Tag Archive: Mitch McConnell


Obama calls IRS flap ‘inexcusable,’ announces resignation of acting IRS chief

 

 photo ObamacallsIRSflapinexcusableannouncesresignationofactingIRSchief_zps7151de08.jpg

NBC’s Chuck Todd examines the White House’s attempt to take control of the IRS scandal, saying if the public thinks the government has lost control on the IRS front, then the Obama administration will have more difficulty in implementing new policies.

President Barack Obama said Wednesday that he was “angry” at IRS officials who inappropriately targeted conservative groups for scrutiny, announcing that his administration had sought and accepted Steven Miller’s resignation as interim commissioner of the IRS.

“I’ve reviewed the Treasury Department watchdog’s report, and the misconduct that it uncovered was inexcusable,” Obama said in a statement at the White House. “It’s inexcusable, and Americans are right to be angry about it, and I’m angry about it.”

The president said that he expected the IRS to act with even higher levels of integrity than other government agencies and that, to that end, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew had sought and accepted Miller’s resignation — something many Republicans had demanded.

A great deal of what IRS has said regarding the targeting scandal was proven to be incomplete or flat out wrong prompting genuine outrage among both Democrats and Republicans. House Speaker John Boehner is now asking who is going to go to jail over this as the IRS continues to blame targeting of conservatives on a few rogue employees. Now Attorney General Holder has promised an investigation to see if IRS employees broke the law. NBC’s Lisa Myers reports.

Obama also pledged to work with Congress in its emerging investigation into the controversy, pledging his administration would work “hand in hand with Congress” to further its oversight. But the president also cautioned lawmakers to conduct their probe “in a way that doesn’t smack of politics or partisan agendas.”

“If the President is as concerned about this issue as he claims, he’ll work openly and transparently with Congress to get to the bottom of the scandal — no stonewalling, no half-answers, no withholding of witnesses,” the top Republican senator, Kentucky’s Mitch McConnell, said in a statement.

 

Read Full Article and  Watch Video Here

About these ads

President Obama said Friday that even though the $85 billion in federal spending cuts are “going to hurt,” the country will get through it. NBC’s Chuck Todd reports.

By Carrie Dann, Political Reporter, NBC News
Obama: Sequester ‘not going to be an apocalypse’
March
1

Lamenting the idea that only a “Jedi mind meld” could prod the GOP into compromise, President Barack Obama said Friday that the “dumb” automatic across-the-board cuts taking effect Friday are the fault of Republican resistance to a reasonable deal to avert the sequestration’s budget reductions.

“I know that this has been some of the conventional wisdom that’s been floating around Washington,” Obama told reporters after meeting with congressional leaders. “Even though most people agree that I’m being reasonable, that most people agree that I am presenting a fair deal —  the fact that [Republicans] don’t take it means that I should somehow do a Jedi mind meld with these folks and convince them to do what’s right,” he said.

Obama spoke hours before signing an order officially enacting the cuts, which take effect at midnight Friday.

Asked why leaders did not negotiate more vigorously to get a deal before sequestration deadline day, Obama said that his ability to negotiate is limited by Congress’s unwillingness.

“I’m not a dictator,” he said. “I’m the president. So ultimately if Mitch McConnell or John Boehner say ‘I need to go to catch a plane,’ I can’t have Secret Service block the doorway, right?”

Obama acknowledged that the sequester’s effects will be painful but predicted that the cuts will be manageable by a resilient American people.

 

Read Full Article  and  Watch Video Here

 

As Obama signs the order, sequester is enacted

By Carrie Dann, Staff Writer, NBC News

It’s official.

Late Friday evening, President Barack Obama signed an order – as required by the “sequester” legislation – to enact broad cuts to federal spending, according to a White House release.

Those cuts will now officially go into effect at midnight Friday.

The low-key statement, unaccompanied even by a White House-authorized photo of the signing, comes after weeks of finger-pointing with little urgency from Democrats or Republicans to avert the cuts.

In the week leading up to Friday’s deadline, Obama administration had warned of the consequences of the sequester, with Cabinet officials taking to the airwaves and the president hitting the road to highlight the measure’s effect on jobs, education, and even delays for air travelers.

On Friday, Obama acknowledged that while the cuts will be “painful,” they won’t be completely catastrophic.

“We will get through this,” he said. “This is not going to be an apocalypse, I think, as some people have said. It’s just dumb. And it’s going to hurt.”

By Alexander Bolton

 

The bill was approved in an 89-8 vote that came after only 10 minutes of formal floor debate and no official score from the Congressional Budget Office. The Joint Committe on Taxation estimated it would reduce federal revenue by $3.93T over the next decade compared to current law.

Five Republicans and three Democrats voted against the bill: Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Tom Carper (D-Dela.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.).

Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) missed the vote.

A ninety-minute meeting of Senate Democrats ending shortly before midnight sealed the deal negotiated between Vice President Biden and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

It would permanently extend the Bush-era income tax rates on individual income up to $400,000 and family income up to $450,000. It permanently sets the estate tax rate at 40 percent, up from 35 percent, and exempts inheritances below $5 million.

It postpones the automatic spending cuts known as the sequester for two months and offsets the $24 billion cost of the delay with a mix of spending cuts and new revenues. It extends unemployment benefits for one year without offsetting their impact on the deficit, preventing 2 million people from losing government assistance.

It also would prevent a hike in congressional pay that authorized by an executive order from President Obama raising federal worker pay.

Biden made a late-night visit to Capitol Hill to convince Democrats to back the agreement but did not need to do much arm-twisting.

“I am feeling very, very good. I think we’ll get a very good vote tonight,’ Biden said, leaving the meeting with Democrats.

Senate approval sends the bill to the House, where Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the House will review the Senate bill.

The House Rules Committee has already waived the requirement of a three-day review period, setting the stage for a New Year’s Day vote.

“The House will honor its commitment to consider the Senate agreement if it is passed,” Boehner said. “Decisions about whether the House will seek to accept or promptly amend the measure will not be made until House members —and the American people — have been able to review the legislation.”

Yet the bill would appear to be a hard sell with House Republicans, many of whom objected to an earlier bill sought by Boehner that extended tax rates on annual income under $1 million as a tax hike.

The Senate bill also includes few spending cuts, which House Republicans have repeatedly demanded.

“I don’t see any balance yet, that’s the fundamental problem,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) told The Hill. “If you don’t cut spending, there’s no way you’re going to pick up Republican votes.”

Heritage Action for American, a conservative advocacy group, urged lawmakers to oppose the deal.

“To be clear, this is a tax increase.  In 2013, the top marginal rate, death tax, and taxes on long-term capital gains and dividends will all be higher than in 2012.  Comparing tax rates to hypothetical rates that have hardly any support is nothing more than misleading Washington spin,” the group declared in a statement.

Liberal groups and labor unions have begun to line up against the deal, as well. They complained the White House and Democrats were giving up too much, particularly after Obama campaigned on a pledge to raise tax rates on households with annual income above $250,000.

 

Read Full Article Here

Deal to avert fiscal cliff appears within reach

Updated at 9:46 p.m. – An agreement in principle to avert broad tax increases and spending cuts appeared imminent Monday night.

A senior Democratic source told NBC News that an accord had been reached. A senior GOP source said it “looks good” and that the outcome in the Senate would be clearer after Vice President Joe Biden conferred with Senate Democrats. Biden arrived at the Capitol to meet with Democratic senators Monday night.

Although a Senate vote later Monday night was possible, it’s not clear how an accord would fare in the House.

The interim New Year’s Eve tax deal negotiated by Biden and Senate Republican Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky would raise income taxes on single earners with annual incomes above $400,000 and married couples with incomes above $450,000.

MSNBC’s Milissa Rehberger talks with contributor Ezra Klein and outlines the potential Senate deal that avert the Fiscal Cliff.

As of mid-afternoon Monday, the sticking point involved the “sequester,” the cuts to spending – about $100 billion to start in 2013 — that were mandated by the Budget Control Act which President Barack Obama signed into law last year. Republicans have signaled they might let the sequester take effect unless it was offset by other spending cuts; the GOP has also said it might accept a delay, but only for a few months.

The Obama administration, however, is pushing for a longer delay in implementing the sequester. Otherwise, the president said, replacing those automatic cuts must be “balanced” — shorthand for a combination of new taxes and other spending cuts.

Obama tried to push talks over the finish line earlier in the afternoon with a statement from the White House.

“Today, it appears that an agreement to prevent this New Year’s tax hike is within sight,” the president said at the White House. “But it’s not done.”

In the absence of a broader agreement to resolve the sequester, McConnell appeared in the Senate floor to request a vote only on the tax element of the fiscal cliff.

“Let’s pass the tax relief portion now,” he said. “Let’s take what’s been agreed to and keep moving.”

Read Full Article and Watch Video Here

By Alexander Bolton – 12/31/12 08:51 PM ET

Democratic opposition to a fiscal cliff deal negotiated between Vice President Biden and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is holding up a deal to extend tax rates and postpone spending cuts.

Biden will meet with the Senate Democratic caucus at 9:15, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office announced. The meetings comes after labor leaders, progressive groups and some Democrats have criticized the tax deal Biden negotiated.

Senate Democrats say they will not sign off on the deal because of details related to the extension of the estate tax. Biden and McConnell agreed to set the estate tax at 40 percent and exempt inheritances below $5 million.

But Senate Democrats do not want to index the estate-tax exemption to inflation, even though Republicans say Biden already agreed to the indexing.

“That’s never going to happen,” a senior Senate Democratic aide said of the Republican demand to raise the inheritance tax exemption to keep pace with inflation. The aide denied that Biden had ever agreed to indexing the level.

But Democrats are divided on the issue. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said he supports pegging the estate tax exemption to inflation.

Republican aides familiar with the talks say Biden signed off on the deal early Monday morning in order to prevent tax hikes from hitting the middle class. With no action, most households would see their taxes rise and the estate tax would jump to 55 percent for inheritances over $1 million.

“Biden signed off on all of it last night,” said a GOP official.

A senior Democratic aide, however, countered, “that’s not true.”

President Obama in comments Monday afternoon also appeared to suggest the deal between McConnell and Biden would hold, saying the sides were close to an agreement though it was “not done yet.”

Republicans say Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has raised various last-minute objections to the deal. They say the first one came at 6 a.m. Monday when Reid balked at language relating to the automatic spending cuts known as the sequester.

The Senate went into recess subject to the call of the chair after 8 p.m. on Monday, leaving it unclear whether there would be a deal or votes in the upper chamber before midnight, when tax rates are set to expire.

A Senate Democratic aide insisted Reid has not yet signed off on what Biden negotiated.

It even appeared that Reid was not fully aware Biden and McConnell had begun substantive negotiations on Sunday as one Senate Democratic aide expressed doubt at the time that the talks were actually taking place.

 

Read Full Article Here

Politics, Legislation and Economy News

Filibuster fight adds drama to ‘fiscal cliff’ talks

Susan Davis, USA TODAYShare

 

 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., are engaged in an increasingly heated battle over how and whether to change the chamber’s filibuster rules. The fight comes as President Obama and congressional leaders are trying to find a bipartisan way to avert an end-of-year budgetary crisis that will raise taxes and dramatically cut spending unless they act.

MORE: Durbin outlines liberal plan to avert ‘fiscal cliff’

McConnell spoke of “how unfortunate it is that the majority leader has chosen to create an extraordinary controversy here in the Senate at a time when we ought to be encouraging maximum bipartisan cooperation.”

On the Senate floor, Reid said McConnell personally was a reason change was needed. “Under Leader McConnell, Republican senators have mounted filibusters so much more on a regular basis.”

When McConnell was in the majority in 2005, he once sought similar rule changes he now opposes. Likewise, Reid then opposed the rules changes he now supports.

Reid wants to use a procedural loophole that allows a majority leader at the start of a new session of Congress — coming in early January — to change the governing rules of the U.S. Senate to limit the ability to filibuster legislation.

There are many ways to filibuster a bill or nomination — most famously as Jimmy Stewart did in the film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington when a senator debates uninterrupted on the floor — but the filibuster can be used in a number of ways to slow down or block legislation moving through the chamber.

Reid has not offered an official proposal, but he wants to eliminate the filibuster used to block debate on a piece of legislation. Proponents of the rule change say it will make the Senate more efficient. Opponents, who call it the “nuclear option,” say it will accelerate growing partisanship in the Senate, making it harder to get things done.

 

Read Full Article Here

Politics, Legislation and Economy News

Obama, Boehner launch second effort to reach grand bargain to cut deficit

By Alexander Bolton
The Hill

As the talks begin formally at the White House on Friday, lawmakers and special-interest groups are scrambling to figure out who else will be in the room and how to influence the outcome.

Obama will host Boehner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) at 10:15 a.m. in the Roosevelt Room. Senior congressional aides, however, describe it as more of a photo-op than a substantive bargaining session.Informal talks are already under way, behind the scenes, between White House officials and congressional staff, according to a senior Senate aide. Obama has also called the Democratic leaders of the Senate and House to organize strategy.

A senior House Democratic aide said Obama and Pelosi have spoken three times since the election.

A senior House Republican aide, however, said Obama’s staff has not begun any informal talks with Boehner’s staff.

Congressional leadership aides say Obama and Boehner will pick up where they left off in the summer of 2011, when they almost sealed a deal to cut hundreds of billions from Medicare and Medicaid and raise nearly $800 billion in new tax revenues.

Obama and Boehner will lead the talks, but there will be more input from other congressional leaders this time compared to last year, when reports of the concessions Obama made to Boehner in private caught Democrats by surprise.

Reid confronted Jack Lew, then the White House budget director, in July of 2011 about why he had been kept in the dark about hundreds of billions of dollars in proposed cuts.

“I’m the Senate majority leader — why don’t I know about this deal?” Reid demanded as soon as Lew walked into a meeting with Senate Democrats.

Congressional Democrats are pressing for more access to the talks.

“I think everybody operates under the assumption that Speaker Boehner will need Democratic help on any proposal to get it out of the House,” said a Democratic aide. “I would think House Republicans would very much want House Democratic leadership at the table when any deal gets cut.”

Senior congressional aides say there is no fixed negotiating group, such as a Gang of Six or a Committee of 12, as in past negotiations. The cast of participants will fluctuate as various players bid for their priorities. Yet the ultimate deciders will be Obama and Boehner.

Republicans think Obama will be able to bring his party along to support any deal he signs off on, while Democrats say the House GOP conference, dominated by conservatives, will prove the biggest obstacle to passing a grand bargain through Congress.

“The only way we’re going to solve this present crisis and get past the political stalemate is for the president himself to lead,” McConnell said Thursday. “He’s the only one who can lead the members of his own party to do something they wouldn’t ordinarily do.”

“I think Pelosi and Reid will go along with whatever the White House delivers. It’s what Boehner can deliver” that will determine what gets through Congress, said a Republican senator.

Republican senators predict members of their conference will sign off on any deal Boehner can move through the House.

“We’re going to have to get something that the president will sign and that the House will pass. And I think that [if] you get that, it will then ultimately have enough votes to pass in the Senate,” Sen. John Barrasso (Wyo.), chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, said in an MSNBC interview.

Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl (Ariz.) said McConnell would be Boehner’s “wingman” in the talks.

Some Democrats worry about the prospect of letting Obama and his senior advisers hash out a deal with Boehner on their own. They remember the steep cuts he reportedly agreed to in 2011 and the deal he struck with McConnell in December of 2010 to extend virtually all the Bush-era tax rates.

House Democrats are demanding that Pelosi not be shut out of the talks, as she was in December of 2010, the last time the Bush tax cuts were due to expire.

“She’s the Democratic leader of the House and I think she has to be at the table. Absolutely,” said Rep. Henry Waxman (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee and a Pelosi ally. “I’d expect she’d want to be at the table. She better be.”

Rep. Sandy Levin (Mich.), the ranking Democrat on the Ways and Means panel, said Pelosi’s participation is “vital.”

He said Democratic members of the Ways and Means panel would work closely with Pelosi.

Pelosi said in a statement Thursday that “House Democrats will act as partners in an effort to reach an agreement.”

Senate sources see the active involvement of Pelosi and Reid as intended to keep Obama from drifting too far toward accepting Republican demands on cutting Medicare and other safety-net programs.

During the last round of talks with Boehner, Obama’s representatives agreed to cut $250 billion from Medicare over the next decade and use a new formula to calculate cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security benefits, according to The New York Times.

Reid has insisted Social Security stay off the bargaining table.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Reid’s deputy, told reporters Wednesday that any deal to avoid the fiscal cliff must increase tax rates on families earning more than $250,000 annually.

Obama will press congressional leaders Friday not to let disagreements over taxing the wealthy or reforming safety-net programs imperil a deal to extend current tax rates for middle-income families.

“The president will also reiterate that he wants to work with leaders in both parties to achieve a significant, balanced deficit-reduction plan that puts our nation on a sustainable fiscal path,” said a White House official.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee, thinks Obama will drive a harder bargain with Republicans this December.

“I’m absolutely convinced that this time there will be a different end to this movie because the president has been absolutely clear that if we want to be serious about reducing the deficit, we’ve got to ask very wealthy people to contribute,” he said during a recent C-SPAN “Newsmakers” interview.

Politics, Legislation and Economy News

 

 

 

***************************************************************************************************

Hmmmm, I  smell bitter contest and vote  recount  for this election, don’t  you?

***************************************************************************************************

After Bush v Gore, Obama, Clinton backed Electoral College reforms

By Mario Trujillo

President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are among the politicians whose past criticisms of the Electoral College system would draw new scrutiny if there is a split verdict in this year’s presidential election.

National and swing state polls suggest it’s possible Republican Mitt Romney could win this year’s popular vote while Obama triumphs in the Electoral College — potentially marking the second time the rare split in outcomes has occurred in the last 12 years.

The last time it happened was in 2000, when Democratic candidate Al Gore won the popular vote but lost where it mattered. George W. Bush won Florida’s disputed recount, propelling him to 271 electoral votes — one more than he needed to take the White House.

The outcome triggered an intense — if shortlived — debate over reforming the Electoral College. Today, lawmakers in Washington are no closer to agreeing on whether to change the rules of how someone wins the presidency.

Here’s a snapshot of where top lawmakers have came down on a controversial issue that’s once again in the political spotlight.

SUPPORT REFORM

President Obama — Obama said he supported eliminating the Electoral College as a Senate candidate during a WTTW television debate against Republican Alan Keyes in 2004.

When asked, “Yes or no, eliminate the Electoral College?” Obama responded, “Yes … I think, at this point, this is breaking down.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — Shortly after the 2000 election, as a newly-minted Senator-elect, Clinton called for direct elections of the president. She argued the country has changed since the Electoral College was put in place.

“We are a very different country than we were 200 years ago,” Clinton said at a news conference.

“I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it’s time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president.”

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) — Five days after the 2000 election, Schumer called the U.S. voting system “antediluvian” and called for a study of simplified procedures. He, too, favored scrapping the Electoral College but said three-fourths of the states would never ratify an amendment.

“It won’t happen,” he said, according to The Associated Press.

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) — The minority whip acted as soothsayer for the split-ticket election results in 2000.

A week before the Nov. 7 election that year, Durbin announced his plan to introduce legislation to do away with the Electoral College process, calling it a “dinosaur.”

“Our current system disenfranchises millions of voters who happen to vote for the losing presidential candidate in their state,” Durbin said. “The electoral college is an 18th century invention that never should have survived to the 21st century.”

He announced the proposal with then-Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), who is now Obama’s Secretary of Transportation.

Former Vice President Al Gore — After the 2000 election, Gore continued to support the current system. But Gore reversed course during this year’s Democratic National Convention, criticizing the process that ignores voters outside of swing states and cost him the election.

“I’ve seen how these states are written off and ignored, and people are effectively disenfranchised in the presidential race. And I really do now think it is time to change that,” Gore said on Current TV, an independent cable network that he co-founded.

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) and 29 Democratic cosponsors signed on to a bill during the current Congress that calls for the direct election of the president and vice president.

“The Electoral College is a relic, a throwback largely due to the slave-owners who dominated the politics of our new nation at its beginning,” Jackson wrote in a 2008 editorial.

Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y), the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, this week proposed a constitutional amendment that would give 29 extra electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote.

AGAINST REFORM

Vice President Biden — A 36-year veteran of the Senate, Biden voted against a resolution in 1979 providing for “the direct popular election of the president.” The resolution fell short of the two-thirds majority needed.

It was the last resolution of its kind to make it to the floor.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) also voted against the 1979 resolution while a number of current Democratic Senators voted for it — including Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.).

During prior years, the Senate and House had both approved separate proposals, but never in the same Congress.

A prominent sponsor and advocate for the resolution, Sen. Birch Bayh (D-Ind.), retired in 1980 and momentum for the proposal dropped.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — The Senate minority leader told the Associated Press two days after the 2000 election that presidential candidates would avoid small states if the Electoral College was eliminated.

“If we did away with the Electoral College, an awful lot of states would never get a visit from a presidential candidate,” McConnell said.

In 2011, McConnell blasted a national popular vote movement that would circumvent a constitutional amendment. He claimed it would lead to an extreme number of recounts.

“The proponents of this absurd and dangerous concept are trying to get this done while nobody notices, just sort of sneak this through,” and “we need to kill it in the cradle before it grows up.”

The National Popular Vote bill is a state-sponsored reform that would award a state’s electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote.

The law would be triggered once enough states signed on to form a majority, essentially bypassing the Electoral College.

Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) — The chairwoman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee shares the same opinion as McConnell about smaller states losing power without the system.

“Washington (state) would be hurt dramatically,” Murray told a Vancouver, Wash., high school on Nov. 20, 2000.

“Presidential candidates wouldn’t come here.”

UNCOMMITTED

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) — Nine days after the 2000 election, Ryan said Gore should accept the totals from the machine recount that gave president Bush a 300-vote margin in Florida, with some absentee ballots still to be counted.

He criticized the hand recount in some counties and blasted the Gore campaign for trying to decide the election through the courts.

“We should have the certified vote that we have right now,” Ryan said on Fox News. “Then when we have the absentees come in, we should pick a winner. We should pick a loser. The other guy should concede, and we should stop dragging the nation through this incredible lawyer-infested, subjective courtroom drama that we’re seeing.”

Former President Bill Clinton — Shortly after his wife came out in support of Electoral College reform, and in the middle of the Bush-Gore recount, then-president Clinton said he had conflicting views about the issue.

“I have mixed feelings about it … And the practical reasons are no longer relevant,” Clinton said at a White House briefing seven days after the election.

“The other argument is that it gives some more weight to the small states … and, arguably, it gets more attention from the candidates to the small states. Now, I think that ought to be examined. I’m not necessarily sure that’s so.”

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 733 other followers