So the interstate homebuilders are bailed out by refunding tax money they paid during the boom, as if these people really deserved to get this windfall? The moneylenders are bailed out in direct payments to them from tax money that had to be augmented by borrowing. Essentially our government is borrowing money from foreigners in order to rebate money to the homebuilders. Our government borrowed money to give to the banks. Convenient that the bill excludes TARP recipients from these rebates. That would be a little too over the top.
What I see here is that the same people who created the boom are still in power and will still control too much of the money supply, using machinations available to them through political campaign support and lobbying. Why should those who caused the bubble end up with more power?
The Federal Reserve is lobbying to get more power and a court order must be obtained in order to obtain information from them. This all powerful, unelected bureaucracy makes choices that benefit special interests over the economy in general. Names are concealed from the public record. Payments are concealed. Less power needed, not more here.
The interstate homebuilders get tax rebates? This is incredible. I would like to see the end of cookie cutter home construction brought in by these ‘too big to fail’ homebuilders. I can see it now. They get their taxes rebated, they hold the money until the housing market is deemed cheap enough to snap up properties at a bargain, betting that the market will upswing instead of continuing to lose value. A false bottom would relieve them of their cash with diminishing returns. Why should they have the cash? They can ride out the recession on this cash while the smaller businesses are squeezed out.
Favoring interstate firms over locals is ruining the economy. Requiring millions in contracts awarded with borrowed money in order to interest the interstate firms wastes money. Go local. Go incremental. Stop the borrowing. The moneylenders are reaping 40 cents out every tax dollar spent on borrowing here in Tucson. Incremental financing as the funds come in would give taxpayers 40 cents more for every dollar spent. Better the taxpayers have the material value increase, than the moneylenders. If a default spawns ‘poor credit ratings’, then go incremental. Live within the income.
So now the IRS is getting a $20 billion dollar makeover and a drastic increase in their power to punish and collect money from citizens. The tenth amendment is ignored as the Federal legislatures deem it legal to require that citizens buy a money handling service in order to obtain health care. This is a violation of our personal rights to decide how we will spend our money. So now the health insurance firms will have a permanent sellers market, illegally mandated in violation of the tenth amendment. The federal government is creating and controlling economic activity instead of only regulating economic activity interstate.
I feel that we need reasonably priced health care, not a series of mandated brokers handling our money for us.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Sunday, March 14, 2010
DEBT DEBT EVERYWHERE A DEBT DEBT
How to cut local and federal debt
The government must cut spending somewhere before adding a new obligation, popularly known as PAYGO. Unfunded mandates from the federal to the state must cease, particularly in education.
A young doctor will borrow against future earnings to buy an incredibly expensive piece of equipment, and then charge patients to pay for it. Perhaps the government might subsidize the cost of the equipment, rather than distributing the same amount in subsidized patient health care. I think health care professionals would find subsidized equipment financially attractive debt relief.
Student loans are a drag on the economy. Somehow, you should be able to work all of them off in public service, like on the reservations. (For example, teach GED or tutor students to work it off)
Did term limits encourage the mountain of debt? This is a cynical thought that during the cheap credit drama, borrowing on the part of cities in Arizona rose precipitously, giving the borrowers much power in the community, without having to return to the voters for a long career in congress. Absolution of responsibility? Why not borrow? They won’t be here to pay for it because they are term limited. I think politicians ability to indebt the taxpayer should not exceed their term of office. Term limits disrupt entrenchment of special interests, which is a positive effect. Which is worse?
Road building has gone far enough for now. We need to maintain the transportation infrastructure rather than borrow to expand it. No more borrowing for transportation would force a pay as you go plan and reliance on short term contracts to local contractors.
Moneylenders have their place but it should not be at the top of the profit chain. There are too many fees, interest payments, obligations; it costs too much to borrow, too many brokers, too many people who produce nothing cut in front of everybody at the table. Endgame. Somebody big should take a haircut, face a clawback of that money and fraud charges.
Legislation against debt needs to happen. It looks like the city of Tucson is paying $133 million to borrow $80 million. This is not judicious use of taxpayer money. How about limiting debt incurred by politicians to their term or require a public vote on any debt?
Reduce the fleet the government sponsors. Cancel all cars for other than police and fire. This would save insurance, fuel and maintenance plus a cash outlay for new units. Sell off gas guzzlers, private cars etc.
Van Tran in Tucson: how many people are being served at what cost per person? Would this be cheaper contracted out to a private enterprise taxi?
Pima County should not borrow to build more wastewater plants. We are still paying for the last one. Why not start incremental work and use local contractors and pay cash as it comes in? Don’t borrow to build. Pay for the ongoing work as the money comes in and avoid interest charges. If this doesn’t generate enough money then the plans are too grandiose and must be scaled back to the actual income available. The amount of actual income available should drive the scope of the project, not the maximum able to be borrowed and the cash in a lump sum for somebody to play with. It costs money to borrow money and an ambition to control a large amount of money is not adequate criteria to indebt the public.
The TIF Rio Nuevo in Tucson did not produce adequate results from the cash borrowed and the debt remains. Legally this appears to be tenuous as audit results are awaited. How did the people who controlled Rio Nuevo get the power to borrow against the revenue stream? Why is this allowed without a popular vote? Somebody landed control of $80 million and blew it. Who voted to do this? What about the $15 million entrance boondoggle? That’s like financing a new Cadillac and never getting possession of the car but still have to pay the debt.
Mandating insurance turns it into a debt. This assures that a percentage of income is forever inaccessible to the earner. This is a tax also. The net result is that the earner may never have access to this money, but is required to pay it. This is a debt. The insurance companies are taking too much out of the general economy and funneling too much of the money to themselves and health care professionals, who are pumping up the costs by ordering expensive tests/procedures in order to avoid litigation.
Litigation in the medical world is making money for the lawyers at the expense of the insurance companies and medical professionals who must pay enormous insurance premiums. Some claims are legitimate but the parasitic aspect of litigation and the negative results on society is a cause for concern. Limits on litigation must be set in order to protect our medical professionals, while protecting individual rights.
There are more ideas out there. Cut debt, reexamine contracts for legalities and applied limits to more than the market value for rent as a lease payment in Tucson, and renegotiation possibilities for strapped homeowners. Or defaults will continue to rise. Nobody wants to put more money into something that is losing face value, making the debt impossible to pay in today’s economy. If you can get better elsewhere for less money, then that will happen. Buyers have dried up. Cut the rents. Nobody can make money while paying exorbitant rents because the owners have huge debt on the property. So units stand empty.
If you own a rental and that rental remains unrented with an exorbitant rent demanded, does that constitute a tax deduction for the owner? If it does, cancel that deduction. Nobody should make money from the government by leaving units unrented.
Creative thinking needs to happen. Focus on the real necessities. If local default becomes an option, we can start over with the actual income to be applied to the necessities of government, instead of harmful cutbacks in physical necessities in order to meet debt service. Practicality must rule.
Remember that old Alexander Dumas story about the poor woman who borrowed a diamond necklace from a rich friend, lost it, and spent years paying for a replacement only to eventually find out the original necklace had been glass? I don’t want to spend the taxpayers’ lives paying for debts incurred within a few years. This truly impoverishes the community for the duration of the debt. They cannot count on continued inflation and another boom to bail them out of debt made smaller through inflation. That is wishful thinking.
The government must cut spending somewhere before adding a new obligation, popularly known as PAYGO. Unfunded mandates from the federal to the state must cease, particularly in education.
A young doctor will borrow against future earnings to buy an incredibly expensive piece of equipment, and then charge patients to pay for it. Perhaps the government might subsidize the cost of the equipment, rather than distributing the same amount in subsidized patient health care. I think health care professionals would find subsidized equipment financially attractive debt relief.
Student loans are a drag on the economy. Somehow, you should be able to work all of them off in public service, like on the reservations. (For example, teach GED or tutor students to work it off)
Did term limits encourage the mountain of debt? This is a cynical thought that during the cheap credit drama, borrowing on the part of cities in Arizona rose precipitously, giving the borrowers much power in the community, without having to return to the voters for a long career in congress. Absolution of responsibility? Why not borrow? They won’t be here to pay for it because they are term limited. I think politicians ability to indebt the taxpayer should not exceed their term of office. Term limits disrupt entrenchment of special interests, which is a positive effect. Which is worse?
Road building has gone far enough for now. We need to maintain the transportation infrastructure rather than borrow to expand it. No more borrowing for transportation would force a pay as you go plan and reliance on short term contracts to local contractors.
Moneylenders have their place but it should not be at the top of the profit chain. There are too many fees, interest payments, obligations; it costs too much to borrow, too many brokers, too many people who produce nothing cut in front of everybody at the table. Endgame. Somebody big should take a haircut, face a clawback of that money and fraud charges.
Legislation against debt needs to happen. It looks like the city of Tucson is paying $133 million to borrow $80 million. This is not judicious use of taxpayer money. How about limiting debt incurred by politicians to their term or require a public vote on any debt?
Reduce the fleet the government sponsors. Cancel all cars for other than police and fire. This would save insurance, fuel and maintenance plus a cash outlay for new units. Sell off gas guzzlers, private cars etc.
Van Tran in Tucson: how many people are being served at what cost per person? Would this be cheaper contracted out to a private enterprise taxi?
Pima County should not borrow to build more wastewater plants. We are still paying for the last one. Why not start incremental work and use local contractors and pay cash as it comes in? Don’t borrow to build. Pay for the ongoing work as the money comes in and avoid interest charges. If this doesn’t generate enough money then the plans are too grandiose and must be scaled back to the actual income available. The amount of actual income available should drive the scope of the project, not the maximum able to be borrowed and the cash in a lump sum for somebody to play with. It costs money to borrow money and an ambition to control a large amount of money is not adequate criteria to indebt the public.
The TIF Rio Nuevo in Tucson did not produce adequate results from the cash borrowed and the debt remains. Legally this appears to be tenuous as audit results are awaited. How did the people who controlled Rio Nuevo get the power to borrow against the revenue stream? Why is this allowed without a popular vote? Somebody landed control of $80 million and blew it. Who voted to do this? What about the $15 million entrance boondoggle? That’s like financing a new Cadillac and never getting possession of the car but still have to pay the debt.
Mandating insurance turns it into a debt. This assures that a percentage of income is forever inaccessible to the earner. This is a tax also. The net result is that the earner may never have access to this money, but is required to pay it. This is a debt. The insurance companies are taking too much out of the general economy and funneling too much of the money to themselves and health care professionals, who are pumping up the costs by ordering expensive tests/procedures in order to avoid litigation.
Litigation in the medical world is making money for the lawyers at the expense of the insurance companies and medical professionals who must pay enormous insurance premiums. Some claims are legitimate but the parasitic aspect of litigation and the negative results on society is a cause for concern. Limits on litigation must be set in order to protect our medical professionals, while protecting individual rights.
There are more ideas out there. Cut debt, reexamine contracts for legalities and applied limits to more than the market value for rent as a lease payment in Tucson, and renegotiation possibilities for strapped homeowners. Or defaults will continue to rise. Nobody wants to put more money into something that is losing face value, making the debt impossible to pay in today’s economy. If you can get better elsewhere for less money, then that will happen. Buyers have dried up. Cut the rents. Nobody can make money while paying exorbitant rents because the owners have huge debt on the property. So units stand empty.
If you own a rental and that rental remains unrented with an exorbitant rent demanded, does that constitute a tax deduction for the owner? If it does, cancel that deduction. Nobody should make money from the government by leaving units unrented.
Creative thinking needs to happen. Focus on the real necessities. If local default becomes an option, we can start over with the actual income to be applied to the necessities of government, instead of harmful cutbacks in physical necessities in order to meet debt service. Practicality must rule.
Remember that old Alexander Dumas story about the poor woman who borrowed a diamond necklace from a rich friend, lost it, and spent years paying for a replacement only to eventually find out the original necklace had been glass? I don’t want to spend the taxpayers’ lives paying for debts incurred within a few years. This truly impoverishes the community for the duration of the debt. They cannot count on continued inflation and another boom to bail them out of debt made smaller through inflation. That is wishful thinking.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Hypocrisy at the Arizona Daily Star
Dear Colonel Gent:
I read with interest your letter in the Arizona Daily Star on February 15, 2010. The best line in the letter is “When elected officials decline to take part in public discourse, one has to ask why.”
I looked on the net to perhaps find your e mail address and found your bio, which tells me you are a person to respect. Like many of the Republican Party, I support the military and veterans. This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue of national pride and responsibility. I am also a Daughter of the American Revolution and am proud of it.
I surmise we do have more goals in common. Since you serve on Representative Giffords Military Advisory Council, I surmise that you support the space program. To me the space program is too important to be a partisan issue. Many military people I have met also support the space program.
I also have a great interest in environmental issues and as a consequence, I have supported Representative Raul Grijalva in my district. Possibly you also have such interest in preserving the natural environment.
A noted Iraq War veteran and author in Arizona, State Representative Frank Antenori had the following to say when I requested a statement about the Arizona Daily Star’s editorial policy:
“The Arizona Daily Star's editorial board has clear bias and hidden agenda that distorts or filters information in an effort to influence public opinion in favor of their ideological beliefs. They offer no opposing views on their editorial pages and have consistently suppressed opposing views submitted by readers by refusing to print them. They are now truly living up to the words of Mark Twain, "Those that do not read the paper are uninformed, and those that do are misinformed."”
I believe that Mr. Antenori is correct. Apparently, nothing is more important than partisan politics to the editorial staff at the Star.
My own experiences with the ‘Reader Advocate’ Debbie Kornmiller did nothing to correct this assertation. Ms. Kornmiller has banned me from commenting online because my husband allegedly broke the terms of service while using his private e mail address. No complaints were made about my postings.
Ms. Kornmiller banned me because I am a Republican precinct committeeman who does not always agree with her personal choice of candidates. My blog explains my interests and opinions, if you would like to see what Ms. Kornmiller banned. A past president of the Pima County Republican Womens’ Club has felt ostracized because she was at odds with Ms. Kornmiller. Ms. Kornmiller has also ‘edited’ letters printed in the paper, receiving complaints. I attend several Republican political organizations and often the discussion turns to the biased editorial page of the Star. The problem appeared to escalate after the demise of the Tucson Citizen.
What does this have to do with elected officials declining to take part in public discourse? It has been suggested that the Star have more ‘conservative’ viewpoints represented in the opinion section. I support this idea.
I think what we have here is a breakdown of genuine bipartisanship, reflected in the stagnation of the legislative process. My problem with Ms. Kornmiller is a microcosm of the mentality that is preventing true public and private discourse. The lines of communication are cut. What the opinion page of the Star is offering is not public discourse, but is a heavily edited version of the truth as sifted for you. That’s probably why some decline to comment for the Star. They don’t deserve to be criticized for not answering the Star’s demand for a statement. There are other venues to reach the constituency.
A free flow of ideas is essential for democracy. I think that the key to future success in solving the problems of this country lies in bipartisan or antipartisan agreements. Important issues like the military, veterans affairs, forwarding the space program, health care payment system reform and other issues should generate bipartisan coalitions, but the lines of communication must remain open for this to occur.
I am disappointed in the Arizona Daily Star.
Sincerely,
Dorothy Prater Niemi
LD 27
I read with interest your letter in the Arizona Daily Star on February 15, 2010. The best line in the letter is “When elected officials decline to take part in public discourse, one has to ask why.”
I looked on the net to perhaps find your e mail address and found your bio, which tells me you are a person to respect. Like many of the Republican Party, I support the military and veterans. This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue of national pride and responsibility. I am also a Daughter of the American Revolution and am proud of it.
I surmise we do have more goals in common. Since you serve on Representative Giffords Military Advisory Council, I surmise that you support the space program. To me the space program is too important to be a partisan issue. Many military people I have met also support the space program.
I also have a great interest in environmental issues and as a consequence, I have supported Representative Raul Grijalva in my district. Possibly you also have such interest in preserving the natural environment.
A noted Iraq War veteran and author in Arizona, State Representative Frank Antenori had the following to say when I requested a statement about the Arizona Daily Star’s editorial policy:
“The Arizona Daily Star's editorial board has clear bias and hidden agenda that distorts or filters information in an effort to influence public opinion in favor of their ideological beliefs. They offer no opposing views on their editorial pages and have consistently suppressed opposing views submitted by readers by refusing to print them. They are now truly living up to the words of Mark Twain, "Those that do not read the paper are uninformed, and those that do are misinformed."”
I believe that Mr. Antenori is correct. Apparently, nothing is more important than partisan politics to the editorial staff at the Star.
My own experiences with the ‘Reader Advocate’ Debbie Kornmiller did nothing to correct this assertation. Ms. Kornmiller has banned me from commenting online because my husband allegedly broke the terms of service while using his private e mail address. No complaints were made about my postings.
Ms. Kornmiller banned me because I am a Republican precinct committeeman who does not always agree with her personal choice of candidates. My blog explains my interests and opinions, if you would like to see what Ms. Kornmiller banned. A past president of the Pima County Republican Womens’ Club has felt ostracized because she was at odds with Ms. Kornmiller. Ms. Kornmiller has also ‘edited’ letters printed in the paper, receiving complaints. I attend several Republican political organizations and often the discussion turns to the biased editorial page of the Star. The problem appeared to escalate after the demise of the Tucson Citizen.
What does this have to do with elected officials declining to take part in public discourse? It has been suggested that the Star have more ‘conservative’ viewpoints represented in the opinion section. I support this idea.
I think what we have here is a breakdown of genuine bipartisanship, reflected in the stagnation of the legislative process. My problem with Ms. Kornmiller is a microcosm of the mentality that is preventing true public and private discourse. The lines of communication are cut. What the opinion page of the Star is offering is not public discourse, but is a heavily edited version of the truth as sifted for you. That’s probably why some decline to comment for the Star. They don’t deserve to be criticized for not answering the Star’s demand for a statement. There are other venues to reach the constituency.
A free flow of ideas is essential for democracy. I think that the key to future success in solving the problems of this country lies in bipartisan or antipartisan agreements. Important issues like the military, veterans affairs, forwarding the space program, health care payment system reform and other issues should generate bipartisan coalitions, but the lines of communication must remain open for this to occur.
I am disappointed in the Arizona Daily Star.
Sincerely,
Dorothy Prater Niemi
LD 27
Monday, January 18, 2010
Capitalism?
Capitalism/Free Enterprise System
The Free Enterprise economic system is not a game of ‘keep away’ played as a child. Free Enterprise is a game designed to keep the system running while making a profit. If the means to a profit eventually destroys the system, then this means is immoral to use. Morality is actually subjective as used by people and the legal system only covers a small portion of business practices. A sense of responsibility has been absent in the past, either that or a blissful ignorance or indifference to the consequences of the business model deemed to earn a profit. Ms. Bair indicated that compensation practices be linked to FDIC insurance rates, as an insurance hazard that promotes risky investments. Is it really true that investment houses funneling investors’ money into mortgage ‘products’ bet against success and collected insurance money when the mortgage ‘products’ failed while the investors they counseled lost their cash? And what about dividend payments? Are these boards and executives feathering their own nest using tax money and the capital invested by others? Many questions remain to be answered.
Of course the excesses produce regulation and restrictions. Yet they still want more derivatives and other investments that produce nothing but commissions for a few, very expensive people. These derivatives and hedges should be relegated to organized gambling in Nevada or let the Indians handle them.
Formerly known as killing the goose that lays the golden egg, this destructive behavior
must be discouraged, in favor of a less phenomenally profitable enterprise that makes a good living and keeps work going. The short term profit taking model should be analyzed carefully before implementation, as to whether the economy will be perpetuated in a healthy condition after the profit taking. Is that so much to ask on a moral level or must the government create regulation? The answer lies before us.
Now the investment banks that were intensely subsidized for a short time are hugely profitable and plan to pay themselves large sums for handling the government money. Unemployment is about 10%, social services are strained, the real estate market overbuilt and foreclosures rising. Local governments talk more taxes and insurance is in danger of becoming a mandated racket, while layoffs continue.
Can all this be blamed on the mortgage bubble? Easy money and no oversight pumped up real estate values so the securities sold by the investment banks would be worth more and they could make more mortgage ‘products’ for their clients while betting that these same securities would be worthless, collecting on insurance paid by the Feds through the ‘too big to fail’ authorization. Clients sold these ‘securities’ lost out as the foreclosure rate surfaced and the lack of loan oversight became a national scandal. Is buying insurance on something you know to be questionable or even worthless a crime? Fraud? Claw back that money.
Populism aside, people feel ripped off, gasoline prices are creeping up and the President is talking taxes on the investment bank bubble. Unbridled capitalism does become Darwinism as the available resources become controlled by a few manipulative individuals. Better yet, if these ‘new entrepreneurs’ can make up their own investment games without oversight, force the government to pick up the losses and come out of it with huge sums to divvy up, just like the train robbers of old, they think they won the game of keep away.
A brief return to the social unrest of the 20th century in the United States in my memory and knowledge of history tells me that the economy is often cause of unrest as manifested by bitter elections, corruption, recession, fewer jobs, riots and more regulation. The phenomena of bus rides past AIG mansions, rumors that Goldman Sachs people find it easier to get a firearms permit, or that GS people had swine flu shots before anyone else fan populist flames. I thank the media for publicizing the outrageous ripoffs and giant payoffs. I hope our Legislators order a full investigation of the ‘too big to fail’ authorizations. If they do not, expect them to be voted out. Difficult for incumbents in times like these.
Responsible capitalism? Is that possible? Regulated responsible capitalism? Foresight and careful decisions will perpetuate our civilization and allow free enterprise to function within a framework of sustainability in this new environment of 2010.
The Free Enterprise economic system is not a game of ‘keep away’ played as a child. Free Enterprise is a game designed to keep the system running while making a profit. If the means to a profit eventually destroys the system, then this means is immoral to use. Morality is actually subjective as used by people and the legal system only covers a small portion of business practices. A sense of responsibility has been absent in the past, either that or a blissful ignorance or indifference to the consequences of the business model deemed to earn a profit. Ms. Bair indicated that compensation practices be linked to FDIC insurance rates, as an insurance hazard that promotes risky investments. Is it really true that investment houses funneling investors’ money into mortgage ‘products’ bet against success and collected insurance money when the mortgage ‘products’ failed while the investors they counseled lost their cash? And what about dividend payments? Are these boards and executives feathering their own nest using tax money and the capital invested by others? Many questions remain to be answered.
Of course the excesses produce regulation and restrictions. Yet they still want more derivatives and other investments that produce nothing but commissions for a few, very expensive people. These derivatives and hedges should be relegated to organized gambling in Nevada or let the Indians handle them.
Formerly known as killing the goose that lays the golden egg, this destructive behavior
must be discouraged, in favor of a less phenomenally profitable enterprise that makes a good living and keeps work going. The short term profit taking model should be analyzed carefully before implementation, as to whether the economy will be perpetuated in a healthy condition after the profit taking. Is that so much to ask on a moral level or must the government create regulation? The answer lies before us.
Now the investment banks that were intensely subsidized for a short time are hugely profitable and plan to pay themselves large sums for handling the government money. Unemployment is about 10%, social services are strained, the real estate market overbuilt and foreclosures rising. Local governments talk more taxes and insurance is in danger of becoming a mandated racket, while layoffs continue.
Can all this be blamed on the mortgage bubble? Easy money and no oversight pumped up real estate values so the securities sold by the investment banks would be worth more and they could make more mortgage ‘products’ for their clients while betting that these same securities would be worthless, collecting on insurance paid by the Feds through the ‘too big to fail’ authorization. Clients sold these ‘securities’ lost out as the foreclosure rate surfaced and the lack of loan oversight became a national scandal. Is buying insurance on something you know to be questionable or even worthless a crime? Fraud? Claw back that money.
Populism aside, people feel ripped off, gasoline prices are creeping up and the President is talking taxes on the investment bank bubble. Unbridled capitalism does become Darwinism as the available resources become controlled by a few manipulative individuals. Better yet, if these ‘new entrepreneurs’ can make up their own investment games without oversight, force the government to pick up the losses and come out of it with huge sums to divvy up, just like the train robbers of old, they think they won the game of keep away.
A brief return to the social unrest of the 20th century in the United States in my memory and knowledge of history tells me that the economy is often cause of unrest as manifested by bitter elections, corruption, recession, fewer jobs, riots and more regulation. The phenomena of bus rides past AIG mansions, rumors that Goldman Sachs people find it easier to get a firearms permit, or that GS people had swine flu shots before anyone else fan populist flames. I thank the media for publicizing the outrageous ripoffs and giant payoffs. I hope our Legislators order a full investigation of the ‘too big to fail’ authorizations. If they do not, expect them to be voted out. Difficult for incumbents in times like these.
Responsible capitalism? Is that possible? Regulated responsible capitalism? Foresight and careful decisions will perpetuate our civilization and allow free enterprise to function within a framework of sustainability in this new environment of 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)