The Save-Social-Security Petition for Dutchess County sign now

Save Social Security-- Say NO to Privatization

Hold Town Meetings Here in Dutchess County on Social Security

Representatives John Sweeney and Sue Kelly should hold town meetings here in Dutchess County and explain their positions on Social Security (thankfully, Rep. Maurice Hinchey has long stood strong against privatization of Social Security).

Rep. Kelly and Rep. Sweeney should also tell President Bush in no uncertain terms that they want to help make Social Security stronger-- not weaker, by privatization.

"Republican House members such as Katherine Harris of Florida, Candice Miller of Michigan and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia have expressed reservations about Bush's proposal to partially privatize Social Security by establishing personal investment accounts," as reported by Bloomberg News on January 21st (see below).

Even U.S. News and World Report issued a scathing editorial against privatizing Social Security on January 27th (see below).

The New York Times reported the truth on the disastrous results of Chile's privatizing pensions there on January 27th (see Our

The fact is that the overwhelming and vast majority of Americans do not want Social Security privatized and sold off to Wall Street (see AARP article on Roper poll below).

The time for us to lift our voices on this is now-- in memory of FDR, and for all of us now and in the future-- without further delay.

The toll-free number for Congress is (800) 839-5276.

The Real Majority Project can be reached at (845) 876-2488.


According to the Social Security Administration's own website:

Albany, N.Y., - February 28, 1929 - FDR Message to N.Y. State
Legislature : As governor of N.Y., FDR proposes a commission to study
the question of security against old-age, poverty, and want. FDR
Quote: "No greater tragedy exists in modern civilization than the
aged, worn-out worker who after a life of ceaseless effort and useful
productivity must look forward for his declining years to a
poorhouse. A modern social consciousness demands a more humane and efficient arrangement."

National Conference on Economic Security - Hotel Mayflower,
Washington, D.C., November 14, 1934: This was the nation's first
"town-hall" meeting on Social Security. It was sponsored by the
President's Committee on Economic Security. President Roosevelt
addressed the conference leaders in the White House. FDR Quote: There are other matters with which we must deal before we shall give
adequate protection to the individual against the many economic
hazards. Old age is at once the most certain, and for many people the
most tragic of all hazards. There is no tragedy in growing old, but
there is tragedy in growing old without means of support...
Organizations promoting fantastic schemes have aroused hopes which cannot possibly be fulfilled. Through their activities they have
increased the difficulties of getting sound legislation; but I hope
that in time we may be able to provide security for the aged--a sound
and a uniform system which will provide true security.



FDR's Annual message to Congress: "The Economic Bill of Rights"
January 11, 1944 [excerpt]

"We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual
freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.
"Necessitous men are not free men." People who are hungry and out of
a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day, these economic truths have become accepted as
self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights
under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established
for all - regardless of station, race or creed.

Among these are...

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and
enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age,
sickness, accident and unemployment...

America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon
how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice
for our citizens, For unless there is security here at home there
cannot be lasting peace in the world."


"Basic Facts on Social Security and Proposed Benefit Cuts/Privatization"
by Dean Baker and David Rosnick
[Center for Economic Policy and Research]

1) Social Security is Financially Sound

According to the Social Security trustees report, the standard basis
for analyzing Social Security, the program can pay all benefits
through the year 2042, with no changes whatsoever. Even after 2042
the program would always be able to pay retirees a higher benefit (in
today's dollars) than what current retirees receive. The assessment
of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office is that Social
Security is even stronger. It projects that Social Security can pay
all benefits through the year 2052 with no changes whatsoever. By
either measure, Social Security is more financially sound today than
it has been throughout most of its 69-year history.

2) President Bush's Social Security Cuts Would Be Large

The proposal that President Bush is using as the basis for his plan
phases in cuts over time. A worker who is 45 today can expect to see
a cut in guaranteed benefits of around 15 percent. A worker who is
age 35 can expect to see a cut in the guaranteed benefit of
approximately 25 percent. A 15 year old who is just entering the work
force can expect a benefit cut of close to 40 percent. For a 15 year
old, this cut would mean a loss of close to $160,000 in Social
Security benefits over the course of their retirement.

Private accounts will allow workers to earn back only a small
fraction of this amount. For example, a 15 year-old can expect to
make back approximately $50,000 from the $160,000 cut with the
earnings on a private account. If this worker retires when the market
is in a slump, then it could make their loss even bigger.

3) Imaginary Stock Returns Don't Offset Real Benefit Cuts

Proponents of private accounts have often used highly exaggerated
assumptions on stock returns to argue for the benefits of private
accounts. For example, even at the height of the stock bubble in
2000, when the price to earnings ratioin the market exceeded 30 to 1,
many proponents of private accounts assumed that stocks would
generate 7.0 percent real returns annually. This assumption was
absurd on its face - it implied that price to earnings ratios would
rise to levels of more than 100 to 1. Unfortunately, even the Social
Security Administration has used these unfounded assumptions in
assessing privatization plans.

Given current price to earnings ratios and the Social Security
trustees' profit growth projections, real stock returns will average
less than 5.0 percent annually. Some proponents of private accounts
are still using exaggerated stock return assumptions to advance their

4) Social Security is Extremely Efficient, Private Accounts Are Wasteful

On average, less than 0.6 cents of every dollar paid out in Social
Security benefits goes to pay administrative costs. By comparison,
systems with individual accounts, like the ones in England or Chile,
waste 15 cents of every dollar paid out in benefits on administrative
fees. President Bush's Social Security commission estimated that
under their system of individual accounts 5 cents of every dollar
would go to pay administrative costs.

In addition, under Social Security workers automatically get an
annuity (a life-long monthly payment) when they retire. By contrast,
financial firms typically take 10 to 20 percent of workers' savings
to provide an annuity when they reach retirement.

5) Social Security Pays the Most to Those Who Need it Most

Social Security benefits are highly progressive, so that low wage
workers get a much higher share of their wages in benefits than do
high wage workers. A worker who earned $10,000 a year during their
working lifetime can expect to see a benefit that is equal to
approximately 75 percent of their average wage. A worker who earned
$33,000 a year will get a benefit that is equal to approximately 45
percent of their wage, while a worker who earned $50,000 on average
will get a benefit that is equal to 39 percent of their wage.

While poorer workers do not live as long as higher paid workers, the
progressive benefit structure largely offsets differences in life
expectancy (as do disability and survivors benefits for those who do
not live to normal retirement age). Furthermore, since plans are
being made for the distant future, the United States could reduce the
gaps in life expectancy by income and race, as other countries have

6) The Projected Shortfall is No Larger Than What We Have Seen In Past Decades

It has been necessary to raise Social Security taxes in the past,
primarily because people are living longer than they used to. The tax
increase that would be needed to make the program fully funded over
its seventy five year planning period is actually smaller than tax
increases we have seen in prior decades. In other words - it would
have made more sense to talk of a Social Security "crisis" in 1965
than in 2005. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office
estimates, Social Security can be made solvent throughout its seventy
five year planning period with a tax increase that is less than one
quarter as large as the one in the eighties.

While tax increases are never popular, the fact is that prior tax
increases did not prevent decades like the fifties or sixties from
being periods of great prosperity. Of course, if the economy
maintains anywhere near its recent pace of growth, any tax increases
can be put off for many decades into the future, and possibly forever.

7) Young Workers Will Still See Much Higher Wages If Taxes Are Increased

If it proves necessary to raise more money for Social Security
through taxes, workers will still see large increases in their
after-tax wages. This is true even if they end up paying a larger
share of their wages in Social Security taxes. According to the
Social Security trustees' projections, the average after-Social
Security tax wage for a worker in 2050, will still be more than 70
percent higher than it is today, even if taxes are raised to keep the
program solvent. The CBO projections imply an even larger increase in
after-tax wages.

Raising payroll taxes is not the only way to increase the revenue for
Social Security. An alternative is to raise the ceiling on taxable
wages. Currently, no Social Security taxes are paid on income earned
above $87,900 in any given year. If the ceiling were raised to
$110,000 to cover 90 percent of the country's income from wages (the
level set by the Greenspan commission in 1983), it would eliminate
approximately 40 percent of the projected funding shortfall. Using
the CBO projections, this change alone would be almost enough to make
the program solvent through the seventy-five year planning period.

8) The Bush Proposal Phases Out Social Security as We Know It

President Bush's proposal gradually shrinks the traditional
guaranteed Social Security so that it will eventually become
irrelevant for middle income workers. For today's twenty year old
average wage earners, the guaranteed benefit will be equal to just 15
percent of their annual earnings when they reach retirement age. The
guaranteed benefit will be equal to just 7 percent of annual earnings
for a child born ten years from now.

As the traditional Social Security benefit becomes less important for
middle-income workers, Social Security will increasingly become a
poor people's program. This may be a clever strategy if the purpose
is to undermine political support for Social Security; it is not a
good way to structure the program if we expect it to be there for our
children and grandchildren.



According to the Older Women's League:

"Social Security Privatization: A False Promise for Women"

* The Social Security system is an embodiment of the long-standing
American principle of social insurance, providing nearly universal
coverage for workers and their families through a pooling of
resources, benefits, and risk.

* One-third of the program's beneficiaries are not retirees but
include children, widows, and people with disabilities. Social
Security offers an unmatchable set of insurance protections for
workers and their families, providing protection against poverty in
the event of death, disability, or old age.

* Women comprise the majority of Social Security beneficiaries,
representing 58 percent of all Social Security recipients at age 65
and 71 percent of all recipients by age 85.

* Accounting for more than 70 percent of older adults living in
poverty, women are more vulnerable in retirement. During this time
they most need the stability of a guaranteed source of income-their
Social Security check. Without it, 52 percent of white women, 65
percent of African American women, and 61 percent of Latinas over age
65 would be poor.

For a complete copy of OWL's 2002 Mother's Day Report, "Social
Security Privatization: A False Promise for Women"



According to the Alliance for Retired Americans:

MYTH: "Personal accounts will enable a worker to be able to pass on
his or her ownings to whoever he or she chooses, which is an
important part of promoting an ownership society. We want people to
own and manage their own assets."
-President George Bush on Social Security, 1/26/05

FACT: Truth is the reality would produce a lot less individual
control than President Bush claims. All the major proposals being
considered for private accounts would place big limits on how much
money individuals can invest, where it can be invested, what they can
do with it when they retire and how much they can pass on to heirs.
(source: William M. Welch, "Social Security Accounts Would Limit
Control," USA Today, 1/26/05)



"Bush's Social Security Effort Fails to Sway Some Republicans"
by Jeff Bliss
[Bloomberg News 1/21/05]

President George W. Bush argues that his election to a second term
gave him a popular mandate to undertake the most radical
transformation of Social Security in the 69-year history of the

Some of his staunchest allies on Capitol Hill aren't so sure,
especially since they publicly campaigned against changing the
retirement system.

Republican House members such as Katherine Harris of Florida, Candice Miller of Michigan and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia have expressed reservations about Bush's proposal to partially privatize Social Security by establishing personal investment accounts.

"I'm not sure I've heard a solution I've agreed with," said Harris,
who as Florida's secretary of state played a central role in the
vote-counting dispute in 2000 with her interpretation of the state's
election laws. Harris, who was elected to the House in 2002, said
last year she opposed creating the private accounts unless future
benefits are guaranteed.

Opposition to the private accounts within his party may be a powerful
obstacle to Bush's paramount domestic priority because Democrats are unlikely to step forward to help him push a plan through Congress,
said Eric Uslaner, professor of government and politics at the
University of Maryland. "He loses a handful of Republicans and he's
dead," said Uslaner, author of the 1993 book, "The Decline of Comity
in Congress"...

Capito, who was first elected in 2000, was the first Republican in 18
years to serve her West Virginia district, which includes the state
capital, Charleston. During the 2002 campaign, she told the
Washington Post that investing Social Security taxes in the financial
markets was like playing "Russian roulette."

She has softened her position and now says she would be willing to
consider all options for fixing the system, said R.C. Hammond,
Capito's spokesman.

AARP, the largest lobbying group for Americans 50 and older, is
pressing Capito and other members of the West Virginia delegation to
oppose the accounts, said Gaylene Miller, a lobbyist for the state's
AARP chapter.

The group opposes the private accounts because they would divert
money from the retirement system at a time when the need will be most acute, said David Certner, AARP's director of federal affairs.

West Virginia

The West Virginia AARP chapter is sponsoring four to six forums
across the state in the next six months and rolling out a TV and
print campaign as part of the AARP's national media strategy to
oppose the Bush proposal, Miller said.

Capito "has been receptive to looking at AARP's position and I think
she respects our interests," Miller said.

Harris, who represents a district that contains one of the oldest
populations in the U.S., said she was taking seniors' concerns into
account. "I have a very close personal working relationship with the
AARP," said Harris, who voted in favor of Bush proposals 94 percent
of the time in 2004.

During the 2004 campaign, Harris responded to an AARP questionnaire issued to Florida candidates by saying she "opposes creating private individual accounts out of Social Security unless she can be assured that Social Security benefits will not be compromised in the future."


One of Harris's constituents, Marty Wood, 92, said the investment
options for personal accounts would not meet with approval from most
people in Harris's Manatee district.

"It's foolish because the average person is not well enough equipped
to know enough about the stock market," said Wood, director of
volunteers for the AARP's Manatee Widowed Persons Service.

Miller represents a portion of Macomb County, Michigan, which she
said has one of the five largest senior populations in the U.S. "We
don't move to Florida," she said. "We stay here."

In a statement on her Web site during the 2002 elections, Miller said
she "would not allow anyone to change the rules on Social Security in
a way that hurts our senior citizens."

There can be "no privatization of Social Security," she wrote. "We
cannot put retirement security at risk by putting any of the trust
fund dollars in risky investments like the stock market."
be safe enough to ensure benefits for seniors...

Representative Robin Hayes of North Carolina, who voted for bills
Bush supported 76 percent of the time last year, has the same
concerns about personal accounts that he expressed in a 2002 debate,
said Carolyn Hern, a spokeswoman. "His position is still the same,"
she said. "He does not support privatization and is currently taking
a let's see approach."

During the 2004 campaign, Representative Jon Porter of Nevada said he
opposed changing current Social Security benefits, though personal
accounts should be considered. "He feels the debate ought to start
and to put everything on the table," said Adam Mayberry, his

Fissures in the Republican consensus on private accounts started to
appear during the fight to boost the Republican House majority and
retake the Senate in 2002...



New AARP Poll Finds Appeal of Social Security Private Accounts Drops
When Consequences Are Known

Americans seek only modest changes to strengthen the program
January 24, 2005

If given a choice, three-in-five Americans would strengthen Social
Security with as few changes as possible, according to a poll
conducted by AARP. The poll also found that the more Americans learn
about diverting Social Security taxes into private investment
accounts, the less they like the idea.

Two-thirds (66\%) of Americans age 30 and above support keeping Social Security as is, including 6 in 10 (62\%) Gen Xers ages 30-39. A
similar number of leading edge boomers ages 50-59 (65\%) and a clear majority (57\%) of boomers ages 40-49 agreed.

"A majority of Americans, even younger adults, would like to see
Social Security continued substantially as it is today," said AARP
CEO Bill Novelli.

"Social Security does need to be strengthened and people accept that
fact. On one hand, the public has been told to have doubts about
their Social Security benefits. On the other hand, they expect the
government to deliver on its obligation to honor those benefits."
Novelli added.

More than two-thirds of people under age 50 are not confident that
Social Security will be there for them, the AARP poll indicates. But
a strong majority of all those polled (83\%), agreed that Social
Security should be strengthened rather than replaced, and that
private accounts would hurt Social Security (60\%)...

After initial supporters had been exposed to all of the consequences
of diverting payroll taxes to fund private accounts, only 10\% still
favored them. This means, in the context of the entire survey sample,
that only 5\% favored this approach once the consequences were evident...

"A lack of knowledge about private accounts is a dangerous thing,"
explained Novelli. When people are exposed to the full details of
private accounts, support falls to only 5 percent."

The telephone poll of 1,500 adults aged 30 and over was conducted for
AARP by Roper Public Affairs from December 6 through December 23. The margin of error is 3 percentage points.


According to the AFL-CIO:

"President Bush's Social Security privatization plan would devastate
working families-while handing billions of dollars to rich Wall
Street investment companies. Privatization plans to replace
guaranteed benefits with risky private accounts would fatally
undermine Social Security, cut benefits drastically, most likely
raise workers' retirement age-and saddle our children with $2
trillion in debt.

We oppose any efforts to privatize Social Security. Social Security
privatization will lead to huge cuts in guaranteed benefits. Many
privatization plans also would increase the retirement age. We oppose
proposals that would cut benefits or raise the retirement age.
Millions of people count on Social Security because they are retired
or disabled. It is unconscionable that we would cut their benefits
through privatization."



"A 'Cure' Worse Than the Cold"
by Mortimer B. Zuckerman [1/27/05 U.S. News & World Report-- excerpt]

"As the baby boomers begin to retire, the system will go into deficit around 2018, requiring drawing down on the fund. By that time the fund will exceed $3 trillion, so it will be in the black until around 2042, using the Social Security Administration's conservative economic and demographic assumptions, or 2052, using the assumptions of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Even if the system exhausts its reserves, payroll taxes will continue to roll in, enabling at least 73 percent of scheduled benefits to be paid out.

In other words, there is no current financial crisis in the program.
So, what's with all the hand-wringing? Well, if you make pessimistic
predictions about economic growth, immigration, and wage inflation,
the projected revenues may not be enough to pay benefits. The Social
Security actuaries, for instance, project that growth will average
only 1.6 percent after 2010, about half the rate we have enjoyed in
the past century. But if the economy grows at anywhere near the
levels that Bush's own budget experts project, the surplus, in
effect, would never run out. And more-optimistic forecasts than those
of the Social Security actuaries are supported by the recent history
of economic and demographic trends.

Most important, to the extent that there is a deficit, it could be
covered by a variety of modest combinations of tax hikes and benefit
cuts--each of them quite manageable.

There are many options that would not put at risk the essential
elements of Social Security. A careful study by AARP estimates that
43 percent of the Social Security deficit projection would be met by
raising the cap on taxable wages from $90,000 to $140,000; 38 percent
would be covered until 2083 by raising to 70 the retirement age for
full benefits; a quarter-percentage-point increase in the payroll tax
for employees and employers would cover 24 percent; requiring state
and local government workers to join would cover 9 percent. Yet
another approach implicit in the president's program is to decelerate
increases in benefits by raising them in line with prices, not wages.
This readjustment would eliminate the 75-year projected deficit of
Social Security, but it would have a major impact on low-wage earners
who depend almost entirely on Social Security, and it would reduce
benefits for middle-income workers by as much as 25 percent over 30
years. It would thus preclude many seniors from enjoying the benefits
of rising standards of living. A solution here is to protect workers
at the lower end of the income spectrum by retaining benefits
according to wage rises for them but lowering benefits to price
indexing for the higher levels. Or some mix of the two...

Privatization thus gets things upside down. Social Security was not
meant to re-create the free market; it was intended to insure against
the vagaries and cruelties of the market and to permit Americans to
count on the promise that the next generation will take care of them
in their old age."

Sign The Petition

Sign with Facebook

If you already have an account please sign in, otherwise register an account for free then sign the petition filling the fields below.
Email and the password will be your account data, you will be able to sign other petitions after logging in.

Privacy in the search engines? You can use a nickname:

Attention, the email address you supply must be valid in order to validate the signature, otherwise it will be deleted.

I confirm registration and I agree to Usage and Limitations of Services

I confirm that I have read the Privacy Policy

I agree to the Personal Data Processing


Who signed this petition saw these petitions too:

Sign The Petition

Sign with Facebook

If you already have an account please sign in


I confirm registration and I agree to Usage and Limitations of Services

I confirm that I have read the Privacy Policy

I agree to the Personal Data Processing

50 / 100

Latest Signatures

  • 19 December 201550. Diane Eh
    keep it the way it is!!!! Address; Zip Code 21 roundtree ct beacon ny
  • 24 November 201549. Bill C
    the stock market casino is not a solution Address; Zip Code 12508
  • 16 November 201548. Catherine W
    It would be JUST PLAIN STUPID to hand our FICA taxes over to possibly unscrupulous and inefficient private investment companies who guarantee themselves a profit BEFORE they provide for even maintaining the value of our original investments. Address; Zip
  • 19 October 201547. Margaret Vonv
    ugh, c'mon folks Address; Zip Code 143 Cannon St., Poughkeepsie, NY
  • 03 October 201546. Anthony Henrys
    To quote a line from Phil Ochs, "We're only as rich as the poorest of our poor, ..." Citizens mustn't be abandoned in their old age. It's an outrage that we've fallen so low as to make this petition necessary Address; Zip Code 30 Adriance Avenue, Poughkee
  • 17 September 201545. Thomas B
    Please work to drop privatization of Social Security Address; Zip Code Thomas Baldino, 19 North Street, Beacon, NY 12508
  • 13 September 201544. Bill G
    It is absolutely undeniable that President Bush's privitization plan does not strengthen Social Security, it weakens it. It removes what would otherwise be income from the program. I urge you to strongly express your rejection of this idea to the Presiden
  • 10 September 201543. Cary K
    it isn't social security if it isn't everyone together not taking any chances - don't privatize it! Address; Zip Code 12507
  • 02 September 201542. Michael F
    The pattern is so clear by now. Dismantle anything and everything that works for the people and do it quick- while you have the power you stole from those very same people. Address; Zip Code 349 Ackert Hook Rd Rhinebeck NY 12572
  • 01 September 201541. Caitlin H
    Don't Privatize Social Security! Address; Zip Code 124 Raymond Ave Box 2414, 12604
  • 01 September 201540. Fred N
    The New Deal or a new government Address; Zip Code 12572
  • 11 August 201539. Shirley F
    NO TO PRIVATIZATION Address; Zip Code 12590
  • 03 August 201538. Bruce L
    Stop this fraud as payoff to the brokerage industry at expense of popular financial security. Yet another of policies by Bush in war of rich adn corporations against 95% of us. Address; Zip Code 12572
  • 03 August 201537. Dorothy S
    We need to protect this system which helped so many of us, not destroy it through privitization, Address; Zip Code 112 Sterling Street Beacon, NY 12508
  • 25 July 201536. Will C
    I support this petition
  • 28 June 201535. Peter Ra
    Social Security works. It works as-is. It doesn't need "fixing". What needs fixing is a government that steals from the people and gives even more to the obscenely wealthy. But we can fix that at the next elections. Address; Zip Code 213 Old Route 55, Po
  • 25 June 201534. Dorothy Shaysd
    We need to protect this system which helped so many of us, not destroy it through privitization, Address; Zip Code 112 Sterling Street Beacon, NY 12508
  • 25 May 201533. James Hm
    Save Social Security Address; Zip Code 86 Marple Rd. Extn,Poughkeepsie,NY12603
  • 13 May 201532. Jeanne P
    stop the insanity! Address; Zip Code 322 Hudson Ave, Beacon, NY 12508
  • 28 March 201531. Andi N
    Read Paul Krugman, if you have any questions on this. He isn't just a columnist for the Times, but is also an economist. And in very simple prose he explains everything you need to know. All of which boils down to-- your government is lying to you still a
  • 22 March 201530. Phyllis W
    This would not be happening if Senators and Representatives were part of the Social Security system. Address; Zip Code 10 Patricia Avenue
  • 09 March 201529. Alice W
    Think about about who will make up the difference for people who lose money in the stock market and then expect the government to bail out their retirement years. Think about the fact that everything Bush does is for Big Business and the wealthy. Big Busi
  • 26 January 201528. Douglas M
    Your constituents come before an administration that at one time seriously supported John Poindexter's "Investing for Terrorism" program. What BS will come next? Why don't you Republicans just privatize our bank accounts?? Address; Zip Code 37 Hornbeck Ri
  • 25 January 201527. Douglas Cs
    The idea of Individual Accounts does not make sense; they would throw out a good program for a bad one. Address; Zip Code 12580
  • 21 January 201526. Daniel T
    Stop the advance of corporatocracy Address; Zip Code 4 Geering Way Fishkill, NY 12524
  • 04 January 201525. Carl P
    I support this petition Address; Zip Code 308 Sepasco Lake Rd, Rhinebeck, NY 12572
  • 29 December 201424. Debra H
    I have just one word to say about investing......ENRON! Address; Zip Code 130 Creamery Road Hopewell Junction NY 12533

browse all the signatures


Nona CostaBy:
Transport and infrastructureIn:
Petition target:
Rep. Sue Kelly and Rep. John Sweeney


No tags


Invite friends from your address book

Embed Codes

direct link

link for html

link for forum without title

link for forum with title