Candace's Blog

Creative Communications Commentary by Candace Clemens

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE: Not Going Broke but Being Robbed?

The recent news about using drones to deliver packages -- on the heels of the very competitive package delivery pricing by the U.S. Postal Service and noticeably improved customer service, followed by a bad holiday package delivery record by the two major private shipping service, UPS and FedX -- prompted me to investigate the real status of the U.S. Postal Service (USPS).  News reports that there are rumblings in Congress to retire and/or privatize the USPS added to my curiousity.  

I did some research and was stunned to find this 2011 report from NBC News by Columnist Bob Sullivan.  You may click HERE to go to the actual page.  But it is so well written, and so shocking, that I could not improve upon this piece of investigative journalism.  So I am just going to quote the contents in my blog post.  There are many jobs and pensions at stake.  If the USPS is indeed failing, that is one issue.  But if, as per this report, their fiscal woes are a result of intentional "misinformation" and "crushing accounting tricks," we should take a second look at whose hidden agenda is being served.

Twisted Government Accounting Behind Postal Service Woes

by Bob Sullivan, Columnist, NBC News

"You might have heard that the United States Postal Service is in trouble: that it's losing billions, that it will have to end Saturday service and close branches — and most inflammatory, that it might need a government bailout. Perhaps you heard that the Postal Service couldn't pay $5.5 billion bill that came due Sept. 30 and that only an emergency postponement saved it from the government's equivalent of default.

In fact, it's the Postal Service that’s currently bailing out the U.S. government. Politicians have been raiding Postal Service revenues for years, using them to make the federal deficit appear smaller than it really is. The fiscal gyrations are so twisted that the Postal Service is right now forced to pre-pay health care benefits for employees the agency hasn't even hired yet — in fact, for many future employees who haven't even been born yet — all to artificially shrink the federal deficit.

It's these crushing accounting tricks, not the cost of delivering mail, that has pushed this 200-year-old institution to the brink.

Welcome to the wacky world of Washington, D.C., accounting.

There's a long and a short story to the tragic tale of Postal Service financial trouble. I'll start with the short one. Right now, the Postal Service is being forced to pre-pay health benefits for the next 75 years during a 10-year stretch. In the past four years, those prepayments have totaled $21 billion. The agency's deficit during that time is about $20 billion. Remove these crazy pre-payments — a requirement that no other government agency endures and no private industry would even consider — and the Postal Service would be in the black.

Of course, it's not quite that simple. And no one denies that the rise of e-mail has meant the fall of first-class mail, creating a real long-term challenge to USPS relevancy. But the current fiscal "crisis" is entirely manufactured by the Washington way — in fact, the payment missed on Sept. 30 represents this year's tithe to the federal deficit, disguised as health care benefits layaway for a mail carrier the agency might not hire until the year 2060.

The controversy over the future of the post office has been slowly coming to a head, and it reached a fever pitch around the Sept. 30 payment, meant to satisfy this year’s health care pre-payment costs. The agency begged for a delay, which it received — but that led to detractors’ calling for immediate reforms, such as post office closings and the elimination of Saturday delivery. But supporters have rallied to the agency’s side — about 500 rallies were held last week all around the country in support of the agency. 

Meanwhile, some advocates are desperately trying to call attention to the USPS’s unique budget situation, which is not quite the crisis it appears.

“It is clear that these prepayments for future retiree health care benefits are — at this point — the primary reason for the U.S. Postal Service's financial crisis,” Ralph Nader wrote in a letter to Congress last week. “In fact, simply looking at the numbers reveals that the Postal Service's ‘financial crisis’ is in fact an entirely manufactured crisis.”

Why would the Postal Service find itself in this crazy arrangement, bleeding red ink today so it can pay for employees’ health benefits 50, 60, or 75 years from now? Believe it or not, there is an explanation, but it's not so simple — delivered with fair warning from Jim Sauber, chief of staff of the National Association of Letter Carriers.

"It takes a long time to explain how crazy and complicated it is," he said.

But a quick tour into this fiscal crisis is incredibly instructive as to the ways of Washington, and failing to understand it might mean someday soon you won’t get mail at your house any longer.

First, it's important to note that the USPS is financially self-sufficient. Since the 1970s, it has been mandated by Congress to operate entirely on its own revenue, with no taxpayer money. It's an enormous agency — with $65 billion in annual revenue, it would be a Fortune 50 company if it were a private entity. As a quasi-government agency, it enjoys privileged fiscal status — its revenue and expenses are "off budget," meaning Congress isn't supposed to be able to toy with them. It shares this privileged state with only one other government entity: the Social Security Trust Fund. But as you know, Congress finds a way to toy with everything.

In 2006, Congress passed the "Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act" to modernize the agency's stamp-price-setting tools and a host of other elements of mail delivery. That law set up this seemingly crazy health care prepayment fund.

To bean counters at the U.S. Treasury Department, however, the fund made perfect sense. It was a crazy arrangement to cover for another crazy arrangement the Postal Service escaped in 2006.

When former members of the U.S. military take a government job, their military service counts as annual credits toward pension eligibility. This holds true when service members take postal jobs — but who pays for the value of those credits? In 2006, the Postal Service was shouldering that cost on its balance sheet, even though there was general agreement that the Treasury Department should be responsible for pension credit earned prior to employment with the Postal Service. The 2006 law shifted the burden from the USPS, but that meant an addition burden on the Treasury — that is, it would have added to the federal deficit. So to balance out that negative on Treasury's balance sheet, the Postal Service was ordered to make health care pre-payments equivalent to the cost of the pension cost shift.

The problem of military pension credits itself was a creation of just such a deficit-hiding accounting trick. In 2002, an audit of the USPS budget found it had overpaid into the federal government's pension plan by roughly $80 billion. Postal Service officials lobbied hard have its pension payments readjusted. They were, in 2003, but in order to make the shift revenue neutral, military pension credit costs were shifted from Treasury to the USPS.

The 2006 law passed by Congress was designed to put an end to this fiscal football.

In the middle part of the last decade, the Postal Service was so awash in operating cash that the 10-year tithe to the federal government seemed a small price to pay for a promise that the crazy cost shifting would be over in a decade. In the meantime, the cash played a small but measurable part in reducing the federal deficit.

"But it became very clear that these payments were unaffordable once the economy tanked," Sauber said. In short order, the health care prepayments became “a million-pound weight” on the Postal Service budget.

Sauber and other Postal Service advocates say the Postal Service would have no trouble balancing its own budget if Congress and the Treasury Department stopped adding billions to its annual expenses through fiscal maneuvering. 

Still, powerful forces have gathered in an attempt to use this budget bickering as an excuse to reform the post office dramatically. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), the Republicans’ top government cost-cutting advocate in the House and head of the powerful Committee on Oversight, has introduced legislation that would dramatically alter the agency. His Postal Reform Act of 2011 would end Saturday delivery, create a commission to study post office closings and create a Solvency Authority that could break union contracts if the agency fell into the red.

Last month, President Barack Obama proposed that the Post Office end Saturday delivery. His proposal offered some relief from health care prepayments, but it merely by spreading the costs out over a longer period of time. Issa responded by calling Obama's plan a "thinly veiled attempt to offset continued operating losses with a taxpayer-funded bailout."

Others have advocated complete dismantling of the service, turning mail delivery over entirely to private industry. Rarely do those arguing against mention that the Postal Service starts its year in a hole designed to hide a portion of the federal deficit.

A Heritage Foundation report published last month called "You've Got (No) Mail: Is the End Near for the Post Service?" indicated that the agency "barely avoided default" and was down to "a week's worth of cash."

"Congress should act quickly to address this not-so-slow-motion postal train wreck. The goal, however, should not be to ‘save’ USPS or even to save mail delivery," the report said. It mentioned the pension overpayments but made no mention of the health care costs prepayment, and it concluded that the USPS cannot survive unless supported by "tens of billions of dollars in subsidy."

Sauber says it’s hard to counter such arguments with a long discussion of Washington accounting tricks.

"It's so much easier to say, ‘Oh, it’s the Internet.’ That seems obvious, but that's not really what's going on,” he said. “It is frustrating for letter carriers to have to deal with all this misinformation. … It’s easy to demagogue on this, for people who don’t like government workers to say the Postal Service is failing because it’s a government agency. But in this case the easy explanation isn’t the right explanation."

The postal workers' union favors legislation proposed by Reps. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., and Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., that would allow the agency to access overpayments to the federal pension system, and to restructure its health care prepayments, to solve its immediate budget woes.

It's also hitting back at critics with an aggressive TV ad campaign that began running last month.

"Congress created this problem, and Congress can fix it," the ads say.

Sauber doesn't deny that the Postal Service has problems. Revenue shrank from $74 billion to $67 billion from 2008 to 2010. Mail volume plummeted from 202 billion to 170 billion pieces during that same stretch, a 22 percent fall. While the drop parallels the recession, common sense dictates that even a robust economic recovery probably won't lead to an increase in handwritten love letters.

But Sauber says the rise of the Internet has created almost as many opportunities as problems for the Post Office — package delivery from online shopping has soared, for example. Meanwhile, the agency has shrunk full-time employee ranks from 663,000 to 583,000.

The Postal Service hasn’t always done itself any favors — long lines, unhelpful employees and stories of double-dipping by pensioners feed the public’s notion that change is needed.

"We know we have to change. But the right way to do that is to clear up this artificial fiscal crisis now, survive the recession and then see where we are," he said, "not to gut the Postal Service now based on misinformation and budget politics."

 

January 01, 2014 in Current Affairs, Television | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

I Finally Got Around to Watching the Best Speech of This Election!

I'm not a night person, so I had to look to YouTube to see most of the "big name" speeches from both parties' national conventions.  Each of the candidates' wives certainly knocked it out of the park for their respective husbands.  Nice to see such strong, intelligent women involved, informed, assertive and supporting of their husband's careers as well as their own beliefs about the policies for this country.

But somehow, I never got around to seeing Deval Patrick's, and here I am, a resident of Massachusetts.  My own governor. I heard from a lot of friends from out of state that my own Governor gave a great speech.  

I heard him on the radio today.  96.9 Jim & Margery show have Gov. Patrick on fairly regularly, and he takes in calls from listeners.  I was not a Patrick supporter, but these radio shows, and his courage to take random calls, and thoughtful responses have turned me around.  

So today, his radio performance reminded that I hadn't yet seen his speech at the DNC. I finally just watched it.  I was totally blown away.  What a great speech. If you missed it, too, CLICK HERE to watch and listen.  It's worth it. 

Whatever you think of the candidates, this is just a great speech and a stellar presentation.  Even the negative comments from people who don't like Obama's policies admit that it was a great speech.  

Nice job, Governor Patrick. I am left speechless about your speech. And -- in spite of my grumpiness about the many challenges of living in this state -- with this speech, you gave me a feeling of pride to be living in Massachusetts. 

 

OF NOTE: On a recent Bill Moyers show, factchecker.org's founder, Kathleen Jamieson, declared that Bill Clinton's DNC speech was the most "fact-based." Check it out by clicking HERE.

 

September 27, 2012 in Current Affairs, Television | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

FCC To Fight Back Against an Irresponsible Supreme Court Who Has Sold our Elections to the Highest Bidders

The recent ruling by the Supreme Court, our alleged "experts" on Consitutional Law, essentially sold elections to Big Business, and the very rich, including the billionaire criminals on Wall Street. These include those responsible for the Economic Meltdown, prompting President G.W. Bush to use taxpayer money to bail out Global and National financial institutions who otherwise would have collapsed, as did Lehman Brothers. 

In their decision regarding "Citizen's United," The Supreme Court opened the flood gates for big money to buy the media when it comes to political elections.  In case there were any doubts about the results of this decision, the dramatic results were certainly illustrated in almost ALL of the GOP Primaries.

I'd like to think Romney would have won these primaries anyhow, as -- IMHO -- he was the best of a sorry lot, with the possible exception of Ron Paul.  But most political analysts noted that Romney's Super Pac "fear ads" trumped and squashed his opponents in most of the swing states.

The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) has brilliantly responded with a proposal requiring the media to post the cost of any political ads, so voters can actually SEE how much their votes cost...how vulnerable the public is to political ads that skew and twist the facts -- sometimes outright lying -- to get the desired candidates elected. It may upset the media.  BUT, as we have seen with the recent scandal over the power and abuse of Rupert Murdock's media empire, since the Supreme Court won't protect the individual voters from being manipulated by the media, perhaps the FCC offers the only solution. 

Here's an excerpt from Amicus Curiae, The blog for Professor Corcos' classes at LSU Law Center:

"FCC Promoting Proposal to Require Local Television Stations to Post Information about Political Advertising on Website
April 12, 2012

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is actively promoting a proposal that would require local television stations to post information about political advertising on an FCC central website. Local television stations are currently required to maintain public files at their offices for inspection by members of the public. The files normally include information about programming, staffing, and spending on political advertisements.

The problem is that few people know about the filing requirement and therefore very few people access the files.

The FCC proposal seeks to provide broader access to the public by requiring the television stations to upload the files to an FCC-operated website. Critics assert that the change would be an unnecessary financial burden for local stations and does not clearly benefit the public.

However, advocates for the proposal claim that the requirement will make it easier to access public information and provides greater transparency about the political advertisements during political campaigns. In addition, the FCC notes that initial uploading of the files will cost less than $1,000 for most television stations and will save television stations money in the long run by avoiding printing and storage costs. The FCC is expected to vote on the proposal at an April 27 meeting and it seems likely that the measure will pass."

**

I sure hope it does pass!  It won't cost the taxpayes a penny.  And I think that the Media can survive making public the cost of political ads, while keeping a separate pay scale for their "cash cow" of commercial ads.  In fact, since the Supreme Court has essentially sold elections to the highest bidder, the Media could play a vital role in keeping the individual voters informed about just how much control the Super Pacs have over our sources of information.  As such, THE MEDIA SHOULD BE PROUD to be part of doing their part to return the United States to being a government of elected officials "of the people, by the people and for the people."

To quote one editorial from the Register-Guard on the shocking rulings by the Supreme Court:

"...both Republican and Democratic political strategists are using super-PACs to circumvent a federal campaign finance system that was intended to limit individual contributions and require full disclosure....Two U.S. Supreme Court decisions paved the way for super PACs. The first, Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, overturned a long-standing ban on corporate and union treasury funds being used in politics. The second, SpeechNow.org vs. Federal Election Commission, ruled that limiting donations to political committees was unconstitutional.

Super PACs pose many problems, but none is greater than their potential for magnifying the influence or power of an individual or a group of individuals and thereby diminishing the influence of ordinary Americans."

**

To quote a courageous TV political commentator, Edward R. Murrow, who had the courage to speak out against the horrors perpetrated by the then-powerful Senator Joseph McCarthy, "Good Night and Good Luck."  Let's hope the morning comes soon, along with the luck.  And possibly some elections that cater to informed individuals, and not the negative/twisted/un-truthful/fear-based/hidden agenda media campaigns I see coming from the Super Pacs.

 

 

April 27, 2012 in Current Affairs, Television, Weblogs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Newt Gingrich Blames Obama for....A Remark by Robert DeNiro?

Let me get this straight.  Robert DeNiro, a Hollywood actor, makes a quip at a fund raiser event.  Obama is not present when the quip was made, but Newt Gingrich "blames" Obama?  Hmmm. Newt sounds like a desperate man grasping for straws.

Excerpt from Web site summary: "Cue outrage. On Tuesday, Newt Gingrich spoke at a Shreveport, La.campaign event and said that President Obama -- who was not in attendance when DeNiro made his oh-so-witty crack -- is responsible for the bad joke.

"If people on the left want to talk about talk show hosts, then everybody in the country should hold the president accountable when someone at his event says something that is utterly and terribly unacceptable as what Robert DeNiro said," Gingrich says."

**

I guess Obama is responsible for David Letterman's quip about Joe Biden when the first Lady made an appearance on a recent show. In fact, I think I may have made a quip about Newt Gingrich the other day. I wondered how he was able to have his marriage (with children) annulled.  Perhaps Obama is responsible for my quip, too?  Afterall, Obama was President when I made the quip. Isn't he responsible?

March 21, 2012 in Current Affairs, Television, Weblogs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

WHO DECIDED TO BAIL OUT WALL STREET? Political movie to air March 15th.

I noticed this post on Facebook: CLICK HERE.  During this pre-election period it is good to revisit the history of the controversial bail out Wall Street and related large investment agencies, who made the decision and why.  Also, it is good to revisit who initiated the two decade-long wars, as well as the current administration's role in these wars.  This movie will air on March 15th and will also touch on other key issues. 

Love him or hate him, Obama's election followed that of George Bush, II, an election that was decided by one controversial state election.  That of Florida, governed by Bush's brother.  Food for thought?

March 08, 2012 in Current Affairs, Film, Television, Weblogs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

NATURAL GAS vs. OIL HEAT: Cautious Warning, Especially if post-Nuclear Japan switches to Gas

Between the rising cost of heating oil and the news reports on a "glut" of natural gas and dramatically lowered prices, I just made an appointment to get an estimate to switch from Oil Heat to Natural Gas. I made an inquiry of friends on Facebook, and got the following warning about Natural Gas. The most important and unpredicted factor is Japan switching to Natural Gas after the recent, post-tsunami Nuclear disaster. (Click HERE for the recent NYT report confirming this!)

"Hi, Candace. Thanks for getting in touch. The big problem with natural gas is that the low pricing you see today is unlikely to last. The glut is exaggerated. The Department of Energy recently announced that proven gas reserves had been overestimated by 66%. At the same time, producers like Cheniere are developing export capabilities to ship to places like Japan, which has sworn off nuke power and turned to natural gas. If a world market develops, we'll be exposed to pricing that is now five times higher than what we see. ($16 per million BTUs in Asia vs. less than $4 in U.S. now). The Oilheat guys don't say much, but they are switching to a much cleaner fuel (ultra low sulfur) that they blend with biodiesel, much of which is repurposed waste cooking oil - true conservation of resources. Oil burners are very flexible. They do just as well with biofuel blends as with heating oil, so there is a path forward with diminishing fossil fuels that natural gas does not have. Oilheat has been cheaper than gas almost every year before fracking began, and the EPA might impose tougher standards on frackers. The price equation could turn very quickly. Does that help?"

***

Many thanks to this thoughtful warning. 

March 07, 2012 in Current Affairs, Television, Weblogs | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

CANDACE CLEMENS ANNOUNCES BIBLE BURNING PLANS

Apparently, if any nut case makes a controversial statement about the Muslim religion, a) the media gives the nut case some actual credibility, b) some believers in the target religion feel justified in reacting violently, c) the nut case uses the resulting publicity to try to blackmail people into acting in accordance with his agenda.

This guy is allegedly a Christian minister.  That implies that he worships a man called Jesus and regards him as Christ, the Son of God, and his holy reference book is the Bible. I was under the impression that the man called Jesus was someone who preached "turning the other cheek" and "loving your neighbor" even if he/she isn't of the same faith, as presented by Jesus in the story of the good Samaritan (not one of "the Chosen" people...all those "chosen" people ignored a suffering man of their own faith.) I was also under the impression that this same Jesus was against perpetrating hatred, as is this at-best-fringe element who claims to be a Christian Minister, "spreading the word."  The question is, who's word is he spreading? And how is he getting the media to help him spread it?

Meanwhile, I'm a PR and Marketing person.  I am REALLY envious that this "Christian minister" is getting completely free publicity from worldwide media, and using it to try to get the attention of powerful people, as well as using the media to aid in attempted extortion. 

Hmmmm.  Maybe he's not a nut case after all.  According to Advertising Equivalency  this "nut case" has just been given billions of dollars of free media coverage, when I work so hard to get a little tiny bit of publicity for my clients, and sometimes my clients even PAY the media to get mentioned (which is called advertising.) 

These clients are mostly small businesses.  They employ American citizens, providing health coverage for their employees, probably most of them Christians (OK, I know one of them is Catholic....I'm not sure this minister would agree that qualifies as Christian.) And these businesses DESERVE AT LEAST as much free publicity as this allegedly Christian minister, who doesn't seem to add much value to America at all.

In fact, some might say, he's actually going to be responsible for some deaths of American soldiers, or even innocent Christian civilians (apparently, he wouldn't care if a few innocent Muslims died in the process, so we won't bother mentioning that). Why should HE be rewarded with free publicity? In fact, if anyone does get hurt or loses a loved one as  result of said publicity, I think a good lawyer could make a case for significant compensation -- his or her client suing both the nut case AND the media who initially reported the story.  Isn't this irresponsible reporting, an abuse of "freedom of the press?"

My Walnut28 Communications business has had a few clients over the past few years.  I think I'll get one of them to agree to join me in announcing that we will burn a few Bibles because we are mad at this Christian minister for endangering the lives of our troops in a very Muslim part of the world.  And if enough Christians get angry at the company for burning bibles, maybe the media will pick it up.  Or vice versa.  And -- bingo -- brand recognition.  The only cost is my consulting fee.

Maybe I should hire this nut case.  I think he's on to something. 

September 10, 2010 in Current Affairs, Humor, Television, Web/Tech | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

GOOD NEWS ABOUT FEISTY BOSTON OLDSTER -- LIVE ON VIDEO

Granny packs a punch.  You GO, Girlfriend....or, old-lady-friend...or both.  She must be Boston born and bred...  "Love that dirty water..."

February 17, 2010 in Cosmic Web Site, Current Affairs, Humor, Television | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

YouTUBE, RIHANNA & CHRIS BROWN: Sometimes, it just takes one to tango

I wanted to watch the interview with Rihanna about the incident of domestic violence with ex-boyfriend, Chris Brown.  But that night, I forgot it was on.  My daughter called me the next morning to tell me it was very powerful.  I was pleased to find the exclusive interview archived on YouTube in 5 parts:

Part 1    Part 2    Part 3    Part 4    Part 5

Why do I care?  It is a complicated issue that has touched my own life.  As a Public D.A. once said to me, "Most wife-beaters are just nice guys with problems."  The question is, how does society deal with this problem?  One of the best books on this issue is Lundy Bancroft's "Why Does He Do That: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men."  While violent behavior is hardly limited to men, as Bancroft states, in the statistics of domestic violence, the majority of perpetrators are men.  He also differentiates between slapping with an open hand and punching or hitting with a closed fist.  Both are considered physical assault, but the potential damage is hardly comparable.  For starters, one can leave a bruise or even break a bone, and the other can't.

However, Rihanna's response to cries that she must have done something to provoke Chris Brown's violent attack should be pause for thought.  "Even if I did do something to provoke him, does that give him the right to do what he did to me?" 

On Chris Brown's behalf, I admire him for publicly admitting to his loss of control and staying in a state of truth and apology.  As Bancroft's book states -- validated by my own personal experience -- most perpetrators of domestic violence cry "self defense" and lie to family and friends about the circumstances of the assault, leaving their partner isolated and shunned.

I admire and respect both Rihanna and Brown for attempting to use an all too common behavioral malfunction between men and women to educate those who think "it takes two to tango." When it comes to gender violence, in most cases only one party is even capable of that sort of tango.

POST SCRIPT: NPR just today reported Chris Brown's reaction to Rihanna's TV interview.  The only thing that upset him about her interview was that she "went public" with what triggered his violent explosion -- she said she caught him in a lie and "wouldn't just let it go."  He stated on the radio that he felt the cause of his explosion was a private matter, and she should not have mentioned it. 

Does it not seem strange to you that a man would be more ashamed of the public knowing that his girlfriend caught him in a lie than the public knowing that he beat his girlfriend.  Since YouTube is full of speculations that Rihanna must have done something to provoke Brown, in my opinion, it is educational for others to know the root of his rage.  And, because domestic violence is such a common problem, I think it is also educational for others to know the types of spats that might trigger such violent outbursts.

Of note: I found the recent 20/20 interview with Chris Brown to be most compelling and certainly illustrative of the multi-dimensional and complicated issues around tempers and violence within otherwise loving relationships. 

November 09, 2009 in Current Affairs, Television | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

My Photo

About

Recent Posts

  • BUDGET BALANCING? Why not save taxpayers $1.8 BILLION by releasing all non-violent pot offenders from prisons?
  • HEADLINE NEWS IRONY: Increase in Heroin Use and Overdoses vs. Lethal Injection Controversy
  • BENGHAZI vs. BRIDGE GATE: Oranges vs. Apple Christie
  • U.S. POSTAL SERVICE: Not Going Broke but Being Robbed?
  • TREASON INSTEAD OF REASON: Who took the GRAND out of the "Grand Old Party?"
  • CARDBOARD COPS: Perhaps an alternative to closing the U.S. Consulates in the Middle East?
  • SOME GOOD NEWS, FOR A CHANGE: Mercy Ships featured on 60 Minutes
  • THE IMPORTANCE OF NEIGHBORS AND NEIGHBORHOODS
  • MEXICO: DWD Retirement Centers -- a solution for multiple problems?
Subscribe to this blog's feed
View Candace Clemens's profile on LinkedIn
See how we're connected