Aid to states is *critical*

Called yesterday (0.00 / 0)

I called Susan Collins' office yesterday afternoon about this already, before I knew that state aid was one of the things she was trying to cut.  I just didn't get the logic in trying to cut spending from a Keynesian stimulus bill, when spending is the entire point of doing it in the first place.

Putting tax cuts in this bill is weird, but spending is how it does its "stimulus".  I can see arguing about whether to spend a particular sum of money on X vs. Y - some people think X will give us better results, other people prefer the results of Y.  But as far as the stimulus aspect of the bill, those are side effects.  The primary purpose is to spend to stimulate the economy.  That's they Keynes theory this legislation is based on.

So I called Susan Collins' office and basically asked, does Susan Collins just not get it?  Does she not understand what a Keynesian stimulus is?  What logic is there in trying to significantly reduce the spending?  It makes no sense.  I got some platitudes and vague generalities, and a promise to pass my comment along.

---

by: Cos @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 14:43:09 PM CST

Well, the Liberals certainly seem to be following Keynes' advice... (6.00 / 1)

"The government should pay people to dig holes in the ground and then fill them up

"  -John Maynard Keynes

"I have found it advisable not to give too much heed to what people say when I am trying to accomplish something of consequence. Invariably they proclaim it can't be done. I deem that the very best time to make the effort."

-Calvin Coolidge

---

by: Cool Cal @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 23:40:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (4.50 / 2)

Keynes' point was that any sort of economic activity would have a simulating effect. In fact, there is an even funnier passage about stuffing bank notes in bottles, burying them in abandoned coal mines, and employing people to recover them.

This recession is very serious. The drop in employment has been quite severe as has the contraction in credit, the drop in housing prices, the steady drumbeat of FDIC takeovers, and the negative earnings reports. A fiscal stimulus, even devoted to useless undertakings, is painfully necessary.

Speaking of reading economists, some guy name Cool Cal is worried about inflation — and not deflation — as one enters a severe recession. How do you explain that? Those wacky Republicans!

---

by: KBusch @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 00:14:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Stop the presses! (6.00 / 1)

Maybe he's concerned the Gov's going to print our way out of this.

---

by: lodger @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 14:15:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I hope they kill it (4.50 / 4)

Obama should be addressing the causes of recession, not these programs that are unrelated to the recession. If the failure of his dumb bill is the only thing that will bring back his focus then I hope he fails.

---

by: Seascraper @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 14:53:11 PM CST

Did you miss out (4.50 / 6)

on basic economics class as a kid? Or do you just repeat what you're told by the conservatives?

Left in Lowell: cuz why read the Lowell Sun if you don't have to? ;)

---

by: Lynne @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 14:59:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If I get your suggestion (5.00 / 5)

So if a car knocks down John Doe as he crosses the street, instead of trying to get John Doe to the hospital, we should concentrate on driver's ed for the person who knocked him down.

This is why no one believes conservatives anymore.

---

by: KBusch @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 15:05:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not quite (5.45 / 11)

The Republican position would be to give a tax cut to the guy who hit Joe, because the reason he hit Joe was because he was worrying about his taxes too much.

---

by: HR's Kevin @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 16:38:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

See my comment below, "CBO analysis" (0.00 / 1)

---

by: Cos @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 16:50:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Although I don't agree with your conclusions (5.00 / 1)

we should be considering the structural problems in our economy that have brought us to this crisis.  There is a lot more work to be done.  That, in addition to stimulus spending to prevent a total collapse of the economy.

---

by: JoeS @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 21:16:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's A Question Of Fairness (5.00 / 3)

In other words why the rest of the world is dealing with layoffs and downsizing, Government workers should be immune.  I have a novel idea, rather than the private sector bear 100% of the recent economic harchips (which incidentally pay for all those teachers, firefighters and police officers) let's have some of these public servants share in our pain.  Then again money comes from trees, we could always plant more trees.

---

by: fever @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 15:10:17 PM CST

Specious argument (5.40 / 5)

It's like you're saying those public servants are useless except as a drain on our government coffers.

The loss of teachers, firefighters, police and the like destroys services, THAT WE USE, or do you never want to call 911 if someone breaks into YOUR house?

The loss of those services hurts us all. Especially those who are laid off, who use government services more than they would otherwise (like standing in line trying to get unemployment benefits).

But by all means, let's lay off as many government workers proportionately as the rest of the population and see where that gets us. I mean, who needs T operation 12 hours a day or your house to get a prompt visit from the fire truck when it goes up in smoke.

Left in Lowell: cuz why read the Lowell Sun if you don't have to? ;)

---

by: Lynne @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 15:17:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

waste, inefficiency & corruption = Government (4.60 / 5)

Essentially your argument is that there is no waste or inefficiencies in Government; accordingly we can't do without a single one of them.  I would argue there is a lot more waste and inefficiencies in Government than the private sector.  Case in point, we recently sent a 42' fire truck to respond to someone complaining of difficulty breathing.  Would you like more examples of inefficiencies or waste in Government?  How about examples of outright corruption?

---

by: fever @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 15:23:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I'll give you waste and inefficiency (5.00 / 6)

Look.

Part of the reason we're in this crisis is the waste and inefficiency in the private financial sector.

---

by: KBusch @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 16:03:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Classic waste, mismanagement & corruption (5.00 / 5)

You're right!

By Deborah White, About.com
U.S. SPENDING IN IRAQ

Spent & Approved War-Spending - About $800 billion of US taxpayers' funds spent or approved for spending through mid-2009.

U.S. Monthly Spending in Iraq - $12 billion in 2008

U.S. Spending per Second - $5,000 in 2008 (per Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on May 5, 2008)

Cost of deploying one U.S. soldier for one year in Iraq - $390,000 (Congressional Research Service)

Lost & Unaccounted for in Iraq - $9 billion of US taxpayers' money and $549.7 million in spare parts shipped in 2004 to US contractors. Also, per ABC News, 190,000 guns, including 110,000 AK-47 rifles.

Missing - $1 billion in tractor trailers, tank recovery vehicles, machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and other equipment and services provided to the Iraqi security forces. (Per CBS News on Dec 6, 2007.)

Mismanaged & Wasted in Iraq - $10 billion, per Feb 2007 Congressional hearings

Halliburton Overcharges Classified by the Pentagon as Unreasonable and Unsupported - $1.4 billion

Amount paid to KBR, a former Halliburton division, to supply U.S. military in Iraq with food, fuel, housing and other items - $20 billion

Portion of the $20 billion paid to KBR that Pentagon auditors deem "questionable or supportable" - $3.2 billion

Number of major U.S. bases in Iraq - 75 (The Nation/New York Times)

http://usliberals.about.com/od...

Defense has historically had the worst record on these issues. So by your reasoning to we just get rid of all those government employees in Iraq? An $800 bil savings would about pay for the stimulous package.

It is not fair to dengrate those government employees any more than it is fair to have them to return and find the safety, education and other services they are risking their lives for in Iraq will no longer be available for their families back home.

---

by: Sue Kennedy @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 18:28:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

In general, (0.00 / 0)

the expressed reason for sending the fire truck on that medical call is because the fire crew was closer to the need than a staffed ambulance team, and it is felt that even running the extra equipment, the minutes saved by having a first responder trained fire fighter is more important. Having said that, in cities like Boston, there is likely pride and jurisdictional competition between the fire department and the ambulance service involved in the issue.

---

by: af @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 23:04:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

waste in Massachusetts (5.33 / 3)

is in the "low single digits" according to the fiscally center-right Michael Widmer. So, no doubt there's some that we can save, but government actually runs a fairly efficient system, especially compared to the major corporations that have put this country's entire economy at risk through their greed, corruption and, yes, waste and inefficiency.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 23:49:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Waste and inefficiency are irrelevant (0.00 / 0)

to this discussion. To stimulate the economy, you have to get money circulating in it. Whether that money is used efficiently or not has little or no bearing on whether the stimulus is effective.

Sending money to banks that then use it to buy up other companies, or to make loans to foreign companies - that's not stimulative.

Shoe bomber, underwear bomber -- why aren't we waging war on clothes?

---

by: kirth @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:54:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

That misses the point of public sector. (5.00 / 3)

In our system where private enterprised is the assumed default scenario, we as a society have assigned some services to government precisely BECAUSE they are too important to be left to the mercy of economic cycles.  This falls into the same category as a flat tax in that mathematically it sounds completely fair until you stop and consider actual impact.

---

by: Christopher @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 15:44:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Good Points (6.00 / 1)

Christopher & KBusch:

It's also true that global warming is a serious problem.  Do you still believe that every single Government job is absolutely necessary?  How about pay level of our Government workers?  Did you know the legislature just gave themselves a pay raise?  I wonder how many private sector employees get a pension and 100% healthcare coverage?

---

by: fever @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 17:18:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Are you still made of straw? (5.62 / 8)

Does anyone on the planet "believe that every single [g]overnment job is absolutely necessary?"

No one believes that.

And yes, I believe that government cries out for reform and that reform won't be easy. My suspicions are

• We underpay government workers.
• We pay less than the recruitment rate for important functions.
• We manage government workers very poorly so there's too much emphasis on process not enough on results.
• We also have labor contracts that should be honored.
• We have a system designed as a barrier against patronage. Mess with that the wrong way and you'll be exchanging inefficiency for inefficiency mixed with corruption.

So yes, I think government needs reform.

I'd add that the salaries legislators receive are actually fairly small compared to what lawyers or managers receive. I've never gotten worked up about the "legislature giving themselves raises". In private industry, boards that interlock with management give CEOs much bigger raises all the time.

---

by: KBusch @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 17:29:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

KBush deserves your 6 for this one (3.00 / 2)

---

by: Judy Meredith @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:00:07 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Ratings abuse from Edgarthearmenian (0.00 / 0)

This comment was in no manner abusive.

---

by: KBusch @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 09:59:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Um, no. (6.00 / 3)

No, they didn't.

It's automatic. Approved by the voters.

http://www.boston.com/news/loc...

---

by: demredsox @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 19:26:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Tangents...can't pass this one up (0.00 / 0)

The voters also approved a tax cut but that never happened.  Let's be clear, if the legislators wanted to do the responsible thing they could have voted to have their pay remain the same.  Or dare I say it...take a cut in pay.  

---

by: fever @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 23:25:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

tax = law (6.00 / 1)

the pay rate for legislators is a constitutional amendment.

So, again, you're wrong.

But, by all means, feel free to continue to make up facts as you go along.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 08:35:16 AM CST

[ Parent ]

CBO analysis (6.00 / 3)

The Congressional Budget Office released an analysis recently in which they estimate that approximately one new job will be created for each $140K that the stimulus increases the GDP, and included a table of multipliers to determine how much GDP "bang for the buck" we'd get for each dollar of stimulus spending.  The two top categories, with estimated multipliers of 1.0-2.5 (that is, for each $1 of spending, between $1.00-$2.50 will be added to the GDP) are infrastructure spending, and aid to states targeted for infrastructure.

Additionally, the CBO estimated that while the stimulus bill would increase GDP in the short term (now through 2011), it would decrease GDP a little bit (0.1% - 0.4%) in the long term due to increased federal budget deficits.  However, they said that effect would be partly offset by the extent to which the stuff we spend on now increases the country's capital & hence capacity in the future.  Increased government deficits would make our long term GDP slightly lower than it would otherwise be for a given level of capital/economic capacity, but if our capital is itself increased by the current spending, the end result could be higher.

The categories of spending they said would increase our long term economic capacity were education, health care, and infrastructure, with education being the most effective (even though it has a lower short term GDP multiplier than infrastructure).  They concluded that the percentage of the stimulus being spent on these things is low enough that the long term effect is still likely to be a slightly lower GDP.

So the lessons are that we should redirect more of this stimulus bill to direct infrastructure spending, education, health care, and aid to states targeted for those things.

---

by: Cos @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 16:50:30 PM CST

Although I'm sure there (4.50 / 2)

are some Republicans who know their unstimulating shenanigans are purely political, my guess is that the majority are as overwhelmingly ignorant of basic economics.

You have remember that the GOP is deeply invested in its own propaganda. My guess is that Susan Collins or the even more intellectually challenged John "What Recession?" McCain have little understanding of economics. They know the conservative mantra, but I doubt that they even understand how that's supposed to work.

The entire forest is endanger of burning down, and nitwits are wondering whether it's fair certain trees are going to be saved.

The superfluousness of the conservatives was best reflected in the diary on the Moody's report. stomv offered some well-informed commentary, but single-winged opposition was more interested in suggesting that poor people were fat because they are lazy and food stamps merely enable them to become obese.

If there's anyone who needs a bailout, it's the Republican Party. It's morally and intellectually bankrupt.

Mark


A rose by any other name is still a rose by another name.

---

by: Yellow Dog @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 16:59:16 PM CST

McCain (5.33 / 3)

campaigned poorly on the same fiscal nonsense he has been spouting this past week, and was soundly defeated, in no small part, because of it. The Republican legislators suffered much the same fate. Why are we even having this discussion over these same issues with them? They had their years, with Bush in the White House and look at the result. Offering up the same ideas after that period, those results, and that electoral loss, is just foolish.

---

by: af @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 23:11:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Trouble is (4.67 / 3)

There are still too many of them and they are still convinced that they are right.

