Skip to main content

I usually hate it when a post begins with something like, "I was going to write about___ but___." So I won't. What I was going to write and did is included at the end of this Diary. It is basically a discussion of some studies regarding growth, development and physical planning that appear in a blog called, "Strong Towns," that I found interesting.

What I did decide to do, however, is meander a bit and speculate about some things that the blog suggested to me.

Having a career arc extending from running one of the more active at the time civil rights groups existing during the dark ages of the movement, writing much of the plan and legislation for what still remains one of the nations most significant land use control programs, California's Coastal Program, and administering major portions of it, chairing California's High Speed Rail Authority, interspersed with attempts to save the world within the counter culture, reforming a state's mental health laws, a religion's liturgy, a city's approach to homelessness and so on as well as succeeding and failing at various professional, personal and financial endeavors more times than I care to admit, I have developed the arrogance to believe wholeheartedly that experience breeds wisdom and I know what I am talking about. I also have never found a run-on sentence I have written that I have not fallen in love with. (Note, for the literalists reading this, actually I do not believe that experience equals knowledge and success implies competence. There is too much anecdotal and scientific evidence floating around that supports that they do not to think otherwise.)

Because of my interest in physical planning and development and its interplay with economic, social and political thought and action, I found the studies described in "Strong Towns" worth noting for the simplicity with which they identify the problems they examine. The authors of the blog write from the perspective of  consultants arguing for adaptive reuse of existing urban areas. Despite the potential self-promotion, their analysis appears spot on. They do however, it seems to me, fail to recognize that the syndrome they criticize in the suburbs eventually may repeat themselves even in the "walkable cities" they envision.

About 80% of the posts I have written here attempt to address, sometimes well and other times not so well, a simple contention that there may be a ghost in the machine we call humanity. That unless we consider the possibility that humanity rather than the apex of evolution may be little more than a doomed branch of the evolutionary tree and compare the implications of each assumption, we may be limiting our ability to understand what is happening and what needs to be done to assure our own happiness and survival.

For example, Malthus' analysis of the relationship between population and resources may be only the tip of the iceberg. Consider the following from the ever perceptive Brad DeLong:

"To put it another way: In 1870 the daily wages of an unskilled worker in London would have bought him (not her: women were paid less) about 5,000 calories worth of bread--5,000 wheat calories, about 2½ times what you need to live (if you are willing to have your teeth fall out and your nutritionist glower at you). In 1800 the daily wages would have bought him about 3,500 calories, and in 1600 2,500 calories. Karl Marx in 1850 was dumbfounded at the pace of the economic transition he saw around him. That was the transition that carried wages from 3500 calories per day-equivalent in 1800 to 5000 in 1870. Continue that for another two seventy-year periods, and we would today be at 10,000 calories per unskilled worker in the North Atlantic today per day.
Today the daily wages of an unskilled worker in London would buy him or her 2,400,000 wheat calories.
Not 10,000. 2,400,000."
Even were we to convert from fossil fuels to renewable energy will we as a species also be able to restrain our seeming insatiable desire to consume ever more resources in order to secure better lives? I am not so sure, but at least if we do eliminate fossil fuels, we will have a little more time to see if we can figure things out.

So let's look at what "Strong Towns" had to say:  


The Real Cost of Infrastructure Development

A report, a few years ago, from “Strong Towns” a development think tank argues that the first generation of suburbia was built on and maintained by savings and investment, but the second was built and maintained by borrowing tons of money. We are now entering the third generation. We are out of savings and investment and easy money, now what do we do?

They also point out that in every case they  studied, the useful life of an infrastructure investment paid for by borrowing from the private market was less than the time it took to pay back the loans. What this means is that almost every community that invested in infrastructure by borrowing will likely face the need to substantially raise taxes or file for bankruptcy should growth slow or stop.

Finally, the report found that, in almost every case where a developer paid for or otherwise donated infrastructure improvements as part of its development in return for the community assuming responsibility for operation and maintenance of the improvements, eventually the community required a tax increase to pay for their continued maintenance and replacement.

It used to be that in embarking on an infrastructure project, the costs for future operation and maintenance were budgeted for and automatically carried over to subsequent budgets or, as another way to handle it, operation and maintenance funds were established and funded as part of the original budget. One of the centerpieces of the Reagan Revolution was abolishing this practice so that his administration could appear to have cut spending in the budget while also permitting them to raid the sequestered maintenance funds to use on other programs. I know this because I was high-level bureaucrat during his administration as Governor of California and saw it first hand. Not only did this practice push-off the burden onto to future generations (like ours today) but by masking the true long-term costs, it encouraged the orgy of borrowing that marks current governmental policy world-wide. This was neither traditional liberal nor conservative orthodoxy, but a cynical ploy to obtain and hold power by pandering to the economic elite.

If it comes either to pandering to the rich or pandering to the average person, I know which side of the street I would prefer my elected politicians to set up their cribs.

At this same time, Wall Street and the banking industry were just getting geared up to promote new products to fund government by financing a host of long-term investments that would in fact rarely be paid off. Their representatives prowled the offices of both Governor Jerry Brown and Ronald Reagan as well as the State Legislature arguing that the State's capital investments were under leveraged. They argued that trough the magic of leveraging existing capital projects  money could be freed up to allow the leveraging of future good and needed projects without ever needing to raise taxes. It seemed like magic, money for nothing.

Jerry Brown, as was his predilection, was more than dubious but many of those surrounding him bought into it urging him to consider the parks and natural areas that could be preserved and the jobs created from the projects funded. Brown ultimately gave in, but to his credit the projects he did agree to were smaller and fewer than those urged on him by his advisors.

The Reagan administration on the other hand, bought into it because many of its senior officials came out of the financial industry (The Democrats had not yet peopled their administrations with ex-financial industry personnel) and it appeared to be a good way to transfer tax revenue and spread profits around to the administration's supporters while appearing to benefit the economy without raising taxes.

As a result, there followed an orgy of borrowing by all levels of government to fund and pay for capital expenditures. It was seen as a good way to obtain infrastructure without raising taxes. The products themselves were structured by the lenders. The resulting financial structures were often more complex than they had been previously.  The legions of bankers, economists and financial advisors that descended on government pushing the loans clearly outmatched the ability of public bureaucrats, whose job it was to protect the public purse, to adequately analyze the fiscal implications of the deals. They were also cowed by the politicians who had bought into the program hook line and sinker and clamored for the projects. They also were pressured to approve the deals by their bosses, many of whom came from the industry and hoped to return there when their stint in government was over.

As a result, questionable loans were made. Things that had not been regularly financed before began to be so. At times, in the case of financing infrastructure projects, exaggerated estimates of the life of what was being financed and things like increased maintenance costs as the infrastructure aged were forgotten.

This system did not collapse like a punctured bubble as it often does in the private market because as my grandfather an owner of a construction company advised (and Paul Krugman confirms), one should contract with the government whenever they can because the government always pays their bills, no matter the state of the economy. The profits may be smaller and the money worth less because of inflation, but you had your money. (Alas, as the financial industry crept further and further into the operation of government, they demanded their profits match those they could receive in private deals. They then began to insist that government guarantee that their profits not be discounted through inflation even though the inflation may have been caused to a great extent by their own activities. As far as I know, not a single investigator has studied how and why this happened.)

Eventually both Republicans and Democrats, rich and poor climbed aboard the bandwagon. They were followed by a host of political appointees from the industry who given their experience with these things joined government as advisors and executives. Whether they were liberal or conservative they could see nothing amiss. Republicans were happy taxes were not being raised during their watch while the private market got the contracts for the work. Democrats were thrilled for the jobs.

The real reason why local governments often have to raise taxes or revenue or go bankrupt (Hint, it is not from spending on social programs, education or public security):

According to “Strong Towns” as described above, we are now in the third cycle of suburban development in the United States.

Although “Strong Towns” analysis reflects US suburb growth patterns, it most likely also applies also to to larger areas and their infrastructure development including countries. What we build and pay for with debt [whether public or private] generally has not included accounting for replacement costs or operation and maintenance beyond the infrastructure’s estimated life cycle, which as a rule is less than the payback period on the bonds used to build it in the first place. This would be like borrowing for your weeks food agreeing to pay it back in installments over two weeks, then borrowing the following weeks food on the same terms hoping that somehow the nourishment can be converted into increased earnings. The syndrome compulsive gamblers suffer resembles this.

Case study: “Free roads’ are a myth”:

A group of high-value lake properties petition the city to take over their road. They agree to pay the entire cost to build the road — a little more than $25,000 per lot — in exchange for the city agreeing to assume the maintenance. As one city official said, “A free road!”

Question: How much is the repair cost estimated to be after one life cycle and how does that compare to the amount of revenue from these properties over that same period?

Answer: It will cost an estimated $154,000 to fix the road in 25 years, but the city will only collect $79,000 over that period for road repair. To make the numbers balance, an immediate 25% tax increase is necessary along with annual increases of 3% with all of the added revenue going for road maintenance.
(See Strong Towns for more examples)

The author introduces their studies with the following:

Since the end of World War II, our cities and towns have experienced growth using three primary mechanisms:

Transfer payments between governments: where the federal or state government makes a direct investment in growth at the local level, such as funding a water or sewer system expansion.
Transportation spending: where transportation infrastructure is used to improve access to a site that can then be developed.

Public and private-sector debt: where cities, developers, companies, and individuals take on debt as part of the development process, whether during construction or through the assumption of a mortgage.

In each of these mechanisms, the local unit of government benefits from the enhanced revenues associated with new growth. But it also typically assumes the long-term liability for maintaining the new infrastructure. This exchange — a near-term cash advantage for a long-term financial obligation — is one element of a Ponzi scheme.

The other is the realization that the revenue collected does not come near to covering the costs of maintaining the infrastructure. In America, we have a ticking time bomb of unfunded liability for infrastructure maintenance. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) estimates the cost at $5 trillion — but that's just for major infrastructure, not the minor streets, curbs, walks, and pipes that serve our homes.

The reason we have this gap is because the public yield from the suburban development pattern — the amount of tax revenue obtained per increment of liability assumed — is ridiculously low. Over a life cycle, a city frequently receives just a dime or two of revenue for each dollar of liability. The engineering profession will argue, as ASCE does, that we're simply not making the investments necessary to maintain this infrastructure. This is nonsense. We've simply built in a way that is not financially productive.

We've done this because, as with any Ponzi scheme, new growth provides the illusion of prosperity. In the near term, revenue grows, while the corresponding maintenance obligations — which are not counted on the public balance sheet — are a generation away.


Today's Quote:

"Sicarius… celebrated the feast of the Nativity… with Austrighiselus and the other neighbors…. The priest… sent a boy to invite some of the men to come to his house for a drink. When the boy got there, one of the men he invited drew his sword and did not refrain from striking him. He fell down and was dead…. Sicarius… took his arms and went to the church to wait for Austrighiselus. The latter heard about this and armed himself…. [B]oth parties suffered harm…. Sicarius got away unnoticed… made for his homestead… leaving behind… his silver, his clothes, and four of his servants who had been wounded. After he had fled, Austrighiselus broke into the building, killed the servants, and took away with him the gold, the silver, and the other things. When they appeared later before the people's court, the sentence was that Austrighiselus was to pay the legal penalty for manslaughter…. Sicarius, forgetting about these arrangements… broke the peace… invaded the home, killed father, brother, and son, and having done away with the servants took all their belongings and their cattle. When we heard this, we grew greatly perturbed…"
        Gregory, Bishop of Tours.
("Perturbed?" Freaked out is more likely I would think.)
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Because we have been robbed by the evil (0+ / 0-)

    Rs and their masters the 1%.

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 01:24:46 PM PDT

  •  The shortage of money is an entirely artificial (3+ / 0-)

    construct hit upon by Congress as a strategy to exercise control. Money serves as an indicator of relative value, not absolute value. Sort of like inches tell you how big your waist is compared to the neighbor's, but not whether either represent a body in good health.
    The suburbs were built as a response to the fear that people living close together would become increasingly unmanageable, and as a continuation of what many people believed was a "natural" pattern -- i.e. immigrants moving from the east to the west. Also, there was a widely shared belief that building new is cheaper than redoing the old and since this belief (based on ease, rather than real cost) was consistent with the desires of people who wanted to move people around and out, it was generally supported by the people who control the flow of money on the local level.
    It all worked together nicely. Old neighborhoods were stinted on emergency services and experienced a higher level of de-construction, so the insurance companies refused to write policies and the mortgage companies refused to give loans for rehabilitation or new buyers. The Community Reinvestment Act identified the problem, but didn't have any teeth. Believe me. I tried using it in 1979, about two years after it was passed.

    The reason the states and local governments don't have enough money is because Congress rations it. The United States have been experiencing since the Civil War what the countries in the euro zone have recently subjected themselves to. They thought having a single currency would be more convenient. And it is, just like using the alphabet is more convenient that using cyrilic or Chinese characters, whether we're writing Spanish, Russian or Arabic. What they didn't take into consideration was the rule of the banksters, people who profit from restricting the availability of currency. And not only that, banksters who gamble with currency, but call it "investment."
    You'd think that severing the bands of gold would have freed the currency to serve as just another utility, an aide memoire or token to facilitate transactions over time and space. But that ignores the history of people profiting from making currency scarce.
    For evidence just consider that even as the Federal Reserve pours $85 billion a month into the economy, it's disappearing just as quickly into the Wall Street hoard, to inflate the price of stocks whose sale is conveniently not taxed at point of sale. If we had a transaction tax of a half of one percent, all governmental entities could be funded from the revenue returned to the Treasury.

    "Revenue" -- it means come back. The dollars spent by the Congress are supposed to come back in a regular cycle, to be counted and sent out again. Currency ought to be recycled, just like aluminum cans, so we don't have to keep using resources to make more.

    Money is egalitarian. And that's what mitigates against it.
    Segregation is apparently a strong habit. People keep coming up with new strategies to divide and separate populations. I'm beginning to think the people who do this can't see people any way but as part of some grouping. Being expected to see persons as individuals seems very upsetting to them. Perhaps it's a problem akin to expecting people to identify trees as oaks or maples or aspen or ash or pine. Such specificity seems beyond their ken, even if, upon a closer look, the trees obviously don't look the same.
    Instinct-driven people seem dependent on superficial optics. Add to that what they do and don't like and the result is a hierarchy that's difficult to dispute or refute.

    Remember the old "melting pot" meme? Well, that's not about to be achieved, nor should it be. That which has been rendered in a melting pot is not fit for anything.

    •  hannah (0+ / 0-)

      Thank you. You raise good points. Money is a reality and a metaphor.

      •  Money is a symbol of value, rendered tangible, (0+ / 0-)

        even in electronic form.
        I suspect, and it's only a suspicion, that people who have difficulty or find it impossible dealing with symbols are afflicted with a deficient sense of touch. Our integument is what connects us to the material world and people whose sense of touch, who are often described as "out of touch," don't make the connection and, what isn't perceived can't be virtually understood. That dollars, like the characters we write with, are worthless, regardless how many we employ on a page, unless they are spent and received by someone else is simply incomprehensible.
        The SCOTUS has said that money is speech and is not to be interfered with by the agents of government. Would that they applied that same reasoning to our currency. There's a reason why management of the currency was included in the same section of the Constitution as the responsibility for insuring accurate weights and measures.

        •  Hannah (0+ / 0-)

          Thank you for your comment.

          The courts have broadened the definition of speech over the years to keep up with technology. To however extend the same freedoms enjoyed by citizens to corporations that are constructs of the state in my opinion goes too far.

          •  The problem here, as in so many other things, (0+ / 0-)

            is that Congress has failed to define artificial bodies (corporations) as different from natural bodies. So, the SCOTUS is left with no option but to accept the argument that since private corporations, like public corporations, are made up of natural persons, the same principles should govern, including the principle of probity -- i.e. that what they do is good, unless and until it is proven bad.
            The Congress could change that by requiring private corporations to be strictly limited by their charters to carry out only those enterprises authorized ahead of time and consistent with the public welfare and environmental preservation.
            The reason the Congress hasn't done that is because, even as individual members claim great support for the principle of limited government, they actually resent that the Constitution outlines what they may and must do -- nothing more and nothing less -- and are both envious of the freedom of private corporations to make a mess, as well as desirous of having private corporations act as "partners" to do the dirty work for them.
            Example: the marriage between airlines and the TSA, which restricts individual citizens, violates their right to privacy and bodily integrity, as well as to travel freely without impediment. Note that I write that as a person who has never flown on a commercial plane and has no intention of doing so.

            •  hannah (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              I agree with you on this point. I have argued in other venues for similar reforms. Like the financial industries who have over the past two centuries accreted to themselves the the belief by the public that they are more than middle men but masters of the universe, corporation have accreted to themselves legal prerogatives that allow them to behave like governments without checks and balances or obligations to anything other then their top management and largest investors.

  •  The myth of growth paying (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    middleclassadvocate, elfling

    for itself is just that, a myth.  Not only that, but when local governments become strapped for budgetary funding, the first thing cut from the budget is maintenance.

    Since the 1950's, the mantra for cities and towns to stay viable is to grow.  In most cases, that growth is outward, not within the existing boundaries as redevelopment.

    Developers like cheap land outside the perimeters which means that their up front costs are less, and usually the additional cost of installing infrastructure stilll keeps the development costs less than the land costs close in.  So the developer puts in the roads and other infrastructure and then dedicates it to the municipality along with the property becoming annexed.

    The idea that has long been sold to local govt. officials is that such development will increase the tax base which does look inviting at first. Land use planners have long argued that urban sprawl development is not only very poor use of land, but also a very inefficient use of public resources.  Unfortunately, most local government officials still believe that the only way to keep a city economically viable is through physical growth and annexation.

    "I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~ Dr. Cornel West "It was a really naked declaration of imperialism." ~ Jeremy Scahill on Obama's speech to the UN

    by gulfgal98 on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 02:10:04 PM PDT

    •  I originally recommended this diary, but (0+ / 0-)

      have removed my recommend.  While I think that the topic is excellent, I have realized that this was a hit and run diary.  I spent some time crafting my comment above because I do have experience with this subject. I truly believe this subject should be explored in greater context.  However, the fact that the diarist did not even take the time to monitor his own diary is the reason I have removed my recommend.  It is too bad.

      "I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~ Dr. Cornel West "It was a really naked declaration of imperialism." ~ Jeremy Scahill on Obama's speech to the UN

      by gulfgal98 on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 04:38:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Please forgive the hit and run (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gulfgal98, elfling

        In spite of the hit and run nature, methinks on balance, the diarist has put in a lot of time to enlighten us all on one of the invisible causes of the perennial budget squeezes our various local governments have to grapple with.

        The more everyday people understand these issues, the better for the whole populace in the long run

        •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

          But when someone puts up a diary, I expect that he or she will try to respond to comments.  Mine was one of the first comments and I have a background in land use planning so I understand what he has posted and I agreed with it.  But I took the time to post my comment in fairly great detail and that was my frustration.

          "I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~ Dr. Cornel West "It was a really naked declaration of imperialism." ~ Jeremy Scahill on Obama's speech to the UN

          by gulfgal98 on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 05:31:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  gulfgal (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      True as that may be, it still surprises me how those who should know better are taken in by siren songs of the financial industry.

      •  I wish you had responded sooner (0+ / 0-)

        I am a retired land use planner and my comment above echoed what you posted.  But it was very frustrating to post a fairly detailed comment, only to see it die.

        This diary is very important and after it was posted it seemed to be neglected.  As a commenter, I hope to see that a comment that was as detailed as mine allowed to simply be ignored.

        I am sorry that I removed my recommend, but when someone posts a diary, I expect it to be tended.  Now I regret having removed my rec.

        "I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~ Dr. Cornel West "It was a really naked declaration of imperialism." ~ Jeremy Scahill on Obama's speech to the UN

        by gulfgal98 on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 05:37:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  correction (0+ / 0-)

          As a commenter, I hope to see that a comment that was as detailed as mine not allowed to simply be ignored.

          "I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~ Dr. Cornel West "It was a really naked declaration of imperialism." ~ Jeremy Scahill on Obama's speech to the UN

          by gulfgal98 on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 05:41:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  gulf (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I apologize but I am retired also and ran a few land use planning entities in my time. Sometimes I have to leave my house to do other things but I always get back to reviewing the comments eventually.

          Also sometimes I post my Diaries in the evenings so I do not get to review comments until early next morning.

    •  Excellent! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      You'd be surprised how often the privileged elite sell the public government officials a 'bill of goods'.

      I can't begin to enumerate:

      Tax cuts lead to growth and/or pay for themselves

      Public subsidies for private profiteers leads to economic growth

      and so on

  •  lol As one who can spin a run on sentence with (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    the best of them, let me tell you that you had me right there. ;-)

    Tipped, rec'd & hotlisted for more in depth consumption later. Thanks for doing the work to bring this to us.

    Information is abundant, wisdom is scarce. ~The Druid.
    ~Ideals aren't goals, they're navigation aids.~

    by FarWestGirl on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 03:19:04 PM PDT

    •  FarWest (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gulfgal98, FarWestGirl

      Thanks. I used to do some translating from Italian many years ago. It is not unusual for their sentences to be paragraph long. Being Italian myself I decided it was genetic.

      As for the subject mater of the Diary, I have probably worked at urban development for as long as anyone and from just about every point of view possible and I can attest that most new development does not pay for itself in the long run. It more often resembles a Ponzi scheme than a valid investment. On the other hand, without stealing from the future new development will from a cost standpoint be dear indeed.

  •  Reagans unfunded mandates are the reason (0+ / 0-)

    towns are broke.

    Federal school programs used to be paid for by the Feds, now they pay less than 26%. Towns have taken up the slack.

    .................expect us......................... FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

    by Roger Fox on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 03:54:33 PM PDT

    •  Roger (0+ / 0-)

      Add to that that the Republican insistence that many federal programs such as welfare and housing, be funded through transfer payments from the feds to the states produced the fastest growing element of the deficit and is now nest to Defense the largest element of the budget.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site