Some Advice for President Romney

Today there are two posts. DO NOT miss Courage + Love = Unstoppable Force. It won’t take much of your time and you will be glad you did, I promise.

This has been an interesting, if not a bit strange, week for this blogger. On Moday, I wrote about Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s Quantitative Easing (QE) policies and why sooner or later we will suffer some serious inflation. On Tuesday’s post, I asked if Mitt Romney was too nice and wondered when his campaign would go on offense. I made the argument that Romney needed to win by a landslide if he wanted the mandate he will need to make the changes this country so desperately needs. Then, on Thursday, I made a case that Romney will win by a landslide. And now, on Friday, I am going to be so bold as to offer  a new President Romney some advice.

First, let me say that I believe Mitt Romney will win because I believe enough Americans have woken up to the fact that Barack Obama is not the Messiah that the media and the Kool-Aid drinkers purported him to be. Likewise, conservatives understand that Romney will be no Messiah either. We conservatives know that a President Romney will likely promote some policies that we will not like. Policies that will perpetuate big government statism. In the Monday post, I suggested that if people want to avoid the pain of serious inflation, they should vote for Obama, because we know he will do nothing to inspire a burst of economic growth and, therefore, the day of reckoning of QE induced inflation will be delayed. A Romney presidency, on the other hand, will make changes that are likely to spur our economy into action and that, as I said in that Monday post, will unleash the QE caused pent-up inflation to commence. I expressed my opinion that this inflation that we Americans must accept as the  price of years of bad fiscal and bad monetary policies. I, also explained, that the Fed would have to maintain their zero interest rate policy long after the economy starts to heat up. Normally the Fed would raise interest rates to combat inflation, but they know they can’t without throwing the economy back into recession or worse.

Although Romney has a 59 point plan and a five point plan, let’s focus on what he has said he would do to get our economy growing again and, as he has said, put 12 million people back to work over four years.

To get our economy growing and to promote job creation and to help make American businesses more competetive im world markets, Mitt Romney has said, as President, he would push to lower corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%, eliminate most if not all deductions or loopholes from our current tax code, he would repeal regulations that are punitive and do not serve society in general, and he said he would open up our coastlines and federal lands to oil and gas development and he would approve the Keystone pipeline.  I do believe these measures will spark our economy and promote job creation; but I have some concerns.

Eliminating deductions or loopholes from the tax code is a very good idea. And, lowering corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% sounds like a lot. After all, most corporate taxes are passed on to we the consumers. However, at a tax rate of 25%, our companies will still be paying among the highest corporate tax rates in the world. And, by eliminating deductions and loopholes, it is possible that our companies will still being as much or more in taxes than they are now. That would defeat the goal of making our companies more competetive.  Therefore, I would like to see a Romney administration consider lowering the corporate tax rate even further.

In my opinion, the most important thing a president Romney will do is to approve the Keystone pipeline and allow off shore and federal land development of oil and gas. This will have an immediate impact on the economy and  will create many productive jobs. But, as I cautioned above and as I wrote in the Monday post, a growing economy will cause al those trillions of digital dollars of QE 1 and QE 2, and now  QE 3 that are accumulating in the our TBTF bank’s excess reserve accounts to come rushing into the now growing economy. This can not be avoided and the Fed will be powerless to raise interest rates to curb the inflation. I would like to make a suggestion to the Romney administration that will minimize the length of time that Americans will have to suffer high inflation; all be it while the economy is growing and people are going back to work. During the primaries, some oil and gas experts advised Newt Gingrich that once oil and gas began to flow from the new off shore and federal land drilling, royalties to the federal government would be on the order of a trillion dollars per year. I would recommend to Mitt Romney that he pledge to use those royalties to pay down the national debt. Once the national debt is down to a more manageable number, the Federal Reserve could then begin to raise interest rates to bring inflation under control.

Lastly, I would recommend that a few weeks after Romney takes the oath of office that he address the nation. He should lay out his plan in clear and simple terms and explain why he is sure that these steps will get the economy going and put people back to work. He should warn the people of the unavoidable inflation that will come as a result of the Federal Reserves previous programs of Quantitative Easing. Then explain his plan to pay down the debt so that the new Fed can then bring the inflation under control He must convince America that there is no other way; but that we will be on the road to better times.

