New Jersey Last Again

This time it is in the Pew Charitable Trusts long-term analysis of how well state revenues matched expenses between fiscal years 2002 and 2015 which concluded:

New Jersey had the largest deficit, with aggregate revenue able to cover only 92.4 percent of aggregate expenses, followed by Illinois (94.3 percent). They were the only two states with aggregate shortfalls exceeding 5 percent of total expenses, and the only ones with annual deficits in each of the 14 years.

 

The Pew report went on to clarify:

Importantly, just because a state raised enough revenue over time to cover total expenses does not necessarily mean that it paid each bill. For example, North Dakota brought in surpluses nearly each year but fell behind on annual contributions to its pension system, electing to use the money for other purposes. So this measure gauges states’ wherewithal but does not reconcile whether revenue was used to cover specific expenses.

According to a NASRA issue brief for FY01 to FY15 the North Dakota Teachers only got 84.8% of the Annual Required Contribution (ARC) while the North Dakota PERS got 58.8% of the ARC ranking North Dakota as the fourth worst in making pension payments. The state that finished the worst in that study with an overall ratio under 40%:

43 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Anonymous on July 18, 2017 at 10:06 am

    So when states (most notably NJ ) runs out of other peoples money to spend …where do they look under the cushions ? All our taxes are the highest in the country ,raising them is out …growth must come from within ,you’ll never get growth raising taxes ..it’s as impossibly as running out of air under water …take a gulp .

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on July 18, 2017 at 1:31 pm

      Walk through the logic……….

      The graph shows the % of “full funding” contributions over the period 2001-2015.

      Public Sector Plans for non-Safety workers in NJ are just about 2.5 times greater in value upon retirement (i.e more generous) than those granted COMPARABLE Private Sector workers (with that 2.5 rising to about 4 times for it’s Safety-worker Plans).

      NJ non-safety worker PUBLIC Sector Plans being 2.5 times greater in value upon retirement is equivalent to saying that PRIVATE Sector Plans have a value of 1/2.5=0.4 or 40% of the value of non-Safety PUBLIC Sector Plans.

      NJ’s taxpayers SHOULD contribute an amount EQUAL TO but no more towards the pensions of their State/Local worker Plans than THEY get from their own employers (yes, based on the very reasonable/appropriate goal of ….. EQUAL, but not better, on the Taxpayers’ dime !).

      NJ’s Taxpayer have (per the above graph, over the period from 2001-2015) ALREADY contributed an amount EQUAL to what THEY get from their employers (the 40%) ….. and should contribute no more.

      Being the lowest of all the States (all with similarly excessive Public Sector pension Plans) at 40%, simply means that NJ’s Taxpayers have been LESS-SUCKERED in having been forced to OVERPAY for the excessive pensions granted their workers.

      BRAVO for NJ’s Taxpayers !

      *************************************

      And don’t be fooled by the BS that SMD will surely respond with.

      The AEI Study (with State-Specific Wage & Total Compensation data) shows that NJ’s Public Sector workers (for all workers combined, but EXCLUDING SAFETY-workers) have only a 4% of pay “wage” disadvantage vs comparable Private Sector workers……. surely dropping to zero (or flipping the other way had Safety workers been included in the Study). This very small “wage” disadvantage doesn’t even remotely approach offsetting the HUGE pension (and retiree healthcare …not even discussed here) ADVANTAGE of NJ Public Sector workers.

      Reply

  2. Posted by Analyst on July 18, 2017 at 12:44 pm

    You do a great review of these studies .
    When you looked at the Center for retirement research reports, did you highlight which ones provide the annual expected benefit payments so that we can do our own analyses ?

    Reply

  3. Posted by S Moderation Anonymous on July 18, 2017 at 4:47 pm

    When you try to put words in my mouth, you end up arguing with yourself. That’s a no-win scenario.

    Let us walk back through the logic. How fortuitous* that NJ taxpayers paid only the percentage that “math” has determined would be the proper level to provide pensions equal (but not better?) than the private sector. Is that just a happy coincidence, or are NJ taxpayers very prescient?

    Either way, why oh why did they fund local systems to a weighted average of 78%-88% (up to100% in 2015) and fund the state plans to only 17-23% (18-33% in 2015)?

    When, (not “if”) the haircuts start, will they equally affect state and local pensions? If so, will local workers complain (or sue)? “Why should our pensions be cut when the state deliberately underfunded their plan, then cries poormouth?”

    If there are federal loan guarantees (or bailouts, there will be tremendous pressure) what will the other states say which at least tried to meet their ARCs, about bailing out states which routinely just skipped out on their annual payments.

    “BRAVO for NJ’s Taxpayers !” won’t cut it.

    *Fortuitous… (Rhymes with ludicrous. I’d like to see the you-tube video when you try to sell that one to the judge.)

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on July 18, 2017 at 5:58 pm

      Well, sound like (with the Taxpayers having already paid MORE THAN a fair amount into the Local Plans) some Local Plan assets should be shifted to help underpayments at the State Plan level,

      Problem solved* …. and NO MORE MONEY from the Taxpayers is justified..

      * And no, NOT the “problem” of not fully funding the excessive pensions actually promised………… as those pension “promises” (BOUGHT by the Public Sector Unions from our self-interested Elected Officials with BRIBES disguised as campaign contributions and election support) were NEVER necessary, just, fair to Taxpayers, or affordable.

      Reply

    • Posted by S Moderation Anonymous on July 19, 2017 at 4:50 am

      Anyone with half a brain?…

      Sorry, all heat and no light. You get points for ardor and perseverance, but no cigar. You have been saying for years that public workers make no less in cash pay than the private sector., and that is just not the case. Most people who agree with you do so based on years of articles stressing the extremes… police and fire in particular.

      Now you seem to have an unnatural obsession with ONE study which happens to agree with your own pre-existing bias. The author of that study, in the “methodolgy” section described many of the difficulties and disagreements on assumptions in private/public comparisons and has more recently said there is a “range of reasonable answers found in studies”.

      You would need much better evidence to legally materially reduce pensions, even for future workers, let alone for future accrual of existing workers. And your apparent belief that you can unilaterally ignore existing contracts because, in YOUR OPINON they were somehow coerced, is just pompous arrogance.

      #23%bulls hit

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on July 19, 2017 at 8:21 am

        And who represented the taxpayer at those meetings where workers could give themselves raises and bigger pensions …The Governor …? we had one such govenor proudly proclaim on the steps of Trenton to his union workers “I’ll fight for you” …as he even dated one such union head …collusion indeed …contracts have no standing

        Reply

        • Posted by Anonymous on July 19, 2017 at 10:04 am

          Tell it to the judge.

          Reply

        • Posted by Anonymous on July 19, 2017 at 1:44 pm

          The exact words Gov. Corzine used that day (at a rally of government workers) were:

          “We will fight for a fair contract!””

          Source… http://www.libertylawsite.org/2015/05/07/we-will-fight-for-a-fair-contract/

          I suggest reading the full article………… impossible to walk away NOT thinking that Public Sector Unions are a CANCER inflicted upon civilized society.

          A few excerpts:

          “But the leaders of public sector unions, unlike their private counterparts, do not look across the table at a closed-fisted employer, eager to keep a tight lid on the company’s expenditures. Instead the calculus is political—and favorable to the unions. The concentrated interest of a public sector union in gaining concessions outweighs the public’s diffuse interest in opposing it, particularly where the lion’s share of the cost of the health and retirement benefits demanded by its members is left for future taxpayers to pay.”

          ” the loads of campaign cash have a way of easing the tension at the bargaining table.”

          “Sheldon Silver, at the time the Speaker of the New York State Assembly, assured the United Federation of Teachers: “I and my colleagues in the Assembly majority will be your best friends . . . in Albany.” In numerous states and municipalities, public sector unions essentially elected their own bosses.”

          “Relying on political scientist Sarah Aznia’s studies of off-year elections in California, he asserts that public sector unions concentrate their campaign cash in obscure, off-year state and local elections to secure favorable policy outcomes. Aznia calculates that Golden State municipalities with off-cycle elections pay employees 33 percent more in salaries and 40 percent more in benefits.”

          “Democrat Bill de Blasio, after winning the mayoralty of New York City in an off-year election where only 24 percent of the city’s eligible voters showed up to vote (but 42 percent of those who did show up belonged to a union household) agreed to a retroactive 4 percent pay increase for municipal workers. It cost municipal taxpayers $3.6 billion.”

          “Moreover, union-negotiated contracts make it virtually impossible to remove employees who fail on the job. In California, exactly .0002 percent of teachers are dismissed compared to 8 percent of private sector workers.”

          Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on July 19, 2017 at 11:33 am

        SMD, What I actually stated (most recently) isn’t “ignoring contracts”, but repeatedly challenging the preposterous protections of PUBLIC (but not PRIVATE) Sector pensions. My actual words can be found in the 3-rd paragraph of a recent post (pasted below):

        ************************************************

        Posted by Anonymous on July 18, 2017 at 2:05 pm

        Anyone with even modest math/finance skills knows that (with VERY few exceptions and then only for a small % of the most recently hired workers) that Public Sector pension formulas/provisions are unnecessarily generous, unfair to Taxpayers (now called upon to pay for 80% to 90% of total Plan costs), and clearly unaffordable. Continuing to grant ADDITIONAL (future service) pension accrual under formulas/provisions that we KNOW are unaffordable is financial-insanity.

        And if you do have those math/finance skills, you are also likely smart enough to realize that the Public Sector Unions/Workers will not WILLINGLY “negotiate away” more than a VERY VERY small share of the enormous advantage that they now have.

        Such changes MUST be FORCED upon them……. something no less direct than Ronald Reagan’s firing of the Air Traffic Controllers. Impediments (be they Constitutional clauses, Contract provisions, Case law, State/Local laws/regs., etc.) must be challenged again and again and again. I’d rather USE-UP our money FIGHTING these unjust pensions than paying for them. This is a battle that the Taxpayer CANNOT “afford” to lose.

        If we (the Taxpayers) don’t, we will ANNUALLY get less and less and less services while our taxes go up and up and up ….. all to pay for these ludicrously excessive Public Sector pension/benefit “promises”……… and eventually these ludicrously excessive pensions will fail anyway becasue the MATH assures that end.

        I don’t care about being politically correct, pleasing those who choose to cheat me (via unjustified pension/benefits…. that I must pay for), and those who knowingly lie to justify the absurd (e.g., safety workers typically die withing 5 years of retirement, “average” Public Sector pensions are only $xx, we “need” generous pensions to attract the “best and brightest”, yada, yada, yada).

        Reply

  4. Posted by S Moderation Anonymous on July 19, 2017 at 7:16 pm

    T-nonymous…

    “I suggest reading the full article………… impossible to walk away NOT thinking that Public Sector Unions are a CANCER inflicted upon civilized society.”

    And yet…

    Perhaps true if you went into the article looking for confirmation of your pre existing bias.

    “Powerful Public Employee Unions” is an oxymoron.

    From the link… “DiSalvo is careful not to blame government workers for seeking to be fairly compensated for their work, nor does he believe his fellow public servants are uniformly overpaid.”

    Whatever that means. In California we learned very quickly that the Dills act in 1978 gave state employees collective begging rights. The period from 2008-2013 saw no raises for CA state employees, but it was nowhere near the first time. Fairly routinely state/local employees would go two or three years with no general salary increases because of tight budgets. When, due to business cycles, state revenues would rebound, employee unions would go hat in hand to the legislature behind schools, welfare, infrastructure, etc. This Svengali like control the unions allegedly have over government is just a figment of your imagination.

    Jesse (Big Daddy) Unruh…
     “If you can’t eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women, take their money and then vote against them you’ve got no business being up here.”

    The unions have barely enough power to almost stay even with private sector compensation.

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on July 19, 2017 at 8:30 pm

      Out of that ENTIRE article ……. enumerating all the NEGATIVE ways that Public Sector Unions impact taxpayers ….. that’s your single take-away?

      Surprise, surprise:

      And your last sentence, where you stated:

      “The unions have barely enough power to almost stay even with private sector compensation.”

      shows how Transparent California’s Robert Feller pinned you out PERFECTLY, when he said ….

      “You didn’t bat an eye in blindly defending your pre-existing bias”

      Reply

  5. Posted by S Moderation Anonymous on July 19, 2017 at 10:45 pm

    Not a surprise. Daniel Disalvo is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and has had similar articles over the years.

    The “not overpaid” caught my eye because he just finished saying how those unions had so much power. Whats up with that? It is a fairly typical anti union article with half truths and innuendo.

    If, for example, you already have an anti union bias, the “.0002 percent of teachers are dismissed compared to 8 percent of private sector workers.” is red meat. I don’t know where he got his numbers, but that is apples and oranges at it’s worst. Teachers and other public employees go through a more stringent hiring process. You would expect many more layoffs and dismissals in fast food, landscaping, retail sales, etc. I know there are anecdotal horror stories about firing teachers or other public employees, but they are roughly equivalent to the fireman dying five years after he retires.

    If this article is the best proof of union power and abuse you have, you are not ready for prime time.

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on July 19, 2017 at 11:28 pm

      Quoting SMD,,,,,

      “If, for example, you already have an anti union bias, the “.0002 percent of teachers are dismissed compared to 8 percent of private sector workers.” is red meat. I don’t know where he got his numbers, but that is apples and oranges at it’s worst. Teachers and other public employees go through a more stringent hiring process. You would expect many more layoffs and dismissals in fast food, landscaping, retail sales, etc.”

      You’re a joke ………..

      I don’t know if DiSalvo really meant 0.0002 and not 0.0002 “percent”, but even the smaller 0.0002 means that only 1 in 5,000 teachers teachers are dismissed.

      If you DON’T believe than WAY more than 1 in 5,000 are incompetent and “deserve to be dismissed”, you AGAIN prove Robert Fellner’s statement , that:

      ““You didn’t bat an eye in blindly defending your pre-existing bias””

      Reply

      • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on July 20, 2017 at 12:24 am

        No idea where Disalvo got .002 percent.

        “Over the years for which we have data, about four percent of the total teacher workforce was dismissed each year for low evaluation scores.”

         https://www.brookings.edu/research/teacher-dismissals-under-new-evaluation-systems/
        ……………………….
        “A total of 758 teachers – those with tenure and without – as well as substitutes and administrators were fired last year and 105 more resigned to avoid dismissal, according to a district memo.

        Among those fired for poor performance were 136 nonpermanent educators – those with less than two years’ experience – and 312 substitute teachers.

        The total represents less than 3 percent of the district’s workforce of 30,000 teachers, but it’s a significant increase from the number of terminations made in previous years.”

        http://www.dailybreeze.com/article/zz/20110805/NEWS/110808320

        ……………………….

        Generations of reporters have been raised on the journalistic bromide “If your mother says she loves you, check it out”

        Reply

        • Posted by Anonymous on July 20, 2017 at 1:14 am

          Hey SMD…………..

          Why did you change DiSalvo’s 0.0002 percent to 0.002 percent ?

          Reply

          • Posted by Anonymous on July 20, 2017 at 11:15 am

            No, the question should be …..WHY is there protection of INCOMPETENT Public Sector workers ?

          • Posted by Anonymous on July 20, 2017 at 2:21 pm

            SMD,

            Glad you clarified that the CORRECT percentage (for annually terminated teachers in CA) is 0.002 PERCENT……… which is 1 in 50,000…… yes ONE in FIFTY THOUSAND !

            Now to put that in context with other professions (NOT protected by Public Sector Unions) I’m pasting the ENTIRE paragraph from the link that YOU provided (Thank YOU !!!):

            “Given how difficult it is in practice to evaluate, discipline, or fire a poorly performing teacher, most principals don’t even try. They know if they don’t follow every procedural stipulation to the letter, the union-appointed lawyer defending the teacher will win on technicalities. These cases are almost never decided on the basis of whether or not the teacher is good or bad. In addition, the costs can be enormous. In California, 0.002 percent (which is to say effectively zero) of teachers are dismissed for performance-based reasons in a given year, compared to 1% of all public workers and 8 percent of private sector workers. It cost the Los Angeles school district $3.5 million in legal fees and nearly a decade of trying to dismiss seven teachers —- four were ultimately dismissed but two of them received large payouts. In Illinois, it costs an average of $219,000 to dismiss one teacher. According to the movie “Waiting for Superman,” 1 out of every 57 doctors loses his or her license to practice medicine and 1 out of every 97 lawyers loses his or her license to practice law. But in America’s big cities, only 1 out of 1,000 teachers is fired performance-related reasons.”
            *****************************************

            Our students deserve better, so YES, Public Sector Unions are a CANCER inflicted upon civilized society.

          • Posted by Anonymous on July 20, 2017 at 3:19 pm

            Hey SMD,

            Do you need MORE evidence that Public Sector Unions are a CANCER inflicted upon civilized society.?

            From yesterday’s article on ……..”How the California teachers union is spending its summer”:

            http://laschoolreport.com/analysis-how-the-california-teachers-union-is-spending-its-summer/

            Pasting from that article:

            “Having ensured that it will continue to be costly and time-consuming to dismiss teachers, CTA began efforts to make it easier to become a teacher. The union is currently exploring options for prospective teachers to qualify for a credential without taking a test. CTA is particularly interested in eliminating the Reading Instruction Competence Assessment, which 33,000 elementary school teacher candidates have failed over the last four years.”
            *********************************************

            Bravo, If passed you could get a teaching Credential WITHOUT even providing that you can read.

          • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on July 20, 2017 at 5:38 pm

            Now find the source of Disalvo’s data.

            Reporter’s credo.  “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.”

            “Think teachers can’t be fired because of unions? Surprising results from new study.”

            Valerie Strauss, Washington Post, July 21, 2016.

          • Posted by Anonymous on July 20, 2017 at 6:07 pm

            SMD………

            Giving me homework?

            No, the readers have every reason to assume the book’s 0.002% (1 in 50,000) CA teacher termination rate is accurate unless YOU can show that he (or his source) is wrong.

            You can do better than short comment.

            Where is the expected (as Transparent California’s Robert Feller said of you) ….

            ” ….. blindly defending your pre-existing bias”

            when I gave examples of how Public Sector Unions are a CANCER inflicted upon civilized society ………. by not only cheating the Taxpayers with ludicrously excessive pension & benefits, but cheating CA’s students by helping keep INCOMPETENT teachers from being terminated?

            Tell the readers how such Union actions are just fine and dandy.

          • Posted by Earth on July 20, 2017 at 9:03 pm

            “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

            Earth to TL; Check it out.

          • Posted by Anonymous on July 20, 2017 at 10:16 pm

            Hay Earth,

            You sound like SMD’s evil twin.

          • Posted by Earth on July 21, 2017 at 12:46 am

            “Hay”?

          • Posted by Anonymous on July 21, 2017 at 1:16 am

            Yeah, It’s grown on the “Earth” …………… lol

      • Posted by S Moderation Douglas on July 20, 2017 at 12:26 am

        Unless it fits your pre-existing bias, of course. Then go all in for it.

        #23%bulls hit

        Reply

        • Posted by Anonymous on July 20, 2017 at 7:35 am

          Anything pre-existing doesn’t count t under this POTUS.

          Fake news report, Russia to bailout ailing US pension funds…..

          Reply

  6. Posted by Earth on July 19, 2017 at 11:12 pm

    Earth to TL:

    Not ready for prime time.

    Reply

  7. Posted by Anonymous on July 21, 2017 at 11:17 am

    SMD,

    Your silence about all these “CANCEROUS” Public Sector Union actions …,,, is just deafening.

    Cat got your tongue ?

    Reply

  8. Posted by Earth on July 21, 2017 at 12:14 pm

    I would expect nothing less from Daniel Disalvo (or Ed Ring). Do not believe everything you read on the web.

    There are two sides to every story, and they will give you only one. No es problema, if that is the only side you want to hear anyway. Don’t expect anyone else with a functioning brain to fall for it.

    I can’t, and you won’t, find the source of Disalvo’s 0.002 or 0.0002, but anyone with a search engine can find articles citing higher numbers.

    There are “horror stories” on both sides of the dismissal issue. Bottom line, innocent until proved guilty.

    Public sector unions are far from perfect, also far from being a “cancer”.

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on July 21, 2017 at 12:34 pm

      Hey S. Moderation Douglas (also S. Moderation Anonymous), I suspected that you were also the guy behind the “Earth” Handle.

      It’s so ingrained, you cannot hide what Transparent California’s Robert Fellner stated about you:

      “You didn’t bat an eye in blindly defending your pre-existing bias”

      Reply

      • Posted by S Moderation Anonymous on July 21, 2017 at 1:15 pm

        I would not expect you to actually read the statement in context (or admit it, if you did), but the quote “You didn’t bat an eye in blindly defending your pre-existing bias.” was made …before… Mr. Fellner discovered …and conceded… that I was CORRECT in stating that his comparison of “executive assistant” salaries was faulty.

         S Moderation Douglas28 December, 2014, 05:03 (Calwatchdog)

        We can’t use job titles alone to compare public and private-sector pay. An “executive assistant” in one office may have entirely different responsibilities and requirements.

        Moderation is not just a name. It is a way of life.

        “Truth, Justice, and the American Way”

        Reply

        • Posted by Anonymous on July 21, 2017 at 5:05 pm

          No, THIS “Moderation” (you) have an agenda to support the Public Sector Unions ….. NO MATTER how abusive and CANCEROUS they have been, are now, or will remain in the Future.

          What does surprise me is your (already being retired) blindly not recognizing that Public Sector pension accruals MUST be materially reduced for the FUTURE service of CURRENT workers…… or MANY will fail. Although you may not recognize it, YOUR pension is at risk w/o such reductions.

          And re the latter……….. I don’t care what Public Sector workers were “promised” when hired (or what they were promised re subsequent pension increases)…… those “promises” having been made by self-interested, contribution-soliciting, vote-selling, taxpayer-betraying Elected Officials that the Union’s BOUGHT with BRIBES disguised as campaign contributions and election support. Such “promises” should NOT be honored.

          Public Sector workers are NOT “special” and deserving of a better deal …. a FAR FAR FAR better deal …. on the Taxpayers’ dime.

          Reply

          • Posted by S Moderation Anonymous on July 21, 2017 at 7:21 pm

            Moderation is not supporting the public sector unions. Moderation is opposing the excessive demonization of the unions. They are far from perfect. They are far from cancerous, no matter how many times you repeat it.

            Some public workers have a better deal than private sector workers. Some have worse. Many in the middle are roughly equal. Any pension “reform” that does not recognize that and proceed accordingly is a non-starter.

          • Posted by Anonymous on July 21, 2017 at 7:51 pm

            Pension reforms that are a “non-starter” are only such BECAUSE our self-interested/gutless Elected Officials have been BOUGHT by the Public Sector Unions.

            Hopefully ……. soon ………. the Taxpayers will wake-up to the decades-long financial rape that has been perpetrated upon them by the Public Sector Unions in collusion with THEIR Elected Officials.

  9. Posted by Earth on July 21, 2017 at 12:52 pm

    Propaganda is not working.

    Earth to TL, time for ad hominem.

    Reply

  10. Posted by Earth on July 21, 2017 at 2:05 pm

    Earth to TLSMA:

    Today’s topic is “New Jersey Last Again”

    ( AKA: DON’T PAY THE BILLS, THE DEBT GETS LARGER)

    Get on board or get off the board

    Reply

    • Posted by Earth on July 21, 2017 at 2:06 pm

      I mean, “please” get on topic.

      Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on July 21, 2017 at 5:31 pm

      As far as “funding” of NJ’s pension Plans, I hope the Taxpayers fight tooth-and-nail to contribute as little as possible……. ZERO towards the existing unfunded liability (having ALREADY contributed an amount sufficient to FULLY FUND a pension EQUAL IN VALUE to those typically granted comparable Private Sector workers …. as I have outlined in prior comment on this Blog), and no more than 3%-of-pay (plus an additional 6.2% of pay for those not participating in Social Security) for their FUTURE service.

      Because THAT (3%) is all that Private Sector Taxpayer typically get from their employers, and because (as I stated just above):

      “Public Sector workers are NOT “special” and deserving of a better deal …. a FAR FAR FAR better deal …. on the Taxpayers’ dime.”

      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: