McConnell’s political cowardice demonstrates need for Term Limits Amendment
By Ken Falkenstein | Thursday, July 14th, 2011 | PolicyOn June 21, 1989, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case of Texas v. Johnson that flag desecration was expression that is protected by the First Amendment. A year later, On June 11, 1990, the Supreme Court reiterated this ruling in United States v. Eichman, by declaring unconstitutional an anti-flag desecration statue passed by Congress in response to the Johnson case.
Robert J. Humphreys
Americans across the country were outraged. I remember, for example, Virginia Beach Commonwealth’s Attorney Bob Humphreys (who is now a respected judge on the Virginia Court of Appeals), at the Virginia Beach Republican breakfast five days later, predicting that a constitutional amendment to prohibit flag desecration would be passed and ratified in record time. Indeed, momentum for such an amendment was immediate and fierce, and a Flag Protection Amendment quickly began to work its way through Congress.
It might have passed, too. But one brave Republican stood on principle and declared his opposition to such an amendment based in his reverence for the Constitution. That man was Senator Mitch McConnell, and his principled opposition almost single-handedly prevented our Constitution from being amended to repeal a right rooted in the Bill of Rights for the first time in American history.
That was the Mitch McConnell of the 1990s. Time have changed, and so has he.
For weeks, congressional Republicans have set the playing field and dominated the court of public opinion on debt reduction by using President Barack Obama’s call for an increase in the debt ceiling as leverage for historic spending cuts. Even as Obama has resisted real spending cuts and fought for tax increases, his approval rating has plummeted.
House Republicans have stood strong, with Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor withdrawing from talks with Obama on several occasions to emphasize that tax increases are a non-starter. Although Obama has been obstinate about increasing taxes, public sentiment has been solidly on the side of the Republicans. The only question was who would blink first.
The answer was Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell.
Yesterday, McConnell declared further debt reduction talks with President Obama to be pointless, and he proposed a back-up plan that would give Obama everything he wanted on a silver platter: Under McConnell’s plan, Obama would have the unilateral power to increase the debt ceiling by $2.5 trillion with no spending cuts whatsoever. His debt ceiling increases could be stopped only by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress, making Obama’s power virtually absolute.
This is a plan that even McConnell’s mother couldn’t love. But Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi do.
Why would McConnell offer such a complete capitulation to the most radical leftist president in history? In his own words:
“My first choice was to do something important for the country,” McConnell said. “My second obligation is to my party and to my conference, to prevent them from being sucked into a horrible position politically that would allow the president to probably get re-elected.”
[Radio talk show host Laura] Ingraham asked McConnell whether ceding authority to the president to make a unilateral decision on the economy does not set a bad precedent.
“He owns the economy,” McConnell said. “He’s been in office almost three years now and we refuse to let him entice us into co-ownership of a bad economy.”
In other words, since the Republicans have not yet succeeded in backing Obama into making meaningful spending cuts, McConnell has decided to completely throw in the towel and accept no spending cuts whatsoever and a $2.5 trillion increase in the debt ceiling over the next year based entirely on . . . political cowardice.
Why would a man who stood down his own Republican Party to protect the Constitution in the 1990s now so utterly capitulate to a radical leftist Democrat president on the most important issue of our time? The answer is that Mitch McConnell been inside the Beltway for too long.
The Mitch McConnell of the 1990s had been in office for only a couple of terms, and he was still willing to act on principle. The Mitch McConnell of 2011 has been in the Senate for 26 years and has utterly lost touch with the American people. His primary concern now is the same as virtually every career politician in Congress: the next election.
A Congress full of entrenched incumbents whose sole priority is their political fortunes and those of their parties is a cancer on the country. In order to restore America, we need a legislature consisting of real Americans who are willing to put country ahead of party and personal ambition.
There is only one way to achieve such a citizen legislature: term limits.
The Supreme Court has ruled (correctly) that congressional term limits are unconstitutional. So, the answer is a constitutional amendment limiting the number of terms and years anyone can serve in Congress. I propose a maximum of twelve years per chamber.
The status quo is no longer acceptable. The Democrats are run by leaders who are concerned with nothing but the empowerment of their party and its sponsors (labor unions and other leftist collectives). The Republicans are supposed to be a party of individualist values, but inevitably our leaders put the political interests of the Republican collective ahead of the good of the country. The result is overregulation, overtaxation, overspending, and a consistent usurpation of our rights and liberties.
A Congress perpetually consisting of citizen legislators is our last best hope for a national restoration. And the only way to achieve such a Congress is a Term Limits Amendment to the Constitution. The problems facing America are huge, and we need real principled leaders to get them solved. It is time to end the era of political hacks like Mitch McConnell.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Ken Falkenstein has been a staffer in the United States Senate and the Virginia House of Delegates. He has managed political campaigns. He was a military intelligence analyst in the U.S. Army in West Germany during the Cold War. He is currently the Vice President of the Down Syndrome Association of Hampton Roads and practices as a civil litigation attorney with the law firm of Poole Mahoney PC in Virginia Beach. His concern for his kids' future is what most informs his writing.
Comments
33 Responses to "McConnell’s political cowardice demonstrates need for Term Limits Amendment"
Speaking from the broad center, frankly, it is disappointing to see a once great political party succumb to the extremism of the far right. Ken has just exemplified in the most classic way possible; calling for the ouster of a political leader and leader of the Party who dares to tell the truth. Fact is, the President has put real and meaningful reductions in expenditures on the table, only to be met every time with a brick wall on the republican side, indicating that no taxes are too much taxes in their point of view. Frankly, the next round of warnings are likely to come from Governors and Mayors who will wake up and find those intergovernmental transfers they counted on to balance the budget won’t be arriving anytime soon. So get ready america to pay higher interest rates, to fail to receive any entitlement check you are owed, to fail to receive your paycheck if you work for the government, for closure of large parts of the government, and for international condemnation by the international community for causing world wide deep recession, just as we are climbing out out the last great recession caused by republican fiscal policies. Will voters remember who caused this fiasco? Bet on it.
ROFL
There are no good reasons for term limits.
BS Artiste Mike Barrett believes his own BS.
Definition: A Bullshit Artist reports that he won $2000 and the Manager gave him a free room for the night with a girl and they had a hell of a time and the booze was free too. The next day he admits to winning “about 3 grand” and said there were two girls but he was too drunk on the free booze and couldn’t remember their names. Ratio in population approximately 1%. Typical occupation Politician, Used Car Salesman, Thief, Terrorist. Although often entertaining, this individual can be dangerous. This person is actually living a lie and will tend to harm all who come into contact with him. Usually male. Will cheat on spouse and not even realize it is cheating. As you can see the Bullshit Artist has taken all the truth out of the event while the others have only modified it a bit. The sad thing is that after a while the Bullshit Artist will actually begin to believe his own bullshit and even build it up a bit more. DANGER
I agree with Schoeneman on this one, but I’m pretty disgusted with Senator McConnell’s proposal.
I’m not going to say there are not good arguments for term limits, but I will say the better arguments against them win the debate.
For example, we Virginians once had John Warner representing us in the Senate. As long as he asked for it, he pretty much had my vote locked up. I do not appreciate attempts to limit how many times I can send a politician I respect and admire back up to Washington to represent me there. It is pretty hard to find a decent politician, but once you find one, you hang onto him/her.
Please note that the example I gave was of a Republican, but it was a relatively moderate Republican. There do not seem to be many Republicans the likes of John Warner running for office anymore.
I worked as a legislative assistant to John Warner for 4 years. He is a good man and was a good senator, even if I disagreed with some of his key votes (e.g., gun control, Clinton impeachment). That said, I can tell you as a former member of his staff that over time he became just as focused on the politics of any matter as any other intrenched incumbent. I don’t mean in any way to disparage John Warner. The progression from focusing primarily on principles to focusing largely on politics is human nature.
And that’s precisely why we need to limit the amount of time that anyone can serve in Congress. If every legislator knows from the moment that he declares his candidacy that he will not be able to make a career out of serving in Congress, then the people who run will by definition be those who are focused primarily on promoting their principles.
It was a legislature consisting of intrenched career politicians who got us into our current financial mess. A Congress consisting of intrenched career politicians will never have the will to take the actions necessary to solve it. They will always take the easy way out by kicking the can down the road and onto our kids.
It will take a citizen legislature to get us out of the mess created by the career politicians. And that’s why a Term Limits Amendment is not only a good idea; it is an absolute necessity for our nation’s restoration.
It is incredibly amusing to me how the intelligent members of this forum are doing all they can to talk about everything else by the elephant in the room. Are you embarrassed by the intrasigence of Cantor and the House republicans? Do you want default to occur? Do you believe as warned that the republican brand will be tarnished if default occurs?
It is more than interesting that a nation, when polled, favors refusing to raise the debt limit, when the majority on Americans themselves have leveraged sky-rocketing consumer debt and the American propensity to save and invest is at a negative value.
There are those that are looking at the immediate crisis, while those are pointing to an undefined long-run of a shaky global economy. Fiscal ideology must be tempered to face reality and a current situation. Labeling McConnell a “coward” because his opinion and solution does not meet an individual’s checklist of unattainable fascinations is nonsensical as well discourteous.
Ken, a “citizen legislature” won’t result from term limits. All that will happen will be the creation of a staff-ocracy where the staff and lobbyists have all the power and the members are just figureheads. By the time the members figure out where the bathrooms are, they’re gone.
It’s a bad idea.
Mike, are you looking in a mirror while wearing your Grover Norquist mask when you write this crap?
So Tim J, why do you care? As you said on this forum, you have your gun and your religion. Regretfully of course, no matter how many financial assets you have on Auguest 2nd, none of them will be worth much when Cantor and his majortiy force the nation into default. Again, apparently, that is of no concern to you. Nor of course, to John Galt and the rest of the libertarians who are prepared for the coming unpleasantness.
Mike, Obama has a $35,800 per plate fund raiser, private dinner and birthday party scheduled for the Aragon Ballroom in Chicago the day after Armageddon on August 3rd at 4:00 PM. You can rub shoulders with some A-list celebrities and can compare notes with some of the scare mongering trolls who are feeding you your talking points. We will be watching to see you, or maybe not depending on whether the press is shoved into a closet holding cell and banned again.
Anyway, bring back some Obama birthday “cake” for us since you are fond of the non-quotes of Marie Antoinette and we “little people” will be grateful as we fight for scraps amongst ourselves in the coming turmoil.
The most interesting tell of this post is the following statements:
“Even as Obama has resisted real spending cuts and fought for tax increases, his approval rating has plummeted.”
“House Republicans have stood strong, with Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor withdrawing from talks with Obama on several occasions to emphasize that tax increases are a non-starter. Although Obama has been obstinate about increasing taxes, public sentiment has been solidly on the side of the Republicans.”
I have no doubt that Ken sincerely and firmly believes this, and this helps inform the position he urges on his political representatives. And Given Ken’s perception of public opinion, his position is completely rationale — after all, why on Earth should Republicans negotiate when public opinion is solidly on their side.
Of course, the basis for McConnell’s proposal is that he disagrees with this statement of where public opinion stands.
Consider this poll released today by Quinnipac:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1624
Highlights:
- Voters will blame Republicans over Obama 48 – 34 percent if the debt limit is not raised;
- Voters say 67 – 25 percent that an agreement to raise the debt ceiling should include tax hikes for the wealthy and corporations, not just spending cuts;
- Voters say 45 – 37 percent that Obama’s proposals to raise revenues are “closing loopholes,” rather than “tax hikes”.
Voters also, say 57 – 30 percent that Obama’s proposals will impact the middle class, not just the wealthy, but this doesn’t to me seem to so much signal disapproval of Obama as it reflects the unfortunate experience of the middle class in this country that one way or another, we always end up being screwed, regardless of which party, or ideology, is dominant.
This isn’t to say Obama gets high marks on the economy. The poll finds American voters disapprove 56 – 38 percent of the way he is handling the economy, but (as this is the more relevant finding with respect to your assertions), by 45 – 38 percent they trust the president more than congressional Republicans to handle the economy.
Here’s more: 71 percent say (incorrectly, I would note) that we are in a recession, but, again, by 54 – 27 percent they blame former President George W. Bush more than President Obama.
Ken, I’d be curious to know what data you’re looking at to support your statements?
Mitch McConell makes stupid statement = term limits. Hmm. Interesting logic. I propose we leave this one up the voters of Kentucky who sent him there.
So today, 250 business leaders from around the nation sent a letter to Congressional leaders and to the President warning of the dire circumstances that will occur if the nation defaults, and herein on Bearing Drift we are discussing term limits. Catastrophe is just around the corner, and our conservative posters seem oblivious. Either they don’t think it will happen, or they do think it will and actually believe Mitch McConnell is absolutely right, so the thing to do right now is keep your head down. So much for leadership; let’s discuss the proper color of police cars and fire engines instead. Yes, you all may be embarrassed at the debacle in Washington as the republican party falls apart, but it will have an effect on you as well. Do you really not care?
Ken,
I agree with your analysis of McConnell’s posturing for political points rather than demonstrating the leadership to do what is best for our country. Even Senator Tom Coburn was quoted in the paper this morning as saying, “Politically, its smart, even if policy-wise it doesn’t fix the country’s problems.”
Craig, I think that you are missing Ken’s thesis: the longer politicians stay in office the greater their motivation becomes incumbency rather than public service. I agree that term limits are an arbitrary measure, but when career politicians abuse the system (and the Republic in the process) then arbitrary measures are needed. We never needed term limits for the President until Franklin Roosevelt broke the precedent established by George Washington 140 years earlier of serving only two terms.
As for the argument that term limits restrict whom you can vote for, that is definitely a strawman. There are already many restrictions on whom you can elect to office. You can’t elect convicted felons, you can’t elect impeached office-holders if their impeachment sentence included disqualification for office, you can’t elect people who aren’t a minimum age (depending on the office), and you can’t elect foreign nationals or aliens who have not been naturalized. And I don’t buy the argument that term limits would create a staff-ocracy. Throughout our society, we routinely rotate senior leaders without disruption. From the President of the US to the CEO’s of major corporations, leadership change is routine and, in most cases, a positive thing. In fact, given the divorce rate in the United States, some might argue that we even have term limits for spouses. Okay, that last one was tongue-in-cheek, but do you get my point?
The tankers full of Kool-Aid are heading to Chicago for Obama’s big birthday and fund raising bash because on August 3rd, he will fiddle in celebration to the light of the burning candles on his birthday cake as “Amerika” has finally transformed into his “Dreams from My Father”.
Ken,
Wow! What a great article. I was never so outraged at a Republican as when I heard this cowardly RINO (McConnell) talk about capitulating the responsibilities of the legislative branch to the executive branch. And McConnell’s excuse was that he was playing “the blame game”? What???? He is so afraid that he and other elites like him will loose their seats in the national legislature. (Little David, are you listening…at the term “liberal elite”?)
And so much of the country and a majority of the conservatives will agree with you on the issue of term limits, Ken. Brian is just dead wrong on this issue.
Now, Ken, I feel bad about being so harsh with you on a previous issue. Evidently you do not support “Republicans in name only”. A little too cozy for my taste…but you DID stand up to what McConnell was trying to do.
I pray that the Republicans do not cave on the spending issue. I pray that Cut, Cap and Balance will prevail for the sake of our country and our economy.
“Prayer is the greatest of all forces, because it honors God and brings him into active aid.” E. M. Bounds
Patrick K. Robertson
Mike- The catastrophe that needs to be averted is not increasing the debt ceiling. We can pay our debts for a while without raising the debt ceiling by cutting other spending.
The real catastrophe that must be averted is that the $1.5 trillion annual deficits amassed by Obama to pay for his welfare state are unsustainable and will lead to an utter and complete economic collapse if not addressed immediately.
The Democrats don’t care. Their objective is not to restore the nation’s health. Their objective is to ensnare as many people into their statist policies as possible in order to increase their power. If that means weakening, or even destroying, this country as we know it, the Democrats are ok with that as long as they can use that crisis to advance their statist agenda.
I expect better from the Republicans who claim to represent traditional American principles of limited government and individual rights and liberties. So far, Boehner and Cantor are getting it right, while McConnell is putting political expedience ahead of the national interest.
One more point: Assuming, just for laughs, that Obama is as serious about debt reduction as he professes to be, what is his plan to do so? So far, all he has done is resist the Republicans’ spending cuts and sought to exploit this “crisis” (which he deliberately created) to try to get the tax increases that he’s sought since the beginning of his presidency.
Dang! Your second post is great also, Ken. I really am hanging my head in being so harsh to you once before.
Obama does not know how to lead a Republic. Our forefathers put us on the road with the best governing document ever written in the history of the world. The Magna Carta was a great document and when Rome gave certain rights to the plebs that was a good step…but the Constitution of the United States…nothing in the world has ever been given to the citizens of a country for the betterment of it’s welfare than this document.
And Obama wants us to go back to the days of the dictators that were so prevalent in the old world. And he’s doing it ON PURPOSE!!!
If Obama’s desire is to take us back to the good old days in Europe with dictators in Rome and evil rulers in Asia and Babylon and Persia then he is doing a great job.
Obama cold take the title of “First Citizen” as in Rome. When Julius Caesar’s nephew Augustus saw that the term “dictator” didn’t work too well. Or he could take the title of “Obama, the great”…I think he might like that one best.
A note to Obama…you are a President…not an emperor. Don’t take us down the road to economic ruin to show the world what happens to an “arrogant” nation as you like to describe us. You don’t want to follow the Constitution, Mr. President…but Americans will never let you put them into chains or to desert our great American Constitution.
Anyway…great, great, great article, Ken. Thanks.
“As is the business of tailors to make clothes and cobblers to make shoes, so it is the business of Christians to pray.” Marin Luther.
Patrick K. Robertson
“He owns the economy,” McConnell said. “He’s been in office almost three years now and we refuse to let him entice us into co-ownership of a bad economy.”
Uh Mitch, you are a co-owner of a bad economy. You were a participant in running the deficit to the moon with bailouts, letting wall street off the hook while saddling every living and future unborn American with mountains of government debt on worthless assets, and now you would give Obama another couple of trillion to pay off our European banker buds again. But that’s ok, go ahead and play your games because no one believes any of you any more. Just remember, when the first military or SS check bounces there’s going to be hell to pay.
Term limits are a must. Sorry, Brian, but it’s the truth.
With the way districts are drawn, a huge proportions of lawmakers will never, ever, ever have a competitive election. They will gain seniority and run the place while places with competitive elections (like us) turn over legislators every couple of years.
Consequently, the most far right and the most far left lawmakers control everything. Nothing gets done.
Term limits squashes super-seniority and makes the playing field level across the country.
Well Ken, since my view would have no influence with you, let me just say that your blase’ attitude about default is at variance with just about anyone that has an informed opinion on this matter. In fact, as the american citizen and voter learn the truth, the truth of Mitch McConnell’s words will hit the party full blast. Now for the majority of the party, that will not matter one wit because their intent is to complete the coup anyway. But for those who understand who the voter will blame, political disaster was not supposed to be in the cards.
Sigh, even our bankers, The Chinese Communist Party, know the debt ceiling fight is Kabuki theatre.
http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2011-07/15/content_12908106.htm
Sill your mind, quiet your heart and continue calmly with what you are doing.
I would favor a 12 year term limit on federal senators and congressman. And federal judges.
The failure of most posters herein to comprehend the effects of default, higher interest rates, recession, and high unemployment, is certainly perplexing, but more so because this page generally attracts policy wonks who at least have a basic knowledge of how things work. Perhaps all this sabre rattling over raising the debt limit is just bargaining to get as many cuts as you can, but that point was made, yet now the Party seems to be tearing itself apart, so the extremists have risen to speak for all. Candidly, do any of you offering all this false bravado that default is really not that bad actually want to wake up on August 3rd and find that the U.S. can’t pay its obligations? If you do, you are a sick wacko.
Mike- I don’t know you outside of your comments on this site, but there is something I’ve been wanting to say to you: I like and respect you. I have been in your shoes (in reverse) as the only conservative commenting in various liberal forums, and I was treated with outright contempt and very personal attacks. (See, e.g., this Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=61724855819.) It takes courage to be a dissenting voice and to express those dissenting views with confidence and passion, as you always do. I hope that you have found better treatment here than I did there.
In response to your last comment, you are attacking a straw man. No conservatives have called for us to default on our debts. We just reject the premise that failing to raise the debt ceiling necessarily means that we will default on our debts. What failing to raise the debt ceiling means is that the federal government will need to prioritize how to spend the revenues that continue to come in each month. A responsible president would pay our debts first and make whatever cuts are necessary in other spending to meet those obligations. Those decisions would be difficult but not impossible. If we do fail to raise the debt ceiling and we do default on our debts, it will be because President Obama chose the wrong priorities and not because that result was a necessary consequence of not raising the debt ceiling.
Ken I responded to Mike in a comment in the Rigel post where I broke down the monthly revenue stream and then basically said the same thing… “not raising the debt limit is a “balanced budget” and will force the administration to get some experience in setting up rationing schemes like they will do with health care to determine who gets what and how much.”
Mike calling us “sick wackos” means that he may be temporarily blind with rage and isn’t retaining much of what we say. Or he may be feeling extraordinary guilt on making preparations for attending Obama’s fundraiser and birthday celebration bash in Chicago the day after the debt limit is breached.
Yes, that may have been over the top, but in reality, if you think the republicans will benefit from throwing the country into another recession, forcing the government to decide who gets paid between our troops, medicare recipients, medicaid payments to the states, NASA, the employees of the state department, etc.,I think you have taken leave of your senses. The only way I would countenance this is that it may destroy Norquist’s grip on what used to be the republican party, but as I have said herein as well, that is too high a price to pay for the rest of us.
I believe strongly that Congress, Senate, mayors, even chair people, NEED to have term limits, tired of the political charades from both parties
Oh, Sigh. It is really the Tea Party crowd who are the RINOS. They have not a grasp or even a gasp of running a goverment means. And they don’t they don’t even care unless the trash man doesn’t pick up their garbage or fix the pot holes. This just gets worse and worse. Who do they think pays for that? CUT IT! BUT NOT ME!
Here’s a news flash! There is not Republican or Democrat way to pick up trash or pave a street, or pay a teacher, or build a new school, or stock a public library, or build a park for kids. For God’s sake people, have we devolved to total insanity? It’s all about local government, and RE-Regulation (not de-regulation. More on this later if anyone is interesed–there is a damned good reason why some industries are regulated–starting with monopolies).
My God. I was a bomb throwing College Republican Reaganaut in 1980s and a bomb-throwing YOung Republican legislator in the 1980s, but I never signed up for absolute insanity.
This is our chance to shine and lead. Not cow-tow to the likes of Michelle Bachmann and her ilk.
WAKE UP!LEAD!
I ended earlier with “sigh,”
Let me continue, if I may.
I apologize for my typos in the previous post. But the point remains, I never signed up for a transformation a la Reagan to end up like this
Not to put to fine a point on it, a recent episode of a kids’ version of Jeopardy was full of pretty much soft-ball questions on the category [I’ll make this up for now, but it’s close”
World Politics for $500:
Picture: Michael Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan.
Question: Who is the man on the right of this picture speaking to Soviet Premier Gorbachev?”
This previously know-everything group of children had no clue. They had never heard of Gorbachev, and never heard of Ronald Reagan. I have to wonder why that is? They knew everything else asked of them.
Yes, I know. They weren’t born yet. This only tells me their coaches did’t think it was important to know.
As I began. Sigh. So Mote It Be.
Your Trusty Friend,
Craig
I know this is blowing in the wind, which representative or senator will vote to remove him or herself from a lucrative sinecure and comfortable lifestyle. But my vote is
THROW ALL THE BUMS OUT,
The president, according to a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT can only serve 8 years, so we should have the same limit not only for the members of the Legislature but those nine hacks or “justices” or whatever they call themselves, on the supreme court. We need to change the entire election process as well. make voting mandatory or you pay something, like a fine to obtain a passport, we need FREE time for all political candidates from all radio and tv stations make it a condition for them to obtain a license. Get rid of this baloney of states choosing a president as we had in the George W Bush fiasco, this is supposedly a government OF, FOR AND BY the PEOPLE, not 9 hacks nor a few dozen billionaires.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.