Try though I did to reach out, my Republican members of Congress did not hear the message. All of them voted yes on the reconciliation framework. Following is what I wrote my congresswoman:
Rep. Miller-Meeks, Vote no on the reconciliation bill. During your recent telephone town hall you mentioned the reconciliation bill and ways to offset the tax incentives it creates/extends with savings from Federal government operations. I have studied the matter, and some of the proposed budget cuts, and have more to learn. Based on what I have learned, I urge you to vote no on the reconciliation bill. Providing tax cuts to the well-off in Iowa and in the country at the expense of programs less well-off people depend upon is the wrong direction. In part, your parsing of the Medicaid cuts at the telephone town hall helped me understand the direction, and I thank you for that explanation. Good luck making your decision. I hope you vote no on the final reconciliation bill. Regards, Paul Deaton, resident of the first Congressional District.
Somewhere in Miller-Meeks D.C. office likely rests a tick list on the bill with my email registered as a no.
Because the Republican House is so narrowly divided, they know they have to stick together to get anything done. So far, they are. As the chaos in the federal administration unfolds, there will be pressure on members of congress to do the right thing. Regarding my senators and congresswoman, I won’t take no for an answer, so they will hear from me again during the remainder of this spring and summer. That’s when it counts the most because after that, it’s time for the 2026 midterms.
Here is Congresswoman Miller-Meeks’ response to me email.
Saturday I went to town to view the selection at the public library used book sale. There wasn’t much of one. The perimeter of the room had the usual tables of young adult, romance and adult fiction books with an ample amount available. My interest is usually in the center tables, which this year were only four or five, compared to the usual 10 to 12. My goal was to buy no more than three for a free will donation. I couldn’t find a single one, so I came home.
It shouldn’t be surprising so few books were donated. The bottom line, according to Gallup, is fewer people are reading books in 2025. Reading appears to be in decline as a favorite way for Americans to spend their free time. Less reading, fewer books at the annual sale. Life as it is in Big Grove Township.
I participated in the People’s Union national retail boycott on Friday. The plan for no shopping changed when we received a new prescription at a doctor’s appointment. I bought gasoline, since the car was running on fumes, and made two stops for supplies related to the clinical visit. A lot of people were out on the street in vehicles. Costco had the fewest people inside on a Friday afternoon since I can remember. Not sure any impact will be felt or that demand for goods and services changed. The boycott was something small that people could support. These days, we need stuff like that.
I have a lot to say about the meeting between the presidents of the United States and Ukraine yesterday. Here’s what Ben Rhodes posted yesterday, which reduces it to an easily understandable paragraph: “People need to understand that we are in an entirely new paradigm. It is now Russia (and) the US against Ukraine and Europe. This is not a shift in US policy, it is a transformation of what kind of country the United States is in the world.”
There is widespread support for Ukraine in the United States. It just can’t be found in the oval office.
I read each morning near a window with an eastward view. As I sip my coffee, I notice light in the east when the sun begins to rise. All of a sudden it is dawning before 6:30 a.m. I feel compelled to get out in it and watch for a colorful sky along the state park trail. Longer days mean a hastening pace for the year, a late winter rush until summer solstice. When the days are longer, our lives feel shorter as we must rise and engage with the challenges of a new day, setting aside quotidian things like reading.
Perhaps the most egregious aspect of the new administration is their blind pursuit of tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent of the population. The tax bill/budget passed by the U.S. House last week proposed $4.5 Trillion in tax cuts to be offset by $2 Trillion in cuts to programs Americans depend upon. In other words, the House wants to borrow another $2.5 Trillion to fund tax cuts. The Senate majority seems poised to go along. I don’t know anyone, including my conservative friends, who want the federal government to borrow more money to fund tax cuts.
Think of it like our family budget. As I wrote earlier this month, I re-negotiated how we interface with our internet and television provider. The savings per month worked out to about $120. Should those savings be used to fund other new things, or should they be applied to reduce short term debt? Obviously short term debt should be as close to zero as is possible to make room for emergencies. That’s where the savings should be applied. Assuming household finances are stable, that’s what I will do.
The idea that household finances will remain stable is a bit off. We rely on Social Security and Medicare in retirement. It now appears Team DOGE is planning to fire as much as half the staff at the Social Security Administration. There are two determinants of how things are going at the SSA: how well they manage the trust fund, and whether our monthly pension payments arrive on time. Whether they can manage to create the same service with half the staff is doubtful. If nothing else, the SSA has proven to be well-managed, an example of efficient government operations. In February the payments arrived as they normally had. There is uncertainty over whether that will continue to be the case.
Why is there uncertainty? In case you missed it, in week six, the Trump administration is running an amateur hour on most aspects of its management of our government. My feeling is Trump doesn’t really care for the job and all it entails. He outsourced work he should be doing to Elon Musk in an arbitrary appointment as his “special adviser.” Musk obviously has no clue about how the federal government operates. His statement this week, “We’ll make mistakes, won’t be perfect,” at the initial cabinet meeting was far from reassuring. Exactly the opposite. He expects inexperienced billionaires in the cabinet to go along with the slipshod way he is attempting to manage change in governmental agencies. I have to ask where was Trump during his cabinet meeting?
Since the November election, the ultra rich have come out of hiding to loot the treasury. What do I mean by that? On Thursday, 880 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration employees were fired, and the process of dismantling the agency Americans (and the rest of the world) depend upon for accurate weather forecasting began. NOAA and it’s parent agency the Department of Commerce stiff-armed news reporters about what was going on. The sudden firings raised more questions than they answered about Trump’s approach to government. People need accurate weather forecasts. If under the president’s direction NOAA goes away, some private company may have to take over to provide the service. I guess that is the point of this administration: give all the money to private businesses and the wealthiest among us.
Robert Reich suggested in his Feb. 28 substack article, “An important aspect of the era we’re in is that a record share of the nation’s wealth is in the hands of a small group of people who are now revealing themselves to be remarkably selfish, shameless, and insensitive to the needs of America.” Seriously! Key billionaires were lined up next to the podium at Trump’s swearing in ceremony! The idea people do not like the wealthy is not new.
If the administration tampers with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, as they seem intent on doing, regular folks will rise up against the wealthy class. As I’ve written before, “Providing tax cuts to the well-off in Iowa and in the country at the expense of programs less well-off people depend upon is the wrong direction.” If there is a disruption in these three agencies, you don’t need Jeane Dixon to predict an open revolt.
I follow Republican Victoria Spartz from Indiana’s 5th Congressional District. In a recent newsletter, she wrote, “If the GOP does not have the backbone to start fixing healthcare in reconciliation, we have to start a full government takeover now – before we completely bankrupt our country and our people.” In the end, she voted to raise the debt ceiling and borrow another $2.5 Trillion to give to the wealthiest Americans. What Spartz means by “fixing healthcare” isn’t the same thing I, or any normal person, means. Since the GOP does not have any perceivable backbone, it will be up to the rest of us to start a full government takeover, and soon.
Editor’s Note: The following letter was emailed to Iowa U.S. Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst on Sunday, Feb. 23, 2025. If they reply, I will post below the original letter.
Dear Senators Grassley and Ernst,
A citizen has to work hard these days to stay up with what the federal government is doing. I do my best, and based on my studies, ask you to avoid the reconciliation process to pass a budget. Both Democratic and Republican led Senates have used it. Now is not the time. Here are my reasons.
There are not enough votes to overcome a filibuster of the tax cuts expected from ongoing reconciliation talks. Plain and simple, a majority of voters do not support them. Our senators should consider the will of voters in this regard.
As you know, the House Speaker has not come up with enough savings to offset the $4.5 Trillion expense the proposed reconciliation bill’s tax cuts are expected to incur. Let’s say Speaker Johnson meets his $2 Trillion savings goal. We would still add at least $2.5 Trillion to the national debt to pay for the tax cuts. We would be digging a deeper hole when we need to be filling it in.
From which programs do these proposed savings come? I understand cuts to Medicaid account for about $880 billion, and all are from programs people need and use to survive. Providing tax cuts to the well-off in Iowa and in the country at the expense of programs less well-off people depend upon is the wrong direction.
Those are my main points. To summarize, do not use the reconciliation process to pass the budget. Regular order provides stability I have come to expect from the Congress.
Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Paul Deaton
Do people live paycheck to paycheck? I know I do. My life in commerce revolves around fixed pensions inadequate to cover every financial need. Our budget allows a couple hundred dollars per month for expenses that are not programmed the way loan payments, property taxes, health insurance premiums, home owners/auto insurance, and utilities are. If I save $50 per month at the grocery store, that’s $50 I can spend on whatever expense may crop up. I use a credit card to smooth over cash flow each month.
U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders spoke about living paycheck to paycheck during a “Fighting Oligarchy” event Saturday in Iowa City. If you have an hour, the video is worth viewing as Sanders has become one of the best explainers among legislators of what is going on in Washington D.C. Find it here.
“Today, the oligarchs and the billionaire class are getting richer and richer and have more and more power,” Sanders said. “Meanwhile, 60 percent of Americans live paycheck to paycheck and most of our people are struggling to pay for health care, childcare, and housing. This country belongs to all of us, not just the few. We must fight back.”
Sanders’ main ask during his speech was to reach out to Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, who won her re-election by about 800 votes, and ask her to vote no on the upcoming final reconciliation bill. I suspect most Iowans don’t understand what that is.
Simply put, if leadership in the Congress does not have enough votes to pass bills in regular order, they can use reconciliation to overcome a potential Senate filibuster. Instead of needing 60 votes, a reconciliation bill only needs a simple majority in the Senate. Miller-Meeks referred to “reconciliation talks” in her Feb. 4 Telephone Town Hall. “You don’t do a lot of policy in the reconciliation. It has to be either revenue or tax based.” Many legislators are in these Republican-dominated talks. Miller-Meeks called Sanders “a radical,” according to the Daily Iowan.
The Daily Iowan reported on Sanders’ stop in Iowa City:
Sanders raised concern over the Reconciliation Bill, proposed legislation spearheaded by Trump which would extend tax cuts. Sanders said the bill will give over a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the billionaire class.
The tax cut extension would lower rates for almost all Americans, but would benefit the wealthiest taxpayers the most. (Bernie Sanders warns of ‘Trumpism’ at Iowa City event, by Roxy Ekberg, Daily Iowan, Feb. 22, 2025).
The rub is that the U.S. House of Representatives has not been able to offset the estimated $4.5 Trillion expense of tax cuts included in reconciliation with savings in government operations. House Speaker Mike Johnson set a low bar of $2 Trillion in savings and to date has only come up with $1.5 Trillion. From which programs do these savings come? Cuts to Medicaid account for about $880 billion, and all are from programs people need to survive. As I wrote Rep. Miller-Meeks on Saturday, providing tax cuts to the well-off in Iowa and in the country at the expense of programs less well-off people depend upon is the wrong direction.
Because I worked hard and long in a career in transportation and logistics, my pension is substantial enough to mostly make ends meet. The over-use of tax credits will run up the deficit and national debt, and if Republicans insist on a giant tax cut for the well to do, the money to pay for it will come from somewhere. It will come from people like me who live paycheck to paycheck and don’t have much room for extras in our budget.
Science may be the best way humans have to develop reliable knowledge. Underpinning 21st Century science is the idea the world has a rational basis that can be understood. In this time of political chaos and confusion, craving science seems a logical next step as we seek reason in the social and material world.
As I wrote before, I find solace in withdrawing from society into family as a reaction to Republican hegemony. As I do, I find people and situations requiring attention. As a septuagenarian, I find more people who need medical care and financial help than I did during the Reagan years. They also need companionship. The vulnerability of living on pensions is no longer an idea, but a reality. There are limited funds to go around and a small number of income-producing mechanisms available to the aged. Current threats by the administration to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid can be alarming. It isn’t any easier for millennials entering their fourth decade.
Due to extreme cold, I missed about a week on the trail. It is my concession to aging and self-care. I resumed trail walking Friday when ambient temperatures rose to the teens. Building a good life under the oppression of Republicans is a best practice. We must keep our health, strength, and financial resources for when we really need them. While we might sense the ineptitude of the administration during its first five weeks (how could one miss it?) the noise has not reached a crescendo. If not careful, all the hailstorm of attacks on the liberal consensus could blow up in Republicans’ collective face. We plain folks need to keep our powder dry for now, and be ready to act.
What is the underlying reason for a person to exclaim as “evidence,” in a public meeting, that the American Library Association is a “Marxist organization?” That librarians conduct a “grooming barrage” of unacceptable books? It seems clear such citizens’ language is weaponized and they departed reality in conceiving their analogies and metaphors.
Educators sometimes get upset with me when I point to the education system as the cause of such deviance from rational thinking. I suppose indoctrination into a cult could be a different cause, but legislators seem to accept such “evidence,” as the subcommittee and full education committee advanced the bill repealing Iowa Code 728.7 to the full Iowa House. The underlying reason may be the desire to feel there is a culture war going on in our public libraries and schools. If there is, departure from reason is a part of it. For me, I browse the public library collection to see what new books I might have interest in, and are available for check out. I don’t need a nanny state to do that.
Life can be reasonable and certainly the physical world has a scientific underpinning the understanding of which scientists continuously refine. The ship of American society has become unmoored and is heading for the shoals. Whether it can be saved is up to us. Old and young, we must be ready.
On a trip to Chicago, I stopped at the scene of the Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre on North Clark Street where seven men were lined up and murdered by four men who were presumably Al Capone’s agents in 1929. Today, the site has been razed. It was across the street from the pizza restaurant where we would be dining that evening. I found no markers about the killings. I thought of this long ago event when shortly after midnight this morning I received news the president fired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force Gen. CQ Brown Jr., Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti, and Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. Jim Slife late Friday. He had already fired, Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Linda Fagan in January.
Brown’s firing was clearly racist. Franchetti and Fagan’s firings were misogynistic. All four were appointed by President Joe Biden.
Secretary of Defense Hegseth previously said that Brown should be fired along with all other generals involved with diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts, according to Associated Press. Though we knew this might be coming, that it actually happened is an affront to every person who served in our military, including me.
That the president picked as Brown’s replacement, a former three-star general who does not meet congressionally mandated requirements, adds fuel to the fire.
Once I take a cup of coffee and peel myself off the ceiling, there is work to do: writing letters to Chuck Grassley, Joni Ernst, and Mariannette Miller-Meeks, a letter to the editor of the newspaper, and reaching out to everyone I know.
The Reagan administration marked the beginning of the end of my hope for a decent paying job with benefits. I managed to work in transportation and logistics most of my life, but there was never a pension, the retirement programs were chintzy, and no better jobs that I could identify were on offer. I knew I would be eligible for a Social Security pension. I had not planned to rely solely on it. I wrote about my life in 1981: “The chance of long-term employment with decent benefits had already begun to fade from American society as Ronald Reagan was inaugurated president that year.”
The Reagan presidency was particularly harsh for working families like ours. A recession, high unemployment, and a sequestered president had set his agenda and accomplished much of what he intended during his first year in office. When something went wrong, like when the country was caught trading arms for hostages, the criticism seemed not to stick to the popular president. When we examine what Reagan did for businesses and took away from plain folks like us, I can see why it took courage to get through those days. It helps explain why I felt stress during the time we were starting our family.
The Reagan years changed American politics in a way we are feeling today. Heather Cox Richardson explained:
(A) reactionary mindset came to dominate the Republican Party after Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980. Republicans began to insist that anyone who embraced the liberal consensus of the past several decades was un-American and had no right to govern, no matter how many Americans supported that ideology. And now, forty-five years later, we are watching as a group of reactionaries dismantle the government that serves the needs of ordinary Americans and work, once again, to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of an elite. (Letters From an American, Heather Cox Richardson, Feb. 11, 2025).
It is easy to see Republicans today, throughout the country, embrace this ideology. On Monday, at a State House subcommittee hearing, someone called the American Library Association “Marxist.” Another person described a “grooming barrage” of unacceptable books in libraries. One dumped a load of books on the committee’s table. What that meant I can only guess as I’m not caught up in whatever media bubble they were. The chair of the meeting asked her to remove the books and cautioned the attendees there would be decorum. These are crazy times.
Some in politics revere the work Reagan did while he was president and seek to bring back his approach to policy and governance. Plain folks like us do not. We remember Reagan and the impact of his policies. I saw the layoffs in Buick City and across the rust belt when I worked in those communities. I saw the internationalization of corporations and the way they sought low labor costs like water finding a gully. I saw the degradation of the environment and poisoning of our rivers and streams. None of this benefited regular folks like me.
My grandmother lived in the Vail apartments in Davenport, which had been converted to senior living. Reagan had lived there too, early in his career when he worked as broadcaster in Davenport. People like my grandmother were left behind in more ways than one. Reagan was neither of the people nor for them. There seemed little connection to what went on in Washington, D.C. and the power of the electorate was diminished. In 1981, I felt we had lost an ability to influence the direction of our country.
Don’t get me wrong. Democratic administrations following Reagan did their best to reverse the slide of money from folks like me toward the richest Americans and corporations. Long term, it didn’t work. The thing is, the wealthy can afford to play the long game and if it were not Trump today, it would be somebody else dismantling our government.
I probably need to let go of the Reagan stuff, even though it played a role in my life ever since he was elected. The good part of the Reagan years was they had me withdrawing into family. There was some solace in that.
Marine Corps War Memorial, Arlington, Virginia. Photo by Michau0142 Pau0107ko on Pexels.com
It is -10 degrees Fahrenheit on Tuesday as I write this post. In our fifth week of the new administration the tentacles of corruption and incompetence are beginning to reach into our lives. Really going to need an extra cup of coffee this morning. I’m in the resistance now.
The two bellwethers of government change for our family are Social Security and Medicare. On Monday Team DOGE breached Social Security. The Washington Post reported:
The acting commissioner of the Social Security Administration left her job this weekend after a clash with billionaire Elon Musk’s U.S. DOGE Service over its attempts to access sensitive government records, three people familiar with her departure said Monday.
Michelle King, who spent several decades at the agency before being named its acting commissioner last month, left her position Sunday after the disagreement, the people said.
Our Social Security usually hits the bank on the Monday before the fourth Wednesday. It’s less than a week before we know if we are impacted this month.
The Federal budget is far from finalized, yet the U.S. House of Representatives struggled to come up with savings to offset the $4.5 trillion in tax cuts they propose. They aren’t really trying to cover the gap. They are half a trillion dollars short of their $2 trillion over ten years goal. Even though the president instructed house members to leave Medicare alone, the Energy and Commerce Committee, which handles health care spending, is asked to cut $880 billion over the decade. Details are not available but expect Medicaid to take a big hit this time. The sentence “They are coming for your Medicare” can’t be far behind.
That’s not all. The National Park Service fired two of seven workers at the Effigy Mounds National Monument, which along with the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and Museum is one of two Iowa sites managed by the National Park Service.
Iowa people we know will be impacted by the freeze in federal research funding from the National Institutes of Health. The funds go to multiple locations, including the University of Iowa near where we live.
According to the Washington Post’s Artificial Intelligence news aggregator, “Elon Musk’s U.S. DOGE Service is seeking access to a heavily guarded Internal Revenue Service system that includes detailed financial information about every taxpayer, business, and nonprofit in the country.” We all should pay taxes, and the rich their fair share.
The grim reaper is knocking at the door to claim our federal support to give a tax break the country cannot afford.
Nothing we do is apolitical. The commonplace “let’s keep politics out of it” is the stuff of folklore. It denies an essential truth about us as humans. Among other things, we are political animals. We have to resist the onslaught of this Republican governance.
I am descended from people who fought in the American Revolutionary War. Perhaps I get it genetically: I am not afraid of conflict because these colors don’t run.
Editor’s Note: House File 274 passed out of subcommittee on Monday, Feb. 17, 2-1.
A bill in the Iowa legislature seeks to repeal Section 728.7 of Iowa Code. This section provides a long-standing obscenity exception for libraries and educational institutions. According to the bill, nothing in code prohibits the use of appropriate material for educational purposes in any accredited school, any public library, or in any educational program in which a minor is participating. It further provides that code does not prohibit the attendance of minors at an exhibition or display of art works or the use of any materials in any public library. People are worried that children are being exposed to obscenities enough in public spaces to change how public institutions operate. This bill should be cause for concern for anyone who uses a public library.
I looked through our local library’s policy statements and found this:
Including materials in the collection does not constitute endorsement of their contents. The Library recognizes that any given item may offend some patrons, but, because the Library follows accepted principles of intellectual freedom, it will not remove specific titles solely because individuals or groups may find them objectionable. (Solon Public Library website, October 2022).
The language regarding children and censorship more directly addresses the concern:
Censorship is a purely individual matter. While an individual or group is free to reject material, no library staff person shall restrict access to the rest of the community. Selection of materials is not restricted by the possibility that children may obtain materials their parents may consider inappropriate. While materials are shelved by recommended age, patrons of any age may use materials in all sections of the library (see ALA Bill of Rights, Article V). Responsibility for children rests solely with their parents or legal guardians. (Solon Public Library website, October 2022).
So yes, House File 274 directly addresses existing library policy related to the American Library Association Bill of Rights. Here is the entire ALA Bill of Rights. On Monday, Feb. 17, at 11:30 a.m., an education subcommittee of the Iowa House meets in Room 103 at the State Capitol to consider the bill.
Here is a typical pro comment from the public comments section of the bill where more than a few words were used:
02-11-2025 Jonathan Huber:
I support House File 274 because it aims to protect minors from exposure to obscene content. By repealing the obscenity exemptions, Iowans can ensure that educational and public spaces remain safe and appropriate for all students. It’s important to have clear standards that prevent the distribution of material that could be harmful or offensive. This bill helps create a more secure learning environment where students can focus on their education without the risk of encountering inappropriate content. This bill prioritizes the well being of our youth.
Here is another:
02-12-2025 Sonya Swan
Our children are our future. When a child sees something, they cannot “unsee” it. Those images are forever in their precious little minds. When they read something obscene the result is the same. As an educator, I choose the materials for the children I teach very carefully. Our public institutions, have an obligation to omit obscene material for minors regardless of the location (school or library) or the function. Please repeal 728.7
Here is a con comment:
02-13-2025 Steve Clarke
Dont pass this bill the current exception in 728.7 allows for the use of appropriate material for educational purposes. Nobody is advocating for Playboys and Xrated movies. This is part of the larger cultural wars being waged. Protect our society by denouncing censorship.
Here is a longer con comment:
02-13-2025 Sarah Smith
Do NOT pass this bill. It is not the role of libraries or librarians to determine what children can or cannot readthat responsibility belongs to parents. Rather than restricting access to books, we should encourage parents to be actively involved in their childrens reading choices.If I come across a book I dont want to read or a news channel I dont want to watch, I simply choose not to engage. Thats the beauty of intellectual freedomthe ability to decide for ourselves. HF 274 imposes unnecessary restrictions that would hinder libraries from fulfilling their mission, limiting access to information and stifling the freedom to read.Our communities thrive when libraries are empowered to serve without political interference. Please vote against HF 274 and protect our right to read, learn, and think freely.
If I can figure out the technology, I plan to watch the subcommittee meeting online. In the meanwhile, I recommend you take a look at the comments and tell your state representative to vote no should this bill make it to the full house.
UPDATE: I submitted this comment on the bill:
“Vote no on this bill. There was and is a valid reason for this exception. I hope the committee will consider these things: Perhaps the raciest part of the public library is the romance genre section. It would be okay with me to eliminate this section completely, although many patrons read romance novels. It persists. A local group developed a solution in which a sticker is placed on romance library books suitable for Christian readers. It seems like a workable compromise, better than repealing this section of code. Secondly, I have been shocked at the content of a few books I checked out from the library. I’m thinking of the Elton John memoir Me. John talks openly about his sexuality and if I found it shocking, so could others. Should graders have access to this book? It’s not for me to say, nor for legislators. It is for parents to say. The American Library Association’s Bill of Rights is clear on this: “A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.” If a citizen’s group or individual objects to a book, resolution should take place at the local library or with the library board. As with my example of the racy romance novels, a solution can likely be devised at the local level. Republicans have super majorities and can enact what they will, including advancing the idea that Iowa will become a nanny-state. No reasonable person wants that. Please vote no on this bill. Thanks for reading my comment.”
Journey Home 
You must be logged in to post a comment.