My friends own Shari's. M66/67 will cost a fortune.

Now we have a tie. I guess we both have to find more friends.

"will cost a fortune" - nice rhetoric, but what do you mean by "a fortune"? Give us numbers, please.

Seems to me that M66 & 67 only "cost a fortune" to those people who have several thousand fortunes worth to spend. Out of state corporations whose revenues are in the tens and hundreds of millions of dollars have to pay a little. People who make more than a quarter million dollars a year - an obscene amount. Soforth, so on.

Your friends own Shari's? Really?

From Laura Gunderson at the Oregonian a couple years back:

A California investment firm sold the Beaverton-based Shari's Management Corp., which operates the 97-restaurant chain to another investor group for $80 million.

The new investor group includes Circle Peak Management of New York; Sankaty Investors of Boston; Falcon Investment Advisors of Needham, Mass.; The Carlyle Group of Washington, D.C.; Magnetar Capital of Evanston, Ill., and Shari's Management.

"Nothing changes that dramatically," said Larry Curtis, president of Shari's Management Corp., which will keep its main offices in Beaverton. "This just gives us the opportunity to really move forward and hopefully grow the company."

Shari's, which owns its outlets as opposed to franchising, predominately operates in Oregon and Washington. The company has a handful of restaurants in Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska and Northern California."

Sweet bejesus you have rich friends!!

Ya know, if this tax measure passes I'll bet this investment group will close ALL Shari's outlets overnight - just like the ORA said would happen when the state raised the minimum wage last year.

My friends own a little 27 seat chat and chew in Hollywood. Sole proprietor. Won't impact them at all. And business is good. The downturn has actually been a boon since people can afford a $5 burger.

Tax fairness is at stake.

Nice rhetoric, but the exact opposite is true. True tax fairness would have everyone kick in an equal percentage to make the system work. As it is 5% of the population pays over 40% of the income taxes. That is nowhere near tax fairness.

Everyone needs to have some skin in the game or we have whole segments of society living off the taxes of a few with little reason to use critical thinking to weigh the legitimacy of continued tax increases.

This is a social justice issue. Vote no on M66/77.

Buckman Res, is it your position, then, that people who make $10,000/year should pay the same in taxes as people who make $10,000,000/year? Do you really think that's "fair"?

This is really hilarious since most of the people I know in the service industry are eligible for food stamps and other social services like housing assistance and OHP (if they win the lotto and can get these services, that is.) Even after their meager wages are supplemented by their clientele in the form of tips. Screw the ORA. It's obvious they only represent corporate chains in this matter.

fbear,

I agree with Buckman.

I believe his point is that the percentage (not dollar amount) should be equal.

If you make $10,000 per year and pay 5% in taxes: $500

$50,000 per year and pay 5% in taxes, that would amount to: $2,500.

If you make $200,000 that would be: $10,000.

Obviously, those aren't true numbers, because taxes aren't calculated just on your gross income (and they don't take into account tax credits, etc.), but the point is there.

How is that not fair? The rich pay more, the middle class pay less, and the poor pay even less.

"The federal government should cut taxes on small businesses to encourage them to invest and hire more workers," Obama said at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. - December 8, 2009.

I still don't understand why we should work against President Obama by directly going against his plan to stimulate the economy and return people to work by helping businesses create jobs.

I haven't eaten out in over five years. After a few years of self-sufficiency one finds the fare to be pretty poor, commercially. It's best left to sex.

Having been active in petitioning a number of local chains to let us pick up left-overs for redistribution to the hungry, I can tell you they waste much more than the measures will cost them.

Thanks again, lege, for punting this to the voters and putting us at each others' throats. Leadership? "Present". In memoriam, Harry K.

Buckman Res, is it your position, then, that people who make $10,000/year should pay the same in taxes as people who make $10,000,000/year? Do you really think that's "fair"?

Jason got it right. Everyone should pay an equal percentage in taxes. That would not only be fair but democratic, and progressive too.

Would anyone really suggest that someone making $10K/yr can’t afford to kick in 5% in order to keep the society from which they gain so much functioning?

The incessant cry of “tax the rich” is powerfully corrosive to democracy.

"Thanks again, lege, for punting this to the voters and putting us at each others' throats."

