Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Obama Stimulus Package - paving the wrong road?
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, January 07, 2009

All sorts of opinion is out there concerning PEBO's desired stimulus package. I pick Jonathan Cohn's over at the Plank because it pretty much covers what I want to cover. For instance:
The general consensus among left-of-center economists these days is that government spending, rather than tax cuts, represent the most efficient way to fight recessions. Among other things, people who receive tax cuts don't always spend the money right away. More affluent people, in particular, tend to put that money into savings—a move less likely to generate economic activity in the short term.
Consider that paragraph carefully. Look at the claims it makes. A) government spends money more efficiently than people do. B) affluent people tend to save their money and thus are less likely to generate "economic activity in the short term".

Let's deal with B) first. Where do "left-of-center" economists think the "affluent" put their savings? In a can in the back yard? At a minimum it is going into a bank. And the bank is going to do something with the money to make more money (that's how they survive and prosper), and that's how the investment cycle starts. The difference here is instead of letting the government pick the winners (i.e. the entities and programs it chooses to "invest" in by taxing, borrowing or printing money), you have the market picking the winners with its own money.

In reality, as Professor Douglas Houston points out, government stimulus packages are more politically driven than economically driven:
“Government spending programs like these are political grab-bags whose successes are predicated on satisfying political interest groups, not on creating value and growth in a market economy; these government spending programs then often become embedded ‘entitlements,’ crowding out the flow of funds to private investments in a free marketplace.”
-
Douglas Houston
Professor, School of Business, University of Kansas
And you have to ask, as Scott Bradford does, given the government's track record to this point, is this really wise?
“Governments make lots of a bad policy during times of economic stress. A spending package that approaches $1 trillion is a case in point. Do we really trust the Congress and the Executive Branch to spend such vast sums wisely, especially after all the bumbling around and ill-advised bailouts this year? Does the government really have a long list of well-thought-out, cost-effective projects that will help our economy? I do not think so.”
-
Scott Bradford
Associate Professor, Brigham Young University
As for point A), do left-of-center economists really believe what Cohn claims they do? That government spends money more efficiently than do people (I'm assuming his claim that money kept because of tax cuts isn't spent the "right way" means it doesn't provide as much stimulus as government spending - i.e. efficiency).

That's just counter-intuitive from the get-go. Why? Alan Stockman addresses the point:
“[T]ax cuts will not create the waste [that] government spending would, because individual households are making their own decisions about which spending or investment projects are worthwhile for themselves.”
-
Alan Stockman
Wilson Professor of Economics, University of Rochester
David Laband echoes the point:
“Our economy as a whole will [not] benefit from taking money from current or future taxpayers to support a government spending spree. No doubt, certain interest groups will gain from feeding at the public sector trough. But losers surely will outnumber winners by a large margin. Our economy as a whole will benefit from Congress lowering taxes and letting Americans decide for themselves what is worth spending their hard-earned dollars on.”
-
David Laband
Professor of Economics and Policy, Auburn University
And Richard Wagner puts an exclamation point beside it:
“Any so-called stimulus program is a ruse. The government can increase its spending only by reducing private spending equivalently. Whether government finances its added spending by increasing taxes, by borrowing, or by inflating the currency, the added spending will be offset by reduced private spending. Furthermore, private spending is generally more efficient than the government spending that would replace it because people act more carefully when they spend their own money than when they spend other people's money.”
-
Richard Wagner
Professor of Economics, George Mason University
Now I hesitate to call these folks I've quoted "right-of-center" economists, because I don't know if that's true. But what is certainly true is they do not agree with the two points Cohn attributes to "left-of-center" economists.

In fact, as James Butkiewicz points out, even the chair of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers advocates tax cuts over government spending:
“Tax cuts are preferable to spending, especially the many programs that will doubtless result from this process. Even the designated chair of Obama's CEA finds that increased taxes reduce growth.”
-
James Butkiewicz
Professor of Economics, University of Delaware
The fact that tax cuts are actually a part of the package is a good thing. What's somewhat disturbing though is their inclusion is a matter of politics, not sound fiscal thinking. It has been included at the insistence of the Republicans with the view by Democrats being that their inclusion will help ease passage of the rest of the bill.

The rest of the stimulus package, some 350 to 450 billion dollars, is pointed toward spending on "infrastructure". That is, large public projects. As Cohn notes:
On the other hand, coming up with $600 to $700 billion in well-timed government stimulus may not be as easy as it sounds. For a while now, Obama advisers have been warning that there are only so many ready-to-go infraustructure programs—and only so many social needs the states are prepared to meet quicky. To give you a sense of scale, total non-discretionary, non-military spending this year is only around $500 billion. As Paul Krugman explains on his blog,

...there’s a problem with a public-investment-only stimulus plan, namely timing. We need stimulus fast, and there’s a limited supply of “shovel-ready” projects that can be started soon enough to deliver an economic boost any time soon. You can bulk up stimulus through other forms of spending, mainly aid to Americans in distress—unemployment benefits, food stamps, etc.. And you can also provide aid to state and local governments so that they don’t have to cut spending-avoiding anti-stimulus is a fast way to achieve net stimulus. But everything I’ve heard says that even with all these things it’s hard to come up with enough spending to provide all the aid the economy needs in 2009.
So the consensus is, as Krugman says, "we need stimulus fast" and infrastructure programs don't really lend themselves to providing that. But note what Krugman contends will provide that fast stimulus - more government spending. In fact, he contends that increased unemployment benefits, food stamps and aid to local and state governments is the way to go.

It is fraudulent nonsense.

As Donald Luskin says:
“Government spending does not create incentives for labor, innovation and investment. Instead of spending $1 trillion in Washington, let Washington forgive $1 trillion in tax revenues to create incentives for millions of individuals and firms to get the economy going again, one dollar at a time.”
-
Donald Luskin
Chief Investment Officer, Trend Macrolytics LLC
What is a better cure for unemployment than a job? So that being the case, what is the best way to stimulate job growth? Well certainly not by increasing spending on unemployment benefits and food stamps.

And what is the best way to encourage job creation?
“During recessions, unemployment rationalizes a role for government in creating jobs. But there is no reason these jobs should be directly working for the government: nothing about a recession justifies larger government. If we are worried about too few jobs, it makes sense to subsidize private employment (for example, by temporarily lowering payroll taxes or creating a new tax subsidy for new hires).”
-
Glen Weyl
Junior Fellow at the Society of Fellows and Post-Doctoral Fellow in the Department of Economics, Harvard University
And the infrastructure spending? Well Thomas Mayer has a good point about that:
“There is not only the problem that efficient projects are often slow to get to the point where they generate actual expenditures, but also that once the government starts spending it is hard to turn off the tap when the stimulus is no longer needed.”
-
Thomas Mayer
Professor Emeritus, University of California –Davis
Does anyone doubt his point? This so-called "stimulus" will in fact mostly stimulate a permanent expansion of government at all levels.

This "stimulus package" means the era of huge government is back and on steroids. Its passage means an economic sea change for this country, and not a positive one either.

Stacie Beck lays it out most succinctly:
“A spending stimulus will only delay the needed restructuring of the U.S. economy to remain internationally competitive. Tax cuts will facilitate that restructuring far better than spending and job creation by the government.”
-
Stacie Beck
Professor, University of Delaware
And Gene Smiley gives you the probable - and lamentable - outcome of its passage:
“An ‘economic stimulus’ program will do nothing to correct the serious price and resource misallocations that currently exist and are stopping the economy from moving back toward ‘full-employment.’ In fact, they will likely retard the recovery. They will divert resources from the private sector to the government sector moving us further away from a free-enterprise economy.”
-
Gene Smiley
Emeritus Professor of Economics, Marquette University
Pelosi and Reid are promising passage of a stimulus package by February. Obama is promising a deficit of 1.2 trillion. There is a good way to keep from piling up that debt - defeat this stimulus package and insist on tax cuts as the primary means toward recovery. Then get government the heck out of the way.

Unfortunately that's not at all what I think will happen. And the result - a repetition of something we've already seen but seem determined to ignore:
“Japan’s federal expenditures, following their 1989 stock market crash, have had little to no effect on their recovery. Japan has been left with a huge government debt per GDP ratio and nearly 20 years of little to no growth. Why on earth would the U.S. want to follow in Japan’s footsteps?”
-
Gary Quinlivan
Dean of the Alex G. McKenna School, St. Vincent College
Why indeed?
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
A stimulus package that doesn’t increase actual production (and instead is focused on increasing consumption) is not going to be effective. Ultimately, going further into debt is going to cause people to lose faith in the dollar, leading to inflation (meaning we’ll have severe stagflation). The core problem is that we’ve been living beyond our means for almost three decades, consuming more than we produce, and financing our gluttony with large budget and current accounts deficits. You can stretch economic fundamentals for only so long, a rebalancing is occurring, it will be painful, but it is necessary.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://scotterb.wordpress.com
But note what Krugman contends will provide that fast stimulus - more government spending. In fact, he contends that increased unemployment benefits, food stamps and aid to local and state governments is the way to go.
I was under the impression that billions in food stamp aid goes unused.
A stimulus package that doesn’t increase actual production (and instead is focused on increasing consumption) is not going to be effective.
Production of what?
 
Written By: huh
URL: http://
McQ - Excellent compilation of explanations of why the garbage being spouted in D.C. won’t work. It’s nice to know there are some economists out there with some brains and common sense.

Scott Erb - Short, sweet and to-the-point. Well written. Depressing, but well written.
 
Written By: jjmurphy
URL: http://www.allthatisnecessary.com
There is a fairly recent book about the Depression and WWII called "Freedom From Fear". It’s been several years since I read it, but as I recall, part of the author’s thesis was that the New Deal wasn’t good for what it DID, but rather because it gave the American people a feeling of confidence that their government was behind them and would help them get through those troubled times.

There is much to be said for boosting public confidence. Now, is it worth throwing billions of dollars down an economic rathole in an effort to make people feel better? No. However, that seems to be what TAO, the idiots in Congress, the babblers in the MSM, and a large fraction of the American people want.

There’s a problem. "Do SOMETHING!" is the cry. Stopping to think just what that "something" ought to be, or indeed if the government is the entity that should do ANYTHING, isn’t on the agenda.
 
Written By: docjim505
URL: http://
A stimulus package that doesn’t increase actual production (and instead is focused on increasing consumption) is not going to be effective. Ultimately, going further into debt is going to cause people to lose faith in the dollar, leading to inflation (meaning we’ll have severe stagflation). The core problem is that we’ve been living beyond our means for almost three decades, consuming more than we produce, and financing our gluttony with large budget and current accounts deficits. You can stretch economic fundamentals for only so long, a rebalancing is occurring, it will be painful, but it is necessary.
Amen.
 
Written By: Is
URL: http://
If one is looking for a worthy infrastructure investment that is "shovel ready," let me propose we start on a new fleet of nuclear power plants.

We have over thirty applications in the hoppers at the NRC or are on a schedule for submittal and review. Most of those are for certified designs that have already been exhaustively evaluated and found safe. Most of the proposed sites are existing sites that already have operating reactors. A small change to the internal NRC regulations would allow what are called "limited work authorizations" where we could start digging and pouring concrete for the foundations almost immediately. If the completed NRC review showed that maybe this reactor on that site wasn’t such a good idea (not likely), one is left with a hole in the ground. Then you hire people to fill it back in! We win...or we win!

Besides some minor changes to regulations, the hard part is obtaining private financing in the face of changable and changing government policy. We have a program for some limited government guarantees to cover the legal and political risks. Expedite and expand that insurance against government flipflops and you can start actual construction within 6 months.
 
Written By: Joseph Somsel
URL: http://
Obama’s Plan is what I like to call "Paul Slugman Economics." If it smacks of rank socialism, Slugman loves it. And if Slugman loves it, Obama is sure to.

I keep predicting, and events are bearing me out: in 2010, we will be saddled with huge debt (remember Carl Sagan’s "billions and billions"? Now it will Obama’s "trillions and trillions"), rising unemployment, and a stock market in full meltdown.

This is Nancy Shmancy Pelosi’s last term as Speaker. Because if the Dems go into the 2010 elections with that happening, watch the GOP win 70+ seats. And that’s just the House.
 
Written By: James Marsden
URL: http://
A stimulus package that doesn’t increase actual production (and instead is focused on increasing consumption) is not going to be effective. OK, that’s trite observation number one. You know, I bet I can string together a bunch of trite observations if I try. And, just for a change, I think I’ll leave out the leftist talking points today.

Ultimately, going further into debt is going to cause people to lose faith in the dollar. Yeah, that’s a good one. The core problem is that we’ve been living beyond our means for almost three decades, consuming more than we produce, and financing our gluttony with large budget and current accounts deficits. Oh, I’m on a roll. That was really trite.

You can stretch economic fundamentals for only so long, a rebalancing is occurring, it will be painful, but it is necessary. Another good trite one. Yay, I made it all the way through with nothing but trite observations. You dense righties should be mollified by that, and stop making fun of me.
 
Written By: Ott Scerb
URL: http://IfIOnlyHadABrain.dweeb/poseur/
Junior Fellow at the Society of Fellows and Post-Doctoral Fellow in the Department of Economics, Harvard University

Does that fit on his business card?
 
Written By: the wolf
URL: http://
The problem (beside the political benefits) is the mental models of most people think that building a big project must employ lots of people whereas lowering the payroll tax....well, that doesn’t seem like a job does it? (Though of course the worker who gets the extra pay could pay off debt (good) or spend it (good.)

In fact, large civil construction is probably the least worse off, and while home builders suffer, the return to Mexico of many migrant construction workers has already helped.

Its interesting to note that Germany, run by a grand coalition, is doing very little stimulus spending, because they have a consensus that it does not work, and in fact comes in too late and then can never be cut back.

I don’t know how Germany got to that consensus, because frankly, politicians should love these stimulus packages where they get to direct payments to industries and projects.

I agree with the nuclear power plant option. I think those will definitely be useful. I don’t think a lot of government infrastructure is actually as "productive" as people think.







 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
"A stimulus package that doesn’t increase actual production (and instead is focused on increasing consumption) is not going to be effective."

Ah,yes, the ever popular and spectacularly successful Soviet model. Establish production norms, and let someone else worry about whether the product is actually consumed instead of sitting in a warehouse for 20 years.

I need to be enlightened. What kind of consumption requires no actual production? That is the kind of consumption we need, as it causes no pollution like those dirty old factories do.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I thought the lefties hated "consumerism" but now they are concerned that people will save and invest instead of spend? How do lefties manage to stand up after all that spinning around?
 
Written By: The Old Man
URL: http://
I am still waiting for my Taiwan government stimulus "coupons" that are being issued to everyone. I think its NT$ 3,600 / person, about US$ 110.

These can be spent on various things, but cannot be saved or used to pay credit cards, etc.

The goal is to make us spend ’em. I hope they can be used for booze. I’ll buy some American whiskey and help both America and Taiwan out of this horrible recession. See, I am doing my part.


 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 1/7/2009, at The Unreligious Right
 
Written By: UNRR
URL: http://unreligiousright.blogspot.com/
I want to be careful about what I am saying here because I am a libertarian. But it is not an all- or- nothing deal.

Some spending by government can indeed have a jump start effect on the economy. There are however two big problems, (1) you have to use borrowed money, and (2) there is no guarantee that the money will be used on necessary things like bridges and highways.

If, the Government could somehow be reformed so that wasteful money was diverted to useful infrastructure programs then there would be no need for tax increases.

But, in truth all the spending we are going to be subjected to will indeed, I predict, have a temporary expansion of the economy. But then we will be stuck with higher deficits.

Ultimately it makes no difference because the new administration and congress have all exactly the wrong ideas about energy policy, so we will be facing another oil price crises within the next two years and that will screw everything.
 
Written By: kyleN
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
"There are however two big problems, (1) you have to use borrowed money,"

That would seem to be a very big problem indeed, since the alledged root of the trouble is that there is no money to borrow. That is why the original $700+ billion was authorized, way back last year, before recorded history. Evidently that little problem has been solved, proof that government intervention works.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
I understand what you are saying TIm, I am just trying to deflate an erroneous idea that if the government spends a large some on some project that it won’t cause an upswing in economic activity, of course it will. Furthermore some government spending might have a long term advantage to economic growth, (best example being the interstate highway system, or the panama canal).

But of course like everything else in life there are positives and negatives.
 
Written By: kyleN
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
I meant, "large sum on some projects"
 
Written By: kyleN
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
Why is it that nobody ever seems to have heard of opportunity costs? The (presumably borrowed) money spent by the government replaces spending and investment that would otherwise be done by the private sector. It does not increase net spending and investment. Further, any spending done by government has higher transaction costs (friction) than spending done by the private sector, resulting in less economic growth than would otherwise occur. There are, of course, large capital projects such as highways which only government can do which increase economic growth, but they are long term projects requiring a lot of preparatory work and are of minimal help in curing recessions.

Spending a trillion dollars more of borrowed money to stimulate the economy is insanity, pure and simple.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
If, the Government could somehow be reformed so that wasteful money was diverted to useful infrastructure programs then there would be no need for tax increases.
Do you mean maintenance on existing infrastructure or new construction? If the latter, I don’t see it having much of a stimulating effect unless we can bypass the current process of environmental impact studies and associated lawsuits that delays ground-breaking for 10 plus years.
 
Written By: huh
URL: http://
Do you mean maintenance on existing infrastructure or new construction? If the latter, I don’t see it having much of a stimulating effect unless we can bypass the current process of environmental impact studies and associated lawsuits that delays ground-breaking for 10 plus years.

Written By: huh
Well of course, my preferred reform would begin by shooting all the enviro-nazis.
 
Written By: kyleN
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
Note that the collapse of the GDR and ultimately of the Soviet Union came because they were living beyond their means. We’re dangerously close to a similar path (albeit in a stronger position than they were).

The US started running budget deficits of increasing size in the early eighties. At the same time, we went from a current accounts surplus to a deficit as we started consuming more than we produced. This was financed by foreign investment into the US, which was seen as good because the foreigners "believed in America enough to invest here." But actually it created an unsustainable imbalance. There is still money to borrow, obviously — as long as the Chinese, Saudis and others will buy our treasury bonds, we can bring in more money. The error behind the stimulus package, I believe, is the notion that faith in the US economy is so strong that the dollar can withstand this extension of debt long enough for the stimulus to work. I’m convinced that the imbalance between production and consumption needs to be corrected, and thus increasing debt and consumption could make the problem worse.

The borrowed money, Tim, doesn’t replace private sector spending and investment, unless the private sector would get the foreign money that would be buying US treasuries. I doubt that would go to the US private sector — it’s a globalized economy, after all. Also note that most US investment in recent years has not been productive, but has been mostly speculation in bubbles. That’s what created the illusion of wealth, and allowed us to think we could get something for nothing. We’ve had a kind of "fake economy" for awhile. Obama’s putting forth a trillion dollar gamble. For the sake of the economic future, we’d better hope it pays off. I’m not optimistic.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://scotterb.wordpress.com
"Note that the collapse of the GDR and ultimately of the Soviet Union came because they were living beyond their means."

I think the fact that the people didn’t much care for living under fascist dictatorships may have had something to do with it.

" it’s a globalized economy, after all."

With a globalized recession. The Chinese e.g., with their own recession and stimulus package of hundreds of billions of dollars, may not have much left over to buy US debt. They will probably even decrease the amount of US debt they now hold. Not to mention that our so-called credit problem is claimed to be due in part to US firms buying US treasury securities rather than lending, which is why treasury yields are at record lows.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Go back to the fundamentals, the first and second laws of thermodynamics apply to economics and govt as well. When you funnel money through the govt, waste is ALWAYS present, no matter how many "Oversight Czars" you appoint, it’s a law of nature. Free markets (voluntary exchanges between individuals) are nature’s way and are how America became the most prosperous and free country in the world. Either politicians are completely ignorant of basic science or are power hungry and know that only by abolishing free markets can they control everything.
 
Written By: bastilleman
URL: http://
Freemarkets are NOT nature’s way! Free markets are not nature, but social — human constructs. And thus they do not have natural mechanisms, but humans can manipulate them. That’s why you never see a true free market. Instead, when governments break down organized crime, mafia gangs, militias, fraud, etc., become supreme. You cannot have a true freemarket because humans will disrupt it willfully (with government or not) or accidently (acting with false information or mistaken judgments). You can have as free a market as possible only if it is regulated by rule of law. A true free market is as unrealistic as a true communist utopia. Humans are imperfect, and find ways to flaw everything they touch. That’s why the best we can do is pragmatic problem solving.

Timactual: the GDR and the USSR could have enslaved their people much longer if they didn’t need western money. Read Condoleezza Rice and Philip Zelikow’s "Germany United and Europe Transformed," and it becomes clear that the path to German unification and Soviet submission was based on the extreme weakness in the E. German and Soviet economies. Communism simply could not work as a political system because bureaucratic planned economies are grotesquely inefficient and corrupt. It’s also interesting that in East Germany the former Communist party remains pretty popular, while the more libertarian FDP is finding it hard to gain a foothold. I’ve traveled extensively through former East Germany and talked to people on all parts of the political spectrum, in every East German state. It’s fascinating how different the mentalities between East and West are, though that’s finally starting to change.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://scotterb.wordpress.com
Great analysis. When will our leaders realize that feeding a giant only make a giant bigger. If we continue feeding the entitlement programs, ie. food stamps, we only enable those recipients to continue their current lifestyle without incentive to improve their economic status. A plan should be balanced. Making tax cuts to the supply side and to the wealthy will create stimulus in the working class sector of the economy. Supply side stimulus will create jobs, while tax cuts to the wealthy will create higher savings. These savings will translate into money (M1) creation through loans to those in the economy that have the means to qualify and make larger purchases. Let’s remember that the stimulus needs to effect the economy as a whole not to just the grocery stores and Wal-mart. If we do not increase savings where will consumers get the money for larger ticket items, like automobiles, that our government insist on supporting. But thats for another blog.
 
Written By: Tony Corsaut
URL: http://www.therightagenda.com
The ideal stimuls package would instill hope, and the hope would be based on realistic outcomes. I like any perspective on the economic crisis that introduces an element of hope. As a psychologist, my take on this phenomenon is that it is psychological, based on fear.


The loss of the economy, as we knew it prior to this recent crash, involves a grieving process that I believe will culminate with recovery.


The catalyst for that recovery is hope. Follow the message contained in these songs and you’ll understand what I mean.


Everything is Fallin’ Apart

Dr BLT

words and music by Dr BLT copyright 2008

http://www.drblt.net/music/EveryThingIsDemo2.mp3


Dr BLT altered cover of Blue Oyster Cult classic

http://www.drblt.net/music/DontFearDem2.mp3



BTW, great predictions for a...


Future 2 Behold

Dr BLT

words and music by Dr BLT copyright 2008

http://www.drblt.net/music/future3.mp3
 
Written By: Dr BLT, Commenter with a song
URL: http://www.drblt.net

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider