CBO: The Full Report

Here is the full report on the House version of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which should shed some light on the debate that has been raging over the leaked version last week. Overall the CBO estimates that more than two-thirds, 64%, of the bill will be disbursed into the economy over the next 18 months. Breaking it down, the CBO estimates that $318 billion would be spent and the government would lose $207 billion in revenues by the end of fiscal 2010 for a total of $525 billion or 64% of the $816 billion bill. The difference comes from a holistic look at the bill – adding in the money that would be spent helping the states, shoring up Medicaid, expanding unemployment insurance and Cobra and, of course, tax cuts: another $248 billion in spending over the next decade and a total of $212 billion in lost revenues for the same time period.

This figure, 64%, is more in line with the 75% OMB director Peter Orszag said would be spent over then next 18 months in a letter to Congress. But in looking at discretionary spending – the three-page portion that was leaked to the press, myself included, last week — things look very similar. Only 41% — up from the 38% in last week’s version – of these funds, which involve the bulk of the infrastructure spending, will make it into the economy by the end of fiscal 2010, or $145 billion out of $356 billion. The stagnancy of these numbers shows that the CBO didn’t redefine “shovel ready,” and their definition is based on a narrow historical view as Scott Lilly explains.

At any rate, Paul Krugman perhaps made the best argument about why this whole debate is academic on ABC’s “ This Week,” and again in Monday’s New York Times, when he argued that spending money in 2011 and 2012 will be needed as much as spending right now. ”One person’s pork barrel is another person’s necessary infrastructure investment. And there actually is a lot of necessary infrastructure investment. I think the theme that is particularly striking right now is, everybody’s forecast calls for an extended slump in the economy. We are not looking for something what people call a V-shaped recession,” Krugman told George Stephanopoulos. “When some of these people say the spending won’t take place till 2011, the CBO’s baseline forecast is for 8% unemployment in 2011… So we’re looking at a situation where even if some of the projects are continuing to add spending two years out, two-and-a half, even three years out, that’s not such a bad thing. Because we are looking at an L-shaped recovery, which is hardly a recovery at all.”

P.S. For those interested, here is the CBO’s score of the Senate Finance Committee’s portion of their version. Still awaiting the other half from the Appropriations Committee, which I assume will come tomorrow as they are due to mark it up.

Subscribe to Jay Newton-Small on Facebook
Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / White House

    Obama’s Persuasive Powers on Gay Marriage Manifest in Maryland

    When President Obama endorsed gay marriage earlier this month, the media grappled with two basic political questions: Was his personal “evolution” a case of a politician transparently following a national trend toward accepting same-sex unions (accelerated, perhaps, by his chatty No. 2), and would it hurt his re-election chances by alienating socially conservative voters like black churchgoers? Sure, there was a recognition that it marked a gratifying moment for gay-marriage advocates — as well as some grumbling about the President’s view that it remains a state issue, not a federal one. But by and large, there were few suggestions that one man, even the President, would shift public opinion on the issue or affect public policy. Based on a new Public Policy Polling survey out of Maryland, it seems this possibility was underestimated.

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Cherokee Zero

    Apparently, Massachusetts voters don’t mind that Elizabeth Warren foolishly identified herself as a Native American early in her academic career–it was, apparently, a case of family pride and wishful thinking about a Cherokee ancestor. That’s good. Warren may be the best public figure when it comes to explaining the depredations of the financial industry and [...]

  • wvng

    And, says JNS, I am deeply sorry for spreading false RW talking points about a report that was only an analysis of 35% of a preliminary version of the stimulus bill. I will learn from this episode and never again trust anything republicans tell me before I verify it from an actual honest source of expert information.

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    wvng
    .
    If only it were so….

  • Jay Newton-Small

    C’mon guys — the story was about the political climate of the stimulus last Wednesday and my story spent more time quoting Democratic senators’ hand wringing over the report, and their general malaise with the House version which continuers despite the full CBO analysis, than it did citing the actual report.
    JNS

  • jarais

    Well, points scored on the Krugman quote. I like watching the roundtable discussion because he always pwns George Will. And at least JNS isn’t getting smashed with Tucker Bounds. Al Gore Debate Sigh avoided!

  • James, Los Angeles

    .
    Okay, Jay, There was no “debate” “raging.” You wrote stuff the Republicans gave you and misled your readers. I don’t expect you to get down on your knees and beg forgiveness, but the entirely misleading bit in your piece still stands. The least you could do is go in and correct it, or make it less misleading. You have the integrity to at least do that, don’t you?
    .
    “Not helping matters is a report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that came out Tuesday, which shows that only 38% of the $350 billion in appropriated funds — which includes $274 billion for infrastructure investments — would make their way into the economy within two years of enactment.”
    .
    against this:
    .
    “Overall the CBO estimates that more than two-thirds, 64%, of the bill will be disbursed into the economy over the next 18 months.”
    .
    I mean, who are you writing for, anyway? If you are writing for your audience, surely you don’t want them to be misled by what you have written. If you are writing to please a certain insider group, that’s a different matter. Please let us know if that is the case, so we can readjust our opinion of your credibility.
    .
    Because, you know, the people who already read this blog have already informed themselves, no thanks to you and Time Mag. It’s your wider audience that will be misled.
    .

  • James, Los Angeles

    C’mon guys — the story was about the political climate of the stimulus last Wednesday and my story spent more time quoting Democratic senators’ hand wringing over the report, and their general malaise with the House version which continuers[sic] despite the full CBO analysis, than it did citing the actual report.
    ,
    I get that Jay. But you never know what is going to have legs. The Repubs are expert at taking one tiny phrase and blowing it up into a five-day news cycle. You know this. I would just ask that you do your due diligence as a journo and check stuff like this.
    .

  • kattest123

    JNS: instead of taking your marching orders from the commenters here, have you considered just taking them directly from The Kos? It’ll save a step.

  • Jay Newton-Small

    James,
    I did do my full due diligence and I did check out the report. I verified that it actually came from the CBO and I cited the number — which, by the way, has hardly changed: 38% up to 41%. The other numbers are still roughly the same for appropriated funds — $274 billion of $356 billion. Please do check this out before you throw apples to oranges comparisons at me — the 38% does not equate to the 64% as I made clear in my post, it equates to the 41%. And I made clear in my earlier story that it was not an evaluation of the full bill, just of the appropriated funds.

    As my colleague Michael Grunwald wrote in his cover story two weeks ago, a lot of this stuff, transportation in particular, has proven to be a boondoggle in the past. I do still think it’s a major concern that only 41% of the the “shovel ready” spending will be out the door in 18 months time. I hope Scott Lilly is right, but only time will tell. The House bill is not an ideal version — something both Senate Dems and the administration has said over and over. The Senate version will be different and the final version, I’m told be aides in both chambers, will not look much like this House bill.
    JNS

  • Jay Newton-Small

    kattest123: Would you prefer I not read the comments or respond at all? JNS

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    JNS
    .
    With “shovel ready” projects how could the money even possibly go out faster? The problem with “shovel ready” projects is that many of them are going to take more than a couple of months to finish. So if anything I would want those projects to go out a little bit slower from the stand point of making sure the money isn’t used up without the projects getting finished. I don’t think that even if 100% of the stimulus bill was infrastructure spending that you could possibly get the money out of the door any faster. Now if you could explain how shovel ready projects COULD get the money out of the door faster then I would love to hear it. Otherwise it would seem like a cya move by you to make it seem as if 41% might be too low.

  • James, Los Angeles

    Well, Jay, that’s why I asked you who you felt like your audience is. Because if you are writing for Michael Grunwald, maybe he is born with the knowledge that the “report” wasn’t looking at the entire bill, as you implied, but only a portion that went to appropriations committee. You think you average reader understands that kind of insider stuff? I’ll tell you: No. they don’t. What they come away with is as you implied and what the Republicans wanted people to take away: the stimulus bill isn’t going to do what it purports to do in the next two years. And that is *exactly* the message that every journo is pushing, and it is false and misleading to put it that way and to use outdated and incomplete information to accomplish that.
    .
    The Republicans are using you and your colleagues to diminish support for the bill, and you and your colleagues just willingly go along. Now why that is, I’m not sure. Sloppiness? Currying favor with John Boener? Laziness? Lack of expertise? Pushing a narrative? I don’t know, but it doesn’t serve your readers well.
    .
    .

  • James, Los Angeles

    BTW, thanks for coming down into the swamps to talk about this.

  • kattest123

    Jay Newton-Small: thank you for acknowledging my existence. My comment was meant to highlight the fact that the comments section at this site is like something from DailyKos. One should keep in mind that the commenters here are not a representative sampling if one is going to take advice from the commenters here.
    .
    While I’ve got you on the line, I’ve been unable to get any traction at all for this story. I’m currently trying to find a legal scholar/law school dean who can look it over and render a fact-based, intellectually honest judgment. Do you know of one?

  • davemc321

    Obama. Is. A. US. Citizen. Period.

  • stuartzechman

    Jay Newton-Small:
    .
    Thank you very much for responding to commentary; it is very much appreciated.
    .
    Seriously, this post is very important, and you display some guts engaging your readers in this open forum. We obviously disagree with how you’ve handled this story, but that’s secondary to the fact that you’ve chosen the successful new media methods of transparency and engagement over the failed old press’ opacity and the self-imposed, obtuse, professional bubble.
    .
    Whatever else may be the case, this particular effort of yours deserves respect.
    .
    Thanks again for real blogging, Jay Newton-Small.

  • deathbypapers

    I posted this in another thread so forgive the repeat if you’re coming across it again but I thought this was too good (from the current iteration of the House Stimulus Bill):

    “None of the funds provided by this Act may be made available to the State of Illinois, or any agency of the State, unless (1) the use of such funds by the State is approved in legislation enacted by the State after the date of the enactment of this Act, or (2) Rod R. Blagojevich no longer holds the office of Governor of the State of Illinois. The preceding sentence shall not apply to any funds provided directly to a unit of local government (1) by a Federal department or agency, or (2) by an established formula from the State.”

  • jose

    kattest-
    “While I’ve got you on the line, I’ve been unable to get any traction at all for this story. I’m currently trying to find a legal scholar/law school dean who can look it over and render a fact-based, intellectually honest judgment. Do you know of one?”

    You’re not paying attention. Intellectually honesty is one of the problems everybody’s talking about. Another is the interpeting of facts (sort of the same thing). BTW, commenters are not representative? Representative of what? You’re on pretty shaky ground here.

    The reference to Kossacks was just wrong, so wrong.

  • Cliff

    Yes, kattest, we’re the crazy ones.

  • http://www.hulagate.org hulagate

    1000 Bridges To Nowhere?

    = BIG DIG ACCOMPLISHED =

    Never mentioned in the lib press or other Mavis Letterboob circular logic IS the fact that the New Deal was a FAILURE, and actually PROLONGED the Depression. Hitler, of all alleged people, did more to end the Depression (by stupidly raping Old Europe) than FDR.

    We don’t need bogus DNC crank make-work for SDS union slackers and tenured Ivy jerks.

    We need to let bad businesses and banks chunk, jail the Wall Street hedge fund crooks, insure small investors and savers, close lousy skoos — and let the normal market forces otherwise sift through this mess.

    We don’t need a savior.

    We need common sense, and common perspective.

  • oizydoizy

     
    “L-shaped recovery” is a new one to me, and I wish I’d never heard it.
     

  • wvng

    JNS #3) said: my story spent more time quoting Democratic senators’ hand wringing over the report, and their general malaise with the House version . . . . Which highlights the need for more better democrats, and bolsters JNS’ original approach to the story because the Dems were panicking instead of trying to figure out what exactly the report meant and talking coherently about it.

  • wvng
  • wvng
  • James, Los Angeles

    .
    If you really had your readers in mind, you could have made that paragraph more clear:
    .

    “Not helping matters is [a cherry-picked part of an analysis] from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) [based on outdated numbers from a prior version of the bill distributed by Republican leadership], which shows that only 38% of the $350 billion in appropriated funds [which is only one-third of the total funding of the bill -- the part that goes to the appropriations committee - not the part that go to other committees and are are expected to spend out more rapidly] — which includes $274 billion for infrastructure investments — would make their way into the economy within two years of enactment.”

    .
    I mean, you claim to have done due diligence. Due diligence would have obligated you to say that you got that outdated “report” directly from Republicans. What part of due diligence is making comments and judgments on outdated numbers of a prior part of the bill, especially when you are implying it is a current and meaningful analysis? They are only relevant if you clarify that you got it from the Republicans who are trying to scuttle that part of the bill. But you neglected to say that.
    .
    .

    And by the way. Why would that be a bad thing? That it might take longer than two years to spend out a massive amount of infrastructure allocations? That it might take three years rather than two to design and engineer and build new roads and bridges and levees? That’s a bad thing? If so, you don’t explain why. Especially when you leave out the faster-spending parts of the bill like extending unemployment.
    .
    It appears that you have no expertise at all to make a judgment whether two years is a good or bad time period to spend out allocations. (If you have such expertise, please enlighten me.) So you take the Republican frame and run with it because you appear to be more excited about the politics of it than the policy, you and your colleagues and the Republicans. That’s a disservice to your readers.
    .

  • wvng

    j-la – what are you doing up in the middle of the night fella?

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    Thank you Jay for at least responding to comments. Speaking for myself only I know that much of my frustration with the media stems from my inability to discern if you and your colleagues have the ability to learn from their mistakes. That said come on Jay you don’t actually expect us to believe that you were unaware that your story deliberately fed an adversarial meme which is the primary lens through which all news in this country is viewed. You know full well that unless your story offers a battle between two easily defined competing interests it will be rejected. So please either plead innocent because you are too stupid to live or admit that you were more interested in pursuing an angle that would make your story more interesting, according to current journalistic standards, than giving your readers the ability to form an informed opinion.
    .
    BTW Jay it would be helpful if you didn’t just rely on quotes without providing your readers with the context in which your sources opinion are formed. In other words it would be helpful to know their agenda in determining their credibility.

  • Andy from MA

    Jay what Stuart and Dee said about responding to commenters. Someday before I die, someone from a major news outlet will ask the Republicans the following question:
    .
    Why do you keep pushing a political agenda and economic policy that has brought this country to its financial knees?
    .
    I hope it’s you Jay ;)

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    Well I guess we at least should be thankful that JNS acknowledged that here story didn’t actually include the full report (even though she still hasn’t acknowledged that the first “report” was nothing of the kind.) Unlike Ed Henry and fat ass xenophobe Lou Dobbs who insist that there was a report from the CBO about the whole economic stimulus plan while attempting to smear MediaMatters for calling them out.

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    By the way, how does Tucker Bounds get to be on anybody’s Tee Vee show? What a frikkin dumb ass. He keeps saying “we shouldn’t do anything, let them fail” but Dylan Rattigan who is annoying as hell in his own right kept asking him what he would do to stop the ripple effect of lost jobs and he had no comeback. Then they let him off the hook by not continuing to ask him. Then you have Mika making the grand and wrong pronouncment that “the New Deal didn’t work”. I see now why she doesn’t comment much. Why can’t I quit Morning Joe? Arrrrrrrgh

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    JNS,
    While you defend yourself by noting that your coverage was more about Democrat hand-wringing than it was about the Non-CBO report itself, without re-reading I remain confident that your story wasn’t about the Republicans leaking the report with no end in mind except to mislead people over the nature of the bill in question.
    .
    You’ve been called out and have clarified, but the original coverage was unmistakenly deceptive and you had a direct hand in spreading the disinformation.

  • James, Los Angeles

    wv — sleepless nights, my friend..
    .
    The Dems need to get a handle on this quick. The Republicans have recruited almost every journo in town to amplify their failed policies.
    .
    Jay sez: “I do still think it’s a major concern that only 41% of the the “shovel ready” spending will be out the door in 18 months time.” She doesn’t say WHY she thinks it’s a major concern.
    .
    Have we recently seen anything quite so preposterous as the spectacle of Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson – pundits with no particular expertise, let alone expertise in economic issues — arguing with a Pulitzer Prize-winning economist about US macroeconomic issues? As if they know anything, which they don’t.
    .
    And we have Jay here, she is very concerned about how long this infrastructure payout is going to be. She really doesn’t know why she is concerned, I gather, but she apparently was told to be concerned by her Republican sources. Journos pretending, or worse, thinking that they have some kind of expertise or ability to make judgments on US macroeconomic issues and proceeding to insert their opinions into their stories. What kind of bull is that?
    .
    Here’s a piece by Agence France-Presse, the gold standard of journalism in the US, that managed to inform the reader without inserting opinion or talking points from either side, except as noted by quotes:
    Obama faces week of tests on economy – Yahoo! News
    You could learn a few things about journalism from that piece, Jay.
    .

  • James, Los Angeles

    .
    Here’s another good piece from AFP about the bailout issues, Jay. Notice that the reporter doesn’t print talking points from either side pretending those assertions are fact? Notice how you come away from the read more informed about the package and what the objections are. Notice how assertions by both sides are actually quotes, and attributed quotes? Notice how the reporter doesn’t insert his own “concerns” or opinions into the piece?
    .
    Obama to woo Republicans on stimulus plan – Yahoo! News
    .
    Read, and learn.
    .

  • newfloridian

    Here we all are rattling the cans, when the main point should be that as usual the Republican Party could care less about a recession or quasi-depression that their policies created. They are busy trying to dismantle any constructive attempts to abort the full effects of their lack of oversight and failed economic policies by continuing their ideological attacks. Rush Limbaugh’s own words “I hope Obama fails,” reveals everything you might want to know about the Republican Party. They are Republican’s first and only Americans when their policies are adopted.

  • Karen Tumulty

    Don’t want to interrupt Jay’s post, but I think–Republican talking points aside–that the appropriated portion of this bill, which is no small amount of money at $356 billion, does indeed merit special scrutiny. Here’s why:
    .
    This is the money that, more than any other, is subject to Congressional priority-setting. (That is why it is called “discretionary.”) And as the NYT points out today, on the House side, it especially represents the priorities of one individual, Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey.
    .
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/us/politics/27obey.html?_r=1&ref=us
    .
    Do his priorities have merit? I would argue they do. But the purpose of a stimulus package is to get money into the economy quickly. (Indeed, Congress is so inefficient at this that history shows stimulus money often hits the economy after it is already recovering.) To load the bill down with money that doesn’t do the job quickly–to make it what people on Capitol Hill call a “Christmas tree”– is both an inefficient use of resources, and a political problem, in that it will make it harder to quickly pass the bill, which must also have to go through the Senate.
    .
    A few weeks back, congressional leaders were hoping to have this bill on Barack Obama’s desk on inauguration day. Then they were hoping for late January. Now the target is mid-February. The process is slowing down, which is exactly the opposite of what should be happening.
    .
    CBO may indeed be wrong (as noted in Scott Lilly’s argument in my earlier post), and these projects may be more “shovel-ready” than history suggests. But Congress should also be careful that they are not taking advantage of the fact that this bill is a crucial to load it down with other priorities.
    .
    I would not be at all surprised if we see some push-back from the White House against this House bill.

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    Jay you could have gone a long way towards providing balance, the media seems so fond of , if only you would have bothered to mention that while the Republicans appear to object to the bill on the grounds that some of the spending is not limited to immediate stimulus, they have seem to have ignored that its called the Economic Recovery (i.e. stimulus) and Reinvestment Act (i.e. some longer term infrastructure spending). It would have least put the Republicans in a realistic context (the short sighted idiots that got us into this mess in the first place).
    .
    Frankly, if we are going to have a new era of responsibility, that means you too. The media helped (whether by laziness, ignorance, or agreement) the GOP deceive the public. It’s not until things got so bad that it could no longer be hidden that the public tired of the trivialities long enough to see the writing on the wall and vote for change. Now with only a week into the new era, the media has already shown that it has no intentions of stepping up its game. the first amendment gives the media absolute freedom, so since we can not regulate you, the very least you could do is to police yourselves. Media Matters is nice but frankly most people don’t have a clue as to who they are and why they matter.
    .
    If members of your industry feared that shoddy work might bring a high profile rebuke from their colleagues (God please don’t point to Howie Kurtz he’s a putz) perhaps they would be more diligent in their efforts.
    .
    You know at the end of the campaign CNN did a show highlighting which pollsters produced results that were closest to the final vote, ostensibly they were trying to rank pollsters, clearly that could effect their bottom line. Perhaps you might do something like that for yourselves. Here are some categories I’d suggest:
    1) The most accurate stories
    2) Who got rolled most often
    3) The irrelevant stories while ignoring major news
    If any body else can think of any to add be my guest.

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    Clearly the first paragraph in my earlier post is relevant to you too KT! It’s called an Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Package…

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    KT and please show some balance here, if you are going to criticize Democrats for pork, you should also mention Republican motives for objections. Couldn’t you at least acknowledge that some of the GOP push back is out of fear of a repeat of the new deal fall out when they spent the next forty years as a minority party because of peoples faith in the Democrats largely on economic matters after FDR saved the day.

  • Ohg Rea Tone

    Do any of these folks really understand economics. ………..

    http://thefiresidepost.com/2009/01/27/economic-illiteracy/

  • James, Los Angeles

    .
    No one says it doesn’t merit scrutiny, Karen. Your assessment is excellent and makes a lot of sense. I am arguing about the poor journalism, not *for* the bill. I have no opinion on the merits and/or flaws of the bill itself. I argue that your colleagues are pretending to offer assessments but are pushing unbalanced and unacknowledged Republican talking points and that isn’t at all helpful. Indeed, it is destructive.
    .
    But Dee is right. You and Jay completely ignore what exactly the Republicans are doing here. You are serving as their messenger boy/girls.
    .

  • Friar Tuck

    K-Teezie,
    .
    I appreciate your willingness to fight all the fires your fire-engine can reach, but, my goodness – when do you sleep?

  • Friar Tuck

    That said, however, I think JNS made a boo-boo and should just ‘fess up, so we can all go forward.

  • Aaron

    There was no earlier report. The analysis was incomplete, and as it turns out, entirely misleading.
    .

    the purpose of a stimulus package is to get money into the economy quickly

    I would argue that the purpose of a stimulus package is to counteract a downturn; since multiple sources see this as being a multiyear problem, I would think the long-term projects should be starting now and the quick turnaround projects should start in 2011.
    .
    Either way, I will be amused to see whether a correction will be offered, and whether the same sources will burn the media again and again.

  • cincinnatus est exterminata!

    From now on JNS, as you have proven yourself un-trustworthy, you need to provide links to material to back all assertions made in you pieces. No un-named sources allowed. If you say the sky is blue, you will be required to provide links to photos that show as much. I don’t know if you’re a GOP hack, lazy or just playing games, but you lied to and misinformed your readers. One of these days you need to post a mission statement, something I’ve asked for before, to tell us exactly in your words what you think your job is and what it entails. Many of the commenters seem to know more about the stories you write than you do…a pretty sad state of affairs for someone who calls themselves ‘journalist’. Or perhaps its simply time we redefine what ‘journalist’ means as a more pejorative term and coin a new term for ‘someone who gathers and disseminates pertinent information for the public good’. I vote “snorgilist”. In closing, JNS you suck.

  • shepherdwong

    “Well I guess we at least should be thankful that JNS acknowledged that here story didn’t actually include the full report (even though she still hasn’t acknowledged that the first “report” was nothing of the kind.)”
    .
    Why? Do you suppose that she would have written another word about it if it weren’t for the loud pushback by the DFH. No, another lie (you can never quote bogus statistics, no matter the caveat or footnote) made up by Republicans to mislead the public and obstruct needed policy, and promulgated by mainstream news outlets. No correction by Time and no responsibility taken by the author. No thanks.

  • cincinnatus est exterminata!

    Also, JNS did ya notice how KT, who’s taken it upon herself to defend certain Time writers in the comments(though she claims she’s not a ‘media critic’ when it suits her)has not done so for you performance? Yeah, that’s bad.

  • Karen Tumulty

    Cincy:

    That was a completely absurd comment, and you are twisting your interpretation of the fact that I didn’t care to jump on your bait. Jay Newton-Small is a terrific reporter, a great person and a real asset to our staff here.

blog comments powered by Disqus