OPEC agrees to a production decrease, prices increase – but could be just right

October 11, 2016 · Posted in Business and industry, Marita Noon · Comments Off on OPEC agrees to a production decrease, prices increase – but could be just right 

Commentary by Marita Noon

At the end of September, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) surprised the markets by agreeing to a production cut. As soon as the 14-nation deal was announced, oil prices jumped more than 5 percent to some of the highest levels since the crash two years ago. (Editor’s note: Locally prices at the pump are relatively unchanged because the area was mildly affected by the Alabama pipeline break earlier in the month, so prices were just beginning to recover.)

The proposed output cap is historic and represents a shift in the “pump-at-will policy,” as Bloomberg called it, “the group adopted in 2014 at the instigation of Saudi Arabia.”

Many analysts see that the Saudi gamble, aimed at putting American producers out of business, has failed. While U.S. oil production is down from last year’s highs and bankruptcies are up, the industry has become more efficient and the cost of extracting oil from shale is continuing to come down – resulting in the sixth straight week of an increased rig count and the 15th without a decrease. Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reports: “Many oil producers believe drilling in some U.S. regions can be profitable even with oil prices in their current range of $40 to $50 a barrel.”

Additionally, U.S. crude stockpiles have fallen for the fifth consecutive week – as have crude imports. American drivers are consuming more gasoline than ever. Exploration budgets, due to the low oil prices, have been slashed with the predicted result of lower production in the next few years. It appears that demand is catching up with production and prices have been creeping up since February’s lows. Phil Flynn, senior market analyst with the PRICE Futures Group explains: “While supply is still at a historically high level for this time of year, strong U.S. demand and rising U.S. exports are cutting down the glut.”

Meanwhile, the social costs of low-priced oil have been high for OPEC members – hitting Saudi Arabia especially hard. The cartel’s biggest producer has lost billions of dollars of revenue, which has resulted in a 20 percent pay cut for its ministers, reductions in financial benefits for government employees, and an increase in fees and fines, and cuts in subsidies, for all in the kingdom. Fear that the loss of the coddled lifestyle could throw the country into chaos, according to industry veteran and consultant Allen Brooks, likely convinced Saudi Arabian officials to moderate their position. The view from Bloomberg concurs: “Saudi Arabia’s willingness to do a deal, in particular, demonstrates the economic pain lower oil prices has caused producers.”

Iran, OPECs other majordomo, has, due to sanctions, gotten used to austerity and is now seeing its economic pressures easing and its oil exports increasing. It, therefore, heading into the OPEC meeting, appeared to be rejecting the Saudi output offer and dashed hopes of a compromise to cut crude production. The Financial Times quotes one Gulf OPEC delegate as saying: “All producers are hurting.”

The surprise came on Wednesday, September 28, when, after two years of failed attempts at an agreement and months of dialogue leading up to the meeting, “Saudi Arabia agreed to take on the bulk of OPEC’s proposed cuts,” wrote the WSJ. The headline from the New York Times read: “OPEC agrees to cut production, sending oil prices soaring.”

The proposed cuts are moderate in reality, only 1-2 percent of the 14-nation cartel’s 33.2 million barrels a day of production and they represent less than 1 percent of total global production. Yet, the announcement buoyed markets and added power to the previously mentioned price momentum. According to CNN Money, the agreement offers “powerful symbolism.”

While the price of oil received a bounce from the news that has given the industry cautious optimism, it is not expected to have a big impact on the price of gasoline. Oil prices are now expected to stay near $50 a barrel through the end of the year and below $60 a barrel through 2017 – which will likely mean an increase of a few cents a gallon at the pump. Julian Jessop, chief global economist at Capital Economic, in CNN Money, called the situation “a period of ‘Goldilocks’ oil prices” – low enough to help consumer spending and “high enough to keep major producers afloat.”

The slight bump in prices the proposed deal adds to the upward trend is enough to send some producers back into the oil field and encourage another burst of drilling. That increased production will have a self-leveling effect on prices. As prices go up, production increases. As more oil enters the already-glutted market, prices come down.

Additionally, the OPEC agreement is only a plan. It isn’t finalized. That could happen in Vienna in November if, and it is a big if, the members can agree on who will make the cuts, when the cuts will go into effect, how long they will last, and how they will be enforced. While all 14 countries – and non-OPEC producers such as the U.S. and Russia – will benefit from higher prices, no one wants to be the one taking the cut. Iran, Libya, and Nigeria are all trying to increase production that has been stifled due to sanctions or conflict. Plus, as WSJ reports: “OPEC has a long history of agreeing to production cuts, only to have the pact collapse when countries change their minds.” CNN Money adds: “cartel members also have a tendency to overshoot production quotas.”

So, while the OPEC announcement is “not a game-changing move that will send oil prices shooting back up towards the $100 a barrel level,” as The Guardian reported, it is big news that brightens prospects for the energy industry while keeping things just right for consumers.

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc., and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy – which expands on the content of her weekly column. Follow her @EnergyRabbit.

A bad deal all around

There are actually a couple things I want to tie together in this piece – they may seem disparate at first, but I think there’s a common thread in something I write about on a frequent basis.

For a guy whose party took a good old-fashioned ass-kicking in the midterms, Barack Obama sure is governing like he didn’t hear any of the voters, whether they showed up or not. We may like these gasoline prices which are the lowest they have been through his time in office, but he’s still determined to decimate our economy in the name of combating global warming. It was a point Peter Ingemi (aka DaTechGuy) made with some hashtag and messaging suggestions today.

In order for our economy to grow, we need to use energy. Like it or not, the vast majority of energy sources for our needs in the near-term future will be fossil fuels – thanks to advances in technology, oil and natural gas prices are reasonably cheap and supplies are plentiful.

And even if you say that cutting our greenhouse gas emissions is a worthy goal, we still are allowing China – you know, that country which seems to send us every product under the sun that’s not made here anymore because manufacturers bailed on America a couple decades back – to continue to increase its emissions. They say they would like their emissions to “peak” around 2030 – of course, that’s no iron-clad guarantee and since when have communists ever told the truth or lived up to an agreement? It’s a ‘get out of jail free’ card for the Chinese and it lasts for 15 years – meanwhile, we cripple what little industry hasn’t abandoned us yet due to shortsighted government policies and the obvious feeling that corporations are cash cows for exploitation to increase spending.

So, just like Obamacare has become the descriptive term for bad health care policy, “Obama China deal” and “Obama EPA regulations” should become part of the political lexicon. Admittedly, it doesn’t roll off the tongue quite as well as Obamacare but all three are detrimental to our economy.

EPA regulations restricting the use of fossil fuels would interrupt what’s been a promising rebirth of an American energy industry many thought was dying just a few short years ago. Instead, they are at a point where the need for workers is great as the industry continues to expand, and writer Marita Noon hit upon a great marriage of supply and demand just in time for Veterans Day. As she notes:

The U.S. oil-and-gas industry has added millions of jobs in the past few years and expects to add more and more—especially with the new energy-friendly Republican-controlled Congress. Just the Keystone pipeline — which is now likely to be built — will employ thousands. Increased access to reserves on federal lands will demand more personnel. But finding potential hires that fit the needs of the energy industry in the general labor pool is difficult, as they lack discipline, the ability to work in a team and, often, can’t pass a drug test.

Obviously our veterans have these qualities in spades thanks to their military experience, (Similarly, veterans have been integrated into a successful local construction firm led by one of their own.)

The question of climate change isn’t one of whether it occurs, as our planet has veered between ice age and warm periods ever since its creation untold eons ago. It’s always been one of responsibility and corrective action – my view is that the sun is the prime driver of the climate and we can’t do a whole lot about that fact. Just the fact that global temperature has held near-steady over the last 18 years and not constantly risen with the amount of carbon emissions punches a hole in a lot of the global warming theory, and is a prime reason they’ve gone to the term “climate disruption.” If we ceased using energy tomorrow it wouldn’t make a dime’s worth of difference to the climate but millions would starve.

Fortunately, what Obama has proposed with China isn’t binding until the Senate says so and a climate deal is probably dead on arrival in a GOP-controlled Senate. But the EPA and other regulators can provide a backhanded way of putting our end of the China deal in effect without lawmakers having a say.

Ignoring the market

Gasoline. It’s something all of us need, and if you’re reading this in Maryland last month you began paying roughly 3.5 cents more per gallon at each fillup thanks to the state expanding the sales tax to gasoline as part of a multi-year process for full adoption of our 6% sales tax to that product.

While that bad news applies to Maryland consumers, all of us may soon be seeing less bang for the buck if the EPA gets its way. They’re edging us closer and closer to widespread usage of E15 fuel, which may be a necessary method to comply with short-sighted federal law. The problem: a “blend wall” where the amount of ethanol mandated for use runs up to the limits created by actual consumption, which is down significantly from that which was predicted when the regulations were written several years ago when the economy was humming along.

Many longtime followers of my site know I use the American Petroleum Institute as a go-to resource when it comes to energy issues. Yes, they are an advocacy group but they advocate the tried-and-true solutions for our energy problems, advocating for the least-costly alternative of petroleum which, as a beneficial byproduct, is a great job creator to boot. So while the EPA believes it’s “flexible” on renewable fuel standards enacted as part of a 2005 law, API believes they’re quite inflexible. The only real change was in the category of cellulosic biofuels, which saw its mandate cut by more than half – quite handy when there’s only a negligible amount currently in production. (API has a handy guide to the pitfalls of the RFS here.)

Meanwhile ethanol apologists – like the group which lobbied for E15 in the first place – claim their product will create jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil without making an impact on grocery prices, Yet their solution is more government mandates and subsidies. I find it quite telling that this group formed mere days after the election of Barack Obama, who was probably – and correctly – thought of as a person who would shower even more government largess onto the ethanol industry in his quest to wipe out the coal and oil industries.

Yet Congress can act, just as it did in making the mandates in the first place nearly a decade ago – a lifetime in the oil industry, given the boom in oil exploration and fracking over the last five years. So what would happen if the ethanol mandates were scrapped?

Obviously you would have a number of winners and losers. All those who invested in ethanol plants figuring that the government subsidies and mandates would have profit rolling their way – well, they would have the biggest “L” stamped on their forehead. Farmers may take a temporary hit as corn prices drop, but they would eventually stabilize; moreover, farmers who shunned soybeans or wheat for corn to be turned into fuel could go back to those other staple items.

Consumers would win in a number of ways. First of all, they’d get better quality gasoline that’s less expensive, which would both increase their mileage per gallon and amount of money remaining in their wallets. Secondly, the lowering of corn prices would benefit them at the grocery store, and not just in corn-based products because feed for poultry and livestock would be cheaper. And lastly, their small equipment would last longer because ethanol is poisonous to many small gasoline-powered motors.

And while the intention of these mandates was to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, new advances in exploration and extraction have placed the goal of North American energy self-sufficiency within reach. Nor is it necessarily in the form of gasoline, as companies with large automotive fleets are moving toward using natural gas as a motor fuel, building their own infrastructure along the way. (Yes, this can be done without a massive taxpayer subsidy or regulation.)

It just makes more sense to me to not grow our fuel, but our food. When you think of corn, you don’t think of a gas tank but instead think about that tasty ear cooked to perfection with some butter and pepper on it. Let’s get back to using corn for what the Good Lord meant it for, eating.

Bonus research

March 12, 2012 · Posted in All politics is local, Business and industry, Delmarva items, Maryland Politics, National politics, Politics · Comments Off on Bonus research 

I was writing something the other day as a possible addition to another venue, and in doing the research kept the link on my bookmark bar for future reference. Well, as it turns out I didn’t need the extra research for the other piece but I wanted to make my point on the subject. So here are more of my thoughts on the prospect of an additional Maryland gasoline tax – something I originally visited in January.

The two pieces I found were comparisons – one being the current gasoline tax table provided by the Tax Foundation which shows Maryland’s gasoline tax rate is currently tied for 29th among the 50 states. The second is an older comparison table that I found, and the reason I wanted it was to determine where Maryland’s gasoline tax ranked among its peers when it was adopted in 1992. (I couldn’t find 1992, but figured 1994 was close enough.)

It’s quite telling to me that back in 1994 our state had one of the highest gasoline tax rates, with only a handful of states charging more: Connecticut, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, and West Virginia. Worse yet, only Montana, Nevada, Rhode Island, and West Virginia charged more tax on diesel fuel. In 1994 our taxes were a full 30% higher than the national average, but because states have began to add various other fees and local tariffs we remain above the average insofar as excise tax is concerned but slightly below the mean in overall taxation per gallon. Apparently 20 years is long enough and we have to break out of the pack and lead the country once again.

Since several states now add various amounts of sales tax to the price of gasoline at the pump, it’s difficult to accurately say just where Maryland would rank if gasoline prices were significantly higher or lower than they are today should they adopt Governor O’Malley’s idea of an additional sales tax phased in over three years. But it’s obvious we would be paying more at the pump regardless of the price – even if Newt Gingrich could get gasoline back down to $2.50 per gallon that’s still an extra 15 cents per gallon, or around $2-3 per fillup depending on tank size. At $4 per gallon the fee goes up to perhaps $4-5 for every tankful.

(Note that there’s also a number of alternative plans being floated around for a straight per-gallon excise tax increase, which would make the impact more easily gauged. Adding 15 cents per gallon, as one proposal advocates, would put us just a tick behind North Carolina as the highest-taxing state in terms of excise tax.)

Regardless of what proposal to increase fuel tax is adopted, when combined with the additional tolls being charged by the Maryland Transportation Authority at their facilities (including the Bay Bridge) the cost of getting around via car will certainly jump. By next summer driving across the state from Cumberland to Ocean City and back on a 12-gallon tankful of gas each way may well cost $15 extra in taxes and tolls alone from the price in 2011 – before the new tolls were adopted for the Bay Bridge and other MTA facilities.

The stated reason for the increases are quite simple: the state claims it doesn’t have enough money for road and bridge construction. Yet the MTA toll increases spared the Inter-County Connector and gasoline taxes tend to come down harder on rural residents who have to drive farther to work and shopping. In sum, they tend to serve as a wealth transfer from rural to urban dwellers, particularly in the Washington metro area because the ICC tolls did not go up. Moreover, the tendency for gasoline taxes to be spent on mass transit provides a further shift in prosperity from rural to urban; one particularly galling when a mostly empty train or bus goes by.

The main reason the state “needs” this tax increase, though, is to patch over the holes created by several administrations by raiding the Transportation Trust Fund (TTF). It’s an art which has been perfected by Martin O’Malley because he wasted the $1 billion-plus raised by a series of 2007 tax increases Democrats rammed through the General Assembly on a program of further spending rather than simply addressing the vital functions the state is supposed to provide. So now he and Annapolis Democrats are coming back to the people of the state with hat in hand begging for more, and promising this time they’ll “protect” the TTF. Well, I want the protection first, and a number of bills in the General Assembly deal with this. Unfortunately, Delegate Norm “Five Dollar” Conway and Senator Edward Kasemeyer don’t seem to have much desire to move these bills. But I’ll bet they’ll move that gas tax along in a hurry.

It’s quite likely that over the next few years our gas prices will either be going up at an accelerated rate or not dropping as quickly as they could because the state of Maryland will take a larger bite from our wallet through the gas tax. Maryland doesn’t seem to want to be a national leader in anything except loony liberalism and high taxation, and the controversy over highway funding provides another perfect example.

Four bits a gallon (or more) for a state gas tax?

Governor Martin O’Malley, he of the trial balloons, may have yet another one up his sleeve.

His latest (of many) tax proposals would extend the state’s 6% sales tax to purchases of gasoline, on top of the current 23.5 cents per gallon surcharge the state takes. If adopted, Maryland would join a handful of other states which use this nebulous practice of profiting off high gasoline prices.

The other states which do this are California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and New York. To see what impact this proposed tax would have on our wallets, we need to use three methods of comparison. First, here are the per-gallon gasoline taxes charged by each of these states and Maryland, ranked lowest to highest, not including sales taxes or various fees added by each state: (Source)

  • Florida, 4 cents per gallon
  • Georgia, 7.5 cents per gallon
  • New York, 8.1 cents per gallon
  • Indiana, 18 cents per gallon
  • Illinois, 19 cents per gallon
  • Michigan, 19 cents per gallon
  • Maryland, 23.5 cents per gallon
  • California, 35.7 cents per gallon

And now the sales tax rates which are (or would presumably be) applied to gasoline, also listed lowest to highest:

  • California, 2.25%
  • Georgia, 4%
  • Maryland, 6%
  • Michigan, 6%
  • Illinois, 6.25%
  • Indiana, 7%
  • New York, 8%
  • Florida, 12%

Finally, the combined bite between all taxes (federal, state, and local) impacting gasoline in the states which charge sales tax, which includes where Maryland would eventually rank. To do their calculations, API uses the average cost per gallon in each state according to AAA as of 1/1/12. For Maryland, I couldn’t find the price on the specific 1/1 date but according to the latest AAA figures, the average price one month ago from today was $3.26 and that should suffice for being roughly the price on January 1st. Again, this is lowest to highest.

  • Georgia, 47.8 cents per gallon
  • Florida, 53.4 cents per gallon
  • Illinois, 57.3 cents per gallon
  • Indiana, 57.3 cents per gallon
  • Michigan, 57.8 cents per gallon
  • Maryland, 61.5 58.9 cents per gallon*
  • California, 67 cents per gallon
  • New York, 67.4 cents per gallon

If this is passed, Maryland would have the fifth-highest total gasoline tax in the country, trailing New York, California, Connecticut (also 67 cents per gallon) and Hawaii (65.5 cents per gallon.) Maryland drivers would be ceding a much higher bite out of their wallets than their neighbors in West Virginia (51.8 cents per gallon), Pennsylvania (50.7 cents per gallon), Washington D.C. (41.9 cents per gallon), Delaware (41.4 cents per gallon), and Virginia (38.2 cents per gallon.) Retailers in those states who are fortunate enough to be close to the Maryland line are probably licking their chops about now.

Of course, this doesn’t factor in the addition of some of MOM’s other trial balloons like a separate 15 cent per-gallon increase in the gasoline tax or increasing the sales tax to 7 percent. And as Todd Eberly points out at The FreeStater Blog, this could all be a feint to make a direct 15 cent additional surcharge more palatable.

As it is currently proposed, the gasoline sales tax would be phased in 2% at a time so drivers wouldn’t be hit all at once. But when they’re projecting $613 million in new annual revenue at a time when the state is over $1 billion in the hole, it will be a surprise if they don’t rush the process. It may get passed this way for now, but wait for the new, improved bill to accelerate the increase next session when money is still tight.

We’re also being told that a gas tax increase is about infrastructure jobs in fixing bridges and roads. But the Maryland Public Policy Institute does a magnificent job of not only blowing that argument out of the water but also pointing out the folly of public transportation while they’re at it. Simply put, it’s another component of the War on Rural Maryland as those of us who drive greater distances because we choose to live away from urban woes will be subsidizing those who ride the buses or light rail in more-developed areas. That group doesn’t quite comprise the 1% but they’re pretty darn close, and they don’t come close to paying their own way.

Putting private transport out of reach to the average family through higher prices also fits neatly into the goals of so-called “Smart Growth” and “sustainable development”, which strives to increase the usage of mass transit. Perhaps this is a line of thought more suited to the tinfoil hat crowd, but one can’t deny it’s much easier to control the population if their movements are controlled.

In any event, the first step in rebuilding Maryland’s crumbling transportation infrastructure needs to come from locking away the Transportation Trust Fund from greedy governors who can’t shake their spending addiction. And if we take back the half of transportation spending we waste on a tiny percentage of commuters and instead gave them a more appropriate share of a nickel per dollar, there are a lot of bridges, road widening projects, and traffic control measures which could be completed for the rest of us who get tired of sitting in traffic.

On the Eastern Shore, we already will bear a significant burden from the newly increased tolls on the Bay Bridge, so we should get a break when it comes to gasoline taxes. The state should quit using the knee-jerk reaction it always seems to have about raising taxes and instead consider spending the vast amounts already collected more wisely.

* I was also taxing the existing tax, not the actual price. Subtract out the 41.9 cents we currently pay in taxes and the sales tax is actually on $2.84 of the $3.26 per gallon.

Is this the way to win an election?

Last night I was tipped off (h/t Richard Cross of Cross Purposes) to a Washington Post item regarding bipartisan support for the gas tax increase. Yes, you read that right – bipartisan.

It seems our Chamber of Commerce types have the misguided notion that increasing the gasoline tax will allow the state to fully fund transportation projects, but I ask of them: what planet are you living on again? This is Martin O’Malley’s Maryland – we all know that the money is going to be spent on 1,001 items in the general fund and the rest will go to build more mass transit and bike paths we don’t need.

Meanwhile, the victims of the War on Rural Maryland will have to once again pay through the nose perpetually, because as proposed by one possible scheme advanced by a state commission the gas tax isn’t just going to go up a nickel each year in 2013, 2014, and 2015 – nope, it’s going to be indexed afterward to a construction cost index. So as union demands get more and more brazen and the cost of construction climbs at a dizzying rate, so will the gas tax. Nice system if you can con people into believing the roads will actually get fixed.

Read more

Odds and ends number 36

Let’s begin with an item that only gets a couple paragraphs because of the circumstances. While I’m not at liberty to share the names of those who applied, I think I can safely say that we have no shortage of applicants to send four qualified prospects up to County Council in order to fill the District 4 seat made vacant by Bob Caldwell’s passing. Offoceseekers are both male and female, represent a broad spectrum of ages, and should be very interesting to screen. So that seat will be in good hands.

Now I could have had a great scoop in releasing the names but I respect the wishes of my Chair and the process too much to let any undue influence sway the decision, a circumstance which would certainly occur if the names were made public. Remember, this is not a typical political campaign because we as a Central Committee only make recommendations. The time for voting will be later and it will be done by County Council, not our committee.

All right, now for something a lot different.

Read more

Odds and ends number 29

Since I started cleaning out my video archives last night, today seems like a perfect time to do the same with my e-mail box. As always, these are interesting items but ones to which I need only devote a paragraph or two.

In the 2008 election I found the Club for Growth a valuable resource, as did Andy Harris (for a different reason.) And once again they are preparing white papers on each of the major GOP candidates; so far they have released two for Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty. Others on the horizon (once they officially announce) are Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, and Herman Cain. (They may have to add Texas governor Rick Perry to that list.)

One thing which might be a campaign issue for the Club to consider is the price of gasoline. While it’s retreated slightly from its peak of a few weeks ago, there’s still a long way to go before we reach the price point of a couple years back when our current President took office. But instead of shifting blame, the problem could be solved in a matter of weeks according to the Heritage Foundation:

Others, like the American Petroleum Institute, are chiming in as well. The fact of the matter is that increasing our domestic production could assist in bringing down the price because over 2/3 of the price comes from the crude oil itself. More supply to meet the demand commonly means lower prices.

And maybe I should share this graphic with the Maryland General Assembly – I know a lot of them read here – since they’re trying to cut the western end of the state out of the Marcellus Shale bounty.

(Thanks to some good friends of monoblogue, Ericka Andersen and Jane Van Ryan, for sharing. I have another Maryland energy-related piece for tomorrow too.)

And then we have the newly redesigned fuel economy stickers for 2013 models. Now there’s a little bit of sense in trying to compare the apples and oranges of electric cars vs. conventional fuel models, but the EPA isn’t telling the full story. And considering their original intent of giving letter grades for fuel economy (with electric vehicles rating an A and SUVs generally getting a D) we can see how they’re trying to influence behavior of the carbuying public rather than letting the market determine our fate.

Let’s change the subject and return to someone mentioned above. Perhaps you recall how Newt Gingrich savaged the Ryan plan for Medicare, much to the chagrin of conservatives and others who feel Medicare is unsustainable. Well, in an e-mail to supporters and others who happen to be on his list, he furiously backtracked:

The only way our country can win the future is by engaging our fellow citizens in serious discussions about major reform—not by avoiding hard choices. Congressman Ryan has made a key contribution to entitlement reform, courageously starting the conversation about how to save and improve Medicare. And that’s exactly the kind of national conversation I want our campaign to be about!

There is a reason over 1.4 million Americans are joining me in the online conversation to help win the future.

Yes, Newt, you were busted. But it is interesting to know that you have 1.4 million on your e-mail list.

So my mailbox is now relatively clean, and hopefully you’re much more well-informed.

  • I haven't. Have you?
  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Link to Maryland Democratic Party

    In the interest of being fair and balanced, I provide this service to readers. But before you click on the picture below, just remember their message:

  • Part of the Politics in Stereo network.