A Quick Word About Tax Cuts

This one will be brief.

Earlier today I saw a clip from Obama’s weekly address, or whatever it’s called, wherein he said, “we can’t afford to keep spending more money on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans who don’t need them.” I later went and looked it up online. (Your Weekly Address) The whole address is full of all kinds of lies and misinformation. (Which I may talk about next week.) But I wanted to mention how much I deeply dislike people claiming we pay money for tax cuts.

Tax cuts are not expenditures. Tax cuts are not expenditures. Tax cuts are not expenditures. Let that sink in. The government never, never, never spends money on tax cuts. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying to you. Which means the President lied. No surprise there, but honestly, the man should ridiculed for making such an obviously stupid comment.

Tax cuts are not expenditures. Tax cuts are simply reductions in the percentage of money the government legally requires an individual person, business or organization to pay to the government. In no way does the government spend money on tax cuts. To claim otherwise is foolishness, and that is putting it politely.

You may think the government needs to raise the tax rates on the wealthy. This is not an argument about that. Whether we should or should not raise tax rates does not change the fact that the government does not spend money on tax cuts.

So next time you hear anyone refer to spending money on tax cuts, correct them. And write your congressperson to ask them to stop the lying about this in government. Write to your favorite news outlet and ask them why they are not criticizing the POTUS and other politicians for making such stupid remarks. Let’s put an end to this lie.

Thank you, and good night.

30 Responses to “A Quick Word About Tax Cuts”

  1. Literalists are some of the dumbest people out there. While tax cuts aren’t spending, they do indeed cost our country. Republican tax cuts have put us deep in debt to the tune of some 15 TRILLION DOLLARS.

    • First, pointing out the truth does not make me a literalist. Second, the tax cuts have not done anything to put the U.S. in debt. What put the U.S. in debt was U.S. politicians spending more money than the U.S. government was taking in. These distinctions are not trivial. They are fundamental to understanding the true nature of the problem. And that understanding is necessary to craft a pertinent and effective solution.

      • Nope, that’s the argument you’re told to use. We elect officials to pass legislation and contrary to conservative beliefs, they need to be paid for. Deficits do matter. We’re 15 trillion dollars in debt thanks to conservative policies. We’re now paying 1/2 trillion dollars a year just on interest on the debt.

        • Maybe you get told what argument to use. I do not. I make up my own mind.

          We are trillions of dollars in debt because both right-wing and left-wing politicians have repeatedly spent more money than was coming in. Neither party has any high ground on this. They are both in the swamp.

          Yes, deficits do matter. Which is exactly why understanding the true nature of the problem is important. And why lying about the problem is unproductive.

          You say we elect politicians to pass legislation. Perhaps in general we do these days, but I do not agree with that motivation. I would prefer politicians be elected to represent the people and to fight for the protection of rights. But that is a different conversation.

          • We are trillions of dollars in debt because both right-wing and left-wing politicians have repeatedly spent more money than was coming in.

            We had balanced budgets in the late ’90s due to higher taxes and lower defense spending. Republicans cut taxes and increased defense spending. Those policies are still in place, which is why we’re running massive deficits.

          • You say that as if defense spending alone is the problem. Federal government spending across the board skyrocketed under Bush the Younger, and as bad as that was, under Obama it has been worse. The national debt as grown, last I heard, about as much under Obama’s 3+ years as it did under Bush’s 8. And Obama has done next to nothing to curb actual spending. At best his proposals, and most of the Republican ones as well, have threatened to cut only into projected growth in spending, not the actual spending levels. While federal revenue does fluctuate, it has averaged about 17 to 18% of the GDP for several decades now. Obama’s best plan is to get federal spending down to something like 20% of the GDP. That is obviously not going to solve the debt problem. And before the Republicans took control of the House, Obama had a Democrat controlled Congress. So the Democrats have only themselves to blame for not getting spending under control.

            In any case, what created the debt problem is government spending more than it brings in. And getting back to the original point, tax cuts are still not expenditures. Whether or not raising tax rates is a good or even practical idea, the key to bringing down the debt is to cut spending to a level below the level of revenue. And so far, Obama has not shown any inclination to do that.

            And none of this even touches on whether or not the federal government should be at its current rate of non-military spending. Almost all federal government spending needs to be trimmed back. Any plan to deal with the massive federal debt that does not significantly cut into actual spending is not going to solve the problem.

          • Also, if you want to propose we take the federal government back to the spending levels we had in the late 1990s, which got down to around 17 to 18% of the GDP then, I can get behind that. Current federal spending is about 25% of the GDP now. But I’d like to see you propose that kind of spending reduction without being accused of “social Darwinism.”

          • Percentages of GDP is not a valid measurement. If spending is constant and GDP is reduced, spending as a percentage of GDP increases. If you cut spending when the economy is slumping, that results in more unemployment, which makes the economy worse. Spending should actually increase when GDP shrinks to stimulate the economy.

          • “Percentages of GDP is not a valid measurement.”

            I disagree. It is a pretty common measurement. And even the federal government uses it.
            http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
            http://www.cbo.gov/publication/21999
            Your explanation is not persuasive. You’ll have to provide a better reason than that (basically) you don’t like it.

            “If spending is constant and GDP is reduced, spending as a percentage of GDP increases.”

            And then so would revenue as a percentage of the GDP. Again, notably, while there are fluctuations, over the past few decades the average for federal revenue as a percentage of the GDP remains around 17 to 18% If spending as a percentage of the GDP is, on average, higher than that over the same time period and/or getting higher (and it is), then federal spending is still in reality higher than federal revenue. Feel free to explain why this is not valid.

            “If you cut spending when the economy is slumping, that results in more unemployment, which makes the economy worse.”

            I am not convinced that is the truth. During the Great Depression, government spending was through the roof, and unemployment did not get better. It remained in double digits and even reached 20%. Bush massively increased spending and that did not help the economy at all. Obama pushed through his stimulus package and made Bush’s spending growth look dwarfish by comparison, and the economy is still slumping and unemployment rose above 9%, only recently to drop below that and then only because many people are simply dropping out of the job market. If more government spending does not alleviate unemployment and a bad economy, then how does less government spending possibly make it worse? I know this is a major Keynesian theory, but it simply does not seem to be supported by historical evidence.

            “Spending should actually increase when GDP shrinks to stimulate the economy.”

            That assumes federal government spending would necessarily positively effect the economy. That seems like the broken window theory to me. If the store window is broken, then it stimulates the economy, so the idea goes, because then the store owner has to pay to have the glass replaced. But what this fails to take into account is that the same money might have been spent elsewhere or even saved for economic security and/or later spending. If the government does not spend more than it takes in the first place, that would create more economic stability before an economic downturn, and possibly even allow the government to take less money out of the economy (taxes), which would surely be far more helpful to a slumping economy.

            Of course, the other problem I have with your Keynesian theory is that it assumes an economic downturn requires stimulation from the government for recovery to take place. And this is an assumption I doubt very much. If the theory worked, then the U.S. should have largely come out of the Great Depression by the mid to late 1930s. That did not occur. If the theory worked, then the U.S. should have been well out of the recession by 2008 not crashing into a deeper slump. And at the very least, the spending under Obama should have brought full economic recovery by 2010. That did not occur. If anything, the evidence points to meddling by the federal government to be not an aid but a hindrance to recovery.

            Government taking money out of an economy to inefficiently spend it, getting into debt and then trying to take more money out of the economy so it can cover the debt and then also spend more, the idea that such would be a helpful economic stimulus (for anyone except the politicians and the lobbyists) in any way seems nonsensical and illogical. Feel free to explain why it is not.

    • Also, you should probably rethink making the first sentence of your comment an insult to the person on whose blog you are commenting.

  2. During the Great Depression, government spending was through the roof, and unemployment did not get better.

    Maybe you should check your facts before making a statement like that.

    And Bush’s spending did indeed create jobs. Military spending propped up the economy to some extent. It’s just that so many jobs were flowing to China at the same time, it didn’t have much of an impact.

    • “Maybe you should check your facts before making a statement like that.”

      I perhaps should have said significantly better. At one point, several years into the Great Depression the unemployment rate did drop all the way to a whopping 14%, but shortly after it was back up to 19 or 20%. Federal spending went up considerably during the Great Depression and stayed up. And despite this unemployment levels remained high, usually around 20%. All the facts I can find support me on this. If you think this is incorrect, feel free to prove me wrong.

      Also, if spending from the federal government could solve economic downturns, the Great Depression should have (imo), at most, ended by 1936. It did not. It continued into the 1940s, and some argue it did not end until after the war and most of FDR’s policies were ended. Also, the super high tax rates did not help. Again, when there is an economic downturn, taking even more money out of the economy is not a plan to make things better. I think the facts bear this out. Feel free to provide facts that contradict me.

      “And Bush’s spending did indeed create jobs. Military spending propped up the economy to some extent. It’s just that so many jobs were flowing to China at the same time, it didn’t have much of an impact.”

      Feel free to support that comment with some facts. Under Bush the Younger, unemployment went from about 4% to 6% to 4% to 7%. Which is a net job loss. And Obama spent way more, and the unemployment rate went up to 10% at one point before getting back to about 8%, apparently more from people no longer looking than from actual job growth.

      If you have evidence that the federal government taking money out of the economy and spending it (often wastefully) creates economic growth, feel free to show it. Until then, I remain skeptical.

      • And despite this unemployment levels remained high, usually around 20%.
        Unemployment rates:
        1932: 23.6
        1933: 24.9
        1934: 21.7
        1935: 20.1
        1936: 17
        1937: 14.3
        1938: 19 (Roosevelt cut spending to try to balance the budget)
        1939: 17.2 (2nd phase of New Deal)
        1940: 14.6
        1941: 9.9 (U.S. enters WWII)
        1942: 4.7

          • Unemployment went from 24.9% in 1933 to 9.9% under the New Deal program, which contradicts your statements. From that spending, we got national parks, museums, training programs, arts programs, roads, bridges, and a recovery. We also had regulations put in place during the depression to prevent bank abuse. When those regulations were repealed in 1999, bank abuse quickly followed and that was one of the major causes of our current economic situation.

          • We’re talking about a period of about nine years. For eight of those years, unemployment remained in double digits. And before Roosevelt got into office, Hoover did his own share of raising federal spending, and when Roosevelt took office the unemployment rate was above 20%. Yes, technically my comment is incorrect, however, the average of those first eight years in your list is about 19 to 20%. So I still would argue that federal spending did nothing to improve the unemployment rate during the Great Depression. Also, with other apparent failures of government spending to reduce unemployment, and that before the Great Depression the federal government mostly did not intervene in economic downturns and those downturns was generally short-lived, often lasting only a year or two, and the fact that the Great Depression lasted about a dozen years, and the current job numbers do not seem to be gaining much from massive government spending, I remain unconvinced that government spending is necessary to improve employment. If anything is proven by the historical record, it is that government meddling prolongs economic downturns.

  3. Yes, technically my comment is incorrect, however, the average of those first eight years in your list is about 19 to 20%.

    Yes, and if Bill Gates walked into a bar in the poorest neighborhood in the country, everyone in that bar, on average, would be a millionaire.

    If anything is proven by the historical record, it is that government meddling prolongs economic downturns.

    There’s no evidence of that. But there is solid, verifiable proof that deregulation causes economic downturns. We wouldn’t be in this mess we’re in today if it wasn’t for deregulation and lack of enforcement of existing regulations. Even Alan Greenspan has admitted that the “invisible hand” theory is erroneous.

    • “Yes, and if Bill Gates walked into a bar in the poorest neighborhood in the country, everyone in that bar, on average, would be a millionaire.”

      So you don’t like measuring things as a percentage of the GDP, and you don’t like using averages. Huh. Anyway, the numbers you provided do not have an outlier comparable to Bill Gates walking into a bar in the poorest neighborhood in the country.

      “There’s no evidence of that.”

      No evidence that government meddling prolongs economic downturns? Yes, there is. The primary one being the Great Depression lasting (at least) a dozen years.

      “But there is solid, verifiable proof that deregulation causes economic downturns.”

      Then provide it.

      “We wouldn’t be in this mess we’re in today if it wasn’t for deregulation and lack of enforcement of existing regulations.”

      There were more regulations on the books when Bush the Younger left office than when he first took office. And a large portion of this mess was caused by government meddling. Banks were not making house loans to people who could not pay because they wanted to, but because the government told them they were supposed to.

      “Even Alan Greenspan has admitted that the ‘invisible hand’ theory is erroneous.”

      Feel free to provide that quote in context. Not that it matters a whole lot. Claiming the invisible hand theory is erroneous like like saying evolution doesn’t happen. I’d be mildly surprised if he said such a thing, but it would hardly be persuasive.

      • Banks were not making house loans to people who could not pay because they wanted to, but because the government told them they were supposed to.

        And who told them that? Barney Frank? Jimmy Carter? You’ve proved facts don’t bear any importance to your reasoning. (or lack thereof)

        • “And who told them that?”

          The federal government, as I said already. Look up the info about the affordable housing programs under Clinton and Bush the Younger.

          “You’ve proved facts don’t bear any importance to your reasoning. (or lack thereof)”

          Outside of a set of stats for unemployment rates from 1932 to 1942, you have provided little in the way of facts. You made several assertions that you have yet to support. If you are expecting me to take your word for everything, then apparently, you think I am not only stupid but also gullible. Your attitude is one of rudeness and arrogance. You might get farther if you dial that back several notches.

          But now you’ve annoyed me. Since you want to bring criticizing other people’s reasoning into this, let’s go.

          Correlation is not causation. The federal government spent massively during the Great Depression. Unemployment fluctuated and finally managed to drop below an average rate of about 20%. That the two happened occur during the same time frame does not prove federal spending had a positive effect on unemployment. On the other hand, that most previous economic downturns had cleared up without much government meddling in something like three or less years, and the Great Depression, which had a lot of government meddling, lasted at least a dozen years is a strong indicator that government meddling prolonged what should have been a much shorter economic downturn. You claim not only is this is not so, but “there is solid, verifiable proof that deregulation causes economic downturns.” You have not yet provided any of this proof.

          Here is a hint. Don’t start with unfounded assumptions. You started the conversation with “Literalists are some of the dumbest people out there.” The first sentence of your next comment was “Nope, that’s the argument you’re told to use.” At some point you should have learned that the antagonistic ad hominem attack is a thing known as a logical fallacy.

          And now you are, apparently, expecting me to take everything you say as fact. I realize that amongst liberal types like yourself the popular belief is that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid, but that belief is incorrect. I have not come to my opinions without thought or study. Were I betting man, I might wager you did not come to your opinions lightly either. Even if, for the sake of argument, we were to accept that you are completely correct in your assessment of the economic situation, that does not give you grounds to assume I am so stupid that I have not thoughtfully formed my opinions or that I should just accept whatever you say as fact. And making that sort of assumption removes any ground you might think you have to criticize anyone else’s reasoning.

          If you have facts then start producing them. I’d be happy to discuss them. If, however, all you plan to bring to the discussion is pious faith in your own superiority, then you’re not worth my time.

          • Deregulation: the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 allowed commercial banks to engage in speculation, high risk investments, and other reckless behavior. The Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 prohibited the regulation of derivatives trading — another major cause of the recession. The Consolidated Supervised Entities Program allowed banks to set their own requirements for loans, which they subsequently did away with pretty much completely.

            Okay, now what bill forced banks to loan to people who couldn’t afford it?

          • “Deregulation: the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 allowed commercial banks to engage in speculation, high risk investments, and other reckless behavior. The Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 prohibited the regulation of derivatives trading — another major cause of the recession. The Consolidated Supervised Entities Program allowed banks to set their own requirements for loans, which they subsequently did away with pretty much completely.”

            That does not actually prove deregulation causes economic downturns. Why?

            Some people still seem to think Republicans take a hands-off approach to regulation, probably because the party is always quick to criticize the burdens regulations place on businesses. But Republican rhetoric doesn’t always match Republican policy. In 2007, according to Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, roughly 50 regulatory agencies issued 3,595 final rules, ranging from boosting fuel economy standards for light trucks to continuing a ban on bringing torch lighters into airplane cabins. Five departments (Commerce, Agriculture, Homeland Security, Treasury, and the Environmental Protection Agency) accounted for 45 percent of the new regulations.

            Since Bush took office in 2001, there has been a 13 percent decrease in the annual number of new rules. But the new regulations’ cost to the economy will be much higher than it was before 2001. Of the new rules, 159 are “economically significant,” meaning they will cost at least $100 million a year. That’s a 10 percent increase in the number of high-cost rules since 2006, and a 70 percent increase since 2001. And at the end of 2007, another 3,882 rules were already at different stages of implementation, 757 of them targeting small businesses.

            Overall, the final outcome of this Republican regulation has been a significant increase in regulatory activity and cost since 2001. The number of pages added to the Federal Register, which lists all new regulations, reached an all-time high of 78,090 in 2007, up from 64,438 in 2001.
            http://reason.com/archives/2008/12/10/bushs-regulatory-kiss-off

            So there was actually more regulation in place, not less. But more specifically:

            The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 prohibited investment banks from acting as commercial banks, and vice versa. Signed by Bill Clinton (who continues to defend the legislation), the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 repealed those aspects of the law. Many on the left blame at least part of our current woes on that move. With the repeal, Barack Obama said in a March economic address, “we have deregulated the financial services sector, and we face another crisis.”

            In fact, multiple exemptions to Glass-Steagall had been granted for years before Gramm-Leach-Bliley was signed into law. Most European financial markets, not normally known as more “deregulated” than the U.S., never separated commercial and investment banks in the first place. And there is no correspondence between institutions that benefited from the repeal and those that recently collapsed. Institutions that didn’t take advantage of the Glass-Steagall repeal, such as Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, were the ones that failed most spectacularly, in part because they lacked the stability provided by commercial banking deposits.

            If anything, Gramm-Leach-Bliley may have softened the blow. The George Mason economist Tyler Cowen argues that Gramm-Leach-Bliley made way for more diversity in the financial sector, and “so far in the crisis times the diversification has done considerably more good than harm.” Under the Glass-Steagall rules, Bank of America and J.P. Morgan Chase would not have been able to acquire Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns. Nor would Goldman Sachs and Citibank have their current unified form, which may have helped them survive.

            There is a significant body of academic work supporting this idea. The Rutgers economist Eugene Nelson White, for example, has found that national banks with security affiliates—the sort of institutions Glass-Steagall was designed to prevent—were much less likely to fail than banks without affiliates.

            http://reason.com/archives/2008/12/08/is-deregulation-to-blame/

            And:

            Indeed, even if these three deregulations had no caveats explaining away their supposed link to the current financial crisis, they would still hardly constitute a historical trend. In contrast, historical periods of high regulation have proven decidedly unfavorable. Financial sector regulation during the 1970s was much heavier than today, and that did not prevent stagflation, with unemployment reaching nine percent in May 1975 and inflation nearly topping 14 percent.

            Similarly, Europe currently boasts some of the world’s tightest financial sector regulations, and its banks have suffered just as much, if not more than American banks in this recession. European banks made the same bad bets, the same poor investments, and the same over-leveraged mistakes—despite more regulation and government oversight.

            http://reason.com/archives/2009/06/19/the-myth-of-financial-deregula

            I provide these quotes to show I am not making this stuff up, and to provide links to further reading.

            “Okay, now what bill forced banks to loan to people who couldn’t afford it?”

            The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act.

            The authors do not give enough attention to the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), first enacted in 1977 to require banks to report the distribution of their mortgage loans. By 1995 the CRA had become a powerful tool in the hands of ACORN and allied activist organizations. Unless a bank could silence their protests by making (and passing on to Fannie Mae) the demanded amount of subprime loans, it faced serious difficulties in obtaining regulatory approval for branching, merging, and other corporate decisions.

            http://reason.com/archives/2011/11/09/the-affordable-housing-scam/singlepage

            And:

            Many conservative commentators have blamed the housing mess on the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which essentially required banks to increase lending in low-income areas. While the CRA was a bad law, its role in recent events has been overblown. After all, it was on the books for decades before the bubble began. The law’s worst legacy is the permanent network of “affordable housing” advocates that sprang up after it passed. These groups, which were intended to facilitate lending in poor areas, continually called for increased activity by banks and additional government support for affordable housing initiatives. The CRA also helped create a climate in which lending to low-income households was a key metric and condition regulators used in approving bank mergers.

            Other, more recent developments played a bigger role in the financial crisis. In 1993 the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston published “Closing the Gap: A Guide to Equal Opportunity Lending.” The report recommended a series of measures to better serve low-income and minority households. Most of the recommendations were routine and mundane: better staff training, improved outreach and communication, and the like. But the report also urged banks to loosen their income thresholds for receiving a mortgage. In the years after the report was published, activists and officials—especially in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, under both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush—used its findings to pressure banks to increase their lending to low-income households. By the turn of the century, other changes in federal policy made those demands more achievable.

            http://reason.com/archives/2008/12/03/anatomy-of-a-breakdown/singlepage

            Yes, I know, the quotes are all from Reason.com. It’s late, and I’m tired, and getting them from one place was easier than hunting down all the other places these points were made.

  4. Yes, I know, the quotes are all from Reason.com.

    That’s an unabashedly biased site, and all those arguments have been totally discredited. Try thinking for yourself. Get the facts and then form your own opinion.

    • “That’s an unabashedly biased site”

      As is yours. So what?

      “and all those arguments have been totally discredited”

      Where? By whom? Once again, you provide not even a hint of support for your assertion. Oh wait, I get it. You don’t want to actually address anything in the support for my argument, so you’re just dismissing it all out of hand.

      “Try thinking for yourself. Get the facts and then form your own opinion.”

      That is kinda funny. The guy who, obviously, expects me to take everything he says as a fact even though he provides little to no support for what he says, is telling me to think for myself. The guy who, when challenged, refuses to provide facts, says to me, “Get the facts and then form your own opinion.”

      You have no grounds to criticize my reasoning, because you are pretty much not using any reason. You have no grounds to tell me to think for myself, because you’re clearly not here for a thoughtful discussion. You have come here to, apparently, do little more than bash me and angrily tell me I’m wrong. And any attempts to discuss the matter with you only result in you engaging in more bashing and you making more angry, unsupported assertions that I’m wrong.

      You have proven to be not worth my time. Have a nice day.

      • Once again, you provide not even a hint of support for your assertion.

        I provided the names of bills that resulted in the destruction of our economy. You have not provided anything other than right-wing talking points and lies. When you have to lie to make your point, you have no point. You’re just following blindly.

        • That you call them lies is not proof they are lies. That you claim the bills resulted in “resulted in the destruction of our economy” (the economy is not destroyed by the way) does not prove they did. You made an assertion, not a statement of fact. I’ve provided evidence that indicates your assertions are the lies. You have provided exactly no contrary evidence. So by the reasoning you just espoused, you have no point. And I can only conclude then that the one of us who is following blindly is you.

          Have a good day.

  5. You are indeed a liar. You lied when you stated unemployment hovered around 20% during the 12 years of the Great Depression. That is a blatant lie. When you have to use a site like “reason.com” as your proof, the only thing that proves is that you have no regard for the truth or reason.

    • “You are indeed a liar. You lied when you stated unemployment hovered around 20% during the 12 years of the Great Depression.”

      I did not say “unemployment hovered around 20% during the 12 years of the Great Depression.” I said “At one point, several years into the Great Depression the unemployment rate did drop all the way to a whopping 14%, but shortly after it was back up to 19 or 20%. Federal spending went up considerably during the Great Depression and stayed up. And despite this unemployment levels remained high, usually around 20%.” And later I said “the average of those first eight years in your list is about 19 to 20%.” And the facts, including the numbers you posted (notably the only verifiable facts you have provided), support what I said. So the one lying in this instance is you.

      “When you have to use a site like ‘reason.com’ as your proof, the only thing that proves is that you have no regard for the truth or reason.”

      Dismissing the Reason articles out of hand without providing any evidence they are incorrect is not using reason or truth or facts. It is, however, a logical fallacy. It’s called ad hominem, that is, attacking the person or source of the argument instead of the argument itself. Which seems to be all you are interested in doing.

      I have given you ample opportunity to step up your level of discourse. You have chosen not to do so. Feel free to let me know when you change your mind. Until then, we’re done. Good bye.

  6. Socspeak. I remember that speech and giving my husband a double take. Was I the only one that heard him right? I am enjoying your blog tonight.

  7. Thank you.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: