Obamacare

Weekly Standard Warns GOP Against "myopic focus on government spending"

|

Because nothing says "recovery" like "spendy-spend spend!"

The Weekly Standard l-o-v-e-s itself some Republican payback in the 2010 midterms (pictured). Lovity-loves it! There has even been some awkward embrace of a Tea Party movement (and a Rand Paul candidacy) that is as far removed from Bill Kristol's universe as David Brooks is from mine.

But don't you go getting serious about government reduction while winning one for the home team, grassrootsies! Whereas last week saw Kristol co-proposing a lockbox on the money-suck of defense spending; this week the new Standard sports a lead editorial warning incoming Republican avalanchists from going too hog-wild on that whole austerity thing. Excerpt from the Matthew Continetti column:

What might trip up the GOP? It's not that the public's demands are impossible to meet. It's that belt-tightening all too easily becomes an unhealthy obsession. Numbercrunching is a valuable skill, but it also has a tendency to crimp the political imagination. So Republicans must be careful as they trim expenses. Otherwise they'll fall into the austerity trap.

In the austerity trap, Republican congressmen get so outraged over earmarks to fund studies of the mating patterns of red-bellied newts, they neglect legislation that would foster long-term growth. Deficit anxiety causes conservative lawmakers to rule out sensible policies like a payroll tax cut. A myopic focus on government spending causes Republican leaders to short-change the defense budget and renege on America's global responsibilities. The entitlement nightmare frightens GOP candidates into framing their economic agenda in strictly negative terms.

What should Republican lawmakers do instead? Roll back "nondefense discretionary spending to pre-TARP levels" (thereby locking in George W. Bush's 60 percent hike). Maybe plug in "a simple formula to contain spending" (so advanced–it's simple!). Add in a vague "tackling the entitlement problem," spiced with a promising if politically inconceivable "tossing Obamacare onto the scrap-heap and replacing it with policies that emphasize portability, choice, and competition," and voila! You can move on to the serious and more detailed business of cutting taxes.

We take a somewhat different view

I've got nothing against cutting (and especially simplifying) taxes. But we tried taxcut-and-spend already, and it sucked. It's 2010, we're out of money, and it remains a curious thing that the forces who are making the Republican revival possible are one helluva lot more focused on cutting government spending than the forces who want to play once-and-future-kingmaker for the GOP.

If you want to get serious about cutting government, I've got a different magazine to recommend.

NEXT: Looking for a Few Good Flakes

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The GOP becomes the third party if they back of on the spending cuts.

    1. You’re more optimistic than I am. I think they’ll still have apologists and people that vote GOP for other reasons.

      1. Teh gayz!

        1. Grinding.

          1. every vote for the Republicans is a vote against men in speedos grinding up against each other. I heard that on the radio this morning.

            1. “If elected, what will you do to combat the grinding menace?”

      2. Oh. I thought you meant they’d become the 4th party.

    2. If only.

    3. In the same way the Democrats became the third party after they backed off their promises on civil liberties.

      1. Civil libertarians weren’t protesting in the streets the way the Tea Party people are.

        1. That’s not how I remember it.

          1. Nor I.

            1. You were protesting for massive social spending. You aren’t protesting any more because your dreams have come true.

  2. One of the parties is going to go bye-bye with this spending merry-go-round if it doesn’t stop. There’s a limit to how much even we can be lied to.

    1. Maybe you, but I could be lied to a lot more. I have a tolerance now.

      1. This is one adaptation that may not contribute to the survival of the species.

      2. Lie to me baby, oh yeah!

    2. I agree. The internet has become the game-changer. The major parties could remain that way before because there was always an information barrier. The internet allows everyone to get information and to organize quickly.
      (and it’s only getting quicker)

      I really do believe the GOP will either become more libertarian or it will become a third party. That’s not saying that the Libertarian party will become the new major party. It will probably be some new thing which will be primarily fiscally conservative.

  3. The Republicans are repeating the same tire failed policies they have been thumping for for well over eighty years.

    Hoover:

    we might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic. We put it into action. . . . No government in Washington has hitherto considered that it held so broad a responsibility for leadership in such times. . . . For the first time in the history of depression, dividends, profits, and the cost of living, have been reduced before wages have suffered. . . . They were maintained until the cost of living had decreased and the profits had practically vanished. They are now the highest real wages in the world.

    Creating new jobs and giving to the whole system a new breath of life; nothing has ever been devised in our history which has done more for . . . “the common run of men and women.” Some of the reactionary economists urged that we should allow the liquidation to take its course until we had found bottom. . . . We determined that we would not follow the advice of the bitter-end liquidationists and see the whole body of debtors of the United States brought to bankruptcy and the savings of our people brought to destruction.

    Wait, that sounds familiar. Well, at least I’m not the Chamber of Commerce’s bitch; I accept the recommendations of our prestigious labor organizations and economist over greedy self interest –

    http://mises.org/rothbard/agd/chapter7.asp#unemployment

    Although seven or eight governors were enthusiastic about the Hoover-Foster-Catchings Plan, the Conference tabled the idea. A large part of the press hailed the plan in extravagant terms, as “prosperity insurance,” a “prosperity reserve,” or as a “pact to outlaw depression”; while more conservative organs properly ridiculed it as a chimerical and socialistic effort to outlaw the law of supply and demand. It was not surprising that William Green of the A.F of L. hailed the plan as the most important announcement on wages and employment in a decade, or that the A.F. of L.’s John P. Frey announced that Hoover had now accepted the old A.F. of L. theory that depressions are caused by underconsumption and low wages.[27] The press reported that “labor is jubilant, because leaders believe that the next President has found . . . a remedy for unemployment which, at least in its philosophy and its groundwork, is identical with that of labor.”[28]

    The closeness of Foster and Catchings to Hoover is again demonstrated by the detailed account of their own Plan that they published in April, 1929. In an article entitled “Mr. Hoover’s Plan: What It Is and What It Is Not-A New Attack on Poverty,” they wrote authoritatively that Hoover should wield a stabilization public works reserve, not of $150 million, as had often been mentioned in previous years, but of the gigantic sum of $3 billion. This Plan would iron out prices and the business cycle, and stabilize business. At last, scientific economics was to be wielded as a weapon by an American President: “The Plan . . . is business guided by measurements instead of hunches. It is economics for an age of science-economics worthy of the new President.

    Oops, that sounds familiar. Damn those failed Republican policies of the past, and I can’t shake them!

    1. I wish I knew how to quit you, failed Republican policies of the past.

    2. I flew with H. Hoover.

  4. Numbercrunching is a valuable skill, but it also has a tendency to crimp the political imagination.

    *gnashes teeth, bangs head on desk*

    1. *punches wall, is 300lbs.*

  5. I think that this sort of Brooksian nonsense arises partially from a good old fashioned love of the state – but also partially from an inability to relinquish received wisdom.

    The received wisdom on the GOP side is that the public wants the rhetoric of spending cuts, but not the actuality. So Standard types feel like they’re being politically astute “realists” when they play the concern troll like in this article.

    Every other time they’ve given this advice they’ve been right. If this time is different, they won’t be the only ones who are surprised.

    1. I think this is an astute comment.

    2. I think you are right. And I also think this time is different. If the Republicans don’t force Obama’s hand and show themselves to be serious about cutting government, there will be a third party. People are not going to run back to the Democrats. Obama has ruined their brand for a generation. But they will not mindlessly vote Republican either. I have always said there would never be a third party. But now I think there might be.

      1. “I have always said there would never be a third party. But now I think there might be.”

        I think that will depend on whether enough Americans observe the oncoming train wreck in Europe and are afraid enough to actually do something about our own entitlement State. I think it also depends on how poorly the Republicans respond to their new power if they get it…..

        On point one, who knows. On two…. well….. the above article didn’t exactly inspire my confidence in Team R.

      2. As much as I believe that the GOP will probably screw up their new majority enough to create a viably supported third party, there is only one thing that will prevent it, and it is the following worst case scenario:

        The US economy is going to come back and unemployment will begin to fall enough before the 2012 elections that Obama will be able to run on a “MY SOLUTIONS WORKED!!” platform, and will use the typical “THE GOP WANTS TO TAkE AWAY SSCARE AND MEDICARE AND GIVE FREE BEER TO MILLIONAIRES” scare tactics to allow his re-election, wherein he will make this current budgetary apocalypse look downright tame by comparison.

        Now, obviously I want to see both the economy fully recover and unemployment go down so that the US can get back on its feet, but if the cost of this recovery is another four years of Obambi -which would give him carte blanche to REALLY screw things up this time- I almost am hoping that unemployment stays the same until the elections.

        Not exactly two great scenarios, but the thought of another four years of Obambi telling me that we need to spread the wealth while he drives us further in to the ditch is pretty depressing.

      3. I don’t see third party just yet. There were some major battles in primaries this time. If the “TP” candidates who win stick to their guns and oppose the rest of the GOP, I expect a much bloodier primary season next time as establishment Republicans are booted.

        1. For that to work, the TP Republicans need to have enough success in the gen’l elections in 2010 and 2011 that the grass roots don’t dump them tactically in 2012. They don’t have to win big, but they have to prove they’re not terribly toxic.

      4. There is no way to vote for Republicans other than mindlessly.

        The GOP knows that the voters don’t want spending cuts (that impact them). Voters only want spending cuts that impact other people and there is no way to cut spending that doesn’t take any money away from any one. So we get tax cuts and spending increases… The tea party will be no different.

  6. The most seductive will be “America’s global responsibilities.” The adults in this country need a discussion about this (and medicare and social security too). A way has to be found to frame the discussion so that angry tea partiers see the wisdom of cutting back this commitment to build nations and police the world. One would think the “they are taking our jobs” crowd would be equally upset that “they are taking our young people to defend the jobs they’ve taken from us.”

    1. I think many Tea Partiers would love to get out of our foreign entanglements. But they’ll need something to convince them that the country is secure. I propose an increase in missile defense paid for with funds saved by ending both wars.

      1. Hm, that’s not a bad sop, actually. Something to think about.

        1. Thanks. But then again I picked Greg Biffle and Kyle Busch as two of my four drivers on Sunday.

          1. Hope you has Stewart & Bowyer as the other 2

      2. Nobody’s shooting missiles at us.

        I suspect a significant chunk of the Tea Partiers are pretty gung-ho about interventionism. Anything that doesn’t involve uniformed men in blow-uppy machinery is not going to sell.

      3. The T-Baggers don’t want to end either of the current wars. They’re scared of the musulmans.

  7. A myopic focus on government spending causes Republican leaders to short-change the defense budget and renege on America’s global responsibilities.

    How in the fuck did the civil war in Sudan, the “democracy” in Iraq, the anarchy in Somalia and Yemen, the oppression in Burma (fuck that Myanmar bullshit) the poppy production in Afghanistan, the Muslim insurrection in the Philippines and the legality of minarets in Switzerland become America’s responsibilities?

    Was there some sort of global election that bestowed US overlordship to every goddam place on Earth?

    1. It’s our evangelical spirit combined with a large and well-equipped military.

      Most other countries are afflicted with crushing ennui. We should let more depressed illegal immigrants settle here to make us care less as a nation.

  8. For a magazine called reason you sure do suck up a lot to the standard weakly.

    Oh and J sub, there’s this little documentary called “team america, world police”. I think there’s a lesson in there for you.

    And furthermore, I have nothing of value to add to the dialogue.

    1. There is no “I” in Team America.

      1. Yes there is.

        1. Not a big “I.”

          1. yeah, not a big “I”. are you some kinda wimpy eurofag who doesn’t capitalize I?

            1. How did you know?

    2. I don’t know much in this… crazy, crazy world, but I do know that if you don’t let us fuck this asshole, we are gonna have our dicks and our pussies!… all covered in shit.

      Word of wisdom if there ever was.

      1. I explained that speech at the bar to a bunch of Canadians last weekend in Ottawa.

        I hope it sunk in a little.

        1. Did they all have beady eyes and heads that detached above the jaw?

          1. Beady eyed, flapping headed maple suckers.

  9. I believe I said this on another post, that the Republicans will have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

  10. (thereby locking in George W. Bush’s 60 percent hike)

    A malicious drown-it-in-the-bathtub state-shrinkage for which conservatives were, and still are, frequently denounced. Libertarians, too.

    So I look forward to the teacrackaz and their Kochtopussian enablers being blamed for all the anarcho-doom that doesn’t befall us when the Republicans take over the legislature and don’t do anything Joe Lieberman wouldn’t do, just like they always don’t.

  11. “It’s that belt-tightening all too easily becomes an unhealthy obsession.”

    Yea, I don’t think we have to worry about that from government, no matter who is in it.

    1. I worry about tag leakage. A lot.

      1. Better than worrying about gas with oily discharge. Tag leakage is much easier to clean up.

        1. Don’t you know, every Google search kills a kitten and rapes a tree. I can only imagine what tag leakage causes.

    2. I’d like to see one example of this becoming an unhealthy obsession of a government. I’m not saying there isn’t one, but I can’t think of it.

  12. BTW, nice e-harmony ad. It is a shame that is not an animated gif or PNG above so we can watch that sexy couple get it on.

    1. Wow. There really are people who still don’t use AdBlock.

      1. If they bothered me, I would whip up my own little script to deal with them.

    2. All I’m getting is an ad for Staples.

      1. I’m now getting an ad for a heart rate stabilizer. I wonder how many ads they have in rotation, neither one of the products are anything I need, but maybe something will come up. I do like the looks of the new Corvette just a shame I wont buy their products.

        1. I visit reason with only cached images loaded, and GDFlash turned off by default. So I normally don’t see the ads, and see all the alt-texts instead of the photos.

          Now if they could just put direct links to the GDFlash videos in addition to embedding them….

  13. The only thing that will matter for the next two years is who the public blames when the economy fails to recover.

    If the Republicans are serious with their voodoo bullshit, we, and they, are fucked. If their insane obstructionist nonsense was just a means to win this election, then it would behoove them to finally start working on improving the economy if they win. Of course a lot of teabaggers will be swept in, and they don’t appear to be in any mood to compromise.

    1. It’s the animal spirits, stupid!

    2. Tony,

      You are truly astounding. No amount of failure or empirical evidence will ever cause you to give up your outdated and crazy ideas. It truly is faith based politics.

      1. Well if the GOP takes a majority in the House we’ll have two long, painful years for them to be proved wrong, again.

        1. Just like the two long painful years we had with Obama? This is the administration that invented the oxymoron “jobless recovery”.

          1. That’s not an oxymoron. It’s exactly what we’ve been going through. We are actually in a recovery, just a really slow one. Now how did that happen? Magic?

            1. The animal spirits will help us fully recover by 2020!

            2. Re: Tony,

              We are actually in a recovery, just a really slow one.

              And we’re in a recovery because the Tlatoani said we’re in a recovery . . . and he’s a really slow one.

              1. I’m not the one saying it, the GDP is saying it.

                1. Re: Tony,

                  I’m not the one saying it, the GDP is saying it.

                  The GDP, adjusted for GOLD, is saying we have been in the NEGATIVE for 20 years:

                  http://fskrealityguide.blogspo…..-2009.html

                  Even so, the GDP as reported is showing “growth” only because of government spending – that’s not “growth,” that’s printing dollars and them spending them, that’s as phony as one can get.

                  1. Oh, and Tony: You’re not the great Tlatoani.

                  2. Okay ask any economist whether we’re in recovery or recession.

                    And government-driven growth is still growth. It’s not fake just because you don’t like government.

                    1. Re: Tony,

                      Okay ask any economist whether we’re in recovery or recession.

                      I’ve asked, and I got the answer – Keynesians and enthusiasts for profligacy say we’re in a recovery. The rest say we’re not. Some of the enthusiasts that advised the Tlatoani already jumped ship. I’m placing my bets on the non-enthusiasts.

                      And government-driven growth is still growth. It’s not fake just because you don’t like government.

                      No, it is not growth. Spending is not growth, Tony. The GDP of the USSR was reported for years as being higher than the U.S., because of government spending – guess what that lead to.

                    2. Nobody, not even Keynesian clowns will claim with a straight face that we are in a recovery.

                    3. Don’t you get it? Only by hiring government employees, and spending trillions of non-existent dollars, can we even hope to save the country!

                      I have seen the light, Tony. Bless me with that holy water, or whatever it is in that cup.

                    4. ? there have been huge government layoff the last few months… and not quite enough private sector hiring to pick up the slack.

                      Also, Old Mexican, you don’t get to change the definition of “GDP” and “recovery” just because you want to still claim we are in a recession.

    3. Wow. There really people who still believe the government can control the economy.

      1. Then I take it you don’t blame government policy for any problems the economy might be having?

        1. No, the government can harm the economy, but it can’t control it. The government can’t make the economy do what it wants, like it was some beast of burden and not the collective result of billions of people making myriad decisions everyday. The best thing for the government to do is get out of the way (by removing barriers to entry like regulations, taxes, gov spending, etc.) and let those actors act.

          1. So is government control of the economy more like economic creationism or economic eugenics?

          2. By lowering interest rates, increasing government spending, and invoking the of the Holy Triple Name of John Maynard Keynes, we can activate the animal spirits to control the economy.

    4. Stop posting.

    5. Re: Tony,

      The only thing that will matter for the next two years is who the public blames when the economy fails to recover.

      Spoken like a true prophet.

      If their insane obstructionist nonsense was just a means to win this election, then it would behoove them to finally start working on improving the economy if they win.

      *Gasp* You mean . . . you mean . . . they had control of the House and Senate all along?!?!?

      In the meantime, let’s see if the great Tlatoani can get rid of the other obstructionist stumbling block – merely the US constitution?

      1. The filibuster is not in the constitution.

        1. Stop posting.

          1. Stop breathing.

        2. Re: Tony,

          The filibuster is not in the constitution.

          Really? You mean, with all the myriad of wonderful things the Congress and Executive say the Constitution allows them to do under miscontrued readings of the General Welfare clause and Necessary and Proper clause and Interstate Commerce clause, neither of them can filibuster?

          1. Didn’t say it’s forbidden, did I? It’s just not sacrosanct, even as it has been the means by which Republicans have obstructed as much as they possibly can.

            1. The GOP are a bunch of wreckers and saboteurs of our peaceful Progressive world.

            2. Re: Tony,

              It’s just not sacrosanct, even as it has been the means by which Republicans have obstructed as much as they possibly can.

              I don’t know if you were around in 2008, but the Dems obtained a virtually filibuster proof House and Senate majorities. Your contention doesn’t have a ring of verisimilitude at all. It’s quite pathetic.

              1. So the Republicans haven’t been filibustering nearly everything, and there aren’t more than 400 bills waiting for action in the Senate?

                1. We paid good money for that Congress and now the damn Republicans are holding up our legislation.

                2. We paid good money for that Congress and now the damn Republicans are holding up our legislation.

                  1. My secretary keeps a cup on her desk to collect ‘Little Timmy’s Kidney Transplant Fund.’ When you come around later this week, see if you can ‘contribute’ a few ‘coins.’

                3. More power to them. Gridlock is really the only protection that free people have.

                4. Re: Tony,

                  So the Republicans haven’t been filibustering nearly everything, and there aren’t more than 400 bills waiting for action in the Senate?

                  I don’t think you get the math – the Republicans DON’T HAVE THE POWER to FILIBUSTER, they don’t have the numbers (not yet, anyway).

                  1. What the hell are you talking about? They have 41. That’s enough to sustain a filibuster.

                    1. Re: Tony,

                      What the hell are you talking about? They have 41. That’s enough to sustain a filibuster.

                      That’s ONLY because Ted Kennedy died, Tony, waaaay after 2008. Before Brown won the seat, the Dems had complete (relative) control of both Houses, and yet did nothing more than fumble with healthcare.

                    2. I think Tony is confusing, “not rolling over and voting for cloture” with “FILIBUSTERING EVERYTHING!!!!!!”

                      A filibuster is only a filibuster when the cloture motion fails.

                      What Tony really means is, “Republicans have been consistently speaking up and not letting us do what we want to do without opposition.”

                      And, lest we forget, THE GOP DID FILIBUSTER OBAMACARE… and the fucking Democrats pushed it through anyway with voodoo procedural games, so the crying rings rather hollow that the GOP is nothing but obstructionist.

                    3. so the crying rings rather hollow that the GOP is nothing but obstructionist.

                      The end of that sentence should read, “and not letting the Dems get anything done.”

                    4. WTB,

                      Ha! The same tactic the Republicans used to pass Bush’s tax cuts, you mean? The biggest process crime here is the abuse of the filibuster.

                    5. Interesting that you of all people would see things in stark partisan terms. The dems never really had a solid 60, thank you Ben Nelson, though they did manage to pass some significant things with what they had.

                    6. When our party is in the majority, the patriotic thing to do is shut the fuck up and let them do whatever they want.

                5. Tony, don’t sit there and tell us your party wouldn’t/won’t be filibustering when they were out of/when they’ll be out of power.

                  1. You all have figured out by now Tony is not real, right?

  14. My problem with the DEFENSE SPENDING argument is that it’s the Palestine of cutting gubment spending. As in, “we can’t address our social programs until we first solve the Defense Spending Question.”

    Whenever someone proposes cutting a parasitic, economy killing, value and soul destroying gubment program, a lefty trots out the canard that “we could afford this if we cut DEFENSE SPENDING.”

    So, while I’m completely open to the idea of cutting defense spending, that topic never seems to come up in a useful forum.

  15. Well, I know a lot of former GOPers who will NEVER return until the GOP drops Jesus from the agenda. Non-evangelicals just can’t take that shit anymore.

    1. I’d like to see some non-Evangelicals demand their Jesus be represented in the Republican Party.

      Bible Riots 2!

      1. Speaking of riots – Medal Of Honor was released today, was it not???

  16. “The only thing that will matter for the next two years is who the public blames when the economy fails to recover.”

    They will blame statists of all parties and most likely bankers as well.

    Europe is going to go down the tubes even faster than we will, and no one is going to believe it was because they were subjected to a limited government that just spent too little on social services…

    The issue won’t be party loyalty, but which party is willing to first ditch an obviously failed system.

  17. … So simple it’s advanced to the semi-finals!

  18. A myopic focus on government spending causes Republican leaders to short-change the defense budget and renege on America’s global responsibilities.

    Bwahahahahahaha!!!!

  19. Can we vote out the incumbent Weekly Standard and vote in some upstart, new, fiscally conservative magazine?

  20. Saw a brilliant post on Mises.org today to remind Keynesians that spending is still spending and not capital accumulation nor production. I’m just going to paste it here in its entirety:

    http://blog.mises.org/14213/my-encounter-with-paul-krugman/

    Keith October 12, 2010 at 12:59 pm

    Paul Krugman may be correct in asserting that the “paradox of thrift” has played a role in our current “great recession”, but I believe that Prof. Krugman along with many others have a misunderstanding about what exactly drives the paradox of thrift. It is not simply an issue of savings.

    Economic growth is driven by investment. When savings are not invested in productive assets (things that enable the production of the things people want) but instead invested in non-productive assets (physical or financial assets that may hold value over time but that do not directly contribute to production: gold, silver, Federal Reserve Notes, consumer loans, etc), the paradox of thrift is driven. The paradox is really an issue of people parking income in assets that do nothing to expand the capital base. The same behavior occurs if people consume all income.

    So in some sense, Prof Krugman is right. People are saving; much of their savings are being funneled into treasuries (a non productive asset); and as a consequence, investment in productive assets has declined and with it the economy has slowed.

    Because government spending is predominately consumption oriented, government borrowing lowers the effective savings rate of a nation (savings actually invested in productive assets). This slows economic growth: effectively driving the paradox of thrift.

    To explore the above in a very simple simulator, go to:

    http://forio.com/simulate/keubanks/macro-economics-101

    It is a Solow type capital accumulation model that tracks the flow of income toward gov borrowing.

  21. A myopic focus on government spending causes Republican leaders to short-change the defense budget and renege on America’s global responsibilities.

    Spoken like a true neoconservative/semi-reformed Trotskyite worm. America has no “global responsibilities.” America’s first responsibility is to America. America is not the world’s mommy/daddy/police force.

    This guns and butter/democracy at gunpoint bullshit is as toxic to the nation’s health as the idea of robbing half of the country to pay the other half.

    1. Re: Anonymous Coward,

      This guns and butter/democracy at gunpoint bullshit is as toxic to the nation’s health as the idea of robbing half of the country to pay the other half.

      You have a Broken Windows Fallacy on one side and a Welfare mentality on the other – with us smack right in the middle.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.