The Golden State isn?t worth it - LA Times

[quote author="CM_Dude" date=1257927027] Stating that we would have to shut UC or release 60,000 prisoners is pure, unadulterated hype.</blockquote>


While CM gives lip service and hyperbole, look to what Genest says in the WSJ today:



<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125814283469047497.html">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125814283469047497.html</a>



<blockquote><strong>"I looked as hard as I could at how states could declare bankruptcy," said Michael Genest</strong>, director of the California Department of Finance who is stepping down at the end of the year. "<strong>I literally looked at the federal constitution to see if there was a way for states to return to territory status."</strong>

There were no bankruptcy options, and the legislature chose to cut back sharply on education and health care to fill the gap. Mr. Genest already predicts the 2011 shortfall will outpace the projected $7 billion gap. It is a smaller deficit than this year's gap, but the choices will be more difficult because so many cuts have already been made.



Mr. Genest estimated that, eventually, <strong>40% of the state's budget would go to the state Medicaid program, 40% to education, 10% to debt service and 6% to retiree medical services and pension?leaving little left for anything else, such as the state's corrections system.</strong></blockquote>


Politically, this is your guy on your side. Not my side. Not my boy. Is it still unadulterated hype? I apologize for the somewhat personal nature of my comments (the whole lemming thing), but you are ignoring the facts that your guys from your side of the isle are presenting. You know, the guy from your side who is leaving the sinking ship.
 
For those of you who read this on CR, I'm not on his jock. <a href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/11/more-losses-for-tarp.html">I got there first dammit.</a>
 
<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-budget-deficit18-2009nov18,0,7647152.story">http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-budget-deficit18-2009nov18,0,7647152.story</a>



<blockquote><strong>California faces a projected deficit of $21 billion</strong>The legislative budget analyst's projection, to be released Wednesday, threatens to send Sacramento back into gridlock and force across-the-board cuts to state programs.



Reporting from Sacramento - Less than four months after California leaders stitched together a patchwork budget, a projected deficit of nearly $21 billion already looms, according to a report to be released Wednesday by the state's chief budget analyst.



The new figure -- the nonpartisan analyst's first projection for the coming budget year -- threatens to send Sacramento back into budgetary gridlock and force more across-the-board cuts in state programs.



The grim forecast, described by people who were briefed on the report by Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor, comes courtesy of California's recession-wracked economy, unrealistic budgeting assumptions, spending cuts tied up in the courts and disappearing federal stimulus funds.



"Economic recovery will not take away the very severe budget problems for this year, next year and the year after," said Steve Levy, director of the Center For Continuing Study of the California Economy.



In fact, after two years of precipitous revenue declines, the new report will project relatively stable tax collections for the state, said those who were briefed. But that won't stop the deficit from climbing to nearly $21 billion.



Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who will present his next proposed budget to Californians in January as he begins his last year in office, started sounding the alarm last week.



"I think that there will be across-the-board cuts again," he said at a San Jose news conference.



The task in 2010 could be even harder than it was this year, when record deficits and cash shortfalls drove California to issue IOUs for only the second time since the Great Depression. Lawmakers have already made billions in deep cuts to education, healthcare and social services while temporarily hiking income, sales and vehicle taxes.



"I can't think of any good solutions," said Assemblywoman Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa), who chairs the budget committee. Although the projected deficit would be smaller than the last one, she said, "the cuts are going to be harder to make because we've already made such substantial cuts."



The current budget year accounts for $6.3 billion of the deficit, the nonpartisan analyst will project. Prisons spending will outstrip what has been budgeted by more than $1 billion, and K-12 schools were underpaid by $1 billion under the complex formula that governs education funding, the report will say.



Another $14.4 billion of the deficit is for the fiscal year that begins next summer, say those briefed on the report. The governor's next budget will have to account for both years.</blockquote>


We need to kick the WFA savings up to roughly 55 billion. Get a crackin'.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1258543636]We need to kick the WFA savings up to roughly 55 billion. Get a crackin'.</blockquote>


I gave you a pass last time, but you've stuck with it so... show me where anyone, anywhere, at anytime, has said that eliminating WFA could close the budget gap. You can't because no one has. Not on this board, not in the California government, not anywhere in the country has anyone claimed that WFA could close California's budget gap. So either take your strawman back to the cornfield or put up some links.
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1258548256][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1258543636]We need to kick the WFA savings up to roughly 55 billion. Get a crackin'.</blockquote>


I gave you a pass last time, but you've stuck with it so... show me where anyone, anywhere, at anytime, has said that eliminating WFA could close the budget gap. You can't because no one has. Not on this board, not in the California government, not anywhere in the country has anyone claimed that WFA could close California's budget gap. So either take your strawman back to the cornfield or put up some links.</blockquote>


Sure. Lets start with Meg Whitman, current candidate for CA Governer, and her batch of radio ads. If she's not talking about WFA, what is she talking about?



<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap29-2009oct29,0,2966172.column?page=1&track=rss">http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap29-2009oct29,0,2966172.column?page=1&track=rss</a>



<blockquote>The Republican candidate for California governor peddles two falsehoods about state spending and taxing in the very first radio ads for the 2010 race.



We instinctively grant latitude to advertisers, whether they're peddling politicians, dog food or miracle paring knives. But we do expect that an ad will not flat-out lie.



Sadly, our expectations often fall short when ambitious politicians are pitching themselves.



Neither major party has a lock on truthfulness. I've written about false advertising by Republicans and Democrats alike for years.



Now, in the very first series of radio ads in the 2010 gubernatorial race, comes blatant baloney from billionaire political novice Meg Whitman, the former chief executive of EBay who is running for the Republican nomination.



<em>"Did you know," Whitman asks radio listeners, "that in the last 10 years, state spending has gone up 80%?"</em>

Well, no, I did not know that. So I did some checking.



<strong>"They're completely wrong when they say that,"</strong> replied state Finance Director <span style="font-size: 16px;"><em><strong>Mike Genest</strong></em></span>, a conservative former budget consultant for Senate Republicans.



It doesn't take much digging to learn that general fund spending "in the last 10 years" has risen just 27%, according to finance department data. Adjusted for inflation and population growth, spending actually has decreased by 16.6%.</blockquote>


Lying about the growth of size of government, confirmed by "Rat abandloning a Sinking Ship" Genest. But she's not done:



<blockquote>But this has ventured too deeply into thick weeds. Let's move on to another bit of baloney in the Whitman ad that is running all over the state.



<strong>"These days," the candidate intones, "Sacramento does the same old thing over and over. Their only solution is to raise taxes and spend more money."</strong>

I've already showed that they're spending less money, not more.



In fact, over the current and last fiscal years, projected spending -- the amount that would have been paid out without changes in laws -- has been whacked by $31 billion. So their "only solution" is not to tax and spend.

</blockquote>


So - there is the meme. Sacto is wasteful. Spending is out of control. Your taxes are too high. She never mentions getting rid of programs (like the current prision system, as suggested by Genest) so what else is someone who is reasonable to assume she is talking about? The current crew managed to hack out $31 billion - plus another 20 odd they announced today. What does she have in mind? Pixie dust?



And then there's the current Governor, six years ago:



<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/08/recall.main/">http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/08/recall.main/</a>



<blockquote>Schwarzenegger told the large crowd of journalists that he's still researching many issues, including the budget. He said he will order a complete audit of California's budget to <strong>"go line-by-line"</strong> looking for waste.



"We don't really know what the current operating deficit it is," Schwarzenegger said. He explained that estimates of the budget's deficit have ranged during the campaign from $6 billion to $10 billion. </blockquote>


How'd that audit turn out anyway?



More recently:



<a href="http://gov.ca.gov/radio-address/12870">http://gov.ca.gov/radio-address/12870</a>



<blockquote>Hello, this is Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger with another California Report.



I want to talk to you today about what we are doing here in Sacramento to live within our means. And we all know this is very important.



One of the most exciting developments is the new Waste Watchers hotline and website, which is helping us to root out waste, fraud and abuse in state government.



Waste Watchers allows you to hold government accountable, by anonymously reporting state practices that just don?t add up.



We launched ?Waste Watchers? just last month.



And let me tell you something, we have been hearing from everyone? from the public? and from our state employees who are on the frontlines, seeing inefficiencies and abuse first hand.



We?ve already had nearly 2,500 comments, suggestions and complaints.



We?ve heard amazing stories, so let just me give you some examples here:



We received for instance a report that a brand new $111,000 medical device has been collecting dust.



It had been warehoused at a state hospital because it wasn?t needed. Imagine that. So we quickly transferred it to another hospital, where it can be put to good use.

</blockquote>


Is this what you had in mind, or did you want something else more?
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1258590581][quote author="Nude" date=1258548256][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1258543636]We need to kick the WFA savings up to roughly 55 billion. Get a crackin'.</blockquote>


I gave you a pass last time, but you've stuck with it so... show me where anyone, anywhere, at anytime, has said that eliminating WFA could close the budget gap. You can't because no one has. Not on this board, not in the California government, not anywhere in the country has anyone claimed that WFA could close California's budget gap. So either take your strawman back to the cornfield or put up some links.</blockquote>


Is this what you had in mind, or did you want something else more?</blockquote>


I'll settle for either a) an admission that you don't really have a link where anyone claims that the entire $55 Billion deficit (or even the $40 billion you claimed a few days ago) could be closed by eliminating Waste, Fraud, and Abuse or b) an actual link to someone claiming that. What you have offered isn't either of those, can't support your initial claim, and isn't even addressing your contention. In fact, one could infer from all your dancing around the accusation that you can't support that you actually prefer to continue funding WFA rather than make any attempt to eliminate it at all, and thereby preventing a reduction in government.
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1258600514]I'll settle for either a) an admission that you don't really have a link where anyone claims that the entire $55 Billion deficit (or even the $40 billion you claimed a few days ago) could be closed by eliminating Waste, Fraud, and Abuse or b) an actual link to someone claiming that. What you have offered isn't either of those, can't support your initial claim, and isn't even addressing your contention. In fact, one could infer from all your dancing around the accusation that you can't support that you actually prefer to continue funding WFA rather than make any attempt to eliminate it at all, and thereby preventing a reduction in government.</blockquote>


Coincidentally, show me any other meaningful budget solution that has been offered by anyone in the CA GOP other than WFA.



Nothing personal Nude, but you aren't in this state listening to these Meg Whitman radio spots. No new solutions, same old themes.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1258605749][quote author="Nude" date=1258600514]I'll settle for either a) an admission that you don't really have a link where anyone claims that the entire $55 Billion deficit (or even the $40 billion you claimed a few days ago) could be closed by eliminating Waste, Fraud, and Abuse or b) an actual link to someone claiming that. What you have offered isn't either of those, can't support your initial claim, and isn't even addressing your contention. In fact, one could infer from all your dancing around the accusation that you can't support that you actually prefer to continue funding WFA rather than make any attempt to eliminate it at all, and thereby preventing a reduction in government.</blockquote>


Coincidentally, show me any other meaningful budget solution that has been offered by anyone in the CA GOP other than WFA.



Nothing personal Nude, but you aren't in this state listening to these Meg Whitman radio spots. No new solutions, same old themes.</blockquote>


I'm not taking it personally ;)



But you still haven't substantiated your claim. And California isn't the only state with budget problems... or WFA, for that matter. However, California is particularly effed because of mandated allocations of any tax hikes and powerful unions and lobbyists that insist their ox is too important to be gored.



But regardless of State or Nation:



When one party is heavily dependent on what goods and services it can deliver back home, they aren't inclined to be budget-minded... especially when they can claim that "they" can afford to pay more. When one party is heavily dependent on lowering costs and taxes for individuals and businesses, they aren't inclined to agree to more spending... especially when their constituency is the "they" who are expected to cover the costs. The only solutions are to either grow the tax base which leads to increased revenue, or raising the tax rate which leads to increased revenue, or reduce the budget which leads to current needs matching revenue. Obviously, the preferred choice is to grow the base so you can both keep rates low and meet budgetary needs. In times of low revenue due to economic hardship, growing the base is not an option. That leaves raising taxes or lowering revenue requirements or both. If you are trying to stimulate an economy with government spending and running a deficit to do so, raising taxes seems counter-productive.



Maybe you have a better solution...
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1258600514][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1258590581][quote author="Nude" date=1258548256][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1258543636]We need to kick the WFA savings up to roughly 55 billion. Get a crackin'.</blockquote>


I gave you a pass last time, but you've stuck with it so... show me where anyone, anywhere, at anytime, has said that eliminating WFA could close the budget gap. You can't because no one has. Not on this board, not in the California government, not anywhere in the country has anyone claimed that WFA could close California's budget gap. So either take your strawman back to the cornfield or put up some links.</blockquote>


Is this what you had in mind, or did you want something else more?</blockquote>


I'll settle for either a) an admission that you don't really have a link where anyone claims that the entire $55 Billion deficit (or even the $40 billion you claimed a few days ago) could be closed by eliminating Waste, Fraud, and Abuse or b) an actual link to someone claiming that. What you have offered isn't either of those, can't support your initial claim, and isn't even addressing your contention. In fact, one could infer from all your dancing around the accusation that you can't support that you actually prefer to continue funding WFA rather than make any attempt to eliminate it at all, and thereby preventing a reduction in government.</blockquote>


Seriously, No_vas, did you catch the sleight of hand in Skelton's column? I've corresponded with Skelton on past columns of his, and he is a very bright guy who will return e-mails and engage in debate. He will admit that he believes that we aren't taxed enough in CA, and that the only way to fix CA is to raise taxes even higher. He is clearly an advocate for higher taxes, and a very talented columnist. Here, he very cleverly stated that GENERAL FUND spending only went up 27%, when Whitman made no such distinction - she included all spending.



IN FACT, Meg whitman is absolutely correct - she even understated the growth in spending!



The 1998-1999 CA State Expenditure Totals, Including Federal Funds, was $109.6 BILLION.



The 2008-2009 CA State Expenditure Totals, Including Federal Funds, was $208.9 BILLION.



http://www.dof.ca.gov/budgeting/budget_faqs/information/documents/CHART-B.pdf



What is your deal here? Do you sincerely think CA is run efficiently, and that we aren't overtaxed?
 
[quote author="CM_Dude" date=1258617090]What is your deal here? Do you sincerely think CA is run efficiently,</blockquote>


No. I applaud the efforts to get WFA under control.



<blockquote>and that we aren't overtaxed?</blockquote>


Yes, I believe we aren't overtaxed - particularly if you are a property owner. IMO Proposition 13 helps fuel CA's boom/bust RE cycle, caused wave after wave of "fees" and other weird taxes to offset it, and caused CA schools to go from first to worst in the course of a decade.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1258619414][quote author="CM_Dude" date=1258617090]What is your deal here? Do you sincerely think CA is run efficiently,</blockquote>


No. I applaud the efforts to get WFA under control.



<blockquote>and that we aren't overtaxed?</blockquote>


Yes, I believe we aren't overtaxed - particularly if you are a property owner. IMO Proposition 13 helps fuel CA's boom/bust RE cycle, caused wave after wave of "fees" and other weird taxes to offset it, and caused CA schools to go from first to worst in the course of a decade.</blockquote>


I can respect your opinion regarding Prop. 13, but that doesn't address the rest of CA state spending. Our schools get nearly $50 BILLION a year in general fund monies alone, yet constantly operate in a state of crisis where there is little to no accountability. I'm not spewing talking points here, but reality - you have some districts doing a fantastic job, and some that are terribly run fiscal black holes - like LAUSD or SAUSD. The answer is not increasing the money, but increasing accountability. Not no child left behind or standardized testing, but fiscal accountability. You are right about the way funding is allocated - perhaps it should be a strictly dollar per pupil calcualtion, regardless of geography or demographics.



But bottom line is the CA state government simply spends way too much trying to do too much for too many people. Just look at the increase in spending in the last ten years. That level of spending means that massive, unprecedented cuts will be necessary, and Democrats will scream about dying babies and laid-off teachers, when in reality, just ten years ago, the state made do with and spent just over HALF what it spent last year.
 
[quote author="CM_Dude" date=1258621245][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1258619414][quote author="CM_Dude" date=1258617090]What is your deal here? Do you sincerely think CA is run efficiently,</blockquote>


No. I applaud the efforts to get WFA under control.



<blockquote>and that we aren't overtaxed?</blockquote>


Yes, I believe we aren't overtaxed - particularly if you are a property owner. IMO Proposition 13 helps fuel CA's boom/bust RE cycle, caused wave after wave of "fees" and other weird taxes to offset it, and caused CA schools to go from first to worst in the course of a decade.</blockquote>


I can respect your opinion regarding Prop. 13, but that doesn't address the rest of CA state spending. Our schools get nearly $50 BILLION a year in general fund monies alone, yet constantly operate in a state of crisis where there is little to no accountability. I'm not spewing talking points here, but reality - you have some districts doing a fantastic job, and some that are terribly run fiscal black holes - like LAUSD or <strong>SAUSD. </strong>The answer is not increasing the money, but increasing accountability. Not no child left behind or standardized testing, but fiscal accountability. You are right about the way funding is allocated - perhaps it should be a strictly dollar per pupil calcualtion, regardless of geography or demographics.



But bottom line is the CA state government simply spends way too much trying to do too much for too many people. Just look at the increase in spending in the last ten years. That level of spending means that massive, unprecedented cuts will be necessary, and Democrats will scream about dying babies and laid-off teachers, when in reality, just ten years ago, the state made do with and spent just over HALF what it spent last year.</blockquote>


Speaking of a terribly run fiscal black hole, SAUSD is operating with a 93 million dollar surplus while cutting teacher salaries and positions as well as numerous low paid positions that are closest to the students. This, while increasing the district's operating budget and giving some high level administrators raises. Go back to what you were doing, I just needed to say that.
 
[quote author="CM_Dude" date=1258621245]I can respect your opinion regarding Prop. 13, but that doesn't address the rest of CA state spending. Our schools get nearly $50 BILLION a year in general fund monies alone, yet constantly operate in a state of crisis where there is little to no accountability. I'm not spewing talking points here, but reality - you have some districts doing a fantastic job, and some that are terribly run fiscal black holes - like LAUSD or SAUSD. The answer is not increasing the money, but increasing accountability. Not no child left behind or standardized testing, but fiscal accountability. You are right about the way funding is allocated - perhaps it should be a strictly dollar per pupil calcualtion, regardless of geography or demographics.</blockquote>


The schools back home (there is a rural CA) are as bad as LAUSD and SAUSD and spend half as much. We have a whole class of public educated students who don't have a snowballs chance in hell because they don't speak english as a primary language when they hit the door as kindergardeners. Call me a rasist, but that's the problem.



<blockquote>But bottom line is the CA state government simply spends way too much trying to do too much for too many people.</blockquote>


Relative to the taxes it collects? I agree. Too bad the voters never saw a tax cut they didn't love or a spending program they didn't also love. Kind of paints the legislature into a corner.



<blockquote>Just look at the increase in spending in the last ten years. That level of spending means that massive, unprecedented cuts will be necessary, and Democrats will scream about dying babies and laid-off teachers, when in reality, just ten years ago, the state made do with and spent just over HALF what it spent last year.</blockquote>


Price of a gallon of gas 1999: $1.20

Price of a gallon of gas 2009: $3.00



What is the conclusion you are trying to draw?
 
[quote author="tmare" date=1258623194]Speaking of a terribly run fiscal black hole, SAUSD is operating with a 93 million dollar surplus while cutting teacher salaries and positions as well as numerous low paid positions that are closest to the students. This, while increasing the district's operating budget and giving some high level administrators raises. Go back to what you were doing, I just needed to say that.</blockquote>


So, tell me how you feel about BTSA?
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1258625410][quote author="tmare" date=1258623194]Speaking of a terribly run fiscal black hole, SAUSD is operating with a 93 million dollar surplus while cutting teacher salaries and positions as well as numerous low paid positions that are closest to the students. This, while increasing the district's operating budget and giving some high level administrators raises. Go back to what you were doing, I just needed to say that.</blockquote>


So, tell me how you feel about BTSA?</blockquote>


BTSA is a ridiculous waste of money and time. The poor teachers stuck in that program spend more time spinning their wheels and jumping through hoops when they would rather spend their time becoming involved in their schools. I spent five years as a Mentor Teacher doing things that actually mattered to new teachers, I gave it up when the BTSA program was initiated, I refused to be a part of it. Now I just listen to new teachers complain about how they can't run a club for students or coach an academic team because they have to attend meetings and do assignments for this program while they are still trying to do the jobs they were hired to do. The worst part about the program is that for the last two years, the teachers in the program (without Math or Special Ed credentials) have had to deal with being RIF'd and not even knowing if they were going to have a job the following year. How's that?
 
[quote author="tmare" date=1258625977][quote author="Nude" date=1258625410][quote author="tmare" date=1258623194]Speaking of a terribly run fiscal black hole, SAUSD is operating with a 93 million dollar surplus while cutting teacher salaries and positions as well as numerous low paid positions that are closest to the students. This, while increasing the district's operating budget and giving some high level administrators raises. Go back to what you were doing, I just needed to say that.</blockquote>


So, tell me how you feel about BTSA?</blockquote>


BTSA is a ridiculous waste of money and time. The poor teachers stuck in that program spend more time spinning their wheels and jumping through hoops when they would rather spend their time becoming involved in their schools. I spent five years as a Mentor Teacher doing things that actually mattered to new teachers, I gave it up when the BTSA program was initiated, I refused to be a part of it. Now I just listen to new teachers complain about how they can't run a club for students or coach an academic team because they have to attend meetings and do assignments for this program while they are still trying to do the jobs they were hired to do. The worst part about the program is that for the last two years, the teachers in the program (without Math or Special Ed credentials) have had to deal with being RIF'd and not even knowing if they were going to have a job the following year. How's that?</blockquote>


Don't hold back now... the more you rant the more I learn ;)
 
[quote author="tmare" date=1258625977][quote author="Nude" date=1258625410][quote author="tmare" date=1258623194]Speaking of a terribly run fiscal black hole, SAUSD is operating with a 93 million dollar surplus while cutting teacher salaries and positions as well as numerous low paid positions that are closest to the students. This, while increasing the district's operating budget and giving some high level administrators raises. Go back to what you were doing, I just needed to say that.</blockquote>


So, tell me how you feel about BTSA?</blockquote>


BTSA is a ridiculous waste of money and time. The poor teachers stuck in that program spend more time spinning their wheels and jumping through hoops when they would rather spend their time becoming involved in their schools. I spent five years as a Mentor Teacher doing things that actually mattered to new teachers, I gave it up when the BTSA program was initiated, I refused to be a part of it. Now I just listen to new teachers complain about how they can't run a club for students or coach an academic team because they have to attend meetings and do assignments for this program while they are still trying to do the jobs they were hired to do. The worst part about the program is that for the last two years, the teachers in the program (without Math or Special Ed credentials) have had to deal with being RIF'd and not even knowing if they were going to have a job the following year. How's that?</blockquote>


This is consistent with what I've heard from my friends who had to go through the program.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1258624341]



Price of a gallon of gas 1999: $1.20

Price of a gallon of gas 2009: $3.00



What is the conclusion you are trying to draw?</blockquote>


How much did that 42 inch Plasma TV cost in 1997? $14,995.



Today? $797.95 courtesy of Amazon. Free shipping.



Your point was?
 
[quote author="No_Such_Reality" date=1258630493][quote author="no_vaseline" date=1258624341]



Price of a gallon of gas 1999: $1.20

Price of a gallon of gas 2009: $3.00



What is the conclusion you are trying to draw?</blockquote>


How much did that 42 inch Plasma TV cost in 1997? $14,995.



Today? $797.95 courtesy of Amazon. Free shipping.



Your point was?</blockquote>


Wow! What has been the technological innovation in the classroom that has radically reduced the cost of producing students the same way as producing TV's?



Spill it yo!



Arnold pointed out a tv that was inapporpriately found via WFA. It was $500. Hundred thousand of those or so, we're home free!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top