by his administrations disavowment of the very policies he supported as a senator.

74. geoff - February 7, 2010

I’d like to address the title of the article.

I just can’t catch a break.

75. xbradtc - February 7, 2010

G. May, thanks for the reminder. I’d meant to hit that note. Every penny the federal government has spent since Obama joined the Senate has been with his blessing, via either vote or signature.

And if you can slip a cheap shot in at Geoff, so much the better.

76. epobirs - February 7, 2010

You always know you’re dealing with a weasel when they invoke the mythical Clinton surplus. What we had was a projected surplus. It depended on the dot.com boom to keep delivering big revenues from newly minted millionaires to the IRS. But anyone not driven insane by the ‘new economy’ nonsense knew a crash was coming and when it did the surplus was well and truly vaporized. (My favorite description of the era was The Onion’s description of the AOL acquisition of Time Warner Turner: Largest Ever Transaction With Pretend Money.)

Also, Obama didn’t inherit the current financial mess. He played a major role in driving the insane federal policies that lead to the undermining of lending standards. Read up on the litigation work Obama did for ACORN in the 90s, which culminated in Clinton’s signing of CRA II. The claim was that this would help the poor. How causing vastly more people to become impoverished helps the existing poor is something of a mystery.

Anyone claiming the residents of MA are thrilled with their universal health care can only be polling those individuals who think that anything paid for by government is somehow free and doesn’t affect them. Other MA folks with an appreciation of where the money is coming from are horrified at the runaway costs. (One of the reasons Mitt Romney stayed away from the Brown campaign was his knowledge of how his involvement in creating the MA healthcare system had become a negative.) What we need is not a federal blackmail scheme to force everyone to purchase a policy. What we need is the elimination of health insurance for non-catastrophic illness. The disconnect between health care providers and consumers has lead to a morass of bureaucracy and mind-numbing regulation that makes it impossible to say what anything in health care really costs. I’d far rather see a system like India where something like an appendectomy can be shopped out among competing venues. It is only in those areas like LASIK corrective vision surgery, which insurance companies won’t cover, that the kind of innovation and price competition we see in other highly technical fields can be found in US healthcare. This should serve as a clue.

77. kevlarchick - February 7, 2010

geoff, please take your big handsome brain and take the day off. You’ve earned it.

Thank you for all your research and refutation. It is impressive.

78. divemedic - February 7, 2010

The message that Clinton balanced the budget and was paying off the debt is political BS. Go to this website,

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

and look up the National Debt for Sept 30 (last day of the fiscal year) of each year of the Clinton Presidency. You will see:

year…………Debt………………….. Deficit (surplus)
1993 4,406,339,573,433 The start of Clinton’s first budget
1994 4,692,749,910,013…..286,410,336,580
1995 4,973,982,900,709…..281,232,990,696
1996 5,224,810,939,135…..250,828,038,426
1997 5,413,146,011,397…..188,335,072,262
1998 5,526,193,008,897…..113,046,997,500
1999 5,656,270,901,633…..130,077,892,736
2000 5,674,178,209,886….. 17,909,308,253

Huh, the debt increased every year that Clinton was in office. What surplus?

79. geoff - February 7, 2010

geoff, please take your big handsome brain and take the day off.

Dang – kevl’s firing me.

80. kevlarchick - February 7, 2010

Not firing. Requiring a vacation. We don’t want you to get burned out. We need you.

81. G. May - February 7, 2010

Divemedic, I’ve seen that site before and linked it to those who like to pine on for the so-called Clinton surplus. It illustrates nicely what epobirs mentioned in post 76. Thanks for posting that link as I had lost it.

Geoff, on the contrary, I certainly appreciate you getting into the weeds on this one. It serves a purpose – to educate liberal/leftist so-called “Independents”, like Kent and those who produced that chart above. There is usually some sort of fundamental flaw in their argument – in this case, that the President is somehow responsible for government funding and that Obama was never involved in any way whatsoever with the current spending spree) – which is then obfuscated by some shiny argument replete with facts and figures that stand up quite well as long as you don’t take a deeper look.

Your work here serves as the dismantling of the half-assed argument the left uses to distract from the flawed foundation of their whole position. It is quite useful and I’m bookmarking it to use for that very purpose.

Thanks for your work!

82. G. May - February 7, 2010

“…and the Republicans are simply smart enough to listen to the public. Their “obstructionist” policy has simply been a representation of the will of the electorate.”

Are the Republicans actually smart enough to listen? I’m not so sure. I’m betting they’ll just give lip service.

But I do love the “obstructionist” label given to Republicans by Obama and his media sycophants. I still have yet to encounter an adequate explanation of how the Republicans have the power to obstruct anything until Scott Brown was elected.

83. xbradtc - February 7, 2010

Are the Republicans actually smart enough to listen? I’m not so sure. I’m betting they’ll just give lip service.

Well, their obstructionism is based upon listening to the electorate. Whether they remember that when they have the reins of power is an entirely different matter, and history does not give much cause for optimism.

84. daveintexas - February 7, 2010

Even Chuck Todd pointed out to Obama that the Republicans don’t have the votes to obstruct jackshit.

His problem is obstructionist Dems who don’t want to die on his hill.

85. Michael - February 7, 2010

and history does not give much cause for optimism

I think the Tea Party movement is equal parts fear of Obama/Reid/Pelosi and their agenda, and fury with our own side for abandoning conservative principles when we had control. A lot of people are determined to not let that happen again, and don’t mind breaking a few eggs in the process.

86. MostlyRight - February 7, 2010

I need to check in here more often…always late to the game.

Geoff, you’re a machine. Keep up the good work.

Michael, you’re really offensive. Keep up the good work.

87. Michael - February 7, 2010

Michael, you’re really offensive. Keep up the good work.

Thank you, sir, I will do my best.

88. sandy burger - February 8, 2010

Either you believe that everyone should have a minimum level of health care or not. Most of the US actually does.

Me too.

Forcing everyone to have health insurance is actually cheaper.

There’s a lot wrong with this sentence, starting with the creepy word it begins with.

It would be much better for overall health care costs if the poor got proper primary care.

Indeed. But why do you need to mess up my health care to achieve that goal? If liberals care about the genuinely needy, they’ll work on improving Medicaid, or something along those lines.

You may not have first-hand experience with the poor people you’re talking about, but I have some. I’ve helped a genuinely disabled person try to take advantage of government health services, and it is a Kafkaesque nightmare. She’s still being denied Medicaid (called Medical here), but at this point things have worked out a bit better and there’s now good reason to believe she’ll finally get approved.

At the same time that the government was denying service to somebody they’re supposed to be helping, Democrat politicians were on TV bemoaning the plight of the uninsured and saying they need to take control of my health care to help them. Hey, no thanks.

As for the cost of medicine, competition is key. Look at the huge drop in Lasik eye surgery costs, for example, a point Michael has made here before. Why is it so cheap? Because the different providers were competing directly for customers. If an uninsured person walks into a hospital and pays to have a wart removed, it’ll probably cost as much as a Lasik procedure. (Maybe this is an exaggeration, but I’m guessing not.)

Most of us get health care from our employers. So, we have maybe three options to choose from. Not a lot of competition, and no room for upstarts. Health insurers are competing for corporate HR departments, not patients. There are several reasons for this non-market driven mess, one of which is the stupid tax code which makes it cheaper to get health care through a company than to buy it directly. There are many reforms which would increase choice and competition. We might want to look into some of those.

None of us like the status quo, but the Democrats’ solution stinks.

89. sandy burger - February 8, 2010

By the way, it’s no surprise that a friend of Geoff’s would be smart, even if he is a leftist.

90. Tushar - February 8, 2010

Wouldn’t it save a lot of money for every ER to have a Primary Care facility attached (staffed with a couple of RNs)? If the incoming patient is bleeding from a cut artery, send him in ER. If he has a runny nose, send him in the Primary Care room.

I am sure some hospitals have enough brain cells to figure this out, but this is not the norm. So, what am I missing here?

91. Christopher Taylor - February 8, 2010

I don’t know if in the other 90 comments anyone pointed this out, but you missed a spot: the Bush Tax Cuts didn’t need “financing” as they increased federal revenues by billions of dollars.

92. geoff - February 8, 2010

I don’t know if in the other 90 comments anyone pointed this out,

That’s difficult to claim since the CBO projected a net loss for the cuts, though as I say in #22 that you can make the Obamaesque claim that it would have been far worse without it.

93. Christopher Taylor - February 8, 2010

I can’t see that as a difficult claim at all. Not only did they spur economic activity and growth, which results in overall more earning and thus tax payment (an absolute growth in tax revenues), but demonstrably the tax revenues did go up in the years following the cuts. How exactly that means they had to be paid for I’m not sure.

Thnking you have to be “funded” is classic leftist ideology, Geoff. That’s why they think tax cuts = deficit. They can… if you cut them enough. But as long as you’re on the up side of the Laffer curve, they result in increased federal revenues by stimulating economic activity.

Even this spurious chart shows a downturn in the deficit following the tax cuts, and despite the idiotic overspending of the GOP congress.

94. HeartlessLibertarian - February 8, 2010

Apparently, your friend that likes yanking your chain isn’t aware that the national debt has been going parabolic since the mid-1970s–right when inflation kicked in and cramped the delusion that entitlements could be paid for in perpetuity.

Christopher Taylor also hits the nail on the head regarding how leftists view government revenue. They honestly believe that the wealth of a nation belongs to the state and not the individuals that produce it. That’s why you always hear them talk about “paying for tax cuts”–the notion that tax cuts aren’t paid for, but are in fact merely a reduction in the skim for the state never crosses their mind.

I don’t have a problem with leftists adopting the mentality of slaves, I just wish they didn’t promote it as a positive good that the rest of us should emulate.

95. HeartlessLibertarian - February 8, 2010

“As far as I can tell, he’s doing the best he can, having been dealt a lousy hand. I trust his economic instincts much more than McCain’s. Electing “let the banks fail” McCain would have been a real Herbert Hoover moment.”

Baloney. I’m getting tired of this “he’s doing his best!” nonsense.

As the famous stimulus chart shows, his economic instincts are garbage. He and his policy advisors like Romer didn’t want to deal with the fact that this is a credit-driven recession, and that until that debt is deleveraged, the economy won’t come close to actually recovering. He made a hedge bet that “the cycle” would kick in last year and his non-jobs creating stimulus would get the credit for it. Instead of creating jobs, it’s done nothing more than paper over state budget deficits, which will still be there this year.

For someone who scolded Americans about going to Vegas, he sure didn’t have a problem with gambling $700 billion on a recovery last year.

And the fact of the matter is, as President of the United States, Obama owns this now. Not Bush. Not Clinton. Not any preceding president. It’s his. And his constant whining about being criticized, and how “hard” the job is, now that all his shortcomings of leadership are being exposed, is truly pathetic for someone who is the face of the most powerful nation in the planet’s history.

As Dennis the Peasant pointed out in a recent post on his blog, when times are tough, no one gives a crap how hard the job of President is or if it was someone else’s fault. Voters expect results, period. They expect strong leadership and competent administration, not this glorified high school student council atmosphere that Obama’s running right now. If his poll numbers haven’t made that clear, then all that’s left to do is wait for 2012 and watch the fireworks.

96. TGSG - February 8, 2010

wonderful comments, thanks to everyone.

97. Michael - February 8, 2010

^

TGSG, you might want to consider scrolling up and saying something nice about my cute new dog as well.

Just a suggestion.

98. Michael - February 8, 2010

Actually, that dog is butt ugly, but pretend otherwise.

99. Michael - February 8, 2010

Somebody could put this thread over 100 about now.

Just sayin’.

100. Lipstick - February 8, 2010

Hi guys!

Michael - February 8, 2010

You are such a sweetheart, Lipstick.

*lights cig with Zippo Black Ice lighter*

101. Lipstick - February 8, 2010

*lights one with green lighter swiped from you*

102. Michael - February 8, 2010

YOU stole my favorite green Bic lighter?!?

All this time I’ve been blaming Kevl. I assumed she was the kind of naughty girl who swipes lighters. I never suspected you, Lipstick.

103. Michael - February 8, 2010

I guess I owe you an apology, Kevl. It was wrong of me to assume you were the kind of lowlife white trash strumpet who would steal a guy’s Bic lighter, like Lipstick turned out to be.

104. Michael - February 8, 2010

I really liked that lighter. I think I stole it from some drunk chick at the Spirit Grille.

105. Lipstick - February 9, 2010

I never suspected you, Lipstick.

Nobody ever does. Bwahahahaha!!

*returns to looking all innocent*

106. divemedic - February 9, 2010

To Tshar #90-
Hospitals have that. In this area, it is called “Fast Track” & is an area where minor complaints are handled by Nurse Practitioners and Physicians Assistants. The idea is for Fast Track to handle minor complaints.

The problem, at least in this area, is that many poor people go to the ER rather than see a doctor. They either use medicare, medicaid, or just refuse to pay. Thanks to a federal law called EMTALA, the hospital must treat them whether they can pay or not. So, the freeloaders who abuse the system clog up the ER, where the ER never sees a dime from 60% of the patients seen.

If the law is going to mandate that a hospital MUST treat you whether you can pay or not, then the law should be paying for you. To do otherwise is slavery.

107. sandy burger - February 9, 2010

If the law is going to mandate that a hospital MUST treat you whether you can pay or not, then the law should be paying for you.

I’ve heard that similar “unfunded mandate” problems exist for special needs kids in some school systems.

108. xbradtc - February 9, 2010

SNKs are the bane of my teacher friends existence. And the problem really isn’t so much the SNKs getting education. There’s a huge push, largely by parents, to “mainstream” the kids into ordinary classrooms, where they suck up the teacher’s time and resources, and deprive the regular population of quality teaching.

109. kevlarchick - February 9, 2010

Interesting point Brad. My niece, who has Down Syndrome, is mainstreamed in to a regular classroom. At the kindergarten level it is not a big disruption, but she gets her own adult classroom aide the entire day, and two aides on the school bus. Additionally, she gets speech and physical therapy at school. Huge allocation of resources for one child, IMO.

Not saying these kids should not have support, but the proportion sometimes is frustrating.

110. sandy burger - February 9, 2010

At the elementary school I went to as a child, the special needs kids had their own classroom, but as I recall they were left to fend for themselves at recess, which was problematic because they got picked on a lot and there wasn’t enough adult supervision to protect them.

111. xbradtc - February 9, 2010

Kevlar, the real trouble comes from kids who are terribly disruptive and have real trouble with social settings. Hard to teach when one kid’s screaming his head off for 45 minutes out of every 55 minute period.

112. kevlarchick - February 9, 2010

Brad, amen to that.
Because my niece is in a family that has these huge wrestling matches every evening (great way to calm down before bed, by the way), she is now attempting Half Nelsons on her classmates. And she greets most adults with a blow to the head.

113. xbradtc - February 9, 2010

She needs to poat at H2.

114. Andrew Wangelin - July 22, 2011

Presidential administrations do NOT pass, reverse or extend congressional legislation. They do lobby congress and have a very rarely used veto power that may be over ruled by an overwhelming majority.

The tax cuts are and IMHO always will be the “Bush Tax-Cuts” since Bush as president lobbied congress to get them passed.

115. geoff - July 22, 2011

The tax cuts are and IMHO always will be the “Bush Tax-Cuts” since Bush as president lobbied congress to get them passed.

I see. So when Bush could not pass, reverse or extend congressional legislation, the tax cuts are his fault. And when Obama cuts a deal with Congress to extend the tax cuts, it’s Bush’s fault.

Double standard much?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: