|
 |
February 25, 2004 PROPOSITION 57....Enough about gay marriage. How about those deficit bonds that Arnold wants us Californians to approve next Tuesday? I know that 90% of you don't care about this, so consider this a bit of pandering to my fellow inmates here in the Golden State. Here's the deal: last year the legislature passed about $10 billion in bonds to help cover the deficit for 2003-04. Needless to say, 2003-04 is nearly over, and the money has been spent, so it's too late to fix this problem either by raising taxes or lowering spending. What's more, since there's a chance that the courts might overturn these bonds, our only choice is to approve Arnold's bonds via a constitutional initiative. It's either that or default. Up until now, anyway, that's been my vague understanding. However, thanks to a reader I finally located a genuinely readable explanation of the whole issue from the unlikely source of E.J. De La Rosa & Co., an investment banking firm. It's only four pages long, so go ahead and read it if you're interested in learning more about the nuts and bolts of the deficit. The bottom line is this: it's not true that the money has already been spent and that's why we have to approve Arnold's bonds. Rather, California has $14 billion in short term debt that we have to pay off in June. That's what the bonds are for. But if the bond measure doesn't pass (and if the legislature's bonds get overturned in court), what can we do? Answer: we can issue more short term debt. Now, there are indeed problems with this. The short term debt would be issued at a higher interest rate, it would put a pretty tight straitjacket on state spending, and it would have to be paid back fairly quickly. However, it wouldn't be fiscal Armageddon. What it would be is a firm order to the legislature to raise taxes and cut spending in order to pay off the short term debt. This is what should have happened years ago, and painful as it may be, it's now obvious to me that this is still an option. Arnold wants to have it both ways: he wants to have a tax cut and he wants a bond measure to help finance it. This is almost Kafka-esque irresponsibility and I think it's time to cut the crap. The only way to get ourselves out of the mess we're in is via both spending cuts and tax increases. So despite the undoubted problems it's going to cause, I think Californians ought to vote No on 57. Combined with a Yes vote on 56, which allows the legislature to raise taxes, and the line item veto, which allows every California governor to cut spending to his heart's content, we have all the tools we need to bring the budget into balance. It's time for everyone to grow up. If the credit card is a bad idea next year, it's a bad idea this year too. Let's go ahead and tear it up. UPDATE: Armed Liberal has a different take: we need to restore liquidity first and then fix the budget. It's a reasonable point. But after three years of this crisis, my feeling is that the legislature (and the governor) have proven that they won't act responsibly unless there's a gun to their head. If we ease up the pressure, we're just going to see more smoke and mirrors, more posturing, and more flights from reality. So while I might have voted for the Prop 57/58 combo three years ago, I'm not willing to do it now. I flatly don't believe them when they say that if we give them one more chance they'll do the right thing this time. Posted by Kevin Drum at February 25, 2004 10:41 AM | TrackBackComments
So, by "let's go ahead and tear up the credit card", I assume you are endorsing Yes on 58? Posted by: Charlie at February 25, 2004 10:46 AM | PERMALINKIsn't it an all-or-nothing proposition? If either Prop 56 or 57 doesn't pass, then neither passes? Posted by: dixk tuck at February 25, 2004 10:46 AM | PERMALINKArnold just wants to be like W! Tax cuts for those alive now, more taxes for those who live longer! Posted by: Rob at February 25, 2004 10:47 AM | PERMALINKWhile emotionally I agree with you, we need to remember that the people who will pay for the state's fiscal irresponsibility are not you and me and probably not most of your readers. They are students, teachers, small businesses who sell to the state, welfare recipients, those who rely on public health facilities etc. At least some institutions have to do planning. Is there enough time to avoid big enrollment cuts at state colleges for next year, for example? Posted by: Mimikatz at February 25, 2004 10:52 AM | PERMALINKI have not seen Arnold take a position on Prop 56 (Legislators won’t
get paid their salary, per diem expense and car allowance for each day
the budget isn’t passed – but makes it far too easy to simply pass taxes
to do so - from the current 2/3 supermajority down to 55%) Arnold wants us to vote Yes on both Prop 57 (long term bonds) and 58 ("tear up the credit card") I haven't been paying attention to the budget mess recently. Did Arnold propose tax cuts somewhere? Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw at February 25, 2004 11:04 AM | PERMALINKmimi wrote: In the short term, Mimi, I would agree with you. However, it is my belief that the longer term effect of the bond ((Prop 57) will be to allow (or even require--see next paragraph) Arnold to balance the budget entirely through multiple rounds of spending cuts. That will be extremely painful. It is vital to remember that #57 (bond) and #58 (yet-another-balanced-budget-act-on-top-of-the-constitutional-requirement-to-balance-the-budget) are a package deal. Either both pass and take effect, or neither take effect. And #58 basically chokes off future growth in spending no matter what our revenue looks like or what our needs are or what our priorities are. The near-term impact would be modest, but long-term drift could make it disastrous. Also, #58 uses the current period of tight budgets as a baseline for future budgeting. If things get rosier a few years down the road, there will be limited ability to catch up on some of the state's neglected needs. Posted by: No on (almost) all propositions at February 25, 2004 11:16 AM | PERMALINKI just want to say I love the No on 56 TV ads with their breathless imaprting of the news that 56 would make it easier to raise taxes. No kidding. Imagine that. I guess they think infrastructure occurs naturally. Posted by: Eric at February 25, 2004 11:16 AM | PERMALINK"It is vital to remember that #57 (bond) and #58 (yet-another-balanced-budget-act-on-top-of-the-constitutional-requirement-to-balance-the-budget) are a package deal. Either both pass and take effect, or neither take effect." I don't see that in the wording or Legislative Analysis. Posted by: Charlie at February 25, 2004 11:23 AM | PERMALINKI thought that Ahnold was going hat in hand to DC to try to shake some money out of Shrub's money tree. (The governors' conference was just a cover.) And Republicans complain about welfare queens. Posted by: raj at February 25, 2004 11:32 AM | PERMALINKHow much of California's budget is untouchable due to propositions? And why is the legislature putting propositions on the ballot instead of doing their jobs in the first place? Isn't the proposition system more to blame for our budget mess than anything else? I'm inclined to put my blinders on and vote no on every proposition on the ballot. Charlie: According to the Offical Voter Information Guide on 58: "Its provisions take effect only if Proposition 57 on this ballot is also approved by the voters." Cut and paste: http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/propositions/prop58-analysis.html Posted by: qwerty at February 25, 2004 11:44 AM | PERMALINKKevin - About time you got off the fence on this. I object to being told I "must" vote for something, or else the end is nigh. There are always other options, and if we had grownups in charge (a big if) we could discuss them all rationally. Yes on 56 Wow - thanks qwerty - I must have missed that. My wife and I are going to vote with Hari then ; ) Posted by: Charlie at February 25, 2004 11:49 AM | PERMALINKqwerty confirmed: Thank you, qwerty. And the analysis for Prop 57 states: You get BOTH the $15 billion in bonds (#57) and the "balanced-budget" rules (#58) or NONE of them. Posted by: No on (almost) all propositions at February 25, 2004 11:51 AM | PERMALINKI love how a modest supermajority of 55% makes it "too easy" to raise taxes. Taxes are a fact of life, people. Deal with them, or start giving up government services which you yourself actually use. Otherwise, I just can't take you seriously. Posted by: John Y. at February 25, 2004 11:52 AM | PERMALINKWe're inmates in the ASYLUM of California. Charlie - from the supplemental voter's guide on Prop 57, Legislative Analyst's analysis (page 6): "This measure would become effective only if Furthermore, the "co-joining" of the initiatives was part of the deal between the Gov and the Dem's on moving this forward. Posted by: betsarms at February 25, 2004 11:55 AM | PERMALINKI completely agree with Kevin's "grow up" comment, particularly when the "massive overspending" cited during the recall election was, largely, tax cuts, and Ah-nold's first action on taking office was to increase the deficit by a third through yet another tax cut. I resent the gropinator's suggestion that only the cripples and the poor can solve the budget crisis without borrowing. I've already voted yes on 56, and no on 57 and 58. Posted by: Chris Leithiser at February 25, 2004 12:00 PM | PERMALINKI'm with the grownups. Has everyone forgotten that the first thing Arnold did as governor was to cut the property tax on autos? Technically, he reinstated a temporary tax cut that was set to expire. By law, the normal car tax rate is 2% of DMV bluebook value, but during the state revenue boom in the late 90's, the legislature decided to temporarily lower it to 0.65%. The temporary cut was to have expired due to the state's current revenue squeeze, but Gov. Humvee overrode that without any thought as to how to replace the $3 billion per year. The cuts in the university and health care budgets followed. The size of the bailout bond -- $15 billion, or about $400 for every person in the state -- is roughly equivalent to the total revenue lost over the last few years due to cutting the car tax. Taxes aren't good -- they are at best necessary evils -- but the alternatives can be worse. Posted by: gwailo at February 25, 2004 12:03 PM | PERMALINKTaxes, in and fo themselves, are no more "necessary evils" then fees for services or prices for goods are. Roads don't build and maintain themselves for example. That has to be paid for. Taxes are those payments. Of course, how taxes are raised and spent is another issue entirely...that is where the problems truly lie. Posted by: Eric at February 25, 2004 12:23 PM | PERMALINKSebastian: he hasn't just proposed tax cuts, he's enacted them. He cut the car tax by $4 billion immediately upon taking office. Sorry, but you can't cut taxes by $4 billion and then propose to use $4 billion in bonds to cover it. That just doesn't work for me. I've seen lots of proposals for spending cuts, and I've also seen lots of actual spending cuts over the past couple of years. But the reality is that the budget will never get balanced without some tax increases too. We need to quit throwing our food around like small babies and face up to this. Posted by: Kevin Drum at February 25, 2004 12:31 PM | PERMALINKAs a Virginian looking at this from afar, I must say that methinks Arnold my find himself hoist on his own petard. Even here in Virginia, the Republican legislature recently had enough Republicans come to the conclusion that we need a tax increase. I suspect that California will end up in the same boat. Our Speaker of the House Of Delegates CLEARLY wants to keep his job. Posted by: Tony Shifflett at February 25, 2004 12:36 PM | PERMALINKThe car tax was obnoxious. It needed to die. I'm all for raising the income tax on the $300,000+.
Some good interviews re: Bond Measures on Larry Mantle's show on KPCC.... http://www.scpr.org/programs/airtalk/ Tax the rich. Tax the rich. That is a common mantra. You are placing a
tax on a very small group of people whose income can vary wildly each
year. Just look at the years before and after the dotcom bubble burst.
How can you run a state when the anticipated revenues can vary greatly
from year to year? What if a significant portion of these "rich" move to
Nev. or Az.? That's a big hit to the income stream. You can't do
something drastic like increasing taxes on one group without studying
what the consequencesof those actions will bring. Something the
legislature never seems to figure out. I'd prefer to see a consumption
tax. The more you purchase, the more you pay. I don't know... we've got a car tax here in Virginia too and I, for one, like it a lot. It's one of the fairest taxes I've seen: expensive cars are a luxury, and if you can afford the expensive car, you can afford the tax. It's the same as house property tax, which I also like. Posted by: John Y. at February 25, 2004 12:44 PM | PERMALINKMeatss: you talk as though unions are bad and psycho tax "reform" groups are good. I'm laughing so hard at that I can't even begin to look at the rest of your comment. Posted by: John Y. at February 25, 2004 12:46 PM | PERMALINKWe are missing the obvious lesson: Anyone who says "read my lips, no new taxes", is a reactionary, because if things go bad, you have to strangle the government in the bathtub. Anyone who says "read my lips, no new taxes" when there is ALREADY a crisis is a ratf*ck reactionary who should have been drowned at birth. Posted by: Matthew Saroff at February 25, 2004 12:55 PM | PERMALINKWe DO know what happens with higher brackets on the rich. We had them under Deukmejian and Wilson, both Republican Governors. The rich did not leave the state, they like it here too much (Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Tahoe etc). Granted, we need to attack the inequities of the property tax for the state to be on a more solid footing, but first things first. Posted by: Mimikatz at February 25, 2004 01:00 PM | PERMALINKIf you look at who is supporting the ads for Prop 56, most of the state and local unions are in favor of it. Most tax reform groups are against it. Considering these are the same "tax reform groups" that gave us Prop. 13, I think I'll side with the unions. Posted by: AngelHedgie at February 25, 2004 01:00 PM | PERMALINKWelcome aboard Kevin. Your previous comment thread on 57 was an excellent discussion, and laid out some good arguments against. It's most unfortunate that my party has displayed all the courage of George W at the recruiting office. Except for Phil Angelides. He rocks! Posted by: Duckman GR at February 25, 2004 01:04 PM | PERMALINKIt was the "psycho" tax group that got Prop 13 passed. If a union
gets a 37% pay raise and much better retirment benefits and work
conditions thatn the other unions, well that's the right of their
negotiators, but I think they the politicians in their pockets. Tax the rich. Tax the rich. That is a common mantra. You are placing a tax on a very small group of people whose income can vary wildly each year. So? You can tax the rich and have a reserve fund. As an aside, IIRC, under Kennedy, the top federal marginal income tax rate -- which kicked in at $200,000 -- was over 90%, which is something like double the current maximum combined federal and state income tax rate. Just look at the years before and after the dotcom bubble burst. How can you run a state when the anticipated revenues can vary greatly from year to year? With a sensibly-structured reserve fund. How do you build up a reserve fund if you can't anticipate revenues? If the "rich" incomes change, as they did 3 years ago, look what happens to the budget much less any reserve fund. The whole income tax system is flawed as it cannot control economic activity and respond to the ebbs and flows in a timely fashion. Posted by: Meatss at February 25, 2004 01:22 PM | PERMALINK"I'm with the grownups. Can the rest of us then who want DRASTIC government cuts with no new taxes vote: No on 56 It was those snide "No on Prop 56" ads that convinced me that I probably wanted to vote yes on it. I too think the VLF was one of the most progressive taxes out there- if you can spend lots of money on a car, you can spend the taxes. I don't understand why people who have lots of money are so unwilling to contribute to a society that built the infrastructure that allowed them to get that wealth. You think trade agreements happen by themselves? You think commerce laws that make sure you get paid happen alone? How about courts that keep law and order? Emergency services? Local governments are having to make so many really tough cuts in programs that reduce costs down the road and are effective. Oye. And to call the reinstatement of the VLF a raise in taxes is rediculous. I was afraid when the roll back happened that when times got hard and the promised reintatement happened, people would scream bloody murder. Could it be that the increase in spending had something to do with fixing some of the stuff that went on the back burner durning the horrible recession of the early '90's? Posted by: Baaaa at February 25, 2004 01:29 PM | PERMALINKI'm so happy to hear people agreeing with me on this. Thank you for giving me reasons to support my political decision to oppose Props. 57 and 58. Arnold is a bad joke, and giving him an easy out of this mess will be bad for California. How does Senator Schwartzenegger sound? Gay riots in San Francisco, indeed. Screw you, Arnold. No on 57 and 58. (Yes on 56.) Posted by: r. Houston Bridges at February 25, 2004 01:31 PM | PERMALINKSpeaking of elections, do you think that Barbara Boxer is going to have trouble with this Bushie challenger? http://www.joinrosario.com/ Posted by: jillian at February 25, 2004 01:51 PM | PERMALINKYep, those wacky "tax & spend" Democrats got us into this fiscal mess. Geez, I'm no apologist for the Dems in the CA Legislature, and yes, there were increases, BUT This was a bipartisan fiasco. Let's give credit where credit is due. Posted by: betsarms at February 25, 2004 02:13 PM | PERMALINKIn complete agreement with Kevin (not a great surprise): no on 57. I might vote yes on 58, even though I expect 57 to lose, mooting the issue. Anyone in the East Bay know whether Regional Measure 2 has enough real transit money to offset the random pork? Posted by: Andrew Lazarus at February 25, 2004 02:30 PM | PERMALINKMeatss: And if a majority of the current electorate now decides differently,
why should the will of the earlier majority be considered more valid? Well then - let's have a test of all you suddenly fiscally responsible liberals - how are you voting on Proposition 55 ($12.3 billion of general obligation bonds for construction and renovation of schools). Keep in mind that over the last ten years, school districts have received voter approval to issue more than $47 billion of general obligation bonds for this - not including all the monies from Developer Fees and "Mello-Roos" Bonds ; ) The cost of these bonds would depend on their interest rates and the time period over which they are repaid. If the $12.3 billion in bonds authorized by this proposition is sold at an interest rate of 5.25 percent (the current rate for this type of bond) and repaid over 30 years, the cost over the period would be about $24.7 billion to pay off both the principal ($12.3 billion) and interest ($12.4 billion). The average payment for principal and interest would be about $823 million per year. Posted by: Charlie at February 25, 2004 02:53 PM | PERMALINKRE: Prop 13 With each and every year it becomes more clear what horrible legislation this was. Yes, it lowered property taxes, but it also re-configured how that money was spent. Pre-13, local and city govs had a lot more say as to how property taxes from the neighborhood was apportioned. Now it all goes to Sacramento and maybe, after the legislature has overspent on other crap do the communities see any of that money. And I don't think the schools have ever recovered. As a matter of fact, it's because of Prop 13 that I tend to vote NO on propostions. Either they spend too much or they cut funding from important stuff and they're generally shortsighted. Despite the L.A. Weekly endorsing YES on all the props, I'll be voting NO NO & NO. Posted by: Adjective at February 25, 2004 03:08 PM | PERMALINKCharlie: that's an idiotic "test." A bond to fund schools and a bond to fund a tax cut aren't even vaguely similar. Posted by: John Y. at February 25, 2004 03:11 PM | PERMALINK
Jillian - Marin might give Boxer a run for her money in the general
election, but she won't win the nomination, so it's a pointless
question. :) Kevin - that's playing with fire, as you run the risk that what will
*actually* happen is that the republicans in the legislature will block
any tax increase and the governor will line-item veto all $14 billion of
it. Is that a risk you want to take? Well put, Flory. Charlie: this tax & spend liberal is voting no on the bond measure. I was already voting the grown-up way, glad to see more people are coming aboard. I like how the F in VLF stands for "tax" now, but when Arnold raised the park fees, that wasn't a tax. Not that I was against raising the park fee--I just revel in the transparent hypocrisy. Posted by: Stoffel at February 25, 2004 03:24 PM | PERMALINKKevin: I certainly hope the electorate adopts your analysis. [disclosure: I will exponentially increase my income if the economy in Calif. tanks.] But what is to stop the "rich" from moving to Nevada and living here off and on? Better to abolish Prop. 13 and increase everyone's tax basis valuation. This way the geezers in their beloved residences of 50+ years will get forced out and new houses can come on the market. Posted by: Californio at February 25, 2004 05:10 PM | PERMALINKSo what's to stop the rich from moving out of Beverly Hills and Belvedere and Napa and settling down in Dry Duck Gulch, Nevada? Consider: IRS Statistics of Income for year 2001 show 30,843 Californians filed tax returns reporting income over $1,000,000. http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=103106,00.html California had 16% of the 193,000 income millionaires in the US that year, tho just 12% of the US population. Nevada, with 0.75% of US population had 1,919 income millionaires -- 1% of the total. So even tho California has a 9.3% state income tax rate (and no breaks for capital gains) and Nevada has a 0% rate, they seem to be equally attractive for high income folk. Maybe CA is more expensive, but nicer.Maybe CA spends tax money in ways that the rich find attractive. (Sure they don't want to pay for it. Who does?) Info on how the tax authorities define "California resident" is at: http://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/03_forms/03_1031pub.pdf Posted by: gwailo at February 25, 2004 05:49 PM | PERMALINKIf Virginia can do it, maybe California can. All it took for even the Republicans in Virginia to start thinking tax increases was: an exodus of teachers from the states U's; threats from businessmen to go elsewhere if new roads weren?t built; A possible lowering of the state's credit rating. (Of course no one cared about cuts in social services. Look out for number one is the creed of today's American.) When the cuts got personal, the voters started to care. It would be great if the army of Grover Norquists finally saw America waking up and themselves left holding the bag. Posted by: james from DC at February 25, 2004 10:21 PM | PERMALINKIt's in the voter's guide. Both (56, 57) must pass for either to pass. It's in the VOTERS' GUIDE? Why didn't the Secretary of State list them as 56a and 56b? Is this a democracy? Or government by obscurantist drafters? Posted by: cuz at February 26, 2004 10:28 AM | PERMALINKMy absentee ballot went in last weekend, and included my "no" vote on 57. I want to see these clowns face the music for once. Gray Davis was, if anything, too much of a gentleman. Now that he's gone, and the Republicans have bought the governorship, the proverbial gloves are all the way off. Besides, they can raise my taxes all they want. It's a bit tough to get blood money out of an unemployed turnip. Posted by: Sherry Gorr at February 26, 2004 11:02 AM | PERMALINKThe sad truth, of course, is that Arnold's celebrity and show-biz authority will get the largely star-struck California populace to vote these yes on all props. Last summer I felt that the only way to have kept Heil Schwarzeneggo out of the governor's mansion was to run him against another mega-star. Where was Sean Penn and Paul Newman when we needed them? Even I voted for Bustamonte with a sour taste in my mouth. Posted by: Adjective at February 26, 2004 01:01 PM | PERMALINKYes on 55/56 -- No on 57/58. I ask you? Where is all the waste and fraud, Mr. Schwarzenegger? The wicked witch of the East couldn't find it, the cuts aren't in your budget, you don't even talk about it anymore. The Car Tax should be completely elliminated, it's not a fair tax--it hits the working poor and middle class much harder than the rich. Lets dump it and fix the tax code so it is more progressive. Tax the Rich! If you make lots of money -- good for you -- and by the way, you have benefitted more from the infrastucture of the state, the education of the work force, the inforcement of laws, and from the stabliltiy of the government in general, so you should pay more (as a percentage of income.) While we're at it, we need to re-write Prop 13 so it applies to only the one home you live in. Maybe Prop 56 (likely to loose according to recent polls (they all
are)) will allow the moderates on both side of the aisle to start
getting their jobs done--right now you have to acceed to the demands of
one extremist wing in order to get enough votes to beat the other. I think that the car tax should be lowered at least 70% or cut
entirely because it is a rediculous tax. It is the one last piece of
straw to make the bail explode and it is one of the last unreasonable
things that puts millions of people so far into debt that it would be
impossible for even a rich person to get out of! You have no idea how
many people get so far into debt that they seriously consider suicide
just to escape it! And one of those things that drives them to INSANITY
is taxes and other silly fines they make us pay here and there under
our very noses! I do not think that technicality are particularly important - like
who will pay now, who tomorrow and who will control the flow, etc. On a
large picture is not it obvious - you do not have money, you do not buy?
Then again, apparently not. That's why about 60% of americans (of was
it 50%?) pays enormous amount of interest on their credit cards and
other debts instruments. It's just a culture - "I want it now and I do
not want to think about tomorrow or if I really earned it". And let's
create all kind of arguments why it might be good - we can even blind
ourselves with them, eventually. People are just smart enough to not be happily ignorant. Posted by: Gallers Donna at May 3, 2004 11:49 AM | PERMALINKOnline Casino : Virtual City Casino - Vegas Palms Casino - Fortune Room Casino - All Poker Casino - The Sands Casino - 49ER Casino - Show Down Casino - Vegas Towers Casino - 7 Sultans Casino - River Bella Casino - Online Casino Bonus - Penis enlargement pills - casino 3k Internet Shareware: Evidence Eliminator - Internet Eraser - History Kill Posted by: online casino at June 30, 2004 11:59 PM | PERMALINKbad breath
http://www.analbondagefun.com/mpegs-pamvid-naturists-animals-video-feed-sex-japanese-vivo-active-porn-nude-new-york-gay-hairy-men-thumbnails-pam-graphic-teen-fuckers-humans-fucking.html mpegs pamvid naturists animals video feed sex japanese vivo active porn nude new york gay hairy men thumbnails pam graphic teen fuckers humans fucking html http://www.analbondagefun.com/cute-femmes-chaudes-model.html cute femmes chaudes model html http://www.analbondagefun.com/gratis-fotografias-amanda.html gratis fotografias amanda html http://www.analbondagefun.com/accesx-nomdedomaine/index.html accesx nomdedomaine index html http://www.analbondagefun.com/scories-brassiere-couple-fisting-ne-extreme-anderson-poussins-adulte-tant-plus-fucking-chat-transvestite-go-brune-gland-fois-peep-sexe-putain-pissing-bouche-le-photo-cul-sanges-sex-caresse-d-japonais.html scories brassiere couple fisting ne extreme anderson poussins adulte tant plus fucking chat transvestite go brune gland fois peep sexe putain pissing bouche le photo cul sanges sex caresse d japonais html http://www.analbondagefun.com/france-xxx-halliwell-sexy.html france xxx halliwell sexy html http://www.analbondagefun.com/pumping-mouillie.html pumping mouillie html http://www.analbondagefun.com/asian-kara-cum.html asian kara cum html http://www.analbondagefun.com/sado-minou-jeune-sexe-suceuse-avale-bite-penetration-sex-d-baiser-connasse-nues-castor-de.html sado minou jeune sexe suceuse avale bite penetration sex d baiser connasse nues castor de html http://www.analbondagefun.com/jeune-asiatique-quebecoises-transexual-pics-nues.html jeune asiatique quebecoises transexual pics nues html http://www.analbondagefun.com/main.html main html http://www.analbondagefun.com/sex-movies-top-porno-teen-animal-stars.html sex movies top porno teen animal stars html http://www.analbondagefun.com/female-boy-pregnant-pussy-teen-snake-tit-vivo-cats-zebra-playboy-teenage-stroke-nasty-cocks.html female boy pregnant pussy teen snake tit vivo cats zebra playboy teenage stroke nasty cocks html http://www.analbondagefun.com/gay.html gay html http://www.analbondagefun.com/sex-zoosex-dog-fucking-movies.html sex zoosex dog fucking movies html http://www.analbondagefun.com/teen-intercourse-avi-petsex-blondes-video-cindy-suck-liveshow-dildo-model-cunts-freepic-cat-models-latex-cow.html teen intercourse avi petsex blondes video cindy suck liveshow dildo model cunts freepic cat models latex cow html Posted by: handcuffs hard core titanic amatuers foot sperme cum sm fetish pics orgy big tits pamela and tommy l at August 1, 2004 08:05 AM | PERMALINKhttp://www.analbondageplay.com/chatte-mouillie-gallery-and-et-sexo-nackte-oral-anal-black-sexe-blonde.html chatte mouillie gallery and et sexo nackte oral anal black sexe blonde html http://www.analbondageplay.com/voyeur-cindy-shaved-crawford-anderson-babes-lion-top-pregnant-gays-early-movies-animalvideo-toys-petsex-ass-teen-erotica-als-clicnic-redheads-stroke-pamela-stroking.html voyeur cindy shaved crawford anderson babes lion top pregnant gays early movies animalvideo toys petsex ass teen erotica als clicnic redheads stroke pamela stroking html http://www.analbondageplay.com/sexo-plage-sexe-et-chatte-mouillie-oral-anal-nu-pieds-nus-photos.html sexo plage sexe et chatte mouillie oral anal nu pieds nus photos html http://www.analbondageplay.com/sexo-mouillie-oral-filles-nues-fellation.html sexo mouillie oral filles nues fellation html http://www.analbondageplay.com/sexo-mouillie-des-nus-lingerie-hotel-et-hommes.html sexo mouillie des nus lingerie hotel et hommes html http://www.analbondageplay.com/annonces-chatte-nackte-baiser-de-photo-sexo-mouillie-oral-anal-asian-sexe.html annonces chatte nackte baiser de photo sexo mouillie oral anal asian sexe html http://www.analbondageplay.com/celebrities-stud-snakefuck-clic-dirty-pretty.html celebrities stud snakefuck clic dirty pretty html http://www.analbondageplay.com/sexo-chatte-mouillie-anal-et-sexe-oral-couple-game-copines-concrete-blonde.html sexo chatte mouillie anal et sexe oral couple game copines concrete blonde html http://www.analbondageplay.com/bmp-pre-cum-intercourse-xxx-gays-photography-ponnyfuck-extreme-erotica-petsex-nude-large-japanese-black-shot-exhibitionism-net-rm-drinking-movie-farmsex-young-supermodels-facials-zoosex.html bmp pre cum intercourse xxx gays photography ponnyfuck extreme erotica petsex nude large japanese black shot exhibitionism net rm drinking movie farmsex young supermodels facials zoosex html http://www.analbondageplay.com/sexo-chatte-jeune-mouillie-s-couple-sexe-oral-et-anal-bianca-masturbation-index-bisexual-bikini.html sexo chatte jeune mouillie s couple sexe oral et anal bianca masturbation index bisexual bikini html http://www.analbondageplay.com/animalsex-celebrities-porn-wet-moore-farmsex-stud-clicnic-big-cumshot-camera-young-pig-nudity.html animalsex celebrities porn wet moore farmsex stud clicnic big cumshot camera young pig nudity html http://www.analbondageplay.com/chatte-sexo-mouillie-et-sexe-oral-anal-swinger-couple-homepages-fucking.html chatte sexo mouillie et sexe oral anal swinger couple homepages fucking html http://www.analbondageplay.com/sexo-chatte-mouillie-sexe-oral-anal-plus-belle-filles-nues-les-jeux-et-hommes-image-du.html sexo chatte mouillie sexe oral anal plus belle filles nues les jeux et hommes image du html http://www.analbondageplay.com/gayman-pamela-crawford-camp-amateur-gynecologist-penthouse-fuck-you-rm-xxx-men-snake-zoosex-tit-early-cum-girl-avi-lesbian-camera-dogsex-demi-clicnic-schoolgirls-celebrities-mpeg-fetish-teen-orgy-top-gymnast.html gayman pamela crawford camp amateur gynecologist penthouse fuck you rm xxx men snake zoosex tit early cum girl avi lesbian camera dogsex demi clicnic schoolgirls celebrities mpeg fetish teen orgy top gymnast html http://www.analbondageplay.com/sexo-chatte-image-sexe-et-anal-de-houston-hotel.html sexo chatte image sexe et anal de houston hotel html http://www.analbondageplay.com/chatte-gros-clitoris-grand-sexo-mouillie-sexe-et-nichons-tetons.html chatte gros clitoris grand sexo mouillie sexe et nichons tetons html Posted by: SeXe SeXo Et chatte mouillie Sexe Sexo Nackte sexe oral et anal brunette woman boutique erotique bom at August 1, 2004 12:06 PM | PERMALINKBest XXX Sites - Best XXX Sites - http://elite-teens-html.analpornliveshow.com/elite-teens.html elite teens html http://bestiality-mpeg-index-html.analpornliveshow.com/bestiality-mpeg/index.html bestiality mpeg index html http://teen-html.analpornliveshow.com/teen.html teen html http://beastiality-amateur-index-html.analpornliveshow.com/beastiality-amateur/index.html beastiality amateur index html http://two-naked-xxx-free-teen-lesbian.analpornliveshow.com/two-naked-xxx-free-teen-lesbian-nude-over-sexed.html two naked xxx free teen lesbian nude over sexed html http://free-beastility-index-html.analpornliveshow.com/free-beastility/index.html free beastility index html http://screensaver-html.analpornliveshow.com/screensaver.html screensaver html http://free-hentai-pic-index-html.analpornliveshow.com/free-hentai-pic/index.html free hentai pic index html http://anderson-pamela-nude-html.analpornliveshow.com/anderson-pamela-nude.html anderson pamela nude html http://illegal-teens-html.analpornliveshow.com/illegal-teens.html illegal teens html http://porn-movie-index-html.analpornliveshow.com/porn-movie/index.html porn movie index html http://animal-porno-html.analpornliveshow.com/animal-porno.html animal porno html http://videos-beastiality-index-html.analpornliveshow.com/videos-beastiality/index.html videos beastiality index html http://dog-sex-com-dog-sex-com.analpornliveshow.com/dog-sex-com/dog-sex-com.html dog sex com dog sex com html http://network-html.analpornliveshow.com/network.html network html http://animal-stories-index-html.analpornliveshow.com/animal-stories/index.html animal stories index html Posted by: FREE BIG TITS at August 13, 2004 03:28 AM | PERMALINKhttp://free-sex-teens-stories-shaved-amateur.licknudecat.com/free-sex-teens-stories-shaved-amateur-girls-pictures-blowjobs-asian-nude-erotic-pussy-naked-housewives-bbs-software-download.html free sex teens stories shaved amateur girls pictures blowjobs asian nude erotic pussy naked housewives bbs software download html http://experten-index-html.licknudecat.com/experten/index.html experten index html http://tit-html.licknudecat.com/tit.html tit html http://xxx-actrice-nue-bizarre-et-naturels.licknudecat.com/xxx-actrice-nue-bizarre-et-naturels-photos-photo-lesbiennes-histoires-irotiques-jeunes-gay.html xxx actrice nue bizarre et naturels photos photo lesbiennes histoires irotiques jeunes gay html http://femmes-nues-nude-amateur-pics-xxx.licknudecat.com/femmes-nues-nude-amateur-pics-xxx-celebrites-photo-de-star-sexy-shoes-rope-bondage-maison-des-jeunes.html femmes nues nude amateur pics xxx celebrites photo de star sexy shoes rope bondage maison des jeunes html http://porno-the-ebony-best-html.licknudecat.com/porno-the-ebony-best.html porno the ebony best html http://real-player-xxx-videos-video-password.licknudecat.com/real-player-xxx-videos-video-password-picture-free.html real player xxx videos video password picture free html http://nude-free-fake-celeb-pic-html.licknudecat.com/nude-free-fake-celeb-pic.html nude free fake celeb pic html http://free-tit-and-ass-html.licknudecat.com/free-tit-and-ass.html free tit and ass html http://nu-bizarre-clitoris-webcams-links-annonces.licknudecat.com/nu-bizarre-clitoris-webcams-links-annonces-sexe-photo-masculino-largest-xxx-amateur-home-fesses.html nu bizarre clitoris webcams links annonces sexe photo masculino largest xxx amateur home fesses html http://deutsche-frauen-jeune-asiatique-sexo-facial.licknudecat.com/deutsche-frauen-jeune-asiatique-sexo-facial.html deutsche frauen jeune asiatique sexo facial html http://teens-picture-free-pic-nude-celeb.licknudecat.com/teens-picture-free-pic-nude-celeb-celebrity.html teens picture free pic nude celeb celebrity html http://girls-love-anal-html.licknudecat.com/girls-love-anal.html girls love anal html http://links-horsesex-girls-gay-fucking-beastiality.licknudecat.com/links-horsesex-girls-gay-fucking-beastiality-bestiality-sex-women-having-animals-dogsex-with-stories.html links horsesex girls gay fucking beastiality bestiality sex women having animals dogsex with stories html http://fake-html.licknudecat.com/fake.html fake html http://riesenbr-ste-lesbianas-negras-sanft-html.licknudecat.com/riesenbr-ste-lesbianas-negras-sanft.html riesenbr ste lesbianas negras sanft html Posted by: foot sex pictures free erotic photos of womens feet at August 13, 2004 09:26 AM | PERMALINKYou may find it interesting to check the sites about http://www.viagra-use.com/ viagra http://www.bestbuys-win.com/ online casino http://www.black-jack-4u.net/ blackjack http://www.phentermine-use.com/ phentermine http://www.tramadolsite.net/ tramadol http://www.shop24x7.net/ online pharmacy http://www.worldwide-em.com/ online poker http://www.online-games24x7.com/ blackjack http://www.tramadol-50-mg.net/ tramadol http://www.online-pharmacy-pills-4u.net/ online pharmacy http://www.online-poker-winner.net/ online poker http://www.worldwide-holdem.com/ texas hold em http://www.tramadol90.net/ tramadol http://www.online-medications24x7.com/ tramadol http://www.blackjack-777.net/ blackjack http://www.onlinepharmacysite.net/ online pharmacy http://www.onlinecasino-4u.com/ online casino http://www.online-pharmacy-24x7.net/ online pharmacy http://www.online-poker-555.com/ online poker http://www.hokitika.info/ online poker ... Thanks!!! Posted by: phentermine at August 16, 2004 12:30 AM | PERMALINK4935 check out the hot blackjack at http://www.blackjack-p.com here you can play blackjack online all you want! So everyone ~SMURKLE~ Posted by: blackjack at August 23, 2004 11:56 PM | PERMALINK7559 Herie http://blaja.web-cialis.com is online for all your black jack needs. We also have your blackjack needs met as well ;-) Posted by: blackjack at August 24, 2004 03:37 PM | PERMALINK6751 check out http://texhold.levitra-i.com for texas hold em online action boodrow Posted by: texas hold em at August 25, 2004 03:39 PM | PERMALINK |
|
|
Powered by Movable Type 2.63 
|
||||
