Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
Gasoline-Tax Demagogy
Three Presidential Candidates, Three Weird Approaches to Economic Policy
By blackhedd Posted in demagogy | Economy | Gasoline-tax | Refinery capacity — Comments (42) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I’m going to let you in on a secret you may not have heard yet: The price of gasoline has been rising.
And since it’s a Presidential election, this is populist gold. Each of the candidates has proposed something to do about it. Of course, the high price of fuel is a complex phenomenon with a lot of causes, very few of which are responsive to policy. So the candidates are stuck talking about the thing that government actually can affect: the level of Federal taxation.
Their responses are distinct, and illuminating.
Let’s start with Senator McCain, who kicked off the gas-tax derby a few weeks ago in Pittsburgh, with his proposal for a Federal gas-tax “holiday” over the summer months. Sounds great, feels good, doesn’t do a whole lot of anything permanent, and certainly does nothing to alter the underlying market dynamics.
More…
Senator Clinton’s response? She thought it was a great idea, just what the bitter, gun-toting, Bible-thumping, pickup-truck-driving rubes who are now her base constituency wanted to hear.
But of course, she pointed out that Senator McCain wasn’t planning to “pay for” his summer gas-tax holiday. What was her solution? Right you are. Install a “windfall profits” tax and take it out of the hides of the hated, evil oil companies.
Now if you’re a shareholder of an integrated major oil company (and if you have any kind of stock mutual fund or pension plan, you are one), your immediate response will be ”WHAT windfall profits?” Just this week, Exxon-Mobil announced an ugly first-quarter report in which their revenues and earnings from operations fell below expectations, and below the levels of a year ago.
Exxon-Mobil and the other majors make a lot of extra money from the fact that they own and produce crude oil. But their daily production is falling as they fail to replace their reserves. And their refining and marketing businesses (the ones that turn crude oil into gasoline and distillates) are absolutely getting slaughtered.
Why the heck is that? Well, ask yourself how much you pay for gasoline compared to a year ago. Perhaps 20% more. (A national average of about $3.60 versus $3 or so early in 2007.) But in that time the price of crude oil has gone up more than 100%. The difference reflects the inability of oil refiners to pass their increased crude-oil costs on to gasoline consumers. The difference comes out of their hides. (Well, their shareholders’ hides.)
Senator Clinton, God bless her, is as innocent of economics as she is of the finer points of cattle-futures trading and baking cookies. She wants to make the oil-company investments in your 401(k) plan even less valuable than they are now.
And what of Senator Obama? Even more interesting. He says the tax-holiday idea is just a Shell game. Ba-DUM-pum. (Royal Dutch Shell is not an American company, Senator. It’s British and Dutch.)
What’s Obama’s reason not to cut gas taxes? He says, with a straight face, mind you, that the move will destroy construction jobs.
Say, WHAT? But he said it: 6000 jobs lost in Indiana, and 7000 in North Carolina. One presumes that construction workers in states without impending primary elections are safe.
What is the Senator thinking? Well, what’s the fig leaf that furnishes the reason for a Federal gas tax in the first place? Right. The taxes theoretically fund Federal highway construction projects.
In the first place, you won’t easily convince me that the government can more efficiently build transportation infrastructure than anyone else. That’s axiomatic. Of more direct relevance, who honestly believes the Federal DOT will actually throw people out of work? You and I both know (as does Senator McCain) that the revenue shortfall from a gas-tax holiday will come from exactly where it always does: the Treasury will borrow it.
So Senator Obama doesn’t know what he’s talking about, but that’s not news. More importantly, his response reveals yet again his hard-wired instinct to protect government spending programs at our expense. Keep that in mind as you think about what his Presidency would be like: he’s a standard-issue tax-and-spend liberal, just like McGovern and Dukakis.
What the Numbers Say
I haven’t found any mention of exactly what kind of numbers we’re talking about here, so I got out the back of an envelope and started figuring. My envelope says that federal gas-tax revenue is about $2.5 billion a month, give or take. (In the summertime, it would be somewhat more.)
Over three months, it’s a drop in the bucket. The whole issue really is just political theater.
Let me make a few additional points about gasoline prices and taxes. Over the course of a year, the federal gasoline tax comes out to $30 billion or so (by my rough calculation), which is not a small number. This tax actually is an important one, because, like the payroll tax, it’s regressive. That means it’s relatively bearable, and not large enough to affect marginal behavior.
The Democrats will find, if they increase their power this fall, that cutting taxes on the less-wealthy yields little economic benefit. Raising taxes on the wealthy, on the other hand, is economically destructive, because it does affect marginal behavior. Economic populism is ultimately self-defeating.
About Refinery Capacity
Some people have correctly commented that a gas-tax holiday will not result in a noticeable reduction of retail fuel prices. (Many people expect, of course, that prices would fall exactly 18.2 cents a gallon.)
But remember the refiners and marketers of gasoline, whose profits are under siege. They will do exactly what the free market prompts them to do: leave prices where they are and put the extra 18 cents a gallon in their own pockets.
Keep in mind that crude oil and refined products are two completely different markets. I’ve already told you a lot in previous posts about why crude oil is behaving as it is.
But unlike crude oil, gasoline and distillate prices are rising at least partly because of supply constraints. You’ve heard a lot of people say this:
If we could only build some new refineries, we’d have more gasoline, and prices would fall.
Maybe. But I have two responses: First, why on earth is the construction of refining capacity a policy decision made by the government? Shouldn’t it be a business decision made by private investors? Oh right, I forgot, the EPA has a veto over private construction.
Second: remember what I said above about the relative profitability of refined products versus crude oil (what oilers call the “crack spread”). Any businessman who seriously considers constructing a new oil refinery should be tested for brain cancer.
Even if we repealed all the environmental regulations and pre-empted all of the NIMBY lawsuits, you won’t see anyone building a new oil refinery anywhere in this country for years to come, and probably never again.
That’s because it makes no business sense to do so.
-Francis Cianfrocca
Gasoline-Tax Demagogy 42 Comments (0 topical, 42 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
You May Want
by ICRJCalvin
to read related article at. . . .
http://samuelatgilgal.wordpress.com/2008/05/01/tired-of-high-gas-prices/
Not buying it
by blackhedd
The analysis you link is a conventional one, but flawed for several reasons.
He doesn't take into account that upstream and downstream are different markets with different dynamics. There is more than enough crude oil being pumped right now to meet fundamental demand. (That is, demand from buyers who actually intend to turn the oil into fuel.) But the excess demand is coming from financial players who are looking for a dollar hedge.
As I've been saying now for two weeks or so, the dollar's fall is now ending. There is now a significant risk that oil prices will crash, perhaps this this summer or fall.
You heard it here first.
As far as downstream is concerned, yes, there are supply problems there. But as I said in my post, just wiping out the environmental regs and the NIMBY lawsuits will not stimulate the construction of refineries. We will never get a new US refinery again, because businesspeople aren't stupid.
Finally, he says that ANWR will augment supply by 20%. That would translate to an extra four million barrels a day, give or take. But the estimates on ANWR production that I've seen call for no more than 500,000 bbl/day, about the size of another Sudan. That would be closer to 3% of our needs, not 20%.
the US was now willing to drill for oil domestically? Wouldn't that signal impact the market to a greater degree than the mere 3% would indicate?
At the very least, it might make the speculators think twice and cause the oil bubble to pop sooner rather than later.
...have a non-linear impact on the price. That's pretty unsurprising when fundamental supply/demand are so closely matched.
How it will impact the financial and momentum players is a different question. Remember, they're not in this because they like the smell of crude oil. They're in it because there's nothing else for them to buy. And that can change overnight, whereas an increase in supply from ANWR will take a decade to happen.
A 10 to 20% increase in domestic production...
by Vladimir
...would definitely be significant.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
Sorry, I got that way wrong.
by blackhedd
I was thinking consumption, not production.
10 to 20 percent?
by DonPMitchell
Could these fields be pumped at a rate high enough to supply 10 to 20 percent of domestic consumption? From the numbers I see (from USGS or Department of Interior), it would only last a few years at that rate. I'm in favor of drilling in ANWR, but I don't think its going to have a radical effect.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/29/politics/main4056059.shtml?sou...
Obama took a different view on the issue when he was an Illinois legislator, voting at least three times in favor of temporarily lifting the state's 5 percent sales tax on gasoline.
The tax holiday was finally approved during a special session in June of 2000, when Illinois motorists were furious that gas prices had just topped $2 a gallon in Chicago.
During one debate, he joked that he wanted signs on gas pumps in his district to say, “Senator Obama reduced your gasoline prices.”
But the impact of the tax holiday was never clear. A government study could not determine how much of the savings was passed along to motorists. Many lawmakers said their constituents didn't seem to have benefited. They also worried the tax break was pushing the state budget out of balance.
When legislation was introduced to eliminate the tax permanently, Obama voted “no.” The effort failed, and the sales tax was allowed to take effect again.
Responding to Obama's criticism, McCain campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said the Illinois senator “does not understand the effect of gas prices on the economy. Senator Obama voted for a gas tax reduction before he opposed it.”
Perhaps he learned that it didn't do any good
by Alan Charles
If you'll note, the third from the last paragraph says the break didn't seem to have benefitted his constituents. Isn't that exactly what he is saying now?
Petrol profits
by redherkey
While there's good discussion of what Obama's and Clinton's windfall profits tax wouldn't do, as well as argumentation on the economic and democratic principles of the confiscation, another aspect to keep in mind is what the taxes would likely do.
Several outcomes I'd expect include:
- seriously diminished reinvestment of profits into energy development efforts. My familiarity with several of the industry's annual financial statements has helped me understand that the majority of financing for energy exploration, alternative energy development and other ventures is done from profits, not from external financing (e.g. selling new stock or issuing debt instruments).
- a seriously damaged share price, jeopardizing the security of these firms and destroying holdings by the retirement, pension and investment community. Share price is often calculated for dividend-paying stocks using a dividend discount model (e.g. the present value of future dividend payments). Government confiscation of profits siezes the means to which dividends are financed, causing a revaluation of firms and a likely major drop in share price. As if we weren't having enough trouble digesting the drop in share value and dividend earnings from the financial and home building industry right now, Obama wants to take a critical sector and destroy it as well.
- a transfer of a major component of the S&P 500's income needed by the investment community (e.g. retirement funds, pensions, etc.) to the government, essentially reducing and damaging these investments that normally seek stable dividend performers such as the energy industry. Of course, since social security is so solvent and generates such outstanding returns, I'm sure most here are fine depending exclusively on social security for retirement. It's nice to see Obama and Clinton are careful to not paint us into a corner here.
- impair or destroy risk management efforts within the industry. A quick study by an undergraduate student could illustrate that energy sector profits are not a constant. Shearing off gains above 5-7% which would be necessary to achieve the confiscation targets Obama is proposing places the firm at a profit level on par with recent risk-free rates and provides insufficient financial reserve capacity for the difficult years.
As I've posted before, Obama's qualifications wouldn't permit him to have an entry-level job in our Fortune 500 firm. His inexperience and increasingly apparent incompetence in economic issues would jeopardize a small business. Letting him lead the world's largest economy is unthinkable. Clinton is also unqualified, but I understand she met many when she was first lady and feels osmosis has given her the needed expertise.
Two problems
by Whitfox
While I'm impressed about much of this, there are two places that don't make sense to me.
First, if we reduce the gas tax, it's hard to believe that moving the gas gallon supply curve 18 cents to the left doesn't make the price go down. Of course all 18 cents doesn't go to the consumer, but a good-sized fraction will. And increasing the quantity sold isn't harming the economy, but improving it. The only objection I can see is that tax revenue goes down; I thought we were in favor of that.
Second, I'm not sure that tax relief is more effective when given to the rich, dollar-for-dollar. Seems to me that they're more likely to do economically unproductive things with it, like play the stock market. Lower-income households spend what they get on actual goods.
(Yes, capital for new investment is important and beneficial. But our capital gains tax code encourages buying stock from past investors as opposed to pumping cash into new ventures. What percentage of "investment" is actually productive?)
Capital investment is non-productive?
by Vladimir
That's how jobs are created.
Shooting craps or playing roulette is non-productive. Playnig the stock market is not the same thing.
Blackhedd, I think you could address this better than me.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
...for individuals to get some exposure to the earnings of large corporations. Once upon a time, it also was a deep and liquid source of funding for corporate operations. (This is no longer as true as it once was, but that's a totally different story.)
The stock market isn't zero-sum, like roulette and craps. The fact that the public wants exposure to corporate earnings is what makes it possible for businesses to fund themselves through that window.
Shifting to macroeconomics, investments are always made in anticipation of a certain risk-adjusted rate of return over a given time horizon. If the return isn't credibly available, the investment won't get made.
That hurts everyone because it means that capital stock won't get created (or it will get created in other countries, which is actually what's happening now). The result of lower capital formation is fewer goods and services that you can consume.
But my point about regressive taxation was somewhat different. Less-affluent people consume their income because they have to. They can't choose to consume less because their taxes are higher. So taxing them has relatively little impact on their behavior. On the contrary, it might even make them work harder.
Wealthier people, on the other hand, can choose to invest in other countries or not at all, if their taxes (and their political risk) increase. That's why populism doesn't actually work.
investors as opposed to new ventures? and why does it make a difference?
In terms of benefiting the economy, investments can contribute more on a per dollar basis to economic growth than mere spending.
Nothing contributes more to economic growth than a good investment.
An example.
by Whitfox
Last week, I bought about $10,000 of stock. I think it's a good investment for me, in that the stock seemed underpriced, and is currently paying a good dividend.
But how does this improve the economy? I'm not benefitting these companies by buying their stock from someone else. In fact, I'm a parasite, drawing away their capital through their dividend.
It's true the people I bought it from now have $10,000 in more liquid form. But it's not clear they're going to help the economy with it any more than I did.
On the other hand, maybe I could have rented that $10,000 to a business that could use it. But instead of getting the capital gains tax rate on my income, I'd pay full dollar in taxes on any interest. Our tax incentives are in the other direction. The only way to make it work would be to buy stock in this business that needs capital. That's extra-risky and extra-difficult to arrange.
It's quite possible I'm being naive here. My background in economics is limited. But I'm not seeing why typical investing is a public service.
This is not a time for companies to be issuing stock
by blackhedd
That's because stock is historically underpriced at this moment.
There's one sector (financial companies) that is issuing stock like crazy. The fact that they're doing so in the face of both broad-market and sectoral weakness shows you that they're in incredibly deep yogurt right now.
Big companies in other sectors are spending cash these days to buy stock (including their own) rather than the other way around. And in the last month or so, they've been issuing a huge amount of new debt, which is actually pretty remarkable.
I have an opinion about whether now is a good time to buy stocks, but I don't give investment advice here.
Round and round the little ball goes
by Robert A. Hahn
- it's not clear they're going to help the economy with it any more than I did
Of course it's not clear to you. If it were clear to you what better thing could have been done with your money, you'd have done it yourself.
Don't try to follow individual dollars. You have added $10,000 to the pool of available investment capital. When people say "the market" will direct your $10,000 to its highest-valued use, they don't mean it's going to happen in one or two transactions.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
Without liquidity, investment money will dry up
by JSobieski
The ability to buy and sell (i.e. access to markets) is a pre-requisite for investments by anyone besides someone with enough capital to purchase a company in its entirety.
You could also rent the $10k to an existing company by purchasing commercial paper. There is no tax difference between a capitai gain from a newly issued share and a share purchased from a previous owner.
Finding long-term reductions in demand
by Next93
In an era of email, fax machines, webinars, and video conferencing, there are a lot of "knowledge workers" in this country who work in offices and could easily do the same work from home. If we could get even a small fraction of them off the highways, it would have an impact on demand.
The problem is, there's no real incentive for employers; it requires an equipment and training investment, there are potential insurance issues. Worst of all, many managers feel more comfortable gauging productivity by hours spent in front of a screen rather than by work product; they feel they'll loose control of a workforce that's not under thier direct control.
I'd like to see a candidate propose a giving a corporate tax credit to employers for reducing thier overall commuting miles by establishing work-at-home options for knowledge workers.
__________________________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)
That's why they expand capacity at existing plants, rather than push hard for big new footprints. Marathon has a $3 billion capacity upgrade in progress right now at Garyville, LA, but it's within the confines of an existing refinery.
ANWR, at 1 million barrels per day would add 20% to domestic production. I think that's what the linked comment referred to.
You are right, removing the federal gasoline tax for 3 months is election year window dressing.
The big problem is that unless prices are high enough to pinch, it is a back burner issue for everyone involved. I've written me some darned fine diaries on the subject here at RS but if the price is $2.75, the only sound you hear is the crickets chirping. $3.00 seems to be the magic number.
We are only now seeing some signs of domestic demand getting slack. Back in the 70's, after the first Arab embargo, we enacted a meaningful conservation measure, the 55 mph speed limit. I haven't heard a soul, liberal or conservative, start pushing for a return of 55 mph.
And while we're at it, the shortest route from here to $200 per barrel oil is through a windfall profits tax.
There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life. - Frank Zappa
Bad Idea
by Robert A. Hahn
The 55 mph speed limit was terribly destructive. An entire nation learned overnight that posted speed limits were a joke; that law enforcement was a joke; and that when everyone is a criminal, no one is a criminal.
I remember driving up the 101 from Palo Alto to San Francisco... realizing that I and everyone around me was breaking the law. We had all individually decided that the law was bunk. That was not a good thing for any of us to find out. To their credit, the California Highway Patrol also decided it was bunk, and for the most part rode along with the rest of us at the previously-posted 65. This was in contrast to some other states — Maryland, for one — where the State Police turned into the Enemy of the People, with all that that implied.
Laws that are widely ignored and equally despised are worse than no law at all.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
I wouldn't want a nationwide 55 mph limit,
by streetwise
which makes no sense when, say, driving across Montana.
I would support a 60 mph limit in urban areas to save both lives and gas. Of course, it would be an effort to get people off their cell phones and Ipods long enough to observe the speedometer.
Who is paying for this?
by DonPMitchell
Am I the only Republican who is worried about the budget deficit? Where will the money come from to make up for all these tax reductions? Ideally, it would come from reduced government spending, but in reality it seems to be coming from selling T-bills to the Chinese and debasing the value of our currency.
You're not the only one
by exitsfunnel
I think about it all of the time and I still don't understand how embracing the deficits (or at the very least dismissing them as important) has become conservative?
-exits
Oh that I would have Exxon's Numbers
by youthgrunt
They only made $10.9 Billion up from $9.3 Billion last year. Yes, their downstream operations stank (but still profitable). But where windfall profit come in on domestic oil production which was more profitable than last year--even though its production was down almost 7%.
But windfall profits just don't work for reasons that you pointed out and more. The only one making any sense on this issue is President Bush who is pushing for opening up ANWR and making available land available (closed military bases) with lower regulation to construct refineries.
But your point about a company starting a new refinery is also valid. It is not quite as dire as you make it out to be--money is still being made in downstream operations. But the margins are quite low compared to other industries. I would argue that starting up drilling in ANWR and other domestic fields would stabilize oil prices which would go a long way to helping downstream operations return to a healthier profitability which would encourage the construction of new capacity.
...to be built in the US is precisely because I don't find it credible that we'll see any kind of major change in the global crude-oil supply picture. And therefore the compression of crack spreads is permanent.
Specifically, we won't be drilling ANWR or the OCS, because the political climate simply won't allow it. Of course, it's possible for this to change. But out here in the real world where I have to place my bets, I don't think so.
(The recent Brazilian deep-water find is a very interesting wild card in the supply picture that perhaps Vladimir can give us some insight on.)
And yet we know
by youthgrunt
that greater refining capacity is a key to an expanding American economy. What do you think we need to do in order to see this happen?
We don't need refineries
by joe.g
Demand is down in the US, and they were running at 81% capacity last month.
Refiners aren't profitable at the present price spread. How is another refinery going to reduce the price when the ones that are already capitalized aren't making money?
Need for refining capacity
by JamesLBurns
The whole "lack of refining capacity" has always seemed like a red herring to me. Putting aside some supply disruptions after Katrina I can't recall there ever being a "gas shortage" in the US in the last 20 years. Yet that is really the only way a refining shortage would show up. It may be that refining capacity couldn't keep up with peak demand, but that is easily addressed in storage. Am I wrong here?
Call it what it is: ...
by KYJurisDoctor
... POLITICAL PANDERING!
With malice towards none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see right.
I'm not sure that
by youthgrunt
pandering is the right term. McCain is pandering. Obama is not offering a freebee to the consumer. But both Hillary and Obama are using class envy against companies ("big oil") to justify a wealth transfer from those companies to individuals. They use misleading information to support this envy. They say that Exxon Mobile made $40 billion last year. This is true, but it ignores that their sales were over $400 billion giving them a margin of 10%. Yes that is a healthy number, but not overly high compared to other industries. It also ignores the lean years, which there have been many.
Roads and gas tax
by sidneyc
If the feds suspend the gas tax for 3 months, the loss of tens of billions of dollars needed for infrastructure will be lost at very little saving to the average driver. At least most of this tax IS dedicated to maintaining roads and bridges. This is stupid and short sighted. I'll probably vote for McCain, but I also will be looking very closely at the Libertarian candidate.
I'm sick of all of these clowns.
How much would
by youthgrunt
be saved by truck drivers? The resulting effect may be decreased fuel surcharges which would result is lower prices of goods purchased by "average drivers".
I'm not arguing that it is a good idea. I am arguing for a bit more understanding of the implications of fuel prices.
This dollar may only be spent on lunch
by Robert A. Hahn
- At least most of this tax IS dedicated to maintaining roads and bridges.
Money is fungible. "Dedicating" some tax revenues to roads just frees up general fund revenues for Woodstock museums and Congressional Beemers. Obama's argument is the same trick that municipal governments use when the public votes down a property tax increase. First thing to go is the ambulance, then the fire trucks. Somehow the new carpeting for the Mayor's office escaped the ax.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
5
by Neil Stevens
The old Washington Monument play.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
You are correct that the tax receipts are literally a drop in the bucket and certainly, if we possessed a pristine highway system I would have a different opinion.
_____________________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
--Aristotle
There are three energy crises- crude, cartels and crack
by streetwise
and they get coverage on the MSM ranging from shallow to none.
Crude - this is an economic problem caused by a supply and demand imbalance. Demand is increasing more rapidly than supply.
Cartels- this is a governance problem, not an economic one. It has two prongs. One is the OPEC cartel and its allies, who engage in classic price manipulation. The second is the geometric growth of the energy futures markets, compounded by vastly increased trading activity that is disconnected from the underlying commodity. Energy futures are morphing into currency futures whith price movements largely focused on interest rates and currency moves. The net effect of the second prong is to amplify the power of the cartel. Of course, when the price bubble bursts, it will be VERY painful for the cartel. I don't care; it needs a good beating.
The third is crack. Crack spreads (the spread of heat, gas, jet, etc over crude oil) have ballooned during the past few years from a few dollars per bbl to $20-$30. Although affected by the the two drivers listed above, this is a governance problem. Government regulation and lobbying groups (NIMBY - not in my backyard) have strangled efforts to boost refinery capacity, creating shortages of the refined product and pushing prices way up. All the crude in the world does no good unless we have someplace to refine it.
Ugh!
blog advertising is good for you
Human Events
Recent comments
They surely won't
by simpson316My apologies on the mistake
by Linus BernI tended bar in South
by Han PritcherI'm surprised that we still don't hear the WJ story
by jonlesterKowalski addendum:
by jonlesterApparently,
by nilramLocal and regional distribution arrangements
by jonlesterEver put milk in a liquor bottle
by jonlesterLike a Keystone experience I had once.
by jonlesterI just don't understand how
by Han PritcherI've only had it once, and I
by Han PritcherPBR's my second choice for package
by jonlesterWell, I said that about Tsingtao
by jonlesterI just looked at Hillary's site...
by Moe LaneIt's funny. I enjoy a wide
by Han PritcherTake their votes, by all
by Han PritcherI like Hitchens too, and I
by FlagstaffBe that as it may,
by Linus Bern
blog advertising is good for you
get your job site
at simplyhired.com
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println(""The only reason that some people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory.")