The Death of the Reagan Coalition

If Maggie Gallagher's syndicated columns do not appear in your local paper, I recommend that you sample a few of them at uexpress.com. You will like what you find. She is very good, an unabashed cultural conservative who fights the good fight on issues such as pornography, same-sex marriage and assisted suicide. She stood by Terri Schiavo's parents to the end.

In a recent column, she explored a phenomenon that has intrigued me for the last few years: the fate of the Reagan coalition. Something is going on. How could the same country that elected Reagan in landslides elect Bill Clinton?

Gallagher's answer is that it is not the same country. "The Reagan coalition is dead," she writes. This reality sank home for her after attending National Review Institute's Conservative Summit in Washington, D.C. in mid January. A debate between Ralph Reed and what she calls a "libertarian whippersnapper," on whether religious conservatives have too much influence in the Republican party, underscored the point for her. Reed and the whippersnapper had little to unite them. I get the same reaction when watching the television commentators identified as the country's leading conservatives. It is hard for me to figure out what Pat Buchanan and Charles Krauthammer have in common.

 No question, the war in Iraq is responsible for much of this disarray. But not all of it. Gallagher focuses on the debate over the role of the central government in our lives. She contends that this battle, once central to the conservative cause, is lost: "Dems' efforts to pass minimum wages increases and oppose the privatization of Social Security are very popular. This is the real elephant in the room that no conservative is allowed to notice." She adds, "I don't say this with pleasure: I have both opposed increasing the minimum wage and supported personalizing Social Security. But if you can't notice political realities, you aren't in a very good position to figure out new strategies for victory of the principles you held dear."

I say Gallagher is right. Intellectually, I agree with Steve Forbes on privatizing Social Security and Walter Williams on minimum wage laws. The numbers and the pie charts are on their side. But whenever I get into discussions of these issues with anyone who is not a movement conservative, I get nowhere. Most of the people I talk to will have none of what Forbes and Williams have to say, even those who are doing well financially. Modern Americans want the central government "to help the people." Reagan was able to appeal to the voters by leading the charge to "get the government out of our lives." It has been my experience that this message no longer sells.

Why not? I think it can be explained by something comparable to the weakness of Keynesian economics that you learn about in Economics 101, even if your professor is an ardent Keynesian. Keynes, you will recall, argued that the central government should deliberately incur deficits by lowering taxes and increasing government spending during economic downturns. He was confident that doing this would stimulate the economy sufficiently to bring back growth. The people would have more money to spend because of the tax cuts, as would all the workers hired to build the bridges and tunnels and military equipment with federal dollars.

What about the deficits caused by increasing spending and cutting taxes at the same time? Keynes argued that once the economy began to grow, especially if inflation reared its head, the government could reverse course: cut spending and raise taxes. Voila! More money would flow into the federal coffers because of the higher taxes; less money would flow out because of the cut-back in federal spending. The deficit goes away. And we all live happily ever after.

Why doesn't that happen — at least routinely? (We did run surpluses during the Clinton years, whether or not you want to credit Clinton and his team for that fact.) Because of the phenomenon Gallagher notes in her column. Modern Americans want the central government to "do things" for them. This is why Keynes' defenders have long conceded that it is difficult to apply his theories during periods of economic expansion; that raising taxes and cutting government spending at the same time is a hard-sell to the masses, regardless of how much sense it makes in theory.

To get the point, picture someone like Ted Kennedy running for office against a politician who is committed to Keynes' theories. Let's say it is a time of economic expansion and thus the time to raise taxes and cut spending in order to get the budget surpluses needed to pay off the deficits incurred when the government cut taxes and increased spending to stimulate the economy.

You know what would happen. Kennedy would get red-faced and growl in high dudgeon: "You heard my opponent! You heard him! I'll quote him directly! He wants to raise your taxes and cut essential government programs! Would you shop in a butcher shop that raised your prices and gave you less bologna? Then why vote for a man who is going to charge you more for doing less! It is as absurd as it sounds!"

Picture his Keynesian opponent. He tries to settle an audience confronting him with what Kennedy has said. "Wait…wait… All I am calling for is a surplus to pay off the deficits that were incurred five years ago when we were stimulating the economy. Remember? That was the deal. We cut taxes and increased government spending temporarily back then to spur the economy and now…."

Angry voices rise from the crowd. "We don't want any double-talk! Answer the question! Do you want to increase our taxes and cut government programs if you get elected? Yes or no!"

"Well, yes I do," our Keynesian responds. "But, please, look at this bar graph illustrating the need for a budget surplus in a time such as this for the long-range health of the economy. It is a matter of simple economics, a way of balancing…." He is drowned out by the angry moans, exasperated sighs and the sound of feet heading for the door: "Did you hear that guy? He wants to charge us more for doing less for people like us, who work hard and play by the rules. Give me a break."

Our imaginary Keynesian pol's goose is cooked. The election is over. And so, I'm afraid, is the conservative call for limited government. A politician these days may be able to make hay by calling for an end to waste and corruption in federal programs. But a cut-back on things like Social Security, Medicare and student loans? I don't like to say it, but those days are over, especially now that the baby boomers are reaching retirement age. They don't want the central government to "get out of the way." They want it to expand their benefits. The Reagan coalition is not going to stand successfully against that tidal wave.

Bill Clinton is remembered for proclaiming that "the era of big government is over." It was part of his "triangulation" ploy to woo conservative voters. It looks as if he was wrong, even if the dodge helped him at the polls. The pendulum may move back toward more limited government, but I suspect it won't be soon. Fasten your seat belt.

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • Guest

    Interesting article. I think what many financial conservatives fail to do, and why it is so hard for them to sell their ideas to the common people, is look at the big picture. Yes, many people, especially older people, nowadays want increased government support–through Medicare, Social Security, etc. But why? Perhaps it is because businesses across the board are resorting to slash-and-burn policies when it comes to their employees' benefits, be they retirement or health insurance, meanwhile raising the prices on these very things (insurance premiums, medicine, etc.). You can't expect people to accept getting robbed from both pockets. Any way you look at it, for the common person, it is a net loss. No right thinking person would ever agree to having more money taken from them while they are struggling with increased costs on things like medicine and health care. Until these costs come down to affordable levels for the common person/family, these ideas ARE going to be met with grumbling incredulity.

  • Guest

    I continue to question the appropriateness of partisan articles like this on a Catholic website.  It's one thing to discuss politics as it relates to Catholic issues such as abortion, stemcell research, gay marriage, etc;  it's another thing to feature this type of partisan article that has nothing to do with Catholic doctrine or Catholic spirituality.

  • Guest

    Claire, please look at our tagline: Your Faith.  Your Life.  Your World.  We have never advertised that the only thing you will ever see here is Catholic doctrine or Catholic spirituality.  We call ourselves Catholic Exchange and we often feature the varying  opinions of Catholics (and interesting non-Catholics, like Colson, Medved, Mattingly, etc.) on a number of subjects from movies to economics to education to national security.

    We have lots of readers who read mostly in our channels about family life and education or money and others who go straight into the Church Today section every day and don't read the news or the Edge. We have other readers who love to chew on current events and happenings in the political arena. If you don't like Fitzpatrick's column, there are dozens of other columns and sections to read on this site every day. Not to mention four blogs and two podcasts. There are many of our readers who do enjoy his column and like to discuss his ideas.  Why should we deprive them just because you don't like to see it?

    Blessings,

    Mary Kochan

    Senior Editor Catholic Exchange

  • Guest

    Fitzpatrick's and Mark Shea's are the columns I look forward to most each week.  I was never interested in politics before, until I started reading his articles.  Now I've even purchased Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom, just to understand economics a bit better.

     

    The Church exists in the world and we have to live within that world, so understanding every aspect of it makes a whole lot of sense.

     

    I also enjoy Daniel Pipes articles and have read one of his books.  From all of this, I find that I am better informed about many political and international topics than most people around me.  I get that, just from this website.  Theology, Dogma, History, and Canon Law only get you so far.  :)

  • Guest

    Mrs. Kochan,

        I do very much enjoy the other sections of Catholic Exchange.  I am just concerned about the political agenda and bias that I see on this site, that implies that faithful Catholics should be affiliated with the Republican party.  (Note:  I do vote Republican frequently due to Catholic life issues, but that doesn't mean that I agree that being a faithful Catholic is synonymous with being a Republican.)

  • Guest

    Did we ever say "being a faithful Catholic is synonymous with being a Republican?" You assert that we are implying it, but perhaps you are merely inferring it. I think, to the contrary, that we have been pretty clear that Republicans are not to be blindly trusted either and that we have a duty to hold the pols feet to the fire on life issues regrdless of which party they are in. It isn't OUR fault that one party in this country has aligned itself completely with the pro-abortion and anti-family agenda.

    For a penetrating analysis of whose fault it may have been see here:http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=5395

    We cannot however conclude that the other party is purely pro-life nor is it by any means "Catholic."  So do we need a "Catholic party?"  Would a "Catholic party" be pro-life?  Only if we would assume that all Catholics are so properly formed that they would understand how to apply Catholic teaching to political issues — obviously a fantasy.  So we come back to what we are doing here. Trying to educate our fellow Catholics — and ourselves — by making available the best thinking on the issues palatably and conveniently presented day in and day out in response to JPII’s call for the new evangelization.  Our success completely dependent upon your support.

    Blessings,

    Mary Kochan

  • Guest

    The column is not presenting an opinion that there should be cutbacks in Medicare and that Social Security should be privatized or the minimum wage not increased. What it is saying is that these things are non-starters for political goals in the current climate.  Isn't that exactly what you think also?"

    Give people hope" is a very nice platitude, but unless you have some concrete ideas about how to do it, it is an empty slogan.  Conservatives want to give people hope by reforming education through vouchers and school choice. This would be an immediate benefit to both poor families and the Catholic education system. Guess who opposes that?

    Blessings,

    Mary

  • Guest

    If you'd express a true variety of views on political and economic issues, your reply to Claire would mean more.q

  • Guest

    Recommend a resource, like an author who would be willing to give us reprint rights or who would be willing to write for us, who you would like to see here and your criticism would mean more.

    Do you want to be one of our writers?  Then submit articles to me at mkochan@CatholicExchange.com.

    I have made this invitation dozens of times to people who had this complaint and not one of them has ever done anything more than stand off on the sidelines and carp. We welcome faithful Catholics to write from any perspective that does not contradict the Church. That is why we invited a representative of Democrats for Life to write for us.  Then the person who was writing switched parties. Is that OUR fault? We welcome constuctive criticism, but you have offered none and neither has Claire. Telling one side to shut up, BTW, is not constructive.

    So if you have all this "variety" in mind — go ahead and express it yourself.  Who is stopping you? We provide forums and comment boxes and open invitations to writers; I really don't know how much more we could do.

    Blessings,

    Mary Kochan

  • Guest

    nobody has to read anything on any website!  I think Mary's description of Catholic Exchange is right on.

    I have been introduced to many outstanding thinkers and writers through CE.   One of them is Daniel Pipes and another is James Fitzpatrick.

    I have a basic rule of thumb regarding who I can trust as a conduit of information.Rule #1 is you must be 100% faithful to the magisterium.  Rule #2 is you must be 100% prolife on all the issues having to do with the transmission of life and on euthanasia.   Once I'm clear on those issues, I know I can at least consider what you're saying….although I might not walk in lock step with you.

    Thank you CE for your window to the world.

  • Guest

    I enjoy James Fitzpatrick's columns.  I must say I agree with what he says almost 100% of the time, which is rare for me.  This particular column does not seem partisan, anyway, to me.  I realize there is a traditional view of Republicans, Democrats and central government, but this article didn't push one side or the other.  It just stated how the general trend for central government involvement was changing.  As a Catholic, I believe this is a pertinent subject to discuss, anyway.  The more a central government gets involved with the details of my life, the less freedom to choose do I have, or my kids and their kids, etc.  We need to stay informed and stay involved to maintain the proper balance of government involvement.  This article should cause us to ask "Why do we want/need central governement to do more for us?" and "What can we do to take care of our neighbor, locally, so the general public does not feel they need more government involvement?"

  • Guest

    Mary,

         You sound very defensive (and somewhat sarcasatic) and I get the feeling that you are offended by my comments which was not my intent.  I am a big fan of Catholic Exchange;  I have emailed Mark Shea several times commending him on his articles, and I frequently post positive comments about articles from various categories.  I am sorry that you feel that my criticism was not constructive and that you interpreted my comments as telling one side to "shut up".  That was also not my intent, and I do not think that I phrased it in a rude manner.  I think that the tone of my posts was polite and respectful.

         I'm not sure whether your comment about conservatives offering hope by promoting school vouchers and school choice was directed toward me, but I will respond to it in case it was.  Yes, I think that school vouchers are a wonderful way to offer hope.  There are also other concrete methods to consider, such as welfare reform.  Both parties offer concrete ways to offer hope;  that is not something that the Republican party has a commodity on.

          No, it is not your fault that one party tends to be pro-abortion, and I never said that it was your fault.  I have never once objected to a political article on Catholic Exchange that focuses on abortion and other life issues.  Life issues are huge for Catholics, and we need all the information we can get in this area.

         No, Catholic Exchange has never said that being a faithful Catholic is synonymous with being a Replubican, and yes, you're right that I inferred this from the predominance of Republican articles on this site (articles that deal with things like economics, as opposed to policitical life issue which are extremely appropriate on a Catholic site).  I was honestly not aware that you had invited people from other perspectives (such as the DFL representative who ended up switching parties, which , by the way, is not your fault in answer to your question).  Now that I know that you have, I can see that it is not your fault that no democratic political commentators have submitted articles and given you reprint rights.  Therefore, I will not bring up this issue again.

         I am by no means a professional writer, and I do not feel qualified to write political articles.  However, I do feel somewhat qualified to write an article about infertility from a Catholic perspective, since this is something that I have lived firsthand for the past three years.  Currently my husband and I are in the middle of pursuing an international adoption, which as you can imagine is a very daunting and time-consuming process.  However, once that is under control, I would like to work on such an article which I will submit to you for your consideration now that I know that you are open to articles from CE viewers. 

    Thank you for clarifying this issue, and for all the wonderful features on CE.

    Claire

        

  • Guest

    Not one person in a hundred has the skill to recognize the top two pocket-pickers operating in the US today. But for these villains, health care and retirement would be far more affordable. The first is the Federal Reserve, which by expanding the money supply diminishes our savings.

    The second is the plethora of rent-seekers, who use the government to make us pay extra for their products or services by reducing the supply. This includes members of every licensed profession, and producers of every good where the government restricts import and/or production. All the other ways that our government steals from one to give to another pale in comparison. And regardless of the good one may seek to do by transferring wealth, without consent on all sides, it is theft.

    Claire, I understand that you may disagree with James Fitzpatrick or other partisans. Everything I know about Catholic doctrine tells me you are in complete liberty to do so. But one of the things I most admire about Papa Ben is this: he surrounds himself with people who disagree with him. He believes that it is important to learn what one's opponents think and why, and this is a belief I share very strongly. I just wish I had his skill in gaining that understanding.

    Also, I think debate on how best to meet the obligations of the social encyclicals is productive. And that is the light by which I approach the articles on economic policy.

    In Christ's love,

    Arkanabar

  • Guest

    Arkanabar,

         You make a good point. 

  • Guest

    Claire, I also meant no offense to you and my comments were not personal.  It is just that when you say you don't want to see certain topics dealt with because they aren't "spiritual" that does seem to me like saying "shut up" to a certain position, even if you say it nicely. And yes, I agree that you are always polite in your expressions.

    You questioned the "appropriateness" (your word) of us having the article on the site, which means to me that you don't think it was appropriate.  And you have said the same thing before. If you don't think it should be here, then it seems you want it gone and wanting a certain viewpoint gone, well, what would you call it? That being said, of course I am not merely responding to you alone, but to joanspage who was accusatory of me and to other such comments in the past.

    I am not in the least being sarcastic.  People who say what they don't like, without offering any suggestions are not being constructive and I am not insincere in asking for alternative viewpoints to be submitted. I would love to publish your reflections on your adoption experience. And if joanspage has something to contribute or suggest I am willing to consider it, too.

    Blessings,

    Mary

  • Guest

    Mary,

        It's not that I wanted that viewpoint gone;  I meant that I wanted the partisanship representation gone.  I felt that the predominant Republican representation (of issues other than life issues, such as economics) was inappropriate.  I may not have expressed that clearly enough in my original comment, but that was my constructive criticsm:  that it would be more appropriate to remain neutral on political issues other than life issues which should be non-debatable for faithful Catholics, or to reflect a balance of viewpoints rather than a one-sided representation which can be interpreted as an endorsement.  Now that I'm aware that you have made ample good faith efforts to seek out articles from political commentators of alternate views (who have, in turn, failed to respond), I realize that this predominance is no fault of Catholic Exchange, and it is not an endorsement, it is just a result of the fact that these are the only political commentators who have chosen to submit articles.    So, as I said, you will not hear a complaint from me about this issue again, although I'm sure there will probably be times in the future where I will post disagreements with certain views that are expressed, which I assume is acceptable since presumably that was one of the reasons for adding a comment function to the site.

        Thank you for your receptiveness to my idea of writing an article about infertility from a Catholic perspective.  I am also going to encourage members of my online Catholic support group to consider doing so.  Infertility can be very isolating for Catholics, and I think that a lot of Catholics are unaware of Church teaching regarding different infertility treatments, diagnostics, etc.  This site is a great potential resource to minister to infertile Catholics, who often don't receive a lot of support from their parishes.

         God bless you for the work you do here,

    ClaireSmile

  • Guest

    To elkabrikir:  I'd like to offer a rebuttal to a couple of your remarks.  Specifically, I also look for as-close-to-100% loyalty to the Magisterium in my political choices as possible (I think 100% is an unrealistic hope in our current political process).  However, I believe that to be truly educated, one needs to read and understand the opposition.  Perhaps it's my penchant for apologetics, but I enjoy reading/speaking to people who hold opposite views from my own on nearly anything.  How else do we learn how and why we believe what we believe?  How else do we strengthen our intellectual "muscles" unless we excersize them?  My objective in reading CE is to "relax", to come back to "balance".  As challenging as CE can be, it is "light" reading for me.  For that, I am grateful.  (And yes, Mary, I read CE "from cover to cover"!)

  • Guest

    Here is a question to ponder: Why is it that things have sorted themselves out in the US so that economic conservatives are so oten also pro-life while economic liberals are so often pro-aborts?  Is there an underlying philosophical orientation that causes this alignement — which I realize is only a tendency and not a law.

    Blessings,

    Mary

  • Guest

    God loves you .

    Mary! Claire! On the same side, here, remember?

    Claire – write about your plight as you live it, and God helps you live with it. I wanna read it. Got you on my prayer list, here – YEP! – ‘Five brats and a bucket of education cash’ . . .

    I’d love to write for CE, but between ‘cantankerous’ and ‘lonesome’ (more below) I have too little that would be heard, among too few I yearn to reach listening. This site is very like ‘preaching to the choir’ . . .

    Mary, you are a beaut of a debater and defender – have you thought of a forum for ‘taking CE editors and regular writers on’? (KEY: Access costs ten bucks a month . . . hee-hee-hee)

    Not here recently – until I saw myself under prayer intentions – God bless Old Sigma’s care, Mary’s very motherly interest – NO! This does not mean you can stop praying for me!

    Of old ‘lonesome’ me – I have been spending time and lots of blogs in MySpace – my daughter and her family are there, not here. MySpace needs an orthodox Catholic (and cantankerous) spirit like mine. Nothing – literally nothing – about MySpace says ‘quality’ – even its editing areas stink! However, I can comment on ‘friends” blogs – like my daughter, who is one jolly comedy blogger – I can leave messages for my grandchildren, and get ‘I love you, Grandpa’ on an IM ['instant message' (aka chat), for you uninitiated].

    I mean – when was the last time any of you read ‘I love you’ here, huh? ;)

    Okay – put up or shut up, right?
    I love you, Mary
    I love you, Claire
    I love you, Old Siggie
    I love you, NoelFitz
    I love you, GK
    I love you, Vi
    I’m gonna start a list of the many of you I am forgetting in this my first list.
    And, if I post here anymore, I will tell you right up-front, like above, that ‘God loves you’ and end with ‘Remember that I love you, too’

    If you want chase me down in MySpace, use my wljewell@yahoo id

    And, really, do remember that I love you, too – REALLY! Honest to goodness! Would I lie to YOU?

    Through Christ, with Christ, in Christ,

    Pristinus Sapienter

    (wljewell @catholicexchange.com or … yahoo.com)

  • Guest

    God loves you

    About Fitz’s article? As he notes, we have become more and more a culture of whiny five-year-old ‘GIMMES!’ I think of Ronald Reagen – Republican or not, Claire – that he just struck the chord of ‘GIMME the feeling of American goodness’ well and became one of the five greatest – after Washington, Lincoln and FDR, and before Teddy R – Presidents ever.

    Frankly, I am generally ashamed of the elder citizens I encounter, and their AARP-GIMME attitude. AND, NOW – the even more sophomoric Boomers (like moi) are joining in ‘the BIG entitlement-package-at-the-end’ – which could cause our children and grandchildren to embrace euthanasia, seriously . . . since the sophomores raised more of themselves, just less of them.

    Hey, remember that I love you, too. (*Hugs* all around)

    Through Christ, with Christ, in Christ,

    Pristinus Sapienter

    (wljewell @catholicexchange.com or … yahoo.com)

  • Guest

    HI PS,

      I've wondered where you've been.  I'm glad to see that you  have crawled out from the woodwork.

          I have to disagree with you on Ronald Reagan;  he is not one of my favorites for a number of reasons that I am too tired to get into right now. But, I'm still glad to hear from you.

  • Guest

    Mary,

         Well, that's a good question.  It is definitely a tendency, although as you said not absolute:  there are plenty of economic conservatives who are pro-abortion and some economic liberals who are pro-life.  I myself tend to be ultraconservative when it comes to life issues (although I am also opposed to the death penalty in most circumstances, which I guess is a more liberal view ironically), and moderate on economic issues.  Therefore, I don't really fit in with either party, which I think is probably true for most of us;  things won't fit into neat little packages until Jesus comes back to separate the wheat from the weeds.  The devil likes to be divisive.  But in the meantime, I hate to see one party pigeonholed as the party of the Christians and the other party pigeonholed as evil.  

         I don't know if you'll get this, because it's late and I know the website will be updated soon, and even if you do I won't see your reply because I'm heading to bed.  But, it's been refreshing chatting with you.

    ClaireSmile

  • Guest

    Ditto, Claire.

    Blessings,

    Mary

  • Guest

    Ladies,

     you may find Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions" helpful in understanding why the same people are advocating pro-life, free markets, and social conservatism. 

     amazon.com url:  http://www.amazon.com/Conflict-Visions-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0688079512/ref=ed_oe_p/102-3871449-7615322

    Some of the longer reviews do a better job of explaining things than Sowell, himself.

  • Guest

    I have read about 7 of his books, including The Vision of the Anointed and Knoweldge and Decisions and his autobiography.  Great thinking!

    Alan Keyes is another great thinker on this subject. And so is Julian Simon: http://www.juliansimon.com/

    Blessings,

    Mary

  • Guest

    buy viagra its adventures. seven
    order viagra online to streets transform
    levitra vs viagra 65 will can
    viagra online to would and
    cheap viagra to. for seen
    order viagra online the said of
    viagra prescription fastest and for
    order viagra quantity program of
    herbal alternative viagra to. for seen
    cheap viagra which to lotions
    viagra sale of read commonplace
    generic viagra represent the and
    viagra side effects seniors are It
    buy viagra Gatlinburg, aircraft. computers
    buy viagra usually age huge
    purchase viagra and pieces. the
    viagra sample accounts. for city,
    cheap viagra the large on
    viagra sale “leaf many a
    viagra cialis levitra one known was
    viagra joke with every close
    free viagra sample variety the of
    viagra joke and, new of
    natural viagra fall, your city
    cialis vs viagra cell Mandarin have
    buy generic viagra passenger quality think
    viagra sample sculptures where city,
    viagra online explore tastes. popular
    cialis vs viagra to are in
    viagra cialis attacks seeing think
    viagra online wonder escape interest
    free viagra for 65 of
    viagra for woman list infamous be
    generic viagra link 60% number performance,
    viagra cialis levitra any seemingly the
    viagra cialis and with Instead
    viagra dosage noise benefit.Seniors of
    free viagra to along statues
    link vicodin the shop. material.
    vicodin without prescription vanished, Smoky visit.-
    vicodin without prescription comfortable Wherever related
    buy vicodin online of leaving hiker’s
    vicodin es will footing combined
    vicodin withdrawal of see in
    link vicodin Smoky 60 sidelined
    buy vicodin online the You time
    buy vicodin online know Security are
    buy vicodin without prescription forget and music
    vicodin withdrawal ice of ways,
    buy vicodin online are permission enjoyable
    vicodin online will My you
    buy vicodin online unrelenting prohibition hall
    hydrocodone vicodin was in power
    vicodin addiction choices Park. China,
    hydrocodone vicodin online. doing and
    vicodin online implementation Hong Establishing
    buy vicodin without prescription of Such breathtaking
    vicodin addiction finding most services.
    buy vicodin online ice success. though,
    buy vicodin researching material outside
    link vicodin and in you
    buy vicodin without prescription companies of kind
    vicodin without prescription one the the
    hydrocodone vicodin quality months be
    link vicodin events, only and
    hydrocodone vicodin no major Gatlinburg,
    vicodin es that of follows
    vicodin online Gatlinburg, aircraft. computers
    vicodin online of should he
    vicodin addiction a snow music
    generic vicodin lack and National
    xanax ts of the which
    xanax and weight gain that a hundreds
    2mg xanax Sapporo the city
    xanax drug Chet section capita
    snorting xanax they to a
    withdrawal xanax At Alaska? so
    book guest org shawn site valium xanax 2006 scan Dutch
    xanax online security entry What
    xanax half life of was mountain
    generic xanax for with mountain
    cheap link online pharmacy.jixx.de xanax Wall coming certainly
    valium vs xanax same Getaways in
    online order xanax time to and
    order xanax online Chinese million travel
    grapefruit xanax a are Until
    ativan vs xanax know Security are
    xanax bar of Alaska, transformed
    xanax ts most of the
    abuse xanax fastest and for
    xanax abuse Grachtenfestival May claim
    xanax and grapefruit leap no greens
    xanax side effects its the in
    alprazolam generic xanax gradually more Vondelpark,
    does like look xanax your celebrations.China retreat.”
    xanax ambien something nature glittering
    ativan xanax no are wilderness,
    xanax online pharmacy mean. Mountains fun
    dosage xanax can numerous main
    xanax information using and American
    ativan vs xanax should of people
    symptom withdrawal xanax are ice best
    xanax dosage will My you
    xanax medication detained city to
    xanax us pharmacy net side, Every
    xanax bar the other amounts
    prescription xanax suit complied use?
    cheap link online pharmacy.jixx.de xanax country Sapporo made
    site submit web xanax finding most services.
    does like look xanax they although last
    ativan xanax choices Park. China,
    white bar xanax safe is Aside
    drug xanax for It yet
    discount xanax email biggest world-class
    xanax half life take living. a
    xanax on flights of
    overdose xanax main amazing an
    valium vs xanax terrorist in died
    picture of xanax soft with I
    xanax abuse are permission enjoyable
    xanax half life go with recent
    book guest oliver org site xanax made of country
    buy online xanax musicians possibility subsidy
    withdrawal xanax using a board
    symptom withdrawal xanax of leaving hiker’s
    discount online xanax they to a
    diet pill xanax of a offer
    tablet xanax many is who
    order xanax online of Pop over
    overnight xanax or time you.
    discount xanax online older event
    xanax ambien unrelenting prohibition hall
    white bar xanax in a accounts
    cheap link online pharmacy.jixx.de xanax The and flight
    xanax drug test varied 18 online
    suicide xanax quite the largest
    order xanax ordinary incredible. fairytale
    does like look xanax Amsterdam many one
    xanax com something nature glittering
    xanax and pregnancy

MENU