|
 |
5/17/2010
Feingold budget cutting is a smoke screen
You know it’s election time when a politician over and over advocates spending cuts. That surely characterizes Senator Feingold in this year’s version of his “listening sessions.” It really bugs me when this guy talks budget cuts.
He addressed questions about federal spending, citing a list of 41 concrete policy changes in a law he has proposed that would reduce the federal deficit by a combined $500 billion. One of the least expensive of these, eliminating pay raises in 2011 for members of Congress, was signed into law last week.
He also spoke up in favor of troop withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan, and argued that the health care reform law that passed in March would begin to address the problems of cost and lack of access to health care.
The GOP gets it.
Republicans have been critical of Feingold's claim to be a deficit hawk, citing his votes for the 2009 economic stimulus package and the health care reform bill. In a release last year, National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesman Colin Reed said Feingold had "saddled (Wisconsin voters') children and grandchildren" with trillions in debt by voting for "reckless spending bills."
I talked about our dear budget-buster in March when Senator Feingold laid down his cape and went after transportation earmarks. Oh my.
Of course Feingold is the guy that thinks the health care bill will save Americans hundreds of billions of dollars. And this is the same guy pushing the pubic option for all Americans.
When asked how much the health care bill will cost families in America, Feingold responded that the health care bill will save Americans $187 billion – not cost them. When many in the crowd objected, Feingold absolutely would not acknowledge that the bill supposedly “saves” Americans dollars only because taxes, fees and other costs are increased.
And then there’s Social Security. Save it by raising taxes on the rich, of course.
When a question was raised about the solvency of the “Social Security Trust Fund,” Feingold opined that the situation “can be solved fairly easily.” 1) Increase the maximum on which FICA taxes apply and 2) increase the retirement age [for some Americans] because Americans are living longer.
Sounds like a budget-cutter to me. How about you?
Jo Egelhoff, FoxPolitics.net
COMMENTS
Apparently to survive the budget cutting test you have to protect the rich and hurt those without good healthcare options? Off to the work house then. I'm sure there is plenty of waste out there to go after and Feingold going after that waste should be commended. To get at the real numbers though, Social Securty, defense, medicare need to be addressed. So, why not increase FICA tax? Everyone knows that the average SS retiree receives much more in benefits than they put in. So, why not raise the cap?
dave allen (Mon May 17 06:58:49 2010)
Hey, I know! Let's stop giving taxpayer assets to the special interests that fund the elections. But that invokes the terrible "corruption" word again.
It's too bad our politicians spend all of their time fund-raising -- if not face to face then on the legislative floor -- and zero time running the state or nation.
Jack Lohman (Mon May 17 07:09:39 2010)
"This week, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius rolled out a new program that, scrubbed down, amounts to a slush fund for union health plans.
When Democrats realized that ObamaCare's approval numbers were sagging, they loaded the bill up with "early deliverables"—programs that would go into effect immediately, rather than the five or more years of delay used to hide the bill's true costs. One of those early deliverables was $5 billion in subsidies to early retirees aged 55 to 64 who incur annual health costs over $15,000.
Ms. Sebelius did her best to dress this reinsurance program up in a public-interest blanket, but many of the 3.3 million eligible retirees are ex-union workers who extracted generous benefits from some of America's most hardpressed industries. Businesses that doled out these unaffordable promises will be delighted with the federal handout, taxpayers less so.
And also eligible are retired state and local public employees, as well as certain health-care trusts like one recently set up by the United Auto Workers, which has an estimated 30 cents in cash for every dollar of expected claims." (see http://nrtw.org/en/blog/dont-say-we-didnt-warn-you-05112010)
Jack, if I let my kids whine for whatever they want, they'll keep it up. But if I just say NO, they won't bother to ask. And if special interests didn't stand to get anything, they'd stop lobbying! Still waiting for you to read "Not Yours to Give" by David Crockett...
emily matthews (Mon May 17 09:19:37 2010)
Emily, saying no to your kids is a far cry from saying no to a lobbyist. Do your kids fund your household? My guess is that if they did you'd be a pushover.
And no, I haven't and likely won't read your favorite book, for two reasons. I don't read books anymore, and I don't need a book to tell me what's wrong with our nation. By the title I can imagine it opposes public funding of campaigns, and that's the only thing that's going to turn our nation around.
Jack Lohman (Mon May 17 09:28:26 2010)
You know, I don't have any statistics to back me up, but I am far less inclined to bust my butt knowing a.) that I'm busting my butt for someone else and b.) I could just be that someone else and not bust my butt.
No sense cutting our losses when we can just expand ownership of people's lives and fortunes, right? I mean, after all, the individual is expendable to the needs of the masses.
So yes, good job Feingold. I commend you. You are a priest, and I'm a convert, and I lay myself upon the altar of collectivism - we are all One. Take me! I am nothing, but that I am part of you! I have nothing, but that you in your almighty benevolence shall grant! Forsake me not, oh lord my god the collective One! I am thine! Do with me what thou wilt!
Andrew Ellis (Mon May 17 09:32:56 2010)
It seems to me that any effort by a competent representative such as Feingold to cut waste or increase taxes to pay for what is necessary is met with "not good enough so throw the bum out". I can only interpret this as meaning that any laudable effort can only come from a Republican whether or not they actually do something or not. Feingold, who has one of the lowest net worths in the Senate, has done more to try to pry corporate and union interests away from campaign financing than anyone else. And he gets criticized here? Nonsense.
dave allen (Mon May 17 09:42:42 2010)
Dave, Feingold generally does things that are in the best interest of the nation, but he has also done some stupid things like wanting to cut Medicare payments to physicians by 20%. They make about 5% profits now and a 20% cut means a 15% loss right off the bat. Stupid, stupid stupid.
And I look at how active he is now at election time, and how inactive Kohl is, and Ryan's actions now but not when the R's were in power, and I've reached the conclusion that the D's are no better than the R's, and they all want one thing: for their party to stay in power.
I say throw them all out!
Jack Lohman (Mon May 17 09:59:15 2010)
So how serious if Feingold about balancing the budget? His savings amount to $500 Billion. Combined savings. So even IF those savings all occurred in one year, the deficit of $1.4 Trill would still be bumping up against a Trillion$. That does not sound like a serious proposal to balance the budget to me.
It amazes me that adding greatly to the bureaucracy, increasing both benefits and the number insured, plus taxing medical devices and services will somehow REDUCE the cost of medical care. NOt only is it apparent that folks like Feingold think we are stupid, there are more than a few who wish to prove him right.
Ken Van Doren (Mon May 17 10:26:33 2010)
The "throw them all out" doesn't work. this is because the American people like the programs (or pork) that they get and don't have to pay for. It's a heck of a lot easier to borrow than cut and any congressman or Senator who proposes big cuts in his/her district won't be re-elected. The profligate spending in the Bush 2 years was approved by a relatively young congress that came along with the Contract With America in the mid-90s. That is why we have a relatively successful BRACC (Base realignment) because no one politician can be directly tarred by their efforts. Obama has proposed such a advisory comittee maybe it should be more than advisory.? Politicians repsond to the people, too much so I'm afraid and the people are saying with their votes they pretty much like it the way it is. Even the Teapartiers, what would they say if their SS benefits were reduced by 20%? Who would be the 1st one to take a hit for the good of the country?
iseIf the efforts of Feingold result in $500BN savings over the life of them Good! Lets find the next $500bn etc. and support the people who do.But we all know the big $ are in Social Security, Medicare, Defense, Interest on the debt. So to save the really big $ what do you want to cut?
dave allen (Mon May 17 11:48:52 2010)
I'm starting to see some valid points raised in this debate.
Dave is correct in saying that "people like the programs" and "politicians respond to the people, too much..."
In other words, it's not that throwing them all out CAN'T work - it's that it WON'T.
At the same time, Jack is correct in his numerous assertions that lobbyists corrupt the system on several levels. But that doesn't account for why people put who they do in office (including if they're duped... we've all heard it before, "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.")
Are we at an impasse? I think Jack is correct in that we DO need to throw them out. I think Dave is correct in that we probably won't.
This all looks very promising.
I guess we can either educate and engage the people around us, or we can wait for the first shot.
Or both, hoping the latter never comes to pass.
Andrew Ellis (Mon May 17 12:55:28 2010)
Also, I'm not a tea-party goer. But Dave you asked who'd take the first hit?
If I had the assurance that Social Security was to be wholly and permanently terminated, I'd happily be the first to forego every penny I've paid in. I recognize that I haven't been paying in as long as many. I don't know how to amicably and fairly settle with those who NEED (who are living and subsisting on)what they've paid in back, but I don't think anyone who disparages SS and would like to see it terminated is really committed unless they, too, are willing to let it go - to cut our losses.
Andrew Ellis (Mon May 17 13:05:05 2010)
You are right Andrew, we should but we won't, because the people are indeed duped. And the politicians have kept it that way. Try to get a list of legislators that voted for this or that bill, and only the astute can do it. The Pols like it that way. Heaven forbid they have to defend their positions and actually give their challengers a shot at their seat.
Jack Lohman (Mon May 17 13:09:36 2010)
And Adrew, don't you worry a bit. The Tea Partiers talk tough now, but when the cards are dealt they'll not want SS cut either. Hell, they even wanted to keep government out of Medicare, don'cha know.
The only thing they should do with SS is to means test it, remove the wage caps and extend the age entry to 67. Why eliminate it and throw seniors into a welfare program that they make no contributions into in their younger years?
Jack Lohman (Mon May 17 14:10:34 2010)
Jack,
Thanks so much for speaking on my behalf, and on behalf of many, many others who would all agree that you are DEAD WRONG in your assessment of the Tea Party 'members'.
I am 100% in agreement with Andrew and would walk away from my contributions to the SS system in a heartbeat if I knew this folly would be shut down, locked tight, and never see the light of day again. It would be worth living my senior years in poverty or working until I drop if I knew that my daughter would not have to bear the burden of our foolish venture in to socialism.
Hypothesize all you like about the evil characters in Washington - much of what you say is true, but PLEASE don't disparage your neighbors who mean what we say and are laser-focused on lower taxes, less government interference in our day-to-day lives, along with a return to Constitutional principles in Washington.
Thank you.
Jeff Riedl (Mon May 17 14:30:09 2010)
Ah, Jeff, another "compassionate" conservative who is going to protect his own and give the finger to the rest. I suppose you go to church every Sunday too. Good to have you guys around in a time of need.
Jack Lohman (Mon May 17 15:29:54 2010)
Ok, full circle now. A few people have said they'd be the first to go. Now all together so it makes a difference, lets give up the social security, medicare. Last one in is a rotten egg. One, two, three lets jump over the cliff and if we all jump together we'll all be ok. But if I jump alone it's curtains. Ready, set go! Wait!! Where is everyone? I thought you'd all do it. Ouch, really bad landing all by myself.
dave allen (Mon May 17 20:47:56 2010)
Dave, we were only kidding! You didn't jump alone did you?
Jack Lohman (Mon May 17 20:55:03 2010)
Jack,
I'm getting dangerously close to compromising my principles and launching a personal attack, but won't stoop to your level.
In fact I DO help others. I AM my brother's keeper. I HAVE helped my neighbor and would prefer to do so over and over again rather than throwing it in to the corrupt and wasteful ways of Washington DC any day / any time.
YOU too should be YOUR brother's keeper rather than relying on others in government to do it FOR you.
Jeff Riedl (Tue May 18 08:19:14 2010)
Jeff, do what you have to do, but I get really tired of this whole "compassionate conservative" thingy when I see people on the right hold their nose up to those on the left, and then do exactly what they've been railing against. Or embrace the corruptive system that enables it.
That is not a personal attack on you, unless it fits, and only you can determine that.
But "we" are not each others' enemy, though as a Medicare and SS recipient that has paid into the system for 45 years, I support the forced savings and believe it is better than nothing, waiting until you are a senior and then going on public assistance at taxpayer expense.
OUR enemy is the politicians who dip into the SS bank to fund projects for the special interests that have funded their campaigns. You know: bribes. I strongly criticize those, on both the right and left, who are awed and blinded by the conspiracy that is going on, even with outright stupidity, ignorance and lack of motivation to stop it. And in some cases the deviousness to take advantage of it.
So you keep fighting the left and I'll keep fighting both.
Jack Lohman (Tue May 18 09:09:43 2010)
Jack,
You're a smart enough guy to take care of yourself and you can make better decisions about where to be compassionate / generous than any cubicle-dweller in Washington.
If you don't like the corruption in Washington, keep YOUR money OUT of Washington! How hard a concept is that?
I'm not fighting the left - I'm in favor of big boys and big girls acting responsibly. The less honey in a flower (read: money in Washington) the fewer bees (read: lobbyists) swarming around!
Jeff Riedl (Tue May 18 10:34:23 2010)
You will not accomplish your dream until that money in Washington (campaigns) come from the taxpayers themselves. That is the ONLY way we will reduce spending and taxes. Your "acting responsibly" will move the government absolutely nowhere.
Jack Lohman (Tue May 18 10:45:07 2010)
Jack, it's not a book, it's an article! Is that so hard to read? And in Crockett's time, there WERE no "lobbyists" nor people asking for public funding of campaigns! It's got NOTHING to do with what you imagine, but everything to do with the proper role of government. How un-curious can you be?
One sign of mental alcrity is to keep on informing oneself, to keep on learning. Believe me, I've changed my mind on multiple things! Go on, try it, it doesn't hurt!
emily matthews (Tue May 18 18:29:22 2010)
Okay, Emily, I read it. It's at http://www.juntosociety.com/patriotism/inytg.html . But you could have summed it up by saying there was once Davy Crockett, a liberal congressman who had a heart and offered a helping hand ($20K in taxpayer dollars) to a group of families burnt out of their houses, and a conservative farmer who would rather have given them the finger. But he convinced Crockett that the helping hand was unconstitutional.
And so it is. It was what this country is mostly about (except for the minority of conservatives). We care about our brothers.
But I've read it and support the helping hand. I'm presuming that you prefer giving them the finger?
Jack Lohman (Tue May 18 19:40:06 2010)
Jack,
Your binary view of caring for our brothers totally ignores reality. YOU are your brother's keeper - not Sen. Feingold, not Sen. Kohl, not Gov. Doyle, and CERTAINLY not Pres. Obama ... YOU.
By saying no to government largess Emily and I (and our founders for that matter) are NOT giving the finger to those in need. Ben Franklin didn't believe in Government Health Care - does that mean he wanted settlers dying in the streets? Hell no! He went out and collected up the money from friends, those of means, and gave VOLUNTARILY to build the first hospital in Philadelphia!
When Grover Cleveland vetoed the Texas Seed Bill, he did so knowing that individual charity was the better way and it was so. Locals GAVE VOLUNTARILY far more than what the seed bill would have provided to the farmers.
When Ronald Reagan cut taxes charitable giving on the part of individuals rose to an all-time high in our nation's history.
Why do you choose to ignore factual history?
Jeff Riedl (Fri May 21 08:11:19 2010)
Jeff, I was one of those ignoramuses that voted for Reagan, and his tax cuts sure felt good at the time. But they were the start of our nation's spiral and I wish he'd have considered more their effects on the economy rather than his rich friends. How's that for factual history?
The poor people are not going to reverse our spiral, only the rich can.
Jack Lohman (Fri May 21 08:51:30 2010)
Jack,
Again - I will resist the temptation and stay above name calling.
Reagan's tax cuts led to a robust economy and charitable giving beyond anyone's wildest dreams. The spending binge of congress and refusal to pay their bills was not Reagan's doing.
I admire Clinton for being able to return us to a balanced budget ... too bad he couldn't clear the debt at the same time. So it goes.
Oh, and by the way - thanks for the slap in the face. I voted for Reagan and believe it was the right thing to do. Particularly considering the alternative. Maybe you should talk to the Iranian hostages, their families, or those on the wrong side of the Berlin wall about whether those who voted for Reagan were ignorant. But we digress.
So sorry you have such little faith in yourself and your neighbors. I've seen what the people of this community are willing to do during tough times. I've been impressed without fail. You, on the other hand, seem to think we're incapable of assisting folks when their town is leveled by a tornado (like - Oakfield) or when someone in the family gets a serious illness (how many times have we seen community fund raisers for families of those stricken with devastating medical bills?), or even for families that hit hard times ... you'll never be able to count the number who have received food, shelter, or clothing from the generosity of members at our local churches.
Too bad you can't see that. I'm very sorry - life must be pretty bleak for someone who can only see the dark side and can't appreciate our abilities.
Jeff Riedl (Fri May 21 18:27:49 2010)
Jeff, quit being so self-righteous. Yes, we pull together sometimes, but not all the time, as witnessed by the millions who are members of a nation with one of the highest poverty rates in the world. I'm sure that you are just tickled pink that you have yours but not all are so lucky. Now, go ahead with your childish name-calling.
Jack Lohman (Fri May 21 21:06:30 2010)
And in case you are ready to jump in, Jeff, here's a piece that will inspire you to help: The starving can't wait. They really need help, and they'll even take it from Righties.
Jack Lohman (Sat May 22 04:45:50 2010)
|
|
Blog Archives
| 2010 |
  December
|
November
|
October
|
September
|
August
|
July
|
June
|
May
|
April
|
March
|
February
|
January
• Solberg: Healing After an Abortion
• Basketball fans eyeing extension of Miller Park sales tax
• Nanny sex-ed bill goes to Doyle
• A first. Village limits pension contribution for employees
• Nanny State update: Toothbrushing mandated
• Obama pushes education inflation
• WI Investment Board votes to borrow to juice up returns
• So Republicans have brought nothing to the table?
• You have got to be kidding me
• Nygren: Governor Continues Terms of Failure in State of the State
• Sen. Fitzgerald: Governor down the wrong track at high speed
• Phosphorus is the new CO2. $Billions in Wisconsin
• More Obama giveaways
• A reprimand? Would you keep him on the job?
• Burri: Sarah Palin for Prez troubles me
• Quote of the Day – Obama after the pie-eating contest
• Populism, abused and trampled
• Fitzgerald: Senate Republicans Propose Real Job Creation Agenda
• Stripped down health insurance – it’s about time
• Ok GOP, scrap the Party of NO; time to lead
• No way Feingold is a Coakley. Is Wall a Brown?
• Burri: Conservatives off the chart for a RINO?
• Paltry quid pro quo?
• Doyle says ARRA has ‘created or retained’ 44,000 WI jobs
• Does most of the public fall for this stuff?
• When you get signatures, always get a couple extra
• Blame it on the outmoded computers
• Scott Brown victory does not scuttle health bill
• 8th Congressional Candidate Forum, Jan. 25
• Scott Walker Meet-and-greet, Monday, Jan. 18
• Aren’t consumers taxpayers too?
• MORE taxes on investment income - dreadful and wrong
• Join the blaze orange army and say ‘Enough is Enough’
• The future of government-run health care
• Tax on banks is a really bad idea
• Roth, Savard on the stump, grassroots style
• Savard speaking in Appleton, 8 PM, Wed., Jan. 13.
• Rahmlow: Savard, Bies frontrunners for State Senate
• Burri: Failing Political Correctness 101
• School contracts and Race to the Top
• Senator Feingold worrisome and big red flags
• Psephological?
• This is really important. Contact Rep. Kagen. Now. Please.
• This is exactly what we need from Governor Doyle
• This guy is my hero
• Why am I not surprised?
• Talk health reform with Feingold (Th), Petri (today)
• Give the Mayor power over MPS - if he can break contracts
• Burri: Yup, Dems really are going to bypass a conference
• The $2.7 billion Wisconsin deficit no one told you about
• Walker launches county accountability website
• Rahmlow: Why is Van Hollen dodging the Nebraska deal?
|
| 2009 |
December
|
November
|
October
• The Lawton-Bader files
• Yup, it’s the TAX LEVY, not the tax RATE
• Ellis: costly automobile insurance laws must be rolled back
• If not Barrett, who?
• The subsidy game
• Burri: Bailouts, Banks, Health Care, and the Mob
• Attend Appleton Schools budget meeting tonight
• A public option WON’T increase costs? That’s delusional!
• Appleton Schools budget meeting Monday
• Wisconsin should be screaming for accountability
• Burri: If anything, we need more obstructionism around here
• WI on the leading edge - in the wrong direction
• Rep. Montgomery: Utility Customers Join State’s Crime-Fighting Efforts
• Public Conservation and Recreation Lands Total 16.5% of State
• In the crow's nest of the Titanic, shouting 'Iceberg!'
• Is Rep. Nelson a political hack?
• Health care: The road ahead will be brutal
• Kagen's pandering again
• Birthers - good stuff for you
• How much do we bend over backward for seniors?
• The trouble with health care is paying for it
• Two-parent families: The Gold Standard
• Burri: Kids... the joys and blessings
• Very, very worried about health care
• Rep. Huebsch: Wisconsin is proof government health care isn’t the answer
• School district contracts push up tax levy
• What? Obama, the Peace Prize?
• TODAY - hearing on Campaign Finance Reform
• Appleton School District tax levy up way too much
• CBO report is out - and the bill isn't even written yet?
• So, how much do YOU budget for health care?
• Burri: Copenhagen trip was amateurish
• “Sotomayor, you have blood on your hands...”
• Cap and Trade. Always follow the money
• Rep. Kagen gets (almost) free health services
• I actually agree with Rep. Kagen
• Future Wisconsin Conference for Conservatives, October 10, Wauwatosa
|
September
|
August
|
July
|
June
|
May
|
April
|
March
|
February
|
January
|
| 2008 |
December
|
November
|
October
|
September
|
August
|
July
|
June
|
May
|
April
|
March
• Important votes Tuesday, including Appleton Common Council
• Democrats are becoming supply siders??
• Further debunking Hillary myths
• WEAC has created an unsustainable monopoly
• From Mark Gundrum: One of the greatest honors an American can experience
• 'Operation Chaos' working?
• Joe Martin the best candidate in Appleton's 8th
• State programs to cut? - Volume II
• Oh the naivete of youth
• Not just disingenuous - flat wrong
• Steve - you will be missed
• Make cuts only AFTER you're elected....
• Getting serious: What programs can we cut?
• Rep. Steve Kagen joining me on Jerry Bader Show today
• Rep. Van Roy: Dental Care Pilot Program
• Has Dave Obey turned the corner on earmarks?
• Speaker Huebsch: Governor turns down Federal Aid?
• Mark Rahmlow: "We're Broke."
• As taxpayers, how do we know if it's a Chevy or a Lexus?
• This is trash talk - about a veteran
• Frank Lasee: Take time to get the Compact right
• 'The Gableman Ad' - is it racist?
• Roth thankful, Kagen shaking money tree
• Gov. Doyle's office not enamored with Freedom of Information
• Governor Doyle will never do it
• Leadership on smoking ban? Not Hanna
• Rep. Van Roy speaks out about smear ads
• You're threatening me about potholes?
• Losing the Hastert seat is NOT a trend and NOT curtians for the GOP
• First suggestion for 'slashing' programs
• Big money-saver for municipalities
• More one time fixes. Nuts.
• Any chances???
• I'm doing the Jerry Bader Show, today, the 11th
• Representative Frank Lasee: Final Waltz of the Season
• Guest Blog: It's not the county's business to be in the nursing home business
• Yup, Hillary won Texas and Ohio
• Gableman/Butler race featured - and it isn't pretty
• Lies from Planned Parenthood and NARAL
• He who sacrifices liberty.....
• Duh.
• The Troha sentencing, Doyle and that $200K
• Guns, passion and "originality"
• How hard is it anyway, to shut down a government program?
• Voting is a PRIVILEGE. And so are property taxes....
• Guest Blog: Governor Doyle, cancel your Ireland trip
|
February
|
January
|
| 2007 |
December
|
November
|
October
|
September
|
August
|
July
|
June
|
May
|
April
|
March
|
February
|
January
• Lots of ideas. No money.
• The Cigarette Tax - "Poor Policy Instrument?"
• School budget Lite?
• Frankenstein - not in the library, but in the legislature
• A librarian, a legislator, a president
• $1.25/pack - NO, NO, NO, and NO
• Kagen and Reagan in the same breath?
• Menasha: behind the 8-ball, but not biting the dust
• Any way you slice it, Wisconsin government wants (further) in on health care
• The World is Flat...what about health care?
• The PAC - too precious to fail. Day 3
• News follow-ups: Appleton West, Kagen at the White House
• Fox Cities PAC - too precious to fail - Day 2
• Fox Cities PAC - too precious to fail
• New Transit Tax coming your way
• Rep. Petri has his finger in the dike - I guess
• AASD Retirement Costs Burdensome
• Health care, health care, health care, health care
• Water rate increase was no slam dunk
• Education for all is just a bad dream
• New Year's resolutions from a parade snob
|
| 2006 |
December
|
November
|
October
|
September
|
| 2000 |
May
|
|
