Pension Crisis

Kamala Harris' Description of Pension Initiative Again Riles Reformers

Casts attempts to give voters control over future benefits as stripping 'constitutional protections.'

|

Dancing with them what brung her
Kamala Harris

Pension reformers Chuck Reed (former Democratic Mayor of San Jose) and Carl DeMaio (former Republican San Diego City Council member) introduced a new ballot initiative in June that would amend Caifornia's constitution to give citizens more control over the pension and benefit obligations taken on by their own governments and offered to public employees.

Democratic Attorney General Kamala Harris, who also happens to be running for the Senate to replace retiring Barbara Boxer, put out a title and summary of the initiative this week. Needless to say, initiative proponents are not happy. Here's how Harris formally summarizes what Reed and DeMaio call the "Voter Empowerment Act of 2016":

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES. PENSION AND RETIREE HEALTHCARE BENEFITS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Eliminates constitutional protections for vested pension and retiree healthcare benefits for current public employees, including those working in K-12 schools, higher education, hospitals, and police protection, for future work performed. Adds initiative/referendum powers to Constitution, for determining public employee compensation and retirement benefits. Bars government employers from enrolling new employees in defined benefit plans, paying more than one-half cost of new employees' retirement benefits, or enhancing retirement benefits, unless first approved by voters. Limits placement of financial conditions upon government employers closing defined benefit plans to new employees. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Significant effects—savings and costs—on state and local governments relating to compensation for governmental employees. The magnitude and timing of these effects would depend heavily on future decisions made by voters, governmental employers, and the courts.

A layperson might read the beginning of that description and conclude that current government employees could have their pensions and healthcare benefits stripped from them if this referendum is passed. That is not, in fact, what the initiative does. It does have several components to give voters more control over how its governments pay for public employees by:

  • Giving voters the power to use ballot initiatives to determine compensation and retirement benefits for employees.
  • Requiring governments to get voter approval in order to either enhance existing pension plans or to add new employees to pension plans. It also requires governments to get voter approval to pay more than one half of an employee's retirement benefits.

It also specifically states it doesn't alter any existing benefit agreements or reduces the benefits for work already performed.

To be clear, the reforms proposed within this initiative are huge, even if Harris is mischaracterizing them. Requiring a vote by each government body to continue letting new employees into pension programs could very likely fail, requiring the state and municipalities to switch to 401(k)-style defined contribution retirement funds instead (which don't require a vote). This switch is important for spending reform because it takes governments (and taxpayers) off the hook for a guaranteed return. Governments would be providing all their contributions at the front end and would not be obligated to make up for any below-expected returns from these funds like they would with a pension. Furthermore, California's Constitution has put municipalities in a bind by prohibiting them from decreasing future benefits for government employees, so giving voters the authority to potentially bypass collective bargaining could also potentially impact this rule.

Our own Reason-Rupe poll from back in February shows that giving voters the power to vote on public employee pension increases is very popular. We saw 78 percent of those polls supporting public votes. The majority also supports shifting public employees (especially new ones) to defined contribution 401(k)-style retirement programs. What DeMaio and Reed are proposing seems like it would likely go down well with voters.

But maybe not with the way Harris has described the legislation, and she's done this to Reed before. Reed abandoned a pension reform initiative in 2014 after losing a court fight over Harris' summary. This time it looks as though they're going to press forward anyway, though Reed and DeMaio told the Associated Press they're going to "conduct a legal review" of how Harris summarized their initiative.

The two of them will need to collect close to 600,000 signatures to make it onto California's ballot for the November 2016 election.

(Disclosure: DeMaio has previously worked with the Reason Foundation as an independent contractor on pension reform.)

NEXT: Updated: Ron Paul Endorses Son Rand as "Best Hope" to Lead Country

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. Kamala Harris is a piece of shit who had to be shamed by Judge Alex Kozinski into not prosecuting an innocent man.

    1. Link?

        1. The good part of that video starts at around the 16 minute mark.

          1. The text summarizes it pretty well too.

            1. I am listening to this video in its entirely. It sounds fun.

              1. I’ll bet Kozinski doesn’t ride the cocktail circuit.

                1. Kocinski* rode the MotoGP circuit back in the grand old days of 500cc 2 strokes!

                  * slightly different spelling

                  1. He became a judge after a race accident.

    2. Wasn’t she the one publicly looking into how she could punish the PP video folks for their investigative journalism?

  2. Giving voters the power to use ballot initiatives to determine compensation and retirement benefits for employees.

    This is a spectacularly awful idea.

    1. No it’s not.

      It restores sanity to a thoroughly corrupt system wherein public employee unions help elect politicians that then give those unions completely insane contracts. Usually back loaded so that the politicians in question are long gone from office when the full bill comes do.

  3. First of all – would.

    Second – fuck California.

    1. Never stick it in crazy-evil

      1. Come on – even your handle says you would!

        Can’t bullshit a bullshiter, Bob…

        1. I might have been talking about California?

    2. would as well

  4. Giving voters the power to use ballot initiatives to determine compensation and retirement benefits for employees.
    Requiring governments to get voter approval in order to either enhance existing pension plans or to add new employees to pension plans. It also requires governments to get voter approval to pay more than one half of an employee’s retirement benefits.

    I am management, not the governors, city councils and legislators. Pubsec unions strike against me, not the government. I should have a direct say in Union contract negotiations.

    1. *SWAT team through flashbang into Paul’s house, breaks down door, shoots his dog, shoots his family, shoots him – then says, “OOPS! Wrong address!” – leaves*

      1. fucking fuck – “throws” – fucking autocorrect

  5. Feminist thinks women don’t have the right to earn money in America.

    Lauren says that, as a woman, she can experience privileges like having custody of her children and some other nonsense. But perhaps she’s not aware that the United States constitution doesn’t directly grant the rights of American citizenship to women, and lawmakers still haven’t passed the Equal Rights Amendment introduced in 1923. This means that women in the U.S. don’t have the stated constitutional right to hold property, have custody of their children, receive pay, or pursue life, liberty and happiness like their male counterparts. Although men allow them to do so for now, it’s not a stated right of women.

    14th Amendment? What the fuck is the 14th Amendment? What’s this ‘Equal Protection Clause’ you’re talking about? I am so confused.

    And don’t even try to tell me that there are Congressional statutes regarding citizenship which include women.

    I don’t believe it, I don’t accept it, and I am angry at you for trying to mansplain law to me.

    1. That which is not explicitly permitted is forbidden.

      1. This. If you’re not explicitly stamped, recognized, collated, licensed and accepted by government, you don’t exist.

        If through some accident of culture, the draft had survived the 60s, we wouldn’t be protesting the draft, gays and women would demand to be included because denying them would be discriminatory, and they wouldn’t by privy to all the benefits and privileges.

        1. I doubt it. women could demand to be included in Selective Service right now, but don’t.

            1. Interesting.

              But why would a woman fight for having an equal chance of being drafted?

              1. Because until women are held to the same standard as men, they won’t be taken seriously. And all the laws and PC screeds in the world won’t change the fact that our nation and legal system treats women as unaccountable children. I don’t support the draft (for anyone), but I applaud this woman’s efforts to elevate women to the same status as men. But I’m sure the feminists hate her…

                1. I see it a little differently. I think she is doing a disservice to liberty. Yes, equal protection is essential to the rule of law; however, it seems to me that equal protection cases of late have increased state power over individuals, which I have a hard time supporting.

                  Yes, it’s totally sexist that only men have to sign up for SS. But I’d prefer that than to also require women to do the same.

                  1. This!

                    Men should be suing that the Selective Service only registering men violates equal protection laws and have the law invalidated.

                    Eric Dondero might lose his job at the draft board, but everyone else would be better off.

                  2. If by “of late”, you mean for the last 50 years, you would be correct.

        2. Only the SINless are free.

    2. *looks at current copy of the Constitution*

      Hmm. Nothing in here about excluding women from anything. Weird. It’s almost like the quoted person is lying.

    3. The 14th Amendment was insufficient to prevent states from prohibiting women from voting.

      1. But it is sufficient to allow them to hold property.

        I also think it probably would be sufficient in modern times to prevent states from stopping women from voting due to the expansive view courts have taken of the Equal Protection Clause in recent years. If Equal Protection means gays can marry per current jurisprudence, I think it obviously would be similarly used to stop people from stripping voting rights from women.

      2. The 14th Amendment was insufficient to prevent states from prohibiting black males from voting contrary to the second sentence of Section 2.

    4. The 14th Amendment (Section 2) is the only time that the US Constitution mentions sex:

      Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

    5. The 14th Amendment (Section 2) is the only time that the US Constitution mentions sex:

      Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

  6. I would vote for this Kamala:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_(wrestler)

  7. Good, God. And this idiot has been chosen to replace the equally-horrible Barbara Boxer in the Senate. California is so doomed…

    1. I think the other option is Loretta Sanchez. Harris is actually the better of the two.

      1. the better of the two

        The preferred term in this case is “less awful”.

      2. Since Boxer announced her retirement, word has been that Harris will be her replacement. The election is just a formality. Sanchez has chosen to oppose her but won’t get the support of the Democrats in power because she’s further down the ‘victim’ chain.

        1. Villaraigosa was going to run too, but I think he remembered literally everyone hates him.

  8. OT: Tales from the Derpbook, Part 67,233,746,105

    I’m going to say something that’s going to piss some people off: In a white-hegemonic power structure, anti-white racism doesn’t exist. POC can have prejudices against white people, but racism implies power. POC have never had the power that whites do, and until the reality of white supremacy in the United States is made apparent any attempt to talk about race will be passed off as race-baiting. Our society is not post-racial. If it were any attempt to have a conversation about race wouldn’t provoke such anxiety.

    1. In a white-hegemonic power structure, anti-white racism doesn’t exist.

      I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: If this were true, then I should be allowed to go to Japan and call everyone tentacle-porn addicted panty-sniffing perverts and that wouldn’t be racist since white people don’t have power in Japan.

      Logic.

      1. Wrong! White people are a trans-temporal super power. They caused everything bad in the past, even though they were scratching around in the dirt of some ice cave. In the future when we are all a pleasing mocha color, it will be the white man’s fault for his sins of the past echo through eternity.

        1. Did anyone make such an argument seriously.

          1. I just made it.

            *stares seriously at Mike*

            1. FLORIDA MAN FOR PRESIDENT – 2016!!! MAKE ‘MURCA GREAT AGAIN!

              /former Trump supporter

              1. Tiny abortions for all, FL state flags for others!

              2. I’m going to start a write in campaign for Florida Man.

                1. Good luck with that. Florida doesn’t count write in votes.

        2. I guess technically, since this all started with some apes in Africa, you could argue it’s actually the fault of some Africans however many years ago.

          1. RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACIST!!!!!!!!

      2. It also means that once the hegemonic white power structure is dismantled, a white person who uses the n word isn’t a racist.

    2. It doesn’t piss me off. He can say the sun rises in the west, it doesn’t reflect reality.

    3. racism implies power.

      What does this even mean? Does Ricky Bobby have more power over, say, Kamala Harris, such that only Ricky Bobby can be “racist”?

      until the reality of white supremacy in the United States

      ?????

      Our society is not post-racial. If it were any attempt to have a conversation about race wouldn’t provoke such anxiety.

      Maybe most people see this kind of claptrap for what it is: bullshit.

      1. Ricky Bobby for president!! Sweet little baby Jesus for VP!!!

      2. Stop being silly. Individuals don’t have power. Only groups have power.

        1. From now on I’ll just say: “Don’t blame me; my whiteness made me do it.”

          1. *Starts taking notes and nodding head in agreement*

      3. Our society is not post-racial. If it were any attempt to have a conversation about race wouldn’t provoke such anxiety.

        This is 100% true. Honestly, it is.

        Of course, the folks who are fighting like hell to prevent it from being post-racial, and making damn sure it provokes anxiety, are the race hustlers.

        As always, projection.

    4. POC? Points of Contact?

      I know, it’s probably “People of Color” but I bet if anyone asked this scholar of Victim Studies what POC means in this context (since he didn’t bother to define it first) he’d get all bitchy.

      Something about how defining acronyms the first time they’re used is a product of white privelege and how dare you other him with your cis-hetero white male standards.

      1. The author is a girl I semi-dated back in high school. She’s gone full progtard since college.

        The most revolting about her post is its collectivism. POCs apparently are some monolithic block and so are whites.

        Also, POCs can be prejudiced against whites, but don’t call it racism, even though such is the very definition of it. Because…

        1. Where did she fall on the hot/crazy axis when you dated her and where does she fall today?

            1. I’m just going to say, when I clicked on that, there was a story linked, entitled: It Happened To Me: I Got Hit By A Semi And Suffered A Traumatic Brain Injury.

              1. imagine if she’d be hit with a stiffy

                1. OMG, she just exudes insanity !

              2. Saw that and was afraid to click.

          1. At the time, she was the first girl to let me…well, you can guess, so she was pretty hot then, even if a neutral observer would disagree.

            Today; well, I still think she’s mildly attractive, but her politics are so off-putting to me that she’s sheer over on the crazy side.

            1. College tends to do that to some people. Why do you suppose that is? Are the colleges successfully brainwashing them, or are they just bringing out the crazy that was there all along?

              1. I think the terrible politics were always there, and college simply reinforces them to the point that those people never feel the need for introspection or to seriously consider alternative points of view.

                1. I think you’re right. You can’t build a fire unless there’s a spark to ignite it.

                2. Also, the Intertubes have made it easier to find your own precious little echo chamber.

                  20 years ago, before you could ever go far enough down the delusional rabbit hole she has spelunked, you’d have to actually defend some of your core principles to someone at least intelligent enough to see your bullshit for what it is.

                  Today, people like her self select for the choir that sings their tune. They nod their heads and give her tons of amen moments. And the only external viewpoints she ever sees are those that were provided by her circle of forum posters and facebook friends precisely because they were evidence supporting caricatured strawmen that she has invented in her mind.

                  Sadly, people like her are gone. The time to intervene in this lunacy is long past. Those shaky foundations on which her ideology and vitriol now stands have been cemented with praise from her fellow ideologues.

              2. I vote the latter. Plenty of us went through college and did not buy all the bullshit

              3. Are the colleges successfully brainwashing them, or are they just bringing out the crazy that was there all along?

                Yes.

              4. Are the colleges successfully brainwashing them

                Kinda. College naturally tend to produce the environment that cults studiously work to create.
                * You have young, naive, intelligent people, cut off from friends and family for the first time in their lives.
                * In the PC majors, you have an atmosphere of oppressive conformity of thought.
                * You have duress, in the sense that pissing off the wrong people can completely shaft you professionally, but staying on message can set you up.
                * You have big money. Like cults, colleges make shitloads of money by promising secret knowledge to individuals, though what they are really selling is the prestige of having access to that knowledge. Like cults, they rely on a handful of true believers (alumni) to help with funding and recruiting.

            2. At the time, she was the first girl to let me…well, you can guess

              Stick it in the butt? Give her a Jane Hathaway? What? Come on man, this H&R, we need details!

              1. A gentleman doesn’t touch and tell.

                1. I assumed since you’re posting on H&R you’re not a gentleman. My mistake.

          2. Apparently she was in a serious vehicular accident and it has affected her mental state. I wouldn’t judge her too harshly. Her twitter account makes our trolls look positively eloquent.

            https://twitter.com/schadenfreudes_

            tbh i hate anyone who harms + talk shit abt my bae subban

            1. Ha!

              But that’s not her. She lives in Texas.

              1. Huh. It was linked from the xojane profile.

                1. She is not xojane, either.

                  1. Well shit. My Google Fu is weak today.

                    1. I may not have said anything if you had thought this was she:

                      Sharon Stone: Actress Poses Nude, Talks About Brain Hemorrhage in Harper’s Bazaar’s September Issue

            2. under the conservative government of canada not only am i a 2nd class citizen 4 being a woman, i am now a 2nd class citizen 4 having dual

              Well, now we know the sort of person who plans on voting for Thomas Mulcair.

              Which makes Mulcair very happy.

      2. I’ve always hated the term “person of color” because it’s clearly intended to denigrate those who weren’t born with the right skin color. So, if non-whites are People of Color, then what are white people? People of NO Color. How can you not get offended by that? Especially since we’re just as ‘colorful’ as any other group.

        1. It’s their retort to “black” being a connotation for bad or evil and makes just about as much sense.

          1. Well, I also have a problem with the word ‘white’ (which I will henceforth refer to as the ‘w-word’) since it’s not particularly accurate except for some very pale redheads. Black is a way cooler color to be associated with.

            1. Mr White in reservoir dogs disagrees.

              1. Yeah, but everyone wanted to be Mr. Black. That’s why there’s no Mr. Black.

                  1. Why am I Mr. Pink?

                    – Because you’re a faggot! All right?

                    – Why can’t we pick our own colors?

                    – No way…No way. Tried it once.It doesn’t work. You get four guys all fightin’over who gets to be Mr. Black.

        2. I’ve come to despise the term “person of faith” just as intensely as “person of color.” It sounds like a freaking handicap or something.

          Which it might well be, but that’s a topic for another day.

          1. Personally, I hate the phrase “not religious, but spiritual.” WTF does that even mean? Whenever I hear that I assume they’re just an Atheist (or Agnostic) but don’t have the guts to admit it. Because the only thing people hate worse than a religious fanatic is someone who doesn’t believe at all.

            1. In my experience, people who say “I’m not religious, but spiritual” tend to say so in opposition to organized religion.

            2. “”not religious, but spiritual.”

              Its like they want the freedom to believe in all sorts of irrational metaphysical shit, but they’re just too lazy to do the Z%^#@(*$ homework and learn about any of the other crazy metaphysical propositions already out there. they seem to be under the impression its a vast Buffet and you can just pick selectively from the parts you like and leave the rest.

              Which i guess is something like Bah?’?. I knew a guy who was a proper one of those (from Iran). Nice guy.

              1. Or it could be that they believe that all the religions have it wrong- that they are indeed part of something greater, a metaphysical reality- but they believe codifying it in some sort of hierarchy is wrong.

                That is close to agnostic, but more like a practicing agnostic rather than a passive one.

        3. Technically only albino people would qualify as “people of no color.”

        4. White is a color. Spectrographically, ts actually all colors. So whites are “people of color”, right?

          1. White is a color. Spectrographically, ts actually all colors.

            That’s only true when light color is emitted. When it’s reflected it’s the absence of color.

      3. I read it as POC = “proof of concept”

      4. I thought POC meant pieces of crap.

    5. When I read this kind of stuff, I can’t help but notice how the general thought process parallels that typically seen in conspiracy theorists. There is a similar tone, a resolute “this is how this is, because that is how that is” — a type of pseudo-logical structure superimposed over the world as it is found, used to try and make sense out of a life that can sometimes be scary and confusing. Since this synthetic world is, by definition, not connected to any particular person or circumstance in the creator’s mind, we find it populated solely by groups, with judgments necessarily being pronounced regarding the nature of, and interaction between, those groups.

      1. “I can’t help but notice how the general thought process parallels that typically seen in conspiracy theorists.”

        Don’t remember who, but someone once pointed out that conspiracy theorists share a great deal in common with religious people in their need to believe in an “Underlying Order” that specifically makes themselves a specific focus of attention/persecution, or… and therefore, important.

        Underlying “chaos” doesn’t know or care whether you exist or not, and is consequently just no fun.

        The belief that the world is specifically designed to disadvantage and persecute YOU (and your self-perceived group-affiliation) grants you instant moral-superiority and self-esteem

        1. The belief that the world is specifically designed to disadvantage and persecute YOU (and your self-perceived group-affiliation) grants you instant moral-superiority and self-esteem

          Plus it instantly gives you an “other” to hate and blame for all your failures as opposed to taking responsibility for your own fuck ups.

          1. Unless, of course, you’re a white or Asian male who has been denied opportunities because of Affirmative Action. Then you’re just a privileged whiner.

        2. I think this is way more than just a conspiracy theorist.

          Watch any time a major earthquake or hurricane hits. You always have people clamoring for camera time on a 24×7 news cycle demanding to know which government apparatchik was responsible- who didn’t do their job, thus costing so many people their lives.

          It is very difficult to internalize that our default condition is death. The fact that we live for but the slightest moment in the grand scheme of things and that forces far and beyond our ability to control can snuff us out in the blink of an eye is too terrible to comprehend. So we blame Clinton or Bush for 9/11 (Not just the truthers, but people who believed it was one of their fault that murderers murdered), we blame politicians for Sandy and Katrina. We blame kings and sinners for a drought.

          It is all one big lie the majority of people tell themselves. If it is the actions of a man that really caused their pain, not some force of nature, then they can fix it. And that makes them feel better.

    1. Chip her?

      1. Careful. Kamala is probably the type to troll internet boards looking for “threats”.

        1. Here’s my pulpmaker, byotch – SUCK IT!

          Is that too forward? I don’t know her at ALL…

  9. She wouldn’t be a progtard if she actually told the truth.

  10. Wow, that video was a blast. I wish Judge Kozinski had exercised his prerogative to be a total asshole and proceeded with writing an opinion that named names. It might have been the first shot in the war to bring down the Bastille of prosecutorial immunity that should never have been erected in a free nation.

    1. He might still speak with a thick Romanian accent, but the good judge is a fantastic wordsmith. His dissenting opinion in United States of America v. Kenneth R. Olsen is an elegant piece of polemic and a pleasure to read.

  11. OT:

    Ariel Winter: ‘Modern Family’ Actress, 17, Gets Breast Reduction, Citing Misogynistic Attention
    “It made me feel really uncomfortable because as women in the industry, we are totally over sexualized and treated like objects,” she told Glamour.

    Men actors, on the other hand…

      1. I dont get that guy. He looks like a dork. is he supposed to be sexy-manly-man to someone?

        Secondly = the @#$()* rule when you talk about tits, is this

        honey, you get as many boob-remodifications as your pretty heart desires, but please don’t pretend that its because of the Male Gaze. Be honest = they’re just a little too big, and they’re a pain in the lower back, or hell… maybe your tennis game is being held back. Whatever the reason, its still all you, and that’s what counts.

        My gf in college announced she’d gotten a boob job to me after 3 months of dating, and i remember pulling my head back a foot or so, and checking the angle of the light and relative proportionality…. like a sculptor reflecting upon a competitor’s output…. and concluded, “I got to say, whoever they are, they do great work. I’d never have guessed in a million years they were fake.”

        she slapped me and goes, “It WAS A REDUCTION!”. unable to compute…. I returned to stupidly gazing…. “They were…. *bigger*… before?” Finally i was like, “”Yeah, i can actually see now how that might have been a problem.”

        1. Hipster girls like him

        2. Looks like Ms. Winter…

          *dons Fist’s sunglasses*

          …is titillating.

        3. So after looking at that picture it occurs to me that she’s bitching about being MALE GAZED yet she wears dresses that show that much cleavage? Yeah, I’m calling bullshit too.

    1. “It made me feel really uncomfortable because as women in the industry, we are totally over sexualized and treated like objects,”

      She whined while posing for images to be featured in one of the most shallow and vacuous magazines in existence.

    2. I’d be sitting well if I could get some unwanted female attention.

  12. I have started to self-identify as a trans-racial POC myself. I got tired of letting others have all the fun.

    1. It all looks pink on the inside, bitches.

      1. Everybody’s shit stinks.

        1. Speak for yourself, stinky!

  13. California certainly is getting the government it deserves.

    1. you can say that again

  14. California certainly is getting the government it deserves.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.