Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Legislature, Legislators’ Category

More of Jindal’s smoke and mirrors: this time it’s fuzzy math on state’s retirement package from High Potentate Piyush

Posted in Governor's Office, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, Retirement on February 16, 2012| 14 Comments »

With so many retirement bills filed in both the House and Senate, it’s difficult to make heads or tails of them all.

For example, Sen. Elbert Guillory (D-Opelousas), chairman of the Senate Retirement Committee has personally pre-filed 37 retirement bills for the upcoming session which begins at noon on March 12.

His counterpart, House Retirement Committee Chairman Kevin Pearson (R-Slidell), has pre-filed 15 such bills. They run the gamut in addressing retirement issues for municipal employees, registrars of voters, clerks of courts, teachers, school employees, sheriffs and, of course, state employees.

And those do not even include any retirement bills authored by the other 142 legislators.

And while the main thrust is to placate Gov. Bobby Jindal in his efforts to reduce retirement benefits, increase employee contributions, and to tighten retirement qualifications, nothing has been said by the administration to address problems inherent with attempts at pension reform: namely the Louisiana State Constitution.

One person who has not been shy in criticizing Jindal’s plan is Cindy Rougeou, executive director of the Louisiana State Employees’ System (LASERS).

Rougeou says Jindal is seeking to impose an additional payroll tax on state workers in the form of a 3 percent increase in employee contributions—money that will not even be used to retire the state retirement system’s $6.3 billion debt.

She also says that Jindal is:

• Targeting workers who are barred from lobbying on their own behalf, those least able to speak up in opposition to his plan;

• Attempting to force state employees to work longer for reduced benefits;

• Giving legislators false information as to the percentage that employees contribute to the cost of their retirement as compared to the state’s share;

• Ignoring the fact that the current unfunded accrued liability (UAL) came about in the first place because the state reneged for decades on paying its required contribution;

• Attempting to violate both the State and U.S. Constitutions in proposing sweeping changes to the retirement system.

Those are some pretty serious charges, coming as they do from a state employee when the governor has shown himself to be more than capable of retribution against recalcitrant underlings.

Rougeou, however, is said to be beyond the reach of Jindal’s wrath. She is hired by a LASERS board that is elected, not appointed by the governor, thus her unrestrained defense of state employees and her criticism of the governor’s retirement package.

But if Jindal is really looking for a scapegoat, he need look no further than the first floor of the State Capitol where the House and Senate chambers are located.

In 1987 the legislature passed a bill calling for a constitutional amendment that would require all the state’s retirement systems to be actuarially sound with UALs being paid off by the year 2029. Voters approved the amendment but as usual, there was a fatal flaw in the wording of the bill that allowed legislators to begin tinkering with the repayment schedule.

And tinker they did, passing Act 497 in 2009—on Jindal’s watch, by the way—that created a new payment schedule so that the state could reap a savings of $500 million. It is the state’s failure to make the necessary payments to bring the systems into manageable shape that created the current crisis in the retirement funds.

Each year between 1959 and 1969 and from 1983 to 1991, the state failed to pay its required contribution to LASERS. Not once. In 1963, for example, the 6 percent paid by the state was less than half the required 12.26 percent and in 1960, the state’s 6 percent was barely more than half the 11.81 percent required contribution. In 1990, the 7.8 percent paid by the state was far short of the 14.09 percent requirement.

Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater, in presenting Jindal’s executive budget for Fiscal Year 20120-13, told members of the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget that the employees’ share amounts to less than 27 percent of total retirement contributions while the state’s share exceeds 73 percent.

Not so fast, says Rougeou. The administration’s accounting, she said, “apparently formed the basis for the justification that employees should now pay an addition 3 percent of salary toward their retirement.”

She went on to say, “The cost of the accruing benefit in 1988 was 12.8 percent of payroll, which we refer to as the normal cost. Of that amount the employee paid 7 percent and the state paid 5.8 percent. As such, in 1988 the employee contributed about 54.69 percent (of the total) toward retirement. Though somewhat less today, current rank and file employees “are still paying about 54 percent of the cost of their accruing benefit,” she said–double Rainwater’s claim.

So now Jindal is calling on state employees to kick in an additional 3 percent to the retirement fund. That wouldn’t be so bad if the extra 3 percent went to their retirement or even to pay down the UAL, but it doesn’t. The money will go straight into the state general fund so that Jindal can smooth over an anticipated $900 million budget shortfall this year.

Even that would be more palatable if Jindal was doing that across the board, but he isn’t. He promised the state’s college and university presidents that if they’d keep their mouths shut and not oppose his retirement package, they could share in the $100 million savings from university and college employees’ additional 3 percent.

While that comes to less than $5 million for each of the state’s 23 public colleges and universities, it hardly seems fair that they keep their 3 percent in-house while the remaining state employees must pony up their additional 3 percent to keep Jindal’s budgetary boat afloat.

Nor is it fair to tell a 42-year-old state employee with 20 years’ experience that he can scrap his plans to retire at 30 years, that he must continue working until he is 67. And when that employee purchased four years’ “air time” a few years back to enhance his retirement, it cost him $18,000.

If he works until age 67, he will have 45 years as a state employee. State employees currently can retire at 100 percent of their salaries with 40 years’ service. Will he be required to continue paying into the system past his 40 years? What about that $18,000? Will he get that back? He bought the time in good faith and in the belief that the state would honor its commitment to him just as the woman in the state agency next door paid $60,000 for 13 years’ air time. What’s to become of their investments?

Louisiana employees do not pay into social security, which makes any comparison with other systems invalid. Apples and oranges. A lifetime state worker will never qualify for social security benefits as do workers in the private sector.

The governor’s retirement package also contains a provision that retirement benefits for currently active employees be based on the formula of 2.5 percent times an average of five years’ highest income times years of service. That is a change from the current formula that computes retirement based on three years’ average earnings.

As things now stand, that would have negligible impact; employees are going into their fourth straight year without merit raises but extending the work years to age 67 could be devastating to certain employees. Depending on their dates of birth, some employees who retire after 30 years could see their benefits cut by more than half than if he/she had been born one day earlier.

Jindal, while attempting to force state employees to work longer and pay more into their retirement, is also trying to revamp their retirement from a defined benefit to a defined contribution, similar to 401(k) investment account with no guarantee of return.

Former House Speaker Jim Tucker (R-Terrytown) said last year the 3 percent increase in employee contributions was a tax and would require a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate. Jindal has vowed throughout his term that he will veto any new taxes that appear on his desk and so obviously does not see the 3 percent increase as a new tax any more than he saw college tuition increases last year as a new tax.

But the bigger question is one of constitutionality, both state and federal.

“Many of those employees already have ‘vested’ rights in their retirement benefits,” Rougeou said. “To change provisions such as those targeted would violate the (U.S.) constitutional restriction against impairing existing benefits. She cited Article X, Section 29(B) of the State Constitution which says “…membership in any retirement system of the state…shall be a contractual relationship between employee and employer.”

“And of course the U.S. Constitution in Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1, states, ‘No state shall…pass any…ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts…’” she said.

“Proposing changes that are unconstitutional attains only protracted litigation and doesn’t result in a sound pension system,” she said.

She said Jindal should not count on using any of the anticipated $450 million in taxpayer savings resulting from his pension reform to help balance the budget because there will be court challenges if the administration is successful in getting the bills passed.

One must be starting to wonder by now just how many more shell games Jindal will introduce to cover his budgetary backside. Retirement and the privatization of the Office of Group Benefits, state prisons and Medicaid are all on the table this year, so what financial wizardry will he conjure up for the next three years?

Read Full Post »

Former Sen. Butch Gautreaux: a voice in the wilderness speaks out against Jindal’s proposed OGB privatization

Posted in Governor's Office, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators, tagged , on February 10, 2012| 10 Comments »

Editor’s note: Former State Sen. Butch Gautreaux addressed the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget following the presentation of Gov. Bobby Jindal’s executive budget and the ensuing queston and answer session between legislators and members of the Division of Administration. Unfortunately, when the last legislator’s question was asked and answered, reporters exited the committee room, unaware that Gautreaux would testify against the controversial proposal to privatize the Office of Group Benefits, meaning his words got little play in the media.

Following is an exclusive reprint of his comments:

Although Governor Jindal has strived to bring transparency to the office of the Governor, the Office of Group Benefits (OGB) sale or its placement in the hands of a third party administrator is a case that denies the public, or for that matter even the legislature, the opportunity to see or understand what is being considered.

When news first came to light last year of an effort to capitalize on the large cash reserve, I called meetings of the Senate Retirement Committee to try to learn the rationale of the sale. I invited all parties including the governor, the commissioner of administration and others involved. Mr. Rainwater did attend the first two meetings but little was learned. When repeatedly asked by panel members why the sale was being considered, Mr. Rainwater was pat on his answer, never swaying from his statement: “the State should not be in the insurance business.”

Remember, the state set up a workers’ compensation company, LWCC in the early nineties that still exists today and seems to function well. The state set up Citizens in response to coastal residents not being able to acquire homeowners insurance. It’s had its problems but is still doing the job. Does Mr. Rainwater advocate getting rid of those two insurance companies?

We just learned last week that the Governor contracted with Morgan-Keegan to do an analysis on the feasibility of selling out or placing in the hands of a third party administrator the PPO for the Office of Group Benefits. As a member of the board of OGB I have not had an opportunity to see the final Morgan-Keegan document or anything else. I can only tell you a little history of a health insurance system that is the envy of the other 49 states. Louisiana has the only self-administered and self-funded health insurance for state workers and retirees. The plan provides competitive rates to members and to the state. Remember, the taxpayers pick up most of the cost. And unlike some other departments OGB has for the last seven years grown in becoming a model of what other states should emulate.

Mr. Rainwater likes to state that we have twice the number of employees in our health insurance department. Of course we do. We are the only state to administer its plan, and at a cost that is a lot cheaper than it can contract for.

Eight years ago OGB was in trouble for an assortment of reasons and something had to be done if the system was to survive. Governor Kathleen Blanco hired Tommy Teague to take over as the director and through his excellent management practices and leadership we saw a system that was wrought with problems and inefficiencies go from a $33 Million deficit to a $550 Million cash reserve. Let me say that I served on the board of directors during this transition from something very troubling to what has become a shining star. And then when Tommy resisted taking actions that would undermine the system, Governor Jindal summarily fired him.

We now have a premier public health insurance department for state workers that offers affordable premiums and industry-acceptable reimbursements to health care providers. This took a lot of talent. Mr. Teague negotiated with providers who previously were not interested in doing business with OGB. He promised them big changes in service and negotiated better discounts from them at the same time.

While at its worst, most hospitals and doctors did not want to accept the plan. But, at the last board meeting back in September it was reported that every hospital in Louisiana except one now accepts the plan as do most doctors and other providers.

Better discounts and other efficiencies of scale were building increased cash balances. At the final meeting of the last fiscal year the board had a motion on the table to reduce premiums which would have helped with the cost to the state during this fiscal crisis. That motion was met with a substitute motion to maintain rates until we knew how things would shake out with efforts by the administration to take the fund balance to fill a gaping hole in the state budget. The OGB monies are constitutionally protected from being raided as so many other department budgets were being raided at the time.

In the face of the board action, Governor Jindal announced a 5.6% increase in premiums effective July 1st of last year. This action was not only unnecessary but put an additional strain on the already stressed state general fund as the state pays on average 75 percent of the premium cost.

At the same time, it was announced that deductibles would hold over until January 1, 2012, with the effect of drawing down the balance of the cash reserves, placating the complaints of members who could ill-afford more deductions coming from their diminishing pay checks. But this was all part of the governor’s overall plan.

Again for January 1, 2012, the Governor announced and implemented another premium increase of 5.5 percent. Remember, we were in a position to reduce premiums when the plan to raid OGB was put together.

Speaking of transparency, it was indeed very clear what the plan was. By implementing the unnecessary increases in premiums, further increases would be less of a shock to the members and you who must somehow balance the state budget. Experts are telling us that the private insurance company will have to ease in another increase of roughly 10 percent to meet the needs of executive compensation, marketing, stockholder dividends, profit, taxes and other expenses we don’t currently have at the not-for-profit OGB.

Our own actuary gave a figure of $97 million in additional costs to the taxpayer for the July 1 premium increase, coupled with the member deductible holiday through the calendar year. Since that time, there has been another unnecessary premium increase to the taxpayer and the members.

This privatization will be very costly to the taxpayers of Louisiana, but then we get to fire 177 rank-and-file state workers to counter the hiring of former chief of staff Teepell’s family members and all of the politically-connected, deposed elected officials over the last four weeks, most at six figure salaries.

You only need to follow the dollars to understand why the Governor wants this to happen. Thank you for your attention.

Read Full Post »

Guest columnist Judith Howard offers another perspective on the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)

Posted in ALEC, American Legislative Exchange Council, Governor's Office, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators on February 9, 2012| 2 Comments »

Editor’s note: We occasionally like to showcase the writing skills of guest columnists. Judith Howard is a regular columnist for the Morning Paper of Ruston. She has written a thought-provoking piece on the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and we are proud to have her essay grace our blog.

By Judith Howard

A year ago when newly elected governors in Wisconsin (Scott Walker), Ohio (John Kasich), Florida (Rick Scott), and Michigan (Rick Synder) simultaneously began their war on workers by trying to destroy collective bargaining, I thought this must have been a plan hatched at some national Republican meeting after the 2010 elections.

I thought the same thing about these Republican governors, including our own, when they started pushing the privatization of education and prisons. With a $500 million surplus, the Louisiana state office that administers health insurance is a gem Jindal can’t wait to sell, even though it will result in higher premiums for state retirees and workers.

I was half right and half wrong about the origin of these parallel Republican initiatives. The sponsor was the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). This organization describes itself thusly: “With more than 2,000 members, ALEC is the nation’s largest, non-partisan, individual public-private membership association of state legislators.”

So I was right in that it was a coordinated attack, but I was wrong that it must the Republican National Committee pushing this stuff. ALEC is, however, overwhelmingly Republican.

ALEC says it is interested in the conservative principles of free markets (translated—unregulated markets), limited government (translated–except in private affairs like family planning and how you die), and federalism (translated–state governments are cheaper to buy and control. You know, divide and conquer). It touts its benefit to private members this way:

“One of ALEC’s greatest strengths is the public-private partnership. ALEC provides the private sector with an unparalleled opportunity to have its voice heard, and its perspective appreciated, by the legislative members.” (Emphasis mine.)

Appreciated, indeed. ALEC develops model legislation that its legislative members take to their respective states. This way, it gives the public the impression that these ideas have widespread support across the country, and that said support just popped up independently.

Dues for corporations are $7,000, $12,000 or $25,000 depending on the membership level. The Koch Brothers, David and Charles, long-time drivers of ALEC are members at the $25,000 level. For the return they get on that minimal investment through legislation written by ALEC, you gotta figure these are pretty cheap dues.

Koch Industries, the second largest privately held business in the U.S., reports annual revenues of 100 billion dollars. For David and Charles, $25,000 is pocket change.

Dues for state legislators are just $100 for a two-year membership. There is no list of legislative members on the ALEC website, but the organization boasts that 1/3 of all legislators are members.

If legislators pay dues from their campaign funds rather than out of their pocket, it’s possible to find out which legislators are ALEC members.

Hollis Downs, for example, was a member of ALEC.

Each year ALEC legislative members in their respective states introduce about 1000 pieces of legislation, and estimates about 20% gets passed into law. Do you think legislators advertise that these legislative proposals were written by ALEC?

Of course not. It’s as if this legislation originated in their own minds as they contemplated what would be in the interests of the public they purport to serve. Who writes our legislation and who benefits from it should be public knowledge, especially when those two happen to be one and the same. As it stands now, ALEC is able to keep its fingerprints off laws that roll back environmental protection in order to increase energy company profits, roll back union rights for the same reason, and roll back voting rights in order to get more corporate-sponsored Republicans elected.

I should say are USUALLY able to keep their fingerprints off legislation. In November, Florida Rep. Rachel Burgin introduced a bill to reduce corporate taxes. She made the embarrassing mistake of using the model bill written by ALEC’s Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force rather than changing the wording a little.

Rep. Burgin forgot to delete the following from the bill: “WHEREAS, it is the mission of the American Legislative Exchange Council to advance Jeffersonian principles of free markets, limited government, federalism, and individual liberty.” Oops.

So when you hear the constant drumbeat of privatizing public services like education and prisons, demolishing EPA regulations, initiating voter ID laws, destroying collective bargaining, remember where these ideas originated–ALEC. The reasons given for the need to do these things are not the real reason behind the push to do them.

To take just the first of these issues–why, you ask, is the Koch brothers-backed effort to privatize education such a priority? Well, I’m glad you asked. That effort has an interesting history.

Charles and David Koch’s father’s name was Fred. Ol’ Fred ranted and raved that public school books were filled with communist propaganda. His paranoia about communist infiltration extended to President Eisenhower, the Supreme Court, and the national teacher’s union. That man hated him some unions!

I suspect the Koch paranoia about public education and union hatred stems from Daddy Fred’s deranged mind. Plus, there is money to be made by privatizing schools, so what’s not to like? Of course the home schooling movement also fears that teachers might indoctrinate their kids with science, so there’s that too.

When David Koch ran for VP on the Libertarian Ticket in 1980, he pushed the idea of tax credits to encourage alternatives to public education. Over 30 years later, he’s still pushing for taxpayers to pay for private schools.

So what is the strategic goal in the legislation ALEC advocates for and that Republican governors push? Think about it.

They want to control what’s taught in schools (the Kochs now fund university departments IF they get to approve the professors and the content of the courses). They want to teach the scripture of unfettered capitalism, where unions are socialist Satans instead of being a countervailing force to corporate power.

It’s important to break up unions since they fund primarily Democratic candidates while corporations fund primarily Republican candidates. Disregard any noise about the need to break up public unions because of budgetary problems. That’s merely a convenient ruse.

As long as plutocrats can pit poor whites against blacks, blacks against Latinos, and private workers against public workers, that animosity keeps our attention off the real problem–corporate ownership of government.

The EPA is a favorite whipping boy for ALEC, and they are going berserk over the new consumer protection bureau. Heaven forbid that anybody in government look out for the interests of the little guy.

Until the sudden rush to crush unions by new Republican governors last January, I had never heard of ALEC. My colleague, Tom Aswell, wrote a column about ALEC sometime last year, but my guess is most Americans haven’t heard of the organization either.

Yet for 40 years about 300 of the largest corporations like Koch Industries, Exxon, Centerpoint, Verizon, AT&T, Bank of America, State Farm, Blue Cross, Pfizer, and Walmart have used ALEC to push legislation written by themselves to benefit themselves, but put forth by legislators. Local company Hunt-Guillot is also a member.

I envision ALEC as something like a computer virus, stealthily infecting our political system without our knowledge. We notice things slowing down as it spreads behind the scenes until, like a computer, our politics cease to function.

As if there weren’t already enough corporate influence in government, the Supreme Court two years ago allowed unlimited money into the political system with their Citizens United decision. Super Pacs will probably spend more money than political parties in this year’s election.

As someone once said, “Legislators ought to wear logos like NASCAR drivers so everyone would know who sponsors them.”

Read Full Post »

Jindal dangles $100 million carrot in front of university presidents in effort to gain support for retirement package

Posted in Budget, Governor's Office, Higher Education, House, Senate, Legislature, Legislators on February 8, 2012| 5 Comments »

Is Gov. Bobby Jindal now trying to pit university and college presidents/faculty against state workers?

That certainly seemed to be the case on Wednesday when he dangled a $100 million carrot in front of state college system presidents (and certain legislators) in the form of a promise that state colleges would share an extra $100 million on the condition that lawmakers pass his radical state retirement system package during the upcoming legislative session.

The tactic represents a new low for the governor as he attempts to play on the fears of colleges and university presidents that their institutions would take large hits as the result of yet another anticipated budgetary shortfall of $900 million in what is becoming a somewhat tiring annual soap opera.

Jindal Chief of Staff Stephen Waguespack said the governor’s executive budget unveiled to lawmakers on Thursday would keep higher education funding at its present level in the 2012-13 fiscal year beginning July 1.

In a brazen attempt at outright bribery, Waguespack told the higher education officials that if the legislature approves Jindal’s proposal to overhaul the retirement system for thousands of state employees, the $100 million saved through cheaper retirement costs at universities would stay with the campuses and would not be used to stop cuts elsewhere in state government.

To that, we would add these words of caution to the university presidents: be careful, it’s a political promise and political promises have a habit of evaporating like yesterday’s cheap aftershave.

Jindal’s suggestion is calculated to build support for his proposed retirement changes among legislators with colleges in their districts. Those changes would, if approved, increase rank-and-file state employee contributions by 3 percent, shrink benefits and push back the age for collecting retirement payments. New state employees would be shifted from defined benefits to defined contributions similar to cheaper 401(k) type accounts.

Such an obvious ploy should be beneath a governor who purports to eschew politics as usual. And make no mistake, this is politics as usual: pure extortion of targeted legislators through anxious college presidents to garner votes necessary to pass a controversial legislative package.

It’s enough to make one sit back and ask, “What’s next?”

What tactic will the most ethical, most transparent, most accountable governor employ next to get his way in his efforts to push through an agenda aimed at destroying public education, slashing state employee retirement and health care benefits, privatizing state agencies and services and shoving thousands of dedicated state employees onto the unemployment rolls.

There may not be a lot of public sympathy out there for state employees, but these people are our neighbors, our relatives, our children’s teachers, and others who provide services across the civilian spectrum on a daily basis.

You may not care for the plight of state workers but they touch our lives each and every day, whether you know it or not.

Rest assured, Jindal has a much larger agenda than what is best for the State of Louisiana. His every move, every action, is carefully calculated to benefit businessmen and corporations who have a vested interest in privatization, who see profit in school vouchers and charter schools, who stand to gain financially by a relaxation of regulations special tax breaks, and who have invested in this governor’s political career.

It’s no accident that he has steadfastly, in the face of one fiscal crisis after another, year after year, refused to consider any increase in corporate taxes.

Jindal hopes those corporations have bigger plans for him.

And there’s your real carrot.

Read Full Post »

Morgan Keegan report on OGB’s fate is at DOA but don’t expect its release; it’s ‘part of the deliberative process’

Posted in Governor's Office, Layoffs, Legislature, Legislators, OGB, Office of Group Benefits, Privatization, Transparency on February 8, 2012| 1 Comment »

The long-awaited report by Morgan Keegan on the proposed fate of the Louisiana Office of Group Benefits (OGB) has been turned over to the Division of Administration, LouisianaVoice has learned.

LouisianaVoice has made a formal request under the Louisiana Public Records Laws for a copy of the Morgan Keegan report. That request was directed on Wednesday to Commissioner of Administration Paul Rainwater.

But don’t expect the report to be released willingly. Rainwater, in all probablity will fall back on the erroneous claim that, like the notorious Chaffe & Associates report of last year, it is exempt from the public records law “as part of the deliberative process.” Even that claim was made only after Rainwater’s first attempting to deny the existence of the Chaffe report. To say this administration is willing to bend the rules in order to protect its backside is being charitable.

The Morgan Keegan report is said to have included several options, two of which included the outright sale of OGB or turning the administration of the preferred provider organization (PPO) over to a third party administrator (TPA)—a move that would be accompanied by a massive layoff of OGB employees who presently process claims by state employees, retirees and dependents.

An earlier report, and the number cited by Rainwater last spring in testimony before the Louisiana Legislature, said that 149 OGB employees would be laid off.

That number now sits at 177.

The word of the layoffs comes only days after word of Jindal’s hiring of several former legislators and relatives of former chief of staff Timmy Teepell to high-level positions in his administration.

It was earlier reported by LouisianaVoice that the executive budget to be delivered to the Joint Legislative Committee on the Budget on Thursday would include a line item to sell OGB outright for $189 million but the Jindal administration later backed off on that option and chose the third party administrator instead.

Jindal was reported to have been only lukewarm to either proposal because, in his words, the state would still be “in the insurance business.”

Sources close to the administration said that Jindal has added yet another option: to do nothing in case of another widespread protest as was experienced when the administration first floated the idea of privatization the agency that has accrued a $500 million surplus while administering health care claims for state employees, retirees and dependents.

Rainwater fired former OGB director Tommy Teague last April after Teague did not fall in line quickly enough over the proposal to sell the agency. Afterwards, a firestorm of protests erupted across the state from state employees and retirees that resulted in Rainwater’s vacillating between selling OGB or contracting with a TPA.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »