text:
- Home
- About
- Issues
- Act
- Publications
- Donate
Four years ago the budget was on its way to a $236 billion surplus and the presidential candidates were debating how best to divvy up a projected 10-year surplus of $4.6 trillion.[1] This year's debate is far different. Fiscal year 2004 closed with a $413 billion deficit and the 10-year shortfall is projected to be $2.3 trillion - even assuming that the economy remains healthy, that appropriations growth slows by two-thirds from its recent pace, that all tax cuts are allowed to expire on schedule and that nothing is done to restrain the growing middle class bite of the alternative minimum tax. Using more plausible assumptions, the projected 10-year deficit is closer to $5 trillion.[2]
While the 10-year outlook is daunting, the longer-term outlook is even worse. In 2008, before the next presidential term ends, the first members of the huge baby boom generation will qualify for Social Security retirement benefits at age 62. From then on, the cost of boomers' retirement and health care benefits will place a rapidly growing strain on the nation's resources. As United States Comptroller General David Walker has observed, we are on the verge of a "demographic tidal wave that is never expected to recede."[3]
Over the next 30 years, the number of Americans aged 65 and older will grow from 12 percent of the population to nearly 20 percent. During that time, the cost of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is projected to double as a share of the economy (GDP) - going from about 8 percent to more than 16 percent. To put this in perspective, if these three programs equaled 16 percent of GDP today they would amount to 81 percent of the entire federal budget and consume virtually all federal revenues. Total federal spending could reach 30 percent of GDP by the time the boomers are fully retired and if revenues continue to average about 18 percent of GDP ? as they have over the past 25 years - the resulting deficits and debt will eventually overwhelm the economy. Large chronic deficits really do matter.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has bluntly warned: "substantial reductions in the projected growth of spending or a sizeable increase in taxes ? or both ? will probably be necessary to provide a significant likelihood of fiscal stability in the coming decades."[4]
Should there be any doubt about the need for action, CBO notes "economic growth alone is unlikely to bring the nation's long-term fiscal position into balance."[5]
The election of 2004 will determine the first president of the looming "senior boom" ? and whether that president is George W. Bush or John F. Kerry, tough choices will be required to close both the renewed short-term gap and the even larger long-term shortfall.
Given these circumstances, it is appropriate for fiscal policy to assume a prominent role in the 2004 presidential campaign. At this stage, however, it cannot be said that either President Bush or Senator Kerry has a credible plan for dealing with the fiscal challenges he will face if elected. Both candidates are touting expensive initiatives that would make deficit reduction more difficult in the short-term and fiscal sustainability unlikely in the long-term. The policy options in their plans are very different but the bottom lines are not. Regarding the deficit, they appear to be taking alternative routes to a similar destination.
The best way to assess the potential budgetary impact of the Bush and Kerry proposals over the next 10 years is to weigh them against the non-partisan CBO baseline, which is how presidential budgets are traditionally "scored." As described by CBO, the baseline represents its "best judgment of how the economy and other factors would affect federal revenues and spending under current laws and policies. Lawmakers can then use the baseline as a neutral benchmark against which to measure the effects of proposed changes in tax and spending policies."[6]
An expression used in golf is apt: you play the ball where it lies. In this case, the ball is in deep rough and the toughest holes are ahead. The 2004 deficit was $413 billion (3.6 percent of GDP). The 2003 deficit was $374 billion (3.5 percent of GDP). In dollar terms, these were the two largest deficits in our nation's history. Measured as a share of GDP, they were the worst back-to-back deficits since 1992-93. The 10-year baseline deficit of $2.3 trillion is CBO's highest projection since 1997.
Using published material from the Bush Administration and the Kerry campaign, it is possible to make a rough comparison of the candidates' major policy proposals. Any such comparison will be imprecise because the candidates have not filled in the details of their proposals and cost estimates vary widely. However, the approximate magnitude and direction of their respective plans can be shown.
President Bush's proposals are detailed in the Fiscal Year 2005 budget released in February and the Mid-Session Review released in July. Additional proposals were added in his speech accepting the Republican presidential nomination. These have been labeled the "Agenda for America" programs.
Senator Kerry issued a budget "framework" in April that was updated in August and September. It is not as detailed as the Bush budget, but enough detail has been presented by the campaign to assess the impact and credibility of Kerry's major policy proposals and assumptions. Nevertheless, Senator Kerry's claim to have a more fiscally responsible plan than the President's would be strengthened by a set of year-by-year numbers that could be compared with the President's budget.
Senator Kerry's major proposals (Totals for FY2005-2014)
Tax provisions
Repeal upper income tax cuts $278 billion7 (adds revenue)
Reform estate tax $8 billion (adds revenue)
Extend "middle class tax cuts" -$508 billion
Health care tax credits -$177 billion
College opportunity tax credit -$71 billion8
Energy and environment -$16 billion9
Jobs tax credit -$12 billion10
Subtotal taxes -$498 billion
Health care plan $476 billion11
Education $155 billion
Veterans and military families $55 billion12
State and local aid $25 billion
Add 40,000 troops $60 billion13
Subtotal spending $771 billion
Total deficit increase $1,269 billion ($1.27 trillion)*
*This total does not include $131 billion of offsets claimed by the Kerry campaign. Specifically, no credit is given for proposals to cut the government's electricity bill by 20 percent ($14 billion), "cut other Federal energy bills" ($2 billion), improve government efficiency" by cutting 100,000 contractors ($55 billion) and pay for 40,000 new troops with an array of efficiency savings in other national security programs ($60 billion). Such purported savings are too vague and uncertain to be relied upon as offsets for new initiatives.
President Bush's major proposals (Totals for FY 2005-2014)
Tax provisions
Extend all 2001 and 2003 tax cuts -$1,052 billion14
New tax cuts in FY05 budget - $157 billion15
Agenda for America tax cuts - $35 billion_
Subtotal tax cuts -$1,244 billion
Refundable health tax credit $54 billion16
Other mandatory spending in FY05 budget -$10 billion
Agenda for America programs $38 billion
Subtotal spending $82 billion
Total deficit increase $1,326 billion ($1.33 trillion)*
*Does not include the potential deficit increase from Social Security reform. See below.
Note: The items shown above highlight the costs of enacting the candidates' major policy proposals and their differences in priorities. Because not all budgetary effects are enumerated, these numbers should not be added in isolation to CBO's deficit projections to derive a total deficit outlook under the candidates' plans. The potential impact of other changes in baseline assumptions would also have to be included in any such calculation.[17]
Many cost estimates are a matter of dispute between the campaigns. The two proposals with the greatest potential consequences are the President's Social Security reform agenda and Senator Kerry's health care plan. The possible costs and benefits of each are briefly discussed below.
A major fiscal question mark in the President's agenda is the cost of allowing workers to invest a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes (FICA) in personally owned accounts. In effect, these accounts would pre-fund some portion of future benefits. Technically speaking, this would be neither a spending increase nor a tax cut. It would, however, increase the deficit.
Personal accounts have potential advantages over the current system. They provide a more reliable way than government trust funds for pre-funding future benefits. They can also offer workers higher returns on their contributions. However, the money must come from somewhere. Personal accounts are not a free lunch. Using existing FICA taxes, as the President proposes, would increase the deficit. Those dollars are now flowing into the Treasury where any surplus not needed to pay current Social Security benefits goes to pay for other government operations. The deficit impact of re-directing payroll taxes from the Treasury into personal accounts would depend on the amount of taxes re-directed and the extent, if any, of corresponding benefit reductions or other spending cuts.
In the absence of a specific proposal from the Bush Administration it is not possible to "score" the President's Social Security reform agenda as part of his budget proposals. Cost estimates range from $1 trillion to $2 trillion over 10 years. A generic plan in which two percent of payroll is directed to personal accounts would reduce receipts by $1.2 trillion over 10 years. A revenue loss of that size, or anywhere near it, would represent a substantial increase in the federal government's already unsustainable budget outlook.
However, the key issue in evaluating the fiscal implications of a Social Security reform plan is not its immediate 10-year cost but whether it achieves long-term sustainability. Both the costs and benefits of reform should be assessed over a time frame that goes well beyond the next decade. Incurring a modest near-term budget cost as part of the transition to a genuinely funded and sustainable system may not be fiscally irresponsible. But policymakers, and the public, should beware of plans that borrow profligately in the near-term while promising fiscal integrity in the long-term. Unfortunately most plans, including the three options presented by the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security, do just that.[18]
None of this, of course, is an excuse for inaction. Cash shortfalls begin under the current system in just 14 years and grow wider throughout the traditional 75-year valuation period, totaling $27 trillion in today's dollars. Doing nothing to remedy this perpetual shortfall is not a fiscally responsible approach either, even though it would not worsen the deficit over the next 10 years.
There is no way of knowing whether President Bush will propose a reform plan with responsible transition costs. So far, he has not. What can be said is that the President is advocating a major reform of Social Security that would have substantial consequences, none of which are included in his budget assumptions.
Health care is a big fiscal question mark in Kerry's plans. His largest proposal would reduce the number of people who lack health insurance through a combination of expanded enrollment in the Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance programs (SCHIP), new health insurance pools for small employers and individuals, and reinsurance at an estimated net cost of $653 billion over 10 years. This includes new spending and tax credits totaling $950 billion minus assumed savings of nearly $300 billion.[19]
A very different assessment of the Kerry health care plan by the American Enterprise Institute found that the tax, spending and savings provisions together would cost $1.3 trillion over a comparable time period (FY2006-2014) ? twice as much as Kerry assumes.[20]
The federal government already faces serious challenges balancing the interests of Medicare beneficiaries with those of general taxpayers, which neither candidate seems willing to confront head-on. Medicare's projected spending growth has sharply accelerated with the addition of a prescription drug benefit. According to the latest Trustees Report, the program is now projected to more than triple as a share of the economy by 2040. In last year's report, Medicare did not triple as a share of the economy until after 2060.[21]
These projections may be low for a variety of reasons. Prescription drug costs may rise faster than anticipated. A larger-than-expected number of employers may drop their retiree drug coverage, leaving government to pick up the tab. In the long run, a large share of the new Medicare drug benefits may simply replace existing public and private insurance. The projections also make the politically dubious assumption that future Congresses will raise beneficiary premiums in line with per capita drug spending. It is worth recalling that Medicare's Part B premiums were originally set by law to cover 50 percent of program costs. They now cover 25 percent. With a 17 percent increase in Part B premiums scheduled for next year, political pressure to lower premiums is likely to mount. But any reduction in premiums without a corresponding reduction in costs would shift more of the financing burden onto general revenues and squeeze even further other parts of the budget.
Then there is so-called "doughnut hole" in the new drug benefit. Coverage starts, then stops at a certain level, then starts again. This coverage gap has no policy rationale. Its sole purpose was to keep the official cost projection from exceeding the $400 billion limit established in last year's budget resolution. Because it is arbitrary, beneficiaries may regard the coverage gap as unfair and demand that it be filled in ? at an additional undetermined cost.
As all this suggests, controlling health care costs without limiting individual choice and adversely affecting the quality of care is extremely difficult and politically unpopular. Although the Kerry plan could help 27 million (out of an estimated 45 million) uninsured individuals obtain coverage, it would assume significant budgetary risk. The President's proposed refundable tax credits for insurance coverage would be far more modest in cost (between $90 billion and $129 billion over 10 years) but also help fewer people (2.1 million to 6.7 million) obtain insurance. [22]
A complete comparison of the Bush and Kerry fiscal policy plans should also include the candidates' assumptions regarding discretionary spending, which is controlled by annual appropriation bills and accounts for 39 percent of the budget.
This process is somewhat speculative because policymakers and candidates alike can simply make an assumption of future savings from the baseline without specifying how those savings will be achieved. The process is further complicated by the fact that neither campaign has produced a 10-year estimate of its discretionary spending assumptions. The President's budget only goes out five years and Senator Kerry has not published any year-by-year numbers.
In its calculations, CBO is required to extend discretionary funding at enacted levels. As a result, its baseline deficit projections can be overly optimistic or pessimistic. For example, the baseline extends supplemental funds provided in 2004 for activities related to Iraq, Afghanistan, and the global war on terrorism, adding roughly $1.1 trillion in spending over 10 years. This assumption probably overstates likely expenditures (and thus the baseline deficit), but it is impossible to say by how much. Neither candidate is actually proposing to discontinue, or "zero out," support for these operations. Indeed, both have pledged to provide whatever additional funding is required. On the other hand, neither candidate has set aside specific funding levels for war related activities in his published material.23 The next President will be required to provide additional funding for these activities: it may be less than or exceed amounts embedded in the baseline.
As for regular appropriations, available information suggests that Senator Kerry's budget framework would result in a higher level of discretionary spending than the President's proposals. The difference comes from the candidates' assumptions on non-defense, non-homeland security spending. The President's budget assumes a virtual freeze on such spending, while Senator Kerry assumes that it will be capped at the level of inflation (about 2.5 percent annual growth). Extended over 10 years, this assumption produces a difference of more than $300 billion.
Experience suggests that both candidates are underestimating likely expenses. Far from being frozen, or only growing at the rate of inflation, non-defense discretionary spending has grown at an average annual rate of 5.6 percent for the past 25 years. The uncertainty of "savings" to be achieved by assuming tight spending caps is demonstrated by recent events. Because emergency spending adjusts budget caps upward, the roughly $16 billion of hurricane and drought relief Congress recently approved will add to this year's deficit even if the tight lid approved for non-emergencies is maintained. This is not to suggest that legitimate emergency relief is "fiscally irresponsible." It does suggest that for budget plans to be credible they should assume a realistic level of future needs, including natural disaster relief.
Regarding defense spending other than activities related to Iraq, Afghanistan and the global war on terrorism, a note in the Kerry-Edwards "Initiatives and Offsets" table published by the campaign states that defense "is funded at the President's level." If one takes this at face value there is no reason to assume any divergence in numbers between the Bush and Kerry defense budgets other than the addition of 40,000 troops accounted for in the tabulation of Kerry's major initiatives given above. The President's defense spending level provides roughly $300 billion more over 10 years than the CBO baseline (after removing the effects of continued war spending).
While President Bush and Senator Kerry have very different assessments of the fiscal outlook and the best ways to address it, their plans share some basic weaknesses:
The fact that the candidates' budget proposals share weaknesses and would have a similar effect on the 10-year deficit should not obscure the fact that there are fundamental differences ? in substance, procedure and perspective.
What to do about the expiring tax cuts of 2001 and 2003?
The pay-as-you-go rule (PAYGO) for tax cuts and entitlement expansions was originally designed during the last period of chronically high deficits to prevent policy changes that would make the situation worse. It did not guarantee deficit reduction or freeze in place all tax and entitlement laws. It did, however, require anyone proposing new tax cuts or entitlement expansions to come up with either a way of paying for them without enlarging the deficit or 60 votes in the Senate to bypass the rule. Both candidates say they want to revive PAYGO, which expired in 2002, but President Bush would do so in a way that redefines and substantially weakens the concept. Senator Kerry would reinstate the original rule, with exceptions for some existing tax cuts.
The President's plan assumes a virtual five-year freeze on non-defense, non-homeland security discretionary programs. At best, this is an optimistic assumption. As noted, non-defense discretionary outlays have risen by an average of 5.6 annually over the past 25 years.
Senator Kerry proposes to hold discretionary spending increases to the rate of inflation, excluding defense, homeland security and education. This is a more realistic assumption than the President's assumed freeze, but it is still a very optimistic target.
It is a noteworthy aspect of this campaign that both candidates see a manageable fiscal problem and a threatening crisis - in very different time frames. For President Bush, the 10-year deficit is modest and manageable. The real fiscal danger, he says, comes over the long-term as the boomers begin to retire in large numbers. Senator Kerry has expressed much more alarm about the 10-year fiscal outlook, arguing that deficit reduction is linked to fiscal stability. He expresses far less concern, however, about the unsustainable long-term situation.
They are both ducking issues they don't want to face. For President Bush, it's potential tax increases. For Senator Kerry, it's potential entitlement cuts. The credibility of their respective fiscal policy plans is stretched thin because neither will put all policy options on the table.
"While the outlook for the budget improves considerably over the next five years, looking at the budget over a much longer term yields a less encouraging picture… fundamental forces are at work that will create serious fiscal problems if left unaddressed."[31]
President Bush has expressed a relatively sanguine view of the short-term fiscal outlook. The Administration's Mid-Session Review of the budget describes the 2004 deficit as "unwelcome" but notes that when measured against the size of the economy (GDP) "it would be smaller than the deficits in nine of the last 25 years and far below the peak deficit in that period of 6.0 percent of GDP in 1983."[32]
The problem with this argument is that it ignores historical context. Far from being a common occurrence, the nine deficits cited by the Administration that were higher as a share of GDP than this year's deficit all occurred between 1982 and 1993. These years were the first in our nation's history that saw such high deficits in the absence of major war or economic dislocation. Climbing out of this fiscal hole ultimately took several major pieces of deficit reduction legislation, the "peace dividend" from the end of the Cold War, an unexpected slowdown in health care costs, an economic recovery of record length and a booming stock market. Such a simultaneous combination of positive budgetary developments cannot be counted on to recur.
More fundamentally, large deficits today pose a bigger threat than they did 10 or 20 years ago because the fiscal crunch of the baby boomers' retirement years is that much closer. Ideally, current fiscal policy should be aimed at increasing national savings, lowering the debt to GDP ratio, and reducing debt service costs in preparation for the budgetary strains that are in store. Running large deficits would do just the opposite, making this a particularly bad time to run unusually large deficits.
The Administration has also attempted to calm deficit fears by arguing that the deficit is "coming down," and that "good progress" has been made on cutting the deficit in half. At best this represents an overly complacent spin on the facts. It is true that the 2004 deficit ($413 billion) is not as bad as the February projection ($477 billion). What matters, however, is the bottom line and there can be no denying that a deficit of $413 billion (3.6 percent of GDP) is larger than the 2003 deficit of $374 billion (3.5 percent of GDP).
It is likely that the deficit will come down somewhat in 2005. However, as noted earlier, the President's claim that he has a "plan" to cut the deficit in half by 2009 must be assessed in light of the omitted items and unrealistic assumptions ? such as no additional funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan beyond the $25 billion supplemental request for 2005, a five-year freeze on non-defense, non-homeland security discretionary programs and a major revenue windfall by not including a permanent alternative minimum tax (AMT) adjustment.
Economic growth can help close a budget gap and in his campaign documents the President says he will "continue with pro-growth policies that will increase revenues into the Treasury while holding the line on Federal spending."[33]
Few would argue with the proposition that spending restraint and economic growth are a good combination for the budget. Yet under the President's policies to date, revenues as a share of the economy have gone down in every year of his Administration while spending has seen a dramatic increase. See Appendix. Neither the proposed spending restraint nor the estimated economic growth in the President's budget is enough to avoid permanent deficits when matched with the sizable tax cuts he has proposed.
Deficits persist in CBO's forecast despite the projection of strong economic growth - beginning with 4.5 percent real GDP growth in 2004 and averaging 3.26 percent annual growth through 2009. By contrast, real GDP growth has averaged 3 percent since 1970. The deficit can no longer be dismissed as a mere "cyclical" event, and there is no basis for concluding that it will simply go away as the economy picks up.
In contrast to its sanguine view of the short-term outlook, the Bush Administration has identified the long-term outlook as "the real fiscal danger." As described in the President's FY 2005 budget:
Social Security and Medicare are critical programs for ensuring the financial security and health of elderly Americans, and President Bush is committed to ensuring that these programs continue to deliver benefits both for today's beneficiaries and for future generations of retirees. Unless these programs are reformed however, over the long run they will overwhelm the rest of the budget and place an unsustainable burden on future generations.
Yet, having correctly identified the problem, the President offers no solution either in his official budget or on the campaign trail.
As noted earlier, he favors private accounts for Social Security but does not explain how to pay for them without chronic large scale borrowing, which would defeat the main purpose of reform.
He does not set aside any funds in his budget proposals to pay for such a huge new initiative, nor does he explain that even with personal accounts something must be done to close the gap between promised benefits under the current system and dedicated revenues.
"In the last three years, the federal budget has gone from record surpluses to record deficits - which, if left unchecked, can become a fiscal cancer that will erode any recovery and threaten the prospect of a lasting prosperity. Ultimately, as deficits drive up long term interest rates, they will dry up investment and undermine the belief, at home and overseas, that America is worth investing in."[34]
Senator Kerry's approach to short-term fiscal policy is much like President Bush's approach to
long-term policy - he correctly perceives a serious problem but fails to offer a convincing solution. Moreover, he appears to be as sanguine on long-term policy, as President Bush is on the near-term.
In the Kerry fiscal framework there is no plan for dealing with the unsustainable long-term outlook. The subject is barely mentioned, and certainly not in a way to suggest that there is a serious problem. However, the Social Security and Medicare Trustees, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) - all nonpartisan entities - have consistently warned that Social Security and Medicare promise far more in future benefits than they can afford to deliver.
Senator Kerry criticizes the amount of tax cuts and increased debt under President Bush, but the Bush tax cuts, even if unwise fiscal policy, did not create the long-term problem and rolling them back would not provide a solution, especially if the revenues gained are redirected into costly new programs.
Even with the cost of Social Security and Medicare expected to double over the next 30 years, Senator Kerry has said he would not reduce benefits. The only alternatives are to raise taxes to match this spending growth, or allow rapidly growing deficits to pile up a debt burden that is unsustainable over the long-term.
On Social Security, his official position is that the program faces manageable challenges. He notes that under current law, "Social Security is projected to be solvent through 2042," and that "revenues would be sufficient to pay 73 percent of scheduled benefits after trust fund exhaustion in 2042." [35]
This view of the problem places too much emphasis on the concept of trust fund solvency, which has no economic significance. The trust funds are simply bookkeeping devices and the special issue U.S. Treasury bonds they contain represent nothing more than a promise from one arm of government (Treasury) to pay off IOUs held by another arm of government (Social Security). Thus, when the Trustees say that Social Security is "solvent" until 2042 they are only saying that the program will have explicit claims on the Treasury (i.e., taxpayers) to pay full benefits until that date.
The more important issue is how much paying off the IOUs is going to cost and whether it is affordable. Fiscally and economically, what matters is not the trust fund balance but the operating balance ? that is, the annual difference between outlays and dedicated tax revenues. According to the 2004 Trustees report, by 2018 Social Security's cash in will no longer exceed the cash out. At that point, the trust fund bonds will need to be converted into cash to pay promised benefits. To do so, Congress will need to cut spending for other programs, borrow from the public, or raise taxes (or some combination of all three). The key point is that the trust fund assets are also taxpayer liabilities. Their existence does not ease the fiscal challenge of paying future benefits.
Medicare provides an even starker example of how trust fund accounting obscures the real issues. Officially, Medicare is said to be "solvent" until 2019. This figure, however, only refers to the Medicare Part A trust fund, which is already spending more than it takes in. Medicare's other half, the Part B trust fund, is always "solvent" because general revenues automatically plug any gap between beneficiary premiums and outlays. Solvency, however, is not the same as sustainability.
Hope springs eternal, and never more so than when it is applied by political candidates to a tough fiscal situation. After all, getting control of a ballooning budget deficit requires two things that candidates are loath to discuss - spending cuts (when they would prefer to talk about increases) and tax increases (when they would prefer to talk about cuts). Yet the American people deserve something more from their candidates than an invitation to a free lunch ? even if that is what they want to hear.
Throughout his presidency, George W. Bush has refused to calibrate his drive for lower taxes with his support for expensive initiatives such as the global war on terrorism and a major expansion of Medicare. There is no reason to expect anything different in a second term.
Senator Kerry promises a different approach, in particular by promising to pay for new initiatives and to scale back his proposals if they cannot be accommodated within the goal of cutting the deficit in half. This seemingly responsible approach is undercut, however, by the sheer magnitude of the new initiatives he has promised and by the vagueness of the offsets he has proposed.
The bottom line is that neither candidate has produced a credible set of numbers to back up his deficit reduction rhetoric. President Bush is too complacent on the 10-year outlook and too vague on how to address the "real" fiscal problem. Senator Kerry expresses much more alarm about the growing deficit, but is vague on how to reduce it, and is much too complacent on the long-term outlook. The only clear advantage is in Kerry's proposal to return to a more comprehensive concept of PAYGO than the President. However, PAYGO is not a strategy for achieving long-term fiscal sustainability.
The more realistic strategies require meaningful trade-offs. Policymakers can reduce the level of national commitment to financing entitlements for seniors, or plan responsibly to dedicate a much larger share of our economic pie to paying for these benefits and distribute the heavier burden equitably across generational lines. If by default they fail to make these tough choices, the result will be mounting public debt, serious harm to future economic performance, and a much higher tax burden for coming generations of Americans.
Absent a willingness to tackle cost saving reform of existing entitlement commitments, which PAYGO exempts and tax cuts ignore, fiscal policy will remain as unsustainable as it is now ? no matter who wins in November.
Table 1. Outlays and Revenues (FY2000-2004)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Revenues 2,025 1,991 1,853 1,782 1,880
(billions of dollars)
Revenues 20.9 19.8 17.9 16.5 16.2
(Percent of GDP)
Outlays 1,789 1,864 2,011 2,158 2,292
(billions of dollars)
Outlays 18.4 18.6 19.4 19.9 19.8
(percent of GDP)
Source: Congressional Budget Office, U.S. Department of the Treasury
Table 2. Surplus and deficits (FY 2000-2004)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Surplus/deficit 236 127 -158 -374 -413
(billions of dollars)
Surplus/deficit 2.4 1.3 -1.5 -3.5 -3.6
(percent of GDP)
Source: Congressional Budget Office, U.S. Department of the Treasury
[1] August 2000 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline for fiscal years 2001-2010.
[2] See, http://www.concordcoalition.org/federal_budget/0408PlausBaselinechart.pdf. for The Concord Coalition's plausible baseline scenario.
[3] David M. Walker, "Truth and Transparency: The Federal Government's Financial Condition and Fiscal Outlook," September 17, 2003, available at www.gao.gov.
[4] CBO, The Long-Term Outlook, December 2003, p. 9.
[5] CBO, The Long-Term Outlook, December 2003, Executive Summary.
[6] CBO, The Budget and Economic Outlook Fiscal Years 2005-2014, January 2004 p.5.
[7] Estimates of the first three provisions are based on Table 2B, "Senator Kerry's Tax Proposals," The Tax Policy Center, July 23, 2004. See http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1000634_KerryPlan.pdf. An adjustment has been made for tax cut extensions advocated by Kerry that have now been enacted.
[8] Tax Policy Center estimate assuming that Senator Kerry's entire tax plan is enacted. See above.
[9] Kerry's framework includes $35 billion in energy and environmental initiatives. Some of the offsets proposed are too vague to be relied upon, such as cutting federal electricity costs by 20 percent.
[10] Includes an offset of $10 billion for a one-time tax "repatriation holiday" for corporate foreign earnings.
[11] Credit is given here for the campaign's presumed savings of about $300 billion. The campaign relies on a published estimate by former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services Kenneth Thorpe. http://www.sph.emory.edu/hpm/thorpe/kerry8-23-04.pdf.
[12]According to the campaign, this total represents the additional cost of these proposals assuming that Senator Kerry's other health care proposals are enacted. The campaign notes that a stand-alone version of these proposals would cost more. Kerry proposes to offset this with efficiency savings by cutting 100,000 contractors. This may be a good idea but it is not sufficiently detailed to be relied upon as an offset, particularly for entitlement spending.
[13] The Kerry campaign estimates that this option will cost $60 billion to $80 billion over 10 years, offset by "streamlining various large weapons programs, emphasizing electronics, advanced sensors and munitions in a 'systems of systems' approach to transformation, reducing total expenditures on missile defense, and further reforming the acquisition process." No credit is given here for this offset because it is not sufficiently detailed.
[14] Based on CBO's March 2004 estimate of the President's tax proposals. This number includes revenue and outlay effects of tax cut extensions already passed by Congress.
[15] Adjusted for temporary extension of certain tax provisions already passed by Congress.
[16] The President's budget contains an unspecified "contingent offset" for this expense. No credit is given here for this offset because no details are provided in the budget.
[17] See, for example, the discussion of discretionary spending on page 7. A total deficit projection would also include assumptions about items not in the CBO baseline ? most notably likely changes in the alternative minimum tax for individuals ? and the impact of debt service costs on all changes.
[18] In the President's Commission Model One, after bankruptcy, Social Security's cash deficits widen into the indefinite future. Models Two and Three both technically remain solvent throughout the valuation period (i.e., the next 75 years) but only because they authorize the transfer from Treasury of whatever sum might be needed on an annual basis to prevent the trust fund ratio from falling beneath 100 percent. In addition, Model 3 includes a special schedule of general revenue transfers that are set in advance. All of this comes on top of the draw down of existing trust fund assets. In Model Two, the borrowing would commence in 2025 and last all the way to 2054 (29 years). In Model Three, it would commence in 2034 and last all the way to 2065 (31 years). Under either option, the deficit impact on the federal budget would begin immediately and last until the 2040s, that is, for nearly half a century. However, it should be noted that Models 2 and 3 would reduce Social Security's long-term general revenue requirement relative to current law.
[19] See estimate by former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services Kenneth Thorpe. http://www.sph.emory.edu/hpm/thorpe/kerry8-23-04.pdf.
[20] See http://www.aei.org/docLib/20040913_KerryBushHealthPlans.pdf. See also, Dr, Thorpe's rebuttal at http://www.sph.emory.edu/hpm/thorpe/Comparison%20of%20Thorpe%20and%20AEI%20Estimates%20for%20the%20Kerry%20Health%20Plan%20(2).pdf.
[21] This estimate would be even higher without the assumption made in the Trustees Report that per capita health care spending will slow from its historic pace.
[22] Estimates of coverage of the uninsured come from former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services Kenneth E. Thorpe, May 5, 2004 and from "Analyzing the Kerry and Bush Health Proposals: Estimates of Cost and Impact," Joseph Antos, Roland King, Donald Muse, Tom Wildsmith and Judy Xanthopoulos, American Enterprise Institute, September 13, 2004.
[23] The Kerry campaign says that its budget plan assumes $100 billion for war expenses. This number does not appear in the campaign's published cost estimates or baseline assumptions. No money is set aside in the President's FY2005 budget for war-related activities beyond the funding already approved.
[24] President Bush's budget does assume extension of some provisions. The largest of these is extension of the Research and Experimentation tax credit. The CBO estimates that this proposal would reduce revenues by $23 billion over five years and $58 billion over 10 years. Senator Kerry's budget framework does not mention extension of the R&E tax credit, although he is in favor of extending it.
[25] CBO, The Outlook for Social Security, June 2004 p.1.
[26] President Bush does not propose extending the partial expensing provision for businesses that is scheduled to expire at the end of 2004.
[27] The Tax Policy Center estimates that the savings would be $792 billion relative to the Bush budget. See, Table 2B, "Senator Kerry's Tax Proposals," The Tax Policy Center, July 23, 2004. See http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/1000634_KerryPlan.pdf.
[28] This reflects the enactment of tax cut extensions passed by Congress on Sept.23, 2004.
[29] Alan Greenspan, prepared testimony before House Budget Committee, September 8, 2004.
[30] CBO, The Long-Term Outlook, December 2003, Executive Summary.
[31] Fiscal Year 2005 Budget pp. 38-39.
[32] Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Mid-Session Review, July 2004 p.2.
[33] The Bush Record, Jobs & The Economy, Frequently Asked Questions, at georgewbush.com.
[34] John F. Kerry, "A Return to Fiscal responsibility," April 7, 2004, Georgetown University.
[35] johnkerry.com, A Plan to Strengthen Medicare and Social Security.


text:
12/28/2009 (12:45 pm)
Trickle-Down Obama (Updated Twice)
Non-partisan analysis of recipients from the Obama administration's first round of stimulus spending indicates that the President and the Democrats in Congress appear to favor a partisan form of trickle-down economics. It seems that 38% of the stimulus spending went to the wealthiest districts, most notably wealthy districts represented by Democrats.
The same analysis could find no correlation between stimulus spending and unemployment. There was no apparent targeting of areas hit hardest by the economic downturn.
The analysis, a working paper entitled "Stimulus Facts" published by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, was prepared by senior research fellows Veronique De Rugy and Jerry Brito. The Mercatus Center is a think tank researching economic policy issues.
The study took districts reporting having received stimulus funds and broke them into Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) by zip code, then grouped them into quintiles by the median income of each MSA as reported by the Census Bureau. It was determined that districts within the highest-income MSA's received 38.16% of the stimulus funds reported in the 4th quarter of 2009, or roughly $55 billion. Only about $2 billion, or 1.43%, went to districts in the lowest quintile. Considering all the stimulus money allocated, about $114 billion, or 78%, went to districts with above-average median incomes, whereas only about $32 billion, or 22%, went to districts with below-average median incomes.
The working paper also analyzed stimulus spending by political indicators, including which of the presidential candidates the district voted for in 2008, the party affiliation of the Congressperson representing the district, the Congressperson's tenure in office, whether the Congressperson chaired a major committee, and whether the Congressperson sat on the Appropriations Committee. Of these, only one variable showed a significant effect on the distribution of stimulus dollars: districts represented by Democrats received 1.8 times as many dollars as districts represented by Republicans, on 1.6 times as many individual awards of funds. It didn't matter who the district voted for for president, nor did it matter what committee the district's representative sat on. Only party affiliation mattered. Predictably, Democrats received almost twice as much money.
Non-political variables considered by the researchers included unemployment levels, average income, and affiliation with the construction industry. Of these, the only variable that indicated a group that received disproportionate funds was income; the highest-income areas received by far the most funds. Democrats in Congress touted their focus specifically on the construction industry during the debates in Congress, but apparently did not direct funds disproportionately to areas hosting construction companies.
One more thing — more than half of the stimulus dollars went to governmental entities rather than private ones, according to the Washington Examiner's article discussing the findings.
So, the stimulus money was taken by a Democratic Congress and sent to the richest districts represented by Democrats. So much for the myth that Democrats care about the poor, eh? This distribution is
far more uneven than as uneven as any spending by any free-market Republican could ever be. In fact, it appears that the primary criterion determining which district would receive stimulus funds was that district's ability to supply contributions to the nearest Congressman — and most emphatically the nearest Democratic Congressman.
This illustrates the core fallacy of the liberal mindset. Their arguments always begin and end by identifying an inequality produced by free markets. They supply no argument or evidence whatsoever regarding what a government-run solution will produce instead. The entire argument consists solely of the existence of the inequality. It is a fact that government-run solutions invariably produce worse inequalities, but inequalities along partisan lines, favoring the wealthy friends of those who are handing out favors.
Leftists think — or want you to think — that self-interested systems will be replaced by systems run by the wholly Good and Righteous, meaning themselves. What occurs in reality is very different from what they imagine in their fantasies. Leftists hold a completely political view of man (or sometimes an economic, gender-centric, or race-centric view of man), and consequently seldom focus on reforming the weaknesses in their own character, except as they relate to politics (economics, gender, race, or what have you). They are thus at the mercy of their own foibles when they come to power, and behave abominably. Everybody suffers due to policies based on incorrect principles — except those closest to the power centers, who apportion wealth and protection to themselves and their friends. Welcome to the nest-feathering autocracy of the Left.
Remember this statistic the next time any leftist sneers about "trickle-down economics" from Republican policies. When given absolute power, leftists give far more to the wealthy than do conservatives. Only, they don't do it thinking that it will actually help the economy; they do it thinking they'll help their friends.
A caveat about the survey: for the analysis the researchers used data retrieved from Recovery.gov, the Obama administration's site reporting the effects of stimulus spending. The numbers on Recovery.gov are self-reported by recipients. It is possible that there were reporting biases in the data; that is, it is possible that a greater number of Democratic recipients of stimulus funds reported their grants than did Republicans. It is also possible that wealthier districts reported more faithfully than did less wealthy districts. I saw no indication that the researchers assessed this possibility, and can offer only conjecture regarding the possible impact on the data. My gut tells me that correcting for reporting bias could affect the Democrat/Republican statistic a little, but would not change the statistic about the wealth of the districts receiving funds. But that's just a guess. YMMV.
UPDATE 12/29: Another caveat about the data, this one pretty big. I noticed that in the table from the working paper that contains the primary statistic reported in this piece, namely the one claiming that 96.4% of the stimulus money went to districts in the top quintile of median incomes, that the percentages in the top and bottom quintiles total to 100%. That would mean there were no districts in the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th quintiles. This does not sound correct, so I'm trying to contact the authors. In the meantime, please consider that 96.4% figure suspect. I'll give you the facts as soon as I've verified them. Thanks.
UPDATE 12/30: I contacted the researchers, who acknowledged that there was an error in the white paper at the place I noticed. They are adjusting their figures, and send me appropriate adjustments. I'll note here that the original report claimed that 96.39% of stimulus funds went to the top quintile, when in actuality it was 38.16%. They also reported originally that 3.61% of stimulus funds went to the bottom quintile, when it was actually 1.43%. I have changed the numbers in the article proper, but not the analysis — I think the disparity between what was received by the districts in the top and bottom quintiles speaks for itself. Whatever Democrats said about trickle-down economics, what they have produced with their back-scratching corruptocracy is worse.
« « Secede | Main | The Murderous Side of Progressivism » »
4 Comments »
Comment by dullhammer
I'm glad you covered this in your blog. I could not believe this when I first heard about it. It is so shameless and blatantly hypocritical of the Left's war cries against the Right. The big question I have in mind is whether anyone will pay attention to it? Anyone on the Left, I mean. Seems to me the Right proved well able to be critical of Bush regarding his spending policies (now looking relatively mild, when you think about our present situation). So what are we hearing from the Left? . . . Just what we'd expect, I guess. Nothing.
Comment by suek
>>Anyone on the Left, I mean.>>
Do you think it would make any difference if they _did_ pay attention to it?
Do you _really_?
You know…I think I could sort of accept it if they did. It would at least show that they had _some_ principles – _some_ basic idea of right and wrong. In truth though, I don't think they do (have principles or a basic idea of right and wrong). They talk about equality, but it seems to me that it's a very elitist concept of equality – "those of us who belong to the chosen few get all the goodies, and we'll see that the rest of you get enough to keep you quiet" or something like that.
Comment by RM
"The big question I have in mind is whether anyone will pay attention to it? Anyone on the Left, I mean."
This circles back neatly to Phil's discussion about negotiation with the left from the secession thread.
If this ever hit the MSM (and by this I mean reported by a source in such a manner that one of the audience watching 60 Minutes or Oprah would open their eyes and say, 'Hey, that isn't fair, that stinks.') it would immediately be refuted completly by a Democrat talking point. The media would either buttress the talking point, no matter how ludicrous, or bury the story.
As you say, conservatives will concede error and go against Republicans if merited. Liberals NEVER concede any error to a conservative. There is never an enemy to the left, and the cause of liberalism trumps any sense of truth or fair play. By whatever means neccessary.
The game is rigged, they play by their rules, with a corrupt ref; and if the other team by chance scores a couple of points, they either take the points away or change the rules again. It is useless to engage in this type of exercise.
I'm not contending we need to act like they do in terms of lying, stealing, etc. But we will get nowhere without being totally aware of what they are about, understanding their absolute enmity toward us, and showing no mercy when we have a legit advantage
Comment by suek
>>…it would immediately be refuted completely by a Democrat talking point.>>
Agreed. Entirely. So it doesn't really matter – to most of them, at least – whether they notice or not. The few to whom it _does_ matter are probably on their way to becoming Conservatives…
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

subset: commoncrawl


text:
In the News
Citi Joins Bank of America in Finding New Ways to Bleed Customers « naked capitalism
As readers know all too well, the very short story of the financial crisis was consumers and banks went on big borrowing party and it all ended really badly, except for the banks.
However, banks built their businesses with the expectation that consumers would continue to rack up debt. But consumers aren't too keen about that any more. Moreover, banks have also gotten a bit of religion and are more careful with extending loans. Since they aren't making as much money on consumer lending, their natural impulse is to find other ways to fleece obtain more revenue from consumers.
We pointed out that Bank of America is determined to preserve its egregious debit card profits, and is circumventing the intent of recent legislation by charging all but reasonably profitable customers a $5 monthly fee for any debit card use (save at a BofA ATM). We hope customers will leave in droves.
We noted that Bank of America no doubt hoped that this move would serve as a bit of price leadership and other banks would follow. Citi apparently decided that the debit card fee was a smidge too obvious and it would try another route.
Reader Deloss alos told us, via e-mail, taht Citi has increased its balance requirements for free checking:
For what it's worth, there was a discreet notice on my online Citi page announcing that either I had to raise my minimum balance from $10,000 to $15,000 or I had to start paying $20/month plus various other fees.
I called to check and yes, that is the new policy.
BoA is
Read more http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/10/citi-joins-bank-of-america-in-finding-new-ways-to-bleed-customers.html


text:
Sandy Murphy
Director of the Emmaus Center
B.S., University of Wisconsin-La Crosse
M.Ed., Cardinal Stritch University
Sandy has been with the college since 2002. In addition to being Director, Sandy is involved in helping to coordinate the TRIPS program or Alternative Break Service Trips with the Sturzl Center for Community Service & Learning. She is also plans fallFest and doing spiritual direction with students.
Sandy and her husband John live in De Pere and have two children, John and Clara.


text: This is the real thing. Not one of those fancy pants G550 or AMG monstrosities. A real German Gelaendewagen, with plaid cloth seats, manual transmission, military roots and a spartan-interior devoid of burl wood adornments or sissy hand massaged cow hides. It's more Land Rover than Mercedes, a bit beat-up, a little rusty but still rolling strong. This baby appears to have a bunch off-road tours under its beltline judging by the bad ass winch up front and tow hooks in the rear. I remember reading a test of one of these Puchs (that's how they were sold in Eastern Europe) and one of the requirements the Bundeswehr put before MB was a 20-year expected life span of each unit in military service.


text:
Thursday, 2 February 2012
Inglot Freedom System Lipsticks Swatches & Thoughts
15 comments:
- Powdered Almond said...
I am all about that orange, it is really lovely. Pictures so clear as always. But wait... a toothpick?!?!? xxx
- 2 February 2012 at 13:01
- Robyn said...
That orange is lovely! I really have no need for one of these palettes as I have too many lipstick but I know I'm going to end up with one sooner or later. They look much better than expected!
And... a toothpick? I use disposable wands instead of a lipbrush, they're easier to wash and you can use them a few times.
- 2 February 2012 at 13:43
- The Peach said...
So pretty! The coverage of these looks awesome! I haven't tried any of the lipsticks in the freedom system.... maybe some day I will have to! Great swatches!
- 2 February 2012 at 13:46
- QueenMiSeRy said...
N.71 is gorgeous!
I think I should go to an Inglot store, sooner or later.
- 2 February 2012 at 14:10
- moonchild said...
I love the first red and the last two purple ones <3 Gorgeous!
- 2 February 2012 at 15:37
- Project Swatch said...
I love the red! I'm going to an Inglot store this summer (haha so excited & it's so far away!) and I'm definitely going to check out the lipstick!
- 2 February 2012 at 16:43
- Nicole said...
Such pretty colors! You pull them off way better than I ever could :)
- 2 February 2012 at 18:01
- Sana said...
I love the last two (no suprises here). I also love the idea about the toothpick! I'll try it out asap, though as clumsy as I am I'll probably end up with a real mess.
- 2 February 2012 at 20:46
- Pearl Squirrel said...
These look great! I can't wait to visit inglot :D I prefer applying lipstick from the tube over a brush anytime, but i'm going to try using a toothpick on my depotted lipsticks next time. I hate that you waste so much product with a brush..
- 2 February 2012 at 21:01
- artlook4u said...
i love the first one! red is winning! :) but orange is pretty amazing too... hm...
- 2 February 2012 at 21:36
- sugarbumpkin said...
Wow, these are MUCH nicer than i thought they would be. thanks for the swatches!
- 3 February 2012 at 07:41
- D D said...
adorable lips ...
- 3 February 2012 at 14:14
- SilhouetteScreams said...
WHOA, these are so bright and opaque! Waaaaaant.
- 5 February 2012 at 03:53
- olgiepolgie said...
They are gorgeous! OMG, number 71 rocks my world so hard. I think I need it.
- 5 February 2012 at 23:18
- Vulcan_Butterfly said...
Your lip swatches are always perfect! These are some gorgeous colours!
- 12 February 2012 at 20:52


text:
Taveras to give state of the city address
PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) — The mayor of Providence — and candidate for Rhode Island governor — is preparing to deliver his annual state of the city address.
Angel Taveras is scheduled to deliver remarks Wednesday evening in the city council chamber at city hall.
In last year's address, the first-term Democrat focused largely on his progress in stabilizing the city's finances, saying Providence had moved "from peril to recovery."
Taveras became mayor of the capital in 2011. He announced in October he was seeking the Democratic nomination for governor. He cited his work addressing Providence's fiscal problems and his background as the son of a working single mother.
Taveras is facing General Treasurer Gina Raimondo and Clay Pell, grandson of the late U.S. Sen. Claiborne Pell, in the primary.


text:
FC - Quality testedIHC - Reported in the literature
Additional reported applications (for the relevant formats) include: immunohistochemical staining of frozen tissue sections1,2 and in vitro activation of NK cells1.
Each lot of this antibody is quality control tested by immunofluorescent staining with flow cytometric analysis. For flow cytometric staining, the suggested use of this reagent is ≤0.25 µg per million cells in 100 µl volume. It is recommended that the reagent be titrated for optimal performance for each application.
1. Walzer T, et al. 2007. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104:3384. (FC, Activ)2. Walzer T, et al. 2007. Nat. Immunol. 8:1337. (FC, Activ)3. Guerriero JL, et al. 2011. J. Immunol. 186:3517. (IHC) PubMed
C57BL/6 mouse splenocytes stained with purified 29A1.4 conjugated with PE and NK1.1 (PK136) APC
CD335, also known as NKp46, is a single-pass type I membrane protein of 46 kD. It belongs to the natural cytotoxicity receptor (NCR) family and contains two Ig-like (immunoglobulin-like) domains. It's expression is restricted to NK cells and a subset of NKT cells; it's not expressed in CD1d-restricted NKT cells. CD335 is a receptor for viral hemagglutinins and heparan sulfate proteoglycans and is involved in NK cell activation.
1. Colucci F and Cilio CM. 2010. Nat. Immunol. 125:60.2. Caligiuri MA. 2008. Blood 112:461.3. Colonna M. 2009. Immunity 31:15.
This product is subject to proprietary rights of Sirigen Inc. and is made and sold under license from Sirigen Inc. The purchase of this product conveys to the buyer a non-transferable right to use the purchased product for research purposes only. This product may not be resold or incorporated in any manner into another product for resale. Any use for therapeutics or diagnostics is strictly prohibited. This product is covered by U.S. Patent(s), pending patent applications and foreign equivalents.


text:
Need a Chicken Pox Titer in Lewes, DE? Simply order online 24/7 and get a fast, affordable Chicken Pox Titer at a lab near you (Find More Locations):
Why would I get a Chicken Pox Titer?
The Chicken Pox Titer is a blood test used to prove immunity to Chicken Pox. People in Lewes, DE get the Chicken Pox Titer for general screening or for credentialing for work or school.
How much does a Chicken Pox Titer cost?
Our Chicken Pox Titer price includes the doctor's order that you need to get tested in Lewes, DE, all lab fees and taxes, and a pdf copy of your results. For current prices, please CLICK HERE.
What does a Chicken Pox Titer test report look like?
For a sample report, please CLICK HERE.
We are delighted to offer the Chicken Pox Titer in Lewes, DE.
Chicken Pox Titer in other cities near Lewes, DE:Bethany Beach | Dagsboro | Ellendale | Fenwick Island | Frankford | Georgetown | Harbeson | Lincoln | Millsboro | Millville | Milton | Nassau | Ocean View | Rehoboth Beach | Selbyville


text:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22.11.2007 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Writ Petition No.4911 of 1999 Tamilnadu Revenue Department Office Assistants Association Tuticorin District by its President R.Sudalai 141/A2 Taluk Office Road Tiruchendur ..Petitioner Vs. 1. The District Collector, Tuticorin District Tuticorin. 2. The District Revenue Officer Tuticorin District Tuticorin. 3. The Revenue Divisional Officer Tiruchendur Tuticorin District. 4. The Tahsildar Tiruchendur Taluk Tiruchendur. ..Respondents This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in Na.Ka.No.E3.64377/98, dated 24.12.1998 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to hand over the vacant physical possession of the enjoyment of the land and building bearing door Nos.141-A2 and 141-A3 and bearing survey No.223/2, Kela Tiruchendur Village, Tiruchendur Taluk to the petitioner's association. For petitioner : Mr.M.Aniruthan For respondents : Mr.V.Manoharan, Government Advocate O R D E R
Heard Mr.M.Aniruthan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Manoharan, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the cancellation of the allotment of 5 cents of vacant land in survey No.223/2, Kela Tiruchendur Village made in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner is an Association consisting of employees of the Revenue Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu.
3. The main contention of the petitioner is that the land in question was allotted to the petitioner Association for running a canteen and a job typing office, without any precondition. However, the impugned order has been passed by the first respondent stating that the conditions of allotment had not been complied with and that the land was used by the petitioner for other purposes.
4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the land allotted to the petitioner Association had been occupied unauthorisedly and since the Tahsildar, Tiruchendur, had initiated action to resume the land and building, as directed by the Collector, Thoothukkudi, the unauthorised occupants had vacated the building and the land, on 4.3.1999.
5. From the records available before this Court it is seen that at the time of the admission of the writ petition no interim order had been passed by this Court.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the land had not been re-allotted to any other person or Association till date. It is also submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation to the fourth respondent for allotment of the said land in question to the petitioner Association.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation to the fourth respondent. On such representation being made, the fourth respondent is expected to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, expeditiously.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
1. The District Collector Tuticorin District Tuticorin.
2. The District Revenue Officer Tuticorin District Tuticorin.
3. The Revenue Divisional Officer Tiruchendur Tuticorin District.
4. The Tahsildar Tiruchendur Taluk Tiruchendur.


text:
(COLUMBIA, Mo., AP) — Teachers who sued when a Missouri virtual education program stopped operating only four months after it began are negotiating with the state and other authorities to settle the case, attorneys said.
The lawsuit was filed in August 2010 by teachers who started jobs with the Missouri Virtual Instruction Program, or MoVIP, in August 2009 but were out of work by November of that year when the state eliminated funding for the program. The teachers sued the University of Missouri, the Missouri Board of Education, the state and eMints, a program based on the Missouri campus that hired the teachers, The Columbia Daily Tribune reported (http://bit.ly/1gyjf9M).
They are seeking monetary damages for lost pay.
Twenty of the 45 teachers hired by MoVIP have joined the lawsuit, which is one reason attorneys want to settle the lawsuit.
"It's the time that would be involved," said Kelly Mescher, an attorney for the university. "The teachers are all over the state. It's the time, expense and travel."
David Brown, the teachers' attorney, agreed.
"I think both sides are ready now to have the case decided," Brown said
The dispute centers on whether the teachers were "at-will" employees of the university or if their contracts were for a full school year, Brown said.
Brown said at a hearing Monday that while a position offered with an annual salary implies that the teachers were at-will employees, "duration of term" language in the contracts suggested the teachers would be employed until the end of the school year.
Mescher said the teachers were at-will employees because the contract doesn't specify when the school year began or ended. And she said the contracts also allowed the education department to give the university 30-days' notice if it could no longer fund the program.
The university could not pay the teachers without the state funding because it doesn't hire or oversee K-12 teachers, she said.
MoVIP is now a tuition-based K-12 program.
Information from: Columbia Daily Tribune, http://www.columbiatribune.com


text:
There are some artists who are masters at blending in. They don't have a specific style they can call their own; they just do whatever. Walmazan is NOT one of those artists. Every time you see a squat little animal, or a laughing mountain, or food with a face, the first thing you think is, "that's definitely Walmazan." The second thing you think is, "I want that."
This is very, very bad. This side sale is going to bankrupt me. One of my favorite designers = must buy half (or more) of these shirts!
I bought today's shirt, along with the Fresh Cake and aVEGers totes. Ow, my wallet!
I miss seeing the olive version of Fresh Cake but nice choice of designs. Raven on the tote looks good.
Would probably be getting a "Fresh Cake" tote if it was a zipped one.
Muy Beuno! Walmazan was one of the artists that got me hooked on woot shirts in the first place!
My bank account is going to hate me, once I get some money in it that is.
Could not be more thrilled! Wait, yeah I could, if the Fresh Cake tee was available in purple. Oh well, I'm still in for the tote...
wow look at all this stuff! congrats Wences!
Woot and Walmazan goes together like cupcakes and eating cupcakes.
What a cool selection. Love the new design too. Congrats!
Volunteer Moderator
Spiritgreen wrote:Woot and Walmazan goes together like cupcakes and eating cupcakes.
I first read that as cupcakes eating cupcakes , which reminded me of The Last Cupcake, of which I have 1.8 copies of. I do intend to rebuild the 0.8 copy too ...
What a cool selection. Love the new design too. Congrats!
Indeed! Just from shirt.woot, I have 31 of Wences' designs, plus several more from other sites. Counting the duplicates ... I HAVE NO IDEA!
So happy to see this side sale (finally!!)-but how could you leave "Calorie Burning" out???? I know I can buy it digital-printed, but c'mon, it belongs in here with "Motivation" and besides, who can resist a carrot with a flame-thrower??
So much Walmazan goodness! Congrats on the feature!
Realized I am a Walmazonian with six shirts already in my arsenal. Now there will be more.
Thanks so much guys for all your support!!! and Thanks so much woot for the sale! Its so amazing!!!
View All →


text:
Dry hair how to cope?
View Single Post
View Public Profile
Send a private message to KrazEKinkEKurlz
Find More Posts by KrazEKinkEKurlz
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 32
Friday, July 13, 2012 at 12:26AM
There could be many factors that contribute to dry hair. Maybe there is a drying chemical in your shampoo, or maybe you are shampooing too much and it is stripping your hair. Maybe you should go with a thicker oil or try a solid grease. That usually works. And if that doesn't work, try a liquid moisturizer. What could really help is making sure hair is getting good oils - coconut oil for sure, castor oil, extra virgin olive oil, canola oil, lavender oil, rosemary oil are some examples. Just try different strategies until you find what works best for your hair.
Good luck!!!


text:
Pick Your Own Patterns Set of 5 Custom Studio Clips
pretty colors, contemporary patterns...and your own combination! have fun picking your own set...for a gift, or for yourself. these are the perfect treat. handmade. set of 5
I know these cute little guys are on thisnext in other places, but if you are making a list of cute bird things they need to be here :)Tags: kids, home, gifts, office supplies, japanese, storage, office, style, home decorAdded 8 Years Ago from Redstamp
You've made that little note to yourself and now? Don't throw it away! Turn your notes into Origami. How nice :)
Lighten your load through delegation. Now, if only I had a team of people to delegate to!Tags: home, gifts, office supplies, storage, accessories, office, mens, home decor, decorAdded 9 Years Ago from Seejanework
Cables and cords no longer have be stuffed away and hidden thanks to think cute little bauble.Tags: home, gadgets, storage, accessories, office, organization, desk, organizing, funnyAdded 9 Years Ago from Shopmodi
I have a serious cord problem, and this looks like a semi- unhideous solution...Tags: home, computers, electronics, gadgets, storage, office, tech, organization, wireAdded 10 Years Ago from Cordhog


text:
Ex-NFL player arrested in Ga. 400 crash
FULTON COUNTY, Ga. - A former NFL player crashed into a guard rail on Georgia 400 on the first morning of the shoulder being open to drivers, police said.
Sandy Springs police arrested Larry Roberts, a defensive end of the San Francisco 49ers from 1986 to 1993. Police said he was driving on a suspended license when he veered off the road and into the guard rail.
Police said he was wanted for driving on a suspended license and failure to appear in court.
GDOT opened up the shoulder of Georgia 400 southbound to commuters on Monday to help ease congestion on the busy stretch of highway.
The shoulder between the Holcomb Bridge Road ramp and the North Springs MARTA Station exit is now available to drivers between 6:30 a.m. and 9:30 a.m.
The new road plan caused some confusion for drivers, and trip times on the stretch of highways showed no improvement on the first day.
"Just one more lane for people to drive stupid in," one commuter said.
"It increased the commute by 25 minutes," another commuter said.
GDOT put out barrels around 8:30 a.m. Monday to stop drivers from using a section of the shoulder near the Northridge exit, Channel 2's Amanda Cook reported. GDOT said it will have to make it more clear for drivers that they cannot use that small section of the shoulder.
Just before the shoulder was opened up, GDOT sent HERO units out to sweep the shoulder for any cars that may have been abandoned in the emergency lane overnight.
GDOT said the five-mile stretch is one of the most congested stretches of highway in all of metro Atlanta.
"We figured this was a good location to try this project. The shoulder had been reinforced before, so they're prepared for drivers to drive on them," Jill Goldbert of GDOT said.
New signs and markings have been placed on the road to guide commuters, but most agree there will be a learning curve with the new lane.
If emergency responders do need to get by, drivers in the left lane will move to the left, drivers in the next lane over will move to the right, parting in the middle to make room for emergency vehicles.
The speed limit for the shoulder is 45 mph, instead of 65 mph on the rest of the highway.
GDOT said it is hopeful the traffic will improve every day.
Depending on the success of this project, GDOT may open up the northbound shoulder for the evening commute.


text:
Pecchenino winery is managed in a sustainable fashion: Orlando is convinced that the quality of his wine
is strictly related to the natural health of his vineyard. His main objective is that of growing the best possible
grapes with the lowest possible impact on nature. In the vineyards, he opts for organic compost and
avoids the use of any chemical products for weed or pest control; his treatments in the vineyards are all
natural unless it becomes absolutely necessary.


text:
The problem: Using dessert as a reward for eating well eventually turned dinner into an afterthought. "My two boys would rush through dinner and eat the bare minimum to earn their 'reward.' There were constant negotiations and power struggles," says Gia Blout of Pasadena, California.
The fix: Blout began to serve dinner family-style, with all the dishes―even dessert―presented at once. The boys were expected to serve themselves and make their own choices without any intervention from their parents. "The first night, my younger one grabbed a cookie and inhaled it. But then he relaxed and ate a complete meal," says Blout. Eventually she began phasing out dessert at every meal―without protests.
The expert take: "It's important to stop distinguishing between 'good' and 'bad' foods," says Adele Faber, a coauthor of How to Talk So Kids Will Listen & Listen So Kids Will Talk ($16, amazon.com). "Making food attractive, like arranging peas in the shape of a smiley face or cutting fruit into shapes, will make kids more likely to eat it." Considering dessert as a part of the meal, rather than as an overvalued treat, eliminates it as a bargaining chip. And if your child does eat six cookies before serving himself any spinach, consider this: "In studies, when kids were allowed to eat whatever they wanted, they just ate dessert at first. But within a few weeks, they were back to a balanced meal," says Kevin Leman, a psychologist and the author of Have a New Kid by Friday ($15, amazon.com).


text:
SailNet Community (http://www.sailnet.com/forums/)
- Gear & Maintenance (http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gear-maintenance/)
- - OMC Saildrive cooling (http://www.sailnet.com/forums/gear-maintenance/62780-omc-saildrive-cooling.html)
OMC Saildrive cooling
Boat is a 1977 Islander 26 with an OMC Zephyr Saildrive. I have no cooling water ouflow at thru hull, but good circulation through power head and thru the hose to the manifold. Not sure where it is plugged and the exhaust riser bolts are seized. I will work on running down the location of the blockage, but any suggestions are welcome.
Now, a sanity check. I need to move the boat from the eastern shore of the Chesapeake to the western shore before the end of the month. If i can't locate and clear the blockage,any reason I can't simply put an extension on the outflow hose and lead it (carefully and securely) overboard? Most of the trip should be under sail, but I need to motor through a couple of areas.
I'm not sure I fully understand you as to where you have good water flow and where you do not. Is there water exiting the exhaust riser at all?
You say there is no water flowing out of the thru hull, but are you still getting exhaust out?
Water flow checked as follows:
Hose from pump to riser - good flow
Hose (outlet from head) - good flow
No water from thru hull, but exhaust is exiting as normal
I suspect the outlet passage through the riser is plugged.
Here is a diagram of the path of water flow thru the engine.
Sail Drive Cooling
If you are saying that you have waterflow in the hose labeled "out" up to the point where it connects to the exhaust riser, then it would seem that the blockage is in the riser and extending that hose overboard might work.
Becareful though because that might create an exhaust leak at the point where the hose is removed from the riser.
Some folks have had problems with exhaust riser blockages caused by engine coking.
That wouldn't surprise me. The PO apparently was one of those who thought a little extra 2 stroke oil was "insurance". The mixture was a bit rich when I drained the tank .... 50:1 does not mean 50-50 :-)
I can block off the out "inlet": at the riser. I think for short periods (no more than five minutes) I might be okay - I don't want to run the exhaust "dry" too long for fear of catching the exhaust hose on fire.
Appreciate the help!
I had not really considered the possibility of the the rest of the exhaust path overheating. Although I don't think it would actually catch on fire (but I admit I could be wrong) I would be concerned about melting or deforming the water muffler because you may have a hard time finding a replacement if you need one. You may be able to extend the water line and attach it to the drain port of the water muffler instead of sending it overboard. That way you would have water in the water muffler and in the exhaust path from the water muffler back. That migh help reduce the risk of overheating something.
Anyway that's the only complaint I have after all these years. My boat is located in a slip in Southern California. You own a very nice boat , enjoy and treat her well. If you have any other Islander 26 questions let me know and I'll try to help. The Islander 26 was one of Robert Perrys early designs, shortly after he designed the the Islander 28. Another very fine boat.
|All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:43 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
(c) Marine.com LLC 2000-2012


text:
In an emergency dial 9-1-1 or 512-482-5860
Non-Emergency Dispatch: (512) 974-0845, Option 3
The Austin Film Festival & The Travis County Sheriff's Office invite Travis County High School students registered for the 2015/2016 school year to participate in the 9th Annual "Make A Movie, Make A Difference" video competition. Travis County high school students are encouraged to create an original 2-5 minutes short film that creatively addresses the theme "Teens Making a Difference" on social issues that effect them.
Download the flyer and submission form.
OPEN TO: Travis County high school students enrolled in the 2015/2016 school year.
DEADLINE: Sumissions are currently being accepted. The Deadline is TBA.
THEME: Teens Making A Difference
LENGTH: 2-5 minutes
FORMAT: Films must be submitted on DVD (NTSC or PAL) and available for screening as a digital H.264 file (.mov or .mp4)
Austin Film Festival
Attn: YFP
1801 Salina Street
Austin, TX 78702
Contact Nicole Durand at: 512-854-7786 or firstname.lastname@example.com
Congratulations to the 2014 winners.
30 Sec. Commercial: "Cooties" by Mallory Lovett; Hendrickson High School
Short Film: " Head Trip" by Travis Daves, Julian Guevara and Cameron Fisher; Westlake High School
The following video is a compilation from all the videos that were screened on May 14th, 2014. The final two videos are the winning films.
CONTACT (M-F 8-5) P.O. Box 1748 Austin, TX 78767 (512) 854-9770 (phone)
Copyright © 2017 Sheriff's Office - Travis County - All rights reserved.
Employees | Volunteers | Login | Policy | Feedback | Adobe Reader


text:
Top Narrow Based Indexes For January 4, 2013
By 10:32 am, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was up 20.12 points, or 0.15%, to 13,411.48, while the broader Standard & Poor's 500 index had gained 3.86 points, or 0.26%. The NASDAQ composite index fell 1.87 points, or 0.06%.
Some of the narrow based indexes that are supporting the markets are Fuel Cell Stocks, which have gained 3.0%, Shale Gas Stocks, up 1.7%, and Asia Telecom Stocks, moving 1.5% higher as a group.
In Tickerspy's Fuel Cell complex, Ballard Power Systems (NASDAQ: BLDP) had surged 6.8%. Ballard Power Systems' trailing-twelve-month revenue is $58.97 million.
The best performing Tickerspy Shale Gas stock has been GMX Resources (NYSE: GMXR), which was up 1137.9%. GMX Resources shares have dropped 58.78% over the past 52 weeks, while the S&P 500 index has gained 14.21% in the same period.
PT Indosat Tbk (NYSE: IIT) is today's leading Tickerspy's Asia Telecom stock, gaining 4.1%. PT Indosat Tbk had $453.00 million in total cash for the latest quarter.
Posted-In: top Narrow Based IndexesNews Intraday Update Markets Movers
© 2017 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.


text: Offering free WiFi, B&B Sablon Antwerp is centrally located in the heart of historical Antwerp, a 5-minute walk from the Steen, Antwerp City Hall, Groenplaats and the Cathedral of Our Lady. This bed and breakfast comprises an on-site restaurant, a bar and bicycle rental services. Rooms come with a private bathroom with a bath or a shower, a hairdryer and a toilet. Bed linen is included. Breakfast can be taken in the room every morning. For lunch or dinner, you can turn to the property's restaurant, which serves traditional meals with daily fresh products. You can have a drink at the bar or out on the terrace. Packed lunches are available upon request. B&B Sablon Antwerp is 1.1 miles from Antwerp Central Station and 2.2 miles from Sportpaleis Antwerpen.


text:
"Our coaching staff knows this was a difficult decision for Ben," Stoops said in a release. "Ben has been a consummate leader for our team, both on and off the field. We appreciate the toughness that Ben has displayed, and we wish him the very best as he completes his education at OU."
Habern, who attended Big 12 Media Days as one of the OU representatives, started 30 contests at center throughout his career, including six a year ago despite breaking his wrist.
A preseason Rimington Award watch list recipient, as well as a preseason first team All-Big 12 member and 2010 honorable mention offensive lineman, he was supposed to be the anchorman of perhaps the most veteran and dominant offensive line since the 2008 one that guided OU to the BCS National Championship Game.
Instead, he'll watch Gabe Ikard again likely shift over to center, while Adam Shead will step into the starting spot at left guard.
In other news, Stoops reinstated wide receivers Jaz Reynolds and Trey Franks and defensive back Quentin Hayes to practice activities only.
The three will remain suspended indefinitely from games until a later day.
Wide receiver Kameel Jackson is still suspended indefinitely from all events and will be reevaluated at the end of the current academic session.
JUCO transfers, wide receiver Courtney Gardner and offensive lineman Will Latu will not be with the team this fall, but, as previously reported, Stoops confirmed Gardner could join the team for the spring semester.
The Sooner Caravan event takes place tonight at 7, while players report Thursday and the team host its first practice Friday.
Meet the Sooners Day takes place from 10:30 a.m. to noon Saturday, with OU Media Day slated after that.
Follow me at twitter.com/joeyhelmer10 or facebook.com/joeyhelmer.


text:
This time when No. 14-ranked Ohio State hosts Illinois in Value City Arena on Sunday at 12:30 p.m., it knows better than to allow that to happen again even though it probably would have a better excuse for being distracted by outside factors.
That's because the Buckeyes understand that if they beat the Illini and then No. 7 Michigan defeats No. 2 Indiana in a game later in the afternoon that they'll win a piece of their fourth consecutive Big Ten title.
But don't ask Ohio State if it is ready to root for the Wolverines just yet.
"I'll be honest, I just want to play well and that is where our focus is completely," OSU head coach Thad Matta said. "We would be foolish to think past 12:30 on Sunday. That's all we have ever done. We have one more game to play to end the regular season and that is the only thing that is on my mind and hopefully the only thing on our players' minds."
The fact that Ohio State could play itself into a tie for the Big Ten title seems like something just short of miraculous considering where it was only a few weeks ago.
The Buckeyes seemingly hit rock bottom when they were blown out by Wisconsin by a 71-49 score on Feb. 17, a game after which players admitted they had embarrassed their program after abandoning core defensive principles.
It wasn't only the blowout nature of the loss that seemed to signify the end to Ohio State's reign atop the Big Ten conference that has spanned the last three seasons. It also had the math to back it up, as the Buckeyes fell three games behind first-place Indiana with only five games remaining in the regular season.
But Ohio State never stopped chasing its long shot of a dream, winning its next four games, including triumph at home against then-No. 4 Michigan State and most recently a victory over No. 2 Indiana in Bloomington on Tuesday to keep its chances at a share of the conference title alive.
A team that has come this far could seem destined to complete the astounding comeback, but Ohio State's lone senior refuses to look past an Illinois team that has already proven it can beat the Buckeyes this season.
"The Big Ten is the best league in the country, so it's a good feeling (to be in contention)," said center Evan Ravenel, OSU's lone senior who will play his final home game of his career on Sunday. "But we've got to get this game on Sunday at 12:30. I am not focused on what everybody else does."
If Ohio State wins and Michigan does beat Indiana, that would create a three-way tie atop the Big Ten standings. If Michigan State also wins at home against Northwestern, the Spartans would join the party and the conference crown would be share by all four teams.
But if the Big Ten has proven anything this season, it's that harsh results are delivered to the teams that take wins for granted. Matta hopes his Buckeyes won't fall into the same trap they did just after the New Year.
"The one thing I've told them is that you can't win anything if we don't win on Sunday," Matta said. "You're playing (an Illinois) team that literally destroyed us on Jan. 5, and quite honestly, there hasn't been a whole lot more conversation than that."


text:
Free shipping To
If you think the price is too high, please click to apply for lower price
Swimming / Diving Face Mask Goggles w/ Holder for GoPro - Blue
Free shipping
Women's Nylon Snorkeling Dive Skin - Blue
Free shipping
Silicone Diving Goggles Snorkeling Mask - Black
Free shipping
Multifunctional Waterproof Outdoor Rafting Storage Bag - Blue (3.5L)
Free shipping
Inflatable Boat / Kayaking / Fishing Dinghy w/ Oars for 2 Persons
Free shipping
|70 denier nylon + PU
|Other Features
|Capacity: 35l; Seams sealed by PU tapes, 10000mm waterproof
|Packing List
|1 x Dry bag
All packages from DX.com are sent without DX logo or any information indicating DX.com. Due to package variations from suppliers, the product packaging customers receive may be different from the images displayed.
To enable volume discounts on this site, use coupon code: BULKRATE during checkout. You will see a discount applied at the bottom of the shopping cart. Competitive pricing is available. Contact us for details.
|3+ units
|5+ units
|10+ units
|US$7.08 shipped
|US$7.06 shipped
|US$7.04 shipped
What is Bulk Rate? BulkRate is a semi-wholesale system with items priced separately from retail. When you use bulk rates, a flat $1.70 registered air mail fee will automatically be added to your cart to ensure delivery of package. While BulkRate's intention is to offer cheaper prices when you buy in bulk, because it is priced separately it on occassions show a higher than retail price. That's why we ask you to enter BULKRATE as a coupon code to manually activate the rates. You can always opt not to use the bulk rates. If you are looking for wholesale prices please feel free to contact us.
Looking to get even more?
Share your reviews, photos and videos here!Review Program
fine product to keep your changin' clothes dry while kayaking. useful at rainy days too
Pros: Nice color, lightweight, cheap, good build quality. Cons: Does not hold 35l. When its laying flat the size is 37cm*61cm, so the circumference is 74cm and the height is 61cm, so in theory it can hold 27liters, but you... Read more
Pros: Quality material, waterproof, looks like it will last long
Pro: good product. Con: totaly unnessesary to use adhesive tape directly on the product, since it was in original package. Product became sticky from glue from the adhesive
PROS: you get what you pay for, a nice drybag that can hold items dry. It is very lightweight and feels sturdy still. CONS: NOT REALLY A CON, It is lightweight and feels a little thin but I have not tried filling it with I... Read more
fine product to keep your changin' clothes dry while kayaking. useful at rainy days too
Excellent product, it made of good material. I tested it, works alright. Cheap, very usefull, you can carry it where you want, compact I... Read more
i use this on my motorcycle when i go on vacations you can never have enough drybags to keep your stuff in and this keeps it 100% dry! is... Read more
Please note that DealExtreme Forums are not a sales or product support board. For support questions, please contact us via support ticket at http://cs.dx.com/ for a guaranteed response. We make every effort to make the quickest replies.