Posts
Did I mention, "Welcome to Fascism, America" last essay? It's hard to say, but easy to document. What it always comes down to is that the proto-fascists (if one could be so bold to call them thus) love to talk about "freedom" and "liberty" in markets cutting costs, but they never mean costs to the consumers - only to themselves, usually through illegal collusion (not exactly the "liberty" you probably thought they had in mind).
From Living Lies comes two fairly definitive comments about our time with which I agree. And for how long has everyone known this? Because it absolutely is not a secret from anyone now, and, more importantly, what will we do about it? (Emphasis marks added - Ed.)
It might not be obvious but there are two stories that are going to be seen as the the biggest stories of 2010. One is Wiki-leaks, not only because it revealed the stupidity of many of our policy makers and the human frailty of all people in government, but because Wiki-leaks will spawn a whole new era of journalism. We've seen it before and the results are profound. One of the things I have always felt and thought is that "at end of the day, everybody knows everything."
It's easy to get away with murder behind closed doors, but not so easy when everyone is watching and when you know your conversation and your actions are going to get spread around to the far corners of the world in minutes. I don't have a crystal ball as t how this will turn out but my study of history leads me to the inescapable conclusion that we are on the verge of a new era of journalism and a new era of government and policy-making. It might be good, and it might be bad, as government gets more repressive towards those who leak the secrets of government into the mainstream.
The other is the story below from Louise Story in the NY Times revealing the fact what we all suspected even if we were not conspiracy theorists. There is an inner sanctum of people whose actions are neither revealed nor regulated, subject to no terms of office, who are deciding the fate of our economy and thus our nation. These are the people who have brought the government, the economy and our society to its knees. These are the people who should be treated as criminals at the very least. The economic attack on the financial system was engineered by these controllers of currency and it was successful. They won and we lost. So now the question is what are we going to do about it?
December 11, 2010
A Secretive Banking Elite Rules Trading in Derivatives
On the third Wednesday of every month, the nine members of an elite Wall Street society gather in Midtown Manhattan. The men share a common goal: to protect the interests of big banks in the vast market for derivatives, one of the most profitable — and controversial — fields in finance. They also share a common secret: The details of their meetings, even their identities, have been strictly confidential.
Drawn from giants like JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, the bankers form a powerful committee that helps oversee trading in derivatives, instruments which, like insurance, are used to hedge risk. In theory, this group exists to safeguard the integrity of the multitrillion-dollar market. In practice, it also defends the dominance of the big banks.
The banks in this group, which is affiliated with a new derivatives clearinghouse, have fought to block other banks from entering the market, and they are also trying to thwart efforts to make full information on prices and fees freely available.
Banks’ influence over this market, and over clearinghouses like the one this select group advises, has costly implications for businesses large and small, like Dan Singer’s home heating-oil company in Westchester County, north of New York City.
This fall, many of Mr. Singer’s customers purchased fixed-rate plans to lock in winter heating oil at around $3 a gallon. While that price was above the prevailing $2.80 a gallon then, the contracts will protect homeowners if bitterly cold weather pushes the price higher. But Mr. Singer wonders if his company, Robison Oil, should be getting a better deal. He uses derivatives like swaps and options to create his fixed plans. But he has no idea how much lower his prices — and his customers’ prices — could be, he says, because banks don’t disclose fees associated with the derivatives.
“At the end of the day, I don’t know if I got a fair price, or what they’re charging me,” Mr. Singer said. Derivatives shift risk from one party to another, and they offer many benefits, like enabling Mr. Singer to sell his fixed plans without having to bear all the risk that oil prices could suddenly rise. Derivatives are also big business on Wall Street. Banks collect many billions of dollars annually in undisclosed fees associated with these instruments — an amount that almost certainly would be lower if there were more competition and transparent prices.
Just how much derivatives trading costs ordinary Americans is uncertain. The size and reach of this market has grown rapidly over the past two decades. Pension funds today use derivatives to hedge investments. States and cities use them to try to hold down borrowing costs. Airlines use them to secure steady fuel prices. Food companies use them to lock in prices of commodities like wheat or beef.
The marketplace as it functions now “adds up to higher costs to all Americans,” said Gary Gensler, the chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates most derivatives. More oversight of the banks in this market is needed, he said.
But big banks influence the rules governing derivatives through a variety of industry groups. The banks’ latest point of influence are clearinghouses like ICE Trust, which holds the monthly meetings with the nine bankers in New York.
Under the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul, many derivatives will be traded via such clearinghouses. Mr. Gensler wants to lessen banks’ control over these new institutions.
But Republican lawmakers, many of whom received large campaign contributions from bankers who want to influence how the derivatives rules are written, say they plan to push back against much of the coming reform. On Thursday, the Commission canceled a vote over a proposal to make prices more transparent, raising speculation that Mr. Gensler did not have enough support from his fellow commissioners.
The Department of Justice is looking into derivatives, too. The department’s Antitrust Unit is actively investigating “the possibility of anticompetitive practices in the credit derivatives clearing, trading and information services industries,” according to a department spokeswoman.
Indeed, the derivatives market today reminds some experts of the Nasdaq stock market in the 1990s. Back then, the Justice Department discovered that Nasdaq market makers were secretly colluding to protect their own profits. Following that scandal, reforms and electronic trading systems cut Nasdaq stock trading costs to 1/20th of their former level — an enormous savings for investors.
“When you limit participation in the governance of an entity to a few like-minded institutions or individuals who have an interest in keeping competitors out, you have the potential for bad things to happen. It’s antitrust 101,” said Robert E. Litan, who helped oversee the Justice Department’s Nasdaq investigation as deputy assistant attorney general and is now a fellow at the Kauffman Foundation. “The history of derivatives trading is it has grown up as a very concentrated industry, and old habits are hard to break.”
The rest of this article contains facts and figures that will blow you away (and probably already did the same to your money). Go read some more of it. It'll be good for your financial health.
From The Telegraph in the UK we learn quite a bit that's not reported widely here.
Listen up! This is without a doubt the time to start paying attention. (Emphasis marks added - Ed.)
US Treasuries last week suffered their biggest two-day sell-off since the collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008. The borrowing costs of the government of the world’s largest economy have now risen by a quarter over the past four weeks.
Such a sharp rise in US benchmark market interest rates matters a lot – and it matters way beyond America. The US government is now servicing $13.8 trillion (£8.7 trilion) in declared liabilities – making it, by a long way, the world’s largest debtor. Around $414bn of US taxpayers’ money went on sovereign interest payments last year – around 4.5 times the budget of America’s Department of Education.
So, did it? Or can we, the longest-running and most (as we are so often instructed) stable (ha!) democracy pull this one out of the fire? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ "Well-intentioned?"Debt service costs have reached such astronomical levels even though, over the past year and more, yields have been kept historically and artificially low by “quantitative easing (QE)” – in other words, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s virtual printing press. Now borrowing costs are 28pc higher than a month ago, with the 10-year Treasury yield reaching 3.33pc last week, an already eye-watering debt service burden can only go up.
Few on this side of the Atlantic should feel smug. The eurozone’s ongoing sovereign debt debacle has pushed up Germany’s borrowing costs by 27pc over the last month – to 3.03pc. The market has judged that if Europe’s Teutonic powerhouse wants the single currency to survive, it will ultimately need to raise wads of cash to absorb the mess caused by other member states’ fiscal incontinence. While the UK isn’t ensnared in monetary union, gilt yields have also spiralled 18pc since the start of November – to 3.55pc. British Government debt is officially £1.05 trillion. We are fast approaching a debt-to-GDP ratio of 100pc, compared to 30pc just a decade ago. If you add off-balance-sheet liabilities to Government estimates, including the bank bail-outs which disgracefully remain “off the books”, the UK already owes more than an entire year’s national income. In the medium-term, this is surely incompatible with a Triple AAA credit rating.
Even with gilt yields ultra-low, courtesy of British QE, the UK is still spending £42bn a year servicing sovereign debt – up 50pc since 2008. The Coalition is talking tough about reining-in the annual budget deficit, but our burgeoning debt stock means interest payments are anyway set to reach £70bn – twice the defence budget – by 2015. And those numbers rest on low gilt-yield assumptions that will be blown out of the water if this recent bond market implosion is the start of a trend.
Some say that growing signs of a US economic recovery are positive for stocks, which means money is being diverted out of Treasuries, so lowering their price, which pushes up yields. That’s wishful thinking. Sovereign borrowing costs have just surged in the US – and therefore elsewhere – because a politically-wounded President Obama caved-in and extended the Bush-era tax cuts, combining them with a $120bn payroll tax holiday.
Lower taxes, and the certainty of lower taxes, may bolster business investment and growth. That’s the logic employed by those painting last week’s global yield spike in a positive light. Government borrowing costs rose in America and elsewhere, they say, as a re-bounding US economy is now drawing investors’ cash away from sovereign bonds and towards more productive uses.
The reality is, though, that the market is increasingly alarmed at the rate of increase of the US government’s already massive liabilities. America’s government debt is set to expand by a jaw-dropping 42pc over the next few years, reaching $19.6 trillion by 2015 according to Treasury Department estimates presented (amid very little fanfare) to Congress back in June. Since then, government spending has risen even more. So US debt service costs, like those of many other Western nations, are expanding rapidly in terms of both the volumes of sovereign instruments outstanding, and the yields on each bond.
The new worry in the market is that this latest round of tax cuts could add another $1 trillion to the US deficit, on top of the already horrendous numbers produced in June. With opinion now deeply split about the wisdom of yet another round of QE, bond investors are getting increasingly worried that the Fed will turn off the funny-money and the sugar-rush will fade. Meanwhile, the US has very few plans – and none of them remotely credible – to get to grips with the biggest debt in history.
America has lately been very happy for small eurozone members to endure most of the adverse publicity related to the sovereign bond crisis. But, as of last week, the Western government debt debacle has entered the big league. We’re going to hear a lot more about the US government’s borrowing costs over the coming months – and the related “contagion” of other countries’ treasury bills, as America’s funding issues focus attention on the scale and ratcheting interest costs of sovereign debts in other large economies too.
Until now, market attention has oscillated between the eurozone and the States, with one region’s debt instruments benefiting from the woes of the other. Last week marked a turning point. Western sovereign instruments were hammered across the board – with traders making little distinction between the debts of Germany or Japan. There’s a lot more of this to come.
Investors en masse are parking ever more cash in alternative asset classes, such as commodities, other tangible assets and emerging market sovereign debts. The pool of money available to finance Western government borrowing is, in relative and maybe even in absolute terms, starting to shrink.
This is extremely worrying – not least because of the industrialised world’s demography. Our ageing population means that higher future borrowing requirements are practically guaranteed, even if our politicians become paragons of fiscal virtue – which, of course, they won’t. As one economist I admire recently quipped: “Expecting today’s Western leaders to run fiscal surpluses is like expecting dogs to stockpile sausages”.
Just a few months ago, it was only newspaper scribblers like me, and other naturally dissenting voices, who dared to be openly critical of grotesquely irresponsibly policies such as QE. Yet increasing numbers of important voices are now saying that, in fact, the Emperor has no clothes. Last week the patience of many bond traders snapped too. That marked a very important moment.
Please.
If you liked the Tea Party, you're gonna love these guys, but I smell a rat - a lot of rats in reality. And they stink.
The rest of Frank's essay is pretty good though, although I can't help wondering if this is the long-planned next step of the Same-Party Program. (Emphasis marks added - Ed.)
JEEZ, can’t we all just get along? Can’t we be civilized? Can’t we reach across the aisle, find common ground and get things done? Can’t we have a new Morning in America as clubby and chipper as MSNBC’s daily gabfest, “Morning Joe”?
This is actually the manifesto of the new political organization called No Labels. It’s no surprise that its official debut last week prompted derisive laughter from all labels across the political spectrum, not to mention Gawker, which deemed it “the most boring political movement of all time.” But attention must be paid. In its patronizing desire to instruct us on what is wrong with our politics, No Labels ends up being a damning indictment of just how alarmingly out of touch the mainstream political-media elite remains with the grievances that have driven Americans to cynicism and despair in the 21st century’s Gilded Age.
Although No Labels sounds like a progressive high school’s Model U.N., its heavy hitters are serious adults — or at least white male adults. Among the 16 billed speakers at last week’s official launch in New York, there were three women and no blacks, notwithstanding an excruciating No Labels “anthem” contributed by the Senegalese-American rapper Akon. . . .
The marquee names on hand included Michael Bloomberg; Senate Democrats (Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, the incoming Joe Manchin of West Virginia); moderate Republicans drummed out of office by the Tea Party (Charlie Crist, Mike Castle); and no fewer than four MSNBC talking heads. Despite Bloomberg’s denials, some persist in speculating that No Labels is a stalking horse for a quixotic 2012 presidential run. At the very least the organization is a promotional hobby horse for MSNBC.
“Morning Joe” plugged No Labels with an alacrity to match Fox News’s Tea Party boosterism (if not Fox’s decibel level). The No Labels slogan — “Not Left. Not Right. Forward” — even echoes MSNBC’s advertising tagline, “Lean Forward.” Presumably No Labels ditched “lean” because it’s too muscular a verb for a group whose stated goals include better schools, affordable health care and more jobs — as long as they can be achieved “in a fiscally prudent way.” To proselytize for such unimpeachable verities, no leaning is required — you can do it frozen in place, and just possibly in your sleep.
The notion that civility and nominal bipartisanship would accomplish any of the heavy lifting required to rebuild America is childish magical thinking, and, worse, a mindless distraction from the real work before the nation. Sure, it would be swell if rhetorical peace broke out in Washington — or on cable news networks — but given that American politics have been rancorous since Boston’s original Tea Party, wishing will not make it so.
Bipartisanship is equally extinct — as made all too evident this month by the pathetic fate of the much-hyped Simpson-Bowles Deficit Commission.
Less than a week after the panel released its recommendations, the Democratic president and the Republican Congressional leadership both signed off on a tax-cut package that made a mockery of all its proposals by adding another $858 billion to the deficit.
Even the Iraq Study Group — Washington’s last stab at delegating tough choices to a blue-ribbon bipartisan commission — enjoyed a slightly longer shelf life before its recommendations were unceremoniously dumped into the garbage.
The No Labels faith in kumbaya as an antidote to what ails a polarized Washington isn’t derived from any recent historical precedent but from the undying Beltway anecdotes about how Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill used to bury the hatchet over booze in times of yore.
Bipartisanship is also a perennial holy grail in Beltway punditry — as typified by David Broder, who hailed the Simpson-Bowles commission as “historic” in The Washington Post just hours before its findings were voted down by commission members on both the left (Representative Jan Schakowsky of Illinois) and right (Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin).
Beltway conventional wisdom is equally responsible for another myth promoted by No Labels: that the Move On left and the Tea Party right are equal contributors to America’s “hyperpartisanship.”
In the real world, no one could seriously believe that activists on the left have the sway over Democratic leaders, starting with President Obama, that the Tea Party has over the G.O.P. Nor, with all due respect to MSNBC, does the left have a media megaphone to match the Tea Party’s alliance with the Murdoch empire, as led by Fox News, and the megastars of talk radio.
Besides, polls consistently show that hyperpartisanship is more prevalent among Republican voters than Democrats. When Democrats were asked in a Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey released last week if they wanted their leaders in Washington to stick with their positions rather than compromise with Republicans, only 29 percent said yes.
When Republicans were asked the equivalent question, the no-compromise number jumped to 47 percent. Yet what’s most disturbing about No Labels is that its centrist, no doubt well-intentioned leaders seem utterly clueless about why Americans of all labels are angry: the realization that both parties are bought off by special interests who game the system and stack it against the rest of us. Indeed, No Labels itself is another manifestation of this syndrome.
Its two prime movers are a political consultant, Mark McKinnon, a veteran of the Bush and McCain campaigns known for slick salesmanship; and a fund-raiser, Nancy Jacobson, who, along with her husband, the pollster and corporate flack Mark Penn, helped brand the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign as a depository for special-interest contributions.
No less depressing is the No Labels veneration of Evan Bayh, the Democratic senator from Indiana who decided to retire this year rather than fight for another term. For months now, Bayh has been positioning himself as a sacrificial lamb to broken Washington; when he made the rounds plugging No Labels last week, he was greeted as a martyr on MSNBC.
What goes unmentioned in the Bayh morality tale is that in quitting the Senate without a fight, he became part of the problem rather than the solution: his exit facilitated the election of a high-powered corporate lobbyist, Dan Coats, as his Republican successor. Then again, Bayh’s father — another former liberal Democratic senator — is also a lobbyist.
(Evan Bayh has so far been mum about his own post-Senate career plans.) This is exactly the kind of revolving-door synergy between corporate power and governance that turns off Americans left, right and, yes, center.
Oblivious to this taint, No Labels named a few fat-cat donors who have ponied up $1million-plus. But like those shadowy outside groups invented by Karl Rove and his cronies for the 2010 campaign, No Labels has registered as a 501 (c) (4) and is not legally bound to release information about its contributors.
WHAT America needs is not another political organization with a toothless agenda and less-than-transparent finances. The country will not rest easy until there are brave leaders in both parties willing to reform the system that let perpetrators of the Great Recession escape while the rest of us got stuck with the wreckage.
As Jesse Eisinger of the investigative journalistic organization ProPublica summed up in The Times this month: “Nobody from Lehman, Merrill Lynch or Citigroup has been charged criminally with anything. No top executives at Bear Stearns have been indicted. All former American International Group executives are running free.” For No Labels to battle this status quo would require actual political courage — true bipartisan courage, in fact.
To say there’s been no accountability for the crash is an understatement. In yet another spectacular display of failed bipartisanship last week, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, charged by Congress with unearthing the roots of the financial meltdown, split apart in sectarian warfare. The panel’s Republican members issued their own rump report eliminating all mention of derivatives, executive compensation, failed regulatory agencies and even the words “Wall Street” so the whole debacle could be pinned solely on government (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac) and deadbeat Americans who took on predatory mortgages.
Our political leaders seem more inclined to hasten the next bust — and perhaps cash in on it — than prevent it. Massachusetts Republicans can’t be blamed if they react with anger, not civility, to The Boston Globe’s new revelations that Scott Brown raked in off-the-charts donations from the finance industry while toiling to weaken the financial regulatory bill.
Democrats are equally entitled to be outraged that Obama’s former budget director, Peter Orszag, has followed the egregious example of his mentor, Robert Rubin, by moving from the White House to a job at Citigroup — and only four months after leaving government service.
As The Times reported, Citi is now marketing all-new lines of loosey-goosey credit cards to debt-prone Americans much as it stoked the proliferation of no-money-down mortgages during Rubin’s tenure in the housing bubble. It can do so with impunity, since the incoming chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Spencer Bachus, has already guaranteed institutions like Citi a pass. As Bachus’s instantly notorious pronouncement had it, “My view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks.”
In truth, this congressman’s view has been the prevailing view in Washington under both parties since the Reagan administration. If No Labels is the best our centrist political establishment can come up with to address the ills eating away at America, its culture is as bankrupt as Citigroup would be if taxpayers had been allowed to let it fail.
One of Frank's commenters is particularly astute:Len Charlap Princeton, N.J. December 19th, 2010 It has become fashionable to extol moderation today as the "No Labels" group is set up to do. As a mathematician I find this difficult to deal with. Let me give you a mathematical analogy, If the conservatives say 2 + 3 = 23, and the moderates say 2 + 3 = 6, should those of us who believe that 2 + 3 = 5 compromise on 2 + 3 = 4.5?
Obviously in the real world issues are not as clear cut, but there are data that are overwhelming. If we deny these facts, we will never find a reasonable solution to our problems. Here are a few such:
1. All other industrialized countries have some form of universal government run health care. They get better care as measured by all the bottom line public health statistics, and they do it at half the cost per person. If our system were as efficient, we would save about $1.3 TRILLION each year. If you put $1.3 TRILLION into the hands of the people what affect do you think this would have on demand and subsequently on job creation?
2. In 1946 the debt was 120% of the GDP, It went straight down to about 32% in 1973. During this period 1946 - 1973 taxes were much higher. Marginal rates were at least 70%; they were 93% under Eisenhower. The economy was better than what we now have. For example, median wages went up 3 times as fast as since 1973. CEO's earned 50 times what their workers earned; it is 500 times today.
Starting in 1973, the percent of wealth and income taken by the richest 10%, 1%, and 0.1% has gone up at an ever increasing rate. In fact, can you point to a period in US economic history where high taxes have negatively impacted the economy?
Perhaps in the '90's when Clinton raised taxes? Nah.
3. On the flip side, since 1990 the periods with the lowest marginal rates were the years leading up to 1929 and 2008. These were also the periods when economic inequality was the greatest. As you know these periods led to disaster. There is some evidence that when tax rates are high, since rich people hate to pay taxes, they leave their profits in their companies, but when rates are low, they take them out and ... speculate!
Let me make my point one more time. In 3. you have two kinds of evidence. The first part about tax rates, economic inequality, the amount of speculation and economic disaster are the kind of mathematical facts about which there can be no compromise. The second part about the reasons for all the speculation is not.
Case rested yet?
No? Well, for the (probably) last word on the "foreclosure fraud" (emphasis marks added - Ed.).
December 17, 2010
SEE ALSO MERS 1997 ANNOUNCEMENT OF SERVICES ADMITS EVERYTHING
U.S. regulators have opened a new line of inquiry in their mortgage foreclosure probe and are asking big Wall Street banks about the beginning stages of mortgage securitization, two sources familiar with the probe said.
The Securities and Exchange Commission launched the new phase of its investigation by sending out a fresh round of subpoenas last week to big banks like Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo, the sources said.
The subpoenas focus on the earliest stage of the mortgage securitization process, said the sources, who requested anonymity because the probe is not public.
The sources said the SEC is asking for information about the role of so-called master servicers — specialized firms that oversee the selection and maintenance of the large pool of home loans that go into every mortgage-backed bond.
In many cases, Wall Street banks that underwrite mortgage-backed securities either own their own master servicing firms or are closely aligned with one.
In the fall, the SEC began looking into the banks' foreclosure practices following allegations that mortgage servicers like Bank of America were using shoddy paperwork to evict delinquent borrowers from their homes.
The Justice Department, banking regulators and the attorneys general in all 50 U.S. states are also probing potential wrongdoing.
One of the sources said the SEC is seeking information about the role banks had in mortgage securitization. The regulator is also looking at the role trustees for the trusts that issued the mortgage-backed securities had in monitoring the performance of the underlying loans.
The SEC is looking at whether loans were properly transferred to the trusts that issued the securities, the source said.
The renewed look at the securitization process is an extension of the SEC's preliminary probe into the mortgage mess. The SEC's regional offices are all looking at some aspect of the foreclosure crisis.
The SEC had no comment.
Separately, the SEC is still investigating banks, credit rating agencies and individuals in connection with the 2007-09 subprime crisis. Those investigations center on potential misrepresentations to investors about the value of the mortgage-backed securities that helped fuel the crisis.
The agency has filed some high-profile cases, including one against former Countrywide Financial chief Angelo Mozilo and another against Goldman Sachs.
Banking regulators, including the Federal Reserve, are feverishly reviewing lenders' foreclosure practices and are expected to reveal their findings in January.
In particular, the Fed is concerned about investors accusing lenders of misrepresenting the loans that underpin mortgage securities, and demanding repayment.
That has already happened with Bank of America, which has started negotiating with a group of angry mortgage investors, including BlackRock.
Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan and Goldman had no comment. Wells Fargo said it is "always working with regulators and others who are interested in its servicing business" but declined to comment on whether the bank had received a subpoena.
EDITOR'S ANALYSIS: THIS IS THE NUCLEAR OPTION AND IT IS UNAVOIDABLE. The pools were empty, the mortgages invalid, the title chain is corrupted, the foreclosure sales were fraudulent, the declarations of default were fraudulent, and the homes --- millions of them --- are still legally owned by people who had given up the fight. This is why you need to do a thorough analysis of the title chain COMBINED with the analysis of the securitization of the receivables. Just a few months ago, these thoughts were considered on the fringe.
Now they are the content of SEC subpoenas. Lawyers and homeowners and "former" homeowners (who might still own the house they thought they lost in foreclosure) should take note: file for information under the Freedom of Information Act, get your case analyzed, you DO have a chance to restore your life and your home.
THERE IS HOPE
Good to know.
Suzan
______________
No comments:
Post a Comment