Schwarzenegger wants $8 billion federal bailout
posted at 10:12 am on December 23, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
California got $7 billion in state grants from Porkulus, and an opportunity to catch their breath while they attacked a monstrous state budget that desperately needs pruning. Congress has now begun to consider Porkulus II, with even more block grants for states, enabling them to paper over serious budget gaps. But that’s not enough for Arnold Schwarzenegger, who wants an additional $8 billion from the feds in order to bail out a state that seems incapable of governing itself:
Facing a budget deficit of more than $20 billion, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is expected to call for deep reductions in already suffering local mass transit programs, renew his push to expand oil drilling off the Santa Barbara coast and appeal to Washington for billions of dollars in federal help, according to state officials and lobbyists familiar with the plan.
If Washington does not provide roughly $8 billion in new aid for the state, the governor threatens to severely cut back — if not eliminate — CalWORKS, the state’s main welfare program; the In-Home Health Care Services program for the disabled and elderly poor, and two tax breaks for large corporations recently approved by the Legislature, the officials said.
Schwarzenegger also will propose extending a cut in the state payroll that is scheduled to expire this summer. That cut has translated into 200,000 state workers being furloughed three days a month, the equivalent of a 14% pay cut. Lawmakers would have the option of extending the furloughs, imposing layoffs or some combination of the two.
The governor is scheduled to unveil his plan publicly early next month. Administration spokesman Matt David declined to comment on the details.
We can look at this from two perspectives. Taken at face value, a bailout request is an insult to the federalist model of state sovereignty. The basic act of governance at any level is creating a budget and determining which functions to fund and at what level. California has failed at this for the last few years, and only stayed out of bankruptcy in 2009 because of the Porkulus cash. Coming to Washington, hat in hand, should carry a big penalty for California and any other state demanding that citizens of other states subsidize their incompetence — say, the loss of voting rights in Congress until the money gets repaid. After all, if they’re asking to be a federal protectorate, why should California have any more privileges in Congress than Puerto Rico or other federal protectorates?
On the other hand, one could see this as a political ploy better known as a Briar Patch Strategy. The likelihood of getting $8 billion from Washington for a bailout approaches the same odds as Barack Obama attending the ribbon-cutting at a coal-fired power plant, for two reasons. One, Washington doesn’t have the money, and two, giving California a bailout would mean having to do the same with most of the rest of the 50 states looking at a sea of red ink. The Governator understands this, but knows that he has to ask before demanding the kind of deep cuts necessary to get California back in the black. In a replay of Br’er Rabbit, Schwarzenegger wants Obama to throw him into the budget-cut briar patch rather than going there himself.
Whether by design or desperation, California’s political class is not likely to get another reprieve from doing its job properly. Schwarzenegger can blame that on Obama or Congress, but either way, he’s going to have to make big cuts in the budget and quit using accounting tricks to hide the red ink.
Update: Don’t expect the briar-patch strategy explanation to impress anyone, either. As HA commenter Cubachi put it on Twitter, “The Governator transformed into a girly-man.”










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
This certainly exlains his A grade for Odumbo.
rjoco1 on December 23, 2009 at 11:16 AM
This certainly explains his A grade for Odumbo.
rjoco1 on December 23, 2009 at 11:17 AM
Can’t run his own state except into the ground. Maybe he should stop making remarks about Gov. Palin and stick to governing California.
Kissmygrits on December 23, 2009 at 11:20 AM
Don’t blame me, I voted for Tom McClintock.
OmahaConservative on December 23, 2009 at 11:22 AM
If California, or any other state, gets bailed out by the federal government, Texas and the other red states should meet to seriously discuss secession and the formation of a new nation based on the pre-progressive Constitution.
Rebar on December 23, 2009 at 11:22 AM
American Power tracked-back with ‘Schwarzenegger Seeks $8 Billion Federal Bailout’.
Donald Douglas on December 23, 2009 at 11:27 AM
Where’s MY money?
I toy with the idea of moving back to the ocean in Southern California then I read this kind of stuff. Yikes!
Mojave Mark on December 23, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Pretty much. And I’m from CA. And soon, thanks to 0bama the rest of the USA will be as dysfunctional as CA.
Lou Budvis on December 23, 2009 at 11:29 AM
CA deserves it!!!!
By far the most populous state but we only get 2
Senatorsfat pigs at the federal trough. Also, CA has always been a doner state meaning that it pays far more in federal taxes than it gets in federal services. The other 49 states have been leaching of CA’s economy for too long.Plus, if illegal immigration (which is the federal government’s responsibility to stop) costs CA $10 billion per year, then I think it is more than reasonable to have the feds flip the tap. The girly man should have asked for more!!! Get over it guys. You owe CA, not just for movies, culture and cool, but $$$ as well.
tommylotto on December 23, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Time to bus more Nebraskans to California to vote!
Disturb the Universe on December 23, 2009 at 11:36 AM
I was born there, and virtually all of my father’s family lives there. But let it burn. Californians brought this on themselves.
BuckeyeSam on December 23, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Seriously, Ed posts a “dysfunctional California” post practically every other day. Then he spouts some mumbo jumbo he learned in economics 101. Never once does he mention that CA has been a donor state. Never once does he refer to the cost of the federal government’s failure to control immigration. All he talks about is the out of control spending. Well, he makes one good point over and over again. I get it. CA spends too much. But you know what? If the feds had controlled immigration, CA has such a dynamic economy that it could afford all that spending and more.
tommylotto on December 23, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Becoming???
Say, what ever happened with the Gozillion dollars they put into that Stem Cell thing???
How’s that working out???
BigWyo on December 23, 2009 at 11:37 AM
This request is of the same ilk as the Nelson or Landreiu bailouts. This competition at the trough is exactly what economists like Hayek warned of: they are creating class warfare, and it will cause even further division and corruption in our country.
PattyJ on December 23, 2009 at 11:43 AM
First, kalifornia gets 35% of the entire federal welfare budget.
Second, many large and small kalifornia cities became sanctuary cities.
Third, the democrat legislature never met a tax, regulation, or a government agency they not just liked but LOVED!
Fourth, the kalifornia democrat legislature NEVER considers a spepending cut. NEVER!
Fifth, kalifornia is learning the Iron Lady’s rule, “The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people’s money.
jukin on December 23, 2009 at 11:47 AM
CA could have done things to deal with immigration. Like not allowing sanctuary cities, not giving entitlements to illegals, checking citizenship status whenever someone applied for some kind of gov’t welfare, etc. They chose not to do any of that and instead spend like crazies.
And, frankly, I don’t believe they could spend the way they are and be o.k. even without illegal immigration. It would not be quite as bad, but it would still be bad.
Monkeytoe on December 23, 2009 at 11:47 AM
I was a San Diegan at the time.
OmahaConservative on December 23, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Mr. Governator….
My state spent their tax dollars wisely. They cut budgets, cut spending, and even had some to spare, for the future. We are also a state with illegals, and welfare, and medicare patients, and medicaid. Yet somehow, my state government was fiscally responsible.
So now explain to me again, why 49 other states tax dollars should go to prop up your state….where spending, and budgets have run amok, and you’ve spent yourselves into a massive debt?
capejasmine on December 23, 2009 at 11:54 AM
Wrong. The Governator was always a girly-man.
chemman on December 23, 2009 at 11:54 AM
OmahaConservative on December 23, 2009 at 11:48 AM
You’re probably still on the voter register. Perhaps you should make a trip back for the next election. :)
Disturb the Universe on December 23, 2009 at 11:55 AM
If it is so dynamic why has it dropped from the 5th largest economy in the world (less than 10 years ago) to the 10th largest economy in the world last year. Don’t blame it all on the feds. I know too many people who have left, me included, because of the excessive regulations and taxation.
chemman on December 23, 2009 at 12:00 PM
Good plan. At one point I was registered in two different precincts after a move. I could have easily double-dipped had I wanted to.
OmahaConservative on December 23, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Start with Arnold salary and the legislature.
Every elected official should take a pay cut…
Kini on December 23, 2009 at 12:03 PM
One problem is the Republican voters can save their home equity, their wages and their kids by moving out of state instead of staying put to fight the looters. We’re about to release 40,000 felons to save money, so I can’t fault them.
Chris_Balsz on December 23, 2009 at 12:06 PM
Arnold, the solution is very simple……
Cut the spending, problem solved.
rukiddingme on December 23, 2009 at 12:07 PM
California, (Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein), all democrats, and the RINO Rubber-stamper in the state house have all told the federal government to go pound sand on immigration. Now the idiots in charge also think legalizing pot is the answer to their problems—dynamic indeed tommy. Blaming the federal government for the liberal social and fiscal policies California has embraced for decades is pure folly and indefensable.
Yes, tommy, the over-flowing illegals in Cal are an enormous expense and putting a huge financial burden on the state, But I would submit that it is this state that has not only allowed this influx, a majority of our “leadership”, (thirty-plus years of a democrat controlled state government), condones it, and relys on it for their voting base. Look inside the functions of this state government before attempting to throw stones from D.C.
Rovin—(born and raised in Sacramento and still thinks Willie Brown
wasIS responsible and laible for the generational destruction of this state)Rovin on December 23, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Its time Arnold stop listening to Obama, Maria & the Kennedy clan, and the unions. They got California into this mess in the first place.
rukiddingme is right – time to cut the spending. Problem solved. Also, cut your silly overregulation which is stifling the economy, and stop believing in the junk science of AGW.
MeAlice on December 23, 2009 at 12:12 PM
He’s right to warn America where the values of SanFran Nan Pelosi and the Democrats will drag us all.
Chris_Balsz on December 23, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Don’t be logical…this is California.
Funny, did he forget to mention that legislators will have to cut their staffs? That they will have their budgets slashed? How about assistance to illegal immigrants, maybe a crackdown on that?
I know, take away the tax breaks and let the corporations move out of state…that has helped in the past…
right2bright on December 23, 2009 at 12:14 PM
Ve need za rest of da country zu pay for da Kalifonia!
Ve do vat ve vant and need za foonding fer no problemo!!!!
Hening on December 23, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Before we go too far down the road of castigating California (where I live), the table on this website is instructive.
Note that, in 2005, California got back $0.78 for each dollar its citizenry contributed to the Treasury. That makes California an engine, and not a caboose, in the Federal money train.
On the same front page where Ed’s highlighted article resides is this rather interesting headline:Girlie State to pay unprecedented $1.1B to make walkways accessible to disabled. One has to love my state and its legal acumen — it’s on the front lines with regard to payments to extortionists and their lawyers.
unclesmrgol on December 23, 2009 at 12:16 PM
So did I (along with 2 of my companies, the other I sold)…I know dozens of companies who have moved out, dozens.
Any company not selling to the local economy is foolish for staying in California…economic suicide.
But their are over 800 tortilla makers in L.A. county alone….
right2bright on December 23, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Texted by someone in ass less chaps waiting for the annual California Holiday Masturbation Festival on Main St, Oakland to begin.
Hening on December 23, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Are you nuts…you think losing 22% of your money is a bargain? The people have lost 22% of their value, yes the feds took it and spent it, making them richer, but the citizens got screwed…man are you ever crazy to think that is a good deal.
The walkway is a lawyers goldmine…the ADA is a get rich scheme by attorneys for years in California.
They have several people who just file ADA stuff and that is how they make a living, measuring sidewalks…if they are an inch off they file a lawsuit.
No offense, but the disabled do not have a “tough” time in California…anymore then a tough time anywhere else.
But here is the bottom line…pay the 1 billion, but balance the budget and find the 1 billion to cut…
right2bright on December 23, 2009 at 12:24 PM
Ah-nuld is soooooooooooooooooo stick-him-with-a-fork-he’s done!
pilamaye on December 23, 2009 at 12:29 PM
Taking my hard-earned money to bailout CA is taxation without representation, period.
I did not get a chance to vote for or against the idiots who bankrupted CA; therefore, I should not have to pay for their disaster.
It will start with CA and quickly move to other irresponsible states who are drowning in their own progressive overspending ways.
Every citizen from fiscally responsible states should be up in arms.
Taxation without representation is what this is, plain and simple.
painesright on December 23, 2009 at 12:31 PM
They should, great advice for free. You can’t beat that with a stick.
Cindy Munford on December 23, 2009 at 12:33 PM
I’m well aware of my state’s propensities toward rewarding liberal blackmailers — but the laws they are using to blackmail are Federal laws, and the suit was filed in Federal court.
By the way, where does your state sit on that chart? Are you guys suckers of other peoples money, or givers of money to be sucked, like California?
unclesmrgol on December 23, 2009 at 12:35 PM
If the recent kabuki in the Senate taught us anything it’s that those who now think that the feds won’t bail out CA have the same pollyanna view of this issue as they did of healthcare. Boxer, Feinstein and every CA rep will wheel and deal until this is done. No hard decisions need be made, except “How much for my vote?” Afterall, they have an unlimited supply of money: ours.
Hucklebuck on December 23, 2009 at 12:40 PM
There used to be a story, “The Ant and the Grasshopper.” But apparently the Ant was racist and that is no longer taught.
Still a good story, “Go Eff yourself Arnuld!”
rgranger on December 23, 2009 at 12:47 PM
Ever heard of Proposition 187 passed by the people of CA and declared unconstitutional BY A FEDERAL JUDGE?
CA tried, but the federal government refused to shut the flood gates. Eventually, the population changed and accommodations became inevitable. CA should get a federal bailout just because the feds turned the paradise into a third world cesspool.
tommylotto on December 23, 2009 at 12:48 PM
How about this. We get the money, but lose our electoral college votes. Sound fair?
TheUnrepentantGeek on December 23, 2009 at 1:22 PM
Having lived in New York City during the 1975 bankruptcy crisis, you’re just parroting the exact same thing the fiscally irresponsible politicians there were saying a generation ago: “We send far more money to Washington than we ever get back, so bail our sorry arses out, President Ford.”
Never mind the lavish spending the city had done in order to buy votes over the previous decade, which is the same as California has done over the past 20 years with its pork-filled contracts to state workers. Raise more state mone by allowing offshore drilling leases? Heavens, no, the great State of California can’t do that! We can’t even built a freakin’ solar energy park in the middle of the Mojave Desert to cut our energy costs, because it might spoil the view of travelers on Interstate 40 (excuse me, “Historic Route 66″, since they want you to believe there’s some nostalgic reason not to try and move the state towards a smidgen of energy independence).
New York City got bailed out by the state when it finally agreed to make at least some draconian cuts in spending to get its budget marginally into line. But the city never got the feds to dump a ton of cash in their coffers. California might have to be a little more creative to get bailed out without Uncle Sugar saving their kiesters, but until anyone actually sees something more than just talking about cutting spending, there’s no reason to sink a dime of anyone’s money into keeping the porkfest going.
jon1979 on December 23, 2009 at 1:38 PM
What a whiny girly man!
lonestar1 on December 23, 2009 at 1:49 PM
Why not give California a TARP-like deal, where Congress gets to essentially run the state like they do GM? Discuss.
Paul_in_NJ on December 23, 2009 at 1:57 PM
We can find 8 billion dollars worth of program cuts for programs that no other states have and don’t improve things a bit in the state.
If you have a program that is suppsed to address a problem and the number of people with the problem has increased since the program was established, then the program is making the problem worse, not better.
It is sort of like chopping off people’s legs in order to provide them with free artificial ones. We increase programs for the “needy” and in so doing, tax and regulate small business into bankruptcy creating more “needy”.
The very process of providing the programs increases the number of people who need them. It is idiotic. The government NEEDS to get rid of these programs and the people NEED to get angry with their politicians for needing the programs in the first place.
crosspatch on December 23, 2009 at 2:26 PM
That has nothing to do with it. their reps can vote to make the federal gov’t tax and spend less. they don’t. It has no relevance to a) California’s policies destroying its own economy and b) whether or not the federal gov’t should bail the state out.
Now, I also would like to go into the numbers on that chart of $ taxed and $ received back by state. How do they count $$ spent on a state and what they count as money received from a state. Some things, like military bases, have to be located based on terrain and strategy, etc. So it is not quite so cut and dry.
I’m all for getting the feds to stop taxing and spending so much, but that has little to do with this conversation about California’s woes.
California, in order to solve the California budget problems, needs to reduce spending. It would also behoove them to reduce taxes and regulations to get their economy going again and increase tax revenues.
Instead, they want to get the money from the fed, which will in turn be borrowed from the chinese, meaning that today’s $8 billion will cost the rest of the country some astronomical figure to pay back in the future. And, all the while, California will keep spending and will run into this same problem next year, and the year after that, ad infinitum.
Monkeytoe on December 23, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Didn’t prop 187 just get overturned a couple of years ago? Yeah, California “tried”. A bit too little and too late. After they basically invited millions of illegals in with their state policies and entitlement programs, they then tried to close the barn doors. Typical california thinking. Let all of the horses out of the barn. Then try to close the barn doors. When a judge stops you from closing the barn doors, you say “hey, we tried to keep the horses in the barn by closing the doors, it’s not our fault”.
The people in California voted for this to happen year after year. They should now be forced to live with the results, like the rest of us are going to have to live with the damage Obama does to the Country.
Monkeytoe on December 23, 2009 at 2:34 PM
I thought California was the Very Model of Economic Prosperity as it follows the financial advice and ecological advice of the Nobel Prize Winning Klugman and Gore. Extreme Government Spending on services to spur growth combined with the severe penalties of a ‘green’ jobs and regulations along with making the ‘rich’ pay for everything.
I am just shocked! Shocked I say that California isn’t in the Black finance wise because we are assured that these kind of measures taken by the Federal Government will create Wealth and Prosperity for all except those rich greedy bastards who aren’t connected to any current Democrat serving in office.
Who knew that excessive Green Regulation, out of control Taxation, Massive government spending, and enormous illegal population would cause such things ? Apparently not the people in California, New York , Illinois, Washington DC and so forth because these are all measures they stand behind whole heartedly as the Solution to the problems. I guess if you want to kill Wealth, Prosperity and Jobs those are indeed the Solution.
alloyiv on December 23, 2009 at 2:38 PM
California, with the largest contingent of reps in the house, has a lot of power over the laws the federal gov’t imposes. Knowing where california’s Senators and Reps philosophy is, I know that they voted for all of the laws at issue. thus, that is hardly a defense of California.
Again as to the $$ from / to the fed gov’t – what does that have to do with California taking responsibility for its own laws and budget? Again, let’s agree to cut federal taxes and spending to the point where every dollar taken is given back to the place it is taken from. I’m all for that. That’s harldy the issue here.
Monkeytoe on December 23, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Hasta la vista, baby!Drill, baby, drill.Buy Danish on December 23, 2009 at 2:40 PM
the members of La Eme need to eat too!
right4life on December 23, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Ever here of Texas? Same federal immigration laws, very different economic and budget situation.
There’s problems with using 2005 federal tax/spending numbers. For one they are from 2005 (which CA used to be a net drain on the budget using those stats, before the post-cold war drawdown). 2005 was near the height of the Bush boom which thanks to the Bush tax cuts spewed off massive amounts of upper income income taxes and corporate taxes. That was also before CA rocketed up the unemployment rankings and the feds took more and more of a role paying for it. Given the much bigger deficits now (35-50% of federal spending compared with around 15% in 2005), I wouldn’t be surprised if most states have seen their ratios increase dramatically.
In general though state by state tax payments can’t be used as some black and white hard metric. Does JP Morgan Chase being based in NY mean that NY is solely and alone responsible for its corporate taxes? Does having ports mean coastal states are solely and alone responsible for tariffs? Thanks to Silicon Valley and Holylwood, CA has a large number of billionaires who thanks to our progressive tax code pay enormous taxes. States with lots of old people get more SS/Medicare, thanks to pro-illegal policies CA is reduced in that regard. States that happen to be great locations for military bases get more money, CA used to be but the military has been drastically scaled back. Larger/less densely populated states will get more highway money. And so forth.
Anyhow, if you, or CA, have a problem with overtaxing the rich, reducing military spending, taxing corporations, mass entitlements, etc, heres an idea, stop electing liberals. as for state finances, that’s up to each state to handle. Texas does just fine and they’re a net payer to the feds on your little chart.
jarodea on December 23, 2009 at 3:10 PM
As for CA’s state finances, the most recent numbers I could find were from 2007. California’s total state taxes per person was $3,155 per person, or 27% above the national average. Taxes as a share of income was 7.4% or 10% above the national average. Texas is around 1/3 less on both accounts. CA is in a perenniel budget deficit, TX is doing fine, the federal govt is not the reason.
jarodea on December 23, 2009 at 3:17 PM
BS. No federal judge requires Los Angeles to impose “Special Order 40″ where no LAPD cop will ever ask anybody about their immigration status. No federal judge requires California municipalities to vote themselves “sanctuary cities” and oppose sweeps. No federal judge ordered San Francisco to fly illegal alien convicts out of the jurisdiction at taxpayer expense so they don’t get deported. You oughta know the feds pay school districts per head, regardless of immigration status, and teh school districts were counting on all that sweet cash coming in year after year. No we have not tried. Sheriff Joe Arpaio is trying over in Arizona.
Chris_Balsz on December 23, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Just because the taxpayers sent more out to DC than DC sends to Sacramento, doesn’t mean Sacramento isn’t a bloated whore.
Chris_Balsz on December 23, 2009 at 3:52 PM
This disgusting RINO is brown-nosing The One in hopes of a few crumbs thrown his way.This guy would give Hugo Chavez an “A” if he thought he could cadge a little oil money.
Students in San Francisco were asked to spell ‘California’ and the result was D-E-T-R-O-I-T.
MaiDee on December 23, 2009 at 4:31 PM
My friend lives in CA and looks like will not move..evah!
There is something about CA…
OneConservative on December 23, 2009 at 5:38 PM
The really ironic thing is that California votes so reliably Democrat that there is no political capital to be gained by Obama there. Whether he bails them out or not, they will still vote overwhelmingly for the Democrats thus, no bailout will be forthcoming.
Unfortunately, I live in California and it is like watching a huge, slow-motion train wreck. You see what is happening and where it is going, but everyone seems powerless to stop it from happening. The smoke and mirrors tricks have lost their magic and the only thing left is to beg the Feds for a bailout. Things are getting so bad the state may even cut aid for illegal immigrants – that is serious!
Question: What happens when an entire state declares bankruptcy? Has this ever happened before?
tballard on December 23, 2009 at 7:29 PM
California reminds me of someone who is always asking for money to pay his mortgage but not only always seem to be living like a king, also has a $250 Bently in the garage that he won’t drive and won’t sell.
The state potentially can earn billions in revenue by agreeing to offshore drilling, not to mention create thousands of jobs, yet it would much rather ask for a bailout than earn it themselves.
Illegal immigration costs California over $10 billion a year, yet it would much rather ask for a bailout than to address this problem.
Citizens Against Government Waste says the California wastes $13 billion dollars a year on pork, but California would rather ask for a bailout than to cut its spending.
The state-made drought in the San Joaquin Valley may be costing the state as much as a billion dollars a year, yet of course it would much rather ask for a bailout.
DarkKnight3565 on December 24, 2009 at 2:48 PM
What Timothy McVeigh was to terrorism, Ahhhnold is to spending- respectively, the WASP and the Republican exceptions.
MaiDee on December 24, 2009 at 3:08 PM
California = Too big to fail. Therefore, MUST be bailed out. Yo, China, Middle Kingdom there, can you spare an extra 10 or 20b?
Brian Paasch on December 25, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Sorry Ah~nold, no-can-do! Pass the plate in Hollywood.
joe btfsplk on December 26, 2009 at 7:51 AM
The trouble with California is the same problem you would run into if you gave your six year old your credit card and the keys to a toy store. Lefties never spend their own money, they always spend others, with energy. And they have never seen a toy they didn’t want, whether it be not checking illegals, freezing out business not “eco-friendly”, down to little things like having the state pay for about everything including transgendered surgery.
No, blame belongs to California. Texas is a border state, Texas has oil, Texas as a liberal element- they just don’t possess the credit card.
Sorry guys, nice try but it is your fault and frankly you should take time to put down the bong and the wine glass and get to work. There is plenty to do.
archer52 on December 26, 2009 at 8:39 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2