LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for PORTSIDE Archives


PORTSIDE Archives

PORTSIDE Archives


PORTSIDE@LISTS.PORTSIDE.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PORTSIDE Home

PORTSIDE Home

PORTSIDE  July 2012, Week 1

PORTSIDE July 2012, Week 1

Subject:

Mitt Romney and the New Gilded Age

From:

Portside Moderator <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Wed, 4 Jul 2012 23:45:53 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (374 lines)

Mitt Romney and the New Gilded Age 

Robert Reich
Posted: 07/02/2012 8:50

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/mitt-romney-bain-capital_b_1644856.html

The election of 2012 raises two perplexing questions. The
first is how the GOP could put up someone for president
who so brazenly epitomizes the excesses of casino
capitalism that have nearly destroyed the economy and
overwhelmed our democracy. The second is why the Democrats
have failed to point this out.

The White House has criticized Mitt Romney for his years
at the helm of Bain Capital, pointing to a deal that led
to the bankruptcy of GS Technologies, a Bain investment in
Kansas City that went belly up in 2001 at the cost of 750
jobs. But the White House hasn't connected Romney's Bain
to the larger scourge of casino capitalism. Not
surprisingly, its criticism has quickly degenerated into a
"he said, she said" feud over what proportion of the
companies that Bain bought and loaded up with debt
subsequently went broke (it's about 20 percent), and how
many people lost their jobs relative to how many jobs were
added because of Bain's financial maneuvers (that depends
on when you start and stop the clock). And it has invited
a Republican countercharge that the administration gambled
away taxpayer money on its own bad bet, the Solyndra solar
panel company.

But the real issue here isn't Bain's betting record. It's
that Romney's Bain is part of the same system as Jamie
Dimon's JPMorgan Chase, Jon Corzine's MF Global and Lloyd
Blankfein's Goldman Sachs -- a system that has turned much
of the economy into a betting parlor that nearly imploded
in 2008, destroying millions of jobs and devastating
household incomes. The winners in this system are top Wall
Street executives and traders, private-equity managers and
hedge-fund moguls, and the losers are most of the rest of
us. The system is largely responsible for the greatest
concentration of the nation's income and wealth at the
very top since the Gilded Age of the 19th century, with
the richest 400 Americans owning as much as the bottom 150
million put together. And these multimillionaires and
billionaires are now actively buying the 2012 election --
and with it, American democracy.

The biggest players in this system have, like Romney, made
their profits placing big bets with other people's money.
If the bets go well, the players make out like bandits. If
they go badly, the burden lands on average workers and
taxpayers. The 750-people at GS Technologies who lost
their jobs thanks to a bad deal engineered by Romney's
Bain were a small foreshadowing of the 15 million who lost
jobs after the cumulative deal-making of the entire
financial sector pushed the whole economy off a cliff. And
relative to the cost to taxpayers of bailing out Wall
Street, Solyndra is a rounding error.

Connect the dots of casino capitalism, and you get Mitt
Romney. The fortunes raked in by financial dealmakers
depend on special goodies baked into the tax code such as
"carried interest," which allows Romney and other partners
in private-equity firms (as well as in many
venture-capital and hedge funds) to treat their incomes as
capital gains taxed at a maximum of 15 percent. This is
how Romney managed to pay an average of 14 percent on more
than $42 million of combined income in 2010 and 2011. But
the carried-interest loophole makes no economic sense.
Conservatives try to justify the tax code's generous
preference for capital gains as a reward to risk-takers --
but Romney and other private-equity partners risk little,
if any, of their personal wealth. They mostly bet with
other investors' money, including the pension savings of
average working people.

Another goodie allows private-equity partners to sock away
almost any amount of their earnings into a tax-deferred
IRA, while the rest of us are limited to a few thousand
dollars a year. The partners can merely low-ball the value
of whatever portion of their investment partnership they
put away -- even valuing it at zero -- because the tax
code considers a partnership interest to have value only
in the future. This explains how Romney's IRA is worth as
much as $101 million. The tax code further subsidizes
private equity and much of the rest of the financial
sector by making interest on debt tax-deductible, while
taxing profits and dividends. This creates huge incentives
for financiers to find ways of substituting debt for
equity and is a major reason America's biggest banks have
leveraged America to the hilt. It's also why Romney's Bain
and other private-equity partnerships have done the same
to the companies they buy.

These maneuvers shift all the economic risk to debtors,
who sometimes can't repay what they owe. That's rarely a
problem for the financiers who engineer the deals; they're
sufficiently diversified to withstand some losses, or
they've already taken their profits and moved on. But
piles of debt play havoc with the lives of real people in
the real economy when the companies they work for can't
meet their payments, or the banks they rely on stop
lending money, or the contractors they depend on go broke
-- often with the result that they can't meet their own
debt payments and lose their homes, cars and savings.

It took more than a decade for America to recover from the
Great Crash of 1929 after the financial sector had gorged
itself on debt, and it's taking years to recover from the
more limited but still terrible crash of 2008. The same
kinds of convulsions have occurred on a smaller scale at a
host of companies since the go-go years of the 1980s, when
private-equity firms like Bain began doing leveraged
buyouts -- taking over a target company, loading it up
with debt, using the tax deduction that comes with the
debt to boost the target company's profits, cutting
payrolls and then reselling the company at a higher price.

Sometimes these maneuvers work, sometimes they end in
disaster; but they always generate giant rewards for the
dealmakers while shifting the risk to workers and
taxpayers. In 1988 drugstore chain Revco went under when
it couldn't meet its debt payments on a $1.6 billion
leveraged buyout engineered by Salomon Brothers. In 1989
the private-equity firm of Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts
completed the notorious and ultimately disastrous buyout
of RJR Nabisco for $31 billion, much of it in high-yield
("junk") bonds. In 1993 Bain Capital became a majority
shareholder in GS Technologies and loaded it with debt. In
2001 it went down when it couldn't meet payments on that
debt load. But even as these firms sank, Bain and the
other dealmakers continued to collect lucrative fees --
transaction fees, advisory fees, management fees--sucking
the companies dry until the bitter end. According to a
review by the New York Times of firms that went bankrupt
on Romney's watch, Bain structured the deals so that its
executives would always win, even if employees, creditors
and Bain's own investors lost out. That's been Big
Finance's MO.

By the time Romney co-founded Bain Capital in 1984,
financial wheeling and dealing was the most lucrative part
of the economy, sucking into its Gordon Gekko-like maw the
brightest and most ambitious MBAs, who wanted nothing more
than to make huge amounts of money as quickly as possible.
Between the mid-1980s and 2007, financial-sector earnings
made up two-thirds of all the growth in incomes. At the
same time, wages for most Americans stagnated as
employers, under mounting pressure from Wall Street and
private-equity firms like Bain, slashed payrolls and
shipped jobs overseas.

The 2008 crash only briefly interrupted the bonanza. Last
year, according to a recent Bloomberg Markets analysis,
America's top 50 financial CEOs got a 20.4 percent pay
hike, even as the wages of most Americans continued to
drop. Topping the Bloomberg list were two of the same
private-equity barons who did the RJR Nabisco deal a
quarter-century ago -- Henry Kravis and George Roberts,
who took home $30 million each. According to the 2011 tax
records he released, Romney was not far behind.


II

We've entered a new Gilded Age, of which Mitt Romney is
the perfect reflection. The original Gilded Age was a time
of buoyant rich men with flashy white teeth, raging wealth
and a measured disdain for anyone lacking those
attributes, which was just about everyone else. Romney
looks and acts the part perfectly, offhandedly challenging
a GOP primary opponent to a $10,000 bet and referring to
his wife's several Cadillacs. Four years ago he paid $12
million for his fourth home, a 3,000-square-foot villa in
La Jolla, Calif., with vaulted ceilings, five bathrooms, a
pool, a Jacuzzi and unobstructed views of the Pacific.
Romney has filed plans to tear it down and replace it with
a home four times bigger.

We've had wealthy presidents before, but they have been
traitors to their class -- Teddy Roosevelt storming
against the "malefactors of great wealth" and busting up
the trusts, Franklin Roosevelt railing against the
"economic royalists" and raising their taxes, John F.
Kennedy appealing to the conscience of the nation to
conquer poverty. Romney is the opposite: he wants to do
everything he can to make the superwealthy even wealthier
and the poor even poorer, and he justifies it all with a
thinly veiled social Darwinism.

Not incidentally, social Darwinism was also the reigning
philosophy of the original Gilded Age, propounded in
America more than a century ago by William Graham Sumner,
a professor of political and social science at Yale, who
twisted Charles Darwin's insights into a theory to justify
the brazen inequality of that era: survival of the
fittest. Romney uses the same logic when he accuses
President Obama of creating an "entitlement society"
simply because millions of desperate Americans have been
forced to accept food stamps and unemployment insurance,
or when he opines that government should not help
distressed homeowners but instead let the market "hit the
bottom," or enthuses over a House Republican budget that
would cut $3.3 trillion from low-income programs over the
next decade. It's survival of the fittest all over again.
Sumner, too, warned against handouts to people he termed
"negligent, shiftless, inefficient, silly, and imprudent."

When Romney simultaneously proposes to cut the taxes of
households earning over $1 million by an average of
$295,874 a year (according to an analysis of his proposals
by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center) because the rich
are, allegedly, "job creators," he mimics Sumner's view
that "millionaires are a product of natural selection,
acting on the whole body of men to pick out those who can
meet the requirement of certain work to be done." In
truth, the whole of Republican trickle-down economics is
nothing but repotted social Darwinism.

The Gilded Age was also the last time America came close
to becoming a plutocracy -- a system of government of, by
and for the wealthy. It was an era when the lackeys of the
very rich literally put sacks of money on the desks of
pliant legislators, senators bore the nicknames of the
giant companies whose interests they served ("the senator
from Standard Oil"), and the kings of finance decided how
the American economy would function.

The potential of great wealth in the hands of a relative
few to undermine democratic institutions was a continuing
concern in the 19th century as railroad, oil and financial
magnates accumulated power. "Wealth, like suffrage, must
be considerably distributed, to support a democratick
republic," wrote Virginia Congressman John Taylor as early
as 1814, "and hence, whatever draws a considerable
proportion of either into a few hands, will destroy it. As
power follows wealth, the majority must have wealth or
lose power." Decades later, progressives like Louis
Brandeis saw the choice starkly: "We may have democracy,
or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few,
but we can't have both."

The reforms of the Progressive Era at the turn of the 20th
century saved American democracy from the robber barons,
but the political power of great wealth has now resurfaced
with a vengeance. And here again, Romney is the poster
boy. Congress has so far failed to close the absurd
carried-interest tax loophole, for example, because of
generous donations by Bain Capital and other
private-equity partners to both parties.


III

In the 2012 election, Romney wants everything Wall Street
has to offer, and Wall Street seems quite happy to give it
to him. Not only is he promising lower taxes in return for
its money; he also vows that, if elected, he'll repeal
what's left of the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill,
Washington's frail attempt to prevent the Street from
repeating its 2008 pump-and-dump. Unlike previous
elections, in which the Street hedged its bets by donating
to both parties, it's now putting most of its money behind
Romney. And courtesy of a Supreme Court majority that
seems intent on magnifying the political power of today's
robber barons, that's a lot of dough. As of May, 31
billionaires had contributed between $50,000 and $2
million each to Romney's super-PAC, and in June another --
appropriately enough, a casino magnate -- gave $10
million, with a promise of $90 million more. Among those
who have contributed at least $1 million are former
associates from Romney's days at Bain Capital and
prominent hedge-fund managers.

To be sure, Romney is no worse than any other casino
capitalist of this new Gilded Age. All have been making
big bets -- collecting large sums when they pay off and
imposing the risks and costs on the rest of us when they
don't. Many have justified their growing wealth, along
with the growing impoverishment of much of the rest of the
nation, with beliefs strikingly similar to social
Darwinism. And a significant number have transformed their
winnings into the clout needed to protect the unrestrained
betting and tax preferences that have fueled their
fortunes, and to lower their tax rates even further. Wall
Street has already all but eviscerated the Dodd-Frank Act,
and it has even turned the so-called Volcker Rule -- a
watered-down version of the old Glass-Steagall Act, which
established a firewall between commercial and investment
banking -- into a Swiss cheese of loopholes and
exemptions.

But Romney is the only casino capitalist who is running
for president, at the very time in our nation's history
when these views and practices are a clear and present
danger to the well-being of the rest of us -- just as they
were more than a century ago. Romney says he's a
job-creating businessman, but in truth he's just another
financial dealmaker in the age of the financial deal, a
fat cat in an era of excessively corpulent felines, a
plutocrat in this new epoch of plutocrats. That the GOP
has made him its standard-bearer at this point in American
history is astonishing.

So why don't Democrats connect these dots? It's not as if
Americans harbor great admiration for financial
dealmakers. According to the newly released 25th annual
Pew Research Center poll on core values, nearly
three-quarters of Americans believe "Wall Street only
cares about making money for itself." That's not
surprising, given that many are still bearing the scars of
2008. Nor are they pleased with the concentration of
income and wealth at the top. Polls show a majority of
Americans want taxes raised on the very rich, and a
majority are opposed to the bailouts, subsidies and
special tax breaks with which the wealthy have padded
their nests.

Part of the answer, surely, is that elected Democrats are
still almost as beholden to the wealthy for campaign funds
as the Republicans, and don't want to bite the hand that
feeds them. Wall Street can give most of its largesse to
Romney this year and still have enough left over to tame
many influential Democrats (look at the outcry from some
of them when the White House took on Bain Capital).

But I suspect a deeper reason for their reticence is that
if they connect the dots and reveal Romney for what he is
-- the epitome of what's fundamentally wrong with our
economy -- they'll be admitting how serious our economic
problems really are. They would have to acknowledge that
the economic catastrophe that continues to cause us so
much suffering is, at its root, a product of the gross
inequality of income, wealth and political power in
America's new Gilded Age, as well as the perverse
incentives of casino capitalism.

Yet this admission would require that they propose ways of
reversing these trends -- proposals large and bold enough
to do the job. Time will tell whether today's Democratic
Party and this White House have the courage and
imagination to do it. If they do not, that in itself poses
almost as great a challenge to the future of the nation as
does Mitt Romney and all he represents.

ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy
at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary
of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine
named him one of the ten most effective cabinet
secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen
books, including the best sellers "Aftershock" and "The
Work of Nations." His latest is an e-book, "Beyond
Outrage." He is also a founding editor of the American
Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.

___________________________________________

Portside aims to provide material of interest to people
on the left that will help them to interpret the world
and to change it.

Submit via email: [log in to unmask]

Submit via the Web: http://portside.org/submittous3

Frequently asked questions: http://portside.org/faq

Sub/Unsub: http://portside.org/subscribe-and-unsubscribe

Search Portside archives: http://portside.org/archive

Contribute to Portside: https://portside.org/donate

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

February 2020, Week 4
February 2020, Week 3
February 2020, Week 2
February 2020, Week 1
January 2020, Week 5
January 2020, Week 4
January 2020, Week 3
January 2020, Week 2
January 2020, Week 1
December 2019, Week 5
December 2019, Week 4
December 2019, Week 3
December 2019, Week 2
December 2019, Week 1
November 2019, Week 5
November 2019, Week 4
November 2019, Week 3
November 2019, Week 2
November 2019, Week 1
October 2019, Week 5
October 2019, Week 4
October 2019, Week 3
October 2019, Week 2
October 2019, Week 1
September 2019, Week 5
September 2019, Week 4
September 2019, Week 3
September 2019, Week 2
September 2019, Week 1
August 2019, Week 5
August 2019, Week 4
August 2019, Week 3
August 2019, Week 2
August 2019, Week 1
July 2019, Week 5
July 2019, Week 4
July 2019, Week 3
July 2019, Week 2
July 2019, Week 1
June 2019, Week 5
June 2019, Week 4
June 2019, Week 3
June 2019, Week 2
June 2019, Week 1
May 2019, Week 5
May 2019, Week 4
May 2019, Week 3
May 2019, Week 2
May 2019, Week 1
April 2019, Week 5
April 2019, Week 4
April 2019, Week 3
April 2019, Week 2
April 2019, Week 1
March 2019, Week 5
March 2019, Week 4
March 2019, Week 3
March 2019, Week 2
March 2019, Week 1
February 2019, Week 4
February 2019, Week 3
February 2019, Week 2
February 2019, Week 1
January 2019, Week 5
January 2019, Week 4
January 2019, Week 3
January 2019, Week 2
January 2019, Week 1
December 2018, Week 5
December 2018, Week 4
December 2018, Week 3
December 2018, Week 2
December 2018, Week 1
November 2018, Week 5
November 2018, Week 4
November 2018, Week 3
November 2018, Week 2
November 2018, Week 1
October 2018, Week 5
October 2018, Week 4
October 2018, Week 3
October 2018, Week 2
October 2018, Week 1
September 2018, Week 5
September 2018, Week 4
September 2018, Week 3
September 2018, Week 2
September 2018, Week 1
August 2018, Week 5
August 2018, Week 4
August 2018, Week 3
August 2018, Week 2
August 2018, Week 1
July 2018, Week 5
July 2018, Week 4
July 2018, Week 3
July 2018, Week 2
July 2018, Week 1
June 2018, Week 5
June 2018, Week 4
June 2018, Week 3
June 2018, Week 2
June 2018, Week 1
May 2018, Week 5
May 2018, Week 4
May 2018, Week 3
May 2018, Week 2
May 2018, Week 1
April 2018, Week 5
April 2018, Week 4
April 2018, Week 3
April 2018, Week 2
April 2018, Week 1
March 2018, Week 5
March 2018, Week 4
March 2018, Week 3
March 2018, Week 2
March 2018, Week 1
February 2018, Week 4
February 2018, Week 3
February 2018, Week 2
February 2018, Week 1
January 2018, Week 5
January 2018, Week 4
January 2018, Week 3
January 2018, Week 2
January 2018, Week 1
December 2017, Week 5
December 2017, Week 4
December 2017, Week 3
December 2017, Week 2
December 2017, Week 1
November 2017, Week 5
November 2017, Week 4
November 2017, Week 3
November 2017, Week 2
November 2017, Week 1
October 2017, Week 5
October 2017, Week 4
October 2017, Week 3
October 2017, Week 2
October 2017, Week 1
September 2017, Week 5
September 2017, Week 4
September 2017, Week 3
September 2017, Week 2
September 2017, Week 1
August 2017, Week 5
August 2017, Week 4
August 2017, Week 3
August 2017, Week 2
August 2017, Week 1
July 2017, Week 5
July 2017, Week 4
July 2017, Week 3
July 2017, Week 2
July 2017, Week 1
June 2017, Week 5
June 2017, Week 4
June 2017, Week 3
June 2017, Week 2
June 2017, Week 1
May 2017, Week 5
May 2017, Week 4
May 2017, Week 3
May 2017, Week 2
May 2017, Week 1
April 2017, Week 5
April 2017, Week 4
April 2017, Week 3
April 2017, Week 2
April 2017, Week 1
March 2017, Week 5
March 2017, Week 4
March 2017, Week 3
March 2017, Week 2
March 2017, Week 1
February 2017, Week 4
February 2017, Week 3
February 2017, Week 2
February 2017, Week 1
January 2017, Week 5
January 2017, Week 4
January 2017, Week 3
January 2017, Week 2
January 2017, Week 1
December 2016, Week 5
December 2016, Week 4
December 2016, Week 3
December 2016, Week 2
December 2016, Week 1
November 2016, Week 5
November 2016, Week 4
November 2016, Week 3
November 2016, Week 2
November 2016, Week 1
October 2016, Week 5
October 2016, Week 4
October 2016, Week 3
October 2016, Week 2
October 2016, Week 1
September 2016, Week 5
September 2016, Week 4
September 2016, Week 3
September 2016, Week 2
September 2016, Week 1
August 2016, Week 5
August 2016, Week 4
August 2016, Week 3
August 2016, Week 2
August 2016, Week 1
July 2016, Week 5
July 2016, Week 4
July 2016, Week 3
July 2016, Week 2
July 2016, Week 1
June 2016, Week 5
June 2016, Week 4
June 2016, Week 3
June 2016, Week 2
June 2016, Week 1
May 2016, Week 5
May 2016, Week 4
May 2016, Week 3
May 2016, Week 2
May 2016, Week 1
April 2016, Week 5
April 2016, Week 4
April 2016, Week 3
April 2016, Week 2
April 2016, Week 1
March 2016, Week 5
March 2016, Week 4
March 2016, Week 3
March 2016, Week 2
March 2016, Week 1
February 2016, Week 5
February 2016, Week 4
February 2016, Week 3
February 2016, Week 2
February 2016, Week 1
January 2016, Week 5
January 2016, Week 4
January 2016, Week 3
January 2016, Week 2
January 2016, Week 1
December 2015, Week 5
December 2015, Week 4
December 2015, Week 3
December 2015, Week 2
December 2015, Week 1
November 2015, Week 5
November 2015, Week 4
November 2015, Week 3
November 2015, Week 2
November 2015, Week 1
October 2015, Week 5
October 2015, Week 4
October 2015, Week 3
October 2015, Week 2
October 2015, Week 1
September 2015, Week 5
September 2015, Week 4
September 2015, Week 3
September 2015, Week 2
September 2015, Week 1
August 2015, Week 5
August 2015, Week 4
August 2015, Week 3
August 2015, Week 2
August 2015, Week 1
July 2015, Week 5
July 2015, Week 4
July 2015, Week 3
July 2015, Week 2
July 2015, Week 1
June 2015, Week 5
June 2015, Week 4
June 2015, Week 3
June 2015, Week 2
June 2015, Week 1
May 2015, Week 5
May 2015, Week 4
May 2015, Week 3
May 2015, Week 2
May 2015, Week 1
April 2015, Week 5
April 2015, Week 4
April 2015, Week 3
April 2015, Week 2
April 2015, Week 1
March 2015, Week 5
March 2015, Week 4
March 2015, Week 3
March 2015, Week 2
March 2015, Week 1
February 2015, Week 4
February 2015, Week 3
February 2015, Week 2
February 2015, Week 1
January 2015, Week 5
January 2015, Week 4
January 2015, Week 3
January 2015, Week 2
January 2015, Week 1
December 2014, Week 5
December 2014, Week 4
December 2014, Week 3
December 2014, Week 2
December 2014, Week 1
November 2014, Week 5
November 2014, Week 4
November 2014, Week 3
November 2014, Week 2
November 2014, Week 1
October 2014, Week 5
October 2014, Week 4
October 2014, Week 3
October 2014, Week 2
October 2014, Week 1
September 2014, Week 5
September 2014, Week 4
September 2014, Week 3
September 2014, Week 2
September 2014, Week 1
August 2014, Week 5
August 2014, Week 4
August 2014, Week 3
August 2014, Week 2
August 2014, Week 1
July 2014, Week 5
July 2014, Week 4
July 2014, Week 3
July 2014, Week 2
July 2014, Week 1
June 2014, Week 5
June 2014, Week 4
June 2014, Week 3
June 2014, Week 2
June 2014, Week 1
May 2014, Week 5
May 2014, Week 4
May 2014, Week 3
May 2014, Week 2
May 2014, Week 1
April 2014, Week 5
April 2014, Week 4
April 2014, Week 3
April 2014, Week 2
April 2014, Week 1
March 2014, Week 5
March 2014, Week 4
March 2014, Week 3
March 2014, Week 2
March 2014, Week 1
February 2014, Week 4
February 2014, Week 3
February 2014, Week 2
February 2014, Week 1
January 2014, Week 5
January 2014, Week 4
January 2014, Week 3
January 2014, Week 2
January 2014, Week 1
December 2013, Week 5
December 2013, Week 4
December 2013, Week 3
December 2013, Week 2
December 2013, Week 1
November 2013, Week 5
November 2013, Week 4
November 2013, Week 3
November 2013, Week 2
November 2013, Week 1
October 2013, Week 5
October 2013, Week 4
October 2013, Week 3
October 2013, Week 2
October 2013, Week 1
September 2013, Week 5
