Pensions are going to destroy this country

rockbox · Nov 12, 2010

I have to admit the pension topic is my hot button issue. For me, the math never added up and it was going to eventually fall like a deck of cards. I blame pensions as the number one reason the car companies needed a government bailout. But who is going to bail the state and city governments out?

http://redtape.msnbc.com/2010/11/in...ear-chicago-a-parks-commissioner-q.html#posts

Super-sized pensions, and a doomsday scenario
Posted: Friday, November 12 2010 at 06:00 am CT by Bob Sullivan

In New York, a 44-year-old firefighter retires with a $101,000 a year pension, for life. Near Chicago, a parks commissioner quits and begins collecting a $166,000 pension – a sum sweetened by $50,000 thanks to a one-time retirement year windfall of $270,000. And in California, a former city manager pulls down $500,000 in retirement checks every year.

As outrageous as those sunset stipends may seem, they are merely the most visible piece of what critics of generous government pensions say is a ticking time bomb of debt that is threatening to bankrupt a number of states by the end of the decade.

While the federal debt of $13.7 trillion raises issues of devalued currency, higher borrowing costs for Washington, D.C., and loss of international bargaining power, state debt – much of it driven by exploding pension costs – poses a more immediate risk to the U.S. economy, according to many experts.

Wall Street analyst Meredith Whitney correctly predicted the need for a government bailout of banks three years ago, so people listened in September when she forecast who will be next to beg for a federal bailout: States like California, New Jersey and Ohio. State and local governments have effectively run up huge credit card bills, and soon won’t even be able to make the minimum payments on that debt. What happens then? Middle America, Whitney predicted in a report called “Tragedy of the Commons,” might revolt at the idea at bailing out coastal states for years of mismanagement and overspending.

Crushing debts racked up by these and other states are obvious almost every budget year, when state government shutdowns are threatened and tax increases loom. But annual budget woes are a drop in the bucket compared to long-term obligations facing these states – particularly their promises to supply pensions and health care to millions of retired workers. Pension talk might not sound sexy, but it should: U.S. states already are short $1 trillion they should have set aside to pay retired workers, according to the Pew Center on the States. That hole could very well drive states to bankruptcy or federal bailout.

As documented in our continuing series on supersized government worker pay, granting supersized pensions seems irresponsible in light of this looming fiscal catastrophe. Yet, in California alone, nearly 10,000 retirees will get pension checks totaling at least $100,000 this year.

The economic struggles of the past decade lit the fuse for the pension fund time bomb. In 2000, half of the 50 states had enough money socked away to cover future pension costs, according to Pew. By 2008, only four states -- Florida, New York, Washington and Wisconsin -- could make that claim. The other 46 are potentially on the road to insolvency.

Rauh_josh Joshua Rauh

Joshua Rauh, associate professor of finance at at Northwestern University, estimates that 20 states will run out of pension money by 2025.

The pension doomsday clocks in Illinois and New Jersey will strike even sooner, in 2018, he said.

What happens then? In New Jersey, for example, the state is obligated to pay pensions out of the general fund when the pension fund runs dry. In 2018, the state will owe $14 billion in pension payouts, or one-third of the state's annual tax receipts. To put that in perspective, to plug a budget hole like that this year, the state would have to cut all education spending. That bears repeating: It would have to eliminate spending on every elementary school, high school and college from its budget.

That's why stories of $195,000 pensions, rampant double-dipping, workers collecting pensions on seven, eight or even nine government jobs, and other excesses seem so absurd.

And pension gamesmanship is routine around the country. For example, pension payments are often based on the employee’s salary in the final year on the job, or final three years. That formula is easily abused, a process sometimes called “back-ending.” A pension commission in New Jersey found one worker spent 24 years in public service earning less than $10,000, then one year as a prosecutor earning $141,000. That boosted his pension from $3,600 to $70,000 annually. The employee wasn't named.

“There's probably as many variations as you can imagine,” said Jack Dean, who runs the PensionTsunami.com website. “Just when I think that I've heard something amazing, I'll hear something more amazing. It goes on everywhere across the country. It’s human nature; if you can figure out a way to inflate your pension, you are going to do it. … People who make a career of it are making out like bandits.”

Another common pension abuse is “double-dipping” – a practice in which employees retire and start collecting their pension, then are rehired to perform their old job at their old salary. It’s a common practice for government workers around the country, despite many rules forbidding it. Workers often argue that they have earned their pension and their right to retire, and if they decide to work during retirement, they're entitled. But the logic there is deeply flawed, said Dean.

"Pensions were designed to make sure government workers were allowed to grow old with dignity, not to make them rich," he said.

The outrage, and the actuarial problem
In this series on super-sized government pay, we’ve already met Phoenix police chief/public safety manager Jack Harris, who’s become the nation’s poster child for “double-dipping.” He retired as chief in 2007 and began collecting a $90,000 pension. Two weeks later, he was hired for essentially the same job, retitled “public safety manager,” and granted a salary of $193,000. Harris attracted nationwide attention after a lawsuit was filed by conservative interest group Judicial Watch. The lawsuit claims the public safety manager’s job was manufactured expressly to circumvent both pension rules and a state law aimed at curbing the practice.

Peter Tom is a municipal compensation specialist who’s worked in New Jersey’s complicated government worker environment for three decades. New Jersey even has rules designed to enable double-dippers, he said. Yet, he’s seen all manner of pension-stuffing through the years.

“This would not be allowed in the private sector because pension committees are third party administrators who have fiduciary responsibilities,” Tom said.

While the outrage factor on six-figure pensions and lucrative loopholes is high, Tom also points to a more practical, actuarial problem: Pension recipients aren’t paying their fair share, creating unfunded liabilities. For example, he said, a worker who pays 5 percent of a $10,000 salary into the system for 24 years, then 5 percent of a $140,000 salary for one year, doesn’t cover the costs of a $70,000 pension.

"These loopholes create unfunded liabilities that have helped damage the pension pool.”," he said. "Pensioners are never asked to make up the difference.”

A Ponzi scheme?
In truth, pension systems rely on what might be considered an accounting trick, not unlike the trick which keeps the Social Security system afloat for now. While state workers contribute payments to the system – typically about 5 percent of their salary -- and those payments are matched by government employers -- about 10 percent -- those payments scarcely cover the eventual payouts.

“You can never pay enough to pay for your retirement,” Tom said.

In fact, "defined benefit" pension plans make no direct connection between the worker's contributions and the benefits enjoyed later. Pension systems hope for large investment gains during a worker's career – in many states the calculations project an annual return of around 8 percent, a fantasy -- but really rely on the payments of current workers to fund payouts to retired workers.

Just as pensions are a bit of an accounting trick (or a Ponzi scheme, some might argue), pension obligations do not appear on state balance sheets as debts. If they did – if states actually had to write down what they owe retirees going forward, and assume a modest return on investments -- the unfunded portion of the payments could be as high as $4.3 trillion, said Rauh, the Northwestern professor. That’s nearly a third of the federal debt, which currently stands at $13.7 trillion. The federal government’s massive debt steals headlines, vaults politicians to office and has its own Times Square clock, but at least Washington, D.C., can print money. Meanwhile, states are staring at a black mammoth black hole with seemingly no way to dig out.

While the contribution formulas have systematic flaws, their shortcomings are severely exacerbated by another simple math problem – life expectancy has jumped almost 10 years since 1960.

“Unions managed to lower or reduce the retirement age while increasing benefits in a period of history where people are living longer,” said Dean, the PensionTsunami.com webmaster. “So you begin seeing what the problem is.”

Dean’s website maintains a $100,000 club roster, listing pensioners who enjoy six-figure annual payouts. But life expectancy is forcing him to consider new list: the $1 million club, for retirees who will collect seven-figure pensions during their lifetime.

”We have a police chief who will pull in $5 million in California (before he dies),” he said.

Defined contribution to the rescue?
Most pension reformers are calling for state governments to switch to a defined contribution system, similar to 401(k) plans many workers have. That would mean workers would only get what they put into the system -- combined with any employer cash contributions and supplemented by investment gains -- when they retire.

But while that is fiscally responsible from the government's point of view, a defined contribution plan is a meager replacement for a defined benefit plan. That’s why unions are putting up quite a fight against pension reform.

Here's a simple rule-of-thumb comparison.

A 30-year government worker with a final salary of $80,000 could expect an annual pension of roughly $55,000, or about $4,600 per month for life, under the current scheme.

To earn that kind of guaranteed monthly income, a 401(k) saver would need $1 million in their retirement account, assuming $100,000 in savings can generate $400 in monthly income.

While it's not impossible to grow a 401(k) to those lofty levels, it is rare. In fact, 50 percent of Americans who have 401(k) accounts have less than $35,000 in them. Contrast that with our 30-year government workers who can all expect predictable pension checks.

So expect a furious battle as state governments attempt to reign in pension costs.

It’s about power
But in the end, pensions are about power. Elected officials from local and state governments maintain power by doling out favors and perks, and there is no perk like a pension.

Next week, Tom will be our guide as we delve more deeply into particularly egregious forms of pension loopholes, such as a county sheriff who retired in 1999 but still holds his six-figure-salaried office, the judge with 11 state jobs and the convicted mayor with the $125,000 pension and multiple other sources of state income.

We’ll also find out just how emotional the tale of government pensions can be, as we meet a New Jersey sheriff who stormed a college classroom and forced a professor to apologize for calling him a double dipper in class.

“This problem is really the result of years of the public just not paying close attention, especially over the last decade,” said Dean, of PensionTsunami.com. “So now, this is a story that is going to keep on going and going.”
Click to expand...

rockbox · Nov 12, 2010

Here's another article about the half trillion dollar shortfall in just teacher pensions.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20101112/us_time/08599203070800

Teacher Pensions: $500 Billion Shortfall and Growing
Time.com

HERHAM Andrew J. Rotherham – Fri Nov 12, 3:00 am ET

Teacher pensions may not sound like a sexy or even high-profile issue, but keep reading: they're threatening the fiscal health of many states and could cost you - yes, you - thousands of dollars. And like the savings-and-loan crisis at the end of 1980s or the current housing-market mess, insiders see big trouble ahead in the next few years and are starting to sound warnings.

Today there is an almost $500 billion shortfall for funding teacher pensions, and that gap is growing. Why should you care? Because ultimately taxpayers are on the hook for that money. But the problem doesn't just end there. The way teacher pensions operate is badly suited to today's teacher workforce, where 30-year careers are no longer the norm. The current setup penalizes teachers who move between states, switch to private or public-charter schools that do not participate in the pension system or leave teaching altogether. Meanwhile, it becomes financial suicide for teachers to change careers after a certain point even if they no longer want to teach or are not good at it. (See 10 smarter ways to reach your retirement goals.)

But first, let's talk about the money. Teacher pensions are part of a larger set of benefits that states and cities offer public employees, including health care and pension programs for cops, garbage men and other public employees. The Pew Center on the States puts the total shortfall for these benefits at $1 trillion. You read that right: trillion with a t. Obviously, these are important benefits to offer, but the costs are out of hand.

Although three states (New York, Florida and Washington) are currently enjoying funding surpluses for their teacher pensions, the rest have unfunded liabilities, meaning less money on hand than obligations. In New Jersey, Illinois and Connecticut, for example, these unfunded liabilities - that are just for teacher pensions - amount to more than $3,000 per state resident. Many experts see a state or city default as a real possibility in the next few years. (See what makes a school great.)

It would be easy to blame these shortfalls on the recent upheaval on Wall Street amid the Great Recession. But in practice, the liabilities stem from lousy incentives and bad decisions by state officials. In Pennsylvania, for instance, a 2002 surplus inspired state policymakers to increase benefits for teachers while decreasing the state's contribution to the pension fund. It was a move that made sense politically but was horrendous fiscally - Pennsylvania's $7 billion surplus by this year had turned into a $10 billion deficit.

Keep in mind that these pension systems are binding contracts, so in practice this means that as more teachers retire, state taxpayers will have to make up the difference through higher taxes, fewer services or both. And unlike Social Security, which relies on a nationwide base of people paying into the system, states and cities aren't propped up by an endless supply of new teachers; in places where enrollment is declining, fewer and fewer workers are being brought into the system. And unlike private-sector companies, state and cities can't go out of business, but that doesn't mean they can perpetually run enormous deficits either - particularly if newly elected GOP governors and Republican-majority statehouses are serious about imposing fiscal discipline. (See the five big questions about retirement.)

Perverse incentives abound. Under traditional pensions, teachers and their state or city pay into a retirement fund that doles out a fixed amount to teachers when they retire. But only teachers who taught for 25 or 30 years reap the full benefits. (And since in some states these long-time teachers can be paid as much each year as they were making in their last few years of teaching, boomers who retire in their 50s or 60s and live for 30 more years can end up earning more from their pension than they did cumulatively during their three decades in the classroom.) Everyone else gets less, often much less than they would receive if the money were simply invested in a mutual fund. In other words, the system creates a small number of big winners at the expense of many losers.

There's also the sneaky little practice of cost shifting. In many states, for example, a school district can raise the salaries of teachers in their golden years knowing that the state, not local taxpayers, will bear the cost for the remainder of the teachers' lives after they retire. In some states, teachers can also "retire" and start collecting benefits but return to the same jobs, leaving taxpayers to pay extra for the same teachers.

Yes, a lot of insanity has been built into the current system, but we don't have to keep doing things the way we've been doing them. And the choice is not between anemic benefits for teachers or sticking with the status quo. States can structure sustainable retirement systems that are aligned with the goal of attracting great teachers. (Comment on this story.)

How to do that? For starters, as my colleague Chad Aldeman and I urged in a paper published in August, policymakers need to update the 20th century pension schemes for today's more mobile workforce; 401(k)-style plans are not the only option, but genuine portability is essential. Benefits must be spread more evenly across a teacher's career, not just concentrated in the last few years. Reforms should lead us to a system in which new teachers are not financing the retirement of veterans, but rather saving for their own retirement - and they should be able take their savings with them if they change jobs. Meanwhile, states and cities should be required to make realistic assumptions about how much their pension funds will earn on Wall Street and to budget accordingly. (Read "Why It's Time to Retire the 401(k)")

Reforms could also shine a light on teacher behavior and pensions. Economists Robert Costrell and Michael Podgursky, two of the leading researchers on teacher pensions, point out that despite the development of sophisticated state databases for K-12 education, these are still in no way linked to data about teacher retirements. Even the most basic descriptive data, like what kind of teachers are retiring, are not collected because states too often allow pension systems to run as quasi-independent fiefdoms. If policymakers had access to data on the effectiveness of teachers who are retiring, policy changes could be implemented to try to influence their choices.

In most places, however, it is legally difficult, sometimes impossible, to change the pension systems, so these problems will take a while to unwind. As you'd expect, pension-fund managers and teachers' unions are not too keen on the idea of reform. State pension officials won't share data with researchers who are calling for reform, let alone invite them to meetings. Unions, meanwhile, see traditional pensions as an inviolable right and worry that any reform will shortchange teachers. They are right to worry, but the current system is not sustainable, so the best way to protect teachers and retirees is to come to the table and help fix the problems.

It all sounds wonky, sure, but so did subprime mortgages when they first started popping up in news stories. And this time, the experts have been very clear that absent major reform, this shoe is going to drop. Don't say you weren't warned.
Click to expand...

FranchiseBlade · Nov 12, 2010

We need to do whatever it takes to pay these pensions.

It's wrong to promise somebody something as part of their compensation for hard work, and then yank it out from underneath them when times are tight.

thumbs · Nov 12, 2010

FranchiseBlade said:

We need to do whatever it takes to pay these pensions. It's wrong to promise somebody something as part of their compensation for hard work, and then yank it out from underneath them when times are tight.
Click to expand...

Agree. A contract is a contract. The same holds true for eminent domain when the redistribution is not for a road or bridge but as a reward to a commercial enterprise that contributes a greater tax revenue.

If we change the laws regarding pensions, social security, double dipping, etc., then we have to make the changes effective far enough into the future that no current contracts (social security is a contract of sorts) are affected.

rockbox · Nov 12, 2010

Who is going to pay them when the pension funds run out of money. The government(tax payers)? Is the government responsible for every bad contract written?

rrj_gamz · Nov 12, 2010

^Exactly, that's what's wrong with this...touch tiddies that the pension isn't there...that's like saying I expect to have Social Security as my main way of surviving when I grow old...BS, I have to save and take it upon myself...

thumbs said:

Agree. A contract is a contract. The same holds true for eminent domain when the redistribution is not for a road or bridge but as a reward to a commercial enterprise that contributes a greater tax revenue.

If we change the laws regarding pensions, social security, double dipping, etc., then we have to make the changes effective far enough into the future that no current contracts (social security is a contract of sorts) are affected.
Click to expand...

Companies do this all the time...although a company may "grandfather" some long tenured employees as it is a contract, but the newer ones have to fend for themselves via 401K...but this is a HUGE liability and should be done away with...

I've only worked at one company in my careeer that had one, my previous one and they were just about to do away with pensions...they have a huge amount of debt with older assets...i always wondered why there was so much debt, but this makes sense now...govt. jobs are grazy trains...

Great read...

glynch · Nov 12, 2010

OMG half a trillion!!!!!!!! The fate of the nation and perhaps all Western Civ is doomed. What we spend in Iraq/Afghanistn in about a year. About 25$% of the potential tax revenue we transferred to the mainly top 2% with the Bush tax cuts. Less than the $700 billion the GOP is fighting so hard to keep giving back to the top 2% in the next ten years.

Why is it always such a supposded emergency requiring give backs when the money is to go to ordinary working folks.

Rockbox, another elitist or another ordinary guy duped by the right wing media. Oh well.

rockbox · Nov 12, 2010

glynch said:

OMG half a trillion!!!!!!!! The fate of the nation and perhaps all Western Civ is doomed. What we spend in Iraq/Afghanistn in about a year. About 25$% of the potential tax revenue we transferred to the mainly top 2% with the Bush tax cuts. Less than the $700 billion the GOP is fighting so hard to keep giving back to the top 2% in the next ten years.

Why is it always such a supposded emergency requiring give backs when the money is to go to ordinary working folks.

Rockbox, another elitist or another ordinary guy duped by the right wing media. Oh well.
Click to expand...

Half a trillion is just the underfunded portion of teachers alone. The total underfunded for the states are estimated to be as much as 4.3 trillion dollars and growing.

rockbox · Nov 12, 2010

glynch said:

Rockbox, another elitist or another ordinary guy duped by the right wing media. Oh well.
Click to expand...

I guess if being able to do basic math and accounting makes me an elitist, then so be it.

Invisible Fan · Nov 12, 2010

rrj_gamz said:

.i always wondered why there was so much debt, but this makes sense now...govt. jobs are grazy trains...
Click to expand...

I think it should be renegotiated but let's get things straight here...

Civil servants agreed to less money on the private marketplace for their skills because of these promises.

They weren't seen as gravy trains until we lost 7 million jobs and the credit bubble burst. It just highlighted the situation that middle class income hasn't grown in the last 12 years to match the spending we made in the 2000s.

Major · Nov 12, 2010

rockbox said:

I guess if being able to do basic math and accounting makes me an elitist, then so be it.
Click to expand...

It's funny to see the extreme left now try to adopt the same basic tactics of the far right (accusing people of elitism, etc).

The simple fact is that any pension plan that is a defined benefit plan is destined to fail because they use unrealistic income projections to make them work. As you said, basic math tells us this. Anyone that wants to deny this and just pretend they are sound is basically no different than the tea partiers who have no rational basis for their positions.

glynch · Nov 12, 2010

rockbox said:

I guess if being able to do basic math and accounting makes me an elitist, then so be it.
Click to expand...

Non responsive. No need to even do basic math. Why is it more important to give .7 trillion to the upper 2% in the next 10 years per the continuation of the tax break to the top 2% than to fund the pensions millions of folks have been promised for all their working lives.

pwned.

bobrek · Nov 12, 2010

glynch said:

Non responsive. No need to even do basic math. Why is it more important to give .7 trillion to the upper 2% in the next 10 years per the continuation of the tax break to the top 2% than to fund the pensions millions of folks have been promised for all their working lives.

pwned.
Click to expand...

Why should the government be responsible for funding pensions for private companies?

juicystream · Nov 12, 2010

Invisible Fan said:

I think it should be renegotiated but let's get things straight here...

Civil servants agreed to less money on the private marketplace for their skills because of these promises.

They weren't seen as gravy trains until we lost 7 million jobs and the credit bubble burst. It just highlighted the situation that middle class income hasn't grown in the last 12 years to match the spending we made in the 2000s.
Click to expand...

Civil servants often don't take less money. My mother keeps trying to get me to take a base job. They pay a higher wage, with better insurance, a retirement plan(which I'll have next year, so no longer a difference), and they will pay for my masters degree.

It really depends on what you do and where you are.

Major · Nov 12, 2010

glynch said:

Non responsive. No need to even do basic math. Why is it more important to give .7 trillion to the upper 2% in the next 10 years per the continuation of the tax break to the top 2% than to fund the pensions millions of folks have been promised for all their working lives.
Click to expand...

