September 19-20, 2011
Sep 19 08:35 Bill Keller's presidential insights Sep 19 09:51 Sound Familiar? Sep 19 11:39 The Buffett Tax? Sep 19 22:34 Strib op-ed on daycare is sloppy, misses point Sep 20 11:34 Unionized day care, Part II Sep 20 03:37 Unanticipated California Earthquake Sep 20 11:32 Will challenging Obama's tax increases hurt Republicans? Sep 20 14:19 Pelosi Without the Botox? Sep 20 18:53 MnSCU's Chancellor: we need to watch costs
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Bill Keller's presidential insights
It was inevitable that the NYTimes would write something explaining what happened to the godchild's demise. That doesn't mean they'd criticize President Obama's administration. That, in essence, describes Bill Keller's analysis of what went wrong with the good ship Hopenchange. This paragraph is the perfect insight into Keller's dishonest diatribe:
The decline in Obama's political fortunes, the Great Disappointment, can be attributed to four main factors: the intractable legacy bequeathed by George W. Bush; Republican resistance amounting to sabotage; the unrealistic expectations and inevitable disenchantment of some of the president's supporters; and, to be sure, the man himself.
"The decline in [President] Obama's political fortunes" are tied directly, to be sure, to the man himself. His policies have been disastrous. His prioritization of issues to solve has been, at best, questionable. His farming out of the major policy initiatives of his administration to inept corruptocrats Harry Reid and then Speaker-Pelosi was foolish.
The least of President Obama's worries was President Bush. In this post , I demolished the Democrats' chanting point about "the failed policies of the last eight years." Here's the key portion of that post:
Unemployment by year:
2001 - 4.7
2002 - 5.8
2003 - 6.0
2004 - 5.5
2005 - 5.1
2006 - 4.6
2007 - 4.6
2008 - 5.8
Here's the data comparison from the Obama administration:
I'd also highlight the fact that the unemployment rate in 2009 and 2010 was 9.3% and 9.6% respectively.
President Obama's difficulties can largely be tied to his ideology-driven support for Solyndra-like projects instead of letting free markets do what they do best. If President Obama had chosen to trust capitalism more than cronyism, the economy wouldn't have sunk to today's current difficulties.
That can't be tied to President Bush whatsoever. This time, statistics don't lie. They tell the tale of wretchedness with the Obama administation.
In reality, what happened is that America hired a great orator who wasn't qualified to be president. His legacy will be that of a failed administration. It's nothing more complicated than that.
Posted Monday, September 19, 2011 8:35 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 19-Sep-11 09:17 AM
Gary, I wouldn't even call him a great orator. I'd call him a decent speaker who knows how to move his head from left to right to read someone else's words off a teleprompter. That isn't great oratory, it's verbal regurgitation.
Sound Familiar?
A popular media critique these days is to talk about President Obama's falling poll ratings, then comparing his polling with Congress's approval rating. Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's intellectually defensible.
It would be intellectually dishonest to say that Salena Zito's article is a pox-on-both-their-houses article but it's fair to say that it's a great history lesson that we can learn from. Here's an example:
'I think the analogy between the 1890s and today is better than the analogy with the Great Depression: that we often focus on,' said Hugh Rockoff, a Rutgers University economics professor. 'One of the many similarities is the real estate crisis. There was a subprime mortgage problem in the 1890s that was very similar to what precipitated the recent crisis.'
Before 1893's crisis, many farmers bought homesteads on the Great Plains with short-term 'balloon' mortgages supplied by small local mortgage companies and banks. The borrower paid only the interest for five years, until the principal then came due.
Mortgage companies bundled those mortgages and sold them to investors in New York and London.
The bundles supposedly were insured, all very much like the securitization of mortgages that preceded our recent crisis, but they plunged in value, igniting an international banking panic.
'Industrial production fell: and unemployment rose to double-digit levels,' Rockoff recalled. 'It took years to work our way out.'
It's articles like this that make Ms. Zito's columns part of my weekly must reads. The next part highlights why the pox-on-both-their-houses storyline isn't intellectually defensible:
If Barack Obama's election truly was the 'change' the nation sought, then solid-Democrat New Jersey would not have rebuked his policies less than a year later by electing Republican Chris Christie as governor.
Nor would Virginia have given Republican Bob McDonnell a landslide victory that same year.
And Republican Scott Brown had no political rationale to run for Teddy Kennedy's U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts, let alone to win it, but he did.
Despite all of the warnings, the White House was blindsided when Republicans took back the U.S. House in historical numbers in 2010.
Last week, New York voters in a Democrat-stronghold district reminded President Obama that nothing is safe, not even in Brooklyn: Republican Bob Turner comfortably won the House seat that text-happy Democrat Anthony Weiner was forced to give up.
The reality is that President Obama, if he wants to run against a genuinely do-nothing congress, needs to run against Harry Reid's Senate Democrats. Today marks the 820th day since Senate Democrats even attempted to pass a budget.
Here's what Chairman Ryan said yesterday on Fox News Sunday:
We passed a budget that balances the budget, pays down the debt, reforms the tax code by getting rid of loopholes and lowering tax rates. We passed regulatory reform. We passed new energy development legislation to explore domestic energy production. We have passed so many bills out of the House to create jobs that are sitting over there in the Senate. So if he wants to run against a do-nothing congress, he should focus it on the Do-Nothing Senate.
Chairman Ryan's clearly worded description of what's happened in the House and what Harry Reid's refused to do in the Senate will be replayed in commercials next fall. When Republicans drop that advertising hammer the final month of the campaign, it'll significantly impact tight races.
People like Sen. McCaskill, Sen. Tester, Sen. Nelson (both of them), Sen. Brown of Ohio and others will be left high and dry. Open seats like the ones in New Mexico, Virginia, North Dakota and Wisconsin will be quite vulnerable, too.
Saying that this isn't the position Democrats want to be in is understatement. Voters can differentiate between the politicians offering time-tested solutions and those who employ obstructionist tactics. Come next fall, just watch how they'll differentiate. It won't be pretty.
Posted Monday, September 19, 2011 9:51 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 19-Sep-11 10:32 AM
Not sure but that you may have given the electorate too much credit. They did, after all, elect this bozo in 2008, and right now big media is doing absolutely everything it can to continue the pettifoggery. When 55% or so get all of their news from newspapers and TV news, we have a huge hurdle to overcome just to get the truth out, let alone wrest political advantage from it.
The Buffett Tax?
Reports all weekend said that President Obama would be proposing something that's being affectionately called "the Buffett Tax." This article talks about the type of tax increase President Obama introduced this morning:
Progressives, on the other hand, supported the Buffett Rule. In a statement, Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America's Future, a progressive center, said, 'The report that the president is planning to ask millionaires and billionaires to pay taxes at a higher rate than their secretaries pay is welcome news that will be wildly popular with voters.' Indeed, a CBS News report in mid-August showed that in 23 different polls, voters preferred taxes to be raised on the wealthy as a means to reduce the deficit.
It's intellectually dishonest to characterize this as a Buffett Tax. Unfortunately, it isn't surprising that progressives aren't intellectually honest.
If a Buffett Tax were implemented, it would close tax shelter loopholes that allow Buffett to hide his profits in foundations, aka tax shelters. The so-called Buffett Tax won't affect Mr. Buffett even marginally.
What this tax increase should be called is the 'Let's drive companies out of the United States and over to India and South Korea Tax'. Yes, that's a long title but it's the most accurate title for President Obama's proposed tax.
Another title for President Obama's tax is more political in perspective but it's accurate. The title I'd prefer is the 'Let's kill what's left of the economy Tax Act'.
There's no chance that President Obama's tax proposal will pass even the Senate. There isn't much chance that he'll even get a Senate Democrat to sponsor this initiative.
This tax increase isn't even new. President Obama tried passing it to pay for Obamacare. At that time, Democrats rejected it because they didn't want to tie that disaster onto the disaster known as Obamacare.
According to a New York Times report, administration officials said that the plan relied on entitlement program cuts, war savings, and increased taxes on the wealthy - termed the Buffett Rule after billionaire Warren Buffett's complaint that he is taxed at a lower rate than his employees. The tax hike includes a new minimum rate for those who earn more than $1 million per year, and also closes some loopholes and limits the amount that those with high earnings can deduct.
President Obama is politically dead in the water. He's driven independents away in droves. He's down to rallying his dispirited base of supporters. That's a dwindling base.
Chairman Ryan described the GOP-TEA Party proposals here :
We passed a budget that balances the budget, pays down the debt, reforms the tax code by getting rid of loopholes and lowering tax rates. We passed regulatory reform. We passed new energy development legislation to explore domestic energy production.
That's a substantive, appealing agenda. Ed nails it here :
With even his own party insisting that they're not going to bite on more spending and higher taxes, Obama's already starting to isolate himself on economic policy. He issued this warning in a sad attempt to impress a few people on the Left with his 'leadership,' but issuing empty threats isn't real leadership. It's an expression of political impotence.
There's a growing number of people who think that November 6, 2012 can't come soon enough.
Posted Monday, September 19, 2011 11:39 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 19-Sep-11 11:43 AM
On the subject of Buffett, I find it interesting that his company, Berkshire Hathaway, has a running dispute with the IRS over taxes that goes back to 2002. Nine years.
Come on, Warren. Show some leadership and pay up.
Strib op-ed on daycare is sloppy, misses point
Thanks to the Strib's shoddy research, this op-ed is essentially worthless. Here's what I'm talking about:
A vote by secret ballot is the only appropriate way to decide whether Minnesota's 11,000 home day care workers should be unionized. This week, Gov. Mark Dayton smartly bucked ill-advised pressure from traditional labor allies to circumvent such an election through an executive order.
Actually, this isn't complicated. Day care providers shouldn't be unionized because the day care providers' employers are the children's parents. It's preposterous to think that day care providers need protection from children's parents.
During an interview, Rep. Mary Franson clarified that this unionization effort wasn't about day care centers, which employ anywhere from a half dozen people to perhaps dozens of people. Rep. Franson confirmed this was essentially about day care providers, which frequently are run by a person in their home.
Later in the interview, Rep. Franson confirmed that this year's push in Douglas County was made by AFSCME, which represents federal, state, county and municipal employees.
A quick read of a research paper prepared by the non-partisan House Research staff shows that day care providers don't fit the description of a government employer or employee as defined in Minnesota state statutes.
According to non-partisan House research , here's what their research said about PELRA:
What is the status of home-based child care providers under the Public Employment Labor Relations Act (PELRA)?
Answer: Minnesota Statutes Chapter 179A defines a public employer as the state of Minnesota or other local political subdivisions. The law also defines public employees as those appointed or employed by a public employer. Under currentlaw, a self-employed, home-based child care provider would not be a public employer or a public employee. Here is the link to the law; the relevant definitions are in subdivisions 14 and 15: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=179A.03
First, day care providers frequently take care of children whose parents receive various forms of government assistance. That's what AFSCME tried hanging their hat on. AFSCME tried arguing that day care providers were public employees since they were often paid by the state government.
Their argument is shattered, though, because Minnesota's statute is tightly defined. If they want the definition changed, they'll need legislation passed and signed changing the definition. Until then, Gov. Dayton doesn't have the authority to execute an executive order that unionizes day care providers because they aren't public employees or public employers. Without that designation, Gov. Dayton is powerless.
The major point worth making is that unions are desperate. Their influence with the public is shrinking. Their numbers keep decreasing, too. Union dues aren't coming in at the rate that the unions' leadership needs to be influential politically.
Calling them politically inconsequential scares unions almost as much as it scares the DFL.
Posted Monday, September 19, 2011 10:34 PM
Comment 1 by Vikki L. at 21-Sep-11 08:59 AM
I totally agree with what you said. We, as daycare providers, technically have no boss. We are our own bosses. We decide what to provide to the children as far as meals, curriculum (if used), arts and crafts, etc. Nobody tells us what we have to use or do. I am totally against unionizing daycares. This wouldn't give us a voice in our HOME BUSINESS. Note: HOME business. It's run out of our homes. We decided to do this and provide care to other children. Yes, we do have certain rules that need to be followed. We need to keep our voices open for ourselves and not let someone else tell us how to run our own businesses!
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Sep-11 09:09 AM
Vikki, Thanks for that insight. And thanks for contributing to society's health in such a positive way.
Comment 2 by Tom Shieh at 25-Sep-11 12:39 PM
Hi,
Thanks for sharing a good article
Thanks
Unionized day care, Part II
During yesterday's interview, Rep. Mary Franson said that AFSCME justified their representing day care providers to be "the voice in St. Paul for the voiceless."
In other words, AFSCME was arguing that they were needed to be day care providers' lobbyists in St. Paul. Unfortunately, AFSCME wasn't telling the whole truth. According to Rep. Franson, who identified herself as a former day care provider, she's worked with several organizations, including the Minnesota Licensed Family Child Care Association , aka the MLFCCA, and Childcare Works .
Union Facts' website says that AFSCME's membership in 2002 was 1,350,000 people. Its high point was 2009, when AFSCME's membership reached 1,501,220 people. AFSCME's total membership in 2010 is 1,465,288.
In other words, AFSCME membership nationwide is stable after growing slightly. The point is that they need to increase their numbers to influence policy and elections. Without the sheer numbers, unions aren't respected.
AFSCME's day care membership drive was driven mostly by the need to beef up their membership. Their pitch that it was about giving a voice to the voiceless didn't pass the laugh test after hearing about the MLFCCA and Childcare Works, two lobbying groups.
AFSCME's pitch was to replace the the voice for the not-so-voiceless with their own voice. It's isn't unreasonable to think that AFSCME's goal was to soften their gruff image.
Let's remember that AFSCME thugs in Union Grove, WI who threatened to boycott businesses who wouldn't post AFSCME's signs in their window:
Last month, Dawn Bobo, owner of Village Dollar Store in Union Grove, Wis., was asked to display a pro-union sign in her window. Ms. Bobo, a self- described conservative Republican, refused and received a letter from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees asking her to reconsider.
'Failure to do so will leave us no choice but do [sic] a public boycott of your business,' the letter said.
With their thuggish image, it couldn't hurt to hide behind day care providers to repair their image.
Posted Tuesday, September 20, 2011 11:34 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 20-Sep-11 04:16 PM
"During yesterday's interview, Rep. Mary Franson said that AFSCME justified their representing day care providers to be 'the voice in St. Paul for the voiceless.'
Nice to see AFSCME representing the unborn.
Oh, wait.
Unanticipated California Earthquake
California certainly is know for its catastrophic earthquakes. I remember watching the opening game of the San Francisco-Oakland World Series earthquake, when Al Michaels went from being a play-by-play announcer of the World Series to being the ABC earthquake correspondent within minutes.
Though nothing is likely to replace that as the most dramatic, high profile earthquake in California history, a new, unanticipated earthquake of a political nature might be taking shape. If the polling in this article lasts, this could be the biggest earthquake since the World Series Earthquake:
A little over a year before she faces re-election, voters in California have given Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein the lowest grade in her nearly two-decade tenure, according to a new poll released Friday.
A survey by the California-based Field Poll shows 44 percent of voters don't want to send Feinstein, who was first elected in 1992, back to Washington for a fourth full term, while 41 percent support her re-election. Until now, the poll has never showed the senator's re-election support to be under water.
Over the past 20 years, the Field survey has found Feinstein's job approval ratings to be consistently positive by comfortable margins. Now, that margin is much narrower: 41 percent approve of the job she is doing in the Senate while 39 percent disapprove. This is Feinstein's lowest grade in her Washington career, according to the survey. She receives majority approval (60 percent) from her political base, but 21 percent of Democrats disapprove of her job performance. Among non-partisan voters, 40 percent approve while 32 percent disapprove.
It's too early to say that DiFi is in trouble but it isn't too early to say that this is historic. That polling is startling.
Sen. Feinstein's fundraiser, Kinde Durkee, is accused of wiping out Sen. Feinstein's campaign warchest , too:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said her campaign is among those that may have been "wiped out" by a Burbank-based Democratic campaign treasurer who was arrested on federal fraud charges earlier this month.
Kinde Durkee is accused of taking thousands of dollars from the campaigns of several elected officials, including Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Garden Grove), Rep. Susan A. Davis (D-San Diego) and Assemblyman Jose Solorio (D-Santa Ana). The Los Angeles County Democratic Party reported that more than $200,000 had been taken from its fund.
