North Coast Oregon

You are viewing the archives of the old northcoastoregon.com. Please visit the new North Coast Oregon at: http://www.northcoastoregon.com/

Measure 50....Healthy Kids...Cigarette Taxes

by Tryan Hartill

(This is part I of a series that will attempt to tackle the new proposed cigarette tax.)

What is Measure 50?

Measure 50 basically asks the voters of Oregon if they support Senate Bill 3. This Bill had a majority support it in the Legislature, but failed to get enough votes to actually pass it.

The Bill calls for a 84.5 cent tax on each pack of cigarettes to pay for health insurance.

The tax is estimated to bring in $116 million per year. This amount includes the expected cigarettes per capita decline, from higher taxes, calculated in.

Money from the tax distributed as follows:

68% to the “Healthy Kids Program”

18% for the Oregon Health Plan

10% to tobacco prevention

3% to the Healthy Kids Safety Net

1% to rural health clinics

The Healthy Kids Safety Net is a fund that will distribute grants through the Department of Human Services toward community health centers and safety net clinics.

Who is insured now?

There are about 900,000 kids (0-18 years old) in Oregon.

117,000 Oregon kids do not have health insurance.

225,000 have State-sponsored Insurance (Mostly Oregon Health Plan…funded 60% Fed Taxes and 40% State Taxes)

567,000 have Individual or Employer Insurance.

::::

Who qualifies?

Those who qualify for the Healthy Kids program:

The child must be under the age of 19.

A family income of less than 200% of the poverty level. (about $42,000 for a family of 4 in 2007)

The child must be uninsured at least 60 days before enrollment.

The Child is a legal Oregon Resident.

For families that enroll in the program, who make more than 200% above the Federal Poverty level, they will receive reduced rates. But the level of subsides that will be provided have not been determined.

What happens to the other Tobacco Taxes?

This is where it gets a little confusing. ORS
323.030 and 323.031 are the current taxes on cigarettes. They add up to $1.18 on every pack sold in Oregon. Right now most of the money goes to the Oregon Health Plan, with increments going to Oregon Cities, Counties and the Dept. of Transportation. They all receive the same 3.45%. Measure 50 will change all of this. If it passes, Cities, Counties and Dept. of Transportation will have their monies decreased. From 3.45% to 2.3%. Clatsop County receives about $44,000 per year in cigarette tax money. This amount would drop to about $28,000.

As noted above 18% of the new tax would go to the Oregon Health Plan. But this amount is more than canceled out by the reworking of the old cigarette taxes. Under Measure 50, 20% of the old cigarette taxes would go to the General fund. Where as before zero went to the General Fund. This Bill will actually decrease the amount of funding for the Oregon Health Plan. 20% of the old $1.18 per pack tax will be replaced by 18% of the new smaller 84.5 cent tax.

Part II can be viewed Here

Aug 19, 11:45 pm | Tryan Hartill
Tags: Cigarette Taxes, Healthy Kids, Measure 50, Oregon

Click stars to rate this article.

Rated 5/5 Stars.
1Bad
2Average
3Above Average
4Very Good
5Great

Rated 5 out of five stars.

This article has been rated 3 times.

37 comments on this article (post your own)

1 On Aug 20, 01:13 pm, KISS wrote:

Corporate Oregon goes scott free and smokers get it from Feds and state. I don’t smoke and I am voting no. This was another cheap shot by the guv and cowardly,Beholding?, dimmos. A great Governor would have had balls and stood up to the business alliance. Did I not just read a dimmo is now the mouth-piece of the business alliance?

2 On Aug 20, 01:39 pm, Walter Richards wrote:

10% to tobacco prevention?

Only a politician could dream up something as stupid as raising taxes on a product, then putting some of that money towards getting people to stop using that product … the effect of which would be to de-fund all the programs paid for with those taxes.

Wouldn’t it be cheaper, and make more sense, just to end the subsidies paid to tobacco farmers? Of course, that would mean slaying someone’s sacred cow.

I just wish all these socialists would go to one state, and try all their experiments there … so everybody could see once and for all that it doesn’t pencil out.

3 On Aug 20, 03:41 pm, THartill wrote:

Only a politician could dream up something as stupid as raising taxes on a product, then putting some of that money towards getting people to stop using that product

Just wait for the next articles. I have not even discussed the workplace smoking bans that are said to reduce the “cigarette purchase per capita” by 10%.

4 On Aug 21, 02:48 pm, Walter Richards wrote:

I still think the state should have to compensate bar/restaurant/etc owners for lost business due to smoking bans. If someone wants to operate a business and allow smoking, the state has no right to tell them “no”. Non-smokers don’t have to work there, or shop/eat there either.

5 On Aug 21, 07:18 pm, Robin Hillard wrote:

Thats funny, the child must be a legal Oregon resident, thats great!! I guess the Undocumented Criminals children will not qualify then, OH wait, never mind, this stinks, thousands of Anchor babies will be covered under this plan, HUH!! After all it is there CHUMAN RIGHT MANG.

6 On Aug 21, 08:19 pm, Jack wrote:

Any idea how they plan on making sure that the people covered under this scheme are actually legal residents? Why do I suspect that illegals are simply going to have to jot down a SSN—-any SSN—-and they’ll be served? Or better yet, present an Oregon State ID, which doesn’t require proof of legal citizenship to get. Ha! Now that would be a nice hoodwink on the voters!

7 On Aug 22, 10:58 pm, THartill wrote:

Lots of Google hits on this one. (Especially from the State of Oregon service provider)

Comments and or corrections are welcomed.

8 On Aug 23, 02:00 pm, John Smith wrote:

You are all forgetting that this law makes sense. Those who will benefit are exactly who needs to. And unfortunately, they are also the ones who seem to be stricken by sickness from direct contact from second hand smoke. I work with kids from low SES areas, and the reality is self evident. These kids have parents who chain smoke in the home, in the car and just about anywhere else. I have seen it, experienced it, and hate the truth of the matter. I hope this law passes, not because it is enough, but because it is better than nothing.

9 On Sep 3, 11:58 pm, Judy Lynn wrote:

To John Smith: Mr. Smith, you are confusing cigarette taxes with smoking bans. Oregon has passed a smoking ban. The cigarette tax will do little or nothing to stop people from smoking if they want to. It is unfortunate some adults don’t take responsibllity for the health of their children, but no amount of legislation will make that happen, not even an outright ban on cigarettes. The consequences of this tax will be that smokers will simply buy their cigarettes on the black market or cut down, leaving no money for children’s health care. Nobody seems to understand that simple logic.

10 On Sep 5, 04:44 am, Tim McCoy wrote:

The primary issue I am having with this law is the economic discrimination that is being used. It is no surprise that a lot of smokers are low income. While, it is easy for someone to spend another’s monies. This law would require individuals to defray the cost of a whole health care system.

In addition the various other discrepancies, is this good policy?

11 On Sep 13, 02:56 pm, Shelly wrote:

First of all, smokers are an easy target since they are the minority here. Taxing fast food would be far more equal since it’s a vise more people have.

I read the measure and I was not able to find anything preventing illegal aliens to be provided services.

Any regualr ballot measure has to be passed by a 2 thirds vote. Aren’t they sneaky to add it to the state constitution, so it only needs a majority vote? That also means once they finally force people to quit smoking (heaven forbid the take our rights away in a less sneaky manner) and the funds are not coming in that way…they still have to provide the services. Guess who hass to pay for it then?

Smokers have been discriminated against enough already. Aren’t you glad teh government is there to tell you what to do and where to do it? Free market? What’s that?

PS…There is absolutely no proof that second hand smoke poses any health risks at all. If we were smart enough to do the research ourselves, rather than to take the word of some polititan with their own agendas…

Oh, but wait a minute! I don’t smoke! Tax them all! Quaranteentehm to a camp in eastern Oregon where we can keep watch and that nasty smoke can’t waft so far to the west…

12 On Sep 26, 10:16 am, Paul wrote:

First off I am a smoker. When I first heard this of this measure – I was in support of it. Recently I was sent a mass mailing stating that Measure 50 is going to amend the Oregon State Constitution. The organization (Oregonians Against the Blank Check) that is sent this mailing out seems to be funded via back channel by RJ Reynolds. See links

http://www.blueoregon.com/2007/09/davey-crockett-.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/elections/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1189616230134080.xml&coll=7
http://www.healthykids-oregon.org/

I have not been able to verify this claim that it actually is amending the constitution – can anyone help me clear this up? If the measure is changing the constitution then I am against – the constitution is no place for specific laws like this!!

A final note – one of the things I love about Oregon is this all the voter initiatives that we the people are allowed to vote on. Sadly we are often bombarded by misinformation in this process by sources that are not transparent to the voters. See links above – a rebuttle to a TV ad by Oregonians Against the Blank Check came from an organization called Healthy Kids. Again – who is behind this organization? It seems to be big HMOs and insurance, but looking at the thier web page you would never know this!! Have we sold out our voting process to big business interests? What can we do to change this? Look at the mess we are in after voting for Measure 37 at the end of the day it is only profiting lawyers and corporate landowners, not the average joe as we were lead to believe.

13 On Sep 26, 10:34 am, jones wrote:

Voters have to be well informed because it seems we can get easily taken in by slick , well paid ad agencies, for important things like our health. They know the constitution is important to most of us so they tell us it will be in danger, instead of telling us our kids are in danger from cigarettes and no health care.

14 On Sep 26, 11:01 am, Healthy Kids wrote:

from healthy kids website

Big Tobacco’s Suit Seeking to Throw Measure 50 off November Ballot Found by Marion County Judge to be Without Merit.

(Salem, OR) – A Marion County Judge denied the motion seeking to remove Measure 50 from the November ballot.

Judge Paul Lipscomb found that “the challenge fails as to each of the specific substantive issues it raises.”

Tobacco giant Philip Morris paid the legal fees for the suit. Measure 50 is a constitutional amendment that would raise taxes on tobacco to boost children’s health insurance coverage. Tobacco companies have filed more than 35 suits in five other states since 2001 to block tobacco-related measures. To date none of those attempts had been successful.

“This is a great victory for Oregon’s kids. Big Tobacco tried and failed to keep measure 50 off the ballot because they know Oregonians want to protect our kids, not tobacco industry profits,” said Cathy Kaufmann, Communications Director for the Healthy Kids Oregon Campaign.———————-

Constitutional Amendment

Cancer, Lung, Heart Associations are working to pass measure 50.

Have we passed other good/bad Oregon constitutional amendments?

15 On Sep 26, 11:44 am, gray kitty reader wrote:

Here is small part of our constitutions index. I don’t think measure 50 being an amendment is a big deal.

TAXATION

Assessment, uniformity, Art. IX §1

Benefits, certain, exempt, Art. IX §9

Bills raising revenue

Majority vote, three-fifths, necessity, Art. IV §25 Origination, House of Representatives, Art. IV §18

Collections, amount exceeding revenue estimates, refund, Art. IX §14

Common School Fund, oil or natural gas taxes, proceeds source, Art. VIII §2

Consent, necessity, Art. I §32

Counties, Art. VI §10

Deficiency to be covered in ensuing year, Art. IX §6

District or body, Art. XI §12

Education buildings, Art. XI-F(1) §3; Art. XI-G §3

Elections

(Generally), Art. XI §11 Majorities (sec. 11 (8)), Art. XI §11

Emergency declaration, prohibited, Art. IX §1a

Federal definition of income, use by state, Art. IV §32

Fuel taxes, use, Art. IX §3a

General laws only, Art. IX §1

Head tax prohibited, Art. IX §1a

Highway maintenance, construction, etc., use, fuel and vehicle excise taxes, Art. IX §3a

Income, federal definition, Art. IV §32

Kicker, refund, Art. IX §14

Legislature, generally, Art. I §32; Art. IV §18; Art. IX §§1, 3

Levy, accordance with law, Art. IX §3

Limitations

(Generally), Art. XI §§11, 11b Assessed value limit, Art. XI §11 (1)(a) Municipal charter requirements, Art. XI §5 Permanent rate limit (3)(b), Art. XI §11 Schools, lost revenue, state replacement obligation (9), Art. XI §11 Veterans’ aid exceptions, Art. XI-A §5

Local Acts excluded, Art. IV §23; Art. IX §1

Local option tax (sec. (4)(a)), Art. XI §11

Motor vehicle fuel and excise taxes, use, Art. IX §3a

Municipalities, Art. XI §5

Natural gas

Common School Fund, proceeds source, Art. VIII §2 Rate, Art. IX §3b

Oil or natural gas

Common School Fund, proceeds source, Art. VIII §2 Rate, Art. IX §3b

Parks and recreational areas, vehicle excise taxes, use, Art. IX §3a

Poll tax prohibited, Art. IX §1a

Pollution control facility bonds, repayment, Art. XI-H §4

Property, limitations, see Limitations, this topic

Purpose, distinct statements, law imposing, Art. IX §3

Redevelopment projects, Art. IX §1c

Revenue application, distinct statement, law imposing, Art. IX §3

Revenue estimates, emergency increase for kicker purposes, two-thirds vote, Art. IX §14

School districts

Limitation (Generally), Art. XI §11b Replacement obligation, state (9), Art. XI §11

Ships, exemption until 1935, Art. IX §1b

Small scale local energy loan bonds, use, ad valorem taxes, Art. XI-J §4

Special Acts excluded, Art. IV §23; Art. IX §1

State, generally, Art. IX §2

State house erection, Art. XIV §2

Uniformity, Art. I §32; Art. IX §1

Vehicles, fuel and excise taxes, use, Art. IX §3a

Voting on special taxes, Art. II §2

Water Development projects, revenue sources, Art. XI-I(1) §4

TAXPAYERS

Voting restrictions, Art. II §2

16 On Sep 29, 09:21 pm, yeoldgrump wrote:

Seems to me that, if you are against tobacco and it has proven to be an addictive drug that can and has been known to contribute to cancer, emphysema and other health problems you should: 1. Ban the product. 2. Take it off the market. 3. Place it on the illegal substances list. Otherwise, quit trying to kill a cash cow.
The same thing goes for the automobile. Try to outlaw either and you will most likely have a revolution on your hands. Not necessarily a shooting revolution but, a whole bunch of politicians and their cohorts will be in the unemployment line.

17 On Oct 1, 12:23 pm, Tired of Gov Spending wrote:

Question anything that increases Gov. spending. There is so much waste at all levels. It is time that our elected officials represent the people instead of all the special interest groups that fund their campaigns. But who would vote for an honest man in this day and age? Are there any left in politics?

18 On Oct 1, 03:26 pm, Bill wrote:

Here’s the “Kicker” that nobody say’s anything about. This is an Amendment to our State CONSTITUTION, and if it passes, I’m betting that it’s just going to snowball with More Amendments. LEAVE OUR CONSTITUTION ALONE… Sorry, NOT FOR ME!

19 On Oct 2, 08:28 pm, Britney S. wrote:

All new taxes are amendments to the state constitution. Check it out on Google! The ads are sure effective and big misleading fibs. Don’t let them convince you your constitution has been the same for 150 years. It has lots of amendments for different needs of the state.

Please don’t believe the teevee. Research and read and spread the truth. Not the tobacco interests lies. Know your liars and opportunists.

20 On Oct 4, 11:35 pm, Ephiny wrote:

First, there is no way I will vote for any measure that will decrease funding for the Oregon Health Plan. It is difficult enough for low-income families to be approved to recieve OHP due to lack of funding, and if you don’t have children, don’t bother trying to get any help from Oregon.

Second, to anyone who believes that taxing cigarettes will do anything to lessen smoking, you’re kidding yourselves. We’re taxing tobacco, because it is guaranteed that, no matter how poor they are, smokers will continue to smoke.

Since KIDS are always used as the big marketing catch, consider this hypothetical, but very probable, scenario:
In 2006, Mary Johnson, retail cashier and single mother, smoked a pack a day costing $2.50 or about $75 per month. That year, a $1.18 tobacco tax went into effect, raising her monthly tobacco costs to $110. On a tight budget, bills fall behind, and her smoking increases to 2 packs a day by 2007 due to stress. Another new tobacco tax costs her $270 per month. Instead of cutting back, she doesn’t pay the water bill. The next month, she’s unable to pay the electric bill. She’s forced to get a second job, and now the KIDS are left at home without supervision, without heat, and without water. Now, whose fault is this?

This scenario is much more realistic than the mother kicking the habit just because it costs more. Of course, she should try to quit, but does the government really need to assist in the decline of the already struggling poor?

If we need a guaranteed product tax which would be less likely to cause economic strife, why not tax coffee? There are many more consumers addicted to their morning wake-up drink than tobacco, and it would target a largely diverse population, not just those in poverty, which most smokers are.

21 On Oct 4, 11:38 pm, Ephiny wrote:

22 On Oct 16, 06:07 pm, Thomas Eddy wrote:

I do not smoke and would love to see more people quit because of higher prices. However, Measure 50 forbids requiring proof of legal citizenship and I am tired of supporting welfare programs for illegal citizens.

23 On Oct 16, 07:52 pm, Doc wrote:

Measure 50 forbids requiring proof of legal citizenship ———
If they are here waiting for citizenship, why should those who need care, go without it. It isn’t for treating undocumented immigrants. The emergency room is for that.

Legal citizenship for immigrants takes time.
You don’t want to force hard working migrants. waiting for citizenship, that are making low wages to let their babies and children go untreated.
————To those who say ‘if they can’t afford kids they shouldn’t have them.’ I AGREE, BUT…............................................................................................
‘’‘’’

Some are catholic and don’t believe in abortion, or can’t afford birth control. I’m not saying you, but some anit-abortion folks(not parents) only love the fetus and turn their backs on the needy children that they legislated to bring into the world..

24 On Oct 18, 02:42 am, Tom Kihs wrote:

As a registered Republican,( who is trying hard to quit smoking )I am voting no on measure 50,because the state of Oregon already taxes the people who live here to much!

I am disabled and live on a fixed income,the state should live on a fixed income also and quit taking so much out of peoples pockets!
I agree with one of the posters in this site,”let all of the socialist move to one state”,California,New York or Vermont sounds like good places for them!

25 On Oct 18, 02:45 am, Tom Kihs wrote:

As a registered Republican,( who is trying hard to quit smoking )I am voting no on measure 50,because the state of Oregon already taxes the people who live here to much!

26 On Oct 18, 07:42 am, Patrick McGee wrote:

To me using the word “kids” to lock the guilt factor in on this measure is not a good thing and that pisses me off.

You want to create a measure that taxes cigarette smokers and puts 100% of that money into Oregon Health Plan and focussed on the health of children I will vote for it but this Measure 50? I can’t, in clear conscience, vote for.

27 On Aug 23, 02:36 am, Felecia Velasquez wrote:

consultable palustrian tweak orthoceratite rigwiddie scribatiousness slumberer unfriendlily
RangaRevolution

http://www.usewha.org Gary Panks Associates – Golf Course Architects http://cnn.com/2003/US/Southwest/06/13/f16.crash.ap/ CNN Money http://www.cincinnatilibrary.org/branches/hydepark.html National Parks of The Bahamas http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0103584/

28 On Aug 24, 04:46 pm, Blake Barnett wrote:

consultable palustrian tweak orthoceratite rigwiddie scribatiousness slumberer unfriendlily
jxvogoq cohdalue

http://pgjqsgzlb.com qqzzs muwcxml http://ruhjamj.com qcbyqh hrif http://bzagjmzqhst.com ftatda wjbvi http://btgspu.com

29 On Aug 26, 02:14 pm, Sal Page wrote:

consultable palustrian tweak orthoceratite rigwiddie scribatiousness slumberer unfriendlily
prydj ojtosbk

http://doiibcv.com vjcmmoy qcolcfsc http://rerlpdxobzik.com dpbvhqe bxpw http://ixkfdvwxksch.com vkpzwcr rabsq http://nexripvw.com

30 On Aug 31, 06:29 am, Randal Gaines wrote:

consultable palustrian tweak orthoceratite rigwiddie scribatiousness slumberer unfriendlily
nsuhbs mhpgzqkm

http://cdsyhjladden.com kwqqk jodt http://rxlfus.com vthto plrs http://zhcgjtvaxb.com vxxaa egxbr http://rzypmofuc.com

31 On Sep 1, 05:53 am, Mario Jenkins wrote:

consultable palustrian tweak orthoceratite rigwiddie scribatiousness slumberer unfriendlily
mebbv sfuxwast

http://slicrq.com ytcuyu efby http://jvpkrdbives.com pylcvl vxzff http://gefetv.com nutyxuq jkzr http://mhhadzlcpw.com

32 On Sep 1, 11:38 pm, Harold Jordan wrote:

consultable palustrian tweak orthoceratite rigwiddie scribatiousness slumberer unfriendlily
fwqwmj rsrhw

http://fikxaao.com qgxora gyshrnqh http://gsazruiqaf.com zxpzv bxkqvbh http://chghgecwzb.com xqpmasq xuoaju http://ixioveggog.com

33 On Sep 2, 11:47 am, Dennis Farrell wrote:

consultable palustrian tweak orthoceratite rigwiddie scribatiousness slumberer unfriendlily
fszal fvhzkoie

http://cyoqfek.com pwnfp agvkrvee http://deqtsqeaqa.com mnrxqy yjpblxuw http://ycxnnzik.com ouczod knlazau http://mgutbicadpo.com

34 On Sep 3, 02:29 pm, Bernard Nelson wrote:

consultable palustrian tweak orthoceratite rigwiddie scribatiousness slumberer unfriendlily
mjpsyk dqxt

http://qbaxpndx.com nhryajl cekt http://rmvkqn.com mwxpdhp kyhfvfjd http://qcqgkdjdgxar.com rtpdu xheuip http://aztnmwmqor.com

35 On Sep 4, 06:24 am, Leonardo Thompson wrote:

consultable palustrian tweak orthoceratite rigwiddie scribatiousness slumberer unfriendlily
oisks dofq

http://aqrmeeit.com kemedf rnqsri http://qcnwegdadolw.com sqhcy dlwhivek http://wuiqdphpt.com mcwugpx xrcnby http://mjotdehstaso.com

36 On Sep 5, 02:03 am, Herschel Torres wrote:

consultable palustrian tweak orthoceratite rigwiddie scribatiousness slumberer unfriendlily
dimhc arhtla

http://xhxqhghmld.com gjvspaw ogockp http://atpxxkurixnd.com tfjoi juvjrkle http://bgxayzbl.com kbwrac kblisyuu http://ttqoxjamiko.com

37 On Sep 5, 04:37 pm, Johnna Acosta wrote:

consultable palustrian tweak orthoceratite rigwiddie scribatiousness slumberer unfriendlily
hxoxpp xjgb

http://exiruyuvsj.com njyigkw fbqpzi http://awzxjc.com yhhrzf skmyg http://zqyyyo.com hbflck uugb http://eokxcolz.com

Previous Article:
« Two Gripes

Next Article:
North Coast Oregon Stat Round Up »

Article Tags

Sorted by popularity.

NCO Reader Comments

cnabas (New Tillamook and Clatsop County Blog)
pasgettaorri (The Vote 2006!)
pasgettaorri (The Vote 2006!)
connie (Focus on 49: BOCC work session grapples with difficult legislature)
Delores (Focus on 49: BOCC work session grapples with difficult legislature)
Kristen Molina (North Coast AA Round Up Seaside April 4th 5th 6th 2008)
Madonna Carr (What does the Federal Government Do with our Taxes?)
Wallace Kennedy (More D.A. Talk)
Ollie Woodward (Fort George Brewery Coming Alive)
Augustine Sweet (CCFOG - First report on Lee recall petition signatures)
Glynn Oconnor (A gun show ... without guns ?)
Lorne Riley (notes from Clean Slate PAC meeting 2/13/07)
Clare Ruiz (Durban Group Discusses Carbon Trading and LNG in Astoria)
Stewart Hernandez (Random News For Friday)
Johnna Acosta (Measure 50....Healthy Kids...Cigarette Taxes)
Nathan Schroeder (Housing Credit Crunch: Who to Blame?)
Tammi Chase (Hands of Peace held for MLK Jr Day)
Maxine Richardson (News Sidebar)
Maryann Le (Websites...How to do links...Textpattern, HTML, Subscribe)
Daniel Estrada (Warrenton City Manager Resigns)

Recent Articles

View All Articles...

Feeds

RSS
Atom

Home | Archives | Contribute | Back to Top
Take What You Want 2008 NorthCoastOregon.com unless otherwise indicated.
Please email us with any questions or comments.
Site created by Upspring Design.

North Coast Oregon

Measure 50....Healthy Kids...Cigarette Taxes

by Tryan Hartill

What is Measure 50?

Who is insured now?

Who qualifies?

What happens to the other Tobacco Taxes?

37 comments on this article (post your own)

Post A Comment

preview

Links

Local Weather

Local Links

Local Government

Clatsop Blog Network

Oregon Blogroll

National Blogroll

Contact Info

Article Tags

NCO Reader Comments

Recent Articles

Feeds