R.G.’s Take: What the Lean House Budget Bill Means for State Employees
(Editor’s note: Every week, for the remainder of the legislative session, BurkaBlog will be publishing an original column by R.G. Ratcliffe, who was the state political reporter for the Houston Chronicle for twenty years. During those two decades, I’ve known R.G., who resigned from the Chronicle in February to work on a book, to be one of the most trusted voices in the Capitol press corps. I’m thrilled to have him posting here. His columns will offer a deeper take on one of the week’s top stories. –P.B.)
This session’s budget crunch has turned into a twisted episode of “The Biggest Loser,” the reality television show in which overweight contestants compete to see who can lose the most weight. At the Capitol, the question is, which parts of our state budget will lose the most money in the plans being floated to bridge the $27 billion shortfall. Who will be our biggest loser? Most of the attention has been on teachers, children, and the elderly in nursing homes. Rallies at the capitol and heavy coverage on the nightly news about the impending disaster these groups could face from state cuts have put them at the forefront of the debate. But as the House prepares to vote on a bare bones available-revenue-only proposal next week, there’s another, more often overlooked contestant on the show—Texas’ 154,000 state employees, many of whom could face effective wage cuts of up to 40 percent under current Texas budget plans.
Who are these folks? Well, they are child protection caseworkers, prison guards, tax auditors and rank and file bureaucrats. They work for the government. In a staunchly fiscal conservative, Tea Party world, these employees are often viewed skeptically. The governors of Wisconsin and New Jersey are trying to break public employee unions, and the governor of Maine has ordered a state building mural removed because it celebrates the history of organized labor in Maine. The story is similar in Texas, where state employees also are being treated as something like a plague on this year’s state budget—even though our public sector employees lack collective bargaining and, for the most part, are chronically underpaid. Nonetheless, the Texas Conservative Coalition Research Institute, a think tank for Republican lawmakers, issued a report in January that said that “generous” employee perks needed to be “curtailed” to balance the budget without taxes:
While the state undoubtedly requires a large number of employees to administer even its core functions, keeping this number as low and efficient as possible is paramount. Every state employee entails an additional fiscal burden for state taxpayers given the generous salary, longevity pay, retirement benefits, health and life insurance, and overtime pay to which almost every state employee is entitled. It is these costs that grow without regard to the level or quality of service provided to Texans which must be curtailed both in order to balance the budget without raising taxes, and to keep the state fiscally sound for years to come.
It’s impossible to argue with the idea that the state should aim for efficiency and value when spending the taxpayer’s money. The question is: what is efficient and what is punitive? Beginning this Thursday, the House is set to debate several budget bills that include significant cuts to state programs. As many as 10,000 state workers may face layoffs because of these cuts, and a Legislative Budget Board analysis last week estimated that over the next two years more than 342,000 government worker jobs may be lost at all levels in Texas (state, higher education, public schools, and municipalities).
State workers who survive the layoffs would see their salaries trimmed three different ways. One proposal would strip state workers of their longevity pay, which would amount to about a $100 per month pay cut for a 15-year employee. Another proposal, by Appropriations Chairman Jim Pitts, would give state agencies the power to implement furloughs. A two-day-a-month furlough policy would effectively become a cut of a month’s pay over the course of a year. Pitts told me that avoiding cuts like these would be difficult given the anti-revenue mood of House members. “Some of the people didn’t want to vote for House Bill 4 unless we did furloughs,” he said, referring to the supplemental appropriation bill.
But the biggest potential whammy has to do with, surprise, surprise, health insurance. Management of the state’s health care system is a little confusing, but bear with me. The Employees Retirement System of Texas (ERS) provides health insurance not just for retired state staff but also for almost all of the current workers at state agencies, ranging from those in the governor’s office to those in the prison system (not to mention those staffing the offices of state’s legislators). ERS currently faces a $591 million shortfall, and one of the proposals set to the House floor would bridge that gap by significantly increasing the state health plan’s deductible. As outlined in an ERS brief, the potential out-of-pocket medical liability for state workers would be $11,900 a year for family coverage before the plan kicked in at 100 percent coverage. Since the average state employee earns $39,219 a year, this would amount to a major hit. After paying federal income taxes the employee could face having a third of his remaining take-home pay go to basic medical coverage. In that scenario, employees likely would forgo preventive care and save their state insurance only for catastrophic coverage.
“That’s bankruptcy territory,” Andy Homer, legislative director of the Texas State Employees Association told me. Pitts claims that he’s looking at making up part of the shortfall by reducing what the state pays for an employee’s health insurance policy from 100 percent to 90 percent and by instituting a tobacco user surcharge. But even these measures would leave the ERS short about $300 million. And Homer said the more likely outcome would be for the state to go from paying 100 percent all the way down to 80 percent. (The state also currently pays for 50 percent of an employees family’s health insurance; Homer sees that going down to 40 percent.) But even with these cuts, which could devastate some families, Homer said that the state health insurance program would still face a shortfall.
So are these proposed cuts an example of the state finding a necessary and tolerable efficiency? Let’s look at a specific example. For a prison guard with a take-home pay of $1,825.17 a month, the change would cost the guard an additional $186 a month to cover himself, his spouse and two children. Homer said that is before he has ever accessed the health care system. But Pitts pointed out that the health care plan for state employees is generous compared to what the state does for retired teachers or what private industry does for its employees. “There are not many industries that pay all of the employees’ coverage and half the family,” he explained.
On the other hand, one of the selling points of the public sector, which rarely delivers large salaries, is a good, stable benefits package. This is what the state uses to attract skilled workers. State employees have received pay raises over each of the past four years of between two percent and four percent, but there were no raises in the three prior years. Homer said state employees often have tolerated low salaries because of good benefits. He said cutting benefits might prompt the 18,000 retirement-eligible employees to quit immediately, putting an additional strain on ERS.
“The overall magnitude of the shift of costs onto state employees is significant,” Homer said. “The Biggest Loser” is about who can get the most fat off their carcass. But in the case of the state employees who survive the impending layoffs, the fat they donate to the Legislature may come from their daily bread and butter. -R.G. RATCLIFFE
Tagged: employee retirement system, health insurance, jim pitts, public sector, state budget, state workers, Texas house
Anonymous says:
I support using the Rainy Day Fund and agree that the budget is draconian, with what looks to be very scary consequences. But please supply the data showing that the Texas public sector is “for the most part chronically underpaid.” Do we have a comparison with the private sector or other states’ public sector employees? Because other than the Capitol, I’m not so sure at all.
Reply »
longleaf says:
Inasmuch as there are reportedly at least five jobless people wanting to work for every job that opens up, any threat to quit undertaken by any state employee can readily be met with a Clint Eastwood-like response, “Go ahead, make my day.”
There really is no worker bargaining strength in a right-to-work state. It’s OVER for most of the middle class, not only in Texas, but nationwide. The ONLY question is whether they are going to turn “Egyptian” over it. I think they perhaps eventually WILL, but ONLY IF the GOPers can convince Obama to join hands with them and eviscerate the so-called “entitlements.” Once that happens, all bets of stability are off.
But this is why we have Homeland Security and the USA PATRIOT Acts in place. In a country with not much of a middle class left, the gated communities must presume that the formerly middle class hordes are potential “terrorists.”
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Cue brainless blather from jbb in 3….2…..1
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 9:53 am
looks like you were first….darn.
Reply »
anita Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
Nope, JBB is ranting about “illegals” on Paul’s Murchison post, so it may be a bit before he can pull himself from that . . .
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
I didn’t belive your post so I went over and check myself. Unbelievable. Talk about a one trick pony. His answer to every question under the sun is ILLEGALS! What a maroon.
Reply »
Tellnitlikeitis Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
Steve Murdock, director of the U.S. Census Bureau in the Bush Administration, says there are 1.6 million undocumented folks in Texas.
That’s about 6 percent of the population.
>b>Amazing, isn’t it, that so few can cause so many problems?
Anonymous Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Don’t confuse him with facts.
JohnBernardBooks Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 5:32 pm
It would be nice to know how much of republican tax dollars democrats use to buy votes from illegals(some say they’re not illegals but non citizens)with each year, does that bother some here?
Anonymous Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 10:36 pm
OMG jbb, you’ve discovered our plan. We’ll never be able to take over the U.S. with patriots as smart as you on the other side.
Anonymous says:
Nice to see the true colors of Pitts coming out – he’s lied for years about caring about state employees. Real easy to talk about how tough this budget is from his mansion in highland park.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 11:08 am
Waxahachie has a Highland Park???
Reply »
Anonymous says:
In writing an article about state employees, RG and/or Burka should have at least disclosed that Ratcliffe’s wife is a long-time state employee at the Texas Education Agency. I doubt that has any impact on his reporting, but it is a fact that should be disclosed so the reader can draw their own conclusions.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Exactly my thought: a glaring omission from this editorial.
Reply »
Pri-ista says:
It will be interesting to see how Austin’s economy will be affected by the budget. For a while now, Austin was seen has having strong economy because it was shielded from the rest of economy due to the fact that Austin has so many state employees.
Reply »
OutWest says:
The health insurance changes seem obvious. Who else has benefits this generous? No one in the private sector has anything close to this.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 10:46 am
yes, lets have a race to the bottom. what could go wrong?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Actually, I do. I’m in the private sector, I get pretty generous health benefits. My employer pays 100% percent of mine and my family’s health insurance premiums. Not only that, my employer reimburses me for half of the insurance deductible.
Tack on the 50 days of leave I accrue per year, and I guess you’d say I’ve got a really good private sector job.
Certainly better benefits than any state worker.
FWIW, I’m in Austin, and I work in high-tech.
Reply »
Michael Reply:
March 29th, 2011 at 10:25 pm
I’m a narcotics Agent with DPS. A narc in Austin PD or a Federal Agent makes about 25K more than I do. And they don’t have to move their families down to the border like I had to. If I chose to go work in the private sector like for blackwater or dynecorp I could double my salary.
Whats kept me here is I have 13 years on and am halfway to retirement and the benefits have been fair. If the State chooses to jack up our insurance rates we’ll probably lose 15 to 20% of the Department due to retirement. When I joined the Department I had options on where I chose to work. I have a college degree and I’m former military. If the State continues the downward spiral on pay and benefits the only people that will take a DPS job will be from the bottom of the barrell. Texas will then be like Mexico with rampant corruption because law enforcement will no longer be a middle class job.
Reply »
Karen Reply:
April 3rd, 2011 at 7:17 pm
Yep, I’m sure everyone will be jumping up and down to take your job. And prison jobs too.
Reply »
JUICE says:
Down in the Banana Republic . . .
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Of course, neither Burka nor his latest mouthpiece for attacking conservative governing will talk about the realtionship between state growth and the state’s budgeting and taxation practices. So, thought that those of you who care for a dose of reality would like to read this:
“The lesson is that high taxes and strong public employee unions tend to stifle growth and produce a two-tier society like coastal California’s. The eight states with no state income tax grew 18 percent in the last decade. The other states (including the District of Columbia) grew just 8 percent. The 22 states with right-to-work laws grew 15 percent in the last decade. The other states grew just 6 percent. The 16 states where collective bargaining with public employees is not required grew 15 percent in the last decade. The other states grew 7 percent. Now some people say that low population growth is desirable. The argument goes that it reduces environmental damage and prevents the visual blight of sprawl.
But states and nations with slow growth end up with aging populations and not enough people of working age to generate an economy capable of supporting them in the style to which they’ve grown accustomed.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/263181/home-where-growth-michael-barone
Reply »
Don Q Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
Oh, please. The eight allegedly fast growing non-income-tax states include Nevada and Florida. How’s that been working out for them lately?
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
March 29th, 2011 at 9:15 am
Yes, Don Q let’s folow the lead of NY, California and Illinois so that us undertaxed folk are paying out fair share. That’s the ticket to prosperity, eh? Dumbass.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
March 30th, 2011 at 8:44 am
Most of the right-to-work states are in the south. Since the advent of air conditioning, there has been a steady flow of people/companies relocating. So, don’t make causation arguments that are not based on facts.
Reply »
jpt51 says:
Toss out pay of political appointees, law enforcement & state college coaches & I bet the median average state salery is close to $29,000.00 a year! No state employee works for with the aim of getting rich but they, as the people who have to execuite the whim of the Legislature, deserve to earn a living wage and benefit. teachers showed Gov. Mark White the door and if state employees are abused Republicans may well lose their majority for many years!
Reply »
abc Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 3:32 pm
Texas State Employees are 17.6% underpaid relative to private employees. One of the biggest differences in the country.
Reply »
abc says:
funny how the national review fails to mention with all that growth a 27 billion dollar deficit suddenly appeared out of nowhere. Amazing how if you are growing McDonald jobs and rank 50th on almost every human services meter you are the place to be. Do you suppose TX might become a large trailer park of the poor and disabled and fired state employees. that would be truly impressive. The National review is turning a blind eye to the fact that per capita the deficit in Texas ranks second or third in the nation. Not saying much for the experiment.
Reply »
Tellnitlikeitis Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
No. The mega billion deficit didn’t suddenly appear out of nowhere.
LBB and then-Comptroller Strayhorn warned the conservative governing majority back in May 2006 that they were about to write the biggest hot check in Texas history….They pegged that 5-year revenue shortfall at $25 billion and $23 billion respectively.
And, here we are.
Reply »
abc Reply:
March 29th, 2011 at 6:40 am
Excellent point. A warning the train was coming but ignored now the citizens will be hit while the governing lords stand by the side and say it isn’t their fault
Reply »
Robert says:
Chronically underpaid? Every study out shows that total compensation for Texas public employees is about 40% higher than the private sector.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 3:07 pm
Bullshit. Every single associate that I work with makes well over $100K. So, where’s the state workers making $140K?
Reply »
abc Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Robert where are you making up your facts. Even if public employees made more than private (which they don’t) 40 percent is a ridiculous number and a fabrication from someone’s imagination.
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
As a long-time (now retired) state legislative employee, it did not take me long to learn that most Republicans (especially Legislators) just do not understand state employees. Coming from the Ayn Rand “never do anything for anyone for free” where “government is evil” mental world many of them inhabit, they just can not comprehend why anyone would work for the kind of pay the State provides and why anyone could possibly be interested in a job where service to others is an important element. This makes them believe that state employees must be some sort of worthless lot…….for, after all in their view “those who can do; those who can’t teach; and those who can’t even do that work for the state.”
Reply »
abc says:
This will help answer the question about who earns more private or public sector employees
http://www.nirsonline.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=395&Itemid=48
Reply »
WUSRPH says:
RJ might have mentioned that State government retirees have not received any increase in benefits since 2001. (As well as no increase in Social Security for the past two years and higher Medicare premiums set to wipe out any gain next year.) The new costs Pitts and friends have in mind will result in even less each month for those on “fixed incomes”. Quite a “thank you” for the many years of service most state workers gave to Texas.
Reply »
Blue Reply:
March 29th, 2011 at 9:55 am
Retirees knew the deal when they retired–Texas is rational and does not have COLAs as part of the retirement package. There should be no expectation of benefit increases at all.
Reply »
He Who Knows Everything says:
With the exception of professionals. State employees making more than around $80 M and above are over paid. Those making less are underpaid. I know this is a huge generality, but I bet an extensive study of state pay would show that.
Also many who have worked for the state over 15 years have have jobs that exceed their level of comp ency. I could go on and on.
As compared to other states our state government performs better than most states especially those states with higher salaries.
The military keeps itself some what efficient by discharging those who have not achieved a certain rank by a certain time. These person join state government as double dippers. If you want to save money and make state government more efficient then the state should not employee any one who has retired from the military over the rank of major. However retired Sargents are great.
Reply »
AE8994 Reply:
March 29th, 2011 at 9:08 am
To He Who Knows Everything: I would say you are the poster child for cutting the budget for public education. I can see why we are discussing cutting the wages of those overpaid public educators and state employees. Your spelling and grammar are proof we have been wasting our tax dollars.
Reply »
govanalyst Reply:
March 31st, 2011 at 9:52 am
The median state employee income is $35k. 80% of state employees make less than $50k. Pitting the middle class against the middle class is a ploy to distract everyone from the real issue, which is that Texas has one of the most regressive tax structures in the country. We are one step closer to driving hundredsd of thousands of hard-working middle class citizens into poverty. Am I wrong to wonder how that’s helping the state economy?
Reply »
abc says:
that would be $80 million (M) and yes that is overpaid and yes you are over generalizing. Look at the stats around the country before slamming individuals about their competency. Not to belittle the military but why do sargents remain sargents long enough to retire???? I say this because 15 years seems your magic number for incompetence. it takes 20 to retire what is the sargent secret.
Reply »
He Who Knows Everything says:
Sargents start at the bottom as privates and work their way up. Most enlisted men don’t stay in the military long enough to retire. Sargents are the first level of management and must produce results. Ask anyone. Sargents win wars. They make things work in spite of the bureaucracy.
Reply »
Alan says:
“Every state employee entails an additional fiscal burden for state taxpayers given the generous salary, longevity pay, retirement benefits, health and life insurance, and overtime pay to which almost every state employee is entitled.”
I’m sorry but I’m not sure how wanting health and 401(k) benefits and to get paid for working overtime is excessive. If people in the private sector aren’t getting that, maybe they should spend a little less time ranting about state employees and do a better job of negotiating with their own employers.
Reply »
Fiftycal says:
I thought O-BOMB-MAO “care” was going to give everybody everywhere FREE healthcare? When did the libtards discover that it cost money? And the $29K a year “prison guard” also gets about $10K in “benefits”. And any state employee that is insulted by not being “fully compensated” may get the hell out and find “self-actualization” in the private sector. Maybe they can get a job as a teacher.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 9:52 pm
Come on jbb, it’s not polite to post under someone else’s name
Reply »
AE8994 Reply:
March 29th, 2011 at 9:52 am
I’m sorry, but $39K per year isn’t enough to put my life on the line. Prison guards aren’t paid enough. I don’t know if $100K would be enough to compensate them properly.
I have worked both public and private sector; currently public sector. If necessary, I will go back to the private sector. I will work crazy hours and get well compensated for it. I will expect health and retirement benefits. I will not get to spend as much time with my family, but at least I will be able to send them to college and take them to the doctor when they are sick. I may even get a chance to attend their weddings, if I don’t work myself into an early grave.
Pardon me for wanting to watch my kids grow up. I guess I’m going back to the 60 hour work week, travelling 4 days a week, and spending my weekends at the office preparing for the next work week.
Reply »
gimmeabreak says:
Let’s see???
All my pals that work for the dumb and getting dumber state o Texas get paid one time a month!!!
Who in the private sector would deal with that???
“Gone to Texas” is going to turn into “Run from Texas”
Shameful
Reply »
Julie says:
This is in response to the first anonymous who asked former Houston Chronicle reporter R.G. Ratliffe for data to back up his claim that for the most part, public sector employees are “chronically underpaid.”
Ratcliffe is correct, not based on my opinion, but based on official figures from the state and from the U.S. Department of Labor.
According to the Department of Labor, the average pay for all private and public sector employees in Texas is $44,928 annually, while the state’s data shows the average state employee is paid $39,265 annually. The Labor Department says the average private and public sector employee in the U.S. makes $47,569 annually.
Any way you look at it, state employees on average are paid a lot less than the average for all employees statewide and nationally.
If the average salary for state employees was taken out of the mix for the overall statewide average provided by the Department of Labor, the remaining average for private sector employees in Texas would be much higher than the $44,982 mentioned earlier in this comment.
All the numbers boil down to this: state workers are not overpaid, and they’re not paid more than their counterparts in the private sector.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
A few years back the legislature paid state workers to retire. Now many of those workers are back on the state payroll, double dipping. One I know makes over $200K per year plus pulls down about $120K per year in retirement. Seems to me these folks should be the ones laid-off. They already have an income.
I don’t know what the total savings would be. But it would probably be worth checking out.
Reply »
Truman Sparks Reply:
March 28th, 2011 at 9:20 pm
Please see the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. An employer may not consider the age (over 40) or retirement status of an employee when making employment decisions. If you think you can get Congress to change this in the next few weeks please be my guest.
Reply »
Pat says:
Here’s how I see it. Employment will take another 3-5 years to recover to pre-Liquidity Trap levels. The legislature can get away with cutting salaries for the coming biennium with minimal consequences. The medium-term picture looks darker. The first positions to recover will be the highly-skilled professions, or engineers, MBAs, doctors, and lawyers. Texas will attract only bottom-tier or or highly-dedicated talent at best. For example, instead of the credentialed assistant solicitors of today, you’d see younger and less experienced lawyers – they’re only ones who will be able to afford to work for so little. Over time, this will extend to all positions. The losers will be the taxpayers, who will get less and less bang for their buck.
Reply »
Anonymous says:
Note to the last state employee to leave …
Please turn off the lights.
Reply »
817 says:
The Tea Party won the election. Government drowning in a bath tub.
Reply »
RobbyS says:
Having lived many years out of state, I was surprised when I returned ten year ago to learn that even in Texas government is so often a major employer even in small towns. Paradoxically, however, the greater the number of employees, the less personal contact with a government official. Once upon a time, a student at UT-Austin(me) could easily get an appointment to see the Dean of the college of Liberal Arts and walk right into his office with not even a secretary to intervene. Don’t think that kind of openness exists anymore. IAC, there is a tendency to take one job and divide it into many parts, each one requiring a new hire, right down to the point when a “client”in a social service organization will have four or five nannies. Surely not all these people are needed.
Reply »
R.G. Ratcliffe says:
I’m a little late in replying, but for those still interested, here’s a USA Today article from earlier this month on state employee compensation versus the private sector. You will see Texas ranks 30th among the states and state employees make about $3,500 a year less than the private sector. The average compensation number is different from my column because it uses all compensation, pay, medical, retirement, etc. My number was just based on pay: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-03-01-1Apublicworkers01_ST_N.htm
I might add, the average pay number also would be far lower if you removed from the list all the elected statewide officials and judges and medical professionals who work for state agencies. Plus, a $11,900 a year medical liability would not have the same impact on a $150K judge as it does on a $30,000 prison guard.
Reply »
JohnBernardBooks says:
oh come on what usefull idiot doesn’t know about all the gvmt employees who’s pensions are tied to the State Judge’s salaries? ie a state rep can retire @ age 50 with the same pay grade as a state judge. You democrats have been stealing from the tapayer long enough.
Reply »
Anonymous Reply:
March 30th, 2011 at 8:45 am
You mean those 101 state reps that are repubs?? I agree, they’ve been stealing from the taxpayer long enough!
Reply »
Fiftycal Reply:
March 30th, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Well gee, you’ll get a chance to UNELECT all those nasty, evil Republicans in 2012. Unless, of course, O-BOMB-MAO decides to END ELECTIONS by “executive order”.
Reply »
Jeff Crosby says:
Comptroller Strayname was right. We wouldn’t be having nickel and dime debates over state employee pay if Perry, Craddick et al had not jammed through their idiotic tax swap in 2006.
They’re responsible for this mess. It’s time for them to fix it. And firing thousands of teachers and shutting down half the nursing homes is no solution.
Reply »
Robert Hudnall says:
Don’t y’all go gettin’ your liberal panties in a wad, we’re all headed for the Barack Candy Mountains and someday when the air clears up and the sun comes shining through we’ll all be drinkin’ free bubble-up and eatin’ Rainbow stew from a silver spoon underneath a sky of blue.
(thanks Merle)
Reply »
Entertainment XP says:
I beloved as much as you will obtain carried out right here. The caricature is attractive, your authored subject matter stylish. however, you command get bought an edginess over that you want be delivering the following. in poor health definitely come further until now again since precisely the similar nearly very frequently inside case you protect this increase.
Reply »