Though this is tragic, it'd be a mistake to think that an entrenched incumbent like Dianne Feinstein won't be able to resupply her warchest relatively quickly. Sen. Feinstein's campaign manager shouldn't worry about the warchest as much he or she should worry about the fact that she's in the biggest fight of her political career.
If Sen. Feinstein's campaign was complacent before this polling, they can't afford to be complacent a minute longer.
Based on recent events, it's apparent that there will be lots of political earthquakes that first Tuesday in November, 2012. Only time will tell if the biggest political earthquake's epicenter is in California.
Posted Tuesday, September 20, 2011 3:37 AM
No comments.
Will challenging Obama's tax increases hurt Republicans?
When President Obama unveiled his tax the rich plan yesterday, he threw down the gauntlet to Republicans, essentially daring them to reject his plan. He's essentially daring them to run against him and his tax plan. Republicans should accept that challenge. They should use that challenge as their opportunity to unveil their pro-growth tax reform plan.
Jennifer Rubin's Right Turn post indicates that Republicans' first reactions to President Obama's speech were to accept President Obama's challenge. First, here's Chairman Ryan's reaction:
The President's partisan speech and misguided proposals are disappointing, but not surprising. Having overseen an unprecedented surge in government spending, from his failed stimulus law, to the creation of new trillion-dollar health entitlements, to double-digit percentage increases in the budgets of many federal agencies, the President has finally admitted that he plans to send the bill for Washington's reckless spending straight to American businesses and families.
A $1.6 trillion tax hike on job creators is never a good idea. But taking more money from private savers and investors, and giving it to the same government bureaucrats who brought us the Solyndra debacle, is an even worse idea, especially in a weak economy.
Saying that Solyndra is what's wrong with President Obama's plan really stings President Obama at a time when he's already showing weakness. From there, Ms. Rubin quotes Jeff Sessions:
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, had a statement, including these remarks: 'When you remove the accounting tricks and Washington gimmicks from the president's plan you're left with only half of the $3 trillion in deficit reduction the White House promised. The White House also claims the president's plan is $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes. But in truth, the president's deficit reduction comes entirely from tax hikes.
Total federal spending, including the stimulus, will increase under the president's plan, not decrease. On balance, there is not a penny of net spending that is cut.'
President Obama's whining about the rich not paying their fair share is essentially the lightning rod used to deflect attention from the 'details' of his plan. He'd hoped his tax the rich scheme would deflect attention from the fact that he doesn't cut spending.
The reality is that Republicans, like Br'er Rabbit, can't wait to get thrown in that briar patch. Liberal pundits have said that Republicans have painted themselves into a corner with their pledge of obedience to Grover Norquist, the left's new boogeyman.
They're right that Republicans are steadfastly refusing to budge on taxes but that's hardly a tactical or ideological mistake. They've painted themselves into a corner along with a significant majority of Americans.
Republicans should stick to their position. Gallup's polling shows that people think the deficit problem is a spending problem:
Americans estimate that the federal government wastes 51 cents of every dollar it spends, a new high in a Gallup trend question first asked in 1979.
Wasting "51 cents of every dollar" isn't a tax issue. It's a spending issue. The Democrats can try spinning that figure all they want but that's what people believe. With scandals like Solyndra popping up, it's impossible for Democrats to argue that this administration isn't wasting money at unprecedented rates.
The dirty little secret is that Democrats are running for the hills on President Obama's tax the rich gimmick.
Posted Tuesday, September 20, 2011 11:32 AM
Comment 1 by DohBiden at 20-Sep-11 11:52 AM
President false choices says what he is engaging in isn't class warfare.
Pelosi Without the Botox?
An eery thing happened to me while I read Ross Douthit's post . Here's what Douthit said that was more than a little creepy:
Between the size, scope and design of the tax increases and the skimpiness of the entitlement reforms (nothing on Social Security, minimal tinkering on Medicare), it seems that the president will be running for re-election as Nancy Pelosi instead.
It's always been known that, ideologically speaking, President Obama and Ms. Pelosi were extremely similar to the point of being almost identical in ideological matters. What's creepy is the thought of thinking of President Obama as Ms. Pelosi without the Botox.
The thing that's helped me get past that image is the thought that then-Speaker Pelosi drove President Obama's agenda to the point that she drove House Democrats into the "shellacking" of 2010.
President Obama's agenda isn't appealing to people. That's borne out with his tumbling job approval ratings and the right track/wrong track numbers. Victor Davis Hanson's column highlights the Democrats' difficulties:
So the Left cannot really complain that Obama either betrayed the cause or proved particularly inept in advancing it. Instead, what Obama's supporters are mad about is that the public is boiling over chronic 9 percent unemployment, a comatose housing market, escalating food and fuel prices, near-nonexistent economic growth, a gyrating stock market, record deficits, $16 trillion in aggregate debt, and a historic credit downgrading. And voters are not just mad, but are blaming these hard times on the liberal Obama agenda of more regulations, more federal spending, more borrowing, more talk of taxes, and more 'stimulus' programs.
A mostly moderate-to-conservative public has concluded that it does not like the new liberal agenda. After three years, it believes that the big government/big borrowing medicine made the inherited illness far worse. Voters may or may not like Obama, but they surely do not like what he is still trying to do.
In response, the Left needs a sacrificial lamb. So it has nonsensically turned with a fury on Obama as if he were culpable for pushing through the Left's own agenda. If Democrats do not blame the public's anger on their once-beloved messenger, then they are left only with their message itself. And that is something they simply cannot accept.
At the end of the day, President Obama's difficulties are the Democratic Party's difficulties because their agendas, until this week, have been identical.
In fact, they'd still be identical if not for the strongest instinct a politician has, namely the instinct for re-election. The people should know that Democrats haven't turned over a new leaf. They've just had a little cosmetic surgery to look different heading into the 2012 election cycle.
Congressional Democrats, like President Obama, is hoping that a little Botox or a little cosmetic surgery will get people to forget the Democrats' failure the past 3 years.
I'm betting that the American people won't buy the disguise, especially if they think President Obama is Ms. Pelosi without the Botox.
Posted Tuesday, September 20, 2011 2:19 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 20-Sep-11 05:47 PM
Bastard won't shrink the military, either. What is he good for? He knows taxing the rich will go nowhere, and he's happy to keep it as an issue rather than see it happen. If it happens, then folks move on. If it's kept as an issue it can be flogged over how many election cycles before it wears thin when people see it for the actual hoax it is? In theory, great, make the cheap buggers pay a fair share. But hell will freeze over first before that happens because they own the politicians. Both parties they own and the GOP side is a bit more honest about being the servants of naked greed.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 20-Sep-11 06:57 PM
Eric, the "cheap buggers" already pay more than their fair share, both in terms of percentage of their earnings & percentage of total taxes paid.
This is the great liberal hoax. Shame on Warren Buffett for his deceitfulness. He should be flogged for lying about his paying a smaller percentage of his income than his secretary.
It's so inaccurate that even the AP factcheckers called him on it.
MnSCU's Chancellor: we need to watch costs
During this afternoon's portion of the MnSCU Board of Trustees meeting, MnSCU Chancellor Rosenstone said something that should infuriate every student in MnSCU and every parent sending students to MnSCU institutions.
Chancellor Rosenstone said that MnSCU administrators should "aggressively cut costs and be more entrepreneurial."
The thought that they haven't been doing this for a decade already is infuriating. Politicians like Sen. Sandy Pappas should be ashamed for arguing that Gov. Pawlenty was "starving higher education."
After hearing that statement, it isn't a stretch to think that MnSCU has been on autopilot for far too long. It's time they started innovating on a greater level in their attempt to cut costs.
Another disgusting portion of the afternoon portion of the meeting came when one of the trustees said that it was the trustees' primary responsibility was to Chancellor Rosenstone. That's nonsense.
The primary responsibility of the trustees and administrators must be to improve conditions so the students can excel. Their next responsibility must be to keep costs as low as possible while providing students with the best opportunity to excel.
Anything short of that isn't acceptable.
Posted Tuesday, September 20, 2011 6:53 PM
No comments.
