PROMISE CREEPERS
or, upmc and the death of
taxes.
I've never done a TWM-style, line-by-line
deconstruction of a hard news article before -- letters to the editor and the
occasional op-ed essay are always far more deserving of the honor -- but the
lead story on the front page of this morning's Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette is fairly begging for it. Mark Belko and Joe Smydo provide a
clear, well-crafted account of the most recent Pittsburgh Promise political
maneuverings, but the real story (and the real outrage) here can best be found
between the lines. So let's take a
look...
The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center could receive tax credits to offset contributions made to the Pittsburgh Promise scholarship program if the city ever wins the right to tax nonprofits or force payments in lieu of taxes.
In other words: UPMC's Pittsburgh Promise contribution, which is already far less dramatic than advertised -- more on that in a moment -- becomes even less impressive. And more transparently cynical.
If anyone doubted that this scholarship money was really blood money to help make the non-profit-with-the excess-profits problem go away, this little tidbit should finally convince them. If it doesn't, they're not really paying attention.
Under a bill proposed yesterday by Mayor Luke Ravenstahl,...
Now who could have seen that coming?
(Maybe Sidney Crosby and Joe Theismann?)
...the health care giant would be eligible for the credits if the state Legislature or a court authorizes the city "to impose any tax or municipal service fee or payment in lieu of taxes" on UPMC or its affiliates.
In other words, for the life of this single gift, UPMC wants -- and The Boy Who Would Be Mayor happily provides -- assurances that the monolith will not have to suffer the indignity of the threat of the thought of contributing its fair share to the city coffers. No matter how muchprofit excess margin it makes at the end of another
big, fat fiscal year.
The tax credit proposal was negotiated by UPMC and officials from the city and school district as a condition of UPMC's financial support for the Pittsburgh Promise.
And yet, when that support was announced to great fanfare and falderol a few weeks ago, there was not a single mention of this (ahem) minor -- and, as we shall soon see, potentially deal-breaking -- stipulation. I guess it just slipped their minds. Or else their grips. I imagine it's difficult to keep all the details firmly in hand when you're spending so much time patting yourself on the back.
City Council will discuss the proposal today after it voted 6-2 yesterday to expedite the legislation at the mayor's request. The agreement will be presented to the school board tomorrow.
Sounds reasonable to me. I mean, it's just a bill to shut off a major potential revenue stream for a city that could desperately use one. Brokered by a mayor with a reputation for cozying up to the monolith it protects. Driven through the political process at the last few ticks of the eleventh hour. Without any time for public debate or scrutiny. With a proposal that neat and clean, why wait?
[Update: Since I began writing this post, our not-exactly-venerable City Council found its collective backbone and voted unanimously -- yes, even Jim Motznik and Tonya Payne; check the skies for locusts -- to delay a vote on the bill until after a public hearing. In other revelations: this deal would also supplant UPMC's measly $1.5 million a year contribution to the city's general fund; neither The Boy Who Would Be Mayor, nor anyone from his inner circle, even bothered to show up at the council meeting; and Robert Cindrich, general counsel of UPMC, actually declared that the city -- and this is, according to the PG's Rich Lord, a direction quotation -- shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.]
I swear: you couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.
"If the board says no, there's no Promise money," district Solicitor Ira Weiss said.
Ah, yes. And there you have it.
If the board says no, there's no Promise money. In other words: this is the deal; like it or lump it. Take our money and give us our concessions, or we take our money -- which by the way, isn't really our money, but we'll call it that anyway -- and go home.
Because that's how much we care about the children: only as far as their college scholarships cover our collective asses.
This month, UPMC pledged to give $10 million outright and up to $90 million more through a 10-year "challenge grant" to help provide college and trade school scholarships to Pittsburgh Public School graduates. UPMC will contribute $1 for every $1.50 raised from other sources, potentially yielding as much as $225 million with the interest used to fund scholarships in perpetuity.
Hence the (repeated) touting of a $100 million gift. Which is, of course, not a $100 million gift at all; it's a $10 million gift, followed by $90 million worth of potential gifts that come with a whole lot of strings and at least a couple of dozen hoops to jump through already attached. It's the same sort of accounting that announces as a $125 million NBA contract a piece of paper that is, in fact, only worth about $15 million real, guaranteed dollars.
(I think I'll try this with the boys next Tuesday. I will announce that their mother and I have gotten them 100 Christmas gifts each, then point to the ten gifts each that are actually under the tree. When they turn to look at me with puzzled faces -- they are residents of the city of Pittsburgh, I know, but we've trained them well -- I will explain that the other 90 presents each are actually matching presents, and that they will be able to receive another one for each additional gift and a half they collect themselves. Oh, think of the joy they'll feel!)
If the Legislature amends Act 55 to tax nonprofits or require that nonprofits make payments in lieu of taxes, the city and the school district would agree to give UPMC a $1 credit for each $1 donated to Pittsburgh Promise, Mr. Weiss said.
You'll note, of course, that these aren't just tax deductions but tax credits. Over at The Burgh Report, The Burgher was all over this in a comment thread yesterday, and Richmond K. Turner does an (ahem) admirable job of breaking down the the distinction -- and the numbers that would follow from it -- today.
"I think that's a reasonable position to take," he said, adding that UPMC "made a substantial commitment here" and doesn't want to be litigating its tax-exempt status after pledging $100 million to the scholarship program.
You know, because one gift and the possibility of nine more like it should be like a ten-year get-out-of-jail-and-taxes-free card.
Some, including Mr. Weiss, aren't sure UPMC will ever realize any of the credits because they don't see the Legislature acting to tax nonprofits or forcing them to make payments in lieu of taxes.
Then this shouldn't be a big deal, should it? And it certainly shouldn't be a deal-breaker. Should it?
Yet while donors sometimes attach conditions to gifts, the UPMC stipulations seem extraordinary, said Ken Strmiska, managing director of community foundation services for the Council on Foundations, a membership group for the philanthropic community.
And the Understatement of the Week Award goes to... Ken Strmiska!
The stipulations "take a little bit of shine off of the gift" and UPMC would "win a lot more friends" without them, he said.
True, Ken. Very true.
Though I would suggest that anyone who's already looked closely at this gift should realize that its shine bears a striking resemblance to the glitter of fool's gold.
Mr. Ravenstahl was unavailable for comment.
Of course he was.
Alecia Sirk, his spokeswoman, said the bill was a "natural progression [in] reaffirming our commitment" to the scholarship program.
And to UPMC.
Yeah. Especially to UPMC.
Frank Raczkiewicz, a UPMC spokesman, said the proposal, which he described as a side agreement, was "an essential condition" of the medical center's pledge to provide $100 million.
I repeat: because they only care about the city -- and its precious little children -- as far as their gift can cover their collective asses.
"We are willing to donate $100 million, but we don't want to pay $100 million and also have new taxes of $100 million," he said.
Because then we'd only have $400 million ofprofits excess margin each year. And how's a
non-profit supposed to survive on
that?
The proposal came under fire from some City Council members, both for its timing and intent.
If you know anything about Pittsburgh City Council politics, you can pretty much write the next few sentences yourself. But we'll play along anyway.
Council President Doug Shields, who voted against the expedited review, said the proposal could have financial ramifications for years, especially if the city eventually gets the right to tax nonprofits.
That's a hell of a keen grasp of the obvious there, Doug. But I can't complain too much. Because this time, at least, you got it right.
To give up a potential revenue source without fully assessing the impact is not in the city's best interest, he said, adding that the rush to get the legislation approved was "inappropriate."
Especially when the essential condition behind it has existed all along. And yet was curiously absent from the December 5th announcement.
"I don't know why you would want to pre-emptively give something away that you don't have now and take things off the table while you're working on some means of finding funds for the city to operate," Mr. Shields said.
Oh, I don't know. Maybe because you're in bed -- or at least on the course -- with the Death Star of Western Pennsylvania, and you really want their approval, and you really, really want to golf with Sidney Crosby again next summer.
Councilman Len Bodack called the plan "corporate welfare."
Or, more accurately, non-profit welfare. Which is, of course, even more appalling.
He said that if tax credits are ever to be awarded by the city, then the scholarship program should be open to city children in private and parochial schools, not only those in the public schools.
Oh, yes. A deal negotiated by the Pittsburgh Public Schools Superintendent, designed to benefit the students of the Pittsburgh Public Schools, should be extended to people who actively choose to avoid the Pittsburgh Public Schools. That would be a fair trade for these concessions.
"If they're going to get corporate welfare and they're going to do something for the city in return for that, that's fine. They should do it for all city residents. Then we can make it a fair discussion. If they're going to do it selectively for a few it should not be discussed," he said.
Earth to Len: They're not doing it selectively for a few. They're doing it for all 29,000 students who attend the Pittsburgh Public Schools. (You know, because it's a scholarship for students who attend the Pittsburgh Public Schools. If you want to receive one of the scholarships, you have to be enrolled in one of the Pittsburgh Public Schools. See how clear and simple and logical that is?
(Yeah, I know. That's probably why he can't comprehend it.)
Councilman William Peduto said the proposal "flies in the face" of the city's long-standing efforts to find some way to generate revenue from tax-exempt nonprofits. He called the proposal a "tax break" that other nonprofits will demand if they donate to the Pittsburgh Promise.
And he's absolutely right.
Though Doug Shields has has moments -- including this one -- it's pretty clear that, with this group at least, Councilman Peduto is the one intellectual man among petty political boys and girls. He may not have been willing (or able) to take the fight to Master Ravenstahl, but you gotta admit that when he takes a position, he's almost always right.
Councilman Jim Motznik argued there was no tax break involved.
He made this argument, I presume, not long after removing his head from the mayor's rectum.
"They're not going to get away with not paying something," Mr. Motznik said.
Well, in fact, Jim, they are. Because, let's face it: that money they're giving for the scholarships shouldn't really be in their coffers anyway.
I'm not suggesting that a non-profit should cut its budget so tight that it runs the risk of operating at a loss, but when you're a non-profit health care conglomerate that buys media like a drunken politician, finishes each year with hundred of millions of dollars inprofits excess margins, yet
continues to raise the costs of your health plans at levels far beyond the rate
of inflation, then that $618 million, much less that $100 million, sure seems to
have been borne on the backs and wallets of the very people to whom you're now
so graciously promising to return -- provided we meet all of your ridiculous
demands -- some small portion of it.
Lisa Fischetti, school district chief of staff, said the agreement "memorializes" the intentions of city, school district and UPMC officials who negotiated UPMC's commitment and would give the program stability when there's turnover at City Council, the school board and UPMC.
Memorializes it? Yeah. Like a tombstone.
She said the agreements are "no big deal" because the city and school district aren't giving up anything they have right now.
Question for Ms. Fischetti: would you be willing to provide me with 10% of your annual earning between 2010 and 2020? That wouldn't be much of a big deal, would it? I mean, it's not like you'd be giving up anything you have right now. Right?
Right?
The need for agreements with the city and school district was not announced during the Dec. 5 news conference at which the mayor and Superintendent Mark Roosevelt lauded UPMC's involvement in the Pittsburgh Promise.
The best and most important line in the whole article. And, once again, an important reminder of how shady the whole announcement was.
(I think I'll try this with the boys too. Tonight I'll announce that on Christmas morning, they'll each be receiving 15 Christmas presents valued at $500. Then, on the afternoon of the 23rd, I'll tell them that to receive those presents, they need to sign a contract, no later than dinner time on the 24th, in which they promise never to make me to pay for their food or their clothing ever again. Oh, think of the joy they'll feel!)
Ms. Fischetti acknowledged as much but said not every detail of the program could be mentioned and that "the focus that day was on the scholarship component of this."
In other words: we hid the most onerous part -- you know, the one that The Boy Who Would Be Mayor is now trying to ram through council and down the throats of the city's taxpayers right before the holiday break -- so that we could just focus on the trumped-up niceties.
If Ms. Fischetti ever tires of her job with the Pittsburgh Public Schools, her dissembling abilities would make her an ideal candidate to work for the Ravenstahl Administration. Or the Bush White House.
Under the agreement, the city and the school district would not challenge UPMC's tax-exempt status during the 10 years that UPMC has agreed to contribute to the Pittsburgh Promise.
I have a vision of the city and the school district agreeing to this. And of the citizenry rejoicing. And of UPMC three years from now announcing aprofit excess margin
of $1 billion.
Don't think for a moment that it couldn't happen.
Mr. Weiss said UPMC clearly meets the definition of a public charity under the current law, so it's unlikely anyone could challenge its tax-exempt status.
Now there's a definition I'd like to read. And have explained to me. If only so we could try to change the law.
He said the agreement doesn't apply to UPMC's taxable affiliates, which already pay property taxes.
Oh, well. There's a relief.
(I think I'll try the same thing with the boys next week. I'll assure them that our gift agreement does not apply to the occasional meal or article of clothing purchased by their grandparents. Or even their aunts and uncles. Oh, think of the joy they'll feel!)
Well, I guess you don't have to think of it. If you're anything like me, you already feel it. Right in the pit of your stomach.
The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center could receive tax credits to offset contributions made to the Pittsburgh Promise scholarship program if the city ever wins the right to tax nonprofits or force payments in lieu of taxes.
In other words: UPMC's Pittsburgh Promise contribution, which is already far less dramatic than advertised -- more on that in a moment -- becomes even less impressive. And more transparently cynical.
If anyone doubted that this scholarship money was really blood money to help make the non-profit-with-the excess-profits problem go away, this little tidbit should finally convince them. If it doesn't, they're not really paying attention.
Under a bill proposed yesterday by Mayor Luke Ravenstahl,...
Now who could have seen that coming?
(Maybe Sidney Crosby and Joe Theismann?)
...the health care giant would be eligible for the credits if the state Legislature or a court authorizes the city "to impose any tax or municipal service fee or payment in lieu of taxes" on UPMC or its affiliates.
In other words, for the life of this single gift, UPMC wants -- and The Boy Who Would Be Mayor happily provides -- assurances that the monolith will not have to suffer the indignity of the threat of the thought of contributing its fair share to the city coffers. No matter how much
The tax credit proposal was negotiated by UPMC and officials from the city and school district as a condition of UPMC's financial support for the Pittsburgh Promise.
And yet, when that support was announced to great fanfare and falderol a few weeks ago, there was not a single mention of this (ahem) minor -- and, as we shall soon see, potentially deal-breaking -- stipulation. I guess it just slipped their minds. Or else their grips. I imagine it's difficult to keep all the details firmly in hand when you're spending so much time patting yourself on the back.
City Council will discuss the proposal today after it voted 6-2 yesterday to expedite the legislation at the mayor's request. The agreement will be presented to the school board tomorrow.
Sounds reasonable to me. I mean, it's just a bill to shut off a major potential revenue stream for a city that could desperately use one. Brokered by a mayor with a reputation for cozying up to the monolith it protects. Driven through the political process at the last few ticks of the eleventh hour. Without any time for public debate or scrutiny. With a proposal that neat and clean, why wait?
[Update: Since I began writing this post, our not-exactly-venerable City Council found its collective backbone and voted unanimously -- yes, even Jim Motznik and Tonya Payne; check the skies for locusts -- to delay a vote on the bill until after a public hearing. In other revelations: this deal would also supplant UPMC's measly $1.5 million a year contribution to the city's general fund; neither The Boy Who Would Be Mayor, nor anyone from his inner circle, even bothered to show up at the council meeting; and Robert Cindrich, general counsel of UPMC, actually declared that the city -- and this is, according to the PG's Rich Lord, a direction quotation -- shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth.]
I swear: you couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.
"If the board says no, there's no Promise money," district Solicitor Ira Weiss said.
Ah, yes. And there you have it.
If the board says no, there's no Promise money. In other words: this is the deal; like it or lump it. Take our money and give us our concessions, or we take our money -- which by the way, isn't really our money, but we'll call it that anyway -- and go home.
Because that's how much we care about the children: only as far as their college scholarships cover our collective asses.
This month, UPMC pledged to give $10 million outright and up to $90 million more through a 10-year "challenge grant" to help provide college and trade school scholarships to Pittsburgh Public School graduates. UPMC will contribute $1 for every $1.50 raised from other sources, potentially yielding as much as $225 million with the interest used to fund scholarships in perpetuity.
Hence the (repeated) touting of a $100 million gift. Which is, of course, not a $100 million gift at all; it's a $10 million gift, followed by $90 million worth of potential gifts that come with a whole lot of strings and at least a couple of dozen hoops to jump through already attached. It's the same sort of accounting that announces as a $125 million NBA contract a piece of paper that is, in fact, only worth about $15 million real, guaranteed dollars.
(I think I'll try this with the boys next Tuesday. I will announce that their mother and I have gotten them 100 Christmas gifts each, then point to the ten gifts each that are actually under the tree. When they turn to look at me with puzzled faces -- they are residents of the city of Pittsburgh, I know, but we've trained them well -- I will explain that the other 90 presents each are actually matching presents, and that they will be able to receive another one for each additional gift and a half they collect themselves. Oh, think of the joy they'll feel!)
If the Legislature amends Act 55 to tax nonprofits or require that nonprofits make payments in lieu of taxes, the city and the school district would agree to give UPMC a $1 credit for each $1 donated to Pittsburgh Promise, Mr. Weiss said.
You'll note, of course, that these aren't just tax deductions but tax credits. Over at The Burgh Report, The Burgher was all over this in a comment thread yesterday, and Richmond K. Turner does an (ahem) admirable job of breaking down the the distinction -- and the numbers that would follow from it -- today.
"I think that's a reasonable position to take," he said, adding that UPMC "made a substantial commitment here" and doesn't want to be litigating its tax-exempt status after pledging $100 million to the scholarship program.
You know, because one gift and the possibility of nine more like it should be like a ten-year get-out-of-jail-and-taxes-free card.
Some, including Mr. Weiss, aren't sure UPMC will ever realize any of the credits because they don't see the Legislature acting to tax nonprofits or forcing them to make payments in lieu of taxes.
Then this shouldn't be a big deal, should it? And it certainly shouldn't be a deal-breaker. Should it?
Yet while donors sometimes attach conditions to gifts, the UPMC stipulations seem extraordinary, said Ken Strmiska, managing director of community foundation services for the Council on Foundations, a membership group for the philanthropic community.
And the Understatement of the Week Award goes to... Ken Strmiska!
The stipulations "take a little bit of shine off of the gift" and UPMC would "win a lot more friends" without them, he said.
True, Ken. Very true.
Though I would suggest that anyone who's already looked closely at this gift should realize that its shine bears a striking resemblance to the glitter of fool's gold.
Mr. Ravenstahl was unavailable for comment.
Of course he was.
Alecia Sirk, his spokeswoman, said the bill was a "natural progression [in] reaffirming our commitment" to the scholarship program.
And to UPMC.
Yeah. Especially to UPMC.
Frank Raczkiewicz, a UPMC spokesman, said the proposal, which he described as a side agreement, was "an essential condition" of the medical center's pledge to provide $100 million.
I repeat: because they only care about the city -- and its precious little children -- as far as their gift can cover their collective asses.
"We are willing to donate $100 million, but we don't want to pay $100 million and also have new taxes of $100 million," he said.
Because then we'd only have $400 million of
The proposal came under fire from some City Council members, both for its timing and intent.
If you know anything about Pittsburgh City Council politics, you can pretty much write the next few sentences yourself. But we'll play along anyway.
Council President Doug Shields, who voted against the expedited review, said the proposal could have financial ramifications for years, especially if the city eventually gets the right to tax nonprofits.
That's a hell of a keen grasp of the obvious there, Doug. But I can't complain too much. Because this time, at least, you got it right.
To give up a potential revenue source without fully assessing the impact is not in the city's best interest, he said, adding that the rush to get the legislation approved was "inappropriate."
Especially when the essential condition behind it has existed all along. And yet was curiously absent from the December 5th announcement.
"I don't know why you would want to pre-emptively give something away that you don't have now and take things off the table while you're working on some means of finding funds for the city to operate," Mr. Shields said.
Oh, I don't know. Maybe because you're in bed -- or at least on the course -- with the Death Star of Western Pennsylvania, and you really want their approval, and you really, really want to golf with Sidney Crosby again next summer.
Councilman Len Bodack called the plan "corporate welfare."
Or, more accurately, non-profit welfare. Which is, of course, even more appalling.
He said that if tax credits are ever to be awarded by the city, then the scholarship program should be open to city children in private and parochial schools, not only those in the public schools.
Oh, yes. A deal negotiated by the Pittsburgh Public Schools Superintendent, designed to benefit the students of the Pittsburgh Public Schools, should be extended to people who actively choose to avoid the Pittsburgh Public Schools. That would be a fair trade for these concessions.
"If they're going to get corporate welfare and they're going to do something for the city in return for that, that's fine. They should do it for all city residents. Then we can make it a fair discussion. If they're going to do it selectively for a few it should not be discussed," he said.
Earth to Len: They're not doing it selectively for a few. They're doing it for all 29,000 students who attend the Pittsburgh Public Schools. (You know, because it's a scholarship for students who attend the Pittsburgh Public Schools. If you want to receive one of the scholarships, you have to be enrolled in one of the Pittsburgh Public Schools. See how clear and simple and logical that is?
(Yeah, I know. That's probably why he can't comprehend it.)
Councilman William Peduto said the proposal "flies in the face" of the city's long-standing efforts to find some way to generate revenue from tax-exempt nonprofits. He called the proposal a "tax break" that other nonprofits will demand if they donate to the Pittsburgh Promise.
And he's absolutely right.
Though Doug Shields has has moments -- including this one -- it's pretty clear that, with this group at least, Councilman Peduto is the one intellectual man among petty political boys and girls. He may not have been willing (or able) to take the fight to Master Ravenstahl, but you gotta admit that when he takes a position, he's almost always right.
Councilman Jim Motznik argued there was no tax break involved.
He made this argument, I presume, not long after removing his head from the mayor's rectum.
"They're not going to get away with not paying something," Mr. Motznik said.
Well, in fact, Jim, they are. Because, let's face it: that money they're giving for the scholarships shouldn't really be in their coffers anyway.
I'm not suggesting that a non-profit should cut its budget so tight that it runs the risk of operating at a loss, but when you're a non-profit health care conglomerate that buys media like a drunken politician, finishes each year with hundred of millions of dollars in
Lisa Fischetti, school district chief of staff, said the agreement "memorializes" the intentions of city, school district and UPMC officials who negotiated UPMC's commitment and would give the program stability when there's turnover at City Council, the school board and UPMC.
Memorializes it? Yeah. Like a tombstone.
She said the agreements are "no big deal" because the city and school district aren't giving up anything they have right now.
Question for Ms. Fischetti: would you be willing to provide me with 10% of your annual earning between 2010 and 2020? That wouldn't be much of a big deal, would it? I mean, it's not like you'd be giving up anything you have right now. Right?
Right?
The need for agreements with the city and school district was not announced during the Dec. 5 news conference at which the mayor and Superintendent Mark Roosevelt lauded UPMC's involvement in the Pittsburgh Promise.
The best and most important line in the whole article. And, once again, an important reminder of how shady the whole announcement was.
(I think I'll try this with the boys too. Tonight I'll announce that on Christmas morning, they'll each be receiving 15 Christmas presents valued at $500. Then, on the afternoon of the 23rd, I'll tell them that to receive those presents, they need to sign a contract, no later than dinner time on the 24th, in which they promise never to make me to pay for their food or their clothing ever again. Oh, think of the joy they'll feel!)
Ms. Fischetti acknowledged as much but said not every detail of the program could be mentioned and that "the focus that day was on the scholarship component of this."
In other words: we hid the most onerous part -- you know, the one that The Boy Who Would Be Mayor is now trying to ram through council and down the throats of the city's taxpayers right before the holiday break -- so that we could just focus on the trumped-up niceties.
If Ms. Fischetti ever tires of her job with the Pittsburgh Public Schools, her dissembling abilities would make her an ideal candidate to work for the Ravenstahl Administration. Or the Bush White House.
Under the agreement, the city and the school district would not challenge UPMC's tax-exempt status during the 10 years that UPMC has agreed to contribute to the Pittsburgh Promise.
I have a vision of the city and the school district agreeing to this. And of the citizenry rejoicing. And of UPMC three years from now announcing a
Don't think for a moment that it couldn't happen.
Mr. Weiss said UPMC clearly meets the definition of a public charity under the current law, so it's unlikely anyone could challenge its tax-exempt status.
Now there's a definition I'd like to read. And have explained to me. If only so we could try to change the law.
He said the agreement doesn't apply to UPMC's taxable affiliates, which already pay property taxes.
Oh, well. There's a relief.
(I think I'll try the same thing with the boys next week. I'll assure them that our gift agreement does not apply to the occasional meal or article of clothing purchased by their grandparents. Or even their aunts and uncles. Oh, think of the joy they'll feel!)
Well, I guess you don't have to think of it. If you're anything like me, you already feel it. Right in the pit of your stomach.
Posted: Tue - December 18, 2007 at 06:51 PM
Quick Links
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Categories
Archives
Terror Alert
Brilliant Satire
Required Reading
Traffic Count
Official Muse
Syndication
Carbolic Wear
Y Chromosomes
Some Perspective
On Tour
XML/RSS Feed
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jul 28, 2008 01:39 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jul 28, 2008 01:39 PM