Politico picks a good moment to write about the way public employee unions have landed in the crosshairs, as politicians confront budget deficits and look for ways to cut costs.
It’s a mood that’s been building across the country, and the Politico story smartly pulls several strands together:
Spurred by state budget crunches and an angry public mood, Republican and some Democratic leaders are focusing with increasing intensity on public workers and the unions that represent them, casting them as overpaid obstacles to good government and demanding cuts in their often-generous benefits.
Unfortunately, in making its case, the story adopts some of the language of those politicians it’s reporting about.
Take this description of public employee unions:
They’re the whipping boys for a new generation of governors who, thanks to a tanking economy and an assist from editorial boards, feel freer than ever to make political targets out of what was once a protected liberal class of teachers, cops, and other public servants.
“A protected liberal class?” That’s pretty loaded.
Politico points to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, calling him “the most florid voice for a calculated, national effort to fundamentally reshape the debate on the labor costs that account for the bulk of government spending at every level.”
But it’s too bad Politico didn’t do more to help readers weigh the math behind that statement, that labor costs “account for the bulk of government spending at every level.”
A CATO Institute report from January says that, in 2008, “wages and benefits of $1.1 trillion accounted for half of total state and local government spending.”
CATO is no fan of big government, but it points to Bureau of Economic Analysis stats to back up that claim. And, for state and local government, it makes some sense. Think of those labor-intensive public services that local governments provide, like education, police, and human services.
But it’s hard to fathom how it could be true at the federal level. It would have been good for Politico to offer some support for the assertion.
Politico also lets several politicians repeat that now familiar claim, that public sector employees make a lot more than those in the private sector:
“We have a new privileged class in America,” said Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who rescinded state workers’ collective bargaining power on his first day in office in 2006. “We used to think of government workers as underpaid public servants. Now they are better paid than the people who pay their salaries.”While that might be technically correct, it’s something that gets repeated far too often, and explained far too little.
As John Schmitt explains in a recent paper for the Center for Economic and Policy Research:
The problem with these analyses is that state and local government workers have much higher levels of formal education and are older (and therefore generally more experienced) than workers in the private sector. When state and local government employees are compared to private-sector workers with similar characteristics, state and local workers actually earn 4 percent less, on average, than their private-sector counterparts.
Nice context, and something that could help readers separate the hype from the reality.
That said, Politico does well to explain the forces at play in the states. “First are the very real financial obligations imposed by their salaries, health benefits and—especially—their traditional, defined-benefit pension plans, which have been sweetened over the years in many states by legislators eager for the support of politically-powerful unions.”
And it notes the limit to that line of thinking:
But the immediate cause of the new spotlight on public sector unions is the collapse in tax revenues that came with the 2008 Wall Street crash, something that union leaders bitterly note is not their fault.
“It’s outrageous to blame a librarian – to blame a fireman for the financial mess that we find this country it,” the president of the American Federation of State County, and Municipal Employees, the largest national public workers union, Gerard McEntee, said. “We are the scapegoats in the states.”

As the story reports, union leaders have been surprised by the attacks. Perhaps that’s why the pols seems to be winning on language points. But that’s not a reason for the press to adopt those loaded terms, or let troublesome assertions go without the context readers need to make sense of them.
Context indeed.
The CEPR study you cited is not without its problems as well. Apparently, the study did not factor other variables such as job security, worker productivity (public sector workers log less hours than private sector worker do), pension and retirement benefits, and the marketability of skills of public sector employees.
For example, the CEPR study noted that public sector employees tended to have higher levels of education than their private sector counterparts. The CEPR also noted that the largest segment of public sector employees and those with higher levels of education (graduate degrees) were teachers. When comparing public school teachers to private school teachers, instead of comparing public school teachers to all workers, there exists a 61% pay differential between the two. And this doesn’t address the relative market value of a masters in education to a masters in engineering or an MBA.
In general, state spending has been out of control for decades.
.
Consider the boom cycle preceding this latest recession. In the five years between 2002 and 2007, combined state general-fund revenue increased twice as fast as the rate of inflation, producing an excess $600 billion. If legislatures had chosen to be responsible, they could have maintained all current state services, increased spending to compensate for inflation and population growth, and still enacted a $500 billion tax cut. Instead, lawmakers spent the windfall. From 2002 to 2007, overall spending rose 50 percent faster than inflation. Education spending increased almost 70 percent faster than inflation, even though the relative school-age population was falling. Medicaid and salaries for state workers rose almost twice as fast as inflation.
This is what pisses the private sector off so much. Public servants have better pay, better benefits, work fewer hours, and have much better job security than we do and their ranks continue to grow unabated. Adding to the frustration that the private sector has is the fact that unions like AFSCME and the AFT and their members, vote pretty much in unison and donate large amounts of money to politicians who keep their gravy train coming.
And yes, public sector employees tend to vote for liberal democrats because these are the politicians who best serve their interests, and its becoming increasingly evident that the interest of organizations like ate AFT and AFSCME are not to promote good public service but to promote an ever increasing number of well paid public servants.
#1 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Wed 9 Jun 2010 at 09:15 AM
I have to do this again?
Fine. Mike H, you don't know what you're talking about.
The States, many of whom went republican during 2002-2004, mostly received surpluses during the Clinton economic boom the Bush housing bubble.
What did they do with that money?
Tax Cuts.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1379
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-11-17-state-taxes_x.htm
Always tax cuts. That is why the public infrastructure is collapsing around you, because the states do not fund its maintenance. Because of tax cuts. Voters in Oregon recently chose between an unfunded education system and raising taxes (measure 66/67).
part 2 in a bit
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 9 Jun 2010 at 12:09 PM
The major problem with states is that their primary source of income was sales taxes.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-05-04-fed-states-revenue_N.htm
During the booms they cut property taxes.
Sales tax revenue falls sharply during recessions or obvious reasons, when people don't have money nor security, they don't spend.
Unfortunately, governments in these times don't build surpluses in case of hard times, they give tax cuts. An the problem with tax cuts is that they are easy to give, but they often require a super majority to revoke. They build permanent revenue handicaps.
So when hard times hit, like a credit crisis, state revenues drop through the floor and they can't borrow from the credit market to make up the shortfall. They have to rely on the fed, which is why federal stimulus has not produced large employment gains because it's mainly replacing falling spending by states.
This is not the public sectors fault, no matter what Reason magazine might be feeding you today. In fact, during a recession the public sector is an essential source of both economic and service stability. During a recession, the private sector uses job insecurity and increased labor competition to drive down labor costs. Public sector work acts as a barrier to the very bottom. You don't like what the private sector is giving you? Go work for the government. I can tell you that government work isn't so attractive when times are good, that's why people often pass it over for private sector profits, but when times are bad suddenly the usual suspects are jealous and want to destroy what they passed up in better times.
It's stupid to demonize the public sector now. It's under funded as is and the work required of it is immense because of the neglect during the conservative era. But especially now, when the recession is in full throttle, why do you want more instability and unemployment? What fascinates you about the bottom so much that you want to race there?
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 9 Jun 2010 at 12:41 PM
50 hoovers then
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/29/opinion/29krugman.html
Without fed help, 50 hoovers now:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3207
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 9 Jun 2010 at 12:47 PM
I have to do this again?
Whats that? Embarrass yourself without addressing any of the issues presented? Check.
That is why the public infrastructure is collapsing around you, because the states do not fund its maintenance.
I don’t know where you live, but the infrastructure around me is just fine.
What did they do with that money? Tax Cuts
In a word: bull. While there was certainly some tax relief, spending outpaced both inflation and population growth in the 90’s (when the CEPR study focused) and during the 2000’s.
http://reason.com/archives/2009/04/07/failed-states/1
From 2002 to 2007, overall spending rose 50 percent faster than inflation. Education spending increased almost 70 percent faster than inflation, even though the relative school-age population was falling. In 2002 total combined state revenue was $1.097 trillion. In 2007 this figure had risen to almost $2 trillion. That’s an 81 percent increase, at a time when prices plus population increased 19 percent.
Had states simply kept pace with inflation and population growth, they would be either flush with cash from surpluses (or alternatively have solvent pension funds) or they would have been able to give tax payers massive tax breaks. And a good example from California:
In fiscal year 1990–91, California took in more than $38 billion in general fund revenues. In 2008–09 revenues are $102 billion. If the state had simply limited spending increases to the 4.4 percent annual average growth in consumer price index plus population, the state would be sitting on a $15 billion surplus this year instead of a $42 billion deficit.
But if they did that, they wouldn’t have been able to buy off their public union flunkies.
And the problem with tax cuts is that they are easy to give, but they often require a super majority to revoke. They build permanent revenue handicaps.
And that’s a bad thing why? California … that’s right! Well it has been demonstrated that California doesn’t have an income problem (as state tax revenue has increased far faster than inflation or population), it has a spending problem.
Another way to put it: budgets will always rise to meet the amount of funds available
This is not the public sectors fault, no matter what Reason magazine might be feeding you today.
Numbers don’t lie.
when the recession is in full throttle, why do you want more instability and unemployment? What fascinates you about the bottom so much that you want to race there?
I’m not saying throw anyone out of work, but a hiring freeze coupled with a 15% across the board pay cut would be nice. I know, I know, how would all those teachers/firemen/police making $80-100K (and their bosses making half again that much) survive.
Beats me, but there aint no reason they should have any more job security/better pay/better benefits/retirement/guaranteed raises than I do. The purpose of the state government isn’t social mobility and cushy jobs for state employees, it’s to provide high quality essential public services at the lowest cost possible.
#5 Posted by Mike h, CJR on Wed 9 Jun 2010 at 02:07 PM
One cannot make a case solely on anecdotes, but they sure are fun!
Name: Bouman, Timothy
Salary: $632,000
Position: High School Teacher
Full/Part Time: Fulltime
Percent Time Employed: 100%
Assignment: English (Grades 9-12 Only)
Years Teaching: 12
Degree: Master's
School Name: Noble Street Charter High School
District Name: City of Chicago SD 299
Name: Ancelet, Barbara
Salary: $609,300
Position: Psychologist
Full/Part Time: Fulltime
Percent Time Employed: 100%
Assignment: Psychologist
Years Teaching: 20
Degree: Master's
School Name: Spec Educ Assoc of Adams County
District Name: Spec Educ Assoc of Adams County
Name: Ballough, Tiffany
Salary: $379,600
Position: Speech/Language Pathologist
Full/Part Time: Fulltime
Percent Time Employed: 100%
Assignment: Speech and Language Impaired
Years Teaching: 1
Degree: Master's
School Name: Spec Educ Assoc of Adams County
District Name: Spec Educ Assoc of Adams County
#6 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Wed 9 Jun 2010 at 02:17 PM
"Whats that? Embarrass yourself without addressing any of the issues presented? Check."
Hey, you're the one who quoted the reason article with the claim that "the states coulda saved money, they coulda given tax cuts, but INSTEAD they spent it on unions and crap."
"I don’t know where you live, but the infrastructure around me is just fine."
I don't know where you live, but when your minimum age 40 year old water mains burst,
http://www.moneyweek.com/investment-advice/share-tips-us-water-infrastrucure-firms-01909.aspx
call me and let me know how fine things are.
Part 2 in a sec because of the dreaded filter;
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 10 Jun 2010 at 01:08 AM
"In a word: bull. While there was certainly some tax relief, spending outpaced both inflation and population growth in the 90’s (when the CEPR study focused) and during the 2000’s."
Reason (the website) sucks. Your Reason article sucks. Looking at the figures that show the "baseline" in your graphs, there's no way to tell whether the guy is using national or local population growth figures nor inflation rates. They're lumping a bunch of stats together to make their case when the situations state by state vary tremendously. California is not Iowa. You don't lump the two, never mind the 50, together to make a point.
Numbers don't lie when you don't pull them out of your... imagination.
I'll take The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities study with its clear methodology over the antics of the hacks at reason any day.
"And that’s a bad thing why? California … that’s right! Well it has been demonstrated that California doesn’t have an income problem (as state tax revenue has increased far faster than inflation or population), it has a spending problem."
California has both. It's a special case that experienced a technology boom, energy market manipulation from a botched privatization, it had a real estate boom, and it has a large elderly population.
The medical costs for them are going up well above inflation. Inflation in that area is above national figures of inflation.
But it also had proposition 13 in the late 1970's which cut the taxes that provided the state with a stable 70% of it's revenue.
"Another way to put it: budgets will always rise to meet the amount of funds available"
Except when they don't and there's a surplus. Quite a religion you got there.
Conservatives cut revenue as a way of restraining government growth and an opportunity too place "two santa claus" games.
Starve the beast doesn't work.
http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/1705/all-time-fiscal-fallacy-tax-cuts-starve-beast
" it’s to provide high quality essential public services at the lowest cost possible."
Oxymoron, You don't get high quality for he lowest cost possible. You get outsourced government which ends up providing half the service and submitting twice the bill.
"Timothy Bouman makes alot of money"
http://www.familytaxpayers.org/salary.php
You realize that most of the people on that list are super attendants, right?
anyhoo, gotta go.
#8 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 10 Jun 2010 at 01:11 AM
"You realize that most of the people on that list are super attendants, right?"
Superintendents. I was kind of sleepy when I typed that.
#9 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 10 Jun 2010 at 01:16 AM
Hey, you're the one who quoted the reason article with the claim that "the states coulda saved money, they coulda given tax cuts, but INSTEAD they spent it on unions and crap."
Well didn’t they? In general, didn’t state budgets rise faster than either inflation or population growth? Didn’t states and municipalities payrolls rise faster than population growth? Don’t schools employ more people per student now than they did 10 or 20 years ago? The answer to all these questions is an unequivocal yes.
And why did they do this? Well, in no small part, politicians made these increased expenditures (more salary, benefits and position) to placate unions. Since you didn’t like the Reason article (allegedly because it was too broad … or something), lets take a smaller scale example:
MONTGOMERY COUNTY has just completed a nightmarish budget year. Stressed, squabbling and besieged elected officials savaged services and programs and jacked up taxes to eliminate an eye-popping deficit of almost $1 billion in a $4.3 billion spending plan. Meanwhile, across the Potomac River in Fairfax County, all was sweetness and light by comparison. With a budget roughly equal to Montgomery's, Fairfax officials erased a deficit a quarter as large with relative ease and far less drama.
Take a snapshot of one year, 2006, when times were flush. In Fairfax, the county executive, an unelected technocrat, proposed a budget with a relatively robust spending increase of about 6 percent. In Montgomery, County Executive Douglas M. Duncan, a career politician then running in the Democratic primary for governor, pitched a gold-plated, pork-laden grab bag of political largess that drove county spending up by 11 percent.
Mr. Duncan's budget that year capped a three-year spree in which county spending rose by almost 30 percent. It reflected major multiyear increases in pay and benefits that he had negotiated for police, firefighters and other county workers. At the same time, Jerry D. Weast, Montgomery's schools superintendent, negotiated a contract that promised pay increases for most teachers of 26 to 29 percent over three years -- about twice the raise Fairfax teachers got -- plus health benefits virtually unmatched in the region. Montgomery County Council members, most of whom were hoping for union endorsements in the fall elections, rubber-stamped Mr. Duncan's contracts. The Board of Education, equally beholden to the teachers union, did the same for Mr. Weast.
I know, I know .. more lies, or misreprentations, or some other third thing. But this example, one of many, is indicative of the mindset of public officials (mainly democrat) who are beholden to civil service apparatchiks for the backbone of their re-elections or advancement in the political world.
California has both. It's a special case that experienced a technology boom, energy market manipulation from a botched privatization, it had a real estate boom, and it has a large elderly population.
California made the choice to spend more money than they had to, no one held a gun to their heads … well I suppose the unions did hold one to the democrats heads.
You realize that most of the people on that list are super attendants, right?"
Superintendents
And that means what exactly? The three top paid employees in the Illinois educations system are not administrators, they are teachers. And the fact that any civil servant makes that kind of money (let alone the 1000’s who make 6 figure incomes) should be scandal in itself.
#10 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 10 Jun 2010 at 09:59 AM
"Well didn’t they? In general, didn’t state budgets rise faster than either inflation or population growth?"
I'm still researching that question, but in the meantime state private sector salaries grew about 25% between 2001 and 2007. Public sector salaries grew about 28% in the same period.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/25161.html
Individual states had compensation issues with individual state employees maybe, but the real increases in salary went to federal and military personnel. State salaries kept pace with their private sector counterparts, whose real wages remained flat or declining over the Bush years when you factor in inflation.
"Since you didn’t like the Reason article (allegedly because it was too broad … or something), lets take a smaller scale example:"
No, it was because it mashed numbers together in a meaningless way. But since we're playing with perspective, let's take a larger scale example:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/teacher-pay-around-the-world/#more-30199
"American teachers spend on average 1,080 hours teaching each year. Across the O.E.C.D., the average is 794 hours on primary education, 709 hours on lower secondary education, and 653 hours on upper secondary education general programs...
American teachers’ pay is more middling. The average public primary-school teacher who has worked 15 years and has received the minimum amount of training, for example, earns $43,633, compared to the O.E.C.D. average of $39,007...
Comparing each country’s teacher salaries to the wealth of that country makes United States educational salaries appear lower. In the United States, a teacher with 15 years of experience makes a salary that is 96 percent of the country’s gross domestic product per capita. Across the O.E.C.D., a teacher of equivalent experience makes 117 percent of G.D.P. per capita. At the high end of the scale, in Korea, the average teacher at this level makes a full 221 percent of the country’s G.D.P. per capita."
part 2 in a second
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 10 Jun 2010 at 12:40 PM
"California made the choice to spend more money than they had to, no one held a gun to their heads … well I suppose the unions did hold one to the democrats heads."
You don't remember Enron's rolling blackouts? No, of course not, the private sector never abuses and never extorts. It's the dirty unions who are responsible for all the world's problems.
But yeah, refresh my memory. Who's in charge of California? After Grey Davis got thrown out because on the Enron chaos? A democrat you say?
Whatever champ.
"And that means what exactly? The three top paid employees in the Illinois educations system are not administrators, they are teachers."
Read your own links.
"Name: Ancelet, Barbara
Salary: $609,300
Position: Psychologist"
"Name: Ballough, Tiffany
Salary: $379,600
Position: Speech/Language Pathologist"
Oh and the best
"Name: Bouman, Timothy
Salary: $632,000
Position: High School Teacher
School Name: Noble Street Charter High School"
Tell me smart guy, what union does Noble Street Charter School recognize, hmmn?
"I don't care that a teacher's average pay in Illinois is only $46,000. I blame the union for the charter school guy making $600,000!"
Yeah, okay. I guess Utopia would be just around the corner if only we could cut taxes and spend less and unregulate everything and banish the demonic unions to hell where they belong. After all, it was them and acorn with the community reinvestment act which battered the beautiful Bush economy just when things we're so perfect. I know all about it, I read it in Reason.
#12 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 10 Jun 2010 at 01:14 PM
I'm still researching that question
Don’t worry, I’m certain you will find an answer that dovetails eloquently with all your preconceived notions.
Individual states had compensation issues with individual state employees maybe,
No maybe about it …. you just put the numbers up there and state/local compensation exceeded private compensation.
State salaries kept pace with their private sector counterparts,
I believe you meant to say exceeded, but continue.
whose real wages remained flat or declining over the Bush years when you factor in inflation.
Inflation from 2001 – 2007 was 17% and, according to the sources you posted, private sector compensation rose on average 25%. You might not be good with math but 25% is greater than 17%.
You don't remember Enron's rolling blackouts? No, of course not, the private sector never abuses and never extorts. It's the dirty unions who are responsible for all the world's problems.
What does a power crisis created by poor re-regulation have to do with California’s budget problems? I believe they call that a “red herring”.
But yeah, refresh my memory. Who's in charge of California? After Grey Davis got thrown out because on the Enron chaos? A democrat you say?
If you think I am going to stick up for Schwarzenegger, you are sorely mistaken. And, just to clarify, who has been in charge of the California State Legislature since 1996? You know, the legislative body that actually drafts all revenue and spending related bills? Thimbles foot meets thimbles mouth.
Tell me smart guy, what union does Noble Street Charter School recognize, hmmn?"I don't care that a teacher's average pay in Illinois is only $46,000. I blame the union for the charter school guy making $600,000!"
First, I never stated that Noble Street Charter High School was a union shop, but it most certainly is run and paid for by the Chicago Public School system. That means teachers’ salaries are paid for by taxpayers The average pay for an elementary teacher in Illinois is $47,041, not including benefits or the 4 months off they get a year. Thimbles foot meets thimbles mouth … Oh silly me, you two are well acquainted.
Yeah, okay. I guess Utopia would be just around the corner if only we could cut taxes and spend less and unregulate everything and banish the demonic unions to hell where they belong.
F-in A, took the words right out of my mouth!
#13 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 10 Jun 2010 at 02:00 PM
On a side note, God damn you gotta love that Chris Christie!
#14 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 10 Jun 2010 at 02:12 PM
"No maybe about it …. you just put the numbers up there and state/local compensation exceeded private compensation."
By 3 whole percent. 3 cents on the dollar. You're making big things out of little. Overcompensating, if you will.
"Inflation from 2001 – 2007 was 17% and, according to the sources you posted, private sector compensation rose on average 25%. You might not be good with math but 25% is greater than 17%."
http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp195/
The lower income, lower education segments of the population experienced gains in productivity and flat wages. Most sectors experienced depressed wage growth with the exception of the upper brackets (which drives up the average).
You're trying to make mountains out of motes.
"What does a power crisis created by poor re-regulation have to do with California’s budget problems? I believe they call that a “red herring”."
An expensive power crisis caused by absent federal market regulation and corporate market manipulation that cost California 40 billion on the low end. That's a HUGE red herring.
"If you think I am going to stick up for Schwarzenegger, you are sorely mistaken. And, just to clarify, who has been in charge of the California State Legislature since 1996? You know, the legislative body that actually drafts all revenue and spending related bills? Thimbles foot meets thimbles mouth."
I don't know, but I think it's the guys who are on the filibuster jihad and the guy with the big fat veto pen, but I could be wrong.
"First, I never stated that Noble Street Charter High School was a union shop, but it most certainly is run and paid for by the Chicago Public School system."
No, you just based your whole rant on how public sector unions and politicians are wrecking the universe and then pointed to the outrageous Noble Street salary and said "See what I mean?!"
So no, you didn't actually say Noble Street was public sector union shop, it was just an example you chose to make, like the other ones in which you couldn't get the professions right. They were meaningless. Anecdotal. Dumb.
Good day mikey.
#15 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 10 Jun 2010 at 04:09 PM
Well I went through the data here
http://www.census.gov/govs/estimate/index.html
which was a pain in the ass to go through.
Basically what you see is state and local government expenses as a total (it would be better to go through the individual states and I'll go through that when you start paying me for it) rose about 5% to 6% a year.
The final results are an increase of 38% for state and 40% for local.
What you see when you look at revenues is a decrease of 7% for state in 2001, and an increase of 1% for local (9-11 plus dotcom bust). Greenspan inflated the real estate bubble n 2003 and 2004 which lead to revenues increasing 18% and 22% percent. In 2005 and 2006, state revenues only increase 4% and 8% and this is the time when state deficits start turning into state surpluses. Local deficits persist 2 years longer and the rate of their revenue increase stays constant.
From 2001 to 2007 State revenues grew by 70%, nearly twice as much as state expenditures.
Local revenues grew by 44% which kept pace with local expense.
Something else to keep in mind is that state and local government finances are population sensitive and between 2001 and 2007 the population increased 6%.
I maintain that people like Mark Sanford made their problems when times were good through tax restructuring away from stable revenue like property taxes and towards volatile revenue such as sales taxes. And while doing that, they were cutting.
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/jan/14/s_c_paying_piper_act_tax_cuts68293/
#16 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 11 Jun 2010 at 03:50 PM