Folks, we know that Romney administration is not going to take us all the way back to a small central government controlled by the enumerated powers in the constitution; that we conservatives dream of. The best we can hope for is that a Romney administration can put us back on a track pointed in the RIGHT direction. A Romney win in November is not the end but the beginning of a long process of we freedom loving conservatives nudging our politicians and our fellow Americans out of their comfort zone a little at a time. We may never get back to the government our Founders envisioned. But, over time we can have a government so much better than we have had for the last decades.

Now, before I sign off, if you have not already checked out the other post  today, please do. All I’m asking you to do is click on a link and scroll through 22 pictures. I promise you will find it a moving experience.

Well, now you know what I’m thinking. Why not tell me what is on your mind?

34 thoughts on “Some Advice for President Romney

  1. Just adding…
    If Romney fails to erase every bit of Sustainable Hell / Agenda 21 out of here, all the rest won’t matter. The domestic enemies placed into every planning structure in the nation are taking us down just as fast as the economic destroyers and the foreign threats. He could help save us by refusing to fund one more dime on Agenda 21, plus rescinding every policy based on that …that which is in place now. Rather looking like WWIII is going to take precedent.

    We have 3 hinge-pins: Domestic, foreign, and economic levers for those. All 3 have been taken over by enemies of the Republic. Frankly…I feel sorry for the guy who faces the disasters O and the rest of progressives have wrought over the last decades. No one man can possibly take all of this on….hoping he is making the switch from neo-cons to real Constitutionalists for his staff. I realize this is not going to happen fast, if at all…..not counting chickens. Just praying.

    1. No argument here, Cheryl. I was narrowly focused on those things that would have an immediate impact on the economy and jobs. But, yes, I hope he or someone in his inner circle is thinking about putting an end to all Agenda 21 related programs.

  2. If Romney can’t get elected none of it matters, and his campaign is doing all it can to see him go down in flames. They need to get it together quickly or their done. His vaunted money advantage is gone, the press is against him, and Obama has successfully defined him (with Romney’s help) as an out of touch plutocrat.

  3. Have you thought to run for a position in office, Jim? Well thought out! We can see where things are leading with this administration and no, it might not be perfect with Romney, but we have a “chance” to make things better. We need to get Bernanke out of there (john bolton?), clear out the WH, bust all those that have done evil things while in office, vote out alot of the career politicians, limit terms and what they get when they are out of office, boost our military and their wages, secure our borders, once and for all deal with illegal immigration and start paying more attention to what is going on with our government. Oh, we also need to boot the UN out of our country as well, that way we don’t have to allow all those sneaky bastards into our country. I think that would go a long way to taking back our country and to become proud of it again, because for once in MY life I am not proud of what is in office and I will not support them.

    1. Me! In politics! I couldn’t get elected as dog catcher. But, if you can get enough Americans to agree (about 200 million might do it) I would consider a six year stint as America’s “Benevolent Dictator”. 🙂

      Paul in the Fed and Bolton in the Stae Department are good choices.

  4. Sorry, I was on a roll, I meant to put Ron Paul in for Bernanke, I also want John Bolton in for Secretary of State, guess I was thinking too quickly??? Can that happen?

  5. Kurt, I have to agree that Romney will have a hard time overcoming the arrogant out of touch Plutocrat. And that’s because at the end of the day, that’s exactly what he is. Now I don’t say that condescendingly but it’s reality.

    We can amuse ourselves with some Utopian concept that Romney will have corporations paying 25%, and there will be cupcakes for everyone but that simply defies rational thinking. As I mentioned the other day, which was ignored, is that our most profitable corporations have been paying negative to less than 2% on income taxes. Now the mantra from Romney and Ryan is that they’re paying too much. So, we’re to believe that this will be corrected as they’ll “eliminate most if not all deductions or loopholes from our current tax code”. So here’s what’s wrong with this picture. Romney/Ryan and their corporate backers are screaming they’re paying to much now (negative to 2%-Romney released today that he paid less than 15% in 2011) and their tax liability needs to be lowered. So now this lowering of the taxes to 25% and changes of the code is exceptable to those negative to 2 percenters who wanted lower taxes. That just doesn’t make sense. And when we ask what specific loopholes or deductions will be eliminated, we’re told they’ll tell us that after the election. So if you honestly believe that these folks who are now paying negative to 2% will be suddenly paying 25% while thanking Romney for giving them what they wanted, I really don’t know what to tell you.

    I think it’s within the realm of reasonable intellect to deduce that these folks will be paying less than what they’re paying now. My question is, how much lower than negative taxes should we go? How much deregulation should we give them? Where do we stop?

    1. “As I mentioned the other day, which was ignored,”

      EXCUSE ME!!! Ronald, I responded at length to both of your comments. Now you come here whinning that Romney is a meany and is only interested in helping the rich and the big corporations. You spent all of those words and added nothing to the conversation. Get a grip, man. The next time you come here try to have something to say, some suggested solutions or recommendations. Otherwise you will be ignored.

      1. If my comments aren’t welcomed here, I’ll gladly save you the trouble of banning and show myself to the door.

        Looking back, you did agree that many corporations paid near zero taxes only to turn that conversation into a GM/Jobs Czar, Jeffery Immelt bashing only to then say that 35% tax rate’s the highest in the world and Romney wants to bring it down to 25%. So perhaps “ignored” wasn’t the best wording.

        But there’s an argument on your tax issue that you seem to be avoiding. The tax rate on top wage earners is 35% but we all know they pay nowhere near that. You say that Romney wants to close loopholes but he refuses to tell us what they are or how they will lower the top’s tax liability. In the meantime, were told that this will reduce corporates tax liabilities, which is it’s goal. So in the hypothetical world, they pay 35% but in the real world it’s negative to 2%. So here’s the question. If Romney lowers the rate to 25% while closing loopholes, will these same negative to 2% tax paying earners be paying more taxes or will they be paying less taxes? If it means they will pay more, that means Romney’s plan is a tax hike. If they pay less, that makes the 35% or 25% irrelevant and will lower their taxes beyond that negative to 2%. And if it’s not a tax hike, how more negative should these folks be taxed?

        You see, I’m all for profits and I’m all for low taxes and I’m all for wise spending. But I’m dead set against negative taxes for the top earners, or hell, any earners, or any non-earners. And if you want to discuss solutions to our problems, this is a good place to start.

        Granted, you and I may not see eye to eye on everything but it is a reasonable question.

    2. Ronald, you seem to suffer from an acute misallocation of those brain cells that process economic thought – that is assuming that you ever developed those cells through a higher learning education. Your resentment to Mitt Romney’s 2011 tax rate of 14.1% is based in the misconception that it is too low and therefore “unfair” (that is one nasty word). Actually, Mr. Romney’s real tax rate on that reported income is much higher due to the fact that the 14.1% he reported is the second portion of what is a “double taxation”. This is not earned income but invested income – Mr. Romney paid top rate at the time when he “earned” this money. It is a “double taxation” because as investment income it pays taxes first as part of the net profit of the company earning it, and second as taxes corresponding to the distribution form – either through dividends or through capital gains, one or both of which corresponds to the 14.1% rate that so offends you. You understand that it is a double taxation because before earnings can be distributed as dividends, they pay taxes first, and then the recipient (Romney in this case) pays taxes again on the same money. If the investment income is obtained through capital gains, the profit over “cost basis” has already been diminished by the reduction in its market price under a constant P/E ratio due to a diminished Earnings figure after taxes.
      There are good reasons for keeping “Investment Income” as low as possible (in my opinion they should not exist for they do more harm than good) but that is the subject for another several heavy books. Some other time, perhaps!
      It is possible that I failed to explain it in one paragraph, for that I apologize. But, please, do try!

      1. Actually, my mentioning Romney’s 14.1% tax rate was not in resentment (how do you guys come up with these fabrications?). I really haven’t read into or evaluated his returns. But my point was that we have the wealthiest of the wealthy paying – to +2%. So at what point is is a fair tax? Is negative taxes or taking money from lower wage earners and giving it to higher wage earners ever fair?

        Your tax tutorial is no more than a distraction.

  6. You say, “The best we can hope for is that a Romney administration can put us back on a track pointed in the RIGHT direction.”
    That is the best that anybody can hope for, under any circumstances, and with any imaginable candidate. Like you, Jim, I will take that for now.

  7. Ronald said,
    ” . . . my point was that we have the wealthiest of the wealthy paying – to +2%.”

    Not trying to convince Ronald, but for general information of how wrong he is:
    The average tax rate paid by the top1% of taxpayers (2009) = 24.0%.
    The average tax rate paid by the top 10% of taxpayers (2009) = 18.1%.
    The average tax rate paid by all corporations (2011) = 12.1%

    That’s All Folks!

    1. Your unverified figures tell us several things. For 1, you seem to be saying that corporate taxes have been slashed by 50% under President Obama, going from 24% in 09 to 12.1% in 2011. So, how much more do you want? It also brings into question what you’re talking about when you say you want to lower the tax rates from 35% to 25% when they are already, from your own admission, paying 12.1%.

      But aside from that, the question still remains of what is a fair tax for billionaires to pay. And I’m not talking about what we’ll call or name that tax or what kind of feel good number we’ll assign to that tax but rather, what’s a bottom line fair tax for them to pay on their profits? What kind of check should one expect to have to write the IRS if he profits $50 billion?

      I’m not trying to stir an ideological debate as this has been haggled by both sides. Ronald Reagan argued that a bus driver shouldn’t pay a higher rate than a billionaire which brought on cheers from his Republican audience. Barack Obama said almost the exact thing using secretaries paying more than billionaires which brought scorn from the GOP side. So the argument is the same but the person endorsing it has changed. The question of fairness hasn’t changed.

      Your rebuttal also omits the fact that a great deal of major players paid no taxes at all, even received a tax check from Uncle Sam. Wells Fargo for example, reported $49 billion in profits in 08 through 10, yet received a tax benefit of $651 million, a -1.4% tax rate. And they weren’t alone as Pepco Holdings (–57.6% tax rate),Atmos Energy (-11.4), General Electric (–45.3%), DuPont (–3.4%), Verizon (–2.9%), Boeing (–1.8%), and Honeywell (–0.7%) and I’m sure you can Google the rest.

      But 1 more time I’d like to ask if you feel this is fair? How much lower than negative should billionaires pay in order to be fair?

      1. Ronald, you are hung up on “fairness”, which is something no one can define. Under currnt tax laws, we have to say what happens is fair. Would many of us like to see one flat tax rate for everyone? Yes! Good luck getting the 47% to agree to that!

      2. While it’s true Jim that “fairness” may be a tall order, I simply canot endorse a policy that promotes more unfairness while pretending it’s in our economical best interest. That certainly doesn’t follow your own advise of promoting solutions or recommendations.

  8. I really worry that Romney will not win. As it is, the media out here is passionately hostile to him, so I can only imagine what they are like over there. And like it or not, the media play a big part in influencing peoples votes.

  9. As Fl ss. 102.168(1) (3) (b) shows, Florida electors have the right to challenge the eligibility of “ANY PERSON” whom is “NOMINATED OR ELECTED” to office.

    Even if no primary is held, the unopposed candidate shall be considered “NOMINATED” for the office.

    “101.252 Candidates entitled to have names printed on certain ballots; exception.—(1) Any candidate for nomination who has qualified as prescribed by law is entitled to have his or her name printed on the official primary election ballot. However, when there is only one candidate of any political party qualified for an office, the name of the candidate shall not be printed on the primary election ballot, and such candidate shall be declared nominated for the office.”

    Further, Federal Election statute (11 C.F.R. 100.2(C)(5)) says that the election is “considered to have occurred” if there is an unopposed major party candidate whom shall appear on the general election ballot. So Florida statutes agreee with Federal statutes.

    Therefore by Fl. ss. 102.168(1)(3)(b) I have standing, and the Supreme Court of Fla. has said that “eleigibility is a judicial determination upon any challenge properly made” (Shevin v. Stone(1972))

    My action is properly made as to time, indispensible parties, claimant status, and venue. Therefore this action is properly made, and the court is obliged to make a ruling as to the eligibility of Barack H. Obama

  10. On the issue of double taxation on capital gains and dividend taxes that I explained above and why it is a much higher final tax burden that it appears I will suggest to read the main editorial piece from the Wall Street Journal today that almost paraphrases my presentation (I wrote it on Friday, one day before):

    “… since the US also taxes businesses on profits when they are earned, the tax on the sale of a stock or a business is a double tax on the income of that business. When you buy a stock, its valuation is the discounted present value of the earnings”.

    Perhaps they put it better than I, perhaps not.
    Ronald, direct all your arguments to the WSJ.

  11. Just have to chime in here… Yes, the lower 25% tax rate on businesses with a cut in loopholes IS a rate hike on those paying negative to 2% taxes. The point of cutting the rates and eliminating the loopholes is to get the relatively small number of (usually highly profitable) companies that have become government cronies to start paying by eliminating the very loopholes that make them cronies, while simultaneously lowering the rate for the vast majority of companies that do pay the rate.

    One of the things people tend to do is to look at a company like GE and say “That’s American business! They make billions and pay almost nothing.” I don’t have the stats on hand, but logic would tell me that companies like GE are a very small minority. If the entire Fortune 500 fell into that class, it is still a very small minority of the total number of companies, large and small, in this country. Therefore, lowering the corporate tax rate is having a positive impact on the vast majority of companies, which also happen to employ the vast majority of people.

    Loopholes (and regulations) are the path to cronyism. What Romney is saying is that he’s going to reduce taxes for those companies playing by the normal, non-crony rules, and take away the effect of cronyism from those who have benefited from loopholes. But a minority of cronies getting a tax hike while the majority of companies getting tax cut does not make the overall plan a tax hike.

    The current, complex, tax system, both for businesses and individuals, is Washington’s key to “legal corruption” (legal in that contributions to candidates are legal, but the legislative and regulatory favors given to those who can afford such contributions, is inevitably corrupt) and the only way to put a stop to it (which would go a hell of a long way to campaign finance reform as well) is to simplify (flat tax or fair tax) the tax code so that it’s not a go-to grab bag of favors and reward for favors.

    Other than that… Good recommendations, Jim.

  12. I’m in agreement with your theory but not seeing it as policy. What Mitt is promising is a lower rate and closing loopholes but he refuses to say what those loopholes are. From your own description of the complex system, those “loopholes” he’s considering could mean anything. Considering he’s hiding what loopholes he’s using for himself, it’s rather naive to think that
    these loophole eliminations will be significant.

    I’ve yet to see a plan that actually comes out to a fair flat tax. Sure, that “flat tax” sounds nice and all as it gives the impression that everyone pays the same flat rate without exception or the complexities of our current system but that’s just not the way it works. When we look at Rick Perry’s 20% flat rate plan or Newt’s 15% plan or Herman Cain’s 9/9/9 mess we see the same thing as we see today, a lower rate which keeps intact the loopholes while investment income stays at 0% and capital gains and dividends stay sheltered. Perry’s flat tax plan for example, showed that Warren Buffet’s tax liability on an income of about $63 million would drop from around $7 million to about $120K or to around .2%, in line with Newt’s and Cain’s proposals.

    So when you look at those .2% bottom line proposals presented by presidential contenders, by what stretch should we assume Romney’s proposal with details he’ll “tell us about after the election” will be any different?

    1. Perhaps I see where your confusion lies. You’re conflating ordinary income (wages) with investment income, while forgetting that investment income is taxed twice (once as earnings by the corporation, the second time as capital gains for the individual). And, yes, the lower rate (even down to zero) is an incentive to invest. We need investment. We need to give people incentive to risk their money. Now, if you want to argue that there should be a distinction between investment in a start-up company, and investment in a Blue Chip company on the Dow, I’d actually be with you on that one.

      One of the other problems with this whole discussion is that the effect of tax rates is so often (especially by politicians) seen as static, rather than as dynamic. Yet, the real world tells us it’s extremely dynamic. From a static point of view, it’s obvious that if you increase taxes by 10%, you get 10% more revenue to the government. In the real world, that just does not happen. People, especially the rich, can do everything from finding loopholes, and/or (absent loopholes) control when and where their income is realized. Historically speaking, the rise in revenue from a tax increase is never what is expected in the static modelling. Conversely, a cut in rates (which in the static model would result in lower revenues) tends to produce higher revenues. Why? Less tax avoidance and increased economic activity (wealth creation in the general economy).

      Currently, Obama is using a static model (sort of like the President of France, who is suddenly shocked that the people who he wants to tax at 75% are taking their money out of France). He thinks you can tax the rich and revenues will climb by precisely the amount of the tax increase. In this case it’s pretty funny, because even using a static model, the increase doesn’t come close to closing the deficit because spending has gotten so far out of control. His version does not take the reality of the dynamics of the economy or tax planning.

      What the Republicans are proposing doesn’t seem like it would work if you take the static point of view, but given the reality is dynamic and not static, what they are proposing actually results in increased revenue via less tax avoidance and increased economic activity, economic growth. I say this because historically, it has worked, and it’s worked as recently as the Bush tax cuts which not only increased government revenue, but also increased the percentage of overall tax burden paid by the highest earners in the country. (Somehow Democrats always ignore that, but it’s true if you look at the numbers.)

      Isn’t it fairly clear after almost four years that Obama’s high government spending and increasing government control over the economy (from Obamacare to regulation to cronyism in the energy sector favoring alternative energy and restricting oil, gas, and coal, etc.) is not producing a vibrant and growing economy? Wouldn’t increased growth in the economy produce better results, not just in terms of government revenues from more taxes, but also in terms of creation of jobs, businesses, and wealth in general? Seriously… It’s been almost four years, two of which the Democrats had complete control over our government with supermajorities in both Houses of Congress and the White House, and yet we are where we are. Isn’t it time to admit that the Obama way simply doesn’t work? There is just something wrong in the vision, not to mention the math.

      1. Before I address your argument Pat, while Dems had a supermajority for 2 years, they were only filibuster proof for a few short months. I think we both can agree that it takes 60 to do anything. You seem to be selling a concept suggesting that Obama has changed economic versions when in fact, little legislation has changed from the previous administration. You are actually blaming Obama for the GOP’s very own failed policies which they’ve obstructed any legislation to correct. And I’ll remind you once more that they did so with a clear admission of insuring Obama to be a 1 term president. You do allude to ACA as part of the culprit but in reality, the CBO has made it clear that this will in fact reduce our deficit over 10 years. And even to argue otherwise, doesn’t address the cost of simply kicking that can down the road.

        I’m obviously less shiny than you on tax policy thingies so let me splain it the only way I know how. Aside from taxes increasing or decreasing revenue, I argued this point in the “Is Mitt Too Nice” (or something) thread in detail. When business reinvest in order to avoid taxes, that investment goes directly into the economy, buying new cars, computers, office furniture and so on which allows these auto workers/factory workers to get their cars serviced at Bob’s Garage so Bob’s wife can have her hair done at Betty Bop’s Salon so Betty can take her kids to Chucky Cheese so the cheese guy can catch a movie that allows the usher to buy new shoes and so on and so on. That’s what happens when they are facing a tax. Now when there’s no tax, there’s no reason to invest, as we see today. They simply sit on the money. So I’ll reiterate that after 12 years of having the lowest tax rate in history and amassing more liquid cash in history, the trickle-down theory has failed. And it’s not the 1st time in history to fail. Prior to the Civil War, northern steel mills were doing well but workers lived in tents earning enough for food only. Early coal mining companies were raking it in while the workers worked for the “company store”. The Industrial Revolution brought vast wealth for companies but we saw adults and children working 18 hour days in dangerous sweat shops for slave wages. And today, we’re seeing history repeat itself while corporations have record profits ,the economy barely creeping along, and employee wages and benefits dropping.

        Now if you want to play the blame game on the economy, the recession was a direct result of tax cuts while starting 2 wars, something historically unprecedented. History tells us that Lincoln raised taxes to offset the cost of the Civil War as did McKinley due to the Spanish-American War as did Wilson’s to cover WWI. WWII, Korea, and Vietnam pushed presidents of both parties to increase taxes. Poppy Bush even broke his read my lips promise because he understood that the cost of Kuwait would be devastating to the economy. But what GWB and his lapdog GOP did was the opposite, very much against the advice of prominent economist.

        And you’ve still avoided how much of a less tax than negative corporations should pay on their profits.

  13. The U.S. economy’s 35 percent corporate tax rate is among the highest in the industrial world, reducing the ability of our nation’s businesses to compete in the global economy and to invest and create jobs at home. By limiting investment and growth, the high rate of corporate tax also hurts U.S. wages.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s