September 2013, Week 4
September 2013, Week 3
September 2013, Week 2
September 2013, Week 1
August 2013, Week 5
August 2013, Week 4
August 2013, Week 3
August 2013, Week 2
August 2013, Week 1
July 2013, Week 5
July 2013, Week 4
July 2013, Week 3
July 2013, Week 2
July 2013, Week 1
June 2013, Week 5
June 2013, Week 4
June 2013, Week 3
June 2013, Week 2
June 2013, Week 1
May 2013, Week 5
May 2013, Week 4
May 2013, Week 3
May 2013, Week 2
May 2013, Week 1
April 2013, Week 5
April 2013, Week 4
April 2013, Week 3
April 2013, Week 2
April 2013, Week 1
March 2013, Week 5
March 2013, Week 4
March 2013, Week 3
March 2013, Week 2
March 2013, Week 1
February 2013, Week 4
February 2013, Week 3
February 2013, Week 2
February 2013, Week 1
January 2013, Week 5
January 2013, Week 4
January 2013, Week 3
January 2013, Week 2
January 2013, Week 1
December 2012, Week 5
December 2012, Week 4
December 2012, Week 3
December 2012, Week 2
December 2012, Week 1
November 2012, Week 5
November 2012, Week 4
November 2012, Week 3
November 2012, Week 2
November 2012, Week 1
October 2012, Week 5
October 2012, Week 4
October 2012, Week 3
October 2012, Week 2
October 2012, Week 1
September 2012, Week 5
September 2012, Week 4
September 2012, Week 3
September 2012, Week 2
September 2012, Week 1
August 2012, Week 5
August 2012, Week 4
August 2012, Week 3
August 2012, Week 2
August 2012, Week 1
July 2012, Week 5
July 2012, Week 4
July 2012, Week 3
July 2012, Week 2
July 2012, Week 1
June 2012, Week 5
June 2012, Week 4
June 2012, Week 3
June 2012, Week 2
June 2012, Week 1
May 2012, Week 5
May 2012, Week 4
May 2012, Week 3
May 2012, Week 2
May 2012, Week 1
April 2012, Week 5
April 2012, Week 4
April 2012, Week 3
April 2012, Week 2
April 2012, Week 1
March 2012, Week 5
March 2012, Week 4
March 2012, Week 3
March 2012, Week 2
March 2012, Week 1
February 2012, Week 5
February 2012, Week 4
February 2012, Week 3
February 2012, Week 2
February 2012, Week 1
January 2012, Week 5
January 2012, Week 4
January 2012, Week 3
January 2012, Week 2
January 2012, Week 1
December 2011, Week 5
December 2011, Week 4
December 2011, Week 3
December 2011, Week 2
December 2011, Week 1
November 2011, Week 5
November 2011, Week 4
November 2011, Week 3
November 2011, Week 2
November 2011, Week 1
October 2011, Week 5
October 2011, Week 4
October 2011, Week 3
October 2011, Week 2
October 2011, Week 1
September 2011, Week 5
September 2011, Week 4
September 2011, Week 3
September 2011, Week 2
September 2011, Week 1
August 2011, Week 5
August 2011, Week 4
August 2011, Week 3
August 2011, Week 2
August 2011, Week 1
July 2011, Week 5
July 2011, Week 4
July 2011, Week 3
July 2011, Week 2
July 2011, Week 1
June 2011, Week 5
June 2011, Week 4
June 2011, Week 3
June 2011, Week 2
June 2011, Week 1
May 2011, Week 5
May 2011, Week 4
May 2011, Week 3
May 2011, Week 2
May 2011, Week 1
April 2011, Week 5
April 2011, Week 4
April 2011, Week 3
April 2011, Week 2
April 2011, Week 1
March 2011, Week 5
March 2011, Week 4
March 2011, Week 3
March 2011, Week 2
March 2011, Week 1
February 2011, Week 4
February 2011, Week 3
February 2011, Week 2
February 2011, Week 1
January 2011, Week 5
January 2011, Week 4
January 2011, Week 3
January 2011, Week 2
January 2011, Week 1
December 2010, Week 5
December 2010, Week 4
December 2010, Week 3
December 2010, Week 2
December 2010, Week 1
November 2010, Week 5
November 2010, Week 4
November 2010, Week 3
November 2010, Week 2
November 2010, Week 1
October 2010, Week 5
October 2010, Week 4
October 2010, Week 3
October 2010, Week 2
October 2010, Week 1
September 2010, Week 5
September 2010, Week 4
September 2010, Week 3
September 2010, Week 2
September 2010, Week 1
August 2010, Week 5
August 2010, Week 4
August 2010, Week 3
August 2010, Week 2
August 2010, Week 1
July 2010, Week 5
July 2010, Week 4
July 2010, Week 3
July 2010, Week 2
July 2010, Week 1

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.PORTSIDE.ORG

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager