House Passes Interior-EPA Appropriations Bill to Rein in Costly Obama Regulations

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Bradley Wyatt on Friday, July 15th, 2016, 11:23 AM PERMALINK


With a vote of 231-196, the Republican led House passed its $32 billon Interior-EPA spending bill, the first time in seven years that the House has passed such a spending bill. The final vote count was largely along party lines with 228 Republicans voting in favor and 181 Democrats in opposition. This spending bill contains a number of positive spending reductions and looks to rein in the Obama Administration’s over regulation.

The spending bill, H.R. 5538, enables reduction of wasteful spending and harmful, unnecessary regulations. The spending bill also provides $32.1 billion in funding, which is a $64 million reduction from fiscal year 2016 and $1 billion below the Administration’s budget request. Under the spending bill, the EPA would see a reduction of $164 million from FY 2016 levels, which is $291 million below the amount requested in Obama’s budget request. The Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and the Land and Water Conservation Fund also see funding reductions under the bill.

The EPA-Interior spending bill would not only reduce EPA regulatory programs by 6 percent, but contains a number of provisions that would rein in costly regulations, such as the Clean Power Plan (CPP), and the Waters of the U.S. rule (WOTUS). The Obama Administration’s myriad of proposed and enacted regulations increase the price of energy in the U.S., reduce GDP, and threaten millions of American jobs.

Provisions of the bill meant to rein in Obama’s regulatory regime include:

  • Prohibiting EPA from implementing new greenhouse gas regulations for new or existing power plants;
  • Eliminating funding for greenhouse gas “New Source Performance Standards”;
  • Prohibiting EPA implementation of WOTUS;
  • Prohibiting EPA from changing the definition of “fill materials”;
  • Prohibitions on new methane requirements;
  • Prohibiting the regulation of the lead content of ammunition and fishing tackle; and
  • Prohibitions on harmful changes to the “stream buffer rule”


Americans for Tax Reform supports H.R. 5538’s spending reductions and measures that rein in costly executive overreach. The efforts of the bill’s Sponsor Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.) and the House Republicans will help rein in spending and protect American taxpayers, consumers, and businesses, from the costly and harmful effects of regulations put forth under the Obama Administration.

 

Photo Credit: Daniel Mennerich

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Nita Shafer

Defund the EPA completely. I will enjoy watching EPA pukes clearing out their desks.


Congress Must Stop Obamacare Reinsurance Bailout

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Natalie De Vincenzi, Alexander Hendrie on Friday, July 15th, 2016, 10:19 AM PERMALINK


Obamacare drastically increased both federal spending as well as the costs of health insurance. In order to disguise the costs to American families, the law has relied on a web of confusing spending programs, subsidies, and taxes.

Among these programs are the reinsurance, risk corridors and risk adjustment programs which redistribute funds from different groups directly to Obamacare insurers. In the case of reinsurance, this took the form of a fee on each individual with private health insurance to raise $25 billion, including $5 billion that would go back to taxpayers via the Treasury general fund.

In practice the reinsurance program has failed to work as promised, like so many other parts of the law. As a result, the Obama Department of Health and Human Services has funneled money from treasury’s general fund in direct violation of federal law. As announced earlier this year, Obamacare insurance companies would receive $7.7 billion through the reinsurance program – $6 billion obtained from a fee on private health insurance and $1.7 billion taken from the Treasury general fund. Because HHS did the same last year, this means a total of $3.5 billion has been stolen from taxpayers using the reinsurance program.

This decision clearly violates federal law. Section 1341 of Obamacare, which establishes reinsurance, explicitly allocates taxpayer dollars that “shall be deposited into the general fund of the Treasury of the United States and may not be used for the [reinsurance] program established under this section.”

A memo released by analysts at the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service found that federal law “unambiguously” states funds must be deposited into the Treasury general fund. Similarly, former White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray called the diverting of funds “unlawful” and questioned how it could possibly withstand legal scrutiny.

Despite this, the administration shows no signs of returning taxpayer funds. To force these funds to be returned, Congressman Mark Walker (R-N.C) recently introduced the “Taxpayers Before Insurers Act,” legislation that stops the Obama administration from illegally bailing out insurance companies through redirecting taxpayers funds to the Obamacare reinsurance slush fund. Companion legislation has also been introduced in the Senate by Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE).

This pro-taxpayer legislation forces the Obama Department of Health and Human Services to obey the law and return billions in funds to their rightful owner – the American people. If they fail to do so, the legislation strips HHS of billions in taxpayer funds.

This is just one of many cases where the federal government has utilized wasteful or illegal subsidies and payments to keep Obamacare afloat.  In the past few years, the government has stolen a total of $8.5 billion in taxpayer dollars to illegally fund Obamacare through programs like reinsurance, and the law has provided more than $170 billion in corporate welfare payments to special interests.

The fact is, the $3.5 billion in Obamacare reinsurance corporate welfare payments are merely the latest effort by the administration to ignore the law to the benefit of monied special interests. Members of Congress should stop this latest cash grab and support Congressman Walker’s Taxpayers Before Insurers Act.

Photo Credit: 
Pictures of Money

Top Comments

Cancel_NPR

obama and his communists fcku-ing American taxpayers...
WHAT'S NEW ?
WHAT AN AASHOLE...


ATR Supports H.R. 5818, the Mandated Expenses Tax Relief Act of 2016

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Natalie De Vincenzi on Friday, July 15th, 2016, 9:58 AM PERMALINK


Earlier this week, Congressman Rod Blum (R-Iowa) introduced the Mandated Expenses Tax Relief Act of 2016. This important legislation allows assets that are used to comply with federal laws and regulations to be immediately expensed. Under current law, businesses must comply with the arbitrary and confusing system of depreciation. H.R. 5818 will allow any assets that are used to comply with federal regulations to be immediately expensed. In doing so, it will provide much needed relief to small businesses and make it easier for them to invest in new equipment and assets.

The letter can be found here and below: 

Dear Congressman Blum:

I write in support of the Mandated Expenses Tax Relief Act of 2016, legislation to allow small businesses to immediately expense the purchase of property used to comply with federal laws and regulations.

Under current law, small businesses are allowed to expense up to $500,000 in business purchases under section 179 of the tax code. However, some of these purchases may be forced through federal regulations, rather than investments in the business.

This legislation offers relief to business owners by modifying section 179 to allow assets used to comply with federal laws and regulations to be expensed in addition to the $500,000 allowance.

In the perfect world, businesses of all kind would be permitted to immediately expense all assets against their taxable income. It makes no sense that a business can write off a box of paper clips immediately but has to wait five years to recover the full cost of purchasing a computer, or seven years to recover the full cost of purchasing a desk.

Unfortunately, that is the system we have. This outdated, complex, and bizarre system places far too much of a burden on small businesses and should be replaced with the much simpler immediate, full business expensing.

While full expensing is the desired goal, this bill moves us in the right direction. By allowing small businesses to expense purchases associated with onerous government regulations, the Mandated Expenses Tax Relief Act grants important tax relief to millions of businesses across the country. ATR encourages all Members of Congress to support and co-sponsor this important legislation.

Onward,

Grover G. Norquist
President, Americans for Tax Reform

Photo Credit: 
http://401kcalculator.org

Top Comments


Top Obama Advisor: The Keep-It-In-The-Ground Movement is “Unrealistic”

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Bradley Wyatt on Thursday, July 14th, 2016, 3:44 PM PERMALINK


This week, President Obama’s top scientific advisor, John Holdren, bucked the Administration’s growing opposition to natural gas, stating that the “Keep-It-In-the-Ground” movement was “unrealistic.” It is clear that Holdren, who is the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, realizes the integral role reliable energy sources such as natural gas play, unlike some of his Administration counterparts who are beholden to far left ideology.

The Administration’s goal has been to continually drive affordable and reliable energy sources out of the market, through the use of executive policies and high-ended taxes. This goal is much in line with the ideology of the Keep-it-in-the-Ground movement, that opposes traditional energy sources. However, the Administration is wrong for demonizing traditional energy. When discussing energy policy, ridding the world of abundant, cost-effective, and reliable energy sources should not be a goal.

The increasing role of natural gas in America has been to create jobs, reduce energy costs, and do so with a lessened environmental impact, which may be a point some on the left like to ignore. Holdren however, has not been scared to tout the benefits of natural gas, much to the likely dismay of the President. Clearly it would be a good idea if our President spent a little more time listening to his staff and less focusing on his “green” legacy.

The irony of the disconnect between President Obama and his top advisor on reliable energy sources is that Obama was not always a student of the Keep-it-in-the-Ground Ideology. In 2013 President Obama remarked that:

“We’ve got to tap into this natural gas revolution that’s bringing energy costs down in this country, which means manufacturers now want to locate here because they’re thinking that we’ve got durable, reliable supplies of energy.”

The economic pain on taxpayers, energy consumers, and businesses can be felt from our current Administration’s regressive, anti-growth energy policies. Overregulation and subsidization are the two biggest problems with our current U.S. energy policies.

We need a government that will allow for the free market to decide and not depend on taxpayers to have to be responsible for the federal government’s irresponsible spending and regulation. Holdren’s comment on natural gas comes as the Administration seems intent on waging further war on affordable energy in the last year of his tenure as President. 

 

Photo Credit: dcblog

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


Norquist Statement in Support of Digital GAP Act

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Daniel Savickas on Thursday, July 14th, 2016, 12:52 PM PERMALINK


The Digital GAP Act, H.R. 5537, introduced by Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee Ed Royce, Republican Conference Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Ranking Member Eliot Engel and Rep. Grace Meng, passed out of the Foreign Affairs Committee on voice vote.

The following can be attributed to Americans For Tax Reform President, Grover Norquist:

“Passing the Digital Gap act would build on the success of the Electrify Africa Act passed last year.  The “Dig Once” policies, promoted in the Digital Gap Act, make sense in Africa and also in the United States of America.  When we export good ideas we should also use them ourselves at home.  The Digital Gap Act will increase the value of U.S. international aid contributions without increasing the burden on taxpayers.” 

Photo Credit: 
House Committee on Foreign Affairs

Top Comments


Rep. Hensarling’s Financial CHOICE Act Reins in Dodd-Frank, Increases Consumer Protections

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Thursday, July 14th, 2016, 11:15 AM PERMALINK


House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling’s (R-Texas) recently introduced Financial CHOICE Act (FCA) looks to rein in a myriad of onerous and costly regulations enacted under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act). In introducing the Act, Chairman Hensarling hopes to give Americans new ability to achieve financial independence and raise their standards of living, while also promoting economic growth for the economy as a whole.

Signed into law by President Obama in 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act was aimed at promoting financial stability in the U.S. However, since enactment Dodd-Frank has only increased financial instability, reduced consumer access while increasing costs, and burdened businesses with billions in compliance expenditures.

Dodd-Frank provisions such as the Durbin Amendment, Volcker Rule, and rules governing fiduciary duties lessen market liquidity and reduce access to financial products and services for millions of Americans. The creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) under Dodd-Frank empowered a new wave of unelected bureaucrats to essentially outlaw financial products unilaterally.

Thankfully, Chairman Hensarling’s Financial CHOICE Act provides much needed relief for financial consumers and U.S. businesses that have suffered under Dodd-Frank. The Financial CHOICE Act contains a number of pro-growth and pro-consumer reforms aimed at lessening Dodd-Frank’s regulatory burden and economic impact.  

Some of the most needed reforms under the Financial CHOICE Act are provisions reining in the CFPB.  For years the CFPB has been able to unilaterally ban certain financial services and products it deems “abusive” and has been able to collect personally identifiable information on consumers at will. The CFPB is also not subject to the appropriations process, leaving Congress with little oversight over the Bureau’s actions.

The Financial CHOICE Act would repeal the CFPB’s authority to ban bank products and services it deems “abusive” as well as requiring the Bureau to obtain permission before collecting personal information from consumers. The Act would also repeal the CFPB’s authority to prohibit arbitration, and would replace the current director with a five-member commission subject to congressional oversight and appropriations.

With regard to financial consumers, the Financial CHOICE Act would repeal price controls and regulations under Dodd-Frank’s Durbin Amendment that were imposed on debit card transaction fees. The premise of the Durbin Amendment was that the savings from regulated fees would be passed onto consumers, however studies show consumers have actually lost access to free checking and debit card rewards as a result.

The Financial CHOICE Act would also hold financial regulators accountable by requiring that financial regulations pass a cost-benefit analysis before enactment and that “major” regulations be passed by Congress instead of unilaterally by unelected bureaucrats. 

Other pro-growth and pro-consumer reforms to Dodd-Frank contained in the Financial CHOICE Act include:

  • Repealing the Volcker Rule’s restrictions on proprietary trading;
  • Replacing “Orderly Liquidation Authority” which allows the bailout of financial institutions at the expense of taxpayers;
  • Repealing the authority of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) to designate firms as systematically important institutions (SIFIs);
  • Repeal the CFPB’s indirect auto lending guidance; and
  • Make all financial regulatory agencies subject to the REINS Act.

 

These and a number of other reforms contained in the Financial CHOICE Act will be a positive step to reining in costly regulations under Dodd-Frank and ensuring regulators are held accountable.

Overall, Chairman Hensarling’s Financial CHOICE Act will increase financial opportunities and protections for all Americans, end taxpayer funded bailouts, and encourage economic growth through competition, transparency, and innovation. 

 

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


IRS Manager Caught Playing Hooky To Attend Obama Rally

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Natalie De Vincenzi on Wednesday, July 13th, 2016, 3:32 PM PERMALINK


An IRS manager shirked her official duties to attend an Obama re-election rally in 2012, according to a statement issued Wednesday from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. According to the statement, the IRS employee canceled a site visit and disappeared for four hours: 

OSC’s investigation confirmed allegations that the employee, while on official travel to perform site visits with her subordinates, canceled a site visit and asked a subordinate to drop her off at the location of a presidential candidate’s campaign rally.

The employee did not return to her place of duty for over four hours and did not request leave. OSC concluded that the employee attended the campaign rally and thus violated the Hatch Act’s prohibition against engaging in political activity while on duty.

Amazingly, the IRS employee gets to keep her job. As noted by Politico, OSC has announced the slap on the wrist given to the guilty IRS employee, a mere 14-day suspension:

“A supervisor at the Internal Revenue Service has received a 14-day suspension for ditching work in 2012 to attend a re-election rally for President Barack Obama. The IRS official's actions violated the Hatch Act, a federal law limiting politicking by government employees.”

The supervisor blatantly disobeyed the Hatch Act, which states that one must “not engage in political activity while on duty or in the workplace.” Not only did she defy a federal law that was meant to protect citizens from unelected bureaucrats engaging in partisan activities, but she also abused her power as a supervisor to instruct her subordinates in helping her shirk her duties.

The political engagement of an IRS manager at an Obama rally should be of no surprise. The IRS has a history of engaging in a left-partisan manner, even though it is supposed to be a politically neutral entity. During a three-year period of time that Lois Lerner was an IRS boss, only one conservative group was granted non-profit status.

Like Lerner, the IRS supervisor engaged in political activity on the taxpayers’ dime. She should be fired, not given a wrist slap. A 14 day suspension will not cure her negligence or defiance of her federal duties under the law. Breaking federal law does not result in a fourteen day suspension for most people, and the same should apply to the supervisor. 

 

Photo Credit: 
Bob Brown

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


Illinois Obamacare Co-op Becomes 16th to Collapse

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Toni-Anne Barry on Wednesday, July 13th, 2016, 1:23 PM PERMALINK


Sixteen Obamacare co-ops have now failed. Illinois announced that Land of Lincoln Health, a taxpayer funded Obamacare co-op, would close its doors, leaving 49,000 without insurance. The co-op now joins a list of 15 other Obamacare co-ops that have collapsed since Obamacare has been implemented.  Failed co-ops have now cost taxpayers more than $1.7 billion in funds that may never be recovered.

Co-ops were hyped as not-for-profit alternatives to traditional insurance companies created under Obamacare. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) financed co-ops with startup and solvency loans, totaling more than $2.4 billion in taxpayer dollars. They have failed to become sustainable with many collapsing amid the failure of Obamacare exchanges.

Since September, 13 Obamacare co-ops have collapsed, with only seven of the original 23 co-ops remaining.  Illinois’ Land of Lincoln co-op faced losses of $90 million last year and is suing the federal government for the deficit caused by Obamacare.  Co-ops across the country have struggled to operate in Obamacare exchanges, losing millions despite receiving enormous government subsidies.

The mass failure of co-ops should not be surprising. Larger insurance companies have also struggled to operate in Obamacare exchanges with many announcing they will stop providing coverage.

The web of government subsidies have also failed to provide insurances the funds they were promised. One of these programs – risk corridors -- recouped just 12.6 percent of the funds that insurers requested. The program, which was created to encourage insurers to take on higher risk individuals by transferring funds from insurers who made money to those that posted losses, was required to be budget neutral under law leaving Obamacare insurers with a significant shortfall.

Obamacare co-ops have also been plagued by inept management and unrealistic business models.

As a report by the Daily Caller’s Richard Pollock found, 17 of the 21 co-ops paid out gratuitous salaries to executives reaching as high as $587,000, which is more than four times as much as the $135,000 median health insurance executive salary. Worse still, many of these executives had little to no experience in the insurance industry and some of these excessive salaries were disguised in financial documents as “management fees.”  Last year, 21 of 23 co-ops posted losses.

Given the trend of failing Obamacare co-ops, the collapse of the Illinois co-op will not be the last.

A list of all failed co-ops and their cost to taxpayers compiled by the House Energy and Commerce Committee is found below:

CoOportunity Health - Iowa and Nebraska
Cost: $145,312,100

Louisiana Health Cooperative, Inc.
Cost:
$65,790,660

Nevada Health Cooperative
Cost: $65,925,396

Health Republic Insurance of New York
Cost: $265,133,000

Kentucky Health Care Cooperative - Kentucky and West Virginia
Cost: $146,494,772

Community Health Alliance Mutual Insurance Company - Tennessee
Cost: $73,306,700

Colorado HealthOp
Cost: $72,335,129

Health Republic Insurance of Oregon
Cost: $60,648,505

Consumers' Choice Health Insurance Company - South Carolina
Cost: $87,578,208

Arches Mutual Insurance Company – Utah
Cost: $89,650,303

Meritus Health Partners – Arizona
Cost: $93,313,233

Consumers Mutual Insurance – Michigan
Cost: $71,534,300

InHealth Mutual – Ohio
Cost: $129,225,604

HealthyCT – Connecticut
Cost: $127,980,768

Oregon Health’s CO-OP – Oregon
Cost: $56,656,900

Land of Lincoln Health – Illinois
Cost: $160,154,812

TOTAL TAXPAYER DOLLARS: $1,711,040,390

Note: This total does not include Vermont’s CO-OP, which was denied an insurance license by the state, and was dissolved before enrolling a single person.  

Photo Credit: 
Fraser Elliot

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

watchdogsc

socialism works until they run out of other people's money

El Cid

Corruption doesn't "go along with it". Socialism is corruption itself. It is a system to enrich the few and impoverish and enslave the masses. There are three kinds of socialist turd: 1) The evil, greedy, criminal who wants to grow rich stealing from the middle class. 2) The self-loathing guilty yuppie desperate to prove s/he is "virtuous", and 3) The Gimeedat Parasite who is content to be a slave provided that there is unlimited access to fast food and alcohol/drugs.

Billy G

Don't forget the corruption that inevitably goes along with it.


Senate Should Pass Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alexander Hendrie on Wednesday, July 13th, 2016, 8:00 AM PERMALINK


Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) will this week introduce the “Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act.” America is more than $19 trillion in debt and this number shows no sign of decreasing. If a President asks Congress to raise the debt ceiling, they must also show a commitment to addressing the long term debt crisis.

This legislation forces this by requiring the administration provide Congress with detailed information on the federal debt and propose solutions to address the crisis as a condition of raising the debt limit. Similar legislation introduced by Congressman Kenny Marchant (R-Texas) passed the House last year on a bipartisan vote of 267-151. Given the support in the House, ATR urges all Senators to co-sponsor and swiftly pass this commonsense legislation.

The Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act requires the Treasury Secretary to appear before Congressional Committees between 21 and 60 days before the Debt Limit will be reached to provide a detailed report outlining the nation’s financial state and to propose substantive reforms.

First, Treasury must submit a “Debt Report,” containing information on the current state of public debt, including historical levels of debt, the drivers and current composition of debt, and future debt projections.

Second, the legislation requires a “Statement of Intent,” containing short, medium, and long-term solutions the debt crisis, how increasing the debt limit will impact future spending, debt service, and the strength and stability of the U.S. dollar as the international reserve currency.

Third, the Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act requires a “Progress Report,” if the administration comes before Congress for additional debt limit increases in the future. This report must contain information on the status of all recommendations made in the original statement of intent.

The Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act creates a clear, yet comprehensive framework that any administration must follow to reduce federal debt when requesting a debt limit increase. By requiring the submission of a detailed report and comprehensive plan before Congress, this legislation will ensure that increasing the debt ceiling only occurs as part of a framework to reform the nation’s finances and chart a pathway toward fiscal responsibility. ATR urges all Senators to support and co-sponsor this important legislation.

Photo Credit: 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/59937401@N07/

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Stuartpayne

I would support this, but question whether the government will follow its own laws. Where's the "teeth" to enforce this?


Committee Holds Hearing on FCC Oversight

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Daniel Savickas on Tuesday, July 12th, 2016, 4:07 PM PERMALINK


The House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology held a hearing today with all five Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioners to discuss oversight of the Commission.

The hearing touched on a wide range of issues. Of those included the auction of high band spectrum, the FCC’s set top box proposal, and the sustainability of the Lifeline program.

FCC Chairman, Tom Wheeler, set the stage for the FCC’s open meeting on Thursday that will clarify the FCC’s policy and plan on high-band spectrum. This is another first of its kind auction.  Wheeler is optimistic about the proceedings.  He belives more high-band spectrum will allow the United States to lead the world in high speed, high capacity 5th Generation (5G) networks.

Vice-Chairman of the Committee, Representative Bob Latta, began by taking aim at the set top box proposal saying it is not the solution to protecting consumers. Representative Marsha Blackburn followed shortly thereafter saying the FCC has not ensured people be compensated for creating what is theirs, and the proposal threatens small businesses.

In Commissioner Ajit Pai’s testimony, he criticized the Commission’s set top box proposal further by saying it “misses the mark” and fails to protect the intellectual property of consumers and disproportionately hurts small businesses. He also said the proposal fails the most basic test of providing all consumers with the same privacy protections. He strongly recommended an approach that would lead towards an app-based system instead.

Pai continued by addressing the rampant waste, fraud, and abuse in the Lifeline program, which is meant to increase Internet access for low-income families. Pai added that the abuse is greater than he imagined, and that the program does not serve the low-income families that deserve it.

Americans for Tax Reform joined a coalition letter expressing gratitude that the Committee is looking into these important matters, and outlined concerns about the harmful effects of the FCC’s policies. The full letter can be found here.

Photo Credit: 
Greg Elin

Top Comments


hidden
×