Oil Industry Subsidies $21 Billion—Ethanol Subsidies $60 Billion

|

Tax breaks by the acre

Last week, Congress hauled the chief executives from America's biggest oil companies into a committee hearing where they were hectored about the billions in tax breaks their industry receives to produce crude. As Bloomberg reported:

Exxon Mobil Corp. Chief Executive Officer Rex W. Tillerson and four counterparts defended $21 billion in U.S. tax breaks that Democrats are seeking to recapture to reduce the federal deficit.

OK. But there is another energy subsidy that could be eliminated that would help reduce the budget deficit even more. The bioethanol subsidy.

As I noted last fall, the National Academy of Sciences' policy journal, Issues in Science and Technology, had just published a remarkably disturbing commentary, "The Dismal State of Biofuels Policy," [subscription required] about how much Americans taxpayers are likely to pay in the future for the privilege of burning food in their gas tanks. The commentary, citing estimates from the subsidy-tracking nonprofit Earth Track, is by University of Minnesota economist, C. Ford Runge and Cargill Foundation* president Robbin Johnson. From the article:

According to estimates by Earth Track founder, Douglas Koplow, if current laws are maintained until 2022, the biofuels industry will receive more than $60 billion per year in subsidies, more than six times the $9.5 billion in support received in 2008. Cumulative subsidies between 2018 and 2022 are expected to total $420 billion. If the Obama plan to require 60 billion gallons by 2030 comes to pass, subsidies in that year would be $125 billion, and cumulative support from 2008 to 2030 would be in excess of $1 trillion.

So, $21 billion from the oil industry versus $60 billion from the ethanol industry, and perhaps considerably more if the ethanol mandates hold.

Cato Insitute energy policy analysts Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren explain that Congressionl fiddling with the tax code introduces inefficiency in economic decisionmaking by companies and investors. They conclude:

Even left-of-center energy activists like Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, Carl Pope, executive chairman of the Sierra Club, and green energy investor Jeffrey Leonard, chairman of the Global Environment Fund, think the time is ripe to eliminate all energy subsidies in the tax code and let the best fuel win.

Let the best fuel win. On Capitol Hill that sentiment qualifies as crazy talk.

*For those few H&R commenters who reflexively indulge in simplistic follow-the-money "analyses" of viewpoints in place of actually exercising their critical faculties (and we all know who you are), please note that Cargill is the third-largest producer of ethanol in the U.S.

Disclosure: I am still holding onto my 100 shares of Exxon Mobil in my retirement account.

NEXT: Veronique de Rugy on C-SPAN, Talking Debt Ceiling

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. Let’s get rid of both.

    1. I second the motion. This might be something people across the political spectrum could agree on. Or am I being far too optimistic?

      1. My understanding is that the so-called oil subsidies are actually deductions for depreciation, the kind of deduction that any extraction industry gets.

        If that’s the case, then I’m not sure calling them subsidies is accurate, although I could be convinced. I’m quite sure calling them oil industry subsidies is inaccurate, because they aren’t given just to oil. But I’m no tax expert, so some actual, you know, facts would be nice to have.

        I believe ethanol, though, is a different kettle of fish. It gets a nice fat piece of rent-seeking in the form of fuel mandates, and I believe it gets additional subsidies in the classic sense.

        So I’m not sure that “a pox on both their checkbooks” is necessarily the way to go here.

        1. “My understanding is that the so-called oil subsidies are actually deductions for depreciation, the kind of deduction that any extraction industry gets.”

          If this is true I might agree with you. But it does highlight a need to radically change the tax code. BTW If I had to choose between a low flat tax and the so called “fair tax” I would go with the flat tax in a heart beat. The Fair Tax could easily wind up being a sales tax in addition to an income tax. I know that is not the intention of fair tax proponents but I also know that few government programs have been restrained to their original purpose.

          1. If this is true I might agree with you.

            So exactly what are these “tax breaks” that oil gets?

            1. ??? You were the one who was bringing up the issue?????

              1. You imply that my understanding is wrong. I honestly don’t know, which is why said some facts would be nice.

                1. Apparently about $4 billion of the “subsidies” are subsidies, and the other 17 or so are “extraordinary” tax deductions, which are not really extraordinary if you beleive that depletion is a legitimately deductible expense.

                2. —“If this is true I might agree with you”—

                  —“If this is WERE I might agree with you.”—

                  It sounds like he was trying to figure out if it was true, not questioniong you.

                  1. “It sounds like he was trying to figure out if it was true, not questioniong you.”

                    Disintrested bystander is correct.

        2. I am also confused because it seems like oil companies have to meet a higher standard for deducting foreign income tax (they cannot deduct foreign royalty payments).

          1. The subsidies received by big companies in the oil and gas industry are negligible. That is, they are negligible if you define “subsidy” like Webster does: “a grant or gift of money”, or “a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public”.

            The alleged subsidies that politicians and media talking heads blather about are simply not subsidies using the ordinary English language definition.

            The main items alleged to be subsidies are listed below.

            1) Foreign income tax credit. In addition to US income taxes on worldwide income, the big, bad oil companies also pay foreign income taxes on foreign-earned income. The tax code allows and various tax treaties stipulate that foreign income taxes paid on foreign earnings are credited against US income taxes. The credit is limited to rate applicable to US income. This allows income taxes paid on the big oil company’s foreign-earned income to foreign governments to be deducted from the US government’s income taxes calculated based upon worldwide income. This is by no means peculiar to the oil industry. Individuals and businesses in all sorts of industries use this credit. Even expatriate employees and small-time investors use it routinely. The double taxation that would occur absent this provision would make American oil companies uncompetitive participants in global markets.

            2) LIFO inventory accounting. If you took a semester of financial accounting, you know that there is nothing really unusual about using LIFO as the accounting convention for inventory valuation. The big oil companies have used this very conservative method of valuation for over a century. Congress, however, sees an opportunity to shakedown the oil companies by banning LIFO. That way, they can force the oil companies to make an immediate write-up of inventories and create a huge taxable extraordinary income event. It would be great for future demogoguery as well because the media talking heads would either be clueless or pretend to be clueless about how the apparent increase in income hurt rather than helped shareholders.

            3) Depletion. This is essentially the same as depreciation of capital. Say Chevron bids $100 million for offshore E&P rights somewhere. Then, it spends another $900 million to drill and complete a well. It has a billion invested. Then, it starts pumping $160 million worth of oil. After paying $80 billion in royalties and operating expenses, it enjoys $80 million in net pre-tax cash flow. Isn’t it obvious that some fraction of the original investment be deducted from the $80 million when determining taxable income? Depletion is just the way that the $100 million spent on the lease gets subtracted over time.

            3) Intangible drilling expense. The real question about the $900 million is not whether it should be deducted from income, but when. Current tax law does not allow all of the deduction when it is actually incurs. Rather, the tax code allows the big, bad oil company to expense some of the $900 million and to capitalize the rest. A whole lot of that $900 million is spent on intangibles — stuff that has no salvage value but is absolutely necessary for the well. Current tax law treats drilling intangibles as an operating expense deductible against other income. That which cannot be immediately deducted is depreciated over time.

            4) Section 199 Production Credits. This is not exactly a subsidy in the ordinary English-language sense of the word, but it’s the closest of all of the items mentioned. The Section 199 Production Credit is a tax credit determined by the big, bad oil company’s US payroll. Like all other manufacturers and producers of goods, big, bad oil companies get the Section 199 credit. I’ve never read anywhere that big, bad oil companies lobbied for the Section 199 credit. But if the New York Times, pornography producers, and cigarette manufacturers get the Section 199 credit, is it really obscene that big, bad oil companies get it as well?

            5) Ethanol subsidies. The big, bad oil companies resisted ethanol tooth and nail, but Iowa voters are more powerful than big oil.

      2. Liberal foodies bitch about corn subsidies messing up our foods, they should be able to get on board with ending corn subsidies.

        But, Iowa Primary!

        1. “But, Iowa Primary!”

          I don’t think specific state primaries are as important as they once were. Back in the days before the intertubes, newspaper headlines and TV coverage were far more important. Today, sites like “realclearpolitics” and others allow voters to judge for themselves who has a real shot at winning in a more numerically driven way.

          1. The Iowa caucuses are only important because they have been endowed by the media with the quasi-mystical ability to provide the winner with “momentum” and the coveted “front-runner” status.

            If people and the media would just say “A bunch of hard-core socons on corporate welfare like so-and-so. Who cares?”, the Iowa caucuses would become a non-event.

            1. And as mainstream media has become less important, so too have the Iowa Caucuses.

            2. That’s funny, because that’s what I say. If the media would get entirely out of the anointing business, maybe these early primaries would be more obviously the irrelevancies they really are.

              1. “…they have been endowed by the media…”
                “…as mainstream media…” “…If the media would get entirely out…”
                Let’s whip the media! Those nefarious f*ckers are leading us all astray! And it is obvious that the consumers of all this spin are just too stupid to know any better!
                How about I approve all information sources for the citizens. “I’ll tell you what to think.”

                1. bernieyeball,

                  I cannot speak for the others, but as for myself; I was merely making the point that the traditional dead-tree newspapers and traditional networks (i.e. ABC, NBC, CBS) are becoming less and less important. You can argue about WHY this is the case, but it cannot be denied. More people are seeking primary sources and alternative points of view. As this occurs, the Iowa Caucuses and other early primaries become less important.

                  1. Primary source. Like the citizen who saw the helicopters over the OBL compound and sent Tweets.
                    No editors. No spin. Just pure information.
                    I like it!

                    1. Primary Source like CSPAN showing people what is actually occurring on the House Floor with little or no commentary. Primary Source like Wikileaks showing to the public ACTUAL government documents that they wanted hidden because they did not want to embarrass Hillary Clinton. Primary Source like cell phone camera videos of cops abusing their authority or a politician being honest about his / her true motives.

                    2. Yes Hambone. I said I LIKE it. Can’t u read?

                    3. “Yes Hambone. I said I LIKE it. Can’t u read?”

                      Sarcasm is a regular feature of these comment threads. I thought you were slamming Twitter as being possibly a teenager in his pajamas claiming he saw things that he read happened in a news story. Not being able to hear the tone of your voice …. I apologize if that was not your intent.

                2. The media, as a whole, are too in love with the influence that they have historically been able to wield over the electorate. The consumers are smart enough to look at other sources for information that have recently become available, and now the mainstream media seem to be willing to trade their veneer of objectivity for candidates who they believe will use the force of government to protect their position, either through bailouts or restrictions on their new competition. And you’re an asshole for deliberately misreading this sentiment as hysterical anti-media ranting, or an idiot for believing that there is no legitimate basis to the criticism of the mainstream media.

                  1. That was directed at bernieyeball, in case it is not obvious.

                  2. “And you’re an asshole for deliberately misreading this sentiment as hysterical anti-media ranting, or an idiot for believing that there is no legitimate basis to the criticism of the mainstream media.”
                    U must get all yer exercise jumping to conclusions! Where did I say that?

                    1. Sarcasm and vulgarity. Two of my preferred forms of expression!

            3. Yeah, I still don’t understand why Iowa and NH automatically get to have their primaries first. I’m sure it has something to do with not upsetting our precious two-party system.

              1. AJ we all know you meant “caucuses” when u mentioned Iowa and we all understand u know the difference.
                Automatic? Aren’t the election laws governing the selection process for a political party’s candidates for Federal Executive office in each state the result of the deliberations of 50 separate legislatures?
                If you want to change those laws why don’t u move to Iowa or NH and work for the election of the State representatives who think like u do?

    2. MNG: How about getting rid of all energy subsidies and tax breaks, period?

      1. How about getting rid of all tax deductions, credits or special deals for anybody for any reason, whatsoever?

        And I mean ANYBODY.

        The biggest subsidies in existence are not corporate ones – they are Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.

        Either subsides are perfectly fine for anyone and everyone for any reason whatsoever or there are not fine for anybody for any reason whatsoever.

        There is no in between.

        1. Hi Gilbert, have you met my friend False Dilemma? False, meet Gilbert.

          1. Nothing is a “fasle dilemma” on your say so.

            Of course absolutely nothing else is so on your say so either.

            1. Gillie, you are a bizarre man.

              1. You’re a socialist twit.

              2. LA!

          2. The idiom is a “false dichotomy”, not a “false dilemma”.

            /usage nazi

            1. A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

              “Either subsides are perfectly fine for anyone and everyone for any reason whatsoever or there are not fine for anybody for any reason whatsoever.”

              1. “is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options.”

                It doesn’t have anything to do with choices. It is a statement of principle.

                There can be no LEGITIMATE reason for selectve subsidies – period.

                1. Indeed. And the open question is, just what are these “subsidies” the oil companies get, are the selective, and are they justified?

                  There is no such question around much of the subsidies that green energy (including ethanol) gets. They are selective and/or rent-seeking.

      2. I think the problem with that is one can argue that we have had government support to set up a culture and infrastructure that heavily favors certain industries, industries that we might have reason to think have harmful externalities. Just saying “everything is equal now” is of course better than continuing such support, but one can argue the advantages are so strong now they need to be ‘offset’ if we want the preferred industries to progress.

        1. “but one can argue the advantages are so strong now they need to be ‘offset’ if we want the preferred industries to progress.”

          Don’t you think doing so now could create a future culture and infrastructure that heavily favors a different set of industries? And how do you know which new industry we should support now? If the government just stayed out of the way we might have something very unexpected emerge that would be better than anything now considered a viable possibility.

          1. I think once a boulder gets rolling it can go a long, long way with no further pushes…Economists and others talk about ‘path dependence’

            1. If this is the case, why do we need government to get the boulder rolling?

              1. We need government to get the boulder to stop rolling.

                1. I try stop bolder but make me extinct

                2. Me stop bolder bolder keep rolling good way to be extinct!

                3. Me stop bolder bolder stop me1 extinct

                4. Like they stopped the flow of illegal narcotics?

                5. “We need government to get the boulder to stop rolling.”

                  Why? Private non-profit organizations and large corporations have done amazing things.

            2. Me invent bolder pushing

        2. Look, the government royally fucked up by privileging a culture and infrastructure once already. I see no solution other than having government privilege another culture and infrastructure.

          What could possibly go wrong?

          1. If you think about it this is a major difference between liberals and libertarians. There is often agreement that past government meddling was bad. Libertarians then proceed to say there should be no more meddling while liberals say ‘we can’t leave it at that we should try to redress the conditions created by that meddling.’

            1. “we can’t leave it at that we should try to redress the conditions created by that meddling.”

              If you saw a child who has been abused over and over by his parents, would you entrust that child to those parents if they promised to help heal his wounds and “be better parents from now on”?

              Or would you try an alternative?

              1. But government is more a thing than a person.

                It’s like saying guns are bad because crooks use them. Well, good guys can use them too.

                1. In other words, this will all solved once the Right People are in charge.

                  1. “In other words, this will all solved once the Right People are in charge.”

                    Well said.

                2. “It’s like saying guns are bad because crooks use them. Well, good guys can use them too.”

                  It is possible for a gun to be unfired, unactive and / or unloaded. A gun merely existing does not mean that it will be used. Governments by their very nature MUST be active, must be in a state in which it harms those who defy its comands.

            2. Leading to a new round of meddling once liberals realize their solution caused more problems. It’s the never ending cycle of government intervention.

              1. Minge is also ignoring the three decades of subsidies that the government has already been using to “stop the boulder.” At what point do you admit that government is incapable of bringing about an objective state of fairness by force?

                1. “…objective state of fairness…”
                  What’s that?

        3. Yeah. Corporate affirmative action will definitely work.

    3. How about. . .no subsidies at all? I know we use some to keep some industrial capacity at home for military purposes, but, aside from that, what good do they do anyone other than certain politicians? Well, and the recipients of the largess, of course.

  2. “On Capitol Hill that sentiment qualifies as crazy talk.”

    Whachyoutalkingbout Reason?

  3. But …. but …. but … GLOBAL WARMING!!

  4. But there is another energy subsidy that could be eliminated that would help reduce the budget deficit even more. The bioethanol subsidy.

    If you can think of a better way for America to thumb its nose at the world’s starving than by paying farmers to grow expensive and inefficient fuel instead of food, I’m all ears. (Bonus pun: corn… ears… get it?)

    Disclosure: I’m hoping one day the Kochs will give me a large sum of money for my snotty commenting.

    1. Don’t forget, inflating the price of corn for ethanol has also had the effect of farmers burning their agave fields in Mexico, thus threatening our precious tequila.

      1. I think we have a crisis here.

        1. Mr President! We can NOT allow a tequila gap!

          1. The government solution to this, of course, is subsidies for tequila production. But only to companies who donate to Obama’s re-election campaign.

          2. Tequila sucks. Well, it didn’t before that three-day tequila drunk back in 1978, but ever since then, it really, really sucks.

            1. Tequila is a gateway drug. By that, I mean it opens a gateway to. . .hell!

    2. Disclosure: I’m hoping one day the Kochs will give me a large sum of money for my snotty commenting.

      Hire me instead… I’ll do it for moderately large sums of money. Capitalism at work, bitches!

  5. In other news, it’s been 1 year, and Rachel “Smarmy Asshole Laughing Dykasaurous” Maddow is once again talking about the Paul family’s lack of support of some sections of the 1964 Civil Rights bill.

    1. I submit that someone with this much need to express such hate for a minor tv commentator needs meds.

      Or a more fulfilling job.

      1. Dude, you really overestimate the level of mental energy needed to work up a good hate, then.

        Man, hate is easy. In many ways it’s the path of least resistance. Intellectual charity and good will is what’s hard.

        Hating Rachel Maddow with this kind of intensity is normal. Finding a way to lash the hate into submission long enough to build bridges is what is psychologically exceptional, and one might say perverse.

  6. By the way, I think I should add that I have 100 shares of LesboCo Strap-Ons and Strap-On Accessories in my retirement account.

    1. I actually appreciate Ron’s dedication to disclosing that sort of information.

    2. You don’t really know any lesbians, do you.

  7. So, $21 billion from the oil industry versus $60 billion from the ethanol industry, and perhaps considerably more if the ethanol mandates hold.

    *facepalm*

    You’re comparing the projected tax breaks of ethanol in 2022 with the projected tax rise on oil & gas over 10 years. Apples and oranges, you mendacious turd.

    1. Um…wouldn’t that tend to underestimate the disparity between ethanol and oil and not overestimate it?

  8. Congressionl fiddling with the tax code introduces inefficiency in economic decisionmaking by companies and investors.

    Whuut?

    This is another excellent opportunity to push my preferred plan (which will, obviously, never come to fruition) for a three per cent gross receipts tax on all income from any source. Once the three cents on every dollar have been taken in, businesses would be free to spend the other ninety-seven as they see fit, based on their own analysis of the economic return.

    No “targeted” anything, no social engineering, no resources wasted on tax avoidance/compliance.

  9. you mendacious turd.

    Try rubbing some high fructose corn syrup on your vagina, so the sand isn’t so scratchy.

      1. JP: What I was trying to suggest (and failed in your case) is that the federal deficit between now and 2021 will total somewhere around $7 trillion dollars [PDF]. Therefore, if someone in Congress was really looking to reduce deficits, cutting a projected $420 billion in ethanol subsidies would be a step in the right direction. Is that so hard to understand?

        1. If that’s what you were trying to say, then why did you bother to “compare” two numbers that were discussing completely different things?

          If we’re really worried about the deficit, modest tax breaks on oil, gas, and ethanol are hardly even worth mentioning: the deficit is ~$1.5 trillion this year. We’re talking about less than 1% of the deficit, let alone the total spending.

          1. Somebody gets it! This is a sideshow. Bashing evil oil companies for tax breaks that can’t be explained is red-meat for the liberal masses.

            The ethanol subsidy is also a fairly meaningless number. Unfortunately the mandate that oil companies add ethanol to our gasoline costs us all far more than both numbers combined.

  10. End the corporate income tax completely. Then there would be no concerns about tax depreciation rates being subsidies, or drilling credits, or three martini lunches for any corporation. They’d follow whatever rules the CPA’s require and not have to hire a gazillion tax accountants to figure out how to shave taxes.
    Dividends paid would be taxed at ordinary rates to the recipients. Letting the cash buildup in the corporation may lead to a higher stock price: when it is sold, index the gain to inflation index and tax at ordinary rates.

    1. We have a winner.

  11. one can argue the advantages are so strong now they need to be ‘offset’ if we want the preferred industries to progress.

    Five Year Plan FTW!

  12. Something else only government can legally do: raid pension funds to pay for daily operations.

    1. Anything but cut spending.

      1. To do so would contradict the Law of the Conservation of Office.

  13. It’s like saying guns are bad because crooks use them. Well, good guys can use them too.

    Whut? We are talking here about the crooks and their previous (according to you) spectacular failures.

    Unless you are making an argument that government will do a dandy job of resetting the culture and infrastructure once we have the Right People in Charge.

  14. Exxon Mobil’s Annual Report is here:
    http://thomson.mobular.net/thomson/7/3184/4448/

    The Income Statement is on page 32.

    Exxon paid a 41% income tax on their profits. A total of $21.5 Billion in income taxes to various states and countries. They also paid almost $65 Billion in sales taxes, tariffs, and duties.

    What breaks are they getting again?

    1. Old Soldier: Of course, who actually paid that $21.5 billion — the people who bought Exxon’s gasoline. Corporations aren’t really taxed — they largely collect what amounts to a federal sales tax from their customers.

      1. Not sure that is really true. I would say that the cutomers, shareholders, and employees all bear some of that burden.

  15. With regard to MNG’s posts, I have to admit that the path dependence argument is compelling, but only in the short term, and generally not in energy markets.

    Fossil fuels are finite. That means that eventually they’re going bye-bye. So market forces will themselves inevitably break us out of any path dependence patterns, if they’re merely allowed to function.

    So in this particular case, yeah, the risk in attempting a corrective action is greater than the risk of doing nothing.

    Sure, oil had a century head start and tons of state intervention on its behalf along the way – but even so, the day that heating oil hits $6.00 a gallon my house will look like Ed Begley Jr.’s place.

  16. Exxon paid a 41% income tax on their profits.

    But don’t you see? They use Evil Accounting Wizardry to hide profits which should be shared with society, because they are evil; unlike those wholesome fresh-faced farmers, with their bulgy muscular forearms and freckle-faced maiden daughters frolicking gaily in the sunshiny fields of alfalfa.

    1. Some of those freckle-faced farm maidens could play offensive tackle in pro football. Sturdy pioneer stock on some of the farms I’ve been to.

      1. Two words:

        South Dakota.

    2. I thought those were sunshiny fields of arugula?

  17. I’ll do it for moderately large sums of money. Capitalism at work, bitches!

    Go ahead, race to the bottom, you fiend.

  18. MNG|5.16.11 @ 11:49AM|#

    But government is more a thing than a person.

    It’s like saying guns are bad because crooks use them. Well, good guys can use them too.

    It is more of a process than a “thing.” And like any human directed process can be done well, or done poorly.

    While this will get the same “if only the right guy was in charge” retort so common around here, it really isn’t about WHO does it, but about WHAT is done.

  19. I think your oil subsidy figures are erroneous (to say the least). Try this for starters:
    http://www.tradereform.org/201…..subsidies/

    Further, what everyone fails to understand is the inescapable fact that oil is a finite resource while biofuel, solar, wind, and geothermal sources are not.

    Therefore, it makes all the sense in the world to invest heavily in renewable energy source, regardless of what (comparatively trivial) peaks and troughs our economy may be experiencing at any given point.

    We must seek a long-term strategy that insures our energy future, not yet another short-term band-aid that serves only to guarantee gasoline in our V8’s for another few months.

  20. I am for removing the subsidies as well, but this piece seeks to deceive the reader.

    The amount of ethanol subsides TO DATE, THAT IS, TODAY, NOT THE FUTURE is far, far, far, far less than oil.

    This piece deceives the reader.

    Best,

    D

  21. Interesting news. thanks for sharing.

  22. Interesting news, i dont know it is true or not but what is all these “tax Breaks”?

  23. I can see by all the websites popping up that the oil companies billion dollars in profit is spewing out their propaganda machine rhetoric!! This article is gobbledygook!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.