The embarrassing irrelevancies of the ATM-charge debate

posted at 3:35 pm on May 21, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

I’m sure Dan Eggen wrote this story about the failure of the Senate to address ATM charge rates as an example of how out of touch old legislators get while in Washington.  However, it reads more like how out of touch the Washington Post and the Senate have gotten about the advance of retail and banking technology, and Eggen himself provides the clues:

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) has long pushed an amendment to limit those pesky and expensive transaction fees at automated teller machines, but his fellow senators didn’t go along with the idea this week.

One possible explanation: Quite a few of Harkin’s aging colleagues appear to have little or no contact with the decades-old technology of cash machines.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D), for example, told the Omaha World-Herald this week that he has never once used an ATM, relying on bank tellers instead. His Nebraska colleague, Sen. Mike Johanns (R), has used his ATM card fewer than five times. And Sen. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa), the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, told the newspaper that he has a bank card but doesn’t use it for cash.

“I’ve never used an ATM, so I don’t know what the fees are. It’s true, I don’t know how to use one,” Nelson, 69, said.

But Nelson added: “I could learn how to do it. . . . I swipe to get my own gas, buy groceries. I know about the holograms.” Nelson’s office did not respond to a request for comment Thursday.

“Aging” has nothing to do with it.  ATMs came into use almost 40 years ago — in fact, Dandy Don Meredith had a connection to one of the first machines offered to banks while doing Monday Night Football — when Nelson was a young man in his early 30s.  The machines went into wide use early in the 1980s, and networking fees became an issue shortly thereafter.  When the nation operated on a cash economy in the retail sphere, such fees were controversial, but because ATM use is entirely voluntary, Congress largely avoided restrictions on service fees.

Eggen scoffs at Nelson’s response, but it demonstrates exactly why this issue is largely irrelevant.  Several years ago, banks began issuing debit cards through their credit services, allowing people to spend exact amounts from checking and savings accounts rather than constantly accessing cash or writing checks.  Businesses responded by installing card machines in a much wider variety of retail outlets than before, such as fast-food restaurants, where credit cards had traditionally been refused.

As a result, cash has become an optional transaction medium in just about every retail context.  Either the transactions get processed as a credit charge, or people use their PIN to conduct a point-of-sale ATM transaction at the precise price.  In many instances, the latter process allows for free cash back from the retailer.

So, these days, a true ATM transaction becomes even more voluntary than ever before, and much less necessary than in the past.  Most ATM cards these days are actually debit cards processed through Visa or MasterCard anyway.  Even if that was not the case, though, the ATM is provided as a convenient alternative to appearing at one’s own bank in person to withdraw cash, a convenience for which banks should be allowed to set their own prices.  And note that this transformation didn’t occur because of government intervention, but through the normal process of market demand creating innovation.

Far from being an anachronism, Nelson’s response shows why Harkin’s bid to impose government control of ATM fees is about as relevant as a dial-up BBS service is to the Internet.  Perhaps the Washington Post might have thought of that before attributing it to Nelson’s age.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

The Senators released a telegram today saying “We are very tech savvy, and depend on the most modern of technologies.”

portlandon on May 21, 2010 at 3:42 PM

Yeah, but it’s fun to have the Cornhusker Payback.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on May 21, 2010 at 3:42 PM

“What is this ‘Chili’ thing?” — Mrs. Kerry
“What is that ‘lasar’ thing?” — HW Bush
“People can use the money saved to buy cupcakes” — The One
“ATM? is that like a UFO that gives you money?” — Nelson

Could we start getting some real people to represent us for a change?

“What the hell is a quiche?” — Peterson
“I didn’t order a half-caf, decaf double latte, I ordered a cup of coffe.” — Christie
“No thanks, I’ll shoot my own steak.” — Palin (either one)

DrAllecon on May 21, 2010 at 3:43 PM

I know about the holograms

– Benji Nelson

Kinda like telegrams aren’t they, Benji? Only with holes.

Your extended pizza deprivation is taking you off your game, Champ.

ya2daup on May 21, 2010 at 3:44 PM

The fees, such as they are, vary from bank to bank. My bank doesn’t charge me for using their ATM’s and there’s a $2.00 fee for using someone elses. The point is, I know this and make accomodations for it. If I happen to be out of town, and not have access to my bank’s ATM network, I’ll absorb the $2.00 fee. I have no clue what Harkin is complaining about.

Perhaps Harkin would be better off talking about dog-fighting North Vietnamese jets during his half-vast experience as a fighter pilot in Vietnam.

bflat879 on May 21, 2010 at 3:45 PM

So, these days, a true ATM transaction becomes even more voluntary than ever before, and much less necessary than in the past.

I travel a lot and I have to use ATM’s. Not every outlet in an airport will give you “cash back”.

But … whatever, my main problem is overseas getting foreign money and I have to use my debit / credit card in foreign ATM’s to get Euro’s and Yen and Kroners.

However, no law passed by Ben Nelson will help me out there.

HondaV65 on May 21, 2010 at 3:46 PM

If people don’t like paying ATM fees they can waddle over to their bank and stand in line behind the guy with a pickle jar full of pennies.

Is anyone with money in the bank stupid enough to think that purchasing, installing and maintaining ATM machines costs nothing?

If not, then how do they expect the banks to recoup those costs or does that concept cease to matter?

NoDonkey on May 21, 2010 at 3:46 PM

ATM charges = Bad!

Spending Trillions of Dollars that we don’t have to for ever increase the size and reach of government, whilst taking away our liberties, and saddling unborn generations with the debt = Good!

…. OK, I got it now. Let us make sure we keep re-electing these people.

/

Seven Percent Solution on May 21, 2010 at 3:48 PM

Harkin, Nelson and I hate to say so but yea Grassley, Dinosaurs that should but won’t go quietly away!
They’ve done their considerable damage now please just STFU and move on!

dhunter on May 21, 2010 at 3:48 PM

Do most banks charge ATM fees if you use their machines? I’ve banked with Bank of America and Wells Fargo since the mid-90′s and I’ve never been charged fees unless I used my card at a 3rd-party ATM.

Not that it matters much these days. At this point, I maybe withdraw cash 3 or 4 times a year. I just use my credit card for everything and accumulate miles.

Doughboy on May 21, 2010 at 3:49 PM

Is anyone with money in the bank stupid enough to think that purchasing, installing and maintaining ATM machines costs nothing?

Oh yes, there are many such deep thinkers in our midst.

If not, then how do they expect the banks to recoup those costs or does that concept cease to matter?

NoDonkey on May 21, 2010 at 3:46 PM

“Corporate fat cats … eat it! Eat it, you bloodsucking vampires sticking it to the little man!”

ya2daup on May 21, 2010 at 3:49 PM

Oh for crying out loud!

Tom Harkin proved himself lost without a clue 20 years ago when he ran for President.

What he needs now is a session with a cluebat.

SeniorD on May 21, 2010 at 3:49 PM

I wonder if they know what morse code is?

PatriotRider on May 21, 2010 at 3:52 PM

…—…—

PatriotRider on May 21, 2010 at 3:52 PM

SeniorD on May 21, 2010 at 3:49 PM

And he lied about his service in Vietnam so don’t get too excited about that being a problem for a certain Dim Pol.

The guys a real crapweasal doesn’t even live in IA lives in the Bahamas and dirties the state with his presence at election time!
Oh and does send home the pork!
Liberal University towns and Des Moines re-elect the loser every time!

dhunter on May 21, 2010 at 3:53 PM

Is anyone with money in the bank stupid enough to think that purchasing, installing and maintaining ATM machines costs nothing?

NoDonkey on May 21, 2010 at 3:46 PM

Actually, it is cheaper to install an ATM and maintain it than to pay a teller to stand there all day. More ATMs, less tellers.

mwdiver on May 21, 2010 at 3:56 PM

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…

Akzed on May 21, 2010 at 3:56 PM

I think this is what Obama was referring to when he stated technology is distracting.

ButterflyDragon on May 21, 2010 at 3:56 PM

The Senators released a telegram today saying “We are very tech savvy, and depend on the most modern of technologies.”

portlandon on May 21, 2010 at 3:42 PM

The Senators released(stop) a telegraph today (stop) “We are very tech savy (stop). You get the message.

fourdeucer on May 21, 2010 at 3:57 PM

Actually, it is cheaper to install an ATM and maintain it than to pay a teller to stand there all day. More ATMs, less tellers.

mwdiver on May 21, 2010 at 3:56 PM

If tellers did nothing but hand people cash after receiving a withdrawal slip, you might have a point. Since they do many things an ATM cannot do, your point is irrelevant.

ButterflyDragon on May 21, 2010 at 3:58 PM

…your point is irrelevant.

ButterflyDragon on May 21, 2010 at 3:58 PM

In your opinion. That was the big selling point to banks when ATMs became common place. More automation, less labor cost.

mwdiver on May 21, 2010 at 4:00 PM

/| -\ -\ -/ /| \| -\

ya2daup on May 21, 2010 at 4:01 PM

ButterflyDragon on May 21, 2010 at 3:58 PM

Maybe, but I’ve banked with USAA for over a decade and they have no actual banks or tellers and I really haven’t missed them.

Except when I need a roll of quarters.

They reimburse my ATM fees no matter where I use my card so it’s a great deal.

NoDonkey on May 21, 2010 at 4:02 PM

This is why the Founders never dreamt of career politicians, they were to serve and then return to living like the rest of us and under the laws that they pass. Most of these bums probably don’t know how to drive a car because they’ve been chauferred around on their fat asses for the last 20 or 30 years.

Jeff on May 21, 2010 at 4:05 PM

Several years ago, banks began issuing debit cards through their credit services, allowing people to spend exact amounts from checking and savings accounts rather than constantly accessing cash or writing checks.

Also, if you really need cash, it’s always possible to use one of those cards to buy a pack of gum and then get cash back from many places for free.

Honestly, those who pay “outrageous” ATM fees, usually only have themselves to blame. Cash is rarely needed, and nothing’s stopping anyone from planning ahead and getting it from the bank when needed.

I do not at all understand anyone who would use an ATM often, especially one that charges them for their own money. That’s just completely pointless.

Esthier on May 21, 2010 at 4:11 PM

chauffeur…I can’t believe I did that. And I’m a spelling Nazi too.

Jeff on May 21, 2010 at 4:12 PM

The whole ATM fee debate is ridiculous – the banks don’t have to provide ATMs for free – ATMs are not an entitlement, they are a service provided by a company that has to pay for their installation and service (it’s not the money fairy that magically replenishes the stock of cash).

Nobody HAS to go to an ATM – if you’re going to be somewhere where you’ll need cash then get your cash in advance from your own bank. How difficult is that?

CityFish on May 21, 2010 at 4:13 PM

In touch! The common man! One of us!

therightwinger on May 21, 2010 at 4:13 PM

NoDonkey on May 21, 2010 at 4:02 PM

Agreed. The ATM, which is basically a card reader that dispenses a product, is also what made totally unattended (or mininally attended, as in most C-Stores) gas stations feasable and profitable. No (less) labor involved to pump (full service in the old days, evolving into self service with an attendant) gas and make a profit. Often located in areas where profitablity would be impossible or unlikely if you had to pay a person.

mwdiver on May 21, 2010 at 4:14 PM

The cloak room is filled with sweaty, puckered career pols who are thumbing through the “People’s Book of Pander Memes” and evidently—-this is the last, sad little page.

seejanemom on May 21, 2010 at 4:16 PM

In your opinion. That was the big selling point to banks when ATMs became common place. More automation, less labor cost.

mwdiver on May 21, 2010 at 4:00 PM

I’m sure that’s true, but they do still cost something to install and run. Considering there are other options, and not all banks charge their customers, this is still a very silly thing to bring government into.

Esthier on May 21, 2010 at 4:18 PM

Just so my position is understood, I thinks banks should be able to charge for ATM use if they want to, but the excuse that it costs them more to have an ATM than a person is not a valid one. Either pay what they want or find a bank that treats you better.

mwdiver on May 21, 2010 at 4:19 PM

..this is still a very silly thing to bring government into.

Esthier on May 21, 2010 at 4:18 PM

I very much agree. And yes, there is a cost to an ATM, but it is less (if not in all curcumstances, in nearly all circumstances) than staffing a person to do the job.

mwdiver on May 21, 2010 at 4:21 PM

Ask any Beltway call girl if she would PERFORM A SERVICE in the back of a limo FOR FREE.

Or maybe Senator Harkin can ask one himself.

seejanemom on May 21, 2010 at 4:21 PM

I will say this, I don’t mind paying for the convenience but sometimes it gets out of hand. I would think that a $1.00 charge for the foreign machine and $1.00 charge by your bank would be sufficient, since the actual money transfer probably costs less than 50 cents.

Jeff on May 21, 2010 at 4:24 PM

seejanemom on May 21, 2010 at 4:21 PM

Monica Lewinski and others wanted to

dhunter on May 21, 2010 at 4:25 PM

Here’s a fun one.

Took the kids to a cheap buffet restaurant a couple weeks ago. You pay when you go in, so I pulled out the credit/debit card and was informed they didn’t take those. Only cash… but there’s an ATM machine right behind me. So I get some cash and grumble to myself about the $2 fee I hadn’t planned on. Turn around to pay the bill and the cashier informs me that since I used their ATM, one of our soft drinks is free.

For some reason, I suddenly felt it all worked out. I knew I’d been manipulated, but I just had to admire how it was done… They took my money and left me smiling… doesn’t get any better than that!

taznar on May 21, 2010 at 4:28 PM

The Senators released a telegram today saying “We are very tech savvy, and depend on the most modern of technologies.”

portlandon on May 21, 2010 at 3:42 PM

Don’t you mean a telegraph saying

.– . / .- .-. . / …- . .-. -.– / – . -.-. …. / … .- …- …- -.– –..– / .- -. -.. / -.. . .–. . -. -.. / — -. / – …. . / — — … – / — — -.. . .-. -. / — ..-. / – . -.-. …. -. — .-.. — –. .. . …

malclave on May 21, 2010 at 4:29 PM

If Washington, and ALL it’s occupants where to “disappear” tomorrow, WOULD ANYONE MISS THEM?

GarandFan on May 21, 2010 at 4:29 PM

GarandFan on May 21, 2010 at 4:29 PM

NO!

dhunter on May 21, 2010 at 4:30 PM

And there’s no fee if you use an ATM at Wawa, except from your bank. Doesn’t it make sense that they figure you’ll be spending some of that money in their store?

Jeff on May 21, 2010 at 4:32 PM

GarandFan on May 21, 2010 at 4:29 PM

Well, wait a minute Chris Matthews would , but then again hes’ No-one so NO

dhunter on May 21, 2010 at 4:34 PM

No.

gbear on May 21, 2010 at 4:35 PM

I will say this, I don’t mind paying for the convenience but sometimes it gets out of hand. I would think that a $1.00 charge for the foreign machine and $1.00 charge by your bank would be sufficient, since the actual money transfer probably costs less than 50 cents.

Jeff on May 21, 2010 at 4:24 PM

Pardon my bitchy tone… ;) …but who are YOU to say what is a “sufficient” a fee for a SERVICE?

Its like saying that gas is suddenly “overpriced” at…say…$4.00 a gallon >>>yet the same folks who make that argument will buy a 16.4 oz bottle of water for $3.00 ON A HOT DAY IF THEY ARE THIRSTY ENOUGH.

I can purify a gallon of pond water in thirty minutes with little more than a match and a pot…BUT I CAN’T PRODUCE A GALLON OF GASOLINE in my kitchen no matter how hard I try.

Its about relative value. Simple economics.

So then what percentage of your withdrawal are you willing to PAY for having your money in your hands instantly?

If you are a drunk frat boy on a Friday night, jonesing for a fifth of Jack and a box of Trojans, if all you withdraw is $20, then a $1 fee for the SERVICE is ONE EXPENSIVE LAY.

So please. Hear yourself. Save the sanctimony of “sufficient” anything.

seejanemom on May 21, 2010 at 4:38 PM

The Senators released a telegram today saying “We are very tech savvy, and depend on the most modern of technologies.”
And a kid in a snappy uniform delivered it on a bicycle.

Col.John Wm. Reed on May 21, 2010 at 4:44 PM

Actually, it is cheaper to install an ATM and maintain it than to pay a teller to stand there all day. More ATMs, less tellers.

mwdiver on May 21, 2010 at 3:56 PM

If tellers did nothing but hand people cash after receiving a withdrawal slip, you might have a point. Since they do many things an ATM cannot do, your point is irrelevant.

How do you figure?
It still takes time to hand out money. This time is more expensive than an ATM far more. That they do other things is partly because ATM’s make for far less work.

My biggest problem is I was using banks long before ATM’s. When they introduced ATM’s they all promised that there would NEVER be fees because these ATM’s save not cost them money. Now that is even more so. Labor has gone up while ATM’s have gotten cheaper. Most Banks would need 20% more tellers were it not for ATM’s some more. They claimed the ATMs were saving them up to 50% in labor cost when they came out. It would be less now because plastic is used far more than then.

Congress should force them to live by their own promises. Instead they rob the poor to give the rich free services. Only the poor pay these fees the rest of us avoid them.

I never pay these fees but still feel they are very wrong.

Steveangell on May 21, 2010 at 4:48 PM

I get about 10 free ATM withdrawals from my credit union per month. Once a week I take out all the cash I need for the week. Once the cash is gone, I stop buying. Any left over gets saved.

Why take out only $20 at a time? It’s a waste of time.

rbj on May 21, 2010 at 4:48 PM

I will say this, I don’t mind paying for the convenience but sometimes it gets out of hand. I would think that a $1.00 charge for the foreign machine and $1.00 charge by your bank would be sufficient, since the actual money transfer probably costs less than 50 cents.

Jeff on May 21, 2010 at 4:24 PM

Do you even HEAR yourself???

“SUFFICIENT”????

I guess you are the guy who b*tches about gas at $4.00 a gallon , but will gladly pay $3.00 for an ice cold 16.4 ounce bottle of WATER on a hot day.

Try refining a gallon of GAS using only a match, a pot and some dirty pond water.

Please.

Have a little perspective.

If you are a horny frat boy jonesing for a fifth of Jack and a box of Trojans some Friday night, what is 5% on a twenty spot?

seejanemom on May 21, 2010 at 4:50 PM

mwdiver on May 21, 2010 at 4:19 PM

Yes, it was not long ago that banks were considering charging for using a teller for transactions that could be handled on line or at ATM’s. The point really is how out of touch our “leaders” are. Let them eat cake comes to mind.

d1carter on May 21, 2010 at 4:50 PM

nice try at code but did not copy well.
-. .. -.-. . + – .-. -.– + .- – + -.-. — -.. . + -… ..- – + -.. .. -.. + -. — – + -.-. — .–. -.– + .– . .-.. .-..

And a kid in a snappy uniform delivered it on a bicycle.

.- -. -.. + .- + -.- .. -.. + .. -. + .- + … -. .- .–. .–. -.– + ..- -. .. ..-. — .-. — + -.. . .-.. .. …- . .-. . -.. + .. – + — -. + .- + -… .. -.-. -.– -.-. .-.. .

Col.John Wm. Reed on May 21, 2010 at 4:56 PM

Do you even HEAR yourself???

Unless he’s a talking typer, probably not.

seejanemom on May 21, 2010 at 4:50 PM

Don’t be so uptight. $1 would be sufficient. In fact, refunding the fees other banks charge would be too. Many banks have done it and will continue to do so.

No reason to lay into Jeff just because he made an observation that is grounded in reality. Save it for those asking the government to force this regulation – maybe Jeff wants that, but let him make that case first.

Esthier on May 21, 2010 at 4:56 PM

Where they really nail you is in environments where cash is necessary to complete transactions–casinos, strip clubs, drinking districts like Sixth Street in Austin and Bourbon Street (ever try to run a tab at a crowded bar?), or concert venues (where they often only take cash for drinks, merchandise, &c.).

This is why I always make sure to bring plenty of cash with me when going to those places. Except for strip clubs, because I’ve never been to one, of course.;)

Gordon Winslow on May 21, 2010 at 5:00 PM

The word Jeff used was “paying for the convenience”.

When someone makes his case by refuting himself in the same sentence, its over.

So please save the “shut up and sit down little lady” BS. I’ve heard it from YOU before.

seejanemom on May 21, 2010 at 5:15 PM

Thanks for the kind, reasoned words. Maybe seejanemom took me the wrong way.

Jeff on May 21, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Words mean things.

Sorry.

;(

seejanemom on May 21, 2010 at 5:21 PM

I’m way more concerned about the “heath” care deadline MSNBC was advertising.

CarolynM on May 21, 2010 at 5:23 PM

Yes words mean things and the word is “paying” for the convenience not being “ripped-off” for the convenience.

Jeff on May 21, 2010 at 5:24 PM

I’m paying way too much for my Telex machine service godammit!

epluribusunum on May 21, 2010 at 5:34 PM

I’m paying way too much for my Telex machine service godammit!

epluribusunum on May 21, 2010 at 5:34 PM

I’ll bet you got ripped-off for that mimeograph machine too.

Jeff on May 21, 2010 at 5:43 PM

I’m a hick, and as tech deprived as anyone today. I’m typing this on my TRS-80. But even I have used an ATM card since the late 80s. I was given the option of having it be a debit card also, but I don’t think I’m ready for that leap of technology just yet. I’m going to hold out for one of those Jetson’s flying cars.

TugboatPhil on May 21, 2010 at 5:53 PM

In a related story, Senator Homer Simpson stated,
“The internet? Is that thing still around?”

gregbert on May 21, 2010 at 5:55 PM

The great ATM fee fiasco came to a screeching halt when banks threatened to make them available to their customers only if interbank fees were dropped. So the choice was fees and access or no fees and no access to other bank customers.

Corky Boyd on May 21, 2010 at 6:25 PM

It really is frustrating that these clueless idiots have so much power over our lives.

painfulTruthDisciple on May 21, 2010 at 9:30 PM

Just so my position is understood, I thinks banks should be able to charge for ATM use if they want to, but the excuse that it costs them more to have an ATM than a person is not a valid one.

mwdiver

Who said it was? The only person I’ve seen even raising that argument is you.

I never pay these fees but still feel they are very wrong.

Steveangell

Moron.

xblade on May 21, 2010 at 9:55 PM

Is anyone with money in the bank stupid enough to think that purchasing, installing and maintaining ATM machines costs nothing?

If not, then how do they expect the banks to recoup those costs or does that concept cease to matter?

NoDonkey on May 21, 2010 at 3:46 PM

Sure, but there’s the bank buildings themselves, the staff they have to pay, the night cleaning crew contract—certainly the depositors pay for it all. According to what you’re saying, the bank should have a parking fee, and a cover charge if you want to go in the bank (hmmm, maybe even wrist bands and the first drink on the house?).

Personally, I can’t even remember the last time I got money out of an ATM. One can pretty much get cash back from purchases at stores and pay nothing.

True enough though-there is no free lunch (well, there is, but you have to be in the right racial-socioeconomic group). I just think it’s better business to distribute some expenses rather than having customers pay for it outright, and in the case of ATMs, every damn time you pull money out of it. It reaches a point where those machines are paid for long ago and they’re just bilking the customers.

Kinda like toll roads that actually get paid off and a healthy reserve for future maintenance is accrued-and they keep the tolls up anyway because our masters in the various state Politburos just can’t stand to see any source of revenue go away.

Ultimately it’s the bank’s choice and if the customer isn’t happy, hopefully, the can find a bank that they feel treats them more fairly. Free enterprise is a two-way street.

Dr. ZhivBlago on May 21, 2010 at 10:02 PM

A good Marine friend of mine calls ATMs “Money Sh*tters” – which come to think about it – is exactly what Congresstitutes call lobbyists. No need to visit the bank, just call a lobbyist, money will be delivered in a brown suitcase.

SeniorD on May 22, 2010 at 11:16 AM

just for perspective, Iowa was one of two states that forbid ATM owners for charging fees at the ATM machines, a judge overturned that by saying that the feds regulate banks and the ATM fee ban was preempted by federal law.

RonK on May 22, 2010 at 6:01 PM

Test

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on May 23, 2010 at 2:32 PM

test

Hinmahtooyahlatkek on May 23, 2010 at 2:33 PM

t

KentAllard on May 23, 2010 at 2:36 PM