Grassley Votes Against Motion to Proceed with Health Care Bill

grassley2007Senator Chuck Grassley issued the following comment about his opposition to the motion to proceed to H.R. 3590, the legislative vehicle for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009. The text of Senator Grassley’s floor speech is below the comment.

“This proposal is another big government spending plan, and after the bailouts for Wall Street and Detroit, a stimulus bill that left us with the highest unemployment in 26 years, and the Fed shoveling money out the door without any accountability, people across the country have had enough.

“Senator Reid’s claim that the cost is $848 billion is the ultimate Washington gimmick, at taxpayers’ expense. To pull off the ruse, the health care changes in Senator Reid’s bill are delayed until 2014, even while his bill starts collecting new taxes, penalties and fees immediately. So it’s 10 years of revenue for six years of expenditure. When that accounting game is over, this bill’s full 10-year implementation cost is $2.5 trillion. This bill will pile on deficit spending and increase America’s debt far beyond the $1.4 trillion the debt already has increased since President Obama took office. This debt will diminish opportunities for the next generation of Americans, our children and grandchildren.

“We ought to be doing everything possible right now to create jobs, and taxes should be decreased in a recession, not increased. Instead, Senator Reid’s bill raises taxes, penalties and fees immediately, choking off economic recovery. The changes hit small business especially hard, and small businesses create 70 percent of new jobs. That’s why the National Federation of Independent Business said this bill fails small businesses.

“It’s irresponsible for Democratic leaders to use their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and their control of the House and the White House to push through such massive legislation to reshape one-sixth of America’s economy. The unintended consequences in this legislation could have a destabilizing effect at just the wrong time, as America’s economy struggles to recover and working families are doing everything in their power to hold on.

“This bill isn’t what people expected from health care reform. They wanted Congress to lower health care costs that are growing at three times the rate of inflation, but this bill makes health insurance premiums go up, not down, and that’s according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. This bill also hurts seniors with Medicare cuts so extreme that Medicare’s nonpartisan chief actuary concluded they will jeopardize access to care. And, the bill uses those Medicare funds to start yet another unsustainable entitlement program. With the bad fiscal shape that Medicare is in, it doesn’t make any sense to make new commitments to new entitlement spending, which this bill does.

“Congress should take steps to improve the health care system. That includes common sense medical malpractice reform to stop wasting so much money on defensive medicine, ending discriminatory practices by health insurance companies, and empowering consumers to have a real choice of plans so that we can lower costs with competition, just like with other services we buy. Congress should make market reforms that help small businesses and the self employed access health insurance. These issues can be addressed without upending the entire health care system with a bill that really costs $2.5 trillion and means higher taxes, higher insurance premiums and an unsustainable tax burden for generations to come.”

Floor Statement of U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley
Ranking Member of the Committee on Finance

Saturday, November 21, 2009

On November 10, former President Clinton visited the Democratic Caucus. It has been widely reported that his message to the Senate Democrats was that, on health care reform, the worst thing to do is nothing. With all due respect to the former President, that is simply wrong. The worst thing we can do is pass this bill. This is not something I say lightly. There are serious problems with our health care system. There are important steps we need to take to fix the problems in our system. But the excesses of this bill appear willfully ignorant of what’s going on outside health care. Those excesses make this bill far worse than doing nothing.

We are a nation facing very challenging economic times. We have seen the auto industry go into bankruptcy. We have seen banks shutter their doors. The federal debt has increased by $1.4 trillion since inauguration. This chart shows the growing amount of debt that the federal government is taking on. Just the amount of increased debt added just since the inauguration is $11,535 per household. It now exceeds $12 trillion for the first time in history. Within five years, the Obama administration’s policies will more than double the amount of debt held by the public, and by 2019, it will more than triple the debt according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the White House Office of Management and Budget. Already, foreign holdings of U.S. Treasuries stand at nearly three and a-half trillion dollars or 46 percent of the federal debt held by the public. This bill bends the federal spending curve further upward by $160 billion over the next decade.

Americans have rightly lost faith when in the face of the current economic crisis, Congress thinks this two and a-half trillion dollar restructuring of the health care system is a good idea. Perhaps one of the biggest warning signs that this bill will saddle taxpayers with more spending and debt is that fact that the budget fail-safe mechanism was dropped from the bill. Behind those closed doors where this bill was written, the Grassley budget fail-safe mechanism was cut from the bill and lots of budget gimmicks were added. Former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin wrote in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal that the bill is, “fiscally dishonest,” and that it uses, “every budget gimmick and trick in the book . . . [it] leave[s] out inconvenient spending, back-load[s] spending to disguise the true scale, front-load tax revenues, let inflation push up tax revenues, promise spending cuts to doctors and hospitals that have no record of materializing, and so on.” This bill is simply irresponsible. It’s worse than doing nothing.

Let’s talk about some of the excesses of the bill before us today. It increases the size of the government by a staggering $2.5 trillion when fully implemented. It imposes half a trillion dollars in new fees and taxes. Imposing these new taxes and fees as the economy is struggling to recover is worse than doing nothing. This half a trillion dollars in new taxes will hurt small business and destroy job creation. It breaks President Obama’s campaign promise by increasing taxes on individuals and families making less than $250,000 per year. Adding insult to injury, these fees and taxes will also cause health care premiums to go up beginning next year. But don’t take my word for it. Both the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation and the CBO have confirmed that these taxes and fee will be passed through to consumers in the form of higher health insurance premiums. And these taxes and fees will start increasing premiums four years before most of the reforms take effect in 2014.

Let’s take a look at what happens to Medicare and Medicaid in this bill. Both of these health care entitlement programs are already on perilous financial footing. Both are facing financial meltdown. This bill adds to that burden. The Medicare trust fund started going broke last year. In 2008, the Medicare program began spending more out of the trust fund than it is taking in. The Medicare Trustees have been warning all of us for years that the trust fund is going broke. They now predict that it will go broke in right around the corner in 2017. But rather than work to bridge Medicare’s $37 trillion in unfunded liabilities, this bill cuts half a trillion dollars from the Medicare program to fund yet another unsustainable health care entitlement program. And Medicare has a major problem with physician payments that will cost more than $250 billion to fix. But this bill ignores that problem. By pretending it doesn’t exist, this bill would leave future Congresses virtually no way to restructure Medicare to fix it. By diverting Medicare resources elsewhere and ignoring major problems like that one, this bill does worse than nothing.

And then there’s Medicaid. The Medicaid program serves 59 million low-income pregnant women, children and families and people with disabilities. It is our health care safety net, and it too is on very shaky financial ground. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported to Congress that states are reaching a financial and budgetary crisis with Medicaid. Like Medicare, Medicaid is essentially going broke. The GAO models predict that state spending on Medicaid will grow faster than state revenues for at least the next ten years. Here is what GAO has said about the situation: “Since most state and local governments are required to balance their operating budgets, the declining fiscal conditions shown in our simulations suggest that, without intervention, these governments would need to make substantial policy changes to avoid growing fiscal imbalances.” Besides this impending financial meltdown, Medicaid recipients many times can’t find a doctor that will treat them because reimbursement for care is so inadequate. And Medicaid recipients already have worse health care outcomes. States are struggling to make their budgets balance and that will continue for many years. But this bill doesn’t fix this problem either. Here again, this bill makes the problem worse. This bill adds another $374 billion in spending to the Medicaid program. It adds 15 million people to the rolls of the worst delivery system in health care. It increases state spending by $25 billion. And that’s a hidden tax increase in this bill because states will be forced to raise taxes to pay for this increased cost. By dropping the equivalent of a 10,000-pound weight on our frayed Medicaid safety net, this bill does worse than nothing.

This bill also compounds these long-term entitlement spending problems by creating yet another new entitlement program called the CLASS Act. This one is a voluntary federal program for long-term care insurance. Now I have devoted years of effort to improving long-term care supports and services for the elderly and the disabled. I understand the issues that supporters of the CLASS Act want to address. But the CLASS Act is just simply not viable in its current form. It is almost certain to attract the people who are most likely to need it. This is known as adverse selection. That will cause premiums to increase and healthier people to drop out of the program. It is the classic “insurance death spiral.” On November 13, the Administration’s own Chief Actuary confirmed this. The Chief Actuary issued a dire warning in a report on the CLASS Act in the House bill which is virtually identical to the Senate version. The Chief Actuary said, “There is a significant risk the problem of adverse selection would make the CLASS program unsustainable.” For the first ten years, the CLASS Act saves money at the beginning because it collects premiums before benefits start getting paid out. But sometime afterwards, it starts to lose money. We all know what happens from there. It will become the taxpayers’ responsibility to rescue the program as it fails. Look at financial struggles of Social Security. Look at Medicare. Look at Medicaid. Now go home and look at your children and grandchildren. Creating the unsustainable CLASS Act is not responsible. By adding the ticking time-bomb of yet another unfunded liability to our children and grandchildren through the CLASS Act, this bill again does worse than nothing.

Health care is one-sixth of the economy. The American people don’t want a bill that makes it worse. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and even the Office of the Actuary at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have told us what the American people already knew: these massive partisan health care reform bills are going to make the problem worse when it comes to the cost of health insurance. According to a September 22nd letter from the Congressional Budget Office to Chairman Baucus about the Finance Committee bill, “Premiums in the new insurance exchanges would tend to be higher than the average premiums in the current-law individual market.” So, after these bills spend a trillion dollars, many of the people struggling to afford their premiums today will actually end up paying more if this bill moves forward and is enacted. By increasing costs when people desperately need Congress to lower costs, this bill does worse than nothing. It doesn’t have to be this way.

When the debate began last year, interested legislators of both parties set forth benchmarks that were no-brainers: Health care reform should lower the cost of premiums. It should make health care more affordable for people. It should so without Medicare cuts that jeopardize access to care for seniors and the disabled. It should do so without overloading the Medicaid safety net until it rips apart. It should do so without adding to our already-unsustainable unfunded liabilities by creating yet another unsustainable entitlement program. Instead, this bill threatens the economic recovery. Its half a trillion in new taxes will hurt small business and destroy job creation. It calls for an even bigger and more unsustainable federal budget. It adds to that burden with a massive new government-run health plan. It makes health care more unaffordable and lower quality.

I know some people believe we should get on the bill and try to fix it by amendment. But this 2,000 page bill has many more problems than can be fixed by amendment on the Senate floor. If you really want to improve it, it should be stopped right now. Democratic leaders and the White House have put together one extreme health care plan after another. After the bailouts for Wall Street and Detroit, a stimulus bill that’s led to the highest unemployment in 26 years, and the Fed shoveling money out the door without any accountability, their health care reform agenda is the straw that broke the camel’s back this year. What Senate Republicans are saying with tonight’s vote is that we don’t support reform just for the sake of reform. Changes to the health care system must be responsible and not break the back of the taxpayers and the job-creating engine in America, which is small business. It doesn’t make any sense to make major new unsustainable commitments to entitlement spending. Already, Medicare’s solvency is in jeopardy, and the Reid bill would make things worse for Medicare beneficiaries. Seniors are in a tough situation already, with the way the economy has hit their retirement savings and security. We have to step back and remember that it’s not our money, it’s their money. It’s the taxpayers’ money we are talking about here. Two and a-half trillion dollars of the taxpayers’ dollars over a decade when this bill is fully implemented. Generations of hard working Americans will be forced to pay the costly price for this bill if it moves forward. It’s irresponsible for Democratic leaders to use their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and their control of the House and the White House to push through such massive legislation to reshape one-sixth of America’s economy. The unintended consequences in this legislation could have a destabilizing effect at just the wrong time, as America’s economy struggles to recover and working families are doing everything in their power to hold on. The late Senator Moynihan often warned about the perils of a majority party pushing through major bills and changes in a partisan way. It’s a well-founded warning that the Democratic Leadership has not heeded. If a bill like this one can’t get support more broadly, then something’s wrong with it. Moreover, grassroots America has spoken out against this legislation. It’s alarming how those voices have been disregarded by the leaders in Congress.

President Andrew Jackson made it clear that our duty is to tune in to the common sense of the people who sent us here. Here’s what he said, “Our government is founded upon the intelligence of the people. I for one do not despair of the republic. I have great confidence in the virtue of the great majority of the people, and I cannot fear the result.” Friends and colleagues, listen to what President Jackson said. Listen to the concerns of the people. They are telling us to re-consider this massive complicated legislation and take a path that leads to less spending, less taxes, and less debt. Instead of continuing to mortgage the future of our children and grandchildren, we need to get back to the basics. Congress should pass common sense medical malpractice reform to stop wasting so much money on defensive medicine. Congress should empower consumers to shop around for health care and lower costs with competition, just like with other services we buy. Congress should make market reforms that help small businesses and the self employed access health insurance. These issues can be addressed without upending the entire health care system with the result of higher taxes, higher insurance premiums and deficits and debts that will get in the way of the opportunities that result from the ingenuity and industry of the American people. I encourage my colleagues to listen to the American people and vote to send this bill back to the drawing board.

About the Author

The Iowa Republican has written 272 stories on this site.

29 Comments on “Grassley Votes Against Motion to Proceed with Health Care Bill”

  • Conservative Demo wrote on 21 November, 2009, 18:40

    Nancy Reagan taught em well, eh?

    The Party of Just Saying No.

  • Conservative Demo wrote on 21 November, 2009, 22:19

    Geeze Chuckie old boy, one might logically wonder why all your suggested reforms weren’t adopted during the decade that you and your Party held control of both houses, six of those years you even held the White House?

    Were your suggested reforms ever even brought up?

  • HawkCR1 wrote on 22 November, 2009, 0:28

    CD..

    Yes..many of those reforms WERE brought up…things like tort reform..medical malpractice reforms…but guess what..your friends in the Senate wouldn’t let that legislation even come forward for debate…

    Democrats have been the ones saying “No” No to considering a SINGLE thing Republicans suggested. This bill was created behind closed doors in Harry Reid’s office. With no public hearings….no contribution from Republicans who were willing to negotiate and try to come up with constructive solutions like Senator Grassley.

    Instead…Senator Reid and his cohorts slammed the door on the faces of their fellow Senators and the faces of the American peopl–the majority of whom oppose these efforts.

    It was pathetic to see the lows that your liberal friends stooped to CD….seeing things like the Senate Democratic leadership basically bribing Mary Landrieu of Louisiana with 300 MILLION dollars to get her vote today.

    It’s pathetic to see so called “leaders” voting for legislation that would begin to immediately lay new taxes upon the American people…but not provide them the promised “reforms” until 2013.

    Basically..they’re foisting a Ponzi scheme so grand on the American people..it will make Bernie Madoff look amateur in comparison.

    And like Bernie Madoff…who’s now spending the rest of his days in a federal prison…the Democrats are moving closer and closer to electoral hell in 2010…

    It’s

  • Conservative Demo wrote on 22 November, 2009, 12:50

    hcr1 sez: “Yes..many of those reforms WERE brought up…things like tort reform..medical malpractice reforms…but guess what..your friends in the Senate wouldn’t let that legislation even come forward for debate”

    Oh doggone, I forgot that “those WERE brought up” while rethugs held all three Houses and the infinitely-powerful dimos still kept “that legislation [from] even come [ing] forward for debate.”

    REALLY powerful demos those were while the Republicans held the two Houses and the White House.

    Lotta ruined chances there those years for health reform.

    Poor old chuckie, powerless even when his Party was in its peak.

  • belikebunce wrote on 23 November, 2009, 7:50

    CD – You correctly point out that neither the Republicrats, nor the Democans have actually accomplished anything in the matter of freeing the people to be responsible for themselves.  Both parties when in power debate their own pet issues, and no real progress is ever made.  The two party system only succeeds in keeping the people in slavery to the government that they pay taxes to, and keeping the elected government officials in power.  It is time for the people we elect to represent us to do 2 things…
    1.) Read, Apply, and chose to be governed by the Constitution they swore to uphold and defend.
    2.) Listen to and submit to the will of The People who elected them and sent them to The Capital, the State House, or any other seat of government they do business in.

    These two things would truly Change things, and restore Hope to The People.

  • Conservative Demo wrote on 23 November, 2009, 8:30

    blb, yes, yes, and yes. The problem is not unique to either individual Party. Our Parties and our Nation are ‘owned’ by two industries, the Military/Industrial and the Medical/Insurance and I seriously doubt that we can ever get either back out of those hands.

    Even the current tea party anger is so well entrenched and beholden within one of the existing Parties to really be a true populist movement.

    I hate the polarization of our populace and I believe we are powerless to change that.

    Think about it, even Craig, nice guy that he likely is, is an employee of that very System and his livelihood depends on his skills at keeping the polarization alive and well.

  • Conservative Demo wrote on 23 November, 2009, 9:40

    Maybe it’s time for old chuckie to go back to looking hard at the tax status of some religious entities (he _did_ do that, anyone remember?) now that the catholic bishops are becoming so involved in lobbying their agenda into the health care debate.

  • Peggy wrote on 23 November, 2009, 9:56

    ConDem,

    Are religious people not entitled to freedom of speech?

  • belikebunce wrote on 23 November, 2009, 10:00

    CD – I would prefer that you completely eliminate the “tax exempt status” or an alternative that is Exponentially better, Eliminate the Income Tax.  It violates my “unalienable rights to “Life, liberty, and [property]” as do Property Taxes.

  • Peggy wrote on 23 November, 2009, 10:02

    Do you know how many hospitals and health care facilities in this country are run by the Catholic Church? If the Dems are going to force this on the Church, the country will suddenly be without a good portion of its hospitals.

    I recall Obama saying that he wants fewer abortions but he’s willing to take this risk?

  • Deace voted for Obama wrote on 23 November, 2009, 10:14

    Peggy: I do not for one minute believe that Obama wants fewer abortions. I believe he wants MORE, as do many Dims. They are beyond pro-choice; they are pro-abortion and the more the better.

    These evil pols are funded by the abortion industry, just like labor unions and other left-wing wacko groups.

  • Peggy wrote on 23 November, 2009, 10:21

    “…now that the catholic bishops are becoming so involved in lobbying their agenda into the health care debate.” – ConDem

    I’m sorry, CD, but that is the stupidest statement I’ve read on this blog in a long time.

    Do the bishops have an “agenda,” or are they merely defending their Church against the Democrats’ intrusive agenda which will force Catholic institutions and individuals to provide abortions, all at taxpayers’ expense?

  • Deace voted for Obama wrote on 23 November, 2009, 10:35

    But, Peggy, the Catholics want socialized medicine, they just don’t want the abortion.

  • VastVariety wrote on 23 November, 2009, 10:42

    Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have to pay taxes. I don’t believe any organization, church, school, non-profit organization, should ever be allowed to be tax exempt. The only way we can ever come up with a common sense tax system is to eliminate all the loop holes that let people avoid them. I don’t believe, however, that taxes can be eliminated all together, at a minimum we have to fund a military of some sort. Any non-profit organization that ventures into the political arena regardless of if it is for a candidate or an issue should have to pay taxes on those funds at a minimum.

  • VastVariety wrote on 23 November, 2009, 10:52

    belikebunce – “Listen to and submit to the will of The People who elected them and sent them to The Capital, the State House, or any other seat of government they do business in.”

    The problem with that statement is that those people who voted for the guy that lost the election will always claim that the guy in office isn’t listening to the will of the people.

    Hawk – Unfortunately bribes like that happen in congress regardless of which party is in power. They are called earmarks. Look at all the earmarks that were in the Omnibus bill that was passed after the stimulus bill. Some 9000 earmarks, $410 Billion dollars, just so members of congress could go back to their districts and tell voters that they are doing everything they can to get taxpayer money sent to their districts. Talk about wasted spending.

  • Peggy wrote on 23 November, 2009, 10:55

    DVFO,

    There are plenty of Catholics who do not agree with the bishops’ conference on their health care reform stance – including some individual bishops! Many among the laity, myself included, continue to work to convince the USCCB that support of the proposed legislation even without abortion provisions will do great harm to society and the poor in particular.

    It should be noted that the bureaucracy at the USCCB is run in large part by social liberals. Many of them have been discovered to be involved in political activity at direct odds with Church teaching. The place definitely needs a watchdog and a thorough house cleaning.

    Either way, Con Dem’s comments above make no sense.

  • robpo wrote on 23 November, 2009, 11:07

    Peggy, are you that stupid or are you purposely shifting the point around so you can make your religious diatribe?

    Free speech for religious people does not equate to a Church receiving federal dollars in return for following rules that limit the range of political speech by clergy in said Church. Your comment about hospitals is even further off the mark. Plus, you’re whining about Democrats while the person of interest is Chuck Grassley.

    You’re entitled to freedom of speech. But be careful with it, you’re also entitled to criticism for that speech. Further, your religious views can be overlooked if you didn’t twist and wind subjects into a pretzel. The problem is you have to do all that twisting to make the pretzel look like a rod, but it only looks like a rod to you. But thats why people like you become religious. Reality is hard on everyone, no one moreso than those who have to turn to religion for comfort.

    I apologize for picking on you so bad. I’ll leave my comment unedited. Little annoys me more than shifting a subject to something that doesn’t apply, but still expressing it like it proves a point to the original subject. Worse, to further the fallacy by continuing (your comment about hospitals and abortions) with something that distorts the subject.

  • Peggy wrote on 23 November, 2009, 11:30

    What? Try again – hopefully it will make sense this time.

  • Peggy wrote on 23 November, 2009, 11:32

    rob,

    It wasn’t clear but my first comment on this thread was directed to ConDem.

  • Conservative Demo wrote on 23 November, 2009, 12:45

    Peggy, here’s a short quote from a FOX NEWS wire report:

    “Success in the House came after the church ran a classic lobbying operation: deploying paid staff to Capitol Hill, tapping influential bishops to make private appeals to key congressional leaders and distributing bulletin inserts to 19,000 parishes with easy instructions — and sample wording — for sending a message to local representatives.”

    That kind of activity ___the church ran a classic lobbying operation: deploying paid staff to Capitol Hill, tapping influential bishops to make private appeals to key congressional leaders and distributing bulletin inserts to 19,000 parishes with easy instructions — and sample wording — for sending a message to local representatives___ is WAY beyond the legal limits of a tax-exempt entity.

    Here’s the URL to the entire article:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29829.html.

  • Peggy wrote on 23 November, 2009, 13:25

    Again, the bishops are trying to protect the freedom of religion, i.e. not being forced to provide abortions in Catholic institutions.

    They’re not there to foist their Catholicism on others but they have every right to safeguard their beliefs.

    If stripping the tax exempt status of churches means we get to voice our opinion, strip away!

  • Peggy wrote on 23 November, 2009, 13:32

    From http://www.irs.gov:

    The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations

    Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

    Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

    On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

    The Internal Revenue Service provides resources to exempt organizations and the public to help them understand the prohibition. As part of its examination program, the IRS also monitors whether organizations are complying with the prohibition.

  • Peggy wrote on 23 November, 2009, 13:33

    CD,

    In a nutshell, tax exempt status does not preclude religious institutions from entering into the political fray as long as they do not become partisan or endorse particular candidates.

  • belikebunce wrote on 23 November, 2009, 13:38

    Well said Peggy!

  • belikebunce wrote on 23 November, 2009, 13:43

    Pretty hard to argue with the Horse.

  • Conservative Demo wrote on 23 November, 2009, 13:54

    Meh, not bad Peg and pretty quickly too. I’ll buy you a cup of coffee next time we run into each other at HyVee.

  • Peggy wrote on 23 November, 2009, 13:57

    I prefer beer!

  • Conservative Demo wrote on 23 November, 2009, 14:59

    Gimminy Peg, nothing I do is right for you.

Trackbacks

  1. Quality Management System – Implementing the processes « Quality … | Management Business Wisdom

Write a Comment

Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Copyright © 2010 The Iowa Republican. All rights reserved.