« Why Most Published Research Findings are False | Main | Opportunity Cost »
A short recent history of FEMA
Courtesy of Kevin Drum, read the whole thing. Hindsight is easy, but what should FEMA be doing?
My view is the following. Many levees are genuine public goods, and should receive government support, from the federal government (e.g., Army Corp; here is a brief history of their involvement) if need be although perhaps not ideally. FEMA should not be in the business of flood insurance, nor should FEMA reimburse local governments for snow plowing. Here is a Cato critique of FEMA. Here is a libertarian article on why a limited governmental response to the Chicago fire was best. Here is another libertarian critique. Here is an AEI article that FEMA invests too much in earthquake safety. Here is an argument that FEMA should not have been made part of the Department of Homeland Security.
Here is a recent piece on cuts to levee subsidies; the news will hurt the Republicans. Here is a short piece on how revenue from airport privatization could have been used to shore up New Orleans levees.
Libertarian readers, do you care to argue the levee should not have been subsidized? Do you favor real privatization, not as a Port Authority or Federal Reserve may be private, but in the true market sense? (Here is a short history of the Louisiana levee authorities; their status has evolved over time.) If you take that position, you have a few alternatives:
1. We rely too much on unreliable levees, and privatization/non-subsidization would reveal their true social costs and induce people to move elsewhere.
2. A privatized, non-subsidized levee would engage in a successful long-term contract with city residents; see the Demsetz-Williamson debate. The government still would have to force residents to make the relevant tax payments, for free rider reasons.
3. A levee contract could be written without use of coercive taxation; see this piece on assurance contracts.
4. A private levee authority would invest in water safety out of fear of being sued. Furthermore these ex post legal incentives would be reliable and would not involve more government intervention than ex ante regulatory incentives.
5. A private levee authority would be forced by its insurance company to build good protection and also hold huge capital reserves. Their cost of capital and costs of production would remain lower than the government's. You can hold this position in conjunction with #3, or believe that coercive taxation would remain necessary. But in any case it probably requires reliance on #4.
I am not willing to defend any of these five positions, but what do you say readers? The current government system, obviously, does not have a sterling record. Comments are open.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on September 2, 2005 at 07:14 AM in Political Science | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/3576/3105835
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A short recent history of FEMA:
» MR on FEMA from Hatful of Hollow
Good stuff (as usual) over at marginal revolution. One post provides several links and provocative questions about FEMA, flood insurance, and the question of privatization of levees. I tend to not favor privatization of levees for textbook reasons - th... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 2, 2005 9:36:04 AM
» MR on FEMA from Hatful of Hollow
Good stuff (as usual) over at marginal revolution. One post provides several links and provocative questions about FEMA, flood insurance, and the question of privatization of levees. I tend to not favor privatization of levees for textbook reasons - th... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 2, 2005 10:12:13 AM
» Flood defence and the market from Samizdata.net
Tyler Cowen over at his Marginal Revolution blog lists out a load of articles about the case for privatising stuff like flood defence, and critiques of U.S. Federal efforts in that direction. He personally believes that flood defence, spectacularly bre... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 2, 2005 1:36:07 PM
» Outsourcing Disaster Relief from ProfessorBainbridge.com
I was a little hesitant to post these ideas, since I think trying to make political hay out of a natrual disaster is in bad taste, but (a) since everybody else is doing it and (b) we eventually do need [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 2, 2005 6:08:59 PM
» New Orleans Roundup from Emergent Chaos
There's a lot of amazing things being written out there. One of the more fascinating would be Interdictor's LiveJournal. He's keeping a New Orleans ISP running, and blogging as he and his co-workers do. He asks that we link... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 2, 2005 7:07:08 PM
» Our Tax Dollars At Work from The Cargo Cult of Business
Brief visitation of the hurricane Katrina disaster in terms of governmental incompetence, chiefly in terms of why commenting on the cargo cult of governance is an excercise in redundancy... and futility... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 5, 2005 6:14:07 PM
» FEMA FOLLIES from Michelle Malkin
John Stossel of ABC News appeared on The O'Reilly Factor this evening in an excellent segment on the idiotic incentives that FEMA and the National Flood Insurance Program create for wealthy people to build in high-risk areas. Stossel knows about... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 8, 2005 10:28:25 PM
Comments
Hmm
#6, The levees should never have been built in the first place, this is a nanny state solution. A rational solution would be to have the residents move from the area, they could be spending their money on more productive activities than holding the sea back.
(I don't actually agree with this position, just that it might be considered a valid position)
Posted by: Factory at Sep 2, 2005 8:39:07 AM
Levees may be public goods, but they are odd as public goods go. First, they are basically unitary, since half a levee is no good and two levees no better than one. Second, they are proportionally dirt cheap public goods at the optimal quantity. $250 million to raise the levees is pennies on the insurance dollar.
You gain no additional benefit building more levees, and maintaining or raising existing ones is cheap, so the argument that as a public good they will be undersupplied doesn't weigh heavily. Nor, since levees are not consumable, is it entirely clear how the argument that a public good will be overconsumed can apply.
Perhaps the big question here should be, "why didn't insurance companies pay to raise the levees?" It would seem, from a high-level view, to have been their optimal strategy. Offhand, I can imagine arguments sketched along the lines of, (a) stupidity, (b) holdout behaviour, (c) it wouldn't actually have been optimal, (d) governmental issues.
Any experts out there want to guess at this?
Posted by: Grant Gould at Sep 2, 2005 9:03:38 AM
Factory,
Would you give more consideration to #6 in light of the ability of terrorists to bomb the walls of the levee? I wonder if the levees in the Netherlands are heavily guarded, considering that one-quarter of the country is below sea level. Does it still make sense to put large populations in proximity to disaster given the risk posed by humans in addition to hurricanes?
Brandon
Posted by: brandon at Sep 2, 2005 9:28:30 AM
"Why didn't insurance companies pay to raise the levees?" This prompted a thought that is similar -- Why didn't the governnment pay to raise levees? Assume that the cost of raising the levees to withstand a category 4 hurrican is $3 billion dollars in 2005 terms. Assume that the cost to the insurance industry is $25 billion in today's dollars. Assume that in addition to the $25 billion that will cost the industry, it will cost another $20 billion to the Federal government for clean up, national guard deployment, and other emergency costs. Further assume that the probability of a Category 4 hurricane reaching the Gulf coast is 1 in 100 years? Is doing nothing a rational response given these numbers?
Posted by: bc at Sep 2, 2005 9:32:00 AM
Levees are a natural monopoly, non-excludable and non-depleting. How could you argue that they're not a public good? That's the very definition of the term!
Posted by: KipEsquire at Sep 2, 2005 9:56:25 AM
I think option 6 above needs some tweeking, but is basically correct. At one point, people thought building the levees was a good idea that they were willing to pay for, but levees have continuing costs that (in my experience) are never really accounted for in the initial cost/value equations. Plus, as the city grows, the cost of expanding and maintaining the levees grows, but the political value of maintaining them is reduced. They become a huge opportunity cost, so levee maintainence funding is pushed aside for projects with higher short term payback.
As to the insurance companies paying to maintain the levees, several problems. First, it's probably illegal (could be viewed as improper privitization). Second, the insurance companies know there is little chance that the work would be done properly (or at all) if they funded the local government to do the work. Third, they can use the levee risk as a reason to raise rates and if there is a catastrophe, they might get relief from the federal government in the form of emergency loans and aid to their customers, lowering their total payout.
Here's an interesting question, what if New Orleans had decided to spend all the money they put into the Superdome on levees, locks, and flood mitigation? Do you think that the mayor would have been re-elected? Even now, do you think a mayor of a big city that could be devestated by a natural disaster will be able to push huge spending programs for a disaster that might or might not happen? I'll answer the second question with an anecdote. They recently had a huge kerfuffle in Washington DC over a new baseball stadium, however, you can't get anyone interested in spending local money to mitigate the outcome of a terrorist attack (or even a natural disaster).
Posted by: Jimmitude at Sep 2, 2005 10:07:23 AM
I favor option 1. The reason is that privatization of flood control would incentivize generation of the most cost effective solution to flooding and storm problems. New Orleans exists because it is the ideal site for transshipment of goods from the inland transportation sytem to oceangoing vessels and because of its proximity to oil producing offshore areas. I think that a possible alternative to construction of levees could be the construction of a city that is built above the water on stilts similar to the structure of oil rigs except on a larger scale. I think this is technologically feasible now, and if the businesses that benefit from operating in NO were required to cover the costs of this they would pass on those costs to the markets through price changes and thus said costs would be distributed more efficiently than through government based subsidies.
New Orleans would come to resemble Manhattan in that the city would grow vertically rather than horizontally.
Posted by: Scott Peterson at Sep 2, 2005 10:51:33 AM
A levee is not really unitary, because you can build the walls to various heights and thicknesses, to withstand likely stress levels. It's also not really all that cheap to maintain - as I understand it, much of the money that has been spent was for the purpose of shoring up the existing walls, rather than extending height/thickness.
A levee is excludable, although the cost is high - build a wall around the entire area that you want to protect, rather than just on the riverside. I'll agree that the cost would be high enough that it would not be rational, but it is possible.
How much money should come from the federal level, as opposed to the city or state, is another question. Certainly the cost to the nation is high (as we are finding out), but I would argue that the relative cost of the disaster to the state/city are such that they probably should have been more on the ball WRT to the levee project. There's been much made of the cutbacks in federal funding - if the danger was obvious, then why wasn't this shortfall made good at a more local level?
Posted by: Mark at Sep 2, 2005 11:00:50 AM
"New Orleans exists because it is the ideal site for transshipment of goods from the inland transportation sytem to oceangoing vessels and because of its proximity to oil producing offshore areas."
If this is important, is it affected by the fact that it remains in this desirable position only as a result of lots of upstream "engineering" of the river? The Mississippi would like to change course above Baton Rouge and flow down the Atchafalaya, entering the Gulf a hundred miles or so to the west. Who should be paying the Corps of Engineers bill for maintaining the river in its current course?
Posted by: Michael Cain at Sep 2, 2005 11:38:26 AM
1. New Orleans grew where it did not just because it linked internal/ocean transport & was close to offshore oil production -- but also because some of the _key costs_ of building in its situation could not be known & transmitted to people. Flood control became a bureaucratic activity -- therefore once levee-building got locked in, it became bureaucratically-impossible to do other things that were necessary & more effective. Thus over time, levees actually added to the problem. Levees were paid for out of a tax pool collected from a varying range of taxpayers. Thus the actual costs could not be known & acted upon. Insurance companies had to assume levees were safe; furthermore, flood insurance costs were also taken over by bureaucratic entities.
2. Hayek recommended long ago that municipal govts should be replaced by superlandlords. Such a company would _have_ to take flood risks into account. Therefore it _could_ not have contd mechanically building more & higher levies -- it would've _had_ to use a range of measures. It might well have found it cheaper to move the city to safer ground -- _before_ the city grew so large; & maybe even build large waterways to bring the port inland.
Posted by: Sudha Shenoy at Sep 2, 2005 11:40:53 AM
This is a role for government (that is, to protect the natural and man made levees, or to relocate if such protection is too costly).
That the government failed doesn't necessarily mean we need to go to the free market. It just means we had bad laws in place. The problems with relying on the government is that if your laws aren't good enough you need to then rely on personal heroics. That's a problem, because you won't always get the personal heroics, despite the high degree of acumen required to become an elected official.
This current government was more interested in tax cutting and starting war than it was in dotting all of its i's and crossing all of its t's. It's been a time when personal heroics (for example, read Richard Clarke's book and how Clinton and Gore always went the extra mile) are down and government incompetence is up. Perhaps this miserable failure is ultimately a good thing, because we well get better laws in place, so that it won't matter so drastically who is in office.
Number 4 is interesting because it shows the role our tort system plays in the free market. Those looking to weaken our tort system, however flawed it might be, fail to recognize this role and thus threaten to make us all poorer.
Posted by: Macneil at Sep 2, 2005 11:53:13 AM
Levees are unitary, at least in quantity, if not quality. Yes, differing quality affects how well the levees will hold up, but quality doesn't matter much unless you have a complete levee system around the city. For a bowl of a city like New Orleans, having a partial levee system is like having a square jail with three walls.
My solution would be related, in a way, to number six. Have the local government, and only the local government, pay for the construction and maintainance of the levees. That way, only the people who use them pay for them. If you don't want to pay the extra taxes, you don't have to live in New Orleans. There's no excuse, however, for the federal government to be putting up the funds - that's just subsidizing people to live in an inherently disaster-prone place.
Posted by: Nick at Sep 2, 2005 12:28:20 PM
in these speculations there's a tendency to have a fantasy quality about the nature of risk, etc. in principle, the expected cost is probability times danger, so if the cost of a preventive measure is less than the expected cost, the preventive measure will be taken.
but what about when the danger is infinite but the actor's resources are finite? in such a circumstance, any ameliorative action is pointless because once the event happens the actor will be wiped out. for instance, imagine if absent preparation 100% of the city would be destroyed and with preparation only 10% would be destroyed. the costs of that 10% would still be so massive as to bankrupt almost any actor, especially when you imagine a few good trial lawyers getting in on it (think vioxx, asbestos, etc). in such a scenario it's not rational for the super-landlord to make preparations unless the super landlord is truly huge, at which case you're really just talking about the state.
as for the argument that levees are unitary, etc, not quite. you could have a set of back-up levees protecting neighborhoods within the city, you could condemn low ground property for use as a flood plain, etc.
Posted by: Gabriel Rossman at Sep 2, 2005 1:15:20 PM
Here we go again....
1) Water transport is incredibly efficient downriver, and quite good upriver. A substantial portion of the country benefits directly from having low-cost transport through the Mississippi and its large tributaries. While some of the benefit is internal, much relates directly to the port. This is NOT a local issue.
2) While levees make sense in preventing flooding, after time, their primary effect is to maintain a favored channel. This comes at a steadily rising cost, since the base of the river inside a levee can readily become higher than the immediately surrounding area. The only solution is dredging, but dredging pretty much knocks out your anti-undercutting devices.
3) The other big problem with levees is that they prevent the river from feeding the marsh. I can pretty well guaranty that the "25 square mile a day" is a bunch of hooey, but the Mississippi delta IS eroding because of the levees.
The results is the following:
We (the US) have a great finanial incentive to create a port near the mouth of the Mississippi.
Once this port is created, we have a great financial incentive to ensure that the port is maintained.
You cannot keep a river in its banks indefinitely.
I propose letting the Mississippi change course at Baton Rouge. We go ahead & pump out the city enough to let people recover some personal effects, and let it go. We build a new port at the new mouth. (New Orleans 21). In a hundred years, we move the port.
(Let me dream, will you?)
Posted by: Nathan Zook at Sep 2, 2005 2:28:27 PM
bc, one reason it may be rational for government not to raise the levees is that no one in government is an owner of the property in question; at best, they are temporary caretakers.
Assume you have just been elected President and you expect to serve eight years. There is a 12.5% chance the hurricane will strike during your term - and let's be generous and say you estimate a 10% chance that political fallout from government mishandling of the levee situation will result in a signficant negative impact on your political career. Thus in making your decisions, you will discount that negative impact by 1/80.
On the other side of the tradeoff is the amount of spending it takes to upgrade the levee. Even assuming that the marginal alternative spending decision only has a small positive impact on your political career, there is no reason to discount that impact for the probability that it will occur, and there is little reason to discount it out of fear that its political benefit will not accrue directly to your career (a politician successful enough to achieve the Presidency is an expert at choosing spending projects that benefit his career). Therefore that small positive impact of the marginal alternative spending is not significantly discounted - and thus its benefits to you may outweigh the heavily discounted disaster-avoidance spending.
Posted by: Jason Briggeman at Sep 2, 2005 2:35:18 PM
Please correct me if I'm wrong but hasn't the Army Corps of Engineers had responsibility (by statute) for flood control on the Mississippi for many years now? The ACE takes its directions from the Congress and the Chief Executive and receives its funding from the Congress. Not from the city of New Orleans. What the city could have done or should have done is not relevant. The levees are Congress's baby.
Posted by: Dave Schuler at Sep 2, 2005 2:54:29 PM
Isn't our New Orleans problem simply a smaller scale/version of the Netherlands problem? Shouldn't any solution involve an analysis of their Deltaweken solution -- which had a goal ..."to reduce the risk of flooding in Holland to once per 10,000 years."
If their experience is any guide, it seems feasible to successfully design, finance and construct this type of project.
Posted by: kent at Sep 2, 2005 3:04:12 PM
Dave Schuler,
Most levees in Louisiana are funded and maintained by local levee districts, each which is instituted to support a specific levee. Unfortunately, overtime this system has become corrupted and money raised by the districts is diverted to other areas.
I don't think the levees that failed had any Federal involvement at all. The ACE is responsible for primarily for coordination of flood management but they don't construct or maintain everything.
Posted by: Shannon Love at Sep 2, 2005 5:03:16 PM
In the 1800's levees were private projects built by companies established by landowners in the area. Overtime they became government institutions probably because of free-rider problems. Just on principle then, private levee systems could work because they have in the past.
I think the question might be, would a private system maintain the levees more reliably than a government one. It would be easy to see that a levee maintained by the insurance companies that insure the property protected by the levee would work well. Certainly, they would do a better job than corrupt political system which is what Louisiana has now.
Posted by: Shannon Love at Sep 2, 2005 5:14:28 PM
I've commented on the nearly identical post at Prof. Bainbridge's blog, but in brief:
Public goods which aren't strictly governmental functions (courts, jails) should be run by volunteer organizaitons - Think Red Cross or Linux and Apache, not FEMA v.s. ENE.
A public work like a levee should require a supermajority, but could be paid for by a lein on the property (which should increase in value more than the work costs - if it doesn't, it ought not be done or if so important it should have no problem getting near unanimity). Bonds could be sold against the leins, some could pay the leins immediately, or they could simply wait until the property is sold. So it would be fundable, but it wouldn't immediately assess say 25% who didn't want to pay for something, yet they would not have a "heckler's veto".
You cannot avoid corruption. All "privatization" would do would be to have FEMA hand off responsibility to ENE (or equivalent). Even the nonprofit volunteer organization could be corrupted (buy from favored vendors, etc.), so I'm not saying it will fix that, but to the extent government v.s. profit incentives tend to do bad things, a volunteer organization would be best since its incentive would be the task at hand, not the next quarter's profit statement or the next election.
Posted by: tz at Sep 2, 2005 5:46:11 PM
Where are the free markets in all of this? Everyone was expected to devise their own way out of the disaster area by private means, just as the free market dictates, just like people do when disaster hits free-market Third World countries.
It is a beautiful thing this free market in which every individual pursues his or her own personal interests and thereby effects an optimal outcome for the entire society. This is the way the invisible hand works its wonders.
The free market played a role in other ways. Bush's agenda is to cut government services to the bone and make people rely on the private sector for the things they might need. So he sliced $71.2 million from the budget of the New Orleans Corps of Engineers, a 44 percent reduction. Plans to fortify New Orleans levees and upgrade the system of pumping out water had to be shelved.
Posted by: df at Sep 2, 2005 5:53:34 PM
df,
most people DID get out of the city in time by their own means. obviously it's inexcusable that there was no well organized effort to evacuate those without cars. nonetheless, it's not clear that an entirely public evacuation would have been more effective than an entirely private evacuation (which is essentially what happened). this isn't just an i'm rubber, your glue sort of thing, but a realistic scenario -- imagine if this happened in a city like New York where relatively few people own cars. (and no, 9/11 is not comparable, there was no advance warning and the damage was localized to Manhattan south of 14th st. -- and not even the village so much as the battery, which has a relatively low population density).
i also doubt that had a hurricane hit NOLA during the Clinton administration that things would have been any different. and as has been pointed out numerous times on this and other blogs, it's not as if public works projects have ceased. it's just that politicians prefer glamorous new construction to inconspicuous maintenance. just two weeks ago bush signed a huge transportation bill with oodles of public works money, much of it totally unjustifiable on a cost/benefit basis. if you want to blame a politician, blame Congressman Don Young (R-AK) who secured funding for all sorts of pork like the bridge to nowhere. it's not as if this last transportation bill is responsible for the flood, but it is a perfect illustration of how Congress is not interested in either austerity/privatization nor in rational public works, but rather in high profile rent-seeking.
Posted by: Gabriel Rossman at Sep 2, 2005 9:06:34 PM
Levees are more than earthen mounds holding back water- they are the best real estate in town.
Many industries need to be on the water. High end residences are desirable on the water.
So a private solution to this problem is to sell the perimeter of New Orleans to a developer who can then develop the levee real estate, probablly using land leases, in a way that makes sure that each user's leasehold is protected with the positive externality that everything "in the bowl" is then protected. The levees would tend to be very large, because that means more premium real estate- they would extend as far away from the water as the economic benefit of the location would allow.
The users of the premium levee real estate would end up paying very high rents for their premium property. Every levee user has incentive to protect their piece of levee for their own benefit. Everyone else gets the free ride of flood protection.
Posted by: Tom Kelly at Sep 2, 2005 9:19:24 PM
Everything that CAN be effectively provided by the private sector SHOULD be, even if it can qualify as a non-excludable public good. But there may be a reasonable case that levees on the Mississippi cannot be effectively provided by the private sector. I am, if not convinced of this, at least open to serious consideration of the evidence.
On the other hand, there's absolutely no good reason whatsoever that protecting Louisiana from natural disasters is or should be the FEDERAL governmemnt's problem.
Posted by: Matt at Sep 3, 2005 4:06:42 AM
I wouldn't be so sure the funding cuts will hurt Republicans only. From the NYT editorial page, April 13 2005 :
http://query.nytimes.com/search/abstract?res=F3071EFF385A0C708DDDAD0894DD404482
Anyone who cares about responsible budgeting and the health of America's rivers and wetlands should pay attention to a bill now before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The bill would shovel $17 billion at the Army Corps of Engineers for flood control and other water-related projects -- this at a time when President Bush is asking for major cuts in Medicaid and other important domestic programs. Among these projects is a $2.7 billion boondoggle on the Mississippi River that has twice flunked inspection by the National Academy of Sciences.
The Government Accountability Office and other watchdogs accuse the corps of routinely inflating the economic benefits of its projects. And environmentalists blame it for turning free-flowing rivers into lifeless canals and destroying millions of acres of wetlands -- usually in the name of flood control and navigation but mostly to satisfy Congress's appetite for pork.
This is a bad piece of legislation.In other words, this could also bite who value the birds and the grass more than people; we can see what happens when we grant them their delusions to save some dollars.
Posted by: Sylvain Galineau at Sep 3, 2005 8:53:41 AM
Tom Kelly makes an excellent point. In England, real estate with river, lake and canal views command huge premiums. If thousands of high value homes with water views were built on privately owned levees, you can be quite sure that they would be adequately maintained.
Julius
Posted by: Julius at Sep 5, 2005 7:22:17 AM
Re. insurance companies and levee maintainence, this is a non-starter.
Insurance companies have an incentive to reduce risk only after a policy has incepted. However, since most policies only last one year (life insurance is a rare exception), that is the relevant time scale for an insurer. Plainly this is not long enough to justify anything but the most limited anti-flooding measures.
Julius
Posted by: Julius at Sep 5, 2005 7:25:13 AM
In the netherlands during world war II the english planes have destructed the dutch dikes.
They needed an extra large type of bomb. Now the dikes are wider and havier. So there is no thread of terorists. Destroying locks is a better option, but those can be guarded.
Leaving the lower areas in the netherlands is no option. Approximately 50% of the country lies below sea-level. Furthermore, almost all economic activities are concentrated in the lowest regions of the country.
Posted by: r. moddemeijer at Sep 6, 2005 10:32:00 AM
How big is the river in the Netherlands? How much activity in the port? How often to Cat 3+ hurricanes blow through?
I have serious questions about how one might devise locks that could handle the Mississippi, both with respect to commercial traffic, and with respect to water flow.
There is also the desire to preserve the swamp. The implementation of a canal system would pretty well eliminate the swamp. I think this is inevidable--the river is going to change course eventually--but it is a significant political question.
Posted by: Nathan Zook at Sep 6, 2005 4:07:50 PM
Why can't they just level the low lands, put in rail road tracks, bring in dirt, lay on all septic, water, gas, etc. then cover utilities with more dirt to above water line? This gets rid of old utilities and poor street planing.
Posted by: Alfred Janiten at Sep 17, 2005 9:23:19 AM
My friend Susan was a lady with a tender and soft heart. She had a troubled childhood and due to her past experiences she used to suffer from anxiety disorder. Being doctor, I decided to help her in her anxiety attacks, I asked her to buy xanax. This is the most useful drug for treating panic and anxiety disorder, so order xanax or alprazolam. The information for medication is available online; you can type xanax online on the Google bar and search. I asked her to buy xanax online so that she could avail the best deal and get cheap xanax. Thereafter, she has come back to her normal loving self; she is now a mother of one baby boy and a happy wife! Susan is thinking of starting a boutique. Thanks to xanax!!
Posted by: xanax at Nov 4, 2006 5:12:36 AM
Pozycjonowanie stron
Pozycjonowanie www
Pozycjonowanie reklama
Pozycjonowanie oferta
Pozycjonowanie stron internetowych
Pozycjonowanie reklama stron
Pozycjonowanie strony
Posted by: max at Nov 18, 2006 7:33:53 AM
we have a huge selection of Discreet toys. all are discounted sex toys. including bdsm toys, anal toys,
and bondage restraints. Many adult toys, like the butterfly vibrator. We have cool sex game. perfect for
BDSM ToysBDSM Toys
Discount Sex ToysDiscount Sex Toys
bondagebondage
the holidays. There are adult pleasure toys, and just regular adult toy also. Wide selection of bondage
toys, anal stimulation toys, adult toy vibrator,kinky sex toys, and kinky lingerie.
Posted by: Bondage at Jan 31, 2007 4:26:10 PM
cash advance Great blog! I've had a good time reading it. Keep up the good work. It just happens that i love posts just like this one you've just added! debt consolidation loan
Posted by: cash advance at Mar 20, 2007 6:36:42 PM
apply for a credit card - apply for a credit card
apply for master card - apply for master card
credit card offers - credit card offers
bad credit report repair - repair bad credit
apply for credit - apply for credit
Posted by: insurance quotes at Mar 30, 2007 3:38:31 AM
internet portal - internet portal
internet portal - internet portal
internet portal - internet portal
internet portal - internet portal
poker portal - poker portal
Posted by: insurance quotes at Mar 30, 2007 3:40:37 AM
It is a straight fact that women are adequately capable of measuring the sexual attractiveness of a male and as such it is urgently necessary for you to get rid of the shackles of erectile dysfunction with the help of cheap levitra so that you no longer confront your girl with diminished sexuality. You can buy levitra online as well as order levitra from the nearest drug store and secure yourself against the threat of erectile dysfunction. Moreover, if you buy levitra through levitra online, cheap levitra would be delivered at your doorstep. So, what’s stopping you? Buy levitra and get rid of erectile dysfunction!
Posted by: levitra at May 5, 2007 3:05:19 AM
debt consolidation Today student loan debt consolidation is a big debt free issue in the United States. consolidating debt Most students in the US pursue debt consolidation loan further studies through external finance. bad credit debtThe government debt free too pumps in millions of dollars into the economy to finance these studies and provide a congenial environment for proper and high class study to the students. cheap debt consolidationEvery student has a different set of financial requirement. There are several mortgage refinance organizations and student loan best debt consolidation consolidation companies, which provide student debt consolidation. debt consolidation help There are several programs for credit card debt individual needs debt help of the student. The result of all the programs is similar. All the programs work debt consolidation help towards designing debt consolidation online a payment plan suiting your individual needs in which the program will merge all your student loan existing loans into a single consolidate debt sum and reduce your existing interest rate in an effort to bring the repayment debt consolidation help monthly installment to a sum debt consolidation solution which you can pay easily with your existing income.debt plan
Posted by: debt consolidation at Aug 3, 2007 7:09:39 AM
Thanks. Order Levitra online. Best price.
Posted by: lissis at May 24, 2008 11:51:42 AM