I'm on a new medication this morning so maybe I'm spacing something, but the legislature didn't "punt this to voters". The legislature passed the legislation---which was then punted to voters via the ballot measure initiative process by groups like the ORA and Oregonians Against Job-Killing Taxes. Blaming the legislature for this election is ridiculous.

Wow..Paulie..I don't know what you're smoking, but it must be some pretty strong stuff. Oregon has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country...and you're suggesting patrons boycott these "corporate" restaurants..who employ far more Oregonians than the Dug Fir does...brilliant thinking sweetheart. These evil corporations..who give thousands of Oregonians jobs..pay checks..allowing their employees to pay for things like rent, school, bills..should be boycotted so that they can lay off hardworking Oregonians..that's just what we need right now. M66/67 are deplorable in their own right...you're certainly free to disagree..but what's far more deplorable is you advocating for the boycott and subsequent layoffs of thousands of our hardest working residents in an effort to bolster your own personal political agenda...disgusting.

Do you not belong to a party, jj. That's what political parties do. Get real.

Now if you want to seriously debate ending filing as a member of a party, everyone's an independent...

Andrew is spot on. We need to embrace the idea that Oregon is a small business state and do everything we can to help them develop and grow. We must also push for diversity of industries in those small businesses so that our economy can become more resilient to economic fluctuation.

Sometimes liberal, sometimes conservative, always independent

I stand corrected, Ms Mel (and LT from another thread). I was out of the country for a while this year and missed the action.

One wonders if they would have succeeded in derailing the budget without out of state money. Also makes me wonder why the tack hasn't been adopted by supporters, "forget taxes and jobs for a moment; do you want to let a bunch of thicky bullies have their way with our elected reps; send them a message".

So, jj, it's a bit late to cry that the opposition are shooting with real bullets when you started the war. I agree that the workers suffer disproportionately. Paulie's aim might be a bit off, with measures that target the workers.

OK. Here's a few ways to fight fire with fire, without hurting the workers.

Health and safety. Take a real close look at the establishment. Read the health and safety guidelines. Complain. Those complaints get investigated. Opposite of a boycott.

Labor. Scads of "part-time" workers are cajoled into more than the allowable hours/week and never get benefits. Complain to BOLI.

SOS registration. How can having your license to transact business revoked not figure into a health and safety check? Reality check people: Businesses that don't pay their yearly reg. fee are cutting corners other illegal ways. Look it up. See if they're in "administrative dissolution". I tried this with one restaurant, a Quizno's closest to my house. Sure enough, in administrative dissolution since 2003.

Shame. Picket chain restaurants. When there are 25 people inside, simply let the public know that the orders of those 25 people pay the tax increase (using RA stats). Watching the local lunch mills, it's obvious how little a hit that is.

Get workers to speak out. The majority support the measures. Have them let the public know that the owners aren't speaking for them, and it's THEIR job, after all.

I'm sure there's a lot more, that one can come up with, if you're sensitive to the point.

Seems to me that these businesses spend and waste a lot of their money whining and trying to defeat these measures than they would spend if the measures actually passed.

But who am I do say, eh?

Eric Parker commented: Seems to me that these businesses spend and waste a lot of their money whining and trying to defeat these measures than they would spend if the measures actually passed.

Then again, maybe they know some things you don't?

jj commented: Small businesses have been the only ones to show sector-wide job growth through this recession.

Other than the public sector, of course...

You're a complicated one, 'tross. Sensitive to the burger flipper, but would murder the tax collector . To sum, business knows all, gov knows nothing. Forget that the real job-creating small businesses aren't against this. Forget that "gov" is mega corporate operatives. Forget that people like my husband, that actually runs a business, gets your scorn every time he posts. Can you cite one opinion you've influenced in years posting here? Your enemies, AND your friends, are imaginary. Quit trying to get us to vote based on the fact you're convinced that they exist. The numbers of deluded doesn't make the delusion any more real.

Nice points, Pat. (NB: "easter egg" has an urban connotation that you didn't intend)

Ms Mel Harmon commented: Blaming the legislature for this election is ridiculous.

Actually, it's not so ridiculous if you could consider that there really are other ways to avert a budget shortfall than just increase taxes... (hint: reduce real $ spending - not just the rate of $ spending growth... and also not increase spending 23% during the previous biennium budget when plenty of people warned such a spending increase would be unsustainable if the economy slowed) But to governments far and wide populated by many to whom Job #1 is growing or at least sustaining the bureaucracy at all costs, the answer to a budget shortfall is nearly always 'more revenue'... 'less spending' only rarely.

So Zarathustra had it right, 'the lege' didn't have the guts to make hard choices... they just voted to increase taxes during a recession directly on a small % of voters and indirectly on the rest of the population through higher taxes on businesses. Whether the other 97% of voters will figure out the latter before the election next month, we'll see...

We usually eat at local restaruants in Mulino, Molalla and Marquam (we live in Mulino, OR). Some are independant mom and pop restaruants, others are national chains at least one of which are locally owned franchises restaruants.

Does anyone know how M 66/67 would affect a locally owned chain restaurant? I mean, as an example, McDonalds obviously operated in Oregon, it's a business entity in Oregon and I think that it would owe the gross receipts tax on it's outlets in Oregon. But what happens to the franchisee?

The original premise - which appears to recommend an organized boycott of restaurants who support ORA - is troubling. Restaurants employ a lot of people. Should the owner's political beliefs condemn the line employees to unemployment? Do I need to inquire regarding the political beliefs of the Nordstrom family before I buy my wife a pair of slippers for Christmas?

It absolutely is tax fairness when a top 5% income buys a fundamentally greater level of political access, representation and judicial expertise from that which the bottom 50% have access to.

Whoa, slow down there big fella! While the rest of us are talking about taxation you’re muddying up the conversation whining about David Wu, OJ, and god only knows what else.

None of those things has anything to do with the fundamental unfairness of taxing one group of Americans at a higher rate than another.

Your critical thinking skills must have taken the Christmas holiday off early.

Buckman Res, your problem is with the 16th Amendment? With the principle of progressivity? And you're choosing to argue this when the U.S.A. has the highest Gini coefficient in the developed world, one that has been in a steep climb since the late 1960s . . .

see this for example: http://www.sustainablemiddleclass.com/Gini-Coefficient.html

Before we simply agree to disagree, let me ask you this question: is there ANY level of income inequality (either in past history or theoretically) that you would find it so pernicious and sufficiently harmful to democracy that it should be addressed by redistribution through taxation?

I'm not going to support 66 & 67 while President Obama is out there right now pushing for tax cuts for business in order to lift us out of the economic slump we're in. No way.

The "wealthy" filing individual income tax return over 250K are most likely small business owners, and the amount of taxes spent by corporations or individuals isn't $10-15 a year. I still don't understand why we lie about this.

We have some of the worst performing public K-12 schools in the nation. We also get kicker budget refunds when the unemployment rate is down, allowing for excess state revenue.

Obama is right. It is not the time to tax businesses big or small. Not with reduced state revenue directly due to the high rate of unemployment and lack of consumer spending. Those who support the measures have a very limited and naive viewpoint .

I'll be a good conservative on this one. I am all about individualism, and as an individual who is not of the wealthy class, I want to preserve my space and tax the fuck out of the rich. Yes on 66 and 67 and anything else that promotes class warfare against the rich.

You all have to understand that Paulie Brading has a real dog in this fight working in "education" along with Mel Harmon and many other regular commentators on this blog.

Here is the dirty little secret:

2009-2010 Education Budgets were created with the full expectation that BOTH M66 and M67 will pass. If both or one fails then Education will start have to costs like a 1,000 pound man needs to shed weight.

Meaning K-12 and Higher Ed budgets may just not have the money to require the services of "Educational Consultants" such as some who contribute to this blog.

The bolder suggestion would be that with Federal Public Sector employee now averaging $71k/year according to USA Today, why not force individual Public Sector employees to finance their own retirement, dump PERS and use those PERS funds to balance out the state budget?

RyanLeo - So what, if Paulie has a stake in this? Get a clue - WE ALL DO! First off, the legislature balanced the budget based on a combination of methods. And started with 07-09 levels and cut back from there. Education took a hit, too. The fact that the largest part of the state budget is education is thanks to the likes of McIntire and Sizemore. BTW - when have they ever saved anyone any money? Seems like Sizemore's more of a parasite than the public employees he so publicly hates. But I am sure he would never hesitate to call on one - a fireman, police officer, etc. PERS is covered by statute and the US Constitution. I thought those had to honored for everyone. Or is it only when it's convenient or you happen to agree? And your suggestion to raid PERS is outrageous! The PERS funds belong to the employees! Not the public. The problem with PERS is the employers did not set aside the matching funds and are trying to get out of their end of the bargain. Pat - you articulated the obvious - higher income individuals have more access. Especially, to manipulating the tax code to their advantage so they end up with little or no tax to pay. NOT AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION!

Ms Chan,

Where specifically in the written language of the US Constitution is there a right to a Public Employee Retirement System?

I am being facetious and there are many examples of commonplace institutions including the Federal Reserve, US Air Force, US Postal Service not written in the Supreme Law of the Land, more commonly known as, the US Constitution, but alive today.

Under what Amendment and Section is PERS explicitly or implicitly (cogent argument please) stated?

Please do not cite the preamble as it is ludicrous and absurdly vague as to give a crack smoker the notion that it is his right to smoke crack because crack-cocaine is his "pursuit of happiness."

Sorry, Pat. I didn't see that you were using it as I meant all along. Seemed literal at first.

Please do not cite the preamble as it is ludicrous and absurdly vague as to give a crack smoker the notion that it is his right to smoke crack because crack-cocaine is his "pursuit of happiness."

Well, it is, but most seem to be unable to grasp that it has nothing to do with US law. It's the national equivalent of campaign promises. The Declaration is not law. The Constitution is law, and it says nothing about any such right. Out leaders backtracked on that before they could get the first draft of the Constitution out.

Posted by: BOHICA | Dec 11, 2009 8:17:18 AM

My friends own a little 27 seat chat and chew in Hollywood. Sole proprietor. Won't impact them at all. And business is good. The downturn has actually been a boon since people can afford a $5 burger.

Sure. The concern is that someone has a "trip and fall" and ends up taking their home as well as their business. That's a big reason to incorporate. It's not just for big business.

And talk of PERS will (should) only lead back to the points about middle management salaries. It ain't the rank and file that's bankrupting it. Hmmm. The union mainly fights middle management. Think of how much more you could do for the budget, than these measures will, by eliminating middle management AND the union, as it would no longer be necessary. Kind of a state version of Buy Mart. I like the idea of an employee run state. That's grass roots. From firsthand experience I can tell you it would function as well or better at far less cost.

That's getting serious about the budget.

Posted by: alcatross | Dec 11, 2009 12:38:58 PM

So Zarathustra had it right, 'the lege' didn't have the guts to make hard choices...

I copped to it already, don't have to humiliate me by having alcatross agree! Sheesh. Talk about cruel and unusual...

Thanks, dittohead "jim" for that very right wing demonstration of contempt for all things undomesticated and not a part of your herd. While dressing this up as individual liberty, they reveal their utter revulsion for the real thing.

"Where specifically in the written language of the US Constitution is there a right to a Public Employee Retirement System?"

PERS is a contract. See S 10 of the constitution "No state shall pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts."

In other words the state cannot void a contract (ie measure 8 in 1994). It can avoid entering into identical contracts in the future but existing contractual obligations have to be honored.

Ryan Leo, I am surprised a knuckle-dragging reprobate like yourself would miss the obvious answer to your own question. PERS is a contract between the legislature and individuals and so abrogating said contract would be a breach of the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. Look up Fletcher v. Peck. Conservatives celebrate this stuff. Courts have already ruled against even knocking down rates of return. How do you think they would rule on your proposal?

Just because you believe that government employees are somehow less valuable to the public good than entrepreneurs and employees in the private sector doesn't make it so, and in particular it doesn't take away the constitutional rights of those governmental employees.

Moreover, let's say for the sake of argument that none of this was true. Let's say that it was open season on teachers, police, firemen, etc. and the state grabbed their PERS money and said YOYO (you're on your own).

Then said employees would be perfectly within their rights to come back and say: I bargained away pay raises in this year and this year and this year in exchange for the PERS system. Now I want those pay raises retroactively re-installed with interest. Those will fund my 401(k).

I think you'll find that under those circumstances PERS is a bargain.

See, ever since the 13th and 14th Amendments, you don't get to keep a class in involuntary servitude anymore, as convenient as that might be in theory.

KC said: Contrary to some of the commentary here and other places, the legislature did indeed slash and trim budgets almost entirely across the board. Their efforts in balancing the state's budget mirrored what one might see in a household - trim where you can and augment income where you can.

KC, you are mistating the facts and being disingenuous.

If you look at spending in the last biennium, and compare to the original budget proposal for the next biennium, you would find a 22% increase. The scrimping, saving, cutting you refer to resulted in a final budget that comes in with an overall increase of 9%. That is not scrimping, saving, and cutting. That is simply slowing down the year over year trend of budget increases.

To balance the budget, the legislature imposed new taxes that affect very few directly, but everyone indirectly. $733M is not chicken feed.

Also forgotten in the discussion is that there is a significant reliance on one time federal funds that will not be there the next time there is a budget shortfall. Much of the increase in state spending is justified by the state budget office as being necessary in order to qualify for federal funding - i.e. we need to spend more money in order to get more money. Where is the logic in this?

The other forgotten situation is that future bienniums will have shortfalls to address the PERS shortfall. I have no qualms about public employees entitlement to their pensions that were fairly negotiated. I do, however, fault the caretakers who have failed to conservatively manage and fund these obligations. The recent changes are necessary steps to prevent disaster, but there will still need to be future tax revenue increases to meet all the obligations

The real question that deserves an honest answer is whether Oregon depends on paying for future spending increases on rising tax revenues from a growing economy, or from increased taxes on the successful few.

If anyone's really interested in the welfare of restaurant workers, I encourage you to boycott the newly opened TOAST AND PHO at 101 NW 21st Ave. (503-274-0888). Toast and Pho have a history of questionable hiring/firing practices, as well as failing to pay their workers. Currently, the Portland Restaurant Workers Association (PRWA) is working to help 3 employees collect unpaid wages:

Teresa Nguyen is owed over $93.40 in wages and withheld tips, Pedro Rendon is owed over $1,000 in wages and overtime for hours worked before the restaurant opened, and Frank Clow is owed $7,000 in salary.

About 15 people with the PRWA stood in solidarity with the employees yesterday to present formal wage claims to the owners of Toast and Pho, Tan Vo and Titi Nguyen. The police were called and the claims were denied. The employees will now file them with BOLI.

@ Mike M

KC isn't incorrect, just not viewing the proposed budget cuts in the right framework.

For instance, programs like Head Start and Early Head Start could face cuts. Big deal. These kids and their parents, who have yet to even enter the public school system? Sure, when money is flowing in that kind of public welfare can be encouraged. But in tight times? Too bad if the little toddlers parents aren't helped out with cash to allow them what basically amounts to free child care.

And Mike M, the state has not pursued agressively enough federal funding already available to it from the federal stimulus packages. I believe Susan Castillo did not include those funds when developing the Oregon DOE budget. She was counting on hidden money coming in, she left 250 million of potential stimulus dollars out of her budget, as a hedge. Sneaky.

And let's not forget that the proposed budget cuts are in response to an incorrect analysis on where the economy would be through 2011. We projected our expected state revenues out into the future, and we were wrong. Instead of admitting we projected expected revenues incorrectly, not seeing the downturn as we should, the state wants to increase taxes so they can live inside their bubble.

I believe that if 66 & 67 passes, this state will sink further into the abyss.

And let me remind everyone who supports those measures that they are going DIRECTLY against the economic plans of President Obama to lift us out of the recession and into prosperity.

@ Paulie

The people of Oregon have voted consistently for ten years to pass every measure and every tax increase that would assist public schools. To no avail. Oregon is well below the top 50%. Over 50% of states have better educational results than ours. We're so bad the only ones worse are the deep southern states.

It's easy to claim you want to fight for the children. I think people are getting tired of using them as a shield.

Are you admitting that President Obama is wrong when he opposes taxation of business at this time? Are you truly trying to promote the myth that ALL corporations only pay a minimum tax of $10? Anyone can incorporate their business. Even an individual. Only corporations who do not turn a profit pay a minimum tax. We should trim the state government machine in order to balance the budget. That's where the only growth has been lately. Feeding the bureaucracy.

Ask yourself why the largest private sector employers across the board oppose these measures. Ponder that while you think about the future of our children who will find out those employers bailed and went to a more friendly state. Which by the way, those states who will benefit that welcome Obama's plans to solve the issues this nation faces, economically.

The sky will not fall when 66 & 67 fail to pass. If it does pass, there are no benchmarks to prove it is worthy of what it claims to avoid. I am, and we should all be extremely opposed to any taxation on business until the unemployment rate is down to 6%. And if we achieve that, then state revenues will be beyond and above budget forecasts. Even Obama recognizes that fact.

Dick Cheney had a tax burden of roughly 7% on the last million he "earned" for the last tax period.

Warren Buffett had a total tax burden of 17% on his total earnings last year.

Warren Buffett's office staff had a total tax burden of roughly 31% per person on average last year.

Now excuse me while I log off and try to find some concern for the plight of the uber-filthy rich.

Posted by: Bartender | Dec 12, 2009 12:33:38 PM

If anyone's really interested in the welfare of restaurant workers,

Unfortunately, most aren't. M67/68 is about continuing to grease the wheels of the big apparatus. The more middle managers suck up the funds, the more powerful lobbyists, political media, pundits, and their apparachiks become.

It is always about education, because the public have made it known that they will do anything, no matter how irrational, if it's "for the kiddies". You want to really, really do something "for the kiddies"? Don't have any.

I know Paulie to be a very dynamic and committed person here in southern Oregon. Unfortunately she is wrong on this issue. By delibeately choosing the "rich" and "business" the democrats in salem set a class warfare up that neither side can win.

Sure, it is easy to believe that the majority of voters will vote in increased taxes because they will nt be directly affected. Unfortunately, these new taxes do nothing to afford revenue stability and actually will not preserve current staffing levels in (pick your favorite state program).

The PERS debacle will suck an additional 6%-9& out of ALL agencies employing public workers covered by PERS by 2011. This is the fault of the Oregon Treasury Department and the Investment Board, not at all the fault of the many excellent public employees covered by PERS. However, the problem will affect all agencies and taxpayers as they struggle with this additional burden.

Dr. Smith -

I have to disagree. Not only are these tax measures necessary to fund education (for the kiddies), they are also necessary to avoid cuts to social service programs. Which, as I wrote earlier, most restaurant workers are eligible for due to their low incomes. I agree there is waste in state government, but I think the first priority is making sure people can eat, get affordable medical care, and have a roof over their heads.

Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Dec 13, 2009 8:32:18 AM

Sure, it is easy to believe that the majority of voters will vote in increased taxes because they will nt be directly affected.

That's one way of looking at it, but I'm voting for these measures because the tax burden for business, and high-income earners has gone down while its gone up for most individuals over the past few decades. THAT's what makes this about tax fairness. It's funny how the "class warfare" canard is only trotted out when the wealthy are targeted.

A New York Times op-ed in the Sunday, 12/13/2009 edition chimes in with thoughts on how to best deal with the current recession, and identifies the path to successful stimulus:

"The results are striking. Successful stimulus relies almost entirely on cuts in business and income taxes. Failed stimulus relies mostly on increases in government spending. ..."

"Successful stimulus relies almost entirely on cuts in business and income taxes"

Why stop there? Let's keep it going by:

Deregulating all banking functions Privitize Social Security with Goldman Sacs Eliminate all regulations regarding off-shore banking Invade another country with oil Invade another country without oil (just for fun!) Eliminate all inheritance taxes Allow 1% to control 90% of the wealth Allow corporations to run for political office

We really need to commit to this stimulus 100% because we all know that history tells us that cutting taxes during war time is the American way!

The wealthy have been waging class warfare against the middle class for centuries, especially since the Reagan administration, and over the last few decades the wealthy have devastated the middle class. The Reaganite disinvestment in education and infrastructure, along with their war on labor, has already left Gen X and Gen Y with basically no hope of a middle class lifestyle.

There is a glimmer of hope for the next generation, but with such powerful people working so hard for so long to starve American middle class, it will really take all of our efforts, plus a few miracles, to save it.

There's a movement to radically change California government, by getting rid of career politicians and chopping their salaries in half. A group known as Citizens for California Reform wants to make the California legislature a part time time job, just like it was until 1966.

www.onlineuniversalwork.com