Unfortunately, that is the generous interpretation. The less generous interpretation is that they don't really care whether they're right or not. They simply want to milk the recession for one liners.

---

by: KBusch @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 00:03:48 AM CST

[ Parent ]

You can't be from massachusetts! (6.00 / 1)

And say that republicans are morally and intellectually bankrupt with a straight face. The democRATS in this state who fit your declaration are too many to list. We all know who they are. Well not financially bankrupt, they ripped us off good.

---

by: billxi @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 12:07:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Paraphrasing a great (6.00 / 1)

Democratic statesman, Yes, I can!

Sal DiMasi: morally bankrupt, intellectually his account was at least half full. Though no doubt, you see it has half empty or with typical conservative hyperbole empty.

Deval Patrick: morally invested, working on the intellectual part.

Stan Rosenberg: morally invested, intellectually wealthy.

My own state rep Ellen story, morally and intellectually wealthy.

Massachusetts Republicans:

Mitt Romney: financially wealthy, intellectually impoverished, morally? Well, he have to stick with a position long enough to evaluate.

Kerry Healey: financially wealthy (her husband underwrote the state Republican Party), intellectually, well, she got to write some book reports before he bought her the chair of the GOP. Accomplishments? She beat Tom Reilly out for worst campaign in recent history.

I know there must be some Republicans in the legistlature. Oh yeah, that male model who Jim Braude has on his show. He's the guy who swore at school kids when he was lecturing. I know, love the sinner, hate the sin.

Mark

A rose by any other name is still a rose by another name.

---

by: Yellow Dog @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 14:38:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You Asked for it (0.00 / 0)

 Deval Patrick: the hack he just hired for 4120,000 IN A FINANCIAL CRISIS! WE ALL KNOW THE REST.
Sal Dimasi
Tom Finneran
Charley Flaherty: 3 speakers in a row, great streak!
Dianne Wilkerson
The perv from Lowell: I'm glad I forgot his name
Sen. Dick Moore
Rep. Paul Kujawski
Rep. John Binienda
Former Sen. Ed Augustus
Rep. John Fresolo: It's ok, he's my crook, I mean Rep.
The petty thief from the Somerville court
Yeah, tell me how wonderful the dems are! I'll be displeased to tell you treir transgressions, but I will.  

---

by: billxi @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 17:08:48 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Selective reporting (0.00 / 0)

You forgot to include "financially wealthy" after Deval Patrick. As a matter of fact none of the democrats have that label. Did you forget something?

---

by: lodger @ Tue Feb 10, 2009 at 05:16:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

An observaton of counterbalancing forces (5.60 / 5)

This from a GOPer.  I wouldn't entirely try to force the argument for state aid on the layoff of public sector employees.  Given the fact that the Feds can deficit spend (and do they ever), while states are forced to "balanced" budgets, good times or bad, it always made no sense to me that at a time when strains on government services are at their all time high in a recession, that a state would have to resort to increasing fees, taxes, or trying to force out of state businesses to collect their revenue (ala Town Fair Tire suit).  When times are good, tax revenues are high and demands for government services are low; the counter is when revenues deteriorate, demand for services increases.

State aid in a stimulus package shouldn't be spun as saving public sector jobs: rather it should be spun as a way to counterbalance automatic pressures on state governments to act counter to means for the country aa a whole to grow out of a recession.

---

by: Mike from Norwell @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 17:12:45 PM CST

either way (5.33 / 3)

saves jobs when we lost 600,000 of them last month & unemployment is 7-16% depending on who and how you count (13.6% according to the fed's most honest u6 measure). Feels like a depression to me.  

---
My thoughts are mine and mine alone. They should not be considered representative of any other organization, group or person - save me.

~Ryan.

---

by: Ryepower12 @ Fri Feb 06, 2009 at 21:32:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Just trying to help here (0.00 / 0)

Those job losses are in the private sector for the most part.  Sooner we can fix the private sector and get things going again (i.e., people working, people paying taxes, people not receiving government benefits) the better.  It all works hand in hand.

Ryan, I know you're young (and prone to hyperbole), but try to glance back at the late 70s-early 80s if you really want to see some fun times.  Let's just hope that we're not going back to that era of Nixon/Ford/Carter government tinkering.  Try to quantify an 18% mortgage rate (and for those of you in the position, I'd recommend that you refinance as soon as possible to take advantage of rates - just got 4.5% on a 30 year fixed - because I get the sinking feeling we're going to be replaying the Carter administration experience over the next four years.  Anyone remember stagflation?

---

by: Mike from Norwell @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 10:56:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]

State Rep. Bob Spellane (0.00 / 0)

Got an interest-free $200,000 loan. Try getting that.  

---

by: billxi @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 12:17:52 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If the stimulus package is gutted (6.00 / 1)

in the area of education, this stimulus package should more appropriately be renamed the Teacher Layoff Plan.  Given the bad news I heard this morning at a my district's school committee retreat, if we don't get serious stimulus money, we are in the tank.  More than 100 teachers will lose their jobs in a district of 7200 students.  The school district is the largest employer of the region.  That should go a long way towards stimulating the local economy.  

In short, trying to prop up the private sector while ignoring the public sector is pure folly.  You'll simply be swapping out, eventually, cops, firemen, teachers, etc., for private-sector employees on the unemployment line and children will be paying the most in opportunity lost.  

 

---

by: lightiris @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 15:28:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Think you're misconstruing what I'm saying (0.00 / 0)

Do believe that state aid should be part of the stimulus package, as if relief given to taxpayers is only taken away from higher state levies we're back to square one.

From a larger picture though, it is indeed critical to get the private sector growing again; after all, that's what supports government functions.  Hard to think we can "grow" our way out by putting deficit financing to keep government wholly intact; kind of like saying you've got your debts under control because you cashed a bunch of those cash advance checks that came in the mail.

---

by: Mike from Norwell @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 15:14:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Public/Private (0.00 / 0)

I don't really see the distinction you made in the post above about potential state aid in the stimulus package. You caution about calling it protection against public sector layoffs, but nevertheless support it as "a way to counterbalance automatic pressures on state governments."

What is the difference here? The main point is that you want to create or save jobs in the economy, and there is no reason to make a distinction between public and private employees. The loss of either makes it less likely that the country as a whole can dig its way out of this recession.

Also, you say:

Anyone remember stagflation?

There is little risk of that now, so I'm not sure why you bring it up. If anything, the greater risk is deflation, which was a similar situation faced by the Japanese in their recent decade-long recession. Nixon/Ford/Carter screwed up, but this is a much different situation.

---

by: Hoyapaul @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 17:50:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Why? (0.00 / 0)

Private sector jobs generate revenue that support the public sector. Further, better off the private sector is, less demand for government services (which goes beyond paying salaries for government workers).

Deflation scare is out there, but given that we're looking at floating incredible amounts of new treasury debt, at some point you're going to be looking at a tipping point on UST securities.  Folks/countries abroad aren't going to view us as the "last resort"; they're going to be demanding a heckuva lot more than the paltry yields currently on treasuries.  Hence stagflation.

Remember, alot of these commentators were flapping their jaws last year about peak oil and decoupling.  How'd that work out with oil below $40bbl?

---

by: Mike from Norwell @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 18:14:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Stagflation (0.00 / 0)

Well, that gets at how the situation is different now than then. Other countries are part of this worldwide recession as well, so there is a global flight to safety (i.e. US treasury bonds). Only when the global economy improves will foreign creditors demand more than the yields they are currently getting.

But the main point is that inflation is the last thing we should be worried about now. Slipping into a global depression is a much more likely situation if we do too little.

---

by: Hoyapaul @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 20:19:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

but (0.00 / 0)

how are we going to foist $2t (not $2b) of treasury bills/notes out there in the long term?  Think beyond the box.  We'll have to raise yields, because we're obviously NOT going to be the flight to safety path anymore.

---

by: Mike from Norwell @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 20:55:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Losing 600,000 jobs in January (0.00 / 0)

should make clear the need to get the stimulus passed, pronto.

What's a day's delay cost?  Well, that is another 20,000 Americans put out of work, and many of those will end up losing their homes.  For just one day of added delay.

---

by: JoeS @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 14:50:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Why don't we... (0.00 / 0)

Just give every citizen $2,500 each. That's the approximate price per citizen.

---

by: billxi @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 12:08:51 PM CST

How about (6.00 / 1)

I just keep it.  Then they won't have to take it from me, just so they can give it back to me.

---

by: lodger @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 14:29:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

How about (0.00 / 0)

we just allow another Great Depression, because the first one was so fun.

Amazing how many neo-Hooverites exist in today's Republican Party.

---

by: Hoyapaul @ Sun Feb 08, 2009 at 17:52:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I think it's time to start (0.00 / 0)

ignoring the differently-winged nitwits again. That excludes Mike from Norwell, who clearly isn't a nitwit.

Mark

A rose by any other name is still a rose by another name.

---

by: Yellow Dog @ Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 14:40:57 PM CST