Post-Defining Fair Share

Governor Christie was on his monthly radio program last night when he got a call from Bob questioning why the son of the Essex County Executive (and Chrisite political backer) Thomas DiVencenzo got a $92,000 per year NJ state job.  Christie never answered the question (though he claimed he did to justify his diversionary tirade) but seeing from the screen that Bob was a retired public employee he had the opening he needed to advance his benefit cut talking points:
.

.

Bob was barely able to defend himself on a topic he did not expect (or else he might have mentioned that Chrisite has also shorted the pension system by more money – $14.8 billion – than any other governor in history and that current NJ taxpayers would not have to be paying for current retiree benefits if these plans had been funded with any sense of responsibility) but what he elicited could have clued us in to what Christie’s grand plan for public benefits reform will look like.


The main proposal of the Pension Study Commission will be that retirees should pay for a large part of their medical benefits (and that money will find its way back into the pension fund).  That will happen and though the gross amount of a retiree pension will not change (either from cuts or COLA increases) the net amount of that check will likely be reduced by about 25% next year or whatever Christie’s people get to define as fair for their needs since the contract agreed to when these people were accruing their benefits is now redefined as unfair as everyone wakes up to the real costs.

 

61 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by RealRep on October 16, 2014 at 1:14 pm

    The money from the last reforms never made it back into the system. He took the increased contributions from the employee and deducted it from the accrued liability i.e. lowering the rate of employer contribution.

    Reply

  2. Posted by bpaterson on October 16, 2014 at 1:46 pm

    JB1-little misleading on that “shorted the pension system by more money – $14.8 billion – than any other governor in history”. On the surface with raw number you quote is right, but the reason it is so huge is in reference to the the huge payment obligations that it is matched against from the past 20 years of evasion..

    Avoiding the funding of debts is indeed wrong, but more research on the %’s of the different governors actions towards this issue may make him a saint. I believe you did a study sometime last years comparing governors and payments, and %’s may be able to be interpolated.

    And guess what, when he bails in 2016 then your same claim can subsequently and inevitably be made against the next governor. There is no way this debt or including any of the major other obligations of NJ can be paid down….outside of presenting a lien on every man woman, child, home and building in the state, or selling off the parkway, turnpike, pinelands and statehouse.

    Reply

    • It’s a little misleading in that missed or lower ARC contributions one year mean future ARCs are higher than they would have been had those contributions been deposited so a stringent calculation of the shortchanging would develop lower missed contribution numbers but you then have to remember:

      The actuarial valuations are pure BS. They are ludicrously understating contributions because that is what the actuaries are paid to do. The state should be putting in about $10 billion annually and a real number as to Christie’s shortchanging would peg in at around $50 billion.

      Reply

  3. Posted by Anonymous on October 16, 2014 at 2:42 pm

    TL please read this statement from John’s post and let in sink in. Please?

    Chrisite has also shorted the pension system by more money – $14.8 billion – than any other governor in history and that current NJ taxpayers would not have to be paying for current retiree benefits if these plans had been funded with any sense of responsibility)

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 16, 2014 at 4:14 pm

      90%-100% of the money not contributed is traceable back to the unnecessary/unjust granting of the grossly excessive pension promises in place today …. all the result of Union/politician collusion (you-scratch-my-back, and-I’ll-scratch-yours).

      Taxpayers should not contribute one penny towards funding the 50+% share of your pensions (and almost ALL of your retiree healthcare promises) attributable to such collusion.

      You want these HUGE HUGE pensions ? Fine, but then YOU must pay the FULL cost of anything greater than the cost of the retirement benefits typically granted to comparable PRIVATE Sector taxpayers. You’re NOT ‘special” on OUR dime.

      Reply

      • They already paid while they were working, the State refused to pay their share and also raided the system to meet budget. Get your facts right before you
        blast off.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on October 16, 2014 at 11:58 pm

          If you want to discuss “sharing” of the total cost of Public Sector pensions, read my FIRST comment on Mr. Bury’s previous Blog post titled …”Bashing New Jersey Public Employees”

          Reply

        • Posted by Anonymous on October 17, 2014 at 3:07 pm

          TL thinks NJ policymakers are reading this blog and sipping deep on the dribble flowing from her stuck thoughts.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 17, 2014 at 11:37 pm

            And you still think with (under proper accounting … the rules that the US Gov’t REQUIRES of Private Sector Plans) NJ’s State Plans, which have only 35% of the assets that should be IN-HAND TODAY for service ALREADY rendered in the PAST, that your pensions will actually be paid as promised.

            So who is the fool ?
            —————————————————————————————–

            And the Local Plan fair only slightly better, at about 50% funded (under proper accounting).

  4. Posted by Anonymous on October 16, 2014 at 3:05 pm

    pay a fair share! yeah I ll pay a fair share when the state makes even half its fairs share of the contributions!!!!! lmaoooooooo

    Reply

  5. Posted by Tough Love on October 16, 2014 at 3:30 pm

    Quoting …. “and that current NJ taxpayers would not have to be paying for current retiree benefits if these plans had been funded with any sense of responsibility”.

    Nor would the Taxpayers have to be paying for a LARGE portion (50+%) of current retiree benefits if the grossly excessive (by ANY reasonable metric), unnecessary, and unfair (to the Taxpayer called upon to pay for almost all of it) share of these pensions had never been granted in the first place. But no, our self-serving elected officials just couldn’t resist the very generous Public Sector Unions campaign contributions and election support … in exchange for their favorable votes on pay, pensions, and benefits.

    Well, while our elected officials deserve the most blame (with a good dose owing to the Unions for insatiable greed), its the Public Sector WORKERS who are the financial beneficiaries of that greed and Union/Politician collusion, so THAT’S where Taxpayer must go to right this wrong ….. by very materially reducing (by AL LEAST 50%) the pensions of all CURRENT Public Sector workers … and if financial circumstances so necessitate, the pensions of those already retired.

    —————————————————————-

    Quoting … “whatever Christie’s people get to define as fair for their needs since the contract agreed to when these people were accruing their benefits…”

    Contract agreed to ?

    Please tell me exactly who on EITHER side of the table negotiating that contract was TRULY looking out for the Taxpayers’ interests. Those who “negotiate” on behalf of the Taxpayers are themselves Public Sector workers (or officials) and participate in the same (or similar) Plans and get the same (or better) benefits …. and THEY (as management or officials) will always get a bit MORE than the rank-and-file. They have a giant conflict of interest and great DISINCENTIVE to get the BEST deal for the Taxpayers.

    The beleaguered Taxpayers are fed up with being the suckers in the equation.

    Reply

  6. Posted by Anonymous on October 16, 2014 at 3:37 pm

    put in half the money owed by the state. is that asking too much? only half, 50 percent, a number you love. so why not put in 50 percent of the contributions owed?

    Reply

  7. Posted by Anonymous on October 16, 2014 at 3:38 pm

    By the way, you voted for them, now you complain! hahahahahha

    Reply

  8. Posted by Tough Love on October 16, 2014 at 3:44 pm

    John, If Gov. Christie thinks that he will get the Nj’s “pension” problems under control by only a material cut to retiree healthcare, he’s simply wrong.

    While doing THAT may address his cash-flow/revenue shortfall issues (by using the healthcare savings to temporarily keep the pension system alive) it’s a band-aid at best.

    There is no effective “solution” to NJ’s pension problems that does not include very material (50+%) reductions in the pension accrual rate for the FUTURE Service of all current workers.

    And (you, as an actuary who can model future pension inflow/outflow) I believe you know that as well.

    Reply

    • The thing is Christie doesn’t want to get the pension problems under control. A band-aid is fine with him, as with every other governor in my memory.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on October 16, 2014 at 8:17 pm

        Quoting ..”The thing is Christie doesn’t want to get the pension problems under control. ”

        Strong statement (that he doesn’t “WANT TO”….”) …. then it seems like you need to be VERY CLEAR with your many Public-Sector-worker “Anonymous” commentators what they should EXPECT in the way of future pension payments (or lack thereof).

        Reply

  9. Posted by Anonymous on October 16, 2014 at 4:13 pm

    OMG! TL has realized that Christie if full of horse feathers! Wow, I am in total shock, she has had an epiphany! However that being said, she things her solution of reducing the pensions by 50 percent will spare her from paying inflated taxes, but it wont, wait until she realizes that truth

    Reply

  10. Posted by Anonymous on October 17, 2014 at 9:11 am

    In July CC borrowed 2.6 billion from JPMorganChase to jumpstart this year’s budget, this was after cutting the pension payment. When is that bridge loan due. In April and May 2014, the NJ DIVISION OF Pension and Benefits finally transported the legislation that governs the NJABP and other defined contribution plans. There is much talk about the pension reforms instituted in 2011 but no discussion about the impact on those trying to retire under NJABP. Someone thought the State could borrow from the funds, that the State could put a cap on the lifetime payout amount I believe the proposal in August 2012 was $138000, the federal cap per plan is $205000 approximately, no state imposed cap, so NJABP employees seeking lifetime income were place in single life immediate annuities while CC and company sought other ways to borrow and reduce lifetime income for NJABP participants. There is an exclusive benefit clause in the group policy that protects the annuity and their beneficiaries. So without prescription of the legislation NJABP retirees without other sources receive minimal immediate interim payments because you need the State as the policyholders permission to tap the group annuity that provides lifetime income, without the legislation the Division of Pensions and Benefits only approved monies from the supplemental accounts. So NJABP retirees began getting full payouts for the annuities 401a and 403b beginning in April and May when the defined contribution programs legislation was readopted 401/403 is IRSC legislation for public sector retirement account. The policy allows the employer to amend without asking the participants, but all plans in the State pension system should inform the participants of any actions that might have a negative impact. The restricted legislation continues to protect the retirement assets of the inhabitants and their beneficiaries, starting in June lifetime annuitants began moving from initial immediate annuities to deferred annuity payments, many months/ several years waiting, not fair. NJABP is the retirement program for higher education faculty and administrators.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 17, 2014 at 11:04 am

      Suggest …grammar 101.

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on October 17, 2014 at 11:54 am

        you got some brass ones TL with all the many many grammar and spelling mistakes you post. And you blame it on spell check and you dont have the energy to proofread. hilarious!

        Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on October 17, 2014 at 12:15 pm

        TL is the content too much for you level of understanding?

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on October 17, 2014 at 12:28 pm

          Quoting ONE sentence from above……

          “Someone thought the State could borrow from the funds, that the State could put a cap on the lifetime payout amount I believe the proposal in August 2012 was $138000, the federal cap per plan is $205000 approximately, no state imposed cap, so NJABP employees seeking lifetime income were place in single life immediate annuities while CC and company sought other ways to borrow and reduce lifetime income for NJABP participants.”

          Ridiculous. If you want to comment, learn basic elementary writing skills.

          Reply

          • Posted by Anonymous on October 17, 2014 at 3:09 pm

            TL is allowing her dictator tendencies to be exposed.

          • Posted by Anonymous on October 17, 2014 at 3:12 pm

            It’s a blog comment, run on sentences are expected, missing commas, it’s about content. This being said any valid response?

          • Posted by Anonymous on October 17, 2014 at 8:35 pm

            TL is exactly like Chris Christie, probably just as obese as well. She tries to deflect the spotlight away from herself with outrageous lies and inaccuracies. Thank God she has now made the statement that she wont comment any longer unless she takes the time to proof read her rants. We know that wont happen.

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 17, 2014 at 8:42 pm

            Anon, Please tell me exactly what I have stated that is …”outrageous lies and inaccuracies”….. and we can debate it.

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 18, 2014 at 2:02 am

            YO Anon ….I’m still waiting ……

        • Posted by Anonymous on October 17, 2014 at 3:21 pm

          “your”. NJABP is a 401a and 403b under the IRS 401 codes, what I described is a real attempt by the CC administration to undermine contracted benefits.

          Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 17, 2014 at 8:41 pm

      Anon, Please tell me exactly what I have stated that is …”outrageous lies and inaccuracies”….. and we can debate it.

      Reply

  11. “Christie’s people get to define as fair for their needs since the contract agreed to when these people were accruing their benefits is now redefined as unfair as everyone wakes up to the real costs.”

    Again, I think the cost of benefits promised to people when they agreed to take the job, as compared with the cost later imposed after political deals to increase them (or pension spiking), is critical to any fairness — and yet never made.

    And there is a big difference between retiring with a pension at 62 or 65 and retiring with a pension at 55 or younger. No one talks about that either.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on October 17, 2014 at 3:18 pm

      As well as retiring with

      (a) a Public Sector pension of 75% of final pay for a full-career worker vs a Private Sector pension with the IDENTICAL work history (pay, age at retirement, service years) rarely above 40% of final pay.

      (b) a Public Sector pension with built-in annual COLA increases vs NO SUCH COLA for the Private Sector worker’s pension.

      For someone retiring at age 60, the existence of the COLA benefit increases the pension’s value by just about 1/3 over an otherwise identical pension without the COLA provision. Therefore, the 75% COLA-adjusted Public Sector pension is equivalent to a 75% x 4/3 = 100% pension WITHOUT the COLA, and that 100% pension is apples-to-apples comparable to the 40% of pay pension the Private Sector worker might get….. 2.5 TIMES GREATER.

      So tell me …. ANYONE ….. how can this possibly be justified

      Reply

      • It was the deal offered, and anyone could have taken it.

        At least in the past, public sector workers were paid less in cash and more in benefits (though their performance often mirrored the cash and not the benefits).

        Many private sector workers chose their career path based on increases in pay that never came. That is not the public sector workers’ fault.

        But if retroactively cutting promised and already worked for benefits is unjust, retroactively increasing those benefits is also, equally, unjust.

        Reducing benefits for future employees does nothing to reverse that injustice (it makes it worse). Even cutting benefits for existing retirees back to what they were promised to begin with doesn’t reverse the injustice, because the burden of excess payments made between the retroactive increase and its reversal.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on October 17, 2014 at 3:59 pm

          Sorry Larry, that doesn’t cut-it when those offering the “deal” (our elected officials or their representatives) are BOUGHT-OFF with Public Sector union campaign contribution and election support.
          ——————————

          And quoting …”At least in the past, public sector workers were paid less in cash and more in benefits ”

          The operative word in that quote is “were”. While true 30+ years ago, few of today’s workers and many retirees of the last 10 years were NEVER paid less than their Private Sector counterparts, and as such, there is ZERO justification for ANY (yes ANY) greater Public Sector pensions or benefits, let alone the MULTIPLES greater ones universally granted today.

          Reply

          • Posted by Anonymous on October 17, 2014 at 5:20 pm

            TL you need your own blog.

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 17, 2014 at 5:57 pm

            Anon, If I didn’t comment, who would counter the litany of material omissions, distortions of fact, and outright lies from Public Sector worker commentators trying desperately to keep their grossly excessive, unnecessary and unjust pensions ?

          • Posted by Anonymous on October 17, 2014 at 6:14 pm

            They will keep their pensions, they will pay for group healthcare benefits with a smaller contribution or no contribution from the State.

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 17, 2014 at 6:31 pm

            Not for the long term in NJ …..EVEN IF Christie only aims to cut retiree healthcare for now.

            There is no way the current level of promises can be met long-term.
            ___________________________________________

          • Posted by SDouglas47 on October 18, 2014 at 7:26 am

            Twelve percent less, on average, according to all serious studies. Up to 38% less for many professionals and PhDs.

          • Posted by SDouglas47 on October 18, 2014 at 1:38 pm

            “Anon, If I didn’t comment, who would counter the litany of material omissions, distortions of fact, and outright lies from Public Sector worker commentators trying desperately to keep their grossly excessive, unnecessary and unjust pensions ?”

            ……………………………..
            TL:
            ” few of today’s workers and many retirees of the last 10 years were NEVER paid less than their Private Sector counterparts,”

            WRONG! according to every objective study.
            ……………………………….
            TL:
            ” greater Public Sector pensions or benefits, let alone the MULTIPLES greater ones universally granted today.”

            Comparison of pensions alone, outside the context of “total compensation”, is worse than worthless. It should be considered “material omissions, distortions of fact, and outright lies.”

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 18, 2014 at 4:09 pm

            SDouglas47,

            I figured you would show up here eventually…… with your standard Public Sector worker/retiree position (supported by a very few outlier … Union supported/financed studies) that counter mainstream evidence and many scholarly studies that conclude that (for all but a VERY VERY VERY few high level professional occupations, such as doctors and lawyers) BOTH “cash pay” and ESPECIALLY “Total Compensation” (which includes pensions and benefits) is FAR FAR greater in the Public (than Private) Sector.

          • Posted by SDouglas47 on October 18, 2014 at 6:55 pm

            “a very few outlier … Union supported/financed studies”

            I know, huh? Heritage Foundation. Damb commies.

            I missed the part in the study where they said VERY VERY VERY something , and FAR FAR whatever.

            They are usually more specific with their data.

            I believe that can be considered a “ToughLoveism”

            Or, as Mrs. Cooper said, ” And that is your *opinion*.

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 18, 2014 at 7:19 pm

            SDouglas47, I suggest that you read Mr Bury’s NEXT Blog-post titled …”Too Late For the Truth”.

            My Bury practices as a Pension actuary, so unless you think he is s fool or has his head up his xxx, you should give some thought as to whether supporting the position (at least in NJ, with it’s Public Plans in a “death Spiral”) of never MATERIALLY compromising,digging your feet in, and demanding that Taxpayers fund all that has been “promised” (as absurdly generous as those promises are) is a sensible strategy.

            And wherever you live …. the SAME problem is headed your way.

          • Posted by SDouglas47 on October 18, 2014 at 7:21 pm

            It differs from state to state, of course, and from city to city within each state, but the average underpayment in cash wages is about 12%. On this, the Heritage Foundation agrees with the union thugs and other various lowlife “pigs”, crooks, and heathens.

            And for those VERY VERY VERY, guys, the cash underpayment is around 38%. (That’s VERY VERY VERY substantial) And a 17% underpayment in TOTAL compensation. That, according to Biggs, INCLUDES pension and retiree healthcare discounted at the ” proper” rate.

            Imagine that, in many cases, those professionals with $100,000+ pensions are UNDERPAID!!!

            UNDER!!!

            PAID!!!

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 18, 2014 at 7:33 pm

            SDouglas47, I don’t fight with the blind, and on subject of Public Sector pensions, you are indeed blind.

            Regardless, per my comment just above………… I suggest that you read Mr Bury’s NEXT Blog-post titled …”Too Late For the Truth”….

          • Posted by SDouglas47 on October 18, 2014 at 7:46 pm

            Another thing the pigs and anti-pigs agree on (why not, it’s verifiable, quantifiable data?) is that there is a continuum.

            In cash wages, despite what TL continuously iterates, the AVERAGE public sector worker earns about twelve percent less than his private sector equivalent. As already stated, the highest educated public workers earn about thirty eight percent less, and the lowest educated, unskilled public workers make “about the same” as their private sector peers…..in CASH wages.

            Here am the ironic part. Everyone agrees that when we say the “average” pension is about $2,200 a month, THAT is misleading because it includes short career workers, those retired ten years ago under lower salaries and formulas, yada, yada, yada. Guess what some of the lower educated, lower paid workers receive as a pension after a FULL career (30 years or more).

            Yep, about $2,200 a month.

            AND, according to Heritage Foundation, AND the union thugs, in total compensation, these are the ones who are MOST overpaid compared to their private sector peers.

            It’s a MAD MAD world.

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 18, 2014 at 8:35 pm

            Responding to Sdouglas47….

            (1) Quoting … “In cash wages, despite what TL continuously iterates, the AVERAGE public sector worker earns about twelve percent less than his private sector equivalent.”

            I cannot ever recall stating a percentage by which Private Sector compensation is lower than Public Sector compensation. If I did, I was likely quoting from a published source. Please state EXACTLY where I said that.

            (2) Quoting … “As already stated, the highest educated public workers earn about thirty eight percent less, and the lowest educated, unskilled public workers make “about the same” as their private sector peers…..in CASH wages.

            Know ..YOU stated that, often referring to that “highest” class as those with PHDs. I have know idea what the Public/Private Sector differential is for PHD’s, but I would assume that the “cash pay” is higher in the Private Sector

            Big woop, what % of Public Sector worker have PHD’s …perhaps 1 out of every 10,000 worker? To even mention it, let alone focus on it, is indeed disingenuous to your position.

            (3) Quoting …. “Guess what some of the lower educated, lower paid workers receive as a pension after a FULL career (30 years or more). Yep, about $2,200 a month. ”

            I do assume that there are some full career recent Public Sector retirees with (low) $2,200/mo pensions. But what you fail to include in pointing that out is that the Private Sector counterparts of those low-paid Public Sector workers (i.e., in similar jobs) likely have either 1/4 to 1/2 the $2200/mo pension or no pension at all. Your bias is why you left that out.

          • Posted by SDouglas47 on October 19, 2014 at 12:04 am

            Anonymous,

            ” SDouglas and TL sound like the same person. Is TL a multiple personality?”

            Never heard that one before. I may be a multiple. I do have my “complicated” days.

            TL may be multiple also. I have seen him post as “Fed Up” ( or FU ).

            But we’re not the SAME multiple.

            I had considered from time to time taking the devil’s advocate position and actually agreeing with TL (or FU), but couldn’t do it with a straight face.

            I hope TL is flattered by your comparison, though.

        • Posted by SDouglas47 on October 18, 2014 at 11:20 pm

          ” But what you fail to include in pointing that out is that the Private Sector counterparts of those low-paid Public Sector workers (i.e., in similar jobs) likely have either 1/4 to 1/2 the $2200/mo pension or no pension at all. Your bias is why you left that out.”

          What part of this was unclear?
          ” Yep, about $2,200 a month.

          AND, according to Heritage Foundation, AND the union thugs, in total compensation, these are the ones who are MOST overpaid compared to their private sector peers.”
          ………………
          That’s the irony part. The lowest level of public worker, generally, not always, makes MUCH more in total compensation than his peers, and the highest level of public workers often, again, not always, earn much LESS than the private sector.

          Which is why when someone, who shall remain nameless, endorses: “very materially reducing (by AL LEAST 50%) the pensions of all CURRENT Public Sector workers … and if financial circumstances so necessitate, the pensions of those already retired.”

          We can safely disregard this idiotic, simplistic, knee jerk, zealous overreaction. And at the same time realize any other claims by this unnamed person are equally suspect.

          For every complex problem, there is a simple solution. And it is wrong.

          Reply

          • Posted by Anonymous on October 18, 2014 at 11:43 pm

            SDouglas and TL sound like the same person. Is TL a multiple personality?

          • Posted by Tough Love on October 19, 2014 at 12:30 am

            And yes (because I can’t find a way to change it w/o signing up at that website, which I will not do) some of my comments are coming up under the handle “Fed Up”.

        • Posted by SDouglas47 on October 18, 2014 at 11:53 pm

          TL:

          “I cannot ever recall stating a percentage by which Private Sector compensation is lower than Public Sector compensation.”

          TL:
          ” few of today’s workers and many retirees of the last 10 years were NEVER paid less than their Private Sector counterparts, and as such, there is ZERO justification for ANY (yes ANY) greater Public Sector pensions or benefits, …”
          ………..

          Seems to me, workers were NEVER paid less than their Private Sector counterparts, is nearly the polar opposite of, “average twelve percent less.”

          No, I don’t recall you stating a percentage either, much more prone to “VERY VERY VERY” something or “FAR FAR” whatever.
          …………..
          Typical TL statement, quote: ” They are not paid less than Private sector workers, so what justifies continued accrual rates that are multiples higher than the taxpayers who pay for the most of their Plans’ costs ?”

          ( Posted June 8, 2011 by burypensions)

          I say, and the data says, they ARE paid less, on average. Often MUCH less.

          Reply

  12. Posted by Anonymous on October 17, 2014 at 8:11 pm

    Sound of can being kicked down a long road, end of scene.

    Reply

  13. Posted by Anonymous on October 18, 2014 at 3:41 pm

    John, I was looking at the NJ pension and benefits website. Strangely enough when i log into my account, its says COLA 2015. I guess it really is reinstated?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: