Truth column March 7-13

A local bus-stop shelter was recently spray-painted with "Aoteoroa is not for sale." The tagging was a response to the Crafar Farm deal. In a similar vein last week, there were calls from NZ First and The Greens (unlikely bedmates) for the government to 'do something' about house sales to foreigners, in particular, Asians. Foreign investors, they say, are locking New Zealanders out of the housing market with their preparedness to pay good money for property. It's not fair, they say. It's not looking after our own first.

For every buyer of a house, there's a seller. Before asking politicians to regulate against freedom to purchase property, owners should think about what that means for them.

More

A good news story about getting off the dole

Home from work and having a happy hour glass of bubbly, feeling a bit more benign towards mankind as Michael Laws would put it, I came across this and thought I'd just cut and paste it. I can theorise till the cows come home about why government shouldn't be involved in wage subsidies, skills training, job placement etc but they are and this is at least one good, heart-warming even, result.

"I’ve learnt a lot and my knowledge is growing all the time."

Late one night last year, an elderly man found himself harassed by a group outside a Wellington bar. Afraid and unable to escape the situation, he sought refuge inside the bar. Henry Lemalu was working security when the man came up and asked him for help.
A quiet-spoken, steadfast individual, Henry was relatively new to security but he knew what to do.
“I went out there and told them to mind their own business. The following week the man came back and gave me a present to thank me for helping him out. That was a great feeling – knowing you can make a difference.”
For employer Darryl Stonnell of First Contact Security, it would have come as no surprise to see his trainee handle the situation so well.
Intelligent, committed and worthy are the words Darryl used when he nominated Henry for the Security Trainee of the Year 2012.
And yet, 18 months before he won the industry-wide award, Henry Lomalu was so afraid he wouldn’t measure up, especially with writing and theory, that it took all his courage not to walk away from the opportunity.
Struggling to find work on the Unemployment Benefit back in 2011, Henry was offered a place on an eight-week training course with a security company, First Contact. The company partners with Work and Income, training unemployed clients with the aim of moving them into work or further training.
It was the first time Henry had studied or trained since leaving school.
“I was so afraid that I almost had second thoughts. I wasn’t sure if I was capable or what I was getting myself into. But I’m pleased I convinced myself that this was something I could do and that I needed to do”, says Henry.
He shouldn’t have worried. Not only did he pass and gain a job, but First Contact saw the potential in Henry and encouraged him to go for the National Certificate in Security.
“It was a nice feeling to know that Darryl and the team supported me and wanted me to gain more qualifications. Otherwise I don’t think I would have attempted it. I was worried about the theory aspect; I’ve never had to write reports before or learn the specific alphabet used in the industry.”
Henry is now a team leader and studying towards the Level 3 certificate. He says he’s proud of what he’s done so far.
“I’ve learnt a lot and my knowledge is growing all the time.”
For Darryl, the reward is not only gaining a valuable employee but seeing Henry grow in confidence and skill.
He says he is impressed by Henry’s determination and hopes that winning the award will prove to Henry that he is capable of achieving even more.
“He is a prime example of someone who hasn’t found the training easy, has struggled at times, but has persevered and is now reaping the rewards of his efforts.”

Parental leave - pay for it yourself

The private members bill legislating for an increase of taxpayer-funded Paid Parental Leave (PPL) from 14 to 26 weeks is back in parliament today. Bear in mind, if lobbyists get 6 months it'll only be a matter of time before they want 1 year.

The main argument goes that bonding and breastfeeding are so important they should be encouraged as much as possible.

If you look at how mothers are behaving after a birth most already appreciate that.

NZ statistics analysed data from 2002 -2005 when the provision was for 12 weeks PPL.

Did most mothers return to work when their leave entitlement ran out?

No.

4 months after starting PPL only 12.5 percent were back working - at 5 months, only 33 percent.

30 percent had not returned to work after 18 months.

So, outside of 12 weeks, the majority of mothers were already funding motherhood themselves. They don't need the taxpayer to make it possible for them to stay home.

60.4 percent were aged 30 or older,  probably well-established in work and earnings. The average monthly earnings before PPL were $3,450. Mothers in the 99th percentile had monthly earnings of $10,490 but under the proposed  legislation would still be getting 6 months tax-payer funded PPL.

Finally, "Employment and return to work rates were higher for those who had earned the most before starting parental leave. "

The people who least need taxpayer support return to work faster anyway.

Begrudging farmers and attitudes to welfare

Those people commenting here and elsewhere about their lack of sympathy for farmers and opposition to any assistance will be pleased to know that Work and Income has not made any payments to farmers since the official drought declaration.

A spokesman for Work and Income said no rural assistance payments had been made since drought had been declared.

As I pointed out yesterday on an earlier thread these payments will be very hard to access and are only for people in extreme hardship.

Personally I don't begrudge it.

Here's something relevant written by an economist:

Attitudes towards welfare may differ substantially even across otherwise similar countries, but the basic determinants of solidarity and willingness to help are understood well enough. An interesting summary of the quantitative and qualitative research is provided by Horton and Gregory (2009: 110–30). It shows, first of all, that most people are not indifferent to the distress of others. 

 

Most people, however, have strong views on what they expect from those receiving help. The single biggest deterrent to generosity is fear of being taken advantage of. Free-riding is so destructive that it need not even be especially widespread in order to undermine people’s willingness to help. At the same time, nothing boosts the willingness to be generous as much as the confidence that most recipients of aid will collaborate, and do their best to improve their own situation.

 

The bottom line of the research is that people empathise with those who try – even if they try unsuccessfully. This is such a strong determinant of people’s willingness to help others that it trumps all other considerations.

 

An interesting illustration is an experimental study in which participants are presented with a set of fictional characters, and are asked to evaluate the degree to which they are deserving (ibid.:123–30). One of the characters has entered hard times through no fault of his own, receives benefits now, has the opportunity to change his situation, but does not do so. Another character has only himself to blame for having come on hard times, but is now doing his best to get his life back on track again. Participants empathised more strongly with the latter character. People are not primarily interested in who is to blame for a situation, but in who is doing their best to remedy the situation.

Who's 'beneficiary bashing'?

It seems to me the phrase 'beneficiary bashing' was coined in the 1990s and originally used to describe Ruth Richardson's benefit cuts. For some time I've been reflecting that the Left are now very quick to cry beneficiary bashing whenever  government attempts to reform welfare IN ANY WAY.

But this National government has never cut benefit payments. In fact they've introduced more protection for benefit levels through indexing.  National hasn't reduced the incomes of beneficiaries.

Policies of (usually) the political Left though, like tobacco and alcohol taxes, supposed environmentally-friendly fuel and energy taxes, a proposed fat tax, or Labour's capital gains tax, actually do or will hurt the lowest income people the most. Does anybody cry 'beneficiary basher' when Tariana Turia ratchets up the price of a cigarette yet again? Despite Maori women being the most prolific users of welfare and the biggest users of tobacco?

I was just reading a paper that shows  spending on alcohol and tobacco accounts for 10.7 percent of the incomes of those in the lowest quintile in the UK. The same paper shows how government interference in the housing market - and the UK has the same affordability problem as NZ - leads to high rents, again disproportionately hurting the working poor and beneficiaries. Do environmentalists seeking to prevent urban sprawl get called beneficiary bashers? Do climate change activists who campaigned for the ETS get called beneficiary bashers?

But offer free long-acting contraception to a beneficiary sole parent and her teenage daughter and you are not only a basher but a eugenicist! Everything aimed at trying to better the material and social lot of people on welfare and their children - work obligations for those able, short-term retention of benefit while transitioning into work, requirement to partake in child health and educational facilities, income management to ensure essentials get paid for - are all labelled punitive and beneficiary bashing.

Perhaps we should turn the term on the Left at every occasion they suggest making life financially tougher for those on low incomes, be they beneficiaries or workers (or both). Even BUY NZ could be construed as a beneficiary bashing campaign on the premise most cannot afford such indulgent nationalism. It'd be drawing a longish bow but isn't that what the Greens, Mana and Labour do every time they invoke the mantra?

A survey that tells us stuff all

Reported at Stuff:

Employers have slammed the government's scorecard on creating jobs and developing a viable growth agenda, a survey of business owners has found.
The Ernst & Young/Sunday Star-Times Job Creation Survey also indicated how widespread employers' concerns over unemployment and job creation are, with an overwhelming majority expecting it to be a major issue at the next General Election.
The survey participants were owners or managers, mainly mid-market, in a variety of industries nationwide.
It found that just over half of those businesses (54 per cent) had hired someone in the last year, but slightly less than that (51 per cent) intended hiring anyone in the year ahead.
When asked if they thought job creation was the responsibility of the government, the private sector or a combination of both, an overwhelming majority (79 per cent) said both.
However most were unimpressed with the government's contribution to that process.

What's missing is any in indication of whether the employer wants the government to be more active in loosening up employment legislation, wage controls, tax legislation, monetary policy etc. or they want the government to spend more on job creation schemes, wage subsidies, training, start-up subsidies etc.

It's depressing that 79 percent think job creation is both the responsibility of government and the private sector. But if I was answering the question precisely, at this point I'd have to agree. The government and only the government can extract itself from activities that contribute to unemployment and business failure. National has done a few things, for example the 90 day work law, but they need to do far more. Especially big stuff like lowering corporate tax. Not tweeking stuff.

So they can't really win when it comes to a survey like this. Labour supporters and National  supporters alike will find fault. But Labour's employment spokesperson, Grant Robertson says:

 "We need a hands-on government, not a hands-off one and I think the message from the business people who have been surveyed here is that they think this is a hands-off government that is not playing its part."

That's not the message I get. I don't get any clear message because the questions (those reported) weren't specific enough. And he shouldn't take it as a sign employers are so unhappy with the government they will vote to change it.

Talking up child poverty

Talking up child poverty is not an unusual practice. But it normally comes from the mouths of any number of people who make their living  documenting or advocating as part of the ' child poverty industry'.

An opinion piece in the NZ Herald earlier this week by the former head of Telstra Clear, exhorted business to get more involved in solving the social problems of NZ children:

Let's look at the facts. Today, a quarter of children live in poverty in New Zealand. That means going without a doctor, good food, shoes, raincoats and decent housing. If you look at Pasifika children, that statistic rises to 51 per cent; and more than half of Maori families are dependent on benefit incomes.

Facts?

Firstly, Mr Freeth has defined living in poverty by the 'reduced living standards measure' which is where his 51 percent of Pasifika children comes from - MSD's  2008 Living Standards Survey. So, 51 percent of Pasifika children experienced (or didn't as the case may be) 4 or more of the following

Ownership/Participation

• A good bed
• Ability to keep main rooms adequately warm
• Suitable clothes for important or special occasions
• Home contents insurance
• Presents for family and friends on special occasions

Economising ‘a lot’ (to keep down costs to help pay for other basics)

• Continued wearing worn out clothing
• Continued wearing worn out shoes
• Went without or cut back on fresh fruit and vegetables
• Bought cheaper or less meat than wanted
• Postponed visits to the doctor
• Did not pick up a prescription
• Put up with feeling cold to save on heating costs
• Went without or cut back on visits to family or friends
• Did not go to a funeral (tangi) you wanted to

And there are other measures mentioned like not being able to have friends to a party of your own bedroom when aged 10 plus. It's all very subjective stuff. BUT experiencing reduced living standards does not condemn a child.

Just for some balance, if the OECD measure of child poverty was used the percentage would immediately drop to around 12% of NZ children.

Then he says that, "More than half of Maori families are dependent on benefit incomes." Say what?

I'd be the first to agree that Maori are disproportionately dependent on welfare and it's not good for their children. But the percentage is not that high.

At December 2012 around 112,000 Maori received a main benefit. There were around 375,000 18-64 year-old Maori in 2012. So just on 30 percent of the Maori working age population receives a benefit.

The proportion for Maori single parents on a benefit is higher but even the highest age group - 20-29 - doesn't exceed half.


I have no idea where he got his statistic from.

Ironically later in the piece he writes:

Our statistics are not simply unacceptable, they are truly outrageous. They are beyond comprehension. And where, as business leaders, have we been, I wonder, as more and more reports are released showing more issues with children and youth health and welfare?

Probably getting on with their first priority - running a business - and feeling suspicious about media reports exaggerating child poverty.

Truth column Feb 28 - March 6

The Truth site is now up-to-date and I should be able to post my column weekly again.

The 'living wage'  idea poses more questions than it answers. Apparently the proposed non-compulsory hourly wage of $18.40 is based on the needs of a family with two children, with one full-time and one part-time worker.

But someone with dependent children who is currently earning less than the living wage will almost certainly be receiving  Working For Families assistance. As well, someone without children might be receiving accommodation supplement which helps with rent, board or a mortgage.

More

Farmers likened to "solo mums" - Helen Kelly

Regarding the government assistance available to farmers in officially drought-ridden areas, in a column titled  "We are all beneficiaries now" Helen Kelly writes,

Solo mums are a bit like these farmers. They are working but not earning and need community support to do that....  The drought shows how important social protection systems are.  When the unexpected happens – your farm dries up, you get sick, you lose your job, you find yourself alone raising your kids – the community steps in by way of tax funded Social Protection. 

I wonder how farmers feel about being compared to people who default to a welfare lifestyle in their thousands every year?

Tax-paying farmers are subject to the whim of the weather; many DPB mums are subject to their own (or their partner's) personal whims and wants. But Kelly can't differentiate between people who are  products of a habitual hand-out regime and people who need temporary help.

Shoring up support for a debased benefit system on the back of drought-stricken farmers sucks.

(Should farmers get government assistance? A tax break to buy income protection insurance against such advents would be better).

Truth Column Feb 21-27

My Truth column for February 21-27. The political poll referred to in this column has since been superseded by others.

Here's a scary headline: LABOUR, GREENS WITH MINOR PARTIES WOULD WIN ELECTION.  So said the latest Roy Morgan poll. Emboldened Green co-leader Metiria Turei shoved aside her education spokesperson to lead the charge against charter schools and pave the way to becoming Education Minister in 2014. Any charter school would be turned into a state school under her direction, she threatened. In other words she'd remove the "greater flexibility in exchange for greater accountability of educational outcomes" promised to partnership schools. Before the initiative has chance to prove itself, the Greens (and Labour) would trample it dead.
What else could we expect from such a government?

More.

And a few words from the Minister...

Regarding Jacinda Ardern's claims and what the Herald on Sunday published, Paula Bennett has responded;

"Ms Ardern and the Herald on Sunday need to get their facts right. The Herald on Sunday reported today that changes to youth are progressing through Parliament and will be introduced shortly. Wake up - they passed through the House last year and were implemented in August 2012."
“This is shoddy journalism and scaremongering by Labour. They might not like the truth and prefer to talk down people's chances of finding work, but I believe in people and their abilities, and want to support and encourage them in their hunt for work,” says Mrs Bennett.

Note the Herald headline has now changed. From memory it was something like Benefit numbers swell. If I google that term said article comes up with a new title.

The print media turns over a lot of young journalists. Or moves them around different portfolios. It's a good thing the blogosphere is now around to hold them to account.

(Bennett should also be careful when talking about DPB numbers to explicitly refer to sole parents. As is stands her release has the potential to confuse when matched against MSD's benefit factsheets.)

Median time on welfare 7.4 years

I was reviewing some of the papers presented to the WWG back in 2010 and noted some important statistics relating to the degree of dependence on welfare in New Zealand. 

Of people aged 28-64 receiving benefit at June 2009 (for whom there is a full ten years since they turned 18), half had spent at least three-quarters of the preceding decade on benefit. Just under a quarter had received benefit for all of the decade.

- the median proportion of time spent on benefit in the preceding decade was 74%

- 23% had spent all of the preceding decade on benefit. 

- Māori were much more likely than non-Maori to be in receipt of benefit and had spent larger shares of time in receipt of benefit, on average, than non-Maori.

- Pacific people and people from “Other” ethnic groups in receipt of benefit had, on

average, spent smaller shares of time in receipt of benefit than both Māori and European benefit recipients.

 

(That last statistic is important because too often Pacific people get put together with Maori in a 'Polynesian' category. That does a disservice to Pacific people who aren't over-represented in the benefit system in either numbers or duration of dependence.)

A lot of left-leaning commentators and politicians play down welfare dependence by using statistics pertaining to  the total population use of benefits over time. Naturally many people do use welfare at some point and that skews the overall picture towards shorter periods in receipt. Here's an example from Jacinda Ardern:

"There are 112,000 sole parents on the Domestic Purposes Benefit. Most come off it within four years"

What she omits to mention is many go back on it quite quickly. The report linked to shows that at June 2009 73 percent of DPB sole parents had spent 50 percent or more of the preceding decade on a benefit. These are the numbers that describe long-term dependence - the problem welfare reforms are trying to reduce - and it is wilfully misleading  to use any others.

Children's Day dying a death

Today was Children's Day. News to me. This media release was the first I knew about it:

The future of New Zealand depends on the well being of every child. Child Poverty Action Group says Children’s Day this Sunday is a chance for New Zealanders to reflect on our collective responsibility for the well-being of all our children.

Hopefully people are tiring of annual, designated 'concern' days for everything and anything. The over-subscription to 'days' has cast a pall over their efficacy. Usually a socialist construct designed to put political heat on governments to 'do something', I look forward to their demise.

More bad stats from Ardern

Jacinda Ardern is clutching at straws.

In the NZ Herald today:

Labour spokeswoman for social development Jacinda Ardern said the highest unemployment numbers were at around 10 per cent in the early 1990s but support for solo parents and invalids have hit record highs during Bennett's reign as Social Development Minister.

Infoshare shows that DPB numbers reached a high of 113,329 in 1998.
In 2011 a new high was reached of 114,039.

However, not all people on the DPB are "solo parents".

The table below shows that at December 2011 100,266 sole parents were on the DPB...

   

Benefit	December 2011	September 2012	December 2012	Quarterly change		Annual change
Domestic Purposes Benefits (DPB)	114,230	110,738	109,118	-1,620	-1.5%	-5,112	-4.5%
DPB-SP	100,266	96,648	95,138	-1,510	-1.6%	-5,128	-5.1%
DPB-CSI	7,650	7,806	7,943	137	1.8%	293	3.8%
DPB-WA	3,859	4,003	3,773	-230	-5.7%	-86	-2.2%
EMA	2,455	2,281	2,264	-17	-0.7%	-191	-7.8%

  
...compared to 106,881 in 1998 (contained within 2002 report here)

	1998
	Number
Domestic Purposes Benefit – Sole Parent	106,881
Domestic Purposes Benefit – Caring for Sick or Infirm	1,925
Domestic Purposes Benefit – Woman Alone	2,945
Emergency Maintenance Allowance	1,578
Total	113,329

So every thing else Ardern says in this article in relation to the DPB and sole parents, failure of work-testing etc is bunkum.

Let's look at the invalid's benefit. Using the same Infoshare table, yes, numbers reached a record high in 2011. But under National they increased from 85,197  2008 to 88,134 in 2011 - or 3.4%. Under Labour the increase was 51,173 in 1999 to  79,077 in 2007 or 54.6 percent. 

And as a percentage of the working age population numbers on the Invalid benefit have been trending down since 2009.

Ardern is quite pathetic.

But doesn't the reporter have some responsibility to dig a bit deeper?

ACT's problem

PRIMARY VOTE	National	Labour	GreenParty	NZFirst	MaoriParty*	ManaParty*	ACTNZ	UnitedFuture	Conservatives	Other
	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%
General Election, July 27, 2002	20.9	41.3	7	10.4	n/a	n/a	7.1	6.7	n/a	6.6
General Election, September 17, 2005	39.1	41.1	5.3	5.72	2.12	n/a	1.51	2.67	n/a	2.48
General Election, November 8, 2008	44.93	33.99	6.72	4.07	2.39	n/a	3.65	0.87	n/a	3.38
General Election, November 26, 2011	47.31	27.48	11.06	6.59	1.43	1.08	1.07	0.60	2.65	0.73

I was pondering the latest Roy Morgan poll results and this table in particular.

Thinking about the minor parties, it struck me that ACT has nothing going for it.

Greens have environmentalism.

NZ First has a charismatic leader.

The Maori party has race.

Mana has extreme disaffection.

United Future has religion, though losing it to the Conservative Party.

But what does ACT have?

Freedom isn't it. Because all of the people who fall into the above categories would consider themselves primarily interested in freedom. Freedom is highly subjective.

Capitalism? Business people are pragmatists and will vote for a likely, safe result. And most don't actually mind government being significantly involved in the economy.

ACT has no brand. It has nothing for people to emotionally identify with.

This isn't an attack on ACT. It's just my explanation for why they poll so poorly. ACT is going to have to do something very radical if they want to survive the 2014 election.

I'm not much of a marketer but I'd go back to basics and hammer personal responsibility hard. Get spokespeople outside of parliament making statements that make National look wishy washy.

When New Zealanders took responsibility for themselves, their families, their friends we had a stronger economy, more social cohesion, less inequality, less crime. But it can't be a backwards looking campaign. In many ways the country is a much better place to live in today than in the 1950s and 60s. Women in particular play a much bigger role in the economy and have much more autonomy. But there is a group of women (and their children) shut out as a direct result of diminished personal responsibility. ACT needs to keep consistently showing that individual responsibility is paramount. For example, a child failed by a parent can never be fully compensated by other minor players in their lives. They need to be brave enough to say things that will be unpopular in parliament and with the media but will resonate with a large, non-vocal section of the population. BUT they need more voices.

Unfortunately John Banks may be an impediment to gathering those voices.

Husbands and Wives

I received the following press release from my friend Bob McCoskrie:

‘Husband’ and ‘Wife’ To Be Removed From Family Laws

Family First NZ says the Select Committee report on the same-sex marriage bill confirms that the terms ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ will be removed from 16 pieces of legislation as it seeks to redefines marriage.

I sent this quick e-mail:

This pisses me off. I have always held the terms wife and husband dear. I don't refer to my husband as my partner because  it's too ambiguous.

So what is left after husband and wife, 'marriage partner'? You know that I support same-sex marriage but this is an encroachment on my 'culture'.

What has the response been like to this revelation?

Update: Kiwiblog has a post clarifying the situation. "So no the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill does not remove the term “husband and wife” from the law books. It doesn’t remove it from the Marriage Act. It doesn’t introduce the term spouse into the law as a replacement – the term is already used in 136 Acts of Parliament. This issue is a red herring."

Truth column Feb 7-13

The Truth site catching up quickly now. This was my column for Waitangi Day:

In 1987 I left New Zealand. Returning in 1992 two new things struck me: Japanese imports and The Treaty of Waitangi. Asked at a petrol station if my borrowed car was a Japanese import, I drew a blank. Apparently it was. Once alerted, I started seeing cheap imports everywhere.
Next, a friend asked what I knew about the Treaty Principles. The what? 

More

No work-tests for almost two thirds of beneficiaries

The following is an exchange during parliament's question time yesterday:

6. Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister for Social
Development: What impact have the Government’s welfare reforms had to date?
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): The Government’s welfare reforms are seeing real gains for New Zealanders. Future Focus, implemented in September 2012 as a precursor to our current major reforms, introduced clear obligations and greater fairness to the benefit system. Since Future Focus started, more than 171,000 benefits have been cancelled because people found work, which is a good result in spite of a tough local market and a global economic recession. Over the last 2 years benefit numbers are now reducing by 165 net every week, on average, which equates to about 34 people every working day.
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What changes has she seen as a result of the annual reapplication requirement?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: One simple policy change requiring unemployment beneficiaries to reapply if they remain on the benefit after a year has seen more than 21,400 people come off that benefit, with savings of more than $74 million to the taxpayer.
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What results have there been to date by increasing expectations and obligations for those receiving benefits?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: Prior to National’s Future Focus changes, 79 percent of beneficiaries had no work-test obligations at all. Because of Future Focus, it is now around 64 percent and will reduce further with the changes coming through in the second welfare bill. There is no doubt at all that expectations mean that we see better results for people.

On current numbers that's 217,000 working-age people with no obligation to become self-supporting.

At least the percentage is reducing.

Quick international comparison

Statistics NZ has just issued this handy table. NZ isn't top or bottom in any category except % population under 15 years old. Ours is highest (due to the Polynesian population):

International comparisons with our top five visitor source countries

Truth column Jan 17-23

Truth's site is coming together. Here's my column from Jan 17-23. Bit out-of-date now but the topic is perennial:

A friend texted to tell me her partner was down at the local cop shop. Making enquiries about an unrelated matter, police had smelt dope and entered his flat demanding he reveal what he had. Was that legal, she asked? Yes, I responded.

More