The country is in the midst of talking about reform; Medicare reform, healthcare reform, Social Security reform, and in general, entitlement reform.

What exactly is an entitlement? An entitlement is a guarantee of access to benefits based on established rights or by legislation. The ones we are most familiar with are Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

For fiscal year 2010, Social Security and Social insurance taxes contributed $865 billion or 40% of the $2.162 trillion government income. Individual income taxes contributed $899 billion or 42% of the government’s income.

For fiscal year 2010, Social Security payments amounted to $701 billion or 20% of the $3.456 trillion government expenses. Medicare and Medicaid accounted for $793 billion or 23% of the government’s expenses while other mandatory expenses accounted for $416 billion or 12% of the government’s expenses. The total expenditure for entitlements was about $1.9 trillion.

Using simple math, the government took in nearly $1.3 trillion less than it spent.

As people live longer, the number of workers supporting the number of retirees continues to decline, especially as the baby boomers (born 1946 to 1964) attain retirement age and nearly double from 2010 to 2030.

So how do we fix this?

The ways of fixing it would be different under a king or dictator than under a democracy. Insulting the electorate in a democracy is the surest way to the exit door for elected officials so they are trying very hard to solve the problem without being associated with an unpopular view.

Democrats believed that the economic crisis made the electorate want security so they created large public programs, like the stimulus bill to save the economy, the healthcare law where all will be covered, and other expansions of government programs.

Republicans capitalized on runaway government and its runaway debt, and they ran for office on the promises of stopping the economic bleeding and reversing the spending binge.

The common problem is how to cut government spending while growing the economy. The national debt as of December 2010 is roughly $14 trillion.

Looking at the sheer size and potential horror of the problem causes many of us to freeze like a deer in the headlights.

What is the horror? What if the government was forced to cancel all entitlement programs because it didn’t have the money? The annual savings would be roughly the $1.9 trillion less the $865 billion which would no longer be returned as taxes, but instead millions of people would be left homeless, unable to pay either mortgage or rent, exploding public housing and collapsing the real estate market, making the most recent one look trivial. Millions of people would be left without paid medical care, forcing an explosion of federal medical facilities. Millions would be without money for food, exploding the use of federal food stamps and other assistance. So much for the $1.9 trillion which would be spent on these assisted programs and would make us not only a socialist state but a welfare state.

We all know entitlements must be reformed (as long as they don’t cut any of my benefits), and therein lies the problem.

Entitlement cutting is enormously unpopular with voters. But voters want real action to restrain spending, and entitlements are the only place that will make any real difference.

So what to do?

Republicans have come up with a strategy that will leave entitlements alone for seniors, at a cost to younger workers. Medicare would be transformed into a system of vouchers that would be used to pay for approved insurance coverage. The system would provide roughly the same coverage as for Medicare seniors, and would cause Medicare costs to grow more slowly and hopefully make consumers more cost conscious. Over time, such reform would yield enormous savings.

It is only a single step of cutting back now to help our grandchildren.

But will the voters go for it?

The legislation provides $10 billion to state school districts, to rehire and save 300,000 state employee jobs, more than half of them (160,000) teaching jobs. 

The remaining $16 billion will help states pay their share of Medicaid, public health for the very poor.  State budgets have been decimated during this recession as Medicaid costs have soared. 

Analysts say the latest cash infusion is essential to preserving the fragile economic recovery.  The last thing our current economy needs is more people out of work.

States are experiencing the largest revenue drop that they’ve ever faced.  This rescue package contains funds that must be spent rehiring teachers and sustaining state payrolls. 

This funding is fully paid for from closing a business tax loophole and will not add to the federal deficit.  As reported by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, it will actually lower the deficit over the next 10 years.

The Senate approved this critical funding by a vote of 61-39 on August 5, 2010, with only two Republicans (Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine) breaking with party orders to vote in favor of saving teacher jobs.

Considering the impending school year start, Nancy Pelosi,(D-CA) Speaker of the House of Representatives, called House members back from their August recess to vote on the measures approved by the Senate. The bill passed 247-161 on August 10, 2010, with only two Republicans (Michel Castle (R-DE) and Anh Cao (R-LA)) in favor of saving teacher jobs.

The fast track passing of this bill will allow the U.S. Department of Education to begin distributing this funding to the states’ governors by September using a formula based on population.

A chart was created by The Center for Budget Policy and Priority showing the funding each state is expected to receive for both education stabilization and Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) for Medicaid.

Republicans are not happy about the federal funding.  Some governors are reluctant to accept the money because federal conditions stipulate using the funding for education only and they want the money for other programs.  

Wisconsin Democratic Governor Jim Doyle, welcomed the stimulus money to his state to handle the urgent needs states and residents have right now.  “We cannot ask a second-grader to come back and complete their studies five years from now when the economy has turned around,” … “The education we provide now will be the strength of our state and nation for decades to come.”

It is a well-known fact that the Republicans have been receiving their instructions from the health insurance companies, who heavily fund their re-election campaigns and who do not want a health bill at all.  Revision means forcing them to insure millions of marginally healthy people as well as those with bad health records (pre-existing conditions). 

This time, the House passed the Senate bill without any changes.  Healthcare became law when the president signed it on Tuesday, March 23. 

To fulfill promises made to House lawmakers, reconciliation to the main healthcare bill was passed first by the Senate, then the House.  Republicans offered 40 amendments to the bill, in a final desperate attempt to change the bill enough to force the House to vote again, but Democrats steadily rejected each amendment. 

In the end, Republicans voted unanimously against the reconciliation, threatening to take the issue to their election campaigns to win enough seats to repeal healthcare.   

Every November, the entire House and one-third of the Senate are re-elected.  Many of the Republican amendments were specifically aimed for votes that could be made to sound embarrassing for Democratic lawmakers running for re-election. 

The main points of the healthcare legislation include:

• New consumer protections for denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions (effective for adults in 2014, but children in 2010).  Adults currently with pre-existing conditions uninsured for a minimum six months can enroll in a temporary high-risk pool with subsidized premiums (effective June 2010).
• Lifetime coverage limits—eliminated (effective 2010).
• Coverage dropped after a sickness—prohibited. 
• Waiting period for coverage limited to 90 days.
• Child coverage under parents plan—extended to age 26 (effective September 2010).
• Individuals under age 30 without insurance can purchase catastrophic coverage on the new health insurance exchanges. 
• Coverage will be portable for employees that leave a job.
• Health insurance exchanges (effective 2014) will be created with minimum standards and competing plans available to pool risks for small businesses and uninsured individuals.
• New policies issued after September 2010 will fully cover preventive care visits and screenings.  Doctors will get paid for seeing uninsured patients they are now treating for free.
• Businesses with fewer than 25 employees will be eligible for tax credits for up to 35 percent of health insurance premiums paid.  Pooling risks with other small businesses will stabilize costs. 
• Employers will disclose the cost of workers health insurance on their W-2 (starting 2011)
• Medicare beneficiaries with the Part D drug benefit who fall into the coverage gap (“donut hole”) will receive a $250 rebate in 2010. Starting 2011, they will receive a 50% discount on brand-name drugs, with the gap closing by 2020. 
• Medicare members will not pay more than three times the average premium paid by a healthy younger person, even though middle-aged Americans use more than five times the amount of health services.   
• Medicare Advantage plan reimbursements will be cut back from benefits currently offered, which give members more choices than standard Medicare plans and cost about 15 percent more than the average Medicare plan. Some of these cuts would be offset by a new deal with drug companies to sell medications not covered by Medicare at half price.
• Medicaid will be expanded, making it available to an estimated 16 million more people with incomes up to one-third above the poverty income line, including adults without dependent children.  Community health centers will receive enhanced funding.
• Subsidies provided over the next 10 years for low to moderate-income people without employer health benefits will enable about 32 million uninsured to buy plans on health-insurance exchanges.
• Medical expense tax deduction threshold will be raised to 10% of adjusted gross income (effective 2013). Seniors (age 65 and older) would be able to claim an itemized deduction at the current standard of 7.5% (through 2016).
• Flexible spending health account rules remain the same for three years. A $2,500 cap on contributions (with cost-of-living adjustments) appears likely to go into effect in 2013.
• Health savings account penalty for withdrawing funds for nonqualified medical expenses increases to 20% (effective 2011).
• All citizens and legal residents will be required to have health insurance.  Subsidies will be on an income sliding scale up to 4 times the poverty line.  
• Fines will be imposed on those who decline health insurance (starting 2014); the higher of $95 or 1% of income, growing to $695 or 2.5% of income (2016).
• For individuals with earnings greater than $200,000 and married couples earning more than $250,000 the Medicare payroll tax will rise in the next two years to 2.35%. A new 3.8% Medicare tax will be applied to investment income (including interest, dividends and capital gains) that exceed those thresholds.
• For job-based “Cadillac” plans (annual premiums exceeding $10,200 for individuals or $27,500 for families), plan administrators will be taxed 40 percent (effective in the next few years). Limits are higher for certain high-risk jobs and retirees. 
• Fees will be imposed on insurance and pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers (starting 2014). 
• Health plans will be required to report the proportion of premium dollars spent on clinical services, quality, and other costs and provide rebates to consumers.
• A new federal body will be created that would have power to block insurers from raising rates.
• Higher taxes will reduce the federal deficit by nearly $140 billion over 10 years. 

It does not include a public option to compete with private insurers.  

Read the bill at The Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010

The House version of the economic stimulus package was passed 244-188 almost entirely on party lines (so much for bipartisanship) with every Republican voting against it.

Republicans wanted to strip spending for rebuilding roads and bridges and upgrade healthcare and schools, and instead provide only tax cuts of about $478 billion.

Ed.note:  I didn’t think so during the campaign, but Obama was right.  The Republicans are out of touch.  The members of Congress don’t see the need for upgrading health care, since they are part of the Federal Employees Health Benefits program that gives them top-level health care with many choices, mostly paid for by the government.  They can’t see roads and bridges in need of repair from private jets and limousines.  And they don’t need jobs, but what good is a tax cut to the millions that are out of work and have no income to tax?

There are also aggressive groups against the stimulus, collectively known as the “Do-Nothings.”  Their arguments include that the stimulus money is aimed at getting consumers spending and borrowing again where spending and borrowing were the problem in the first place.  I would feel better if they understood the problem was centered on borrowing to spend, not spending by itself. 

Our economy relies on the balanced and even flow of money.  For the individual, this boils down to monthly payments.  The economy collapsed because the supply of money in paychecks, etc. suddenly failed to keep up with the speed of the stream of capital required to pass from debtor to creditor.  Since everyone is both a debtor and a creditor, the flow slowed to a trickle for all, and creditors stopped extending credit.

The opponents quote the government regrets spending in crisis, quoting the Iraqi war (preemptive strike against a dictator with a history of attempted genocide by poison gas?), the Patriot Act (more than 700 thwarted terrorist attacks?), and the $700 billion bailout plan (still in process, but judged a failure by opponents).

Many of the Do-Nothings argue that a painful recession is the best way to cure American’s runaway culture of irresponsibility and debt and the government should allow the economic chips to fall where they may.  It is brutal but it is called capitalism and it works, where the alternative is socialism and it doesn’t work.

Ed.Note: These are all Republicans speaking who would do anything, including the destruction of America to make the other party look bad.  And Socialism is not an all or nothing policy – that’s called Communism.

Full-page ads against the stimulus will include the names of 250 economists who oppose the stimulus.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are 12,740 working economists (SOC code 19-3011) in this country, at an average annual salary of $86,700.  That is less than 2% that have a dissenting opinion; hardly a mandate. 

The Do-Nothings advance that it is morally improper to deliver a crushing debt load to the next generation.  The thought passes my mind that the next generation will be a lot fewer if people feel they have no economic future and refuse to bring children into that world. 

It is also historical fact that these bailouts are mostly recovered by the government over a period of time through an increased tax base and compliance from working Americans.  What better way to spend our money than to attempt to provide for our children’s future, especially by improving the educational system, which is the lion’s share of the spending.

The Do-Nothings point out that housing sales rose 6.5 percent from November to December and this could be an indication that lower prices will draw buyers into the system.  They minimize the point that the increase for that month was based on the strength of bargain hunters picking up foreclosed properties. 

Ed.Note:  I am not sure I trust an economist who considers a single month a trend.  I know two young couples, both with high-paying jobs and no children who have purchased five foreclosed properties with the intent of renting them.  They are not exactly a portrait of the average American family.

On the other hand, to be fair, the Do-Nothings point out that without the stimulus, corrections are being made naturally.  Weak companies are going bankrupt.  It is hoped that the stronger ones will pick up their market share and laid-off employees.  Other companies, like the automakers are facing the facts that they haven’t been making the products that customers really want. 

American families are paying down their enormous debt.  This helps the economy because the money is paid to the credit card company or bank, where it can add to its reserves and extend more credit to those who need it.  When backs are against the wall, Americans know the right thing to do.

“Our standard of living must come down to the point where it can be supported by organic output,” quoting an interview with an investment consultant.  Weren’t those guys some of the ones who helped topple the economy in the first place?

The Do-Nothings fully expect to lose their argument, but put out the ads because they feel they have to Do Something.  And even though they are against it, they think it won’t work because it is not enough.  ??

His two-year $820 billion economic recovery blueprint includes plans for computerized medical records, a national electricity grid to distribute renewable energy, lower taxes for everyone under his ‘affluent’ income line, modernized schools, and education initiatives.  The House bill includes roughly $550 billion in domestic spending and about $275 billion in tax cuts.

The goal is to advance the policies the president laid out in his campaign, including education improvement, health care cost reductions, moves toward energy independence and aid to low and middle income workers.

When passed, the legislation will require all business funding recipients to publish a plan for using the funds, along with purpose, cost, rationale, net job creation, and contact information about the plan to a new website Recovery.gov so that the public can review and comment.

About $275 billion is designated for tax cuts sent directly to the states to protect the jobs of firefighters, local government employees and public health workers as well as tax credits for education and first time homebuyers.

Job-creating road and bridge funds ($90 billion) will favor repairs to existing structures rather than funding new ones.  Repair jobs can be initialized faster, quickly injecting payroll spending into the economy, as well as curtailing urban sprawl leading to increased fuel consumption.

There will also be jobs created for clean energy development ($58 billion), a national electric grid, and funds to weatherize homes and public buildings.  It is hoped the recovery plan will spark energy efficient thinking and building as well as renewable energy technologies.

There is close to $142 billion allocated for education to protect the jobs of teachers as well as attempt to stop the “dropout crisis” and provide an easier path for many American youth to become productive taxpayers.  Studies have shown that cutting the dropout rates in half would pay back $9 for each $1 invested, representing new tax revenues and savings in welfare and incarcerations.

Funding will also go toward expanding wiring providers and implementing universal broadband service to extend Internet service to rural areas.  Internet access will allow companies to hire remote workers to work at home, saving on office expenses as well as allow individuals the opportunity to run small businesses on the Internet.  It will also be a vehicle for coordinating expanded health care records.  It is estimated that for each $1 invested in this area will return about $10 in increased productivity to the economy.

Health care investments ($111 billion) to the states to expand Medicaid will result in cost reductions connected to the medical industry’s expanded use of information technology.  The expanded use of technology to coordinate medical records ($20 billion) will minimize duplication, re-entering the same data, and “doctor shopping” for multiple issues of the same prescriptions.  On the negative side, this technology expansion has people concerned over privacy on a national network, but tight encryption methods are readily available.

President Obama’s election mandate, along with a party majority in Congress, presents him with an opportunity to spend and cut taxes more than any president in our history, with the possible exception of Franklin D. Roosevelt in the Great Depression. 

To highlight the momentum of the recovery proposal, we can compare it to the $16 billion stimulus Bill Clinton asked the Democratic-controlled Congress for in 1993 when he had just come into office, and they turned him down.

So far, this Congress has only cut out a $3,000 tax credit for businesses for each new hire.

The size of this package is annually nearly half as much as the total federal annual discretionary spending budget with the exception of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. 

The package is expected to be on the president’s desk by February 13, a scant three weeks after he took office.

He soon expects to sign legislation against gender pay discrimination (signed 1/29/2009) and for low-income child health care.  He has already issued an executive order removing the ban on federal abortion funding and expects to soon revive federal financing for embryonic stem-cell research.

Ed.Note: The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Play Act of 2009 was signed into law after passing both houses almost strictly along party lines.  The Republicans are acting like spoiled brats, voting against any Democratic legislation, no matter how it advances the causes of right and good for the country.  This was a vote by Republicans against Democrats, but it comes across as a vote against women and minority equality. 
I am ashamed of the Republican party.

President Obama will spend a lot of time himself lobbying for the passage of this bill.  He wants to go to the American people and report that this is a package passed by both parties in Congress.  However, Republican ‘nay Sayers’ claim this package will not work, so they are voting not to do anything with regard to government spending and have no positive suggestions of their own, except tax cuts.  The Republican approach is to offer tax cuts, and let the social economy recover and advance at a natural pace, a process that could take decades.

The package passed the both the House Appropriations committee and the committee on Ways and Means strictly along party lines and it is likely the bill will pass Congress along party lines as well.  This is another example of one Party driving while the other becomes a dragging anchor.

In addition to the $820 billion stimulus package, better known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment plan of 2009, the president will oversee the distribution of the second half of the $700 billion TARP program.  He has said he will have a strong message for bankers about sitting on any taxpayer bailout money, reminding them of their commitment to restart credit to both business and individual and work with struggling homeowners to avoid foreclosure.

Whoever gets in, will enjoy his ‘honeymoon period’, appoint all his supporters to government posts, try to enact some of his campaign promises, be roadblocked by Congress, and be frustrated by foreign countries. Everyone has their own agenda.

I would be happy to survive the next four years without a terrorist event killing people in this country or an assassination attempt; have the economy return to some semblance of ‘normal,’ have the two major parties actually work together on some issues with ALL the people as their first priority, and have my taxes remain the smaller part of my income.

And now to the nose-growing fictions.

Are the candidates making these up themselves or are their campaign staffs creating them and handing the scripts to the candidates? Either way, I lose confidence in both. Either the candidates know they are telling lies, or they are blindly accepting rhetoric from staff members who are lying (or both).

Does the end justify the means? I don’t think so. I would like to see a truthful politician.

Both McCain and Obama have made multiple false statements about the other with regard to Social Security, health care, taxes, energy, illegal aliens, Iran, Iraq, and supporting our troops.

Obama tried to scare seniors from voting for McCain by claiming he proposes to cut $882 billion out of Medicare benefits and eligibility to pay for his health care plan. This false claim stems from a newspaper article by McCain’s economic advisor saying that McCain would pay for the health plan with ‘major reductions’ to Medicare and Medicaid. The story says nothing about a target number or cutting benefits or eligibility. In contrast, it quotes that Medicare benefits would not be reduced, and reductions would come through ‘efficiencies.’ In spite of this, Obama staffers took calculations from a Democratic think tank, worked up the $882 billion figure and blatantly lied.

The National Republican Trust PAC (who are they?) walked out of the shadows with $7 million to spend on advertisements during the final weekend before election. It flashes a picture of the driver’s license of 9/11 planner Mohammed Atta. The audio claims that Obama has a plan to give driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. Completely untrue. The fear factor is that more 9/11 terrorists will get driver’s licenses and repeat the terrible event. The terrorists used their passports to board the plane, and Mohammed Atta was in this country legally.

The audio goes on to say Obama health plan will cover illegal immigrants as well as give them Social Security benefits. Completely untrue. Obama has specifically ruled out those coverages for illegal aliens.

This is a blatant smear with nothing but lies. I can only hope McCain has nothing to do with it.

I often wonder at the strength of a politician’s finger. Of course, they are not the only ones constantly pointing out blame, but the economic disaster keeps fingers pointing in every direction.

Obama supporters lost no time to connect the current financial crisis to McCain, because Senator Phil Gramm was at one time a McCain financial advisor and Senator Gramm cosponsored the 1999 bill repealing some regulations on financial institutions. This allowed commercial banks, investment banks, and insurance companies to commingle their businesses by buying one another. The advertisement charges that it “strip(ped) the safeguards that would have protected us.”

Once again, the Obama camp did not do its homework, or deliberately misrepresented the truth.
The bill was broadly supported by both parties, made ‘veto-proof’ by a 362-57 House vote and a 90-8 Senate vote, It was signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton, who said even recently that he is glad he signed that bill because it softened some of the impacts of the recent economic turmoil.

Obama repeatedly accused McCain that he supports tax breaks for companies shipping jobs to other countries. He specifically charged McCain with selling out workers in Pennsylvania who lost their jobs when the factory closed and their jobs were sent to China. Completely false.
The factory closed when television parts it made became obsolete. No jobs went to China.

McCain stated that Obama wants to tax your electricity and your heating oil, will raise taxes for small business owners, and has voted to raise taxes 94 times. Every one of these accusations is false or taken out of context. 23 of those votes were just against tax cuts; 7 votes were to lower taxes.

To decrease the use of fossil fuels electric companies among others would be required to cap their total carbon dioxide emissions while they converted to other energy sources. This would indeed raise the price of electricity, which then can be politically considered a tax. McCain doesn’t tell us that he supports a similar cap-and-trade policy.

The heating oil tax is completely false, as Obama is proposing home heating rebate checks to offset the rising price of heating with oil in northern states.

Obama stated that McCain would cut Social Security benefits in half. That is simply a lie. Obama also stated that if McCain had his way, ‘millions’ who rely on Social Security benefits would see their investments disappearing in the recent stock market turmoil. Again, that is a misstatement very close to a lie. Private accounts for Social Security would work like a 401(k), would be completely voluntary and only for those born after 1950 will be eligible.

Obama, in his Democratic convention acceptance speech distorted McCain’s words about Afghanistan, when he stated, “When John McCain said we could just ‘muddle through’ in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources.” The truth is that in 2003 McCain said we “may” muddle through, and he himself had only recently called for an increase of our troops there.

McCain released an advertisement in July criticizing Obama of “voting against funding our troops.” Obama had voted yes on at least ten other troop-funding bills before this one vote singled out by McCain. The bill was the same one Obama voted for, that contained terms calling for withdrawing troops from Iraq, and was vetoed by President Bush. When the same bill was resubmitted without the withdrawing language, Obama voted against it.

Obama knowingly distorted McCain’s school funding votes that he said were for cutting spending on education. One was for an increase in school funding smaller than the Democratic proposal, and the others were against increases in discretionary spending.

McCain has promised a balanced budget by 2013. The Tax Policy Center (nonpartisan) says that, McCain’s tax proposals will actually increase the size of the debt between $5.1 trillion and $7.4 trillion by 2013. US BudgetWatch.org estimates that number at between $229 billion and $400 billion by 2013. Balancing the budget would require serious spending reductions, cutting out large amounts from federal spending.

In the interests of fairness, Obama’s plan will add between $262 billion and $316 billion to the deficit over the same period.

Obama quoted McCain as wanting to apply “Wall Street deregulation” to health care. That’s a blatant distortion of McCain’s words. Actually, McCain narrowed his comparison just to the concept of allowing people to purchase health care policies across state lines and used the words ‘reduce regulation of health insurance’. Obama took the word ‘regulation’ and invented his own language.

Joe Biden accused McCain in September of calling a GI Bill that McCain voted against “too generous.” McCain actually referred to the proposed bill as “more generous” than the version he supported, but again the Democrats define their own language.

Joe Biden may have taken his cue from an earlier AFL-CIO advertisement that charged McCain of voting against increasing health care benefits for veterans. The truth is that McCain voted for a health care funding increase for veterans, but the version he voted for contained smaller increases than the Democrats proposed.

There are too many others. Read all about them at FactCheck.org – The Whoppers of 2008.

My opinion of the election process is that any allegations, speeches or advertisements should be fed to an independent source (like FactCheck.org) before release. For budget projections as to which plan is better, check with US BudgetWatch.org.

I also think the millions of dollars in campaign contributions should be applied to feeding the hungry in our country (or a similar programs) rather than advertising media companies.

Obama has appeared in more ads on television than Billy Mays hawking Oxi Clean.

I do wish the new President-elect luck and success in his administration. As I have written before, the Constitution emphasizes the need to have balanced forces pushing against each other to prevent tyranny. The President is the leader of our 3.79 million square miles of territory, occupied by 305.5 million people, and like the CEO of a major corporation is responsible for its image and vision.

Our country has survived many ups and downs, and in 1461 days from January 20, we will have another administration, with either a continuing agenda, or a new one. I’m just happy the election is over. I’m tired of seeing both of them.

Don’t forget to vote. Your vote counts.

Spread opportunity around
not just the wealth

BobG