[Rhodes22-list] Katrina Update

[Brad Haslett]

Bill,

I just now had the time to review the NYTimes article.  It's a mixed bag,
obviously the Times is looking for some gremlins and may have found a few.
I like the idea of farming out as many services as possible because it is
easier to kill any given program when it is no longer needed.  I thought
creating the TSA was a horrible idea but that was a partisan issue (the Dems
wanted more federal employees).  I found it interesting that the authors
didn't mention LOGCAP, the method the CORP funded projects from 1992-97
which called for a 1 to 9% profit.  The LOGCAP in effect now calls for a 1
to 3% margin.  Halliburton was very successful under the LOGCAP program
during the Clinton administration and in fact was one of their favorite
contractors.  Now Halliburton is supposed to be a buzzword for something
sinister but they are damn good at what they do in very specialized fields.
The same is true of Boeing and Lockheed.  I've witnessed enough sillyness
and waste along the Gulf to know there are serious problems with big
government contractors. I didn't like the way the debris contracts were
handed out but then we didn't exactly have access to a billion (with a B)
dollars of performance bonding power.  Ashbritt did and it only made sense
to give one big firm the whole contract and then let them divide it into
smaller pieces. They also failed to mention how much above the market they
pay for minority set asides. There are some things about government that is
a lot like making sausage, you probably don't want to know the whole
process.  I don't know what the solution is, do you?

Brad

On 2/4/07, Bill Effros <bill at effros.com> wrote:
>
> Brad,
>
> Glad to see you responding in your own words, and very tired of the long
> quotes from others.
>
> But this one, from today's NYT, (Ed, ok for you to hit the delete key
> right now) speaks so directly to the topic at hand...:
>
> In Washington, Contractors Take on Biggest Role Ever
> By SCOTT SHANE and RON NIXON
> February 4, 2007
>
> WASHINGTON, Feb. 3 — In June, short of people to process cases of
> incompetence and fraud by federal contractors, officials at the General
> Services Administration responded with what has become the government's
> reflexive answer to almost every problem.
>
> They hired another contractor.
>
> It did not matter that the company they chose, CACI International, had
> itself recently avoided a suspension from federal contracting; or that
> the work, delving into investigative files on other contractors,
> appeared to pose a conflict of interest; or that each person supplied by
> the company would cost taxpayers $104 an hour. Six CACI workers soon
> joined hundreds of other private-sector workers at the G.S.A., the
> government's management agency.
>
> Without a public debate or formal policy decision, contractors have
> become a virtual fourth branch of government. On the rise for decades,
> spending on federal contracts has soared during the Bush administration,
> to about $400 billion last year from $207 billion in 2000, fueled by the
> war in Iraq, domestic security and Hurricane Katrina, but also by a
> philosophy that encourages outsourcing almost everything government does.
>
> Contractors still build ships and satellites, but they also collect
> income taxes and work up agency budgets, fly pilotless spy aircraft and
> take the minutes at policy meetings on the war. They sit next to federal
> employees at nearly every agency; far more people work under contracts
> than are directly employed by the government. Even the government's
> online database for tracking contracts, the Federal Procurement Data
> System, has been outsourced (and is famously difficult to use).
>
> The contracting explosion raises questions about propriety, cost and
> accountability that have long troubled watchdog groups and are coming
> under scrutiny from the Democratic majority in Congress. While flagrant
> cases of fraud and waste make headlines, concerns go beyond outright
> wrongdoing. Among them:
>
> ¶Competition, intended to produce savings, appears to have sharply
> eroded. An analysis by The New York Times shows that fewer than half of
> all "contract actions" — new contracts and payments against existing
> contracts — are now subject to full and open competition. Just 48
> percent were competitive in 2005, down from 79 percent in 2001.
>
> ¶The most secret and politically delicate government jobs, like
> intelligence collection and budget preparation, are increasingly
> contracted out, despite regulations forbidding the outsourcing of
> "inherently governmental" work. Scott Amey, general counsel at the
> Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group, said allowing CACI
> workers to review other contractors captured in microcosm "a government
> that's run by corporations."
>
> ¶Agencies are crippled in their ability to seek low prices, supervise
> contractors and intervene when work goes off course because the number
> of government workers overseeing contracts has remained level as
> spending has shot up. One federal contractor explained candidly in a
> conference call with industry analysts last May that "one of the side
> benefits of the contracting officers being so overwhelmed" was that
> existing contracts were extended rather than put up for new competitive
> bidding.
>
> ¶The most successful contractors are not necessarily those doing the
> best work, but those who have mastered the special skill of selling to
> Uncle Sam. The top 20 service contractors have spent nearly $300 million
> since 2000 on lobbying and have donated $23 million to political
> campaigns. "We've created huge behemoths that are doing 90 or 95 percent
> of their business with the government," said Peter W. Singer, who wrote
> a book on military outsourcing. "They're not really companies, they're
> quasi agencies." Indeed, the biggest federal contractor, Lockheed
> Martin, which has spent $53 million on lobbying and $6 million on
> donations since 2000, gets more federal money each year than the
> Departments of Justice or Energy.
>
> ¶Contracting almost always leads to less public scrutiny, as government
> programs are hidden behind closed corporate doors. Companies, unlike
> agencies, are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Members of
> Congress have sought unsuccessfully for two years to get the Army to
> explain the contracts for Blackwater USA security officers in Iraq,
> which involved several costly layers of subcontractors.
>
> Weighing the Limits
>
> The contracting surge has raised bipartisan alarms. A just-completed
> study by experts appointed by the White House and Congress, the
> Acquisition Advisory Panel, found that the trend "poses a threat to the
> government's long-term ability to perform its mission" and could
> "undermine the integrity of the government's decision making."
>
> The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, whose new
> Democratic chairman, Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, added
> the word "oversight" to signal his intentions, begins a series of
> investigative hearings on Tuesday focusing on contracts in Iraq and at
> the Department of Homeland Security.
>
> "Billions of dollars are being squandered, and the taxpayer is being
> taken to the cleaners," said Mr. Waxman, who got an "F" rating last year
> from the Contract Services Association, an industry coalition. The
> chairman he succeeded, Representative Thomas M. Davis III, Republican of
> Virginia, earned an "A."
>
> David M. Walker, who as comptroller general of the United States leads
> the Government Accountability Office, has urged Congress to take a hard
> look at the proper limits of contracting. Mr. Walker has not taken a
> stand against contractors — his agency is also dependent on them, he
> admits — but he says they often fail to deliver the promised efficiency
> and savings. Private companies cannot be expected to look out for
> taxpayers' interests, he said.
>
> "There's something civil servants have that the private sector doesn't,"
> Mr. Walker said in an interview. "And that is the duty of loyalty to the
> greater good — the duty of loyalty to the collective best interest of
> all rather than the interest of a few. Companies have duties of loyalty
> to their shareholders, not to the country."
>
> Even the most outspoken critics acknowledge that the government cannot
> operate without contractors, which provide the surge capacity to handle
> crises without expanding the permanent bureaucracy. Contractors provide
> specialized skills the government does not have. And it is no secret
> that some government executives favor contractors because they find the
> federal bureaucracy slow, inflexible or incompetent.
>
> Stan Soloway, president of the Professional Services Council, which
> represents government contractors, acknowledged occasional chicanery by
> contractors and too little competition in some areas. But Mr. Soloway
> asserted that critics had exaggerated the contracting problems.
>
> "I don't happen to think the system is fundamentally broken," he said.
> "It's remarkable how well it works, given the dollar volume."
>
> Blurring the Lines
>
> Wariness of government contracting dates at least to 1941, when Harry S.
> Truman, then a senator, declared, "I have never yet found a contractor
> who, if not watched, would not leave the government holding the bag."
>
> But the recent contracting boom had its origins in the "reinventing
> government" effort of the Clinton administration, which slashed the
> federal work force to the lowest level since 1960 and streamlined
> outsourcing. Limits on what is "inherently governmental" and therefore
> off-limits to contractors have grown fuzzy, as the General Services
> Administration's use of CACI International personnel shows.
>
> "Hi Heinz," Renee Ballard, a G.S.A. official, wrote in an e-mail message
> to Heinz Ruppmann, a CACI official, last June 12, asking for six
> "contract specialists" to help with a backlog of 226 cases that could
> lead to companies being suspended or barred from federal contracting.
> The CACI workers would review files and prepare "proposed responses for
> review and signature," she wrote.
>
> Mr. Amey, of the Project on Government Oversight, which obtained the
> contract documents under the Freedom of Information Act, said such work
> was clearly inherently governmental and called it "outrageous" to
> involve contractors in judging the misdeeds of potential competitors.
> CACI had itself been reviewed in 2004 for possible suspension in
> connection with supplying interrogators to the Abu Ghraib prison in
> Iraq. The company was ultimately cleared, though the G.S.A. found that
> CACI employees had improperly written parts of the "statements of work"
> for its own Iraq contract.
>
> The price of $104 an hour — well over $200,000 per person annually — was
> roughly double the cost of pay and benefits of a comparable federal
> worker, Mr. Amey said.
>
> Asked for comment, the G.S.A. said decisions on punishments for erring
> contractors "is indeed inherently governmental." But the agency said
> that while the CACI workers assisted for three months, "all
> suspension/debarment decisions were made by federal employees." A CACI
> spokeswoman made the same point.
>
> The G.S.A., like other agencies, said it did not track the number or
> total cost of its contract workers. The agency administrator, Lurita
> Doan, who previously ran a Virginia contracting firm, has actively
> pushed contracting. Ms. Doan recently clashed with her agency's
> inspector general over her proposal to remove the job of auditing
> contractors' proposed prices from his office and to hire contractors to
> do it instead.
>
> On some of the biggest government projects, Bush administration
> officials have sought to shift some decision making to contractors. When
> Michael P. Jackson, deputy secretary of the Department of Homeland
> Security, addressed potential bidders on the huge Secure Border
> Initiative last year, he explained the new approach.
>
> "This is an unusual invitation," said Mr. Jackson, a contracting
> executive before joining the agency. "We're asking you to come back and
> tell us how to do our business."
>
> Boeing, which won the $80 million first phase of the estimated $2
> billion project, is assigned not only to develop technology but also to
> propose how to use it, which includes assigning roles to different
> government agencies and contractors. Homeland Security officials insist
> that they will make all final decisions, but the department's inspector
> general, Richard L. Skinner, reported bluntly in November that "the
> department does not have the capacity needed to effectively plan,
> oversee and execute the SBInet program."
>
> A 'Blended Work Force'
>
> If the government is exporting some traditional functions to
> contractors, it is also inviting contractors into agencies to perform
> delicate tasks. The State Department, for instance, pays more than $2
> million a year to BearingPoint, the consulting giant, to provide support
> for Iraq policy making, running software, preparing meeting agendas and
> keeping minutes.
>
> State Department officials insist that the company's workers, who hold
> security clearances, merely relieve diplomats of administrative tasks
> and never influence policy. But the presence of contractors inside
> closed discussions on war strategy is a notable example of what
> officials call the "blended work force."
>
> That blending is taking place in virtually every agency. When Polly
> Endreny, 29, sought work last year with the National Oceanographic and
> Atmospheric Administration, she was surprised to discover that most
> openings were with contractors.
>
> "The younger generation is coming in on contracts," said Ms. Endreny,
> who likes the arrangement. Today, only the "Oak Management" on her ID
> badge distinguishes her from federal employees at the agency's
> headquarters.
>
> She said her pay was "a little higher" than that of comparable federal
> workers, and she gets dental coverage they do not. Such disparities can
> cause trouble. A recent study of one NOAA program where two-thirds of
> the work force were contractors found that differences in salary and
> benefits could " substantially undermine staff relations and morale."
>
> The shift away from open competition affects more than morale. One
> example among many: with troops short in Iraq, Congress in 2003 waived a
> ban on the use of private security guards to protect military bases in
> the United States. The results for the first $733 million were dismal,
> investigators at the Government Accountability Office found.
>
> The Army spent 25 percent more than it had to because it used
> sole-source contracts at 46 of 57 sites, the investigators concluded.
> And screening of guards was so lax that at one base, 61 guards were
> hired despite criminal records, auditors reported. Yet the Army gave the
> contractors more than $18 million in incentive payments intended to
> reward good performance. (The Army did not contest G.A.O.'s findings and
> has changed its methods.)
>
> A Coalition for Contracting
>
> Mr. Soloway, of the contracting industry group, argues that the
> contracting boom has resulted from the collision of a high-technology
> economy with an aging government work force — twice as many employees
> are over 55 as under 30. To function, Mr. Soloway said, the government
> must now turn to younger, skilled personnel in the private sector, a
> phenomenon likely to grow when what demographers call a "retirement
> tsunami" occurs over the next decade.
>
> "This is the new face of government," Mr. Soloway said. "This isn't
> companies gouging the government. This is the marketplace."
>
> But Paul C. Light of New York University, who has long tracked the
> hidden contractor work force to assess what he calls the "true size of
> government," says the shift to contractors is driven in part by federal
> personnel ceilings. He calls such ceilings a "sleight of hand" intended
> to allow successive administrations to brag about cutting the federal
> work force.
>
> Yet Mr. Light said the government had made no effort to count
> contractors and no assessment of the true costs and benefits. "We have
> no data to show that contractors are actually more efficient than the
> government," he said.
>
> Meanwhile, he said, a potent coalition keeps contracting growing: the
> companies, their lobbyists and supporters in Congress and many
> government managers, who do not mind building ties to contractors who
> may hire them someday. "All the players with any power like it," he said.
>
> That is evident wherever in Washington contractors gather to scout new
> opportunities. There is no target richer than the Homeland Security
> Department, whose Web site, in a section called "Open for Business,"
> displays hundreds of open contracts, including "working with selected
> cities to develop and exercise their catastrophic plans" ($500,000 to $1
> million) and "Conduct studies and analyses, systems engineering, or
> provide laboratory services to various organizations to support the DHS
> mission" ($20 to $50 million).
>
> One crisp morning in an office building with a spectacular view of the
> Capitol, Alfonso Martinez-Fonts Jr., the agency's assistant secretary
> for the private sector, addressed a breakfast seminar on "The Business
> of Homeland Security." The session drew a standing-room crowd.
>
> Mr. Martinez-Fonts, a banker before joining the government, said he
> could not personally hand out contracts but could offer "tips, hints and
> directions" to companies on the hunt.
>
> Joe Haddock, a Sikorsky Helicopters executive, summed up the tone of the
> session. "To us contractors," Mr. Haddock said, "money is always a good
> thing."
>
> Brad Haslett wrote:
> > Wally,
> >
> > Are you a "the glass is half empty" kinda guy when you're out making
> > sales
> > calls?
> >
> > The market is what the market is, and right now it is damn good. My home
> > value isn't falling, it wasn't overinflated to begin with. My savings
> > rate
> > is still good (having a Chinese wife doesn't hurt) and we're agressively
> > paying off debt.
> >
> > These are personal decisions. I don't want or need a nanny government to
> > tell me what to do. Inflation is low, market returns are good,
> > unemployment
> > is at record lows (and good help difficult to find) - how much good news
> > does one need to cheer up?
> >
> > But if you really feel that things are bad, buck up! Hillary and Obama
> > are
> > on the way with a chicken for every pot! Maybe you're right, W is
> > responsible for every little thing that's wrong with every little
> > misery in
> > life. Thank goodness for elections, assuming you believe in elections.
> > Apparently you don't if you're an Iraqi.
> >
> > Gone flying, have a nice day!
> >
> > Brad
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2/4/07, TN Rhodey <tnrhodey at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Brad, Comparing Dave to Steve L...either you are joking or your memory
> >> sucks. Steve's goal was to insult and attack those who did not agree
> >> with
> >> him. I don't think that is true with Dave.
> >>
> >> Brad I disagree with your rosy fiscal predictions and your slant on the
> >> Iraq
> >> war. There are more economic indicators than Dow Jones. Debt is at all
> >> time
> >> high, Savings at all time low, home values dropping for first time
> since
> >> 1930s (Great Depression). We are building a house of cards and wasting
> >> billions on this war.
> >>
> >> Wally
> >> >From: "Brad Haslett" <flybrad at gmail.com>
> >> >Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >> >To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >> >Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Katrina Update
> >> >Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 13:55:03 -0600
> >> >
> >> >Wally,
> >> >
> >> >I don't have a lot of time today but I'll take a quick stab at your
> >> >question. I stand behind every post and I've been pretty consistent
> >> over
> >> >the years. I don't like entitlement programs, don't think most work
> the
> >> >way
> >> >they were intended, don't think many were needed in the first place,
> >> and
> >> >they seldom end long after the original perceived need is gone. Bush
> 43
> >> >hasn't cut a single domestic entitlement program that I can think
> >> of, and
> >> >expanded some that we couldn't afford (think medicare). There is
> >> nothing
> >> >inconsistent in my criticism over that. Bush and the Congress had
> their
> >> >heart in the right place over Katrina, but the inefficiencies and
> >> limits
> >> of
> >> >government have reared it's predictable head. You could double the
> >> amount
> >> >of
> >> >money appropriated and it wouldn't speed things 10%. Deficit
> >> spending is
> >> a
> >> >necessary evil at times, and certainly the post dot-com recession and
> >> >financial hit from 9/11 warranted deficit spending in my
> >> opinion. Nothing
> >> >inconsistent about that. Dave's rants reminds me of the old Steve from
> >> >Little Rock - one side is all bad and the other is all good. Both
> >> parties
> >> >have engaged in deficit spending, sometimes needed, sometimes not, and
> >> >neither party owns all the bragging rights on fiscal responsibility.
> To
> >> >think so otherwise is naive. What I took offense to is the thinly
> >> veiled
> >> >prejudice that heavy equipment operators, especially ones from
> >> Mississippi,
> >> >can't think for themselves or have their own opinions. If Dave meant
> it
> >> >differently he can explain himself, but I interpreted it much like
> >> Charlie
> >> >Rangel's statement, drunk with power three days after the election,
> >> "why
> >> >the
> >> >hell would anyone want to live in Mississippi". It is more of the same
> >> >elitist bullshit, "we know what's better for you than you do
> yourself".
> >> >The
> >> >people of the Gulf Coast do need federal assistance, ie, money. They
> >> could
> >> >also use a lot less interference at the Federal level. More government
> >> is
> >> >not the solution to the problem, government IS the problem. If you, or
> >> >Dave, or anyone else think you have better solutions, you might want
> to
> >> >spend a few days along the coast and and look around first. Guess
> >> >what? Islamofascism will still be here in two years and so will the
> >> >rebuilding needs on the Gulf. Hillary is already on record for
> >> "resenting"
> >> >being left with potential problems if she wins, but that's life. If
> she
> >> >can
> >> >waive a magic wand, or broom, and make the world's problems go away,
> >> more
> >> >power to her. I suspect the sane and rational arguments about what
> >> works
> >> >and what doesn't will get lost in the usual class warfare static.
> >> >
> >> >So let's summarize:
> >> >
> >> >I don't like entitlement programs.
> >> >
> >> >I don't like deficit spending (or mortgages or business debt) but
> >> recognize
> >> >it as a useful tool and necessary evil.
> >> >
> >> >I don't like politicians (and journalists) making broad sweeping
> >> statements
> >> >and drawing conclusions about problems they haven't even witnessed or
> >> >bothered to study.
> >> >
> >> >I'll say this one more time - I don't mindlessly agree with either
> >> party
> >> or
> >> >any one President. However, like Ed Koch, the WOT is our greatest
> >> threat
> >> >and by comparison, every domestic issue takes a back seat.
> >> >
> >> >Wally, if as you imply I waffle on positions then I'm obviously in the
> >> >wrong
> >> >profession! Maybe I should run for Senator from Massachusetts.
> >> >
> >> >Everyone is welcome to come to the Gulf and volunteer. They could use
> >> the
> >> >help!
> >> >
> >> >I'm going back to work!
> >> >
> >> >Brad
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >On 2/2/07, TN Rhodey <tnrhodey at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>Brad,
> >> >>
> >> >>I don't understand your response to Dave. Why would folks from Miss
> >> kick
> >> >>his
> >> >>ass because of what you said? I am trying my best to stay out of
> these
> >> >>threads but sometimes I can't help myself. I looks to me like you
> >> don't
> >> >>want
> >> >>to stand behind your posts.....not the first time you have back
> >> peddled.
> >> >>
> >> >>Dave called it like he saw it.....good call!
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >From: "Brad Haslett" <flybrad at gmail.com>
> >> >> >Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >> >> >To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >> >> >Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Katrina Update
> >> >> >Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 21:12:59 -0600
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Dave,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Forgive me for being short, the office is unheated. My operators
> are
> >> >>not
> >> >> >in
> >> >> >awe of me or too many other people, but I wish you were here. They
> >> >>would
> >> >> >kick your pompous ass in the first two minutes for your
> condesending
> >> >> >attitude towards them and Mississippi.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Brad
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >On 2/1/07, DCLewis1 at aol.com <DCLewis1 at aol.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Brad,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>You say I put words in your mouth - I come back with quotes from
> >> >> >>your posts.
> >> >> >>You say it's word twisting. Read your cited posts, it's pretty
> >> clear
> >> >> >>what
> >> >> >>you wrote.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>You talk about the need for deficit spending to fight the war and
> a
> >> >> >>recession. The post-bubble//9/11 recession started towards the end
> >> of
> >> >> >>2001 and ended
> >> >> >>in 2002(see the first paragraph of
> >> >> >>_http://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/fyi/2006/032306fyi.html_
> >> >> >>(http://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/fyi/2006/032306fyi.html) ) ,
> >> this
> >> >>is
> >> >> >>2007. The deficits from tax cuts in the intervening 5 years
> >> >> >>have had nothing to do with recession - but I'm sure you knew
> that,
> >> >>just
> >> >> >>another half-truth.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>You know darn well these guys have been living on
> >> debt forever. Each
> >> >>FY
> >> >> >>is
> >> >> >>always a "special situation" whose unique circumstances require
> >> your
> >> >> >>idiot
> >> >> >>buddies to run up debt, right? I don't think so. 8 years of
> >> "unique
> >> >> >>circumstances" with Reagan, followed by 4 years of "unique
> >> >>circumstances"
> >> >> >>by Bush, and
> >> >> >>now 6 years of "unique circumstances" with Jr - gimme a break. Any
> >> >> >>public
> >> >> >>company that tried this would be trashed and its management in
> >> >>jail. Any
> >> >> >>private company would be dead broke. But your emotionally aligned
> >> >>with
> >> >> >>these
> >> >> >>idiots so it's OK with you.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Oh, and as per your post I have kept in mind that the Congress
> >> has to
> >> >> >>authorize the egregious deficit spending - and that brings me
> right
> >> >>back
> >> >> >>to your
> >> >> >>idiot buddies, many of which are no longer in Congress. The
> >> electorate
> >> >> >>collectively threw up - and your buddies are gone. But you
> >> knew that.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>It would be gratifying to see a little intellectual honesty.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>By all means, go to Mississippi maybe they'll believe you. I'm
> >> >>sure your
> >> >> >>equipment operators stand in awe of your encyclopedic grasp of
> >> >> >>misinformation.
> >> >> >>Be sure to tell them about Keynesian economics and the recession
> of
> >> >>2006,
> >> >> >>or
> >> >> >>5, or whatever, and when they quote you remember to say "I never
> >> said
> >> >> >>that".
> >> >> >>They'll be impressed.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Dave
> >> >> >>__________________________________________________
> >> >> >>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >__________________________________________________
> >> >> >Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >> >>
> >> >>_________________________________________________________________
> >> >>Valentine's Day -- Shop for gifts that spell L-O-V-E at MSN Shopping
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctId=8323,ptnrid=37,ptnrdata=24095&tcode=wlmtagline
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>__________________________________________________
> >> >>Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >> >>
> >> >__________________________________________________
> >> >Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> Turn searches into helpful donations. Make your search count.
> >>
> >>
> http://click4thecause.live.com/search/charity/default.aspx?source=hmemtagline_donation&FORM=WLMTAG
> >>
> >>
> >> __________________________________________________
> >> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>