Big Medicine's Big Bribe for Michelle Obama
Two months after Barack Obama was sworn in as a United States Senator, the University of Chicago Hospitals suddenly discovered that Michelle Obama was worth way more money than they had been paying her, and increased her compensation from $121,910 in 2004 to $316,962.
That's a $195,052 raise.
Barack Obama became a Senator in January, 2005.
Michelle Obama got a $195,052 raise in March, 2005.
What a weird coincidence!
You might say that's old news, and it was almost no news at all. Nobody cared!
Nobody cares now.
But old news doesn't necessarily become irrelevant on a fixed schedule, and now Barack and Michelle are very unenthusiastic about single-payer healthcare, which would save almost all of us a lot of money, except for a few very well-compensated individuals at the University of Chicago Hospitals and elsewhere in the healthcare industry, like...
Kenneth P. Kates, Chief Operating Officer at the University of Chicago Hospitals, whose salary was $1,304,222 in 2008....
...plus another $267,792 in deferred compensation and other goodies.
That's a very grand total of $1,572,014 for Kenneth P. Kates, who was Chief Operating Officer at the University of Chicago Hospitals in March 2005, when they suddenly discovered that Michelle Obama was much, much more valuable to them than ever before, only two months after her husband was elected to the United States Senate.
And now Barack and Michelle are very unenthusiastic about single-payer healthcare, which would save almost all of us a lot of money, except for a few exceptionally well-compensated individuals like Kenneth P. Kates, whose chances of making $1,572,014 as a federal employee would be zero.
But a public option won't hurt Ken Kates, and Barack and Michelle are a little more enthusiastic about a public option than single-payer, especially if that public option is part of a package which locks us all into the system where Kenneth P. Kates makes $1,572,014.
The IRS Form 990 describing Ken Kates' compensation can be downloaded from guidestar.org after registration.
October 10, 2009 6:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's the point of this now?
October 10, 2009 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The point is that I vaguely wondered who had something to gain from Michelle Obama's huge raise, but it never occurred to me to look at the IRS 990. Then it did, and I did. And maybe it didn't matter until now, but now it matters.
Did you notice a little discussion about healthcare on the internet? And nobody can understand why Obama is so nice to Big Medicine?
Maybe it's because Big Medicine was so very nice to him and his wife, like a $195,000 raise for a job so important that when Michelle quit, they didn't even bother to replace her.
Just guessin'...
October 10, 2009 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Via Kevin Drum -
* We pay our doctors about 50% more than most comparable countries.
* We pay more than twice as much for prescription drugs, despite the fact that we use less of them than most other countries.
* Administration costs are about 7x what most countries pay.
* We perform about 50% more diagnostic procedures than other countries and we pay as much as 5x more per procedure.
Is anyone talking about doing ANYTHING about this. Nope.
Good catch, Rootie.
October 10, 2009 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
We also put them 250k in the hole before they even start. Is anyone talking about that either? The whole system needs to reworked from the ground up.
Interesting find Rootie.
October 10, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're ignoring the fact that the average American has 50% more internal organs, which are connected by a nervous system 35% shorter than that of other humans - thus vastly increasing the strain on the organism.
The doctors and pharmaceutical companies are miracle workers, I tell you, miracle workers.
October 10, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Buying influence...I've never heard of such a thing! Departmental messenger boys make that kind of money on Wall Street.
October 10, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
For anyone interested in one of Michelle Obama's prime achievements at the University of Chicago Medical Center, the following two links provide much more detail.
http://reddragon62.blogspot.com/2008/08/michelle-obama-and-university-of.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/21/AR2008082103646.html
Bottom line - Michelle Obama did not want poor, uninsured citizens to use the emergency room at the the University of Chicago Medical Center. She headed an initiative which steered (aka dumped) these 'undesirables' towards neighborhood clinics, which were not always open on the weekend. The implication, if your poor and uninsured, have a broken leg, temperature over 102 F, pneumonia etc., being (a) you can wait until Monday, and (b) we don't want you cluttering up the Emergency Room with your uninsured illnesses. We only want to serve the insured.
For the record, I am biased on this subject. I believe in public supported universal health care. The mere thought that someone has to choose between putting food on the table, or paying the rent, or getting necessary medical attention/medication makes me 'sick.'
October 10, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
There isn't enough detail in the linked articles to judge Michelle Obama's initiative adequately, but one can say as a generalization that the principle involved - substitution of neighborhood clinics for the ER in non-emergent cases - is one that is widely utilized in the other democracies that achieve better health outcomes than we do and at half the cost. If there was a problem with the Chicago initiative, it was probably not the attempt to divert patients to the clinics, but rather inadequate provision of resources to the clinics. The principle was probably valid, but the execution insufficient.
October 10, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Complete agreement, the "case" is not presented very convincingly.
October 10, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am in full agreement with your desire for a universal health program.
I don't know much about Michelle Obama. It appears that she spent some of her professional life representing a hospital, in Chicago. Not really relevant to me because I didn't vote for her. I do know that many metropolitan hospitals have been forced to close their emergency facilities because of the very large financial losses generated by those who choose not to be insured and those patients whom, through no fault of their own, can't buy insurance. Emergency room attendants are witness to the abuse of their emergency facilities 24-7. This abuse is directly related to sky-rocketing hospital costs which force insured patients to pay $7 for an aspirin. I've read that drunks can call 911 and get delivered, via ambulance, to a hospital for twenty-four hours if they are too drunk to make it to a shelter. It's all on the tax payer! If Michelle kept an emergency room from being closed, good for her!
"A few years ago, executives at the prestigious University of Chicago Medical Center were concerned that *an increasing number of patients were arriving at their emergency room with what the executives considered to be non-urgent complaints.* The visits were costly to the hospital, and many of the patients, coming from the surrounding South Side neighborhood, were poor and uninsured."
October 10, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's possible that some of the above may leave a false impression that the Obama Administration is attempting to spare the healthcare industry from needed cost-cutting measures, and that as a consequence, nothing is being done to promote cost cutting. Both conclusions would be inaccurate.
If one reads the House reform bill, HR3200, the Senate HELP Committee bill, or the Baucus Senate Finance Committee draft, it will be clear that very important first steps are proposed to constrain excessive healthcare costs - in each case reflecting Administraton priorities. I've argued elsewhere that they will be only a start, but they're a good start, particularly in the current obstructionist atmosphere.
Among the proposed changes, all endorsed by the Administration:
Increased financial incentives for primary care relative to specialty referrals.
Increased focus on preventive care.
Within Medicare, penalties on hospitals with excessive readmission rates, and rewards for hospitals with reduced readmission rates.
Pilot programs to promote alternatives to traditional fee-for-service payment systems. The alternatives include various forms of bundled services, as well as accountable care organizations designed to integrate care and thereby avoid unnecessary or duplicative tests, procedures, or specialty referrals.
Support for comparative effectiveness research to distinguish medical interventions that work from those that don't or may even be harmful. The substrate for this research will include communities that differ widely in the expense of care but achieve similar health outcomes. This is discussed in detail by the Darmouth group at
http://dartmed.dartmouth.edu/spring07/html/atlas.php
It's probably time to put behind us guesses as to what has motivated President Obama and others to promote reform efforts that don't include single payer. Single payer may or may not be a good idea for the U.S. at some future time (certain other democracies use it effectively while many more, equally successful healthcare systems do not), but it would be hard to find many economists, from liberal to conservative, and including those sympathetic to single payer, who would argue for beginning to establish it now during a deep recession. Even if only the above reforms are implemented, job losses within healthcare will be inevitable, but to add to those the consequences of dismantling an entire industry (private insurance) would be catastrophic. One can disagree, but given the weight of opinion and evidence, I find it inappropriate to imppute nefarious motives to those who have chosen not to push for a nationwide single payer system in today's economic climate.
Finally, although single payer is not a viable option in the current debates, the virtues of a public option as a competitor with private insurance deserves continuing attention. Its ability to constrain insurance costs and reduce insurance inequities has been touted, but health outcomes are also relevant. In this regard, it's worth noting that the U.S. ranks at the bottom in comparison with other industrialized democracies when it comes to health outcomes measured by the standard criteria of life expectancy and infant mortality, that is only true for the U.S. overall. If one isolates that section of the population that is covered by a government run insurance program, Medicare, we are right in the middle, bunched together with the other democracies. It's only when we consider members of our society not covered by the government that we do worst. Some data are at
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s1296.pdf
October 10, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred Moolten is happy with non-programs like "increased focus on preventive care," which is just more noise from Obama that commits him to nothing.
"Focus."
It just another weasel-word from Barack Obama.
October 10, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read the legislation and you will discover the powerful change in incentives to utilize preventive medicine; it's a critical feature of each bill.
October 10, 2009 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I read was a description of Fred Moolten, a career medical bureaucrat at the VA, with its outstanding record of housing wounded veterans in roach motels around Walter Reid Hospital, and refusing necessary medical care to tens of thousands of disabled veterans.
Didn't they recently give you an award, Fred?
For "services on the internet?"
October 10, 2009 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go read the legislation and report back when you're through.
October 10, 2009 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the advice about reading "the bill," which is actually at least three major bills with about a thousand amendments, and none of them even claims a major reduction in healthcare costs in the long or short terms.
And now...
Go hump your dead cat, you freaky stooge for the status quo.
October 10, 2009 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any one of the bills would suffice, and you don't need to read the amendments.
Incidentally, Jacob, thanks for looking me up on the Internet and helping to promote my music. Hey, I mean that.
October 10, 2009 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The clown Fred Moolten is even shilling for Max Baucus' bill!
Fred Moolten belongs in one of those roach motels where he and his VA buddies dumped wounded veterans, and forgot about them, and that's the real story of shills for the status quo like Fred, who has exactly as much integrity as a cockroach.
October 10, 2009 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
And what do I know about cockroaches, that gives me the right to compare those hard-working little animals with a liar like Fred?
But seriously...
Fred Moolten can't find anything to suggest that Obamacare or Baucus-care would roll back or even contain sky-rocketing medical costs, so he just keeps repeating...
"Read the bills!"
And he's even too stupid to understand that all those bills change every day!
October 10, 2009 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
RR Walter Reid is a ARMY medical center, not VA. The VA system for better or worse, is widely acknowledged to provide some of the best care this country has to offer. Their electronic record keeping system is the best in the world and many countries from Germany to Malaysia have adopted it.
It is not only single payer government paid for insurance, it is a government run hospital system ala the UK. In fact it is the only completely government funded and government run hospital system in the USA. It is underfunded thanks to almost a decade of penny pinching budgets and a whole of lot of new patients thanks to Republicans.
Do you really think you're helping your case for single payer by criticizing the VA in an attempt to discredit Fred? You really ought to quit blindly lashing out at anyone who disagrees with you cuz you're just cutting off your nose to spite your face.
October 11, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
blindly lashing out at anyone who disagrees with you...cutting off your nose to spite your face.
This really struck me as a pretty damn good short and succinct description of Rutabaga Ridgepole's writing activities at TPM in general.
October 11, 2009 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michelle Obama wasn't just given a raise ya hack, she was promoted.
http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/2005/20050509-obama.html
Michelle Obama has been appointed vice president for community and external affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals. Obama, who was previously the executive director for community affairs at the Hospitals, will be responsible for all programs and initiatives that involve the relationship between the Hospitals and the community. She will also take over management of the Hospitals' business diversity program.
As for Barack and Michelle now being are very unenthusiastic about single-payer healthcare he's said the following for years:
If Obama Were Starting From Scratch, He Would Support A Single Payer System. The New Yorker wrote, "'If you're starting from scratch,' he [Obama] says, 'then a single-payer system'-a government-managed system like Canada's, which disconnects health insurance from employment-'would probably make sense. But we've got all these legacy systems in place, and managing the transition, as well as adjusting the culture to a different system, would be difficult to pull off. So we may need a system that's not so disruptive that people feel like suddenly what they've known for most of their lives is thrown by the wayside.'" [New Yorker, 5/7/07]
His position now is exactly what he campaigned on for 2 years. In the primaries the only difference among the three leading candidates was whether there'd be a personal mandate as favored by Clinton and Edwards or not as favored by Obama. Kucinich was the only candidate who featured single payer as part of his platform for all the good that did him.
As for "now" in case you haven't noticed we'll be lucky to get a bill with a public option through the senate without a filibuster. If Kennedy, Dodd and Baucus and anybody in the House committee leadership put single payer on the table in the spring it might have pushed the debate further left and made for a better public option. Nobody in a leadership position in either house did.
HR 676 may have a lot of co-sponsors but none of it's principal sponsors are leaders. They're grandstanders from safe districts who choose making ineffectual noise instead of building powerful coalitions to garner chairmanships where they can make a difference. Consequently single payer has as much chance of becoming law as Kucinich's goofy Department of Peace.
Your attempt to make it look like the Obamas were bought off with a few hundred thousand dollars for Michelle as she was promoted to senior management at least a year before Barack had any idea he even had a shot at the presidency is ridiculous. It's utter bullshit worthy of Red State.
October 10, 2009 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mark - Your point about Michelle Obama is an excellent one. As for single payer, it has been argued that the Administration should have promoted single payer as an initial bargaining position from which they would compromise down to a public option. In mh view, this argument ignores some political realities. An effective bargaining chip is one that the opposition fears might ultimately be forced on them if they are unwilling to compromise. Single payer never qualified, because reform opponents knew that if it were actually proposed as legislation rather than an abstraction, it would be used to ridicule rather than promote reform efforts and would be counterproductive. If anyone recalls that the accusation of "socialist government takeover" has resonated with some members of the public when used to describe a limited public option, it would be easy to imagine the stigma that would be attached to an Admistration effort to promote an actual socialist government takeover.
It would also have been patently insincere, given not only the political realities but the economic ones as well.
October 10, 2009 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It would have been as utterly hypocritical of Obama to advocate single payer after the election when he campaigned on a public option that would compete with but not drive out of business the for-profit private insurance companies as it was for Bush to suddenly decide he'd spend his political capital in 2005 on privatizing Social Security.
Obama never ran on a single payer platform and neither did any of the major Democratic candidates. Anyone who criticizes him for not suicidally changing course to single payer at this point isn't interested in helping those of us who have no insurance or changing America's direction on energy, foreign policy or any other issues. They are only interested in seeing him and us fail.
Ridgepole is a fool or troll. The U of Chicago hospital cut 15 executive positions as part of a massive restructuring at the Medical Center in January that will save the University Hospital $100 million in costs. Why? Because there's a major fucking recession happening that is as close to as anything we've seen since the Great Depression. Life's tough all over even in Chicago. And heaven forbid any stimulus money come our way here in the president's hometown because assholes like Ridgepole will be right there with Rush and Beck claiming it's all some nefarious payback.
October 11, 2009 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Michelle was "promoted" to a job that simply disappeared when she quit, and nobody ever missed it, or her.
No matter what you call it, Michelle Obama's paycheck increased by about $4000 per week two months after Barack walked into the Senate.
A $4000 per week raise!
No wonder Michelle and "Honest Obe" want to lock us all into the healthcare system more or less as is.
The same system has been very, very good to Michelle and "Honest Obe."
October 10, 2009 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nevermind the fact that if you are trying to "save" money for your hospital, you don't give staff exorbitant raises (disguised as promotions), do you?
Let's review that first paragraph from the Washington Post:
Now, let's see what the Chicago Medical Center's mission statement is:
Oh, wait. I guess if you're the University of Chicago Medical Center, you do care more about your staff than your patients.
Silly me to assume a hospital might care more about its patients! Duh.
October 11, 2009 6:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since when has this capitalist wonderland's executive compensation been affected by how the company is doing? Do not be disingenuous.
October 11, 2009 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
:-)
October 11, 2009 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
You fail to understand Obama killed Vince Foster. Obama was behind Kanye West snatching the mike from Taylor Swift. Obama drove OJ's getaway Bronco. Obama knew that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor.
You just don't understand.
October 10, 2009 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
And wouldn't it be wonderful if Michelle's mysterious $4000 per week raise were imaginary, too.
But it wasn't, and nobody denies it.
October 10, 2009 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
But I also have to say about rmrd0000 that he or she shows occasional flashes of honest concern for the people who get screwed by our beautiful system, unlike consistently dishonest shills for Obama like Fred Moolten and Markg8.
October 10, 2009 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, I guess.
Ms Obama worked for a hospital, not an insurance company or a pharmaceutical company. Among the entities targeted for cuts under health care plans, are hospitals and physicians, especially cardiologists and oncologists. If she was paid off, it was a poor investment.
October 10, 2009 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
If University of Chicago doesn't either make millions or at least stave off millions in losses, I'd be surprised. And no health care plan is going to hurt University of Chicago, guaranteed.
October 11, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me explain something to you RR. One of the jobs Michelle Obama was hired to do as a successful Princeton educated sister from the South Side was to be a front woman to the community for their effort to eminent domain an awful high rise housing project next door to the U of Chi they wanted to expand on.
That meant convincing poor people living in ghastly conditions that they should take the vouchers and get the hell out to the formerly lilly white burbs where the jobs are and where their kids can get a decent education that'll give them a chance. Not an easy job for anybody but one Michelle was eminently suited for. Not just because she's a role model raised by parents who worked their way into the middle class but because she's comfortable talking to anybody from scared ghetto dwellers who have nothing to the Queen of England who has everything.
And every fucking Saturday I go out as a precinct committeeman to those apartments and townhouses in these burbs where black folks, immigrants and their kids have flocked in hopes of finding a better life because of the end to redlining and other changes brought about by the Community Reinvestment Act and I tell them the president needs our help. I can't tell you how good that is for America. As far as I'm concerned the Obamas don't make near enough money. And you, you bitter little troll make way too much no matter how much you're paid.
October 11, 2009 3:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
So they had to triple her salary to go do this job that she went on leave from a year later, and the job presumably disappeared by now? Did she actually go out and convince anyone? Did she really make that job any easier for anyone else?
October 11, 2009 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Des there's a lot of jobs that have disappeared up and down the food chain in the last few years. Michelle Obama's old position and 14 other executive positions were cut at the U of Chicago in January. Apparently they can no more afford to pay those salaries than they can afford to take every poor person who walks into their emergency room.
The state of Illinois like almost all states is woefully behind in paying it's Medicaid bills to hospitals and doctors. This stems from the Bush Administration's change to the federal method of payment from a percentage of the bill to block grants to states. It leaves governors a Hobson's choice of deciding which hospitals get screwed each year. Initially governors approved because the block grants were bigger than the old % formula and it put the money and power in their hands. But now with millions more Medicaid recipients and no adjustment for inflation it's turned into a bleeding wound for states and a disaster for the poor and providers who service them. You may recall Blago got in trouble in part for putting the screws to one hospital administrator, demanding the guy hold a fundraiser for him as a quid pro quo for putting him on the "pay this year" list. Here in IL the cash usually runs out around October. Those providers who lose out in this game of musical chairs have to wait for the state to pay it's bills in the following year. If a hospital has too few privately insured patients and too many Medicaid ones they can get easily swamped and it'll put them out of business.
October 11, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, man, usually you come back with more satisfying answers than that. Michelle's job disappeared long before the economic crunch, that job that you assured was so important and she was so perfect for. Now, reality is that an extra $200K is chum change to pay for the hope that something wonderful this way comes, especially for hospital funding and potential earmarks for Chicago. I'm sure there are thousands of prodigy of Senators & Congressmen around Washington earning far above their skill level simply because of their last name. It's a bit sleazy, but not nearly as tacky as $100K showing up in your freezer. Not that the principle is entirely different. Anyway, I don't imagine the University of Chicago waits on hold too long to get a presidential aide to listen to their problems. If lobbying didn't work, we wouldn't have lobbyists.
October 11, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure what your rambling response is supposed to imply Des. I can only tell you what I know. Michelle wasn't a lobbyist, that would require her to live in Springfield or Washington. Was she accomplished in her own right and the wife of an up and coming senator in early 2005? Yes of course. Was she promoted to an executive position at the hospital? Yes.
Was that some kind of bribe in advance meant to guarantee Barack would turn his back on single payer, just as he was getting his feet wet in DC as a freshman senator, over a year before he started seriously thinking about running for president and two years before he declared his candidacy? That's ludicrous on the face of it.
Do you have any evidence that Michelle's position at the hospital had anything to do with "funding and potential earmarks" for the university, it's hospital or the city in general (you're really reaching there aren't you?) or are you just insinuating bullshit?
Have you forgotten that Barack himself taught constitutional law at U of Chicago? Austin Goolsbee one of his chief economic advisers is also from the school. The university hardly needed to bribe Michelle three and a half years ago to get one of Obama's aides then or now to listen to their problems. Kates can probably blow in a call to his former employee Barack any time he wants anyway.
Chicago is the third largest city in the country. There are 3 million people in the city and over 9.5 million in Chicagoland as the metro area is called. The president not only makes his home here but the second most powerful man in the senate hails from Illinois. Every statewide office holder in the state is a Democrat.
Do you really think that big blue industrial states like us, after decades of getting stiffed by Republican congresses and seeing our manufacturing base hammered by outsourcing, aren't going to be looking for a big chunk of the stimulus funds and any other government programs to rebuild? You'd have to be pretty naive or disingenuous to pretend that's corrupt. Chicago is one of this country's major economic engines and goddam right we're going to get some of that cash. If you have a problem with that tell it to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, they'll be more than happy to listen to your fairy tales.
October 11, 2009 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, RR? You begin here by assuming a "truth" (Obama is corrupt) and then try to find anything that might possibly confirm this suspicion. Sometimes that approach works in discovering important information. Quite often it doesn't, but instead makes the person who remains in "hot pursuit of the culprit" in a case with such "evidence" as you've provided here seem petty, small, and yes, even ignorant. (see "Birthers")
You're beating to death a pretty weak horse. Give it up.
October 11, 2009 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wish you hadn't used the word "corrupt," Sleepin. 'Cause historically, that's a job requirement for being a politician. (see Canterbury Tales or Terkel, Louis "Studs")
October 11, 2009 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
You begin here by assuming a "truth" (Obama is corrupt) and then try to find anything that might possibly confirm this suspicion. Sometimes that approach works in discovering important information. Quite often it doesn't...
Quite right. It's called "deductive reasoning", which has as its downside the problem that when the premise is wrong, so is everything else that follows.
It is a tool frequently used by the right, and now vegetables have apparently become invested in the trend also, Sleepin'.
October 11, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
No argument here! Seriously, I think it would have been appropriate to qualify the term as "exceptionally corrupt" given the pervasive, basic corruption that is so often reported in the MSM as simply another detail to be considered when assessing the horse race possibilities for legislation to pass or to be ruled "out-of-order" by the K-street lobbyists.
"Public Option? It's Impossible! The Insurance Industry will simply NEVER allow it, regardless of how popular it is in the polling!" How many times during this most recent debate have we heard such analyses from the journalist/pundits. There was a time when purchasing votes resulted in AT LEAST a headline on the crime pages on an expose' written by a serious journalist. Now, it's simply a fact of life to be factored into political analysis offered by pundits.
October 11, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
This was of course written in response to readytoblowagasket's comment posted above.
October 11, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hahahahaha . . .
The PI paparazzi of Malibu craps his pants.
Did you try running this by Harvey and the folks at TMZ?
Get back to tailing losers loser.
~OGD~
October 12, 2009 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink