"Do or Do not. There is no try."

“Pulling Back The Curtain”: In The Presidential Race, Atlantic City Isn’t Just Another Place

Hillary Clinton will deliver a speech today in Atlantic City, New Jersey, which at first blush doesn’t seem like an obvious locale for the Democrat. Polls show Clinton with a comfortable lead over Donald Trump in the Garden State, and few expect Republicans to compete seriously in New Jersey in the fall.

But by all appearances, Clinton is headed to Atlantic City to drive home a rather specific point about her opponent’s ostensible strength: his private-sector background. The editorial board of the Star-Ledger, New Jersey’s largest newspaper, published this piece over the holiday weekend.

There is still a lingering misperception that Donald Trump is some kind of business wizard, but it’s actually easy to identify one of his key strategies for success: He excels at ripping people off.

The Associated Press pulled back the curtain on his ruined casino empire in Atlantic City last week and exposed a gold-plated scam, on in which survivors from the Taj Mahal disaster – a long parade of naïve artisans who still have Trump’s skid marks on their backs – all told similar stories, cautionary tales that make you wonder how anyone would consider him trustworthy enough to hold elected office.

Their consensus: Trump is a master grifter, who uses bullying and arrogance as negotiating methods, before ending the relationship by withholding payments and making contractors settle for far less by threatening them with litigation – knowing the cost of litigation would eat up most of the money in the dispute.

As is usually the case with so many of Trump’s failed business enterprises, it was small businesses that suffered – and in some cases, collapsed – after the Republican’s venture went bankrupt.

As recently as May, Trump boasted, “Atlantic City fueled a lot of growth for me. The money I took out of there was incredible.”

But as the New York Times reported last month, Trump’s ventures in Atlantic City failed – badly. The article quoted a local investment firm’s casino analyst saying, in reference to Trump, “There’s something not right when every single one of your projects doesn’t work out.”

And a USA Today report added this week, “Donald Trump often boasts he made a lot of money in Atlantic City, despite the repeated failures of his casinos there, but what he does not mention is his casino empire’s repeated run-ins with government regulators over broken promises and violating casino rules.”

To hear Donald J. Trump tell it, he’s ready to be the Leader of the Free World because of his extraordinary success as a businessman. The assertion that private-sector experience is relevant to serving in the Oval Office is dubious in itself, but there’s also no reason to accept the underlying claim at face value – because Trump’s business background isn’t nearly as impressive as he likes to pretend.

I realize that casinos may not be as sexy a story as email server protocols – the political world’s interest in IT appears to be endless – but Trump’s Atlantic City efforts show a wealthy developer who made millions while everyone else lost big. It’s the sort of story that should undermine his entire candidacy.


By: Steve Benen, The Maddow Blog, June 6, 2016

July 7, 2016 Posted by | Atlantic City, Casino Industry, Donald Trump | , , , , , | Leave a comment

“Fiorina’s Deadbeat Campaign”: Never Felt Responsible For Debts Her Campaign Racked Up, Until She Decided To Run For President

Snakes alive, the negative resume of Carly Fiorina gets bigger and badder every day. On the same day that Wall Street veteran (and long-time Democratic operative) Steve Rattner argues in the New York Times that Fiorina’s record as CEO at HP is even worse than previously assumed, WaPo’s Robert Samuels looks at an aspect of her failed 2010 Senate race that hasn’t gotten much scrutiny: it still owes people money.

Fiorina has emerged in recent weeks as a top-tier candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, impressing voters with a pair of crisp debate performances and a promise to put her bottom-line inclination as a Fortune 50 chief executive to fix a broken Washington.

But that fiscal sensibility was largely absent from Fiorina’s other run for office — a quixotic and unsuccessful attempt to unseat longtime Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.).

In more than two dozen interviews, staff members, friends, contractors and operatives who worked on Fiorina’s 2010 campaign singled out one big problem: how the team managed its cash.

Many said Fiorina spent too much on television ads with narrow appeal, while others said she was an anemic fundraiser who did not keep close enough tabs on her coffers. There also were concerns that some events were too lavish…..

Well, too lavish for the campaign’s accounts payable system, anyway.

Those who waited the longest to be paid were small businesses with a few dozen employees who did the grunt work of the campaign: building stages, sending out mailers, selling polling data. And at least one is still waiting.

Jon Seaton, the managing partner of East Meridian Strategies, confirmed that his group billed Fiorina’s campaign for $18,000 on Oct. 6, 2010, for printing 21,290 mailers.

Six weeks went by and nothing came. So Seaton asked again. Then again. As of last week, he said he was still waiting.

Jan van Lohuizen, whose small firm did surveys for Fiorina, said he wasn’t paid the $7,500 he was owed until this year. Van Lohuizen said he assumed Fiorina was running for Senate again because her campaign reached out to settle up days after Boxer announced she was retiring.

“Turns out my instinct was right, but I got [the] office wrong,” van Lohuizen said.

Fiorina’s campaign did manage to pay her back the $1.3 million she loaned it, presumably derived from the estimated $100 million she earned from HP as CEO or ex-CEO.

Samuels notes that campaigns–especially losing campaigns–often struggle to pay their bills, noting that it took Hillary Clinton years to clear the books for her 2008 campaign. But if I recall correctly, the bulk of HRC’s campaign debt was in payments to her pollster and “chief strategist,” Mark Penn, who by most accounts was probably overcompensated significantly for the value he delivered to that campaign. Plus you get the distinct impression from Samuels that Fiorina never felt responsible for the debts her campaign racked up, at least until she decided to run for president. Seems that irresponsibility was a hallmark of her campaign:

“People are just upset and angry and throwing her under the bus,” said Jon Cross, Fiorina’s operations director for her Senate campaign. “If we didn’t win, why do you deserve to get paid? If you don’t succeed in business, you shouldn’t be the first one to step up and complain about getting paid.”

Don’t think that’s the way debt works, Mr. Cross. You don’t get to write it off without a bankruptcy proceeding just because you fail and blame your creditors for failing as well.

But hey, maybe it doesn’t matter:

Her supporters cautioned that little could be gleaned from her California campaign. They maintain that Fiorina’s corporate experience is more akin to managing a presidential campaign than a bid for office in one of the nation’s most liberal states.

That’s right! Let’s focus on HP! Oh, wait….


By: Ed Kilgore, Contributing Writer, Political Animal Blog, The Washington Monthly, October 5, 2015

October 6, 2015 Posted by | Carly Fiorina, GOP Presidential Candidates, Hewlett Packard | , , , , , | 1 Comment

“The Obamacare Is Falling! The Obamacare Is Falling!”: Here Are The Reasons You Shouldn’t Believe Any Of It

As we approach the full implementation of the Affordable Care Act at the end of the year, confusion still reigns. Most Americans don’t understand what the ACA does or how it works, which is perhaps understandable. It is, after all, an exceedingly complex law, and from even before it passed there was an aggressive and well-funded campaign of misinformation meant to confuse and deceive Americans about it, a campaign that continues to this day and shows no sign of abating. To undo uncertainty and banish befuddlement, we offer answers to a few questions you might have about Obamacare.

What’s Happening When?

The next important date is October 1, when open enrollment for insurance plans on the new exchanges begins. Those who sign up will begin their new insurance on January 1, when the rest of the high-profile components of the law take effect. The individual mandate, requiring everyone to carry insurance or pay a fine, takes effect, as does the rule forbidding insurance companies from denying anyone coverage (or charging them exorbitant premiums) because of pre-existing conditions. In fact, after January 1 the entire notion of the “pre-existing condition” will become nothing but a historical curiosity, a feature of the dark past we’ve moved beyond. Insurance companies will also be forbidden from imposing annual limits on what people are covered for (an accompanying ban on lifetime limits is already in effect). Tax credits for small businesses to offer their employees insurance will be expanded, and millions of low-income Americans will be eligible to be covered through Medicaid. While we talk about January 1, 2014 as the date of full implementation, dozens of provisions have already gone into effect, from free preventive care to expanded coverage for young adults to the closing of the Medicare prescription drug “donut hole” (you can read a comprehensive implementation timeline here if you’re so inclined).

How Many States Are Expanding Medicaid?

There is probably no provision of the ACA that will have a more immediate and profound impact on as many people’s lives as the expansion of Medicaid. In the current system, each state determines how poor you have to be to become eligible for the joint federal-state program, but under the ACA anyone with an income up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level would be eligible. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court declared that states could refuse to accept the expansion, and many states dominated by Republicans couldn’t wait to say “no” to Barack Obama and to their own poor citizens who desperately need insurance, even though the federal government will be picking up almost all of the tab.

The cruel irony is that many of the states refusing the expansion are those that have the largest proportion of poor people who could benefit, and are already the stingiest with Medicaid eligibility. For instance, in Texas, a working adult with children can’t be covered in Medicaid if her income exceeds 25 percent of the poverty level. So a single mother with three children who makes over $5,888 a year is considered too wealthy to get Medicaid. In Alabama it’s 23 percent; in Louisiana it’s 24 percent. These are all states with high rates of poverty, and states where the Republican governors and legislatures have refused to accept the money the federal government is offering to expand Medicaid. In these states, if you’re a middle-income person, you’ll be able to get government subsidies through the new health-care exchanges, but if you’re poor but not quite desperately poor enough to fall below the Scroogian eligibility limits, you’ll get no help at all. These states have essentially cut off their noses to spite Barack Obama’s face, giving up billions in federal money, a reduction in uncompensated care they end up paying for, and a healthier and more productive populace, all so they can give the finger to the President.

When you look at map of which states are accepting the Medicaid expansion, with just a few exceptions it looks a lot like an electoral college map, with Republican states saying no and Democratic states saying yes:

In just the last few weeks, Michigan has decided to accept the expansion, and Pennsylvania has proposed to take the federal money but use it to give low-income citizens private insurance (the Department of Health and Human Services has to approve such a plan). That will bring the total to 25 states plus the District of Columbia accepting the expansion, with another four (Indiana, Tennessee, Ohio, and New Hampshire) still debating the issue. After the Supreme Court’s decision, many predicted that even Republican-dominated states would find the money the government is offering too good to pass up. So far it hasn’t happened, meaning millions of poor Americans who live in Republican states are out of luck. And you’ll be shocked to learn that the poor in these states, mostly in the South, are disproportionately black.

What’s Up With The Exchanges?

Setting up a health-care exchange requires time, effort, and some minimal level of concern for seeing your citizens be able to take advantage of the ACA’s benefits. So it isn’t surprising that nearly all the Republican states that said no to the Medicaid expansion also didn’t choose to bother setting up their own exchange. In the end, 17 states (including D.C.) decided to do it themselves. Another nine are partnering with the federal government on an exchange, leaving 25 states that have left the process entirely to the federal government. This certainly makes HHS’s job harder, but no one yet knows how well those federally-run exchanges will work. All of those 25 have Republican governors, legislatures, or in most cases, both.

One potential pitfall is that in many of those Republican-run states, the state government is taking active steps to sabotage the exchanges, particularly by making the work of the “navigators” as difficult as possible. These are local groups, like universities, hospitals, churches, and the like, who have gotten federal grants and training to help people find their way through the process of getting insurance through the exchange. For example, Georgia is forcing navigators to get special state licenses (the Republican state insurance commissioner pledged to do “everything in our power to be an obstructionist”); Florida has banned them from the grounds of state health facilities. It remains to be seen just how much of an impact the sabotage efforts will have.

Are My Premiums Going To Go Up?

The answer to that question can be summed up as 1) It’s complicated, and 2) It depends. If like most people you get insurance through your employer (or your spouse’s), things probably won’t change for you. Your premiums have risen steadily in recent years, and in the short term, they’ll probably continue to rise. Nevertheless, recent data show a dramatic slowdown in the rate of increase. Last year, premiums rose by 4 percent, half of the 8 percent per year average of the last decade. That mirrors a slowdown in overall health spending. In other words, that curve the ACA was designed to bend is already bending.

If you’re now on the individual market (or uninsured) and you’ll be buying insurance on the exchanges, how much you pay will depend on how old you are, where you live, what your income is, and what plan you choose. If you make less than 400 percent of the poverty level you’ll get a subsidy so that your premium doesn’t rise above a certain percentage of your income; if you want to try to figure out now what it would be, you can read this report to get an idea of what you might pay. While we can’t make any sweeping statements that apply to everybody, there will certainly be a lot of people who find that insurance is more affordable than they thought. On Monday, the Department of Health and Human Services released a report showing that because of the subsidies, 6.4 million people would be able to buy insurance through the exchanges for less than $100 a month. As one Rand Corporation study concluded, “after accounting for tax credits, average out-of-pocket premium spending in the nongroup market is estimated to decline or remain unchanged.” While there are some people who could pay more than they do now—say, young people who make too much to qualify for subsidies, used to have bare-bones insurance, and are now getting one of the more comprehensive plans available through an exchange—overall it doesn’t appear that the threats of “rate shock” will be borne out.

How Many People Are Going To Get Insurance Who Didn’t Have It Before?

This is also a difficult question to answer precisely, because there are a few unknowns. First, over time more states could accept the Medicaid expansion, increasing the number of newly insured people. Second, the fines for those who choose not to carry insurance are quite small, so some people (particularly the young, who are immortal and never get sick) could decide that it’s better to pay a fine that costs less than insurance does, but nobody knows how many of them will. Third, each state will be doing its own outreach to sign people up for the exchanges and for Medicaid; some will inevitably do a better job than others.

All of those variables make precise estimates difficult. One National Bureau of Economic Research experiment to see how uninsured people respond to the cost of getting covered concluded that “75 percent of the uninsured are projected to enroll, implying that 39 million individuals would gain coverage as a result of the law.” The Congressional Budget Office, on the other hand, projects that the ACA will reduce the ranks of the uninsured by 25 million. One thing we can say is that though tens of millions will probably become newly insured, there will still be millions of uninsured people in America. One of the main tasks in coming years will be getting that number as close to zero as we can.

Are There Going To Be Terrible Effects On The Economy?

If you’ve been paying attention to health-care news, you’ve probably seen stories featuring an employer who has 49 employees and says he’d love to hire more people, but since Obamacare’s employer mandate kicks in at 50 employees and he’d have to offer health coverage if he hired anybody else, he won’t do it. It’s quite remarkable how reporters always seem to find that business with just under 50 employees (my suspicion is that the National Federation of Independent Business, a conservative small-business group, finds them, recruits them, and passes them along to journalists). But the truth is that they’re extremely rare. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 93 percent of companies that size already offer health benefits, even before the law’s requirements kick in. And the administration has delayed the employer mandate by a year anyway.

Another charge is that employers everywhere are cutting employees’ hours below 30 per week, the level at which the mandate will eventually kick in, so they don’t qualify as full-time. While there are certainly employers who have done this, there’s little evidence it’s happening on a large scale. The number of workers just below that 30-hour cutoff is tiny to begin with and didn’t increase as the original date for the mandate approached. If employers were rushing to cut workers’ hours, those numbers would be large and growing; instead, the opposite is true.

You could condemn an employer who figures out a way to avoid giving her workers health benefits, even if not all of them are as repulsive as John Schnatter, the CEO of Papa John’s, who whined that if he had to give his employees health coverage it could raise the price of a pizza by as much as a shocking 14 cents. But one of the main things the ACA was meant to accomplish was to make those employer decisions less damaging to employees. “Job lock,” where you’re forced to keep a job you’d rather leave in order to hold on to your insurance, will be a thing of the past. And now that affordable insurance will be available to anyone regardless of whether they’ve been sick before, employers can decide to drop insurance without necessarily hurting their employees.

To see how, consider this story. Last week, Trader Joe’s announced that it would no longer be offering coverage for its employees who work less than 30 hours per week. Instead, it will give them $500 and send them to the exchanges. This seemed surprising, since Trader Joe’s is known for being an employee-friendly company. But as the company argues pretty persuasively, employees at that level are likely to get a better deal through an exchange than through their company policy when subsidies are factored in (and of course, the company will save money). We might see this pattern repeated with other employers. But would that be a bad thing? If an employee gets equivalent coverage for less money on an exchange, then they’ve effectively gotten a raise. Companies save money, which allows them to either raise salaries or hire more people. On the other hand, there is a cost to the federal budget of more people getting subsidies, but that may be a cost we’re willing to pay. It may be some time before we know how common an occurrence this is and what effect it’s having on the economy and the budget.

Is Obamacare Going To Make Doctors Quiz Me About Who I’m Sleeping With?

Here’s a good tip: if you read a story with a crazy new allegation about what the Affordable Care Act is going to do to you, there’s a good chance two things are true. First, it’s false. Second, Betsy McCaughey probably had something to do with it. She’s the woman who gave us “death panels,” and her latest bit of crazy is to try to convince you that because of Obamacare, doctors are suddenly being forced to ask you inappropriate questions about your sex life (this is a pattern you’ll become familiar with: she takes an ordinary feature of health care, like the fact that questions about sex are standard practice when taking a medical history, and makes it sound both sinister and a product of Obamacare). You can decide whether this kind of thing is just silly or pernicious and generally despicable (I lean toward the latter), but don’t be surprised if we see a whole round of new allegations like this one. Conservatives failed to stop the ACA from being passed into law, then failed to get it overturned in the Supreme Court, then failed to win the election that would have allowed them to repeal it. They will almost certainly get increasingly desperate after January 1st when the law is implemented and we don’t all suddenly find ourselves standing in breadlines wearing gray sackcloth, our spirits broken by the socialist hellhole into which we’ve descended. So who knows what they’ll come up with.


By: Paul Waldman, Contributing Editor, The American Prospect, September 20, 2013

September 21, 2013 Posted by | Affordable Care Act | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“No, Walmart Doesn’t Create Jobs”: Contrary To The Happy Talk, It Actually Kills Them

Because it’s a such a slow news day, and because the DC big box living wage bill is still in the news, I thought I’d write about the Walmart piece I published in earlier this week. First, an update on that living wage fight, which I’ve written about before on this site. The bill, which would require Walmart and other big box retailers to pay a minimum wage of $12.50 an hour, passed the DC City Council. It needs the signature of DC Mayor Vincent Gray to become law, but Gray hasn’t received it yet. There have been suggestions that he’s leaning toward a veto and that Council Chairman Phil Mendelson has delayed sending the bill to Gray’s desk because he’s working to shore up support for a veto-proof majority. Walmart has threatened to cancel plans to open new stores in DC if the bill is enacted.

One of the most compelling-seeming arguments that the pro-Walmart forces have been making is that DC should reject the bill and welcome Walmart into the community, because Walmart would create much-needed jobs. So I decided to look at what the research says about Walmart’s impact on employment. Guess what? Contrary to the happy talk, Walmart does not create jobs. Actually, it kills them.

Here’s why: first, at the local level, all Walmart does is put mom-and-pop stores out of business. The overwhelming body of evidence, including the most rigorous peer-reviewed studies, suggests that when Walmart enters a community, the result is a net loss of jobs; at best, it’s a wash. In fact, the biggest, best scholarly study about the impact of Walmart on local employment was done by an economist at University of California at Irvine named David Neumark, who is not exactly a wild-eyed liberal. He’s the kind of economist, actually, who writes anti-minimum wage op-eds for the Wall Street Journal.

The devastating impact Walmart has had on jobs becomes most clear when you go macro, and look at its impact not just locally, but on the national economy. In its relentless quest for low prices, Walmart strong-arms its suppliers to cut labor costs to the bone. What this has meant in practice is that many suppliers have been forced to lay off workers and ship jobs to low-wage countries overseas. Because of Walmart, countless jobs in the U.S. have been lost, mostly in manufacturing.

I’ve been thrilled by the response to my Salon piece — over 5,000 Facebook “likes,” and counting! Thus far, none of the prominent pro-Walmart voices have taken issue with it, because the facts I present are hard to dispute.

Back to the DC controversy: neoliberal pundits and politicians hate the DC living wage bill, because they don’t want to drive Walmart away. The politicians want the photo ops at Walmart openings, where they can boast about bringing “good jobs” — um, well, okay, “jobs,” anyway — into the community.

But when Walmart comes to town, significantly more local retail jobs are destroyed than created. And to the extent Walmart grows and is empowered, even more manufacturing jobs will be lost. If Walmart’s fans understood its anti-worker business model, they would get this. Walmart’s philosophy requires cutting labor costs to a bare minimum, so it makes sense that the company would not only pay workers miserable wages, but also shred as many jobs as possible.

Some of the pro-free market ideologues do grasp this. Here’s Forbes contributor Tim Worstall, for example, with a blog post helpfully entitled: “Of Course Walmart Destroys Retail Jobs: That’s the Darn Point of it All.”

I appreciate the honesty of Worstall and others of his ilk; they celebrate Walmart for its innovation and productivity-enhancing “creative destruction.” Fine. What I don’t appreciate is those pundits who then turn around and claim that Walmart is also going to magically create jobs out of thin air, as so many are doing in the current DC debate (see, for example such gold star hacks as Mona Charen, Star Parker and, inevitably, Fox News).

Let’s be clear: the brave new economic world so many conservatives and neoliberals celebrate necessitates massive job loss. In theory, the gains from productivity brought about by Walmart’s ability to produce more output with less labor inputs are supposed to benefit everyone. But in practice, they’re going almost entirely to the the top, and the economic hit is being taken by those at the bottom. Progressives need to do all they can to change this dynamic. Supporting living wage bills like the one in DC would be a great place to start.


By: Kathleen Geier, Washington Monthly Political Animal, August 10, 2013

August 11, 2013 Posted by | Jobs | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“Obamacare Is For Republicans, Too”: If GOP Governors Think Stonewalling Health Exchanges Hurts Only Democrats, They’re Wrong

Three months from now, Americans will get their first look at whether Obamacare works. The answer will depend a lot on Republican governors and legislatures — and they should want the law’s exchanges to be successful as much as the president does.

The new state insurance exchanges are supposed to start selling health coverage Oct. 1. The idea behind these marketplaces is that allowing apple-to-apple comparisons between health plans will foster competition and lower prices. Most Republican governors and legislatures, however, have resisted running their own exchanges; 19 states have refused to play any role whatsoever.

Continued resistance could hamper an already fraught process. In a report this week, the U.S. Government Accountability Office warned that the federal government is behind schedule in building exchanges in states that have refused to do so. This makes it even more crucial that all states pitch in to help.

Why should Republican opponents of the exchanges change tack now? First, there are the crass politics: Many residents who stand to benefit are their constituents. Federal exchange subsidies are available for people earning between 138 percent and 400 percent of the poverty level, or $32,500 to $94,200 for a family of four. According to 2012 exit polls, 42 percent of people with family incomes between $30,000 and $50,000 voted for Mitt Romney; for those earning between $50,000 and $100,000, the share was 52 percent. If Republican governors think stonewalling exchanges hurts only Democrats, they’re wrong.

Then there are the economic reasons: States with weak exchanges could become less attractive to businesses. John Hickenlooper, the Democratic governor of Colorado, said this week that his state supports its insurance exchange in part to help small businesses, which want healthy and productive workers.

Finally, and most compellingly, there is the human reason – – rather, 25 million human reasons. Well-run exchanges will make getting health insurance easier and more affordable. Even philosophical opponents of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act must concede this practical point. Obamacare also happens to be the law of the land.

Some Republican governors have already accepted a role in their exchanges. Iowa and Michigan are partnering with the federal government, while Idaho, Nevada and New Mexico agreed to build their own. It’s too late for other states to follow those courses, but there are still meaningful steps they could take.

One thing they can do is smooth the path for “navigators” – – people or organizations that will help others shop for insurance on the exchanges. Florida requires navigators to register with the state, and Pennsylvania is considering a similar move. This should be fine as long as registration is quick and straightforward.

States should also build solid lines of communication between the exchanges and state-run programs, especially Medicaid. Exchanges can use the information that states keep about people’s income and insurance status to determine whether they’re eligible for subsidies. Easy access to Medicaid databases will mean fewer errors and faster service for people in both programs.

State insurance regulators, who have the authority to approve insurance plans sold on federally run exchanges, can do their part by monitoring the participating insurance plans aggressively enough to keep rates down.

Perhaps the single biggest thing Republican officials could do is simply be ready and willing to address the inevitable hiccups. If states look for ways to stall progress, they’ll find them. Conversely, if governors who oppose the law nonetheless direct their officials to cooperate, the exchanges are more likely to survive those hiccups.

Governors could set a positive tone by reminding their residents that the exchanges are coming. Instead of saying the exchanges “are not going to work,” as Texas Governor Rick Perry did in December, they should encourage their constituents to see whether they’re eligible for subsidies. It doesn’t need to cost the states anything.


By: The Editors, Bloomberg, June 20, 2013

June 24, 2013 Posted by | Affordable Care Act, GOP | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

%d bloggers like this: