Colin James on Ruth Richardson
April 29th, 2007 at 8:37 pm by David FarrarThose who want a fair yet critical analysis of Ruth Richardson’s contribution to Government should read this paper by Colin James which he presented to The Bolger Years conference. I asked Colin if Ruth was in the room when he delivered it, and she was in fact the speaker directly after him.
Some extracts:
The die was cast for the early years of Jim Bolger’s government at a caucus meeting in late 1989 while still in opposition at which Ruth Richardson won commitment to vote for the fourth Labour government’s Reserve Bank Bill. That decision was both a symbolic and a substantive acceptance of the prevailing market-based and monetarist economic prescription and also a symbolic and substantive shift of mentality in a party noted for moderate management of an inherited status quo, not the implementation of radical ideas. The Richardson ascendancy which that caucus vote legitimated decisively finessed (though did not bury) the residual populism of the Muldoon era, of which the most visible and audible exponent was Winston Peters.
Only with the formation of a John Key-Bill English leadership team in November 2006 could the party be said to be fully back on its historical course, presenting something akin to the mix of liberal and conservative tendencies which typified it during its domination of politics from 1949 to 1972 but which had been obscured for 30 years since Sir Robert took it down a populist cul de sac.
But what is clear from National’s history is that the conservative and liberal strands are central and the populist and radical strands are outliers. Only when a powerful or charismatic personality emerges or times are unsettled have the outliers come centre-stage as they did between 1974 and 1992: the populist ascendancy ended with Sir Robert Muldoon’s defeat in 1984; the radical ascendancy was coterminous with Ruth Richardson’s period of greatest influence.
To talk of four tendencies is not to suggest individuals can all be pigeonholed in one or other. John Banks combined populist social attitudes with libertarian economic ones, for example. The four strands do not amount to factions, even if sometimes, as in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the tendencies become more distinctly visible.
James is excellent is his ability to look at the different components of a party and how they very over time. Far too few commentators look only at the short term.
And his conclusion on Ruth:
So was Ruth Richardson just a mistake, an aberration, a diversion, a siding, a less-said-the-better episode in National’s history?
No.
Her championing of the Reserve Bank Act and the Public Finance Act while in opposition and then in government was critical to beating the scourge of inflation and to achieving efficiencies in government activities. Her 1991 Budget deepened the recession in the short term but laid a long-term basis for strong surplus Budgets from 1994 onwards, underpinned by her Fiscal Responsibility Act. Her social assistance policy created hardship and spawned a complex and arguably counterproductive raft of special assistance payments but it also kickstarted a shift from purely rights-based social security and welfare to one predicated on the principle that work is better if practicable, which is now mainstream policy. Her insistence on thoroughgoing labour market deregulation encouraged firms to substitute cheap labour for capital investment, which was the opposite of the high-wage economy objective, but it also laid the basis for the big drop in unemployment over the past 10 years. Labour market deregulation also delivered significant labour mobility gains which added materially and importantly to the economy’s flexibility and eventual ability to ride out the combination of drought and Asian crisis in the late 1990s with little pain, which would have been unthinkable 10 years earlier. Overall her policies, added to those of Sir Roger Douglas and the fourth Labour government, generated a big improvement in productivity growth which is now accepted generally as the only sure eventual route to a high-wage economy.
She aimed to restart the reform blitzkrieg and proved able to do so — only briefly but long enough to weld the National party to the new economic project and in effect rule out any realistic prospect of reversal. The Clark governments have modified the project at the margins but the core principle, that markets allocate resources better than administrators, that private operators are for the most part more efficient than public agencies and that free trade is preferable to managed trade, is substantially intact. Indeed, in many ways, notably in its negligible tariff protection and in its tax system, New Zealand remains an outlier after seven and a-half years of governments led by an avowedly social democratic party. The Richardson ascendancy is an important chapter in the transition from the managed economy to the market economy.
James goes on to criticise the social costs of the reforms however. But his last two paragraphs speak for themselves:
But Ruth Richardson did what she did for what she saw as a greater good. She applied principle when it was sure to cause pain, which took at the very least bone-headed determination but also considerable courage. There were threats to her person. There are not many politicians with spines and carapaces like hers and every now and one comes in handy, if for no other reason than to sharpen the debate. Jim Bolger fired Ruth Richardson after his sorry electoral experiences in 1993. But had he not hired her in the first place, the economic gains and the fiscal improvement which paid off after his sacking might well have been compromised. I think Jim Bolger instinctively felt that and that is why we got Ruth Richardson. The irony is that Helen Clark was the beneficiary.
But let’s end on a Richardsonian note of longer-sightedness. Until the 1970s government spending, including assistance to industry and farming, of which there is very little now, was around a quarter of GDP, 10 percentage points below current levels. East Asian nations get by on less than that and some are richer than we are. Perhaps those nations will increase spending up to our level as they close in our standard of living. More likely, they will keep government spending well below ours, as Japan has done. If so, Ruth Richardson’s drive for smaller government may turn out to have been a pointer to the sorts of hard decisions that await her successors as policymakers down the track. The alien corn might turn out to have been the present.
This to me has been the tragedy of the last seven years. With such a healthy economy we could have significantly reduced spending as a percentage of GDP, while still increasing spending in real terms – just by not so much. That would have allowed us to lock in once in a generation reductions in tax, which would have boosted future economic growth.
No tag for this post.
April 30th, 2007 at 8:07 am
If this Government had been more disciplined in its spending we could have elimiated income tax for just about everybody. It would mean that middle income earners could afford to have choice in essential Government services such as education and health and be laying the foundations for a more secure retirement instead of being over taxed and hoping the Government would do it for you. But Ruth did do one very important thing in welfare and that is she told those on welfare and those aspiring to live on welfare that there were limits to the Government’s generosity that welfare benefits could and should be cut. Puctuating that also sent a sharp message the the Labour Party that their cherished welfare state has limits.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 9:05 am
At last DPF actually indicates the real truth about the recession of 19991.
Vote:Her 1991 Budget deepened the recession in the short term
April 30th, 2007 at 9:12 am
And of course, DPF, we still can make those changes – the “pain” would be no worse than in the 1980s. If Fiji can chop government spending 10% overnight, NZ certainly could – indeed should.
We know what needs to be done: we know how to do it. So far we have lacked only the will to make it happen.
Frankly, rather than pissing about as they are, if the minor parties really want to fix the exchange rate and economy, they could just give confidence and supply to John Key today. All these problems would be resolved in time for the next election.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 9:27 am
Jennifer yes some short term pain for long term gain. When the outgoing Govt has left you will a projected $5 billion shortfall in income, one needs to cut expenditure to live within one’s means.
And after a brief recession, the economy grew massively, and apart from a brief spell due to the Asian crisis has been growing for 15 years.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 9:31 am
Good point sinner.
The minor parties could give confidence and supply to National. But they won’t – different reasons for each.
Winston loves his new job. The economy could go to hell and as long as he has his baubles he’ll be happy.
Peter Dunne – Mr Common Sense – seems to lack common sense.
The Maori party would be punished next election if they supported National. It would be a tough sell to their voters.
Jim – well, you figure it out.
ACT would support National. They’ve go no one else to support.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Quote 1-
“There are not many politicians with spines and carapaces like hers”
Quote 2-
“Jim Bolger fired Ruth Richardson”
There we have it, Bolger’s arrant treachery, too Ruth Richardson and the core principles of National.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 9:37 am
“James goes on to criticise the social costs of the reforms however”
but obviously this bit is the bit you leave out Farrar , possibly because like Ruthy R and friends they were costs you never felt but believe me they were felt.
Some people took a hell of a long time to recover fiscal and social health and some never did, so much for sharing the burdon of restructuring.. …..
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 10:49 am
the worst of what NZ felt about those years, and still feels, was the loss of so many people to australia and elsewhere in search of an income, particularly the lost tradesman and engineers. When the economy tried to bounce back it really didnt leap forward as much as it could have done had the growth not been strangled by the lack of such vital services.
Perhaps next time, some careful government spending on infrastructure to keep essential skills in the job market would be a better way forward. It would also mean that when the economy did recover there wasnt a 15 year lag in infrastructure investment, thats also holding back productivity, and costing more to build and develop due to skill shortages.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 11:18 am
agreed, well put mavxp.
There is also the lingering political distaste (as Colin James rightly notes if you read the whole article)of a party that broke so many promises once it got into power, I think they call that lying now.
These promises delivered National an absurdly huge majority in 1990 with a tiny quiet opposition. Because of this National will never recover young conservative voters from that period and given the recent “hollow men” e-mails it’s hard not to think that they are/were planning a similar political ambush, (i.e. say anything to get votes and then do what you want when in power).
It’s also wise to remember Ruthy called her policy drive TINA (THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE) when as you noted it would have been highly beneficial in the short and long term to explore alternative methods of economic liberation without such crude social impact.
Vote:National must learn from the past because if it lies to get in office again it will never be forgiven.
April 30th, 2007 at 11:20 am
“James goes on to criticise the social costs of the reforms however”
but obviously this bit is the bit you leave out Farrar , possibly because like Ruthy R and friends they were costs you never felt but believe me they were felt.”
It was still better to do it than not do it.Just like weaning an addict off the drugs that are killing him causes short term pain,reducing the States involvement in peoples lives via the poison of welfare produces a better healthier society.
This is not to mention the fact that people forced to fund others through taxation are hurt but then hand wringing pinkos care not a jot about them….
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 11:56 am
“Just like weaning an addict off the drugs that are killing him causes short term pain”
That’s right quite a few people were addicted to their jobs and savings. Silly foolish plebs. How naughty of them to expect consideration in national planning. Talk about a nanny state knowing what’s best for them.
I think the most pathetic bit of this episode was that there was screeds of political and economic experts winking and waving at the suffering electorate telling them that although we would feel short term pain we would be in a great position long term and more conservative reformers such as Australia would really be in trouble in ten years time.
Now that’s a tuis billboard I’d like to see. James, there were alternatives to “the mother of all budgets.” Just ask the Aussies.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 11:58 am
here is a bit of the bits dpf ‘left out’.
“..The obverse of the economic gains was the destruction of social capital, the stretching of the income and wealth bands in a society that had in the 1950s and 1960s been among the most egalitarian.
This phenomenon, of course, was not unique to New Zealand; the increase in inequality has been well documented in other societies of our sort which deregulated their economies and is also in part the product of other social changes, including demographic changes.
But in this country in the 1980s inegalitarianism came particularly swiftly and with particular intensity and Ruth Richardson jammed her foot on the accelerator.
Large numbers had their standard and quality of living indecently reduced; those who did not saw around them indicators of a decay in social cohesion in, for example, rising crime.
It is small wonder that Jim Bolger picked up Robert Putnam’s theme of social capital late in his prime ministership.
By then the social capital had been degraded by economic change.
It has not yet been rebuilt.
That, too, is part of the legacy of the Richardson ascendancy…”
oh..james also notes..
“..the 1991 budget in effect de-legitimised national..”
leading to their 2002 result..which was the smallest for a major party in over 100 years..(!)
and drove/cemented the push/change to mmp..
a change driven as much by revenge/a desire to teach the bastards (labour/national) a lesson/keep them in check..
as by anything else..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
and of course we should note the spineless submission of the union leadership of the day..
the reason australian reform was more ‘conservative’..was because the unions/union leadership over there said “no you’re fucken not..!..”
whereas our union leadership just whimpered..
and said..(nervously glancing back over their shoulders)..
“..please wear a condom..”..
and ..”..please be gentle..”
and seeing these useless/compliant/self-serving wastes of space lauded since then..
just causes the (historical) bile to rise..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
“This is not to mention the fact that people forced to fund others through taxation are hurt but then hand wringing pinkos care not a jot about them….’
That “hand wringing pinkos party”, they,ve got a lot to answer for.
By the way name a government in the world that doesn’t tax it’s citizens? You’ve got to get over your parania of tax and realise that it has been the cornerstone of economic development and social stability in the first world for the last 100 years.
Vote:It’s a solid proven economic concept with concrete results, unlike vague allusions to an undefined free market period just after the American War of Independence or the distasteful free market policies of bullish “one party” states who have never bothered to embrace the twin prerequisites of a progressive society ,freedom of speech and democracy.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
“Overall her policies, added to those of Sir Roger Douglas and the fourth Labour government, generated a big improvement in productivity growth which is now accepted generally as the only sure eventual route to a high-wage economy.”
The economic literature that I’ve read – mostly treasury papers – indicates the exact opposite. In Fact labour productivity growth since mid 1980s has been substantially lower than it was in the 1960s and 1970s. In particular the almost complete deregulation of the labour market carried out by National with the ECA (1991) is commonly cited as the primary cause of this. Makes me wonder where this guy is getting his information from.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
What a load of left wing bullshit.. boring boring boring..
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
“Just like weaning an addict off the drugs that are killing him causes short term pain”
“That’s right quite a few people were addicted to their jobs and savings. Silly foolish plebs. How naughty of them to expect consideration in national planning. Talk about a nanny state knowing what’s best for them.”
It was the existence of a “national plan” that caused the pain in the first place.Unproductive Junk jobs propped up by the state were bleeding the country dry and we are all better off for there absence…A job that doesn’t earn its way by creating new wealth is a liability and should be eliminated.
“By the way name a government in the world that doesn’t tax it’s citizens? You’ve got to get over your parania of tax and realise that it has been the cornerstone of economic development and social stability in the first world for the last 100 years.:”
Bullshit….Taxation has held back economic development by diverting money from where it would have generated the best return to the State where is devalued massively and used to expand the unproductive bloated mass of Government.The state needs funding to carry out its legit role of rights protection…no argument….but only for that function.The rest would be far better spent in the private sector by those whom it belongs to…
“It’s a solid proven economic concept with concrete results,”
Yes….stagnation,disincentives to achieve and bloated dangerous Government.
“unlike vague allusions to an undefined free market period just after the American War of Independence or the distasteful free market policies of bullish “one party” states who have never bothered to embrace the twin prerequisites of a progressive society ,freedom of speech and democracy.”
Your last sentence is a contradiction.. free speech is inseparable from a free market…which simply means free people acting together by mutual consent.You can’t have one without the other.No true free market has yet existed so attacking straw men shows you up.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
“No true free market has yet existed so attacking straw men shows you up.”
I wonder why? What’s holding it back? Maybe because it’s a delusional dream that has no bearing to the reality of progressing a modern society.
“….Taxation has held back economic development by diverting money from where it would have generated the best return to the State where is devalued ”
Yeh Roads, Schools and Health systems built themselves.Mate, please do some reading past the last blog on Rodney Hide’s website.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
“No true free market has yet existed so attacking straw men shows you up.”
I wonder why? What’s holding it back? Maybe because it’s a delusional dream that has no bearing to the reality of progressing a modern society.
“….Taxation has held back economic development by diverting money from where it would have generated the best return to the State where is devalued ”
Yeh Roads, Schools and Health systems built themselves.Mate, please do some reading past the last blog on Rodney Hide’s website.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
I wonder why? What’s holding it back? Maybe because it’s a delusional dream that has no bearing to the reality of progressing a modern society.”
A society where people are free and aren’t threatened…? My we can’t have that can we? Whats holing it back? Force mongers like you who want to run other peoples lives and leech off them.
“Yeh Roads, Schools and Health systems built themselves.Mate, please do some reading past the last blog on Rodney Hide’s website.”
These would be the under preforming State creations that can’t deliver a service anywhere near that of the private sector? Dry behind your ears son….you are owned.
See here for the status of your “State roads”and how they are woefully lacking…
http://pc.blogspot.com/2007/04/unaffordable-housing-another-tell-tale.html
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
“A society where people are free and aren’t threatened…? My we can’t have that can we? Whats holing it back? Force mongers like you who want to run other peoples lives and leech off them”’
Can I borrow 10 bucks James? Seriously though,
who’ll save us?
Enron…
Actually this is over the top dribble James, how are you threatened?
Maybe you could enjoy your freedom working for Walmart. They’re looking for new greeters. Those swell guys will surely look after and ya can have all the “made in china “ tea towels your heart desires.
“See here for the status of your “State roads” and how they are woefully lacking…”
yeh I’m still pissed off that the governments of the 1980′s and 90′s let them run down….because we had to save money right…and now it’s costing more money. Such short sightedness…..and some bright people had this idea we should privatise roads…how would that work …how the hell would you owning a road that I have to use add to my freedom. Think James….reality over ideology
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
By the way name a government in the world that doesn’t tax it’s citizens
Brunei. Saudi. Switzerland. Monaco. Luxembourg.
want me to go on?
Yeh Roads, Schools and Health systems built themselves.Mate, please do some reading past the last blog on Rodney Hide’s website.
Even in communist-holdout NZ, the roads, schools and health systems were not origianlly built by the government. But settlers, by private compaines, even by the New Zealand Company going way back. But NOT by government.
Winston loves his new job. The economy could go to hell and as long as he has his baubles he’ll be happy.
Which shows National’s MMP tatics were inept. No reason why Winston couldn’t be foreign affiars minister under National – no Ron Mark defense. None at all!
Peter Dunne – Mr Common Sense – seems to lack common sense.
Ditto, no reason why he can’t be revenue until the cows come home.
But here again the Nats tatics let them down: rather than directly attacking labour they went after Winston & Dunne. OK if you wipe them out – but they didn’t. Result: hatred & a Labour govt. Thankfully, John and Bill have learnt that lesson well.
The Maori party would be punished next election if they supported National. It would be a tough sell to their voters.
So the Nats need to remove the two-vote Maorimander – and in the interim, hope that the Destiny/Tiler party gets up for the party vote in South Auckland & the Maori seats.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
“Brunei. Saudi. Switzerland. Monaco. Luxembourg.” “want me to go on?”
Yes please, you’ve named possibly the most irrelevant economies in the world as examples of nations we could take guidance or ideas from, corrupt oil rich tyrannies and invisible secret banking communities. However even so they do tax their citizens, albeit not through income tax.
“Even in communist-holdout NZ, the roads, schools and health systems were not originally built by the government. But settlers, by private companies, even by the New Zealand Company going way back. But NOT by government. “
And before that the Maori built villages without any taxes.Why aren’t you advocating a return to pre-European settlement? How far do you want to go back?
The New Zealand Company is not a particularly good example of private enterprise, selling it’s product to the wrong people, folding and leaving a debt that had to be cleaned up by surprise, surprise the U.K and then the New Zealand government. People’s democratically elected government built the backbone of modern New Zealand a task that private enterprise wasn’t and still isn’t up to. I’d rather have Helen Clark and co answer to a ballot box every 3 years than the round table own my roads forever.
And Saudi Arabia, Jesus. What are you doing citing Saudi Arabia in a debate over the legacy of Ruthynomics. Wake up, Saudi Arabia is a bloody living nightmare for a vast majority of its citizens.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Brunei. Saudi. Switzerland. Monaco. Luxembourg.
Convincingly typical nations eh!
All this nonsense about NZ being a high tax nation is just so much mythical waffle. All the OECD reports tell us the same thing….we are somewhat below average. For our size we are in fact below average. The only exceptions are very atypical cases such as the nations you quote above where the govt obtains it’s revenue from other major sources other than personal income tax.
Another oft-quoted example is UAE with it’s lowish income taxes in the range of 5%. But not mentioned for instance is that their govt owns almost ALL the commercial real-estate and derives a massive income from the rents.
Or Saudi, where the govt essentially owns all the oil resource.
Or Switzerland which does well from it’s massive banking and tax haven industries.
Or Monaco which is essentially owned by one family.
Or Luxembourg…a nation that boasts the highest GDP per captia (US 53,800) way higher than any other nation.
How about some facts for a change:
“In 2004, New Zealand’s general government (includes both local and central government) spending was 34.1 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the second-lowest of 27 OECD countries.
Korea spent the least in relative terms, at 27.3 percent of GDP. Ireland (34.3 percent), Australia (35.5 percent), Switzerland and the United States (both 36.0 percent) spent more than New Zealand. Sweden spent the most, at 57.1 percent of GDP.”
http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/nz-in-the-oecd/government-spending-receipts.htm
At the bottom of this page is a very good link to a pdf “NZ in the OECD”. Puts a lot of things into perspective.
Of course the latest Tory canard doing the rounds is that our “excessive govt spending” is somehow inflationary. Bollocks. Econ 101 informs us that inflation is driven by the relationship between the supply of money and the supply of goods and services. Govt spending out of tax income is NOT a strong driver of inflation.
Cullen is in fact a very tight fisted old bastard who has avoided borrowing or increasing the public sector money supply. Recall how you were all flogging Cullen for NOT borrowing to cover infrastructure projects just a few short months ago?
The real source of inflation is this. Our high interest rates are attracting huge amounts of private foreign deposits into our four big Aussie banks. Every dollar deposited creates 8-10 dollars of instant credit in NZ. This is where the excess money supply is coming from.
Regretably this pushes up inflation, and Dullard in response pushes up interest rates. And these guys are supposed to be financial wizards!!! Well in fact they are very well aware of this, but I strongly suspect NZ’s real fiscal policy is actually being written around the board tables of outfits like the Commonwealth Bank in downtown Sydney.
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
fuck sinner..you are a crack-up..
“..So the Nats need to remove the two-vote Maorimander – and in the interim, hope that the Destiny/Tiler party gets up for the party vote in South Auckland & the Maori seats…”
heh-heh..!..
where to start..?
where to start..?
(a word of warning to you sinner..
never..never..go anywhere a pyramid scheme..!
you’re a natural ‘mark’..)
phil(whoar.co.nz
Vote:April 30th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
If there are any journalists out there please do a fact check on Red Rags post immediately and if it’s true you’ll have the biggest story of the year. Red Rag, that’s one amazing post.
Vote:Australian banks – someone check that out?
May 1st, 2007 at 8:39 am
Well well, J and RedRag appear to have you righties beat!
So tell us J and RR, what should Ruth have done?
Vote:May 1st, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Ruthy panicked but we can’t blame everything on her.
Remember Ruthy was a finance minister whose short reign came after a succession of disastrous panicky moves from her two predecessors.
First up, “the one man cabinet” of Muldoon. While they love to disown him now he was the undisputed product of a “Pakeha knows best” National Party that even to this day is convinced they are economic geniuses by birthright rather than well thought out policy.
Secondly there was a very strange time in New Zealand politics when Labour lost the plot and gave the economy to the shadow Act party for a while. How weird was that? So hey Act have been in power, but they’ll never get their again.
And Ruth bowled up and panicked. She lengthened a recession by taking money out of the economy at a time when she should have been looking for what Cullen is attempting now..and what they had promised the electorate,…. “a soft landing.”
Then she put in a piece of very poor Labour legislation in a time of high unemployment that basically gave employers enough real and conceptual power to crush any sense of maintaining international wage parity and disastrously created what would be our main competitive advantage for a while, a low wage economy….an incredibly poor vision for our nation’s workforce.
First world economies are remarkably robust and unremarkably cyclical. Ruth panicked at a time when we needed to consolidate the natural energy of the economy not continue being a lone ADD poster boy for Economic liberalisation.
Vote:May 2nd, 2007 at 2:01 am
Richardson was a bone headed ideologue just as Roger Douglas was for Labour. The public soon had had enough and they were dumped after short political careers. They then went over to Russia and wrecked their economy with more ideological nonsense.
Vote:June 12th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
yohqgedv lkuhyzva ypqdajrf vjkluiryg tiop rdofqa zurbqag
Vote:June 12th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
yohqgedv lkuhyzva ypqdajrf vjkluiryg tiop rdofqa zurbqag
Vote:June 12th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
yohqgedv lkuhyzva ypqdajrf vjkluiryg tiop rdofqa zurbqag
Vote:June 12th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
yohqgedv lkuhyzva ypqdajrf vjkluiryg tiop rdofqa zurbqag
Vote: