Fault In Our States

In New Jersey, some want public workers to give up benefits to fix the state’s underfunded pension system. That’s puzzling to Governor Phil Murphy.

“It’s the state’s fault that we’ve got the deficit we have,” Murphy, 61, said in an interview Thursday after speaking at the Global Climate Summit in San Francisco. “Why would you do that if it’s the state’s fault?”

Bloomberg 9/14/18

Easy answer.

The state is broke (financially and ethically) without the resources to fully pay promised benefits and Murphy admitted as much later in the interview:

Murphy said he’s focused on reining in the costs of health care instead of slashing public employee benefits. He set up a commission with union representatives on board to come up with solutions that would make both workers and the state pay less for good services, he said.

“We think that the holy grail is available,” Murphy said. “That’s where we’ve chosen to dig in.”

Meaning the state that dug a $150 billion+ hole in the retirement system is planning on filling that up by out-negotiating the insurance establishment.

Who’s going to be at fault (and on the hook) when that fails too?

57 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Anonymous on September 15, 2018 at 4:27 pm

    Murphy had the support of the Unions and the best thing he can do for them, their membership, and everyone in NJ is get real on this deal! There’s no taxing or cost savings our way out of this fiscally irresponsible mess. The proposals put forth by the previous commission under Christie and now Sweeney’s need to be merged into a workable solution that’s implemented by next budget fiscal year.

    Reply

  2. Posted by In God we trust. on September 15, 2018 at 5:39 pm

    Murphy is right, the State caused the problem. Let the State fix it, they can cut many other give away programs.

    Reply

    • Posted by Anonymous on September 15, 2018 at 7:32 pm

      Can you name a few that tally $3-$4B annually?

      Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on September 15, 2018 at 8:51 pm

      Baloney. It’s REAL EASY to show that Public Sector pensions are 3 times (4 times for Safety workers) greater in value upon retirement than those promised comparably situated Private Sector workers …………. that THAT (ludicrously excessive pensions) is the ROOT CAUSE of the problem.

      Under-funding is not the CAUSE of the problem, but a CONSEQUENCE if the true ROOT CAUSE (excessive generosity). It doesn’t take a genius to realize that VERY generous pensions are VERY costly, and hence VERY difficult to fully fund.

      Reply

    • Posted by rdquinn on September 15, 2018 at 9:01 pm

      You do know “the state” is the taxpayers who foot the bill for all of this or suffer the consequences of other cuts. These programs were never affordable from the start and both the union leaders and politicians knew it.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on September 15, 2018 at 9:50 pm

        Well Stated.

        What is REALLY needed in NJ is to hard freeze ALL of the Public Sector DB pension Plans (ZERO future growth), and to replace them for the workers’ future service with DC (401K-style) Plans with a %-pf-pay “match” comparable to what Private Sector workers typically get from their employers ………… 3% of pay….. and no more.

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

        And for employer-sponsored retiree healthcare subsidy …….. NOTHING, because that what we (Private Sector taxpayers) most often get from our employers, NOTHING.

        Reply

    • Posted by PS Drone on September 15, 2018 at 11:33 pm

      Yes, the state caused the problem by creating such ridiculously generous pension and health insurance benefit plans for the public sector drones (and themselves of course).

      Reply

  3. Posted by rdquinn on September 15, 2018 at 8:59 pm

    Check out what I wrote about this at http://www.quinnscommentary.com

    Reply

  4. Posted by Stephen Douglas on September 16, 2018 at 12:15 am

    “We think that the holy grail is available,” Murphy said. “That’s where we’ve chosen to dig in.”

    The holy Grail is not available.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on September 16, 2018 at 7:38 am

      The potential savings from Gov.Murphy’s “holy grail” …… actual lowering of the cost of healthcare, NOT a reduction in the benefit level provided to employees …….. is a VERY VERY VERY small % of the savings that are desperately needed.

      Murphy is doing what “politicians” do …….. catering to their voter base (the Public Sector Unions in his case) at the expense of all OTHER NJ taxpayers……. and kicking the can down the road.
      ——————-

      FINALLY Stephen, you stated something accurate, that ………….. there is no “holy grail”.

      EVERY (and ANY) potentially effective solution to the pension/benefit mess now infecting America’s States & Cities MUST include VERY material reductions in the value of Public Sector pensions & benefits, and it MUST include the future service of all CURRENT (not just new) workers.

      And to head off your expected response …………. yes, if doing so results in some (higher “professional”) Public Sector workers earning less in Total Compensation” than that of their Private Sector counterparts, their “wages” should be increased to erase that disadvantage.

      Reply

    • Posted by Stephen Douglas on September 16, 2018 at 1:55 pm

      The Holy Grail ‘may’ be available in California, for some. I’m not necessarily counting on seeing all my chickens. Like so many other systems, CalPERS has been paying 100% of ARC for decades, but it’s not enough. Instead of the magic of compounding interest, they are getting the curse of negative amortization. With 20/20 hindsight, I’m sure they are aware of the problem, and the solution is simple, but not easy. Eventually, part of the solution may be further reductions in benefits… for current as well as future retirees.

      But New Jersey, Illinois, Kentucky, etc., doubled down on negligence by not contributing even the low-balled normal cost. They may be seeing MEP level cuts (and/or MEP level bailouts).
      Pension reform is badly needed. Obviously, not just for the public sector. It would be hard to argue that LUDICROUSLY EXCESSIVE pensions were the cause of the Sears pension cuts. Reform DB pensions, don’t replace them.

      Reply

  5. Posted by dentss dunnigan on September 16, 2018 at 6:25 am

    It one of the chief reasons for not moving here ,why pass on the debt to our kids why saddle them ith more debt ..My kids refuse to come bak as do many others

    Reply

  6. Posted by Tough Love on September 16, 2018 at 9:03 am

    Article … Murphy sets up listening tour for health benefits panel

    https://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article218458575.html

    Quoting from that article………………

    “The legislative work group recommended reducing public worker benefits from platinum level to gold level. That change alone would save $587 million from state retiree benefits premiums in one fiscal year alone, according to the commission. Another big change would be requiring retirees to shoulder the same percentage of the cost of benefits as current workers, at 21 percent. New retirees in 2016 paid just $50 million out of $2 billion for health care, according to the legislative panel.”

    What the F**K is wrong with Murphy ? Private Sector retgirees typically get ZERO (yes ZERO) subsidy towards employer-sponsored retiree healthcare, but it’s supposed OK for NJ retirees to get of $48B/$50B = 98% all paid for by NJ’s Taxpayers.

    Reply

    • Posted by Arthur Landry on September 17, 2018 at 1:02 pm

      So murphy is going to sqeeze private sector doctors, dentists, pharmacists rather than address the extravagance of public pensions No surprise.

      Reply

  7. Posted by geo8rge on September 16, 2018 at 10:14 am

    “by out-negotiating the insurance establishment.”

    Gov Murphy is right, based on economic statistics the US pays way more for medical care than other countries. The current system was created to insure organizations negotiating with health care providers were as powerless as possible. The state of NJ could be a near monopoly buyer of health care in NJ within NJ. The problem is that the current system has the votes behind it because the people that do have to tier health plans like the system and enthusiastically support it. And it is not clear Fed Gov would permit a change to it.

    Policy suggestion: if Gov Murphy likes Canada so much, hire the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term care to operate the NJ healthcare system. One reason American healthcare changes are impossible is that there are exactly 0 US nationals that have run a successful healthcare system.

    There are alternatives to Canada, like UK or Australia, or Ireland. But why stop there, supposedly France has a well run, more privately oriented healthcare system.

    The future might be India:
    India Eye Care Center Finds Middle Way To Capitalism
    https://www.npr.org/2011/11/29/142526263/india-eye-care-center-finds-middle-way-to-capitalism

    Reply

  8. Posted by Tough Love on September 16, 2018 at 1:17 pm

    Gov Murphy may right that based on economic statistics the US pays way more for medical care than other countries…………. but if he thinks that NJ’s pension system can be saved from disaster by counting on little old HIM changing Americas healthcare delivery system …….. he’s an idiot.

    Clearly he is NOT an idiot. What he IS, is another IN-THE-UNION’S-POCKET slug who doesn’t give a crap about the 85% of all of NJ families that do NOT include a Public Sector worker.

    Reply

    • Posted by geo8rge on September 16, 2018 at 2:10 pm

      I can’t find NJ total healthcare spending. One site says $8860 per person. Let’s multiply by 9 million people gets you $80 billion a year. Some say the US spends twice as much as other countries. So that means there could be $40 billion a year in play, which probably would solve the pension crisis, build the gateway tunnel, and piles of other stuff.

      That $40B is going to actual people who like getting that money, most people in NJ have health coverage, work in healthcare, profit from healthcare and have an interest in keeping the current system.

      One easy possibility is to join Amazon, JPM, Berkshire health care alliance. NJ government would not have to figure out anything, just remove obstacles.

      Atul Gawande picks Jack Stoddard as COO of Amazon’s new healthcare company
      https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/atul-gawande-picks-jack-stoddard-coo-amazons-new-healthcare-company

      If the state of NJ thew all the power the state government has in terms of money and regulation behind whatever they are planning they might consider moving some or all of their operations to NJ. Who knows, Amazon HQ2 could follow.

      Reply

  9. Posted by Tough Love on September 16, 2018 at 2:40 pm

    Quoting …………….. “So that means there could be $40 billion a year in play, which probably would solve the pension crisis………..”

    Oh, so you feel that IF we could find the money it’s “OK” for NJ citizens to agree that we should spend it on granting NJ Public Sector workers pensions that are ROUTINELY 3 to 4 times more generous than those typically granted comparably situated (in wages, age at retirement, and years of service) Private Sector workers and near free retiree healthcare while Private Sector workers typically get ZERO in such retiree healthcare subsidies from there employers ?

    NO, thta’s NOT “ok” ………… or an appropriate use of NJ Tax Dollars.

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

    Reply

    • Posted by geo8rge on September 16, 2018 at 3:17 pm

      I was just pointing out that at the far extreme, Murphy’s holy grail remark is within the envelope of possibility. Likely is another story.

      IMO, Team NJ is not capable of solving the health care mess especially while there is a pension mess. Team Obama tried and failed, the best Team NJ could do is hire Obama retreads. So Murphy would be best advised to use the power of state government to facilitate and join Team AMZN JPM BRK + NJ (I hope). Murphy could offer 100% of NJ government workers and retirees to AMZN JPM BRK. My guess is NJ retirees would not complain, but NJ pharmacists would have a fit if they were all replaced by AMZN PillPack.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on September 16, 2018 at 5:13 pm

        None of the NJ politicians has a REAL “solution”, including Sweeney.

        NJ’s Public Sector DB pensions need to be frozen (ZERO future growth) for the future service of all CURRENT workers …………. replaced with a DC Plan comparable in generosity to that typically granted Private Sector Taxpayers, a 3%-of-pay “match” and no more.

        And with Private Sector workers typically getting NOTHING in subsidy towards employer-sponsored retiree healthcare, that’s all we owe NJ’s Public Sector retirees in retiree healthcare subsidies …….. NOTHING.

        As I stated earlier ……………. Public Sector workers are NOT “special” and deserving of a better deal …..on the Taxpayers’ Dime.

        Reply

      • Actually, Public Sector workers ARE “special”, for several reasons, you may be just too short-sighted to see it.

        There are more things in heaven and earth, Brother Love, than are dreamt of in your spreadsheets.

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on September 16, 2018 at 7:58 pm

          Yes, there are some Public Sector workers (a few) that are special………. but the 99+% that are NOT, “deserve” no more than what their Private Sector counterpart gets in Total Compensation”.

          Too bad the Unions DON’T ALLOW rewarding the truly “special”.

          Reply

        • Posted by Stephen Douglas on September 16, 2018 at 9:33 pm

          “the 99+%” ?

          87.5% of internet statistics are made up on the spot.

          Although there are conflicting studies, we know that there are thousands of public workers who are compensated more than their private sector peers.

          We also know there are thousands (even in New Jersey and California) who are compensated less than the private sector.

          Which means there are thousands who are compensated roughly equally to the private sector.

          Not excessive. Not ludicrous. It’s tautological.

          No matter… those who are not overcompensated, however many they may be, will be cut right along with everyone else because, as the man says, “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” 

          No matter who is at fault.

          Reply

          • Posted by Tough Love on September 16, 2018 at 10:01 pm

            Quoting ……………

            “We also know there are thousands (even in New Jersey and California) who are compensated less than the private sector.”

            Yes, thousands out of hundreds-of-thousands.

          • Posted by Stephen Douglas on September 16, 2018 at 11:43 pm

            Incredible… As in… Not credible.

          • Posted by Tough Love on September 17, 2018 at 7:15 am

            Stephen Douglas/Earth,

            The MULTIPLES greater-in-value Public Sector pensions (than those of comparably situated Private Sector workers) is so palpably unnecessary, unjust, unfair to Taxpayers, and clearly unaffordable.

            An example from YOUR crazy State of CA………….

            https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/8728797-181/sonoma-county-employees-could-take?sba=AAS

            In the non-Union Private Sector (where 94% of all Private Sector workers are employer), the EMPLOYER dictates what (if any) pensions or benefits workers get. That the UNIONS/workers have so much control over the generosity, cost-split, and ability to stop reforms in the PUBLIC Sector is beyond pale.

            But YOU …………. keep denying there’s a real problem.

          • Posted by Stephen Douglas on September 17, 2018 at 5:29 pm

            Must be thinking of someone else. I never denied there was a problem. Only that YOU are continually misrepresenting the problem.

          • Posted by Tough Love on September 18, 2018 at 8:14 am

            Stephen Douglas/EARTH,

            That’s YOUR opinion, and given your status as a CA Public Sector retiree now collecting one of the ludicrously excessive pensions (and benefits) and hoping not to have it de-railed, and mine as simply a very informed/educated Private Sector Taxpayer ……….. who is more believable ?

          • Posted by Tough Love on September 18, 2018 at 8:25 am

            Follw-up to my above response to Setphen Douglas/EARTH ……….

            The structure that CA’s Stephen Douglas/EARTH wants continued ………. endless tax increases simply to fully fund ludicrously excessive pension promises, and with a to-hell-with-the Taxpayers attitude.

            https://voiceofoc.org/2018/09/pension-costs-underlie-tax-increases-in-seven-oc-cities/

  10. Posted by Stephen Douglas on September 16, 2018 at 4:41 pm

    It appears, according to Josh Rauh, there is more justification for some form of bailout for state pensions than for MEPs.

    “There seems to be a high likelihood that future generations will have to bear the substantial burden of making up pension benefits for previous generations of state employees. While citizens of states that are particularly hard-hit by the pension crisis may be able to escape to other states, an acceleration of this demographic phenomenon would leave a dwindling taxpayer base behind in the states facing the largest liabilities. This would increase the likelihood of a federal taxpayer bailout in which taxpayers in all states would bear the burden of the states in default. The problem of state and local pension liabilities is therefore a problem for all US taxpayers, not just those in the states with the largest deficits.”
    ——————
    No matter who is at fault.

    Reply

    • Posted by Tough Love on September 16, 2018 at 5:16 pm

      I disagree …………

      The States with the largest liabilities are more likely to renege on s large share of the ludicrously excessive pension & benefit promises than get a Federal bailout.

      Reply

      • Posted by Tough Love on September 16, 2018 at 5:20 pm

        In fact it has happened ALREADY in NJ. A COLA-elimination is equivalent to no less than a 25% reduction in the lifetime expected pension payout ………. and that 25% rises to 30+% for Safety workers who’s COLA is more valuable because they retire at younger ages (with a longer compounding period).

        And hopefully (for NJ’s Taxpayers) those COLA will NEVER be reinstated.

        Reply

      • Already happened in California too, and who knows how many other states. For anyone employed after 2012, the pension for an employee retiring at 62 with 20 years service will receive a pension 20 percent lower. And his contributions will increase by 60-100 percent. (Contributions by all employees will increase by 60-100 percent.)

        Difference is, in New Jersey, a 25 percent reduction is not enough. Why?

        “DON’T PAY THE BILLS, THE DEBT GETS LARGER”

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on September 16, 2018 at 8:04 pm

          The ludicrously generous pensions in CA …… and STILL ludicrously excessive even AFTER the lowered pensions (ONLY applicable to “new”, not “current” workers) …… remain MUCH MUCH more generous that the retirement security granted comparably situated Private Sector workers ………. even AFTER the higher ee contributions.

          Reply

    • Posted by Stanley on September 17, 2018 at 11:11 am

      “This would increase the likelihood of a federal taxpayer bailout in which taxpayers in all states would bear the burden of the states in default.”

      Oh really? How so? Will the people in Indiana feel compelled to bail out Illinois or Chicago? Do people flee states with oppressive regimes and regret not staying and shouldering the burdens?

      Probably, there are more people who have no defined benefit pension than those who do. Will they campaign to prop up defined benefit pensions?

      Reply

      • Posted by Anonymous on September 17, 2018 at 11:15 am

        Yes and why should Federal taxpayers continue to fund your Military DBP? Because you earned it?
        Because you were promised it?
        Because the Military isan exception?
        Because, because, because!

        Reply

        • Posted by Tough Love on September 17, 2018 at 1:40 pm

          Quoting …………… “Yes and why should Federal taxpayers continue to fund your Military DBP? ”

          You have responded to quite a few comments with the same statement. I note the words …..”your Military DBP”.

          Do you know if the commentators to who you respond with this comment are even in the military?

          I believe it FAR MORE LIKELY that you do NOT know, and are likely a Public Sector State or City worker now collecting (or expecting to collect once retired) one of these LUDICROUSLY EXCESSIVE Public Sector pensions ……. and are simply trying to divert attention away from THAT problem …… which also happens to be the focus of this Blog.

          Reply

          • Posted by Anonymous on September 17, 2018 at 2:07 pm

            BS TL you have a hard enough time making your case when you stick to the facts! Specifically Stanley, to whom I replied to, previously admitted to this. But you deny any such self interest even though you, at times, justify Military DBP greater than those routinely granted to their private sector counterparts.

          • Posted by Tough Love on September 17, 2018 at 3:14 pm

            First, Let me state that I (nor any relative) am not now nor have I ever been in the military (or in any State or Local Public Sector pension).

            Military pensions have been generous (50% after 20 years at any age), BUT …… zero w/o 20 years and per recent statistics, only 17% of recruits stay in long enough to receive ANY pension.

            So, with Public Sector State & Local DB Plans generally vesting (i.e., guaranteeing whatever pension you have accrued to date) after only 5 years, it seems that …. all things considered ……. the cost to Federal Taxpayers for military pensions is much LESS than the cost of State & Local Public Sector pensions to State & Local Taxpayers.

            Are Military pensions better than the retirement security typically granted Private Sector Taxpayers ?

            YES ……….. and they should be.
            ———————————-

            And FWIW, US Military pensions are in the process of being reduced from current levels.

          • Posted by Anonymous on September 17, 2018 at 3:16 pm

            Another a** kissing self interested Military supporter, good for you!

          • Posted by Tough Love on September 17, 2018 at 4:03 pm

            Anon, as I stated earlier ………………

            “I believe it FAR MORE LIKELY that you do NOT know, and are likely a Public Sector State or City worker now collecting (or expecting to collect once retired) one of these LUDICROUSLY EXCESSIVE Public Sector pensions ……. and are simply trying to divert attention away from THAT problem “

        • Posted by Stanley on September 17, 2018 at 3:32 pm

          “Yes and why should Federal taxpayers continue to fund your Military DBP?””Because you earned it?…”

          I have been following this issue (to some extent) since the mid 80s. When I retired 15 years ago, I believed that there would be an adjustment along the way in my two very modest defined benefit pensions and social security. I thought that I could avoid tapping into savings at least until I was 70 and I am beyond that and haven’t had to live off savings yet. (I move money around and own two houses.) It isn’t for me that the DOD needs to continue funding pensions. It is to maintain the incentive to continue to attract volunteers to provide the necessary manpower for the military.

          “Specifically Stanley, to whom I replied to, previously admitted to this. But you deny any such self interest…”

          You made a comment and I didn’t choose to respond. That doesn’t mean that I was in agreement. The plain fact is that far more has been promised in late life pay and health benefits than can be accommodated by those still working and setting themselves up for their own retirement at some time in the future. In addition to the sun coming up in the morning, adjustments to late life benefits is something that can be counted on, and anyone not factoring this into their plans is choosing to live life dangerously IMO. I would never argue that someone else should be whacked and I shouldn’t be. I plan to take whatever reality (or the government) dishes out.

          Reply

          • Posted by Anonymous on September 17, 2018 at 8:23 pm

            ‘Specifically Stanley, to whom I replied to, previously admitted to this.’

            Just to clarify I was referring to TL in the, ‘But you deny any such self interest.’

            30 years = 75% pay Mitary
            30 years prior to 2011 reforms w/ denominator changed to 55 by Donnie D = ~54.5% for PERS & TPAF
            Can’t speak to average Military pay versus NJ’s PERS & TPAF.

          • Posted by Tough Love on September 18, 2018 at 8:09 am

            Shouldn’t Military pensions be compared to Police pensions (not teachers or clerks) ?

            In NJ, Police pensions are 65% of pay after 25 years and 70% after 30.

            In CA, Police pensions are 90% of pay (with OT INCLUDED in the calc of pensionable compensation in some cities).

          • Posted by rdquinn on September 18, 2018 at 3:29 pm

            It’s the age that is important and which creates a larger liability. Collecting 65% fir life at say age 45 or 59 is darn generous compared to private sector.

          • Posted by Stanley on September 18, 2018 at 10:49 am

            “Shouldn’t Military pensions be compared to Police pensions (not teachers or clerks) ?”

            It’s hard to compare the two. Some cops have unpleasant and dangerous work assignments. Most don’t, IMO. Cops make two or three times as much money as service men and women. Military pensions are computed on base pay only, not allowances. Cops add in their ot pay. It’s hard to say how this works out. Does everyone get stiffed? Or, just some? Probably, most of us.

          • Posted by Anonymous on September 18, 2018 at 12:12 pm

            There’s no shortage of bias, conflucting studies on exactly this and probably most anything else. It really depends on where your self interests lie and which exceptions you justify.

          • “In CA, Police pensions are 90% of pay”

            Only if one has at least 30 years service. (at age 50+)

            Retire at 50 or older with 25 years, the pension is 75 percent. (old formula)

            For new employees, retire at 50 with 30 years and you get 60 percent.

            For new employees to retire with 90 percent, you will need to be 55 with at least 33.34 years service.

            I believe, even under the old formula, fewer than half of safety employees receive 90 percent, and “90 percent at age 50” is extremely rare. One would need to begin service at age 20, or buy air time or service time.

          • Posted by Tough Love on September 19, 2018 at 8:21 pm

            Stephen Douglas/EARTH,

            The 90%-of-pay (COLA-increased by the way) is off-the-wall ludicrously excessive under every one of the term you described ………. yes, EVERY one of them………….. even the least generous being at least 4 times greater than the pension of a comparably situated (in wages, years of service, and age at retirement) Private Sector worker.

        • Posted by Stanley on September 17, 2018 at 3:45 pm

          And another thing about military pensions. If you retire after 30 years, you collect 75% of base pay, which isn’t a really great pension especially for people who have had to forego buying a house. Retiring at 20 years isn’t really retiring: you are subject to recall at any time. In addition to that, a pension of 50% at age 40 or so, isn’t enough to live on and starting a new career at age 40 can be a little challenging.

          Most people who retire from the military don’t think that the government owes them full support for the rest of their lives (IMO). I do not have an opinion on what should be funded. Why would I waste time on an issue like that?

          Reply

          • Posted by Anonymous on September 17, 2018 at 4:40 pm

            Well at least you acknowledge you are a recepient of a Federally taxpayer funded DBP.! We can leave the dirty opinions of justifications to ourself. No point in taking to the gutter any further. BTW there’s a certain percentage of second career public worker’s who’ve retired from the Military. But that’s another unrelated topic not worth discussing. Thank you for your service and I’m glad for you and yours the Federal government, and therefore taxpayers, are holding up their end of the deal!

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: