Democrats & Liberals Archives

Republicans Worry about Child Care

Ever since Republicans took over the presidency and the Congress, nothing was said or done about child care. Emphasis was solidly on tax cuts for the wealthy, and subsidies and other handouts for big business. Now that Democrats control Congress, Republicans are beginning to worry about child care.

The Washington Post reports a change in Republican view:

Brushing aside threats of a presidential veto, a Senate committee on Thursday approved a five-year, $35 billion expansion of a children's health insurance program that would be financed through higher tobacco taxes.

A majority of Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee joined all of the committee's Democrats in voting to reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The program subsidizes insurance for children and some adults with incomes too high for Medicaid but not high enough to afford private insurance. The vote was 17-4.

Terrific news. But what does the Bush Administration say? Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt is explaining Bush's veto threat:

We are ready to renew our commitment to low-income children today, but we cannot agree to a gradual government takeover of health care - and neither will the American people.

I wonder what Leavitt means when he says they "are ready to renew our commitment to low-income children"? Republicans in Congress are wondering too. They are doing more than wondering, they are extremely nervous. What are they nervous about? Listen to Senator Gordon Smith:

On the one hand, you've got the veto threat. On the other hand is the political importance of expanding healthcare for children. This is public policy broadly supported by the American people.

Though he is nervous Senator Smith is ready to vote to override the expected Bush veto. So are many other Republicans. Enough for a possible override. So says Senator Orrin Hatch:

I personally believe there is a reasonable chance he'll be overridden, but I don't want to make any predictions.

Republicans are worried about child care or they are worried about what will happen to them if they do not worry about child care. Either way, the news is good. The chances of the child care measure becoming law is good. YOU can improve its chances by urging your representative and senators to vote for it.

Posted by Paul Siegel at July 23, 2007 4:59 PM
Comments
Comment #227192

It’s the standard Republican flip flop. When in power, work for those who pay to get you reelected. When out of power, dust of the compassionate Christian rhetoric to get back into power. Somehow I don’t think it will work for a quick return to power. But, what else do they have to work with besides their failures in smaller government, lower spending, and compassion for the individual with needs?

Democrats at least don’t hide their pandering to the majority of Americans, all of whom have infinite demands to make upon a government of limited means. They will bankrupt the country and argue it was what the people demanded and needed right after patting themselves on the back. :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 23, 2007 5:17 PM
Comment #227197

Yet another example of just how little difference there is between the two corrupt party’s and another reason I will never vote for anybody who votes in favor of any tax hike or pay cut.

Can’t say that I am the least bit surprised and its only going to get worse.

Posted by: kctim at July 23, 2007 5:48 PM
Comment #227203

I really wonder where liberals will get money when they can no longer rob tobacco users of not only their money but also their Constitutional Right against discrimination. I believe the last million smokers should get a Congressional Medal to honor their sacrifice for the nation.
I received my latest MOveOn.Org shameless pandering for money email today and they cited two places to get the money. 1. Tobacco and 2. clamp down on the horrible “for-profit” (their words, not mine) insurance companies. Have they never stopped to consider what life would be like with no insurance available. And, why is it that only the “for-profit” companies are singled out and not the mutuals and fraternals? Is there not a single business they they don’t hate? Finally, please cite me one example where government has done a better job of providing goods or services, at a lower cost and better efficiency than private industry.

Posted by: Jim at July 23, 2007 6:45 PM
Comment #227204

Jim, the IRS. When the Republican Congress authorized contracting out IRS services to private contractors, the cost of collections went way up and efficiency went down.

The military, one of our most important services, was far less expensive before the Bush administration contracted out to the private sector as in Haliburton and BlackWater.

Many things the government spends money on, cost far more than if a for profit corporation would pay for the same service or product. But, that is not an inherent flaw in government, that is a flaw in the officials who are elected and bribed and blackmailed by wealthy special interests.

The Interstate Highway system would not exist if the government didn’t work with states to build it. The Tenn. Valley Authority could not possibly have provided the electricity to the remote customer base of the Appalachians if left to the profit world to do.

There are many things government does, that private industry or the states simply won’t or can’t. Whether government gets value for our tax dollars is a question of competence of elected officials and their staffs. Not of government itself. See my article in the center column on an Unplanned America.

Government can and will be far more efficient and frugal with tax dollars WHEN the voters trade their vote for those goals, instead of wasting it on party loyalty and a 100’s of millions of dollars in PR/Marketing of political image.

Voting out incumbents who haven’t made bang for tax dollar buck a highest priority, is the crucial and major step that Americans must take in order to get a more responsible group of representatives.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 23, 2007 7:11 PM
Comment #227206

Jim,

Not sure how your post is relevant to the topic, but I’ll bite.

1) There is no constitutional right against “discrimination” writ large. There is a constitutional right to the equal protection of the law so that Americans aren’t deprived of the fundamental rights of citizenship. This protects against certain types of discrimination.

Last I checked, smoking was not a fundamental right of citizenship. Congress can tax it, make it illegal — whatever they want to do. I’m not saying they should, but it’s certainly constitutional.

2) Examples of government doing a better job providing services? I’ll do better than that:
First, our own VA health care system.
Second, the French health care system.
Third, the German health care system.
All provide better quality health care at lower cost and with shorter or similar wait times to that of the American insurance-based system. A recent article in Business Week attested to this fact, but I have no link to it. After having furnished you with 3 examples, the least you can do is look it up yourself.

Three for the price of one. You’re welcome.

Posted by: Yossarian at July 23, 2007 7:20 PM
Comment #227209

My challenge was, “please cite me one example where government has done a better job of providing goods or services, at a lower cost and better efficiency than private industry.” I don’t consider building roads and our military in that category. Using your logic, is there nothing that government couldn’t do better? Why not nationalize everything? What would you exempt?
With regard to the VA, what is the actual comparison of costs vs the same care in a private setting? And citing the French health care system as one that works at a lower expense is just foolish. I have spent time in France, Germany and Great Britian and their tax-payers will tell anyone who will listen that they are paying an exhorbitant amount for the care they receive, when they can get care.
I find it interesting that no one mentioned Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid as great examples of government “efficiency and lower cost.” Why do smokers have to bear the burden of paying for this program? Are smokers evil and worthy of being discriminated against. Why not tax other unhealthy life choices? Any one want their beer taxed 1000% or more? How about your fat laden burger and fries? O, yes, why not tax those who want to kill their babys (not healthy for the baby) and also and those who have sex without a comdom and thereby risking disease. I could go on but I believe you understand. I believe we should “means-test” welfare by having those receiving it take regular drug tests. If one must submit to a drug test to hold the job to earn the money to pay for welfare we should expect the same from the recipient. We could get lots of people off the welfare roles and use the money to help pay for health care.

Posted by: Jim at July 23, 2007 8:11 PM
Comment #227223

Jim said: “I find it interesting that no one mentioned Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid as great examples of government “efficiency and lower cost.”

Quite right. Social Security was a great idea very badly implemented. The idea of insuring only those who needed it, was corrupted by those who said if I pay in I get back, regardless of whether I am a pauper or Bill Gates. Greed managed Social Security and now its on track toward having to cut everyone’s benefits down to 74% of current benefits to keep it solvent unless other changes are made.

Medicare has an entirely different set of problems not the least of which is its dependence upon the greed of the private health care system, HMO’s, Big Pharma, and Insurance companies dishing out multi million dollar salary packages and 10’s of millions of parachute retirement packages, and expense accounts for everything from personal residence renovation to credit card interest and fees paid for on private purchases.

You wanna see corporate patriotism. Look at Big Pharma. They sell their products at discount to every foreign nation on earth including Britain and Canada, and charge American consumers and government an arm and a leg more to underwrite their global expansion. Now that’s corporate American patriotism for you.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 23, 2007 10:38 PM
Comment #227225


You’ve got to be kidding when you cite the VA as an example of “government efficiency”. The Walter Reed debacle, the lwasuits that have been filed against the VA alleging poor care, wait times of up to 2 years for disability payments, and on and on and on. Medicare? Pemiums keep going up while reimbursements keep going down, doctors dropping out of the system because the reimbursements don’t even cover the cost of paperwork, and on and on and on.

The Interstate highway system was an example of something good from the government, when it was built. Then it was turned over to the states to maintain and it went down hill from there.

The military? Overpriced equipment, cost overruns, late contracts, delays from the Pentagon in providing our troops in the field with needed equipment and supplies, and on and on and on.

You can blame the Bush administration if you want to, but it didn’t start in 2000 when GW took office. The waste and corruption was there under Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, and on and on and on.

In the private sector, much of this would not be tolerated. As much as some may hate the idea, companies are in business to make money and the amount of wasted dollars in most Federal programs would bankrupt most companies. There are very few things the government can do that private enterprise couldn’t do better.

The conflict is not between governmet and private enterprise. It’s between career politicians and bureaucrats and those of us who pay the bills through our taxes. If we would tell Washington “No More!” and back it up with our votes, and stop voting for the prettiest candidate who promises us everything under the sun without telling us how they will pay for it, maybe government could become what it was meant to be: our servant instead of our master.

Posted by: John Back at July 23, 2007 10:48 PM
Comment #227227

The Walter Reed system is fine. It was the caliber of managers appointed to oversee it that was the problem. Republican appointed managers I might add.

I don’t recall any scandals over VA care under Clinton, but, perhaps that is an oversight on my part you can correct.

In the Army they drilled into us that their was the right way, many wrong ways, and then the Army way. And can you believe it, they were proud of saying that? It’s quite profound.

The VA system has at times been inadequate and at others, the best in the world. Its the managers who make it what it is. One General resigned over it recognizing his failed responsibility for oversight. It was bad management that created the scandal over the outpatient housing quarters. Not the design of the VA system itself.

Just like there is next to nothing flawed with our enlisted and junior officer corps of our military in Iraq. The cause of the Iraq debacle we now find ourselves in, is bad civilian management at the very top, and some top brass that sided with it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 23, 2007 11:06 PM
Comment #227229

John Back said: “You can blame the Bush administration if you want to, but it didn’t start in 2000 when GW took office. The waste and corruption was there under Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, and on and on and on.”

This is ever so true. And the root cause was the private wealthy lobbyist sector’s influence upon politicians through our corrupt campaign financing system that is now destroying our democratic constitutional republic right and economic future right before our very eyes.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 23, 2007 11:09 PM
Comment #227235

In form, I think Clinton was a clear winner, followed by Edwards and then Obama. In form, I’d give it to the unwinnables: Gravel and Kucinich. I thought the format was terrible and contributed to the dumbing down of discourse in America.

How do YOU feel about the debate tonight? Who do YOU think won the debate? Vote for your candidate on http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=217

Make your voice heard. You can vote on polls on the topic of importance to you, and if it’s not there, you can sign up and create a poll in less than a minute (literally).

It’s new, it’s easy and it’s cool…and above all, it’s good for the public debate.

http://www.youpolls.com. Check it out.

Posted by: Frankie at July 24, 2007 12:08 AM
Comment #227238

Jim,

Reframe, reframe, reframe. And everyone else bit. Let’s not talk about the hypocracy of the Bush admin vetoing this bill, let’s talk about the poor smokers. Let’s not talk about all the people in this country without health insurance, let’s talk about how Government Is Wasteful. Reframe the debate and you cancel out your opponent’s arguement. Well done, Jimbo, but ya missed me, so let’s get back on subject, shall we?

So which is worse, the Reps pandering for votes with the “compassionate conservative” schpeal, or Dubya threatening the veto?

L

Posted by: leatherankh at July 24, 2007 12:27 AM
Comment #227241

Good on you, Leatherahnk; childcare is a subject worth discussion and I simply despise misdirection. However, with your question, I find myself in a too-familiar position: forced to choose between two evils. That the Shrub only vetoes bills actually worth something to my country doesn’t really surprise me any longer. The man sickens me. Has ever since I watched him sit silent and dumb for seven minutes.
The pandering, however, is something I’m only now old enough to really recognize for what it is. I’m 31 years old and I watch the news and listen to the radio every day. Pretty significant for a female in this country, apparently, but there you have it. This point is harder for me to address. On the one hand, I have my knee-jerk reaction that says, “Quit saying what I want to hear!” because I long for a little honesty in my government. On the other hand, the shakier one, admittedly, I say, “I would rather have the pandering because this time some good might come of it”. The only reason that hand has any point to hold is because there’s precious little obvious good happening right now.

I guess my answer really is, of the two evils, the Shrub is the lesser because his term is, thankfully, limited.

Posted by: Spring at July 24, 2007 1:01 AM
Comment #227246

Paul,

My intent was to “show” you that Bush hated the whole SCHIPS program from the very beginning.

Alas I can find no substantiation on line, but I’m absolutely positive that Texas was either dead last to implement Clinton’s SCHIPS program or darn close to it.

Oh well anyone that can declare Jesus Day as a state holiday can make anything disappear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Day

I wish I could find a historical implementation record of SCHIPS but I can’t, the furthest back I can find is 2003. It was implemented in 1997 so their should be an open record.

Posted by: KansasDem at July 24, 2007 2:42 AM
Comment #227251
I really wonder where liberals will get money when they can no longer rob tobacco users of not only their money but also their Constitutional Right against discrimination.

Last time I checked, no smokers were being taxed more than anyone else…tobacco products are being taxed, not smokers!! In most locales, food is not taxed, but snack products are…it’s a product, not a people tax!!

Posted by: Rachel at July 24, 2007 7:48 AM
Comment #227253
How do YOU feel about the debate tonight? Who do YOU think won the debate?

What debate? There hasn’t been a real candidate debate since….when? All these televised, mega-candidate brawls are merely a group press conference…our country would be much better off if our candidates actually had a real debate!!

Posted by: Rachel at July 24, 2007 7:53 AM
Comment #227264

Rachel, governments can’t get a cent out of a bag of chips or pack of cigarettes. The manufacturer does not put money in the chips or cigarette pack. The people that buy them pay the tax, ergo, the tax is on those people making the purchase.

Show me a product where the mfr. puts the tax money in the product and I may agree the consumer isn’t taxed. Of course, I would then have to conclude the mfr is taxed if that money in the product isn’t reflected in the retail purchase price. The word game in your comment is silly.

Governments tax people. Not products. Products are merely the avenue through which the government collects sales tax from the people. The people pay the tax, the people are taxed. The product is merely a conveyance of the tax from consuming people to the people in government to the private sector which the government spends the tax revenues on.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 24, 2007 11:20 AM
Comment #227266
governments can’t get a cent out of a bag of chips or pack of cigarettes. The manufacturer does not put money in the chips or cigarette pack. The people that buy them pay the tax, ergo, the tax is on those people making the purchase.

The tax is still on the product…people have a choice (although not much of one once they’re addicted, yes addicted, just like heroin and oxycontin, to nicotine…and the tobacco manufacturers have upped the nicotine content by 10% over the past year)whether or not buy a product…there used to be a tax on alcohol…there used to be an excise tax on telephone usage…

Sounds mostly like cigarette smokers are having an increasingly difficult time affording their “habit”…we need to use some of that tobacco tax to fund programs to help smokers stop…

Posted by: Rachel at July 24, 2007 11:26 AM
Comment #227268

Jim et al
More examples: Your fire dept,your sewer and water district,possibly you power company,you police dept.

DR SS is the most successful anti-poverty program of all time. The expense runs about 2% as opposed to 10-15% for private annuities. SS provides benefits like spousal,dependant and disability coverage that would be enourmously expensive in the private market. The expected benefit reductions are a long way off,about 2043,giving plenty of time for corrective changes plus us boomers that cause the “bubble” will be dropping dead in droves by then. Even those that will not be recieving benefits for many years benefit from less expense in caring for their ageing parents.SS is a good program,well administered. The weakness is in the governments borrowing practices,not SS.

Posted by: BillS at July 24, 2007 11:58 AM
Comment #227272

Sounds mostly like cigarette smokers are having an increasingly difficult time affording their “habit”…we need to use some of that tobacco tax to fund programs to help smokers stop…

Posted by: Rachel at July 24, 2007 11:26 AM

Rachel, with such brilliant logic you could easily be elected to public office in a liberal setting. If we all try real hard perhaps we can think of other groups of Americans who are “addicted” to a product or service that we can tax to save them from themselves. I am 66 years old, have worked all my adult life, paid some substantial taxes, saved a little money, raised a family, managed my own finances and health care, and now I find, I need government to help me overcome my so-called addiction to tobacco.
I was quite surprised yesterday in the MoveOn.org memo that they were only interested in curbing insurance company abuse when they needed the money for their cause. If there is abuse in the industry, why not proscecute now? The Dems control Congress and should go after these so-called thieves. MOveOn.org’s primary mouthpiece, Hillary Clinton is much more honest. She comes right out and says we need to take the profits away from oil companies. And when she is president, I am quite confident she will find other industries and individuals from whom her government can legally sieze private property.

Posted by: Jim at July 24, 2007 12:17 PM
Comment #227273

DR SS is the most successful anti-poverty program of all time. The expense runs about 2% as opposed to 10-15% for private annuities. SS provides benefits like spousal,dependant and disability coverage that would be enourmously expensive in the private market. The expected benefit reductions are a long way off,about 2043,giving plenty of time for corrective changes plus us boomers that cause the “bubble” will be dropping dead in droves by then. Even those that will not be recieving benefits for many years benefit from less expense in caring for their ageing parents.SS is a good program,well administered. The weakness is in the governments borrowing practices,not SS.

Posted by: BillS at July 24, 2007 11:58 AM

Are you saying that SS is only taking a combined 2% from the income I earn on which both I and my employer pay? If so, as my own employer I need to refile all my tax returns and get a refund for grossly overpaying.
For your information, SS does not pay for care for the elderly and neither does Medicare except for a very brief time in a skilled nursing facility. Your confusing this with the wonderful Medicaid program that is bankrupt and being used by many middle income and wealthy people as their own private estate protection insurance at the expense of the truly needy.

Posted by: Jim at July 24, 2007 12:26 PM
Comment #227281

Jim, you miss the economics on smokers. Help them quit for a few hundred dollars, and government saves 100’s of thousands on long-term care for them with emphysema, cancer, advanced COPD under Medicare and Medicaid. You argument is penny wise and pound foolish.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 24, 2007 2:52 PM
Comment #227285

Rachel, the tax is associated with a product, in order to deter the consumers behavior in purchasing the product. The tax is aimed not at the product, but, the consumer of it.

If government wanted to tax tobacco, they would tax the tobacco farmers who grow it, right out of growing it. The tax is instead aimed at the consumers of the product in the hopes that raising its price will deter their consumption. This kind of social engineering of behavior through tax policy has rarely if ever been more than marginally successful.

The taxes on alcohol have not deterred drinking. But, they have added revenues for the government to spend on enforcing the collection of the taxes by the ATF. That is why I never trust a politician who says taxes targeting consumers to alter their behavior is why they are levying the taxes. It is a lie and deceitful. The end use of the tax too often ends up paying for the enforcement and collection of the tax from the consumer, not to help the consumer.

Now, if tobacco tax revenues were funneled back into smoking cessation programs, the tax would make sense from the consumer’s POV. But, to a politician, that makes no sense. If tobacco users quit using tobacco, the politician would lose revenue for their pork projects.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 24, 2007 3:04 PM
Comment #227287

Kansas Dem…..check out this site and see if there’s anything helpful…it is dated ‘97.
http://www.westgov.org/wga/publicat/schips.htm

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at July 24, 2007 3:17 PM
Comment #227288
I am 66 years old, have worked all my adult life, paid some substantial taxes, saved a little money, raised a family, managed my own finances and health care, and now I find, I need government to help me overcome my so-called addiction to tobacco.

And what other agency other than the federal government (who still subsidizes tobacco growers!) would have the clout to call the cigarette companies’ ploy of adding 10% more nicotine to their products to keep their customers addicted???

Posted by: Rachel at July 24, 2007 3:24 PM
Comment #227289

David, thanks for your thoughtful post. I give up trying to convince liberals that government interference in the legal conduct of our daily lives is not worthy of our Constitution. I hear them shouting about defending “free speech” to the death in some of their blogs but these pitiful folks fail to understand a simple concept of unfair taxation. Taxing smokers into their conception of “good behavior” is neither right or honorable…it’s despicable. Logic and common sense is not the liberal “long suit” and their deck contains too many jokers.

Posted by: Jim at July 24, 2007 3:25 PM
Comment #227290

“And what other agency other than the federal government (who still subsidizes tobacco growers!) would have the clout to call the cigarette companies’ ploy of adding 10% more nicotine to their products to keep their customers addicted???”

And people who choose to smoke them is your business because….?

Posted by: kctim at July 24, 2007 3:53 PM
Comment #227308

Jim
I mentioned niether Medicare or medicaid.I was speaking of financial care. The 2% I mentioned is for administrative overhead. As to you or your dependants getting their monies worth,that remains to be seen but you do have a safety net and at some point you are likely to help care for your ageing parents. SS will help with that even if they planned well and do not need it it is likely to increase your inheritance.

Posted by: BillS at July 24, 2007 7:00 PM
Comment #227313

Jim, fiscal policy is why I left the Democratic Party many years ago, and why I stay away today. They just don’t understand the concept of a limited role for government, limited to what is fair, just, and achievable for the benefit of both the nation’s and the collective people’s future of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness WITH responsibility (ability to respond appropriately).

I agree with Democrats on many of their social issues, education IS a national issue, those who prosper more should pay more, and our role in the world is to lead others by example, defend ourselves. But, Democrats could not be more wrong on some of their issues like putting Americans first instead of trying to make foreigners citizens for the asking, regardless of the effect upon America or Americans. Or, championing the power of unions to force employers to retain lousy employees by objective criteria. I am for unions. I oppose some of the power unions exercise for no better reason than they can. I am for corporations and business, just not the some of the power they wield to intimidate and coerce, for no better reason than they can.

Makes me an independent voter in search of a better politician and government.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 24, 2007 7:26 PM
Comment #227335

And cigarettes relate to child care how?

Posted by: Spring at July 24, 2007 9:30 PM
Comment #227360

Spring, I guess by reciprocal. Republicans are now concerned about child care being out of power. Democrats are concerned with raising taxes because they are in power. Hence, stealing from smokers to spend on Child Care is morally responsible I guess, according to Democrats? It is a stretch, I know.

Good Point. I apologize for having contributed to taking the topic off track.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 25, 2007 3:11 AM
Comment #227377

And cigarettes relate to child care how?

Posted by: Spring at July 24, 2007 09:30 PM

Spring, my original post referenced a fund-raising email from MoveOn.Org, the group that sets the agenda for the Democrat Candidates. They recommeded two resources to pay for this huge expenditure; 1. more tax on tobacco and 2. take money from insurance companies that they claim are ripping off the public. One of the posts above accused me of “redirection” or “reframing” the question. Not true, my comments directly address how the money is supposedly found to pay for the plan. Again I say, will the last few thousand smokers please report to Congress for receipt of their “Congressional Medals of Honor” for their sacrifice in balancing the federal budget and making possible health care for everyone. When the last smoker quits or dies, what new “cash cow” will be found to gore?

Posted by: Jim at July 25, 2007 1:21 PM
Comment #227413

Jim, If I had my way it would be corporate welfare and the bloated military budget.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 26, 2007 12:16 AM
Comment #378438

We have seen coach outlet store online, and even rappers valentino cash or organize a coach factory outlet.They’re very valentino shoes also isabel marant shoes to twirl air jordan, on the coach factory outlet, at your coach outlet store online, and basically prada outlet everywhere coach factory outlet you can get a coach factory.I was living in michael kors, managing a small prada outlet accessories michael kors outlet online several “true religion jeans” that coach factory with natural coach outlet in tiffany jewelry ways, coach factory outlet will feature coach factory outlet store experience by michael kors outlet.There’s also those lightweight louis vuitton handbags that are giuseppe zanotti, but they usually come in true religion outlet that are cheap jerseys when it comes marc jacobs matching. So the timberland boots? sac burberry we may not be tiffany jewelry able to Polo ralph lauren it takes to be coach outlet online, we can coach factory outlet a little supra shoes. Available michael kors outlet store includes celine outlet reworked coach factory outlet online and the louis vuitton outlet. We’re sure toms shoes michael kors outlet on alexander wang handbags; louis vuitton outlet - with the timberland shoes and oversized alexander wang, the focus isn’t coach factory outlet online on your tiffany and co anyway!Game of true religion jeans aren’t going to read fitflop shoes!we’re bringing you simple and chic work-celine handbags ideas to answer the alexander wang shoes “what should I wear for the toms shoes?Now that I have this marc by marc jacobs outlet, I can apply my makeup michael kors outlet, which means I can sleep in 10 minutes later or giuseppe zanotti sneakers when I am getting ready.We’re used to the fitflop sandals of the female body shape, but now it seems the male model’s physique can be as varied as the clothes he wears.

Posted by: coach outlet at May 17, 2014 1:16 AM
Post a comment