This is a nonsequitor. The pensions are mostly owed by state and local governments. Federal tax rates have little or nothing to do with what states and local governments can afford.

Math is important. If you promise me an 8% return while you're not capable of generating that, then you have a problem to deal with. If you pretend you don't have a problem to deal with, then you're simply lying to yourself.

GladiatoRowdy · Nov 12, 2010

juicystream said:

Civil servants often don't take less money. My mother keeps trying to get me to take a base job. They pay a higher wage, with better insurance, a retirement plan(which I'll have next year, so no longer a difference), and they will pay for my masters degree.

It really depends on what you do and where you are.
Click to expand...

I took a 50% pay cut moving from the private sector to a state job.

juicystream · Nov 12, 2010

GladiatoRowdy said:

I took a 50% pay cut moving from the private sector to a state job.
Click to expand...

Like I said. It depends on what you do and where you are. And of course the other factors of job security and workload have to be taken into account.

FranchiseBlade · Nov 12, 2010

rrj_gamz said:

^Exactly, that's what's wrong with this...touch tiddies that the pension isn't there...that's like saying I expect to have Social Security as my main way of surviving when I grow old...BS, I have to save and take it upon myself...

Companies do this all the time...although a company may "grandfather" some long tenured employees as it is a contract, but the newer ones have to fend for themselves via 401K...but this is a HUGE liability and should be done away with...

I've only worked at one company in my careeer that had one, my previous one and they were just about to do away with pensions...they have a huge amount of debt with older assets...i always wondered why there was so much debt, but this makes sense now...govt. jobs are grazy trains...

Great read...
Click to expand...

It isn't about saving or not saving, especially in the case of teachers. Many of these people accepted pay that was less than what their services were worth based on the fact that they would have a good retirement plan. It's about giving what you owe.

I find it hard to believe that people think it's OK to pay someone less than what they deserve based on future compensation, and then just take away that future compensation.

It isn't the workers fault if someone else doesn't live up to their agreement. The fault lies entirely with the people who break the agreement.

Carl Herrera · Nov 12, 2010

thumbs said:

Agree. A contract is a contract.
Click to expand...

Contracts are broken all the time. It's only a promise.

Invisible Fan said:

I think it should be renegotiated but let's get things straight here...

Civil servants agreed to less money on the private marketplace for their skills because of these promises.

They weren't seen as gravy trains until we lost 7 million jobs and the credit bubble burst. It just highlighted the situation that middle class income hasn't grown in the last 12 years to match the spending we made in the 2000s.
Click to expand...

That's the problem when you agree to defer receiving payments. The promise is only as good as the promisor's solvency.

FranchiseBlade · Nov 12, 2010

Carl Herrera said:

Contracts are broken all the time. It's only a promise.
Click to expand...

It isn't ok to break a contract or a promise.

Forums

Pensions are going to destroy this country

rockbox Around before clutchcity.com

rockbox Around before clutchcity.com

FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
Supporting Member

thumbs Contributing Member

rockbox Around before clutchcity.com

rrj_gamz Contributing Member

glynch Contributing Member

rockbox Around before clutchcity.com

rockbox Around before clutchcity.com

Invisible Fan Contributing Member

Major Member

glynch Contributing Member

bobrek Politics belong in the D & D

juicystream Contributing Member

Major Member

GladiatoRowdy Contributing Member

juicystream Contributing Member

FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
Supporting Member

Carl Herrera Contributing Member

FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
Supporting Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

Pensions are going to destroy this country

rockbox Around before clutchcity.com

rockbox Around before clutchcity.com

FranchiseBlade Contributing Member Supporting Member

thumbs Contributing Member

rockbox Around before clutchcity.com

rrj_gamz Contributing Member

glynch Contributing Member

rockbox Around before clutchcity.com

rockbox Around before clutchcity.com

Invisible Fan Contributing Member

Major Member

glynch Contributing Member

bobrek Politics belong in the D & D

juicystream Contributing Member

Major Member

GladiatoRowdy Contributing Member

juicystream Contributing Member

FranchiseBlade Contributing Member Supporting Member

Carl Herrera Contributing Member

FranchiseBlade Contributing Member Supporting Member

Share This Page

FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
Supporting Member

FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
Supporting Member

FranchiseBlade Contributing Member
Supporting Member