Mike McClellan is a Gilbert resident and former English teacher at Dobson High School in Mesa.
Current users sign in here.
The CBO says if the government doesn't spend more money than it can afford, we're heading for another recession. Propping up an economy for "anemic" growth with money you don't have doesn't seem to be a great solution to me....
Don Mey said, “if the government doesn’t spend more money than it can afford, we’re heading for another recession” That sentence makes no sense. The CBO report said that “A host of significant provisions” are set to take place because of the Budget Control Act of 2011. If the deficit shrinks to the extent that Republicans have recently pushed for (even to the extent of causing a down grade to the US credit rating) then “Such fiscal tightening will lead to economic conditions in 2013 that will probably be considered a recession”.
This is another major difference between President Obama and candidate Romney; Democrats want to allow the tax breaks for those earning $250,000. or more annually to expire while retaining the tax breaks for those that earn less than that amount. Republicans want to do the exact opposite.
If you want to read what the CBO said visit: http://cbo.gov/publication/43539
Leon "Ridiculous" Ceniceros, why is it Barack Hussein Obama and Mitt Romney, no middle name? Willard Mitt Romney. Be "fair and balanced" as your ilk claims so often, without right, to be.
Saw rather interesting commentary the other day: how is it Obama can ignore voter intimidation (black panthers) but go after a film maker for alleged "parole violations" in obvious retribution for exercising free speech?
Cerulean - What's hard to understand about the comment? If the government doesn't spend a whole bunch of money it can't afford to spend, our economy will go back into a recession. The exact word used to describe the spending needed to prevent another recession was "unsustainable".
Mike McClellan said, “The candidate who actually said in response to a college kid asking what his alternative would be if federal college loans were curtailed, “Borrow money from their parents.” As if their parents had that money in the first place.”
What candidate Romney means is, if you cannot afford college tuition (2/3rds of the student body cannot) and your parents cannot afford your college tuition then go to a bank and pay 18% interest rates for a student loan. Candidate Romney wants to eliminate the ability of young people to acquire a student loan through the US government with a 3.4% fixed interest rate.
Or, perhaps, for his parole violation...
Don Mey, The answer then is balance; a balance between tax increases and spending cuts.
I suggest that you reread Mike’s column. He gives only a brief history to the facts that underlie our current predicament. Point, the decisions made in the past (i.e. spending without taxing) created a major part of the problem. The decisions that congress will make in the near future will affect the lives of average Americans. For that reason, I urge people to vote for President Obama.
Mitt also said the homeowners should have to loose their homes so that investers cound buy them and rent them out. Let em eat cake is his attitude.Forget my disdain for Mormons, Mitt has absolutely NO concept of how average Americans live, or the troubles they face every day.After all he thinks 47% are bums and freeloaders anyway.This republican is voting for Obama!!!!!
Mike, You offer many glowing remarks about Obama and his accomplishments but willfully ignore the downsides of Obama's policies and programs. With a foreign policy in tatters, a energy program going bankrupt, an economic policy that punishes success, with welfare and social programs enslaving so many more of our citizens how much more can we take of his big redistributive government. Obama's European style progressive socialism does not work because it makes people dependent on government instead of themselves. Yes we do have a choice between another 4 years of excessive spending, excessive taxes, excessive debt and excessive government control or a hope for change to a business friendly government, a smaller government, a fiscally responsible government and a country where personal responsibility is paramount to government dependency.
Another thoughtful article.
I remain unimpressed with either candidate, and hostile to the rhetoric that we all so easily fall prey to...
If anything is a threat to our country, it is the poison of political posturing.
Look, voting for either one of these guys is really not going to produce any kind of fundamental change, in this country. America does not have a King, but it does have a ruling class, and that rule is not about to change, with a vote.
Mostly, this country runs on inertia, and on the dreams and hard work of all those who do still dream--and work...
...but, mostly inertia...
Yep, Obama has much to be proud of. He has 4 years as the chief community activist. He can be proud of his record of unofficial amnesty. Just think, for every one he has allowed to stay in the United States, that is one less job for an American since greedy employers will take the illegal over an American when they can save a buck without fear that the government is going to take action against them.
Downtown - Of course you should lose your home if you can't afford it. If I buy something on credit, and stop paying on it, it gets repossessed. That is a fact of life. And then the people who were smart enough to recognize the housing bubble could actually afford to buy houses, rather than rewarding entitlement (I deserve a house, even if I can't pay for it) mentality.
Blue poet, I disagree that “voting for either one of these guys is really not going to produce any kind of fundamental change”. I have no doubt that the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will produce fundamental change, for the better. I have no doubt that the appointments of Judge Alito, Scalia, Roberts and others have fundamentally changed the rules in society; and that the opportunity to appoint a new judge may arise again soon. Also, there are a multitude of incremental acts that a president can perform to influence, not just the US, but nations around the world. Based on history, I trust President Obama more than I do candidate Romney.
One correction Mike, it's been 30 straight months,of job growth. [smile]
SamKat: unofficial amnesty; Gee whiz, Romney came out in support of Obama's action today.
Mike McClellen can't handle the truth....THAT IS WHY HE REMOVES MY..."COMMENTS".......[wink]
No Leon, they are removed because they are so poorly thought out that they are irrelevant and a distraction. It is that simple. Just stop it.
Actually Leon, anything sensible gets removed and mention Gary Johnson, he's flat out censored here. See how long this post lasts.
Just to clarify:
I can't remove anything posted on my columns -- I believe the Trib does that. In fact, I don't believe any of the folks who have columns here can.
I'd never delete a post, anyhow.
DonMey,Nobody, who was making money at every turn, was about to kill the golden goose.The people who caused this debacle knew full well that the buyers weren't qualified.They didn't care. The buyers could have died the next day and they would not have cared. They had their ill gotten booty. The traders who bundled the mortgages weren't concerned in the least about viability. There was money to be made, at all costs.The Bain model is alive and well.Mitt already makes $20,000,000.00 a year. How could he have any idea what of, or care about, what a common family faces each day?
I am considering their history. That's why I have never voted for Obama nor will I vote for him this time. Time for a change, I hope. And the unemployment numbers are totally fabricated. So many people dropping off the unemployment rolls and giving up looking for work does not improve unemployment, only on paper. Who does Obama think he's kidding? I'd much rather vote for someone who has been successful and made lots of money rather than someone who lies to me and thinks I believe him.
Mike, if you ever fail to cherry pick the dates for your numerical analysis so you can arrive at your predisposed goal, I will have a heart attack. You know that two things happened in the Bush years - an establishment, Rice, Powell controlled moderate administration - that caused the ills you speak of. One was 9-11 and the other was the worldwide recession buttressed by the collapse of the housing market. Neither of those events were controllable by the President, whomever he might be.
The facts are that this the worst post-recession recovery in the history of this country - and that is almost totally traceable to the actions of President Obama. The Stimulus for "shovel ready" jobs that weren't, the QE1, 2, 3, 4, 5, . . . ., the irresponsible failure to implement any of the Simpson Bowles recommendations that he commissioned, the enactment of Obamacare that is forcing employers to not invest in hiring.
CNN, that right wing bastion, fact checked the new jobs claims, and discovered that there are 400,000 less people working than when the President took office. The growth has been in people who have left the workforce, those who have filed for disability, those who have filed for assistance. If the workforce had remained constant, the unemployment rate would now be Greece like at over 15%.
So the real answer to your question as to whether we are better off than we were four years ago can be answered with one overriding statistic. The median household income has dropped more than 8% under Obama. Worse, the median household income has dropped by 11.1% for black households, So the answer to whether Americans are better off than they were four years ago must be a resounding NO!
The democrats caused the economic problems this country is faceing now. Obama is just borrowing more money we cant pay back trying to spend his way out of thier mess, its all they know.Anyone could borrow 6 trillion dollars and prop up the country for a few years, obama has no plan for the country.
If creating debt and devaluing your money is economic success, Greece and Mexico would be the leading economic gorillas in the world. Once the people reap the whirlwind of the Quantitative Easings balmy gale, it will be too late. The middle class and the poor will be the victims as the wealthy will have protected their largesse. I never have understood how the intelligists do not get that simple fact.
Just to clarify, Part II:
In fact, CNN reported on Sept. 28 that there has been a net job growth during the Obama term, if Labor Department figures hold up. You can read the article here:
And CNN reported earlier that while the private sector has seen job growth, the public sector job loss has been a drag on the economy. You can read that article here:
The ignorance of some...loose, ace, and truth to name a few...
The government of the United States of America was neither designed nor intended to be run like a business.
A business is designed to make money for it's owners / stockholders with no regard for human consequences.Our government was designed to help PEOPLE who are citizens of the country and profit / bottom line was NEVER a consideration.
That's why a businessman is entirely the wrong type of person to run the government.
It take a politician, someone skilled in the art of convincing people and leading them who knows how to compromise for the greater good. There has never been a successful President who came from a business background.Both Bushes were businessmen and both campaigned that they would reduce the deficit and instead they doubled and quadrupled it!!The Republican Borrow and Spend philosophy along with it's beloved " trickle down " economics has been an abject failure.It brought us the financial collapse we have just survived.Why on earth would we do the same thing again?
If the Republican ideology is so prosperous and right poor America… Why are so many " strongly Republican " states poor, rank near the bottom in education and provide such low levels of average income
Ooops typo alert --- that last paragraph should read " If the Republican ideology is so prosperous and right for America ... Why are so many " strongly Republican " states poor and rank near the bottom in education and provide such low levels of average income? "
Mike....Nice try in pushing Obama's "successes" but you should have explained what you think is behind the items you listed. For instance:
Jobs.....Obama claims he's "created" some 4 million jobs in the 40 months since he took office. Well, the majority of economists who study these things say that about 125,000 new jobs are required each month just to keep pace with new people entering the work force; some even say the number is 150,000. Do the math, Mike: 125,000 per month for 40 months comes to 5 million new jobs, a whopping 1 million beyond what Obama claims....and there are huge questions about the factual nature of Obama's claim as well. On top of that, millions of people have dropped out of the work force completely, which allows the well-spun government unemployment statistic to hover around 8.1%, but if one includes these folks plus the additional millions who are under-employed (formerly full time but now part time), the true unemployment/underemployment statistic is around 23%. See John Williams' "Shadow Stats" for accurate and complete data on these things.
Stock Market.....How do you explain this increase in its value, Mike? Have all these companies suddenly become that much more valuable, especially in a stagnant economy? No, the reason is, the Federal Reserve keeps pumping billions of dollars into the economy and that money is looking for a place to go where it might actually provide income since interest paid now is so low that it doesn't even keep pace with inflation, which also is understated by the government. Also, it is running away from a constant and steady decrease in the value of the dollar.
Financial institutions healthy....Why is that, Mike? Have they suddenly begun making sound loans from which they are raking in dependable profits? No, again. They are "healthy" because they can borrow money at less than 1% interest from the FED and then lend it back to the government at 3 - 4 times cost and make guaranteed profits with no risk. THAT'S why. Also, they've been allowed to cook the books on existing risk to reflect a better bottom line.
GM and Chrysler are alive......Yes, GM is alive, but just barely. US operations are failing but overseas profits are pretty good. (More outsourcing?) Yet, GM still owes the taxpayers some $26 Billion and its stock owned by the taxpayers is only half the initial value. Obama forced an unlawful settlement with GM's bond holders which left only the unions in good shape and stuck it to the bond holders and stock holders royally. All that is good? Chrysler is owned and run now by Fiat which is why its new vehicles are selling better than before.
Just a few explanations of Obama's "successes" which change the perception just a bit. And, of course, you didn't even mention the massive failure of the Obama administration in adding $6 Trillion to the national debt, presiding over a downgrade of US credit status, and creating vastly increased dependency on government handouts, to say nothing if increasing the federal payroll by some 225,000 employees. Of course, those things aren't very important, are they.
I am not certain I understand what ACE is saying. The implication is that because quantitative easing (see video http://youtu.be/ohKQP_wSO9k ) is the tool the Reserve is using to stimulate growth that this must in turn be bad for the middle class and the poor – because … I am not sure. Is it because congress must then decide through fiscal policy to cut social services and increase taxes on middle to low income groups? The way I understand ‘Quantitative Easing’ is as a tool that the Federal Reserve uses to influence economic growth (While recession may be good for consumers, recession is very bad for the Federal Reserve; Why? I don’t know.). However, there are limits to what Monetary Policy can do and so congress steps in with Fiscal Policy. Economies are influenced through Fiscal Policy but there is always a debate and conflict about how much to tax and spend on various components: rich, poor, business, military, church, state, etcetera. I think that a recession might not be so bad, that recession is good for middle to low income range because it keeps prices low. The Fed is using quantitative easing because banks and corporate interests are hoarding money, because… I don’t know – greed and lack of demand. Whatever the reason, jobs are lagging which in turn decreases gov. revenue and increases gov. debt. So everything rests on congress and how they choose to weigh and measure tax vs. spend. If they choose to make deep cuts in social services to balance the deficit then the poor and middle class will suffer tremendously. This is why I support President Obama, he is more likely to protect the interests of the poor and middle class while insisting that the wealthy and the military contribute a better share. He is more likely to “compromise for the greater good”. [smile]
JNelson, I have some thoughts on your post - later.
Americans have a real choice as to what direction they want their country to go - smaller government and personal responsibility with greater freedom or more dependence on a larger, more controlling government. Consider this quote from Alexis De Tocqueville - "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." I'm afraid that day has arrived.........
What do you think caused the recession....poorly thought out conservative policies...think beyond the headlines please.
Do you really think the republican party's view of the world means you will receive greater freedom? Really? Really? The "people" they are trying to free are corporations.
Centrist - The housing bubble caused the collapse. I'm pretty sure I can find countless clips of Democrats touting new regulations for opening the housing market to people who were previously unable to buy one.
But let's just say it's all the other guy's fault, shall we?
Interestin how (gasp) saving GM and Chrysler is a ralling cry here. I am not sure why I should care whether a business has cornered themselves to the point where they cannot make a profit off of the product they make and needs (yet another) bailout so that overpaid union workers can keep their overpay. What should have happened if the Government was operating properly was that they should have stepped in and quit buying the worthless paper for the Mortgage loans that were being filled on people who couldn't afford them. That would have stopped it dead in its tracks or the companies lending on them would have gone under.
I do not know from what news source you get your information, but let's just say you are wildly misinformed. Ever hear of an expensive needless war. Ever hear of a surplus under clinton and a deficit under bush. We need to blame he who created this mess, not he who has worked to fix it.
Just to clarify, Part III:
The "housing collapse" was a bipartisan disaster, begun under President Clinton (but really, you can trace its roots to President Carter) and extended under President Bush, who decimated the financial services investigation office of the SEC and who continued to push the idea of "affordable housing."
Equally guilty here are the unethical mortgage officers who pushed liar's loans and the unethical customers who were complicit in those loans.
Equally guilty were the financial wizards who pushed the derivatives based on these soon-to-be-worthless mortgages.
Equally guilty were the credit rating agencies, some of whom gave those questionable-at-best derivatives AAA ratings.
There's plenty of guilt to go around. And now, some five years after all those shenanigans, our financial markets are starting to play those same games again, and some argue that even as weak a "reform" as Dodd-Frank needs to be repealed.
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."
The whole question is moot.After last night's " debate " it seems obvious that Obama is sick of the whole thing and ready to hand it to the Republicans and go back to Chicago.Obama showed up physically, but that was it.No fire -- no interest.There is no way Obama will win with performances like that.Looks like the Republicans are going to encounter their worst nightmare.They are going to have to go back into power and try to deal with the mess created during the Bush administrations.Last thing in the world they really wanted.Much easier to sit on the sidelines and carp because Obama doesn't solve all the problems while they are sitting with their foot on the brake. Lots more fun.But, after that lackadaisical performance, it is all over but for dropping the balloons on Nov 6 unless something really dramatic happens.If Obama DOES want to remain as President ( which I doubt now ) he may have to attack Iran in hopes of staying in office as a war-time President.
I agree with you Willie. He needed to attack, and he just mailed it in. His record is dismal so he can't really defend it, he needs to transfer blame to the GOP and paint Romney out of touch, none of which he did. However, Johnson will join them and he can split the vote far enough that Obama still has a chance. Two more performances like last night, however, and he's pretty much toast, even the polls and the media won't save him.
Yeah, I agree. Obama said in 2008 that he was "fired up and ready to go."
Last night, he was "burned out and ready to leave."
Even with Mitt's Magic Math on his tax plan (the one he claims "six studies" support, which as the Washington Post explained this morning is far from true. Of the six, only one -- by the Republican American Economic Institute -- supports his view. And even that one has to assume robust economic growth to pay for Romney's cuts), Obama let him off the hook.
The Pres seemed to be completely disinterested. Big mistake. Romney performed in the clutch.
I’ve got another take on it AZWillie. Obama was befuddled and lost. He’s been protected his whole life and last night was the first time in four years that Americans got to see who this man really is. He’s never faced opposition, his speeches are written him, he doesn’t have the slightest idea how free enterprise works, and has the media to cover for him.
What Romney did so well is espouse conservatism. The principles, how you live it, how you govern with it, and how your dreams can come true through free enterprise.
It took a format like last night – without the media to cover for Obama to show who the true leader is in this election. There was nothing mean about it, no war on women or no character assassination that you could make against Romney. Obama lost because his ideas don’t cut it. Those same ideas that are empty and vacuous that defines liberalism was on full display and looked as tired and worn out as Obama.
What I’ll be most interested in is what will be the new scum that Axelrod will come up with now.
Rich, the problem with Obama's record was the Republicans in Congress saying " NO " to everything he tried to do.Considering that, he hasn't done too badly.The country has made great strides towards recovery, even though there is a long way to go.The stock market is up several thousand points since Obama took office.Why is it that the Republicans never mention that?Oh well, it isn't going to matter much if Romney gets to debate another empty chair next time too.
Can't quite agree Willy. He had a majority government for two years and squandered it with bad priorities. Job one should have been the economy, the concentration on social programs scuttled it. For example, no prudent person is going to go after a start-up with Obamacare looming rather than in force, so it's effects can be gauged. Reagan did this his first term, concentrated on the economy, once that is robust, social programs can follow, but if it is not, not only are the social programs doomed to failure, they prevent economic recovery due to the uncertainties as to the effects they might have. One unintended consequence and a new business will go to B/K court.
Rich, he did not have a majority for two years. Blue Dog Democrats are Republicans who run as Democrats in the South because of their political traditions.When you add the Blue Dog votes to the Republicans it gives the Republicans the majority -- which is what they had.It is mis-leading at best, to claim he had a majority because although technically the Democrats outnumbered the Republicans ... the Blue Dog's should not actually be counted as Democrats because they pretty faithfully vote with the Republicans.
Boy thanks for clearing that up. Even though they held the majority in both houses and the Presidency, they just couldn't do all the good they wanted to becuase of those evil Republicans. Yup, makes perfect sense to me- not. Hmmm. After watching the debate last night, it kinda sounded like there were real troubles with some of the President Obama ideas when someone actually gets to asks specific questions and respond to it. Wonder if the media was taking a few notes.
VofReason ... it was somewhat like the Republican Convention. Romney was talking to an empty chair.
Obama was a disgrace.
He acted like he didn't much give a *amn.It looked like he was tired of the whole thing and would be perfectly happy to go back to Chicago.
gilbertgrandma said: "Americans have a real choice as to what direction they want their country to go - smaller government and personal responsibility with greater freedom or more dependence on a larger, more controlling government."
GG: You must have been indoctrinated by your LDS church. Government is really no different from a business. You hire or fire based on the economic need to function. It isn't like your church that demands you provide do much labor and a mandatory tithe. By the way, why aren't you folks demanding a tithe cut since you are always screaming about tax cuts? PS: The Mormon church is probably one of the most rigidly structured organizations in the world and also one of the richest so much for more personal freedoms. As I understand it from our Mormon friends, you are even told which church to attend.
"smaller government" What in the world would make anyone think either candidate could or would deliver on that?
Samkat - it's amazing the assumptions that are made about people who post here. I attend a church in the East Valley, but it sure is not the LDS church. How in the world do you think you know about my personal life? Incredible........and Rich, I think you are probably right - any kind of smaller government at this point in our history is probably wishful thinking.........
which of romney's history should i consider? the pro choice candidate or the pro life candidate. there are so many other examples to choose from.
Which Obama did we see? The inspirational messiah. The one who was going to make the ocean's move, the Martin Luther King of our generation.....or the empty suit that we saw that he really is?
The great thing about your posts in this column is that they are true opinions devoid of any facts one can fact check. And, you are entitled to them. The bad thing about your post is that they are true opinions void of any facts that I can fact check...
At least AZWillie can be honest about your guy.
Unfortunately, no matter which candidate is elected in November, our government isn't likely to change much. The reason is, Congress has strayed so far from the Constitution's limits on it that it can and will do whatever the politicians who fill it desire so long as the policy works more to preserve their government seats rather than moves the country to policies to correct what is wrong. And distressingly, the Supreme Court isn't a real factor in preserving Constitutional law at all anymore, either, as witness the recent approval of ObamaCare. For example, a major cause of our descent into unpayable national debt began when the last vestiges of sound money disappeared in 1971 as Nixon removed all silver backing (gold backing disappeared long before), thus leaving us with a paper dollar backed by nothing at all. This allowed the Treasury, combined with the awful Federal Reserve System and its miserable fractional banking policies, to create as much faux money as wished or needed to help Congress pay for things it had no Constitutional authority to do, and which helped the politicians buy votes to retain office. Also, this allowed the Treasury to sell debt instruments as it does now at interest rates so low that it destroys the private lending/saving markets and now the FED is committed to buying up at least $600 Billion in Treasury bonds yearly because foreign countries are sick of seeing their own investments lose value. There is more bad news in all this but suffice to say that the importance of personal savings has been destroyed as well while individual income and the purchasing power of the dollar continue to decline at an ever-accelerating rate. Does anyone think any Congress will return gold/silver backing to the dollar to stop all this? Or that either Obama (NO chance) or Romney if elected (tiny chance) will do or advocate this? If you do, I have a bridge in the Phoenix area to sell you, at below 1% interest rate, too.
This alone won't move us away from the fiscal cliff we are teetering on, but it is one in about a half-dozen that are vitally necessary to do so. No matter who next occupies the Oval Office, none of them will become law, but if Romney gets in, and if the Tea Party Republicans get control of both Houses of Congress and especially retain the House, at least the slippery slide over the cliff might be postponed for a few more years. If Obama makes it and the Dems control Congress, LOOK OUT!
Well said JNelson, and completely agree. It's too bad more people don't have a better understanding of our economic problems as you do and cling so self-righteously to their party positions when they don't see or understand the bigger picture the way you have so excellently articulated.
Mnj, name one thing I have ever said about Obama that was not honest...
Jnelson, I am sure you are proud of your interpretation of what is (or is not) Constitutional. Please explain your qualifications for making such assertions because the Constitutional scholars I know disagree with you and YES, I hang out with a few, even a few sitting judges...
Probably the same `scholars` that have produced the radical liberal judges that have infected our legal system. Just an opinion.
Nope. That is an opinion suggesting it is anchored to a fact. The fact is of course WRONG. But, hey, that is your MO. So I expect nothing more.
neutral and negative to match Morningstar's analyst ratings for mutual mutual authentic jordans mutual funds, so the descriptions can be more clearly interpreted different investment vehicles, a spokesman said. In previous years, Morningstar Morningstar replica designer handbags Morningstar rated ranked plans in several tiers: top, above average, and below average.The rankings are based on characteristics like price price cheap replica designer handbags price and performance, which allow analysts to estimate which plans more likely to outperform over the long term on a a authentic jordans a risk-adjusted basis.The 27 plans that received medals represent more 95 percent of the $162 billion in 529 plan assets assets designer replica handbags assets in the country.The top-ranked plans this year have differing as usual. Some are direct-sold to parents or family members, members, cheap designer handbags members, while others are adviser-sold plans.Lutton said plans in the continue to improve with quality investments since a decade ago, ago, discount designer handbags ago, when they were first launched."Years ago, when the industry getting started, those investments were tougher to come by. The The cheap real jordans The plans were loaded with funds that weren't performing well," said.Also, costs to invest in these funds have also decreased, decreased, replica designer handbags decreased, leading to incremental improvements in some plans that received neutral rating this year, compared to a negative rating a a cheap designer handbags a year ago."I think that's a great trend that benefits college savers," she said.TIAA-CREF is the plan manager for two two cheap designer handbags two plans that represent the wide range of available choices.
More from Columnists
East Valley Tribune
Phone number: 480-TRIBUNE
Address: 1620 W. Fountainhead Parkway, Ste. 219
Tempe, AZ 85282
More Contact Information...
Please be brief (no more than 250 words) and submit your contact information for verification purposes. Comments may be edited for clarity and length.
A Division of 10/13 Communications