Green Jello

2012 -- Flat Tax Proposals

2011-09-28T18:43:00.000-07:00

The GOP presidential hopefuls are in the thick of taking up conservative causes like taxes, social security reform, abolition of the USDOE, and many others. In the realm of taxes I am having a change of heart.

Most GOP candidates are decrying the current tax system and its loopholes for poor working families and the percentage of Americans who actually have to pay any income taxes (non-Social Security/Medicare taxes). The solution, for most candidates, is a flat tax, a tiered flat tax, a consumption tax, or a hybrid of one or more options.

In the past I have expressed opposition to flat tax proposals in that they generally create a tax cut for wealthy taxpayers at the expense of poorer taxpayers. This is still the case, wealth taxpayers are in fact (when you take income phaseouts of certain deductions and credits) paying a flatish tax of 35% or more. Therefore (taking Herman Cain's catchy 9-9-9 proposal) the rich would enjoy a large tax break and Joe the Plumber would go from large tax-credit induced refunds to paying 900 dollars a year income taxes (est 40k income). This is still a factual issue with flat taxes.

However, I'm not sure that "staying the (current tax policy) course" is the right approach anymore. Just this last year, we had a Congress that raised our nation's borrowing level to an extremely high level. (I'm not sure. Was it 14 trillion dollars? That is somewhere around 14 to 7 million times more than most Americans make in a lifetime) President Obama's solution for the current unemployment problem was to request another 300 billion dollars in government spending. The final straw on tax policy (for me) was the president's comments before the debt ceiling was raised that, "he couldn't guarantee Social Security checks" without the extra debt. Now I'm no government budget expert, but when a business needs to keep borrowing just to stay afloat it doesn't take a Harvard education to realize financial catastrophe is nigh at hand.

Now, I disagree with the "lucky duck" theory that taxing the poor is the only way to get the poor off their collectively apathetic arses to demand that the Federal government change. The desire to induce anger is not the best guide for wise fiscal policy. I believe adopting a simplified tax system will do three things: 1.) provide stability for businesses to grow and individuals to invest, 2.) Provide capital to invest in American businesses, and 3.) decrease the "Tax Gap"and end some large drains on the Federal Treasury.

One of the biggest problems in the US economy is the lack of stability in the US tax code. Businesses are ever on edge about what tax laws will end or what new tax laws will be enacted. By enacting a flat or simplified tax system, businesses and individuals can make financial, and more importantly investment decisions, without taxes being such an uncertain variable in the decision making equation.

As mentioned earlier, the flat tax's tax savings for higher income taxpayers would leave tax dollars in taxpayer's pockets. The saved tax funds would in turn (theoretically) likely be used to invest in entrepreneurism, stocks and bonds, or just spent in the open market.

For years National Taxpayer Advocates have stated that the biggest problem in the tax code is the law's complexity. Most Americans want to keep square with the government and pay their fair share. However, the tax code's complexity not only makes it impossible for the average lay taxpayer to be confident that they are preparing their return properly, but it also leaves a perception that other taxpayers are getting away with not paying their share. Such a perception can lead some taxpayers to cheat on their taxes since it appears that many others are doing like wise. The flat tax would provide wage earner taxpayers with easy to understand tax system and change the perception of inequality to one of equity.

The flat tax would also be a means of ending the welfare provisions of the tax code -- the Earned Income Credit, and the Additional Child Tax Credits. These provisions of the code provide lower income taxpayers with children (income between 15 and 50K) with thousands of dollars in tax refund dollars above and beyond what these taxpayers actually paid in. It is estimated that the Earned income tax credit alone cost the Treasury more than 40 billion dollars a year before taking into account the IRS budgetary costs of pursuing fraudulent EIC claims. The refundable portion of these provisions should be done away with.

Whether or not a flat tax would pass is another story. Democrats will fight against such proposals simply for the fact that the flat tax will raise taxes on the poor. However a reasoned approach to this issue might make a flat tax viable by using new credits that encourage retirement savings might keep poorer taxpayers from feeling a pinch.

Huntsman: Even the Rich Should Sacrifice.

2011-08-26T08:31:00.000-07:00

The ever scrappy son of Utah's richest man Jon M Huntsman Jr. says if he is elected even the rich will have a share in sacrificing in order to get our country back on track. As mentioned in my last post that doesn't include tax hikes -- he's saving that for the "working poor families and seniors". Why do I bother talking about him, he is going to be out soon?

Speaking in an interview with the PBS NewsHour, Huntsman said that potentially means-testing Medicare could be one example of a sacrifice the wealthy could make.

"As president, I wouldn't hesitate to call on a sacrifice from all of our people, even those at the very highest end of the income spectrum," said Huntsman, himself a multi-millionaire. "I'm not saying higher taxes, but there are contributions they can make too."

I wonder why he is doing so poorly in the polls? He wants to tax poor working families, and he is even willing to make the ever deprived rich sacrifice in ways other than tax hikes. What more do Republican's want?

The one thing Huntsman has right is Medicare and Social Security means testing. Social Security is a wreck, maybe one of the best solutions (or beginning to a solution) is to stop paying benefits to retirees who are wealthy enough without Social Security and Medicare. Just as it is wasteful paying the poor for being poor, it is foolish to pay welfare to those who don't need welfare (and lets get real, social security isn't a pension or retirement savings plan)

More on Social Security later.

Of Lucky Ducks

2011-08-25T07:49:00.000-07:00

Many of the GOP presidential wannabes are going at a new approach to raising income taxes -- tax everyone. Michelle Bachmann contends that, " we need to broaden the tax base so that everybody pays something, even if it is a dollar. Everyone should pay something, because we all benefit." Son of a billionaire, Jon M Huntsman Jr. went straight to the point, "the half of Americans no longer paying income taxes, mainly working poor families and seniors, should be brought onto the income tax rolls." The Slate article linked above contends that this is part of theory that originated in WSJ editorials that called the working poor and those that don't pay income taxes "lucky duckies" and that real change to the tax code will only come when the lucky duckies share the tax burden and are enraged enough to demand change.

The tax code has become a system of bribery towards the working poor. Certain tax provisions end up providing poor people thousands of taxpayer dollars that they didn't contribute. In 2004 it is estimated that the Federal Government paid out more than 36 billion dollars in Earned Income Tax Credit to over 21 million US households. The EIC coupled with the additional child tax credit, provides working poor families with a great deal of Treasury dollars just for being poor. This needs to change. While it is important to provide help to the needy, we don't need the government to be handing out cash to every single household that makes less than six figures whether the asked for it or not.

Having railed against the negative tax provisions of the tax code, it would be folly to require the working poor to shoulder a proportionate load of the income tax burden. First, most lower middle class families struggle to make ends meet without requiring them to set an additional 10-20% aside for income taxes. Adding these people to the tax roles may produce an enraged working poor, but it would also burden the IRS in pursuing tax bills that are more than likely noncollectable. Second, taxing the poor will create more poverty. I went through this ad nauseum when former Utah governor Huntsman started pushing a fair or flat tax. Ten to twenty percent of 100k is a lot less painful than ten to twenty percent of 40k.

The best move our nation can make in regards to taxes and the working poor is the repeal of income based refundable tax credits. This will end the multi-billion dollar drain on the Treasury without increasing the cost of living on lower middle-class families. Beyond that I foresee flat taxes as producing tax cuts that benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. The GOP candidates may argue that forcing the rich to pay all the taxes is class warfare, but taxing people who in some cases make 1/100th of the wealthy peers at the same rate is just plain tyrannical.

It's been a while......

2011-08-25T07:47:00.000-07:00

I have been wanting to come and write for some time, but caring for two autistic kids can keep you busy from sun up to sun down. I've missed you blogosphere.

Rep. Menlove's Proposal -- Message Bill?

2011-01-26T14:00:00.000-08:00

Rep Menlove of Garland wants Medicaid recipients to perform community service as a form of payment for the benefit of having Medicaid.

So, what's the message ???????????????????????????????

Utah State Taxes -- Residency Test

2010-11-09T20:00:00.000-08:00

The Utah State Tax Commission is proposing a Residency Test for income tax purposes. This test would have three levels:

The state in which the taxpayer's dependents, spouse, or taxpayer is enrolled in public school or state universities.
The address where the taxpayer is registered to vote.
Whether the taxpayer has property in Utah, and is benefiting from the 45% valuation exemption on a primary residence.

I applaud the state's efforts. This has been an issue where the Utah State Tax Commission has repeatedly overstepped its bounds. They have pursued residency in cases as minuscule as the taxpayer having toys (atv's, snowmobiles, etc) licensed in Utah. Clear and reasonable guidance is long overdue.

One problem I see with this rule, and the problems may depend on the final language of the bill that passes the legislature, is the rule establishing residency if the taxpayer of spouse is enrolled in a Utah university or college. For example, if the final law says any of the three establish residency, than someone from Mesquite NV could become an unwitting resident (or recipient of a Utah state tax examination) by virtue of attending the nearest institute of higher education -- Dixie State College.

I think it would be wiser for the residency test to end at the enrollement of the taxpayer and the spouse's children in Utah K-12 schools. That way commuters to Utah institutes of higher education don't need to fear being improperly assessed Utah taxes.

Regardless, this proposed legislation is good step forward in saving taxpayers money in needless litigation and protecting taxpayers from overreaching Utah State Tax Commission auditors.

Governor Herbert still rakes in the dough, but.....

2010-09-19T20:38:00.000-07:00

he managed to give a generous 1.4% of the haul to charity. Bravo Gov'na'

There a few who discussed the allegations of shady financial deals against the Governor made by Mayor Corroon. In a show of unrivaled civil political dialogue, master of GOP ethics and quid pro quo payolas, Dave Hansen (you remember, the guy who kept taking 5,000 dollar a month payments from Senator Hatch after he was also hired as Utah GOP chairman) said this:

“They’re not happy with the attacks on the governor. They really aren’t,” Hansen said. “They want somebody to rip Corroon’s head off. They do not like to see this kind of campaigning.”

Fred Lampropoulos, who's company is a party to one of the questionable arrangements that the state made after Governor Herbert received a donation, said:

“(I'm)mad as hell.”
Corroon has questioned whether Merit’s $50,000 contributions played a role in the company receiving $4.4 million in tax incentives if it creates 700 new jobs.

“We did it to help a governor we think has a vision on economic development,” Lampropoulos said.

He said his company has also given money to Corroon’s mayoral campaign and the mayor’s office approved a $12 million economic development incentive at the county three years ago.

Corroon's campaign manager retorted:

Dunn said the county was one of three entities, along with the school district and the city, that had to approve that incentive. And, he said, the donations were not nearly as large or in the same time frame as the approval.

Dave Hansen is a buffoon, and one of the least qualified people to opine on campaign ethics. While working for Hatch, he willingly participated in a employment tax scam by falsely classifying himself as a subcontractor rather than an employee of the Hatch Senate Committee. After he was elected as Utah Republican Party Chairman he continued to take 5,000 dollar a month payments from Hatch for over a year. Quid pro quo should be his middle name.

Fred Lampropoulos' revelation about his donation to Corroon raises reasonable questions. He gave to both candidates, and he also had business dealings with both governments, when is this improper? In the case of Governor, timing has been an issue. Alton Coal made a donation and got a meeting with the Governor in the same day, soon after the company's strip mining permit was approved in an expedited manner. Another issue is the manner that contracts are awarded. In the case of the Provo Corridor project, the contract appears to have been won by Provo River by a slim margin. Coupled with the massive payola to the losing bidder, the state certainly looks guilty of impropriety regarding the Provo Corridor bid process.

I guess the big question, other than did the governor really act in an improper manner, is what is an acceptable campaign finance policy? The governor's policy of giving private meetings to 50,000 dollar+ donors, a policy the governor has continued despite the recent allegations from his challenger, has led outsiders to question whether or not those donations are crossing over the line to bribery especially when those donors end up receiving large state contracts or concessions after making their payouts.

I think Corroon's suggestion to limit campaign contributions to a cap, would be a logical step to avoid the appearance of impropriety at the state level of government.

Governor Herbert v. Mayor Coroon -- An Argument That the Herbert Camp CAN Make

2010-09-18T13:36:00.000-07:00

Since the Kern Gardner argument failed, I thought I would mention a point of impropriety from the Corroon camp.

Salt Lake County's spokesman is getting a reprimand for an e-mail he sent from his county e-mail address.
Jim Braden is Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon's communications director and acts as the mayor's spokesman.

Deputy Mayor Nicole Dunn confirms that Braden sent out an e-mail with a list of negative press clippings about Gov. Gary Herbert. Braden used his county e-mail address. Corroon is challenging Herbert for Utah governor.

Herbert's brilliant campaign manager who says Herbert is as "honest as the day is long" (a rather subjective description -- I find that the day is often short. So, in Herbert's case I guess it works regardless) was quoted as follows:

Don Olsen, says he wants Mayor Corroon to publicly stand up and admit what happened in his office. Olsen also wants both Braden and Corroon to be reprimanded.

"It's wrong for an employee who's being funded by the taxpayer to do campaign work, especially on taxpayer-funded equipment and on taxpayer-funded time," Olsen said.

Unfortunately for Olsen, the Corroon campaign has already done just that:

Mayor Corroon quickly responded to Braden's e-mail, saying what Braden did was wrong and telling him not to do it again, Dunn said.

How sad. Herbert's manager Olsen almost had something that he could roast Corroon on, but Corroon took the initiative to own the story before it made the press or (God forbid) he ended up looking like an idiot learning about the email in front of the press at a news conference.

Governor Herbert v. Mayor Corroon -- The Kern Gardner Issue

2010-09-17T13:29:00.000-07:00

Since Herbert's botched news conference, there the Herbert camp and some right-wing bloggers have tried to defend the Governor with a logical leap regarding the Mayor's relationship with businessman Kern Gardner:

Corroon is vocal in his support for ethics UEG style, yet he abuses his office as county mayor, says the governor’s mansion is for sale and that contributions of $50,000 should raise red flags, he himself is – wait for it – taking contributions of $50K from a company doing business with the county.

Kem Gardner’s company – Gateway Associates – developed & owns the Gateway as well as residential, commercial and retail in Salt Lake County. Salt Lake County owns property at the gateway including Clark Planetarium. The county pays Gateway Associates, Kern Gardner pays Corroon’s campaign. Nice.

However, there is a difference between the Mayor's receipt of donations from Kern Gardner and his Gateway contract with Salt Lake County. Peter Corroon has been Mayor of SLCo since 2004, Gateway Associates has had active contracts with Salt Lake County since at least -- wait for it -- 2002. That's right, Gardner has a business relationship with the county renting space for Clark Planetarium, however that relationship was initiated prior to Corroon's election as Mayor. Gardner's donations to Corroon and the Gateway contract have no legitimate connection.

There is no problem giving money to a candidate for public office even if the donor has or might in the future have business dealings with the government. However it is improper for a elected official to accept donations and to provide those donors with perks in the form of tax breaks, expedited permit approval, or large contracts.

Sorry Herbert and right-wingers, Herbert is the only one with (possible) dirty hands here. Herbert received a donation from Alton Coal and met with the company on the same day -- coincidentally Alton's permit for strip mining was expedited for approval a short time later. The Guv met with Fred from Merit Medical, received a donation, and Merit received 4.36M in state tax breaks.

Last but not least, Provo River contractors gave Herbert cash and subsequently won one of the largest Utah state contracts in history. To keep the losers quiet, UDOT paid 13M dollars to the losing bidders.

Conversely, Mayor Corroon accepted a donation from a Democrat businessman whom the county has had a contract with for many years and will continue to have a contract with many years after the Mayor has left office. The donation to the Mayor had no (from a reasonable person standard looking from the outside in) bearing on the SLCo - Gateway Associates contract. It requires a logical leap of epic proportions to draw any conclusion to the contrary.

Governor Herbert v. Mayor Coroon -- What could the state have done with 13M?

2010-09-15T09:30:00.000-07:00

Teachers -- 260 Salaries (@ a generous $50,000)

Governor Herbert v. Mayor Coroon -- Governor For Sale

2010-09-14T11:28:00.000-07:00

Yikes -- That didn't go well!

When political candidates keep flashing video of people saying how honest and honorable they are I tend to doubt the message. It appears that Governor Herbert isn't going to disappoint us in this regard either.

Yesterday, the governor held a press conference with some cheerleader, who's-who from Utah politics to answer questions from the Corroon camp claiming that the governor may have been taking campaign contributions in a "pay-to-play" fashion. In the course of the conference the head of UDOT disclosed that a losing bid competitor in the infamous Utah County project was paid 13M dollars in a protest settlement -- the winning bid was from a group of contractors who had all made donations to the governor.

“This is the first I’ve heard of it,” Herbert said.

This isn't the first time this has happened -- Corroon called a similar issue into question after the Governor accepted a donation from a coal mining company seeking permits in Southern Utah and the permits were coincidentally fast-tracked. The governor denied impropriety in that event as well.

If there was nothing improper about the Utah county project's bid award as the head of UDOT claims, why did the state settle and pay the losers 13 million dollars? Governor Herbert is either a liar or a terrible manager. Even if the governor didn't have anything to do with the settlement or the award of the bid, payment of such a large sum in settlement reeks of impropriety and corruption.

So Much for the Church being Against Gambling

2010-08-31T15:54:00.000-07:00

Wow!

I thought they would opt for exposure through helping the MWC get the BCS AQ status, but I was mistaken.

Seems like BYU and the LDS church are taking a huge gamble. The only big upside is potential revenue. With probable scheduling nuances and other issues, BYU's annual BCS chances are more diminished as an independent, and their chances of being picked up by the PAC-12, Big 12 or some other AQ conference are 50/50 at best.

Anyone want to propose a lottery in Utah again?

Governor Herbert v. Mayor Corroon -- Education

2010-08-30T09:41:00.000-07:00

In the past few weeks the Governor has taken a few shots at his competition's ideas for Utah education

Mayor and gubernatorial candidate Peter Corroon announced that, if elected, he would like to see an increase in the credits required to graduate from Utah high schools. He cited states like Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico as examples of states that have higher graduation requirements and Utah's increasingly tech-savvy job market as reasons why the state of Utah needs to raise the board.

Governor has responded in a couple of pathetic ways. The first response, was an appeal to the religious centric Mormon majority of the state of Utah. The governor stated:

"I don't know that everybody in Utah is going to think that's a good idea to give up art and seminary release time to have this more rigorous curriculum,"

I understand that Herbert hasn't been in High School for more than a few decades, but it is gross political pandering to the major state religion to monger fear that a Catholic Mayor is trying to Seminary. I graduated just a little over a decade ago, and do you have any idea what my senior year of high school looked like? Electives, electives, and (you guessed it) more electives. Mayor Corroon is right to call the Governor out on his veiled religious swipes. Last year, a senior state legislator and many legislators considered eliminating the senior year of high school altogether. The Governor here is once again proving that he is spineless, idea-less, and a sheep, rather than a shepherd.

The second response was more direct and considered more (possibly) personal by some Corroon proponents:

(Herbert accused) his Democratic challenger, Peter Corroon, of borderline hypocrisy by claiming to champion public education while sending his own three children to a parochial school.
“How can someone who has never had firsthand experience with public education understand how it really works?” the governor asked.

This triggered condemnation from the leader of the Catholic school where Corroon's children are schooled. Madeleine Choir School's pastoral administrator, Gregory Glenn said the following:

"Catholic school parents and leaders resent this cheap shot from Gov. Herbert in support of his own political goals," "Shame on Gov. Herbert for maligning the contribution of Catholic schools in Utah for his own political ends."

Although it is obvious that the Catholic school was reaching in their accusations, the governor didn't miss the opportunity to use it against his opponent:

The governor's campaign spokesman said Monday that Glenn's statement "is a gross distortion," because Herbert never brought up Corroon's religion or made reference to Catholic schools.
"Gov. Herbert believes that the blatant political maneuvering of the Corroon campaign — and the potential community divisiveness that it may cause — is reprehensible and ought to be stopped immediately,"

Let's consider who is improperly using religion on this issue. Governor Herbert, who fully supported the voucher proposal, takes the colossal leap from a plan to make Utah students work harder for their diplomas to the end all of seminary release time when most Utah students and high school graduates will admit that at least one full year of high school is a waste -- the governor knows this assertion is a major stretch, but he is willing to make it because he believes it appeals to the persecution-complex infected majority of this state.

It is also laughable that the governor would piously call the Mayor out as a hypocrite on the issue of private schooling, when a few years ago he fully supported a plan that would have let any Utah parent use state funds to send their children to private schools. The governor is for private schooling on the taxpayers dime, but if someone makes the sacrifice to send their kids to private school on their own dime it is snobbish and it renders someone unable to lead the state's education system.

If the Governor was a leader rather than a politician, he would agree with Mayor Corroon's proposal for increasing Utah's graduation requirements. The state lags behind many of it's neighbors in this regard, and Utah should (per the prevailing religion's own dogma) lead the nation in the quality of our education. However, the governor is a mere politician, and as such good ideas that are not his are a threat and must be crushed by pandering to a far too often paranoid majority rather than embraced for the merit that the opposition's idea possesses.

"Take Back Utah" Do We Want More Idiots on ATV's?

2010-08-29T14:30:00.001-07:00

I have never been a fan of Federal control over Utah land. The Federal government doesn't pay property tax, and in certain cases the Federal government has used legal doctrines like imminent domain in ways that have truly hosed the Utah economy and Utah ranchers. Having said that, I concede that I am not all that passionate about this issue and have not taken the time to get fully enveloped in all the nuances of the Utah v. Federal land debate.

This week Utah hosted a "Take Back America (or Utah)" rally where a reported 5,000 ATV enthusiasts parade their ATV's up SLC's State Street to the Utah state capital:

"Colorado has already lost all its rights to lands," said Virginia Lynn Robertson, who with her husband, Lynn, ventured to Salt Lake City from Dolores, Colo., for Saturday's event.

"That's why we are here. We belong to an ATV club that has lost all its rights," Robertson said. "Thankfully, it isn't that bad in Utah yet."

Quite a few prominent politicians were also in attendance, warning how the liberal Federal government is trying to deprive Utahn's their rights of land use. I wasn't aware that riding ATV's wherever you want was a right afforded us in the US constitution, but I'm certainly not a conservative constitutional expert.

I think this groups problem is image. If they would have had a bunch of Utah ranchers parading up State Street with some cattle who would undoubtedly shate of the marble steps of the capital, I might be more inclined to listen, empathize, and support this groups opinion against Federal land acquisitions. However the image of 5,000 over-weight rednecks riding loud, annoying, and destructive ATV's makes me much more supportive of Federal land grabs and restrictions of public land use. I'm sure ATVs are fun, but these vehicles are destructive and far too often those who are riding these vehicles are oblivious to the rights of others, designated trails, and the damage they cause to the wilderness they claim a right to enjoy by riding carelessly.

So, if the problem is the Federal government restricting legitimate and beneficial uses of our states land, I am on your side. However, I could care less about your "rights" to scarify public lands with your annoying toys because you are to fat and lazy to track a deer by foot -- I have a right to enjoy mountain areas free from trampled plant life, loud inconsiderate ATV riders, and an extra tax cost for repairing damage caused by ATV riders that refuse to use proper trails.

Take a Hike!

Immigration -- The New Colossus

2010-08-23T10:15:00.000-07:00

I have been pretty wrapped up in the immigration debate. Unfortunately, the tone from fellow Utahn's continues to disappoint. So I have decided to end my commentary on this issue with a poem:

The New Colossus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Emma Lazarus, 1883

My ancestors are all immigrants. They all came here seeking a better life for themselves and their posterity. Most of them came with the benefit of ZERO exclusionary immigration law -- they boarded a ship, sailed across the sea, and disembarked from that vessel. My grandmother was sponsored, met an American and attained permanent status when she got married in what some today may call an "anchor marriage".

Illegals are no different except that they have been given two bad options, one "legal" option that is financially and bureaucratically unfeasible for most people of poorer nations, and one illegal option that is as easy as the founders most likely intended.

I'm done.

Sandstrom v. Robles

2010-08-17T12:55:00.000-07:00

This week Stephen Sandstrom (R-Orem) unveiled his proposed AZ-styled illegal immigration bill. In the days leading up to the unveiling, the Senator claimed to be collaborating with Democratic Senator Luz Robles on a "carrot and stick in front of the horse type proposal" to provide an incentive for would-be illegal immigrants to opt for coming to Utah through legal channels instead of illegal border crossing. However, the Robles contribution is noticeably absent from the "Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act", and her news conference on Monday explained why.

On Monday she blasted the Sandstrom proposed legislation which not only requires police to become unofficial ICE agents, but also deputizes all state governmental agencies and employees to identify and turn in names of suspected illegal immigrants (i.e. the Stowell proposal). She pointed out that the Arizona law has already been challenged and stricken in Federal court and that a Utah law would undoubtedly face a similar fate at the cost of millions of taxpayer dollars. Sen. Robles confirmed that she is working on a alternative to Sen. Sandstrom's proposal but that she would not have it ready to be unveiled until next month. She also confirmed that Sandstrom is willing to work for a compromise immigration bill that may be more acceptable to both sides of this issue.

The Sandstrom law is worse than the Arizona law. The Arizona law merely required the police to act in a duel capacity as unofficial ICE agents, but Sandstrom is in effect deputizing the entire Utah state payroll as unofficial immigration enforcement personnel. Theoretically, schools may be bound to send names of suspected illegal immigrant families to law enforcement. This type of "iron fist" enforcement creates so many potential problems, not only constitutionally, but financially, logistically, and bureaucratically that it can make some of the most seasoned policy wonk's heads spin.

Although Robles proposed legislation has yet to be unveiled, I prefer it to the unmitigated crap that Stephen Sandstrom laid at the feet of xenophobic voters who he hopes represent a majority of voters in this state. Is there any doubt that he is posturing as a potential tea party Congressional candidate in 2012?

Immigration -- Steve Urquhart, Ethan Millard and Moving Towards Intelligent Discourse

2010-08-14T15:57:00.000-07:00

I have been following a lot of the tweets by Ethan Millard regarding illegal immigration via FB. His commentary has solicited a lot of passionate, heated, and (at times) down right nasty debate on those internet threads. I'll admit that I have engaged in some of this unproductive discourse if for no other reason to burn off my excess road rage. This is something I intend to stop -- uncivil discourse only further entrenches bad ideology in the misinformed.

Steve Urquhart (R-St. George) has taken a positive step in bringing intelligent, reasoned discussion back into the illegal immigration debate. He issued a challenge to Ethan Millard regarding his assertions (or apparent assertions) that all anti-illegal immigrants are racists, Mr. Millard accepted the challenge in the form of a blog post at steveu.com.

I agree with Ethan in that Rep Sandstrom's bill can (which didn't include the alleged incentive program he was collaborating on with Luz Robles) have but one outcome, that outcome is the alienation and intimidation illegal immigrants and their families in some hope that they will leave for their country of origin. Laws like the Sandstrom bill and the AZ law are not the best policy for our nation, not policy that the framers of the constitution ever intended, and it is counter-productive to the growth and prosperity of our nation. Although Sandstrom add a "anti-racial profiling" clause, the nature of the law and the nature of illegal immigration requires racial profiling in order to be successful.

I agree that the rhetoric from the anti-illegal immigrant side has become far too laced with ugly and far too often inaccurate stereotyping that in some cases include fabricated or improperly extrapolated data as evidence to back up the stereotyping. Having said that, I think the rhetoric from the pro-freer immigrant side is becoming too laced with accusations of racism. In too many corners of this debate we have passed the equilibrium between productive civil discourse and fighting for the sake of the fight.

Honestly, I believe policy like our current Federal immigration policy and the new Sandstrom bill are bred from xenophobia, cultural stereotyping, and protectionism. Therefore laws like this can be branded as nothing other than discriminatory policy. Although I don't believe states have the authority to usurp Federal jurisdiction on immigration, Utah would be better served if they used the jurisdiction that Arizona and Sandstrom assert states have to pursue policies like guest worker programs or streamlining visas for legitimately employed migrant workers. However, instead of pursuing freer immigration policies and a secure border, many on the right seem to be interested in US-Mexico Iron Curtain -- this doesn't bode well for the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Although my feelings on immigration are passionate and my dislike for the opposition's viewpoint is vehement, I believe it is important for political commentators to bring the discourse above calling everyone who disagrees with you a racist or a liberal. When epithets are loosely thrown around the public debating arena opposing viewpoints are far more likely to cement several meters from the center of compromise and positive public policy change. Conversely, when public discourse is respectful and remains in the bounds of proper decorum there is a much greater likelihood that opposing viewpoints can come together and find optimal solutions to the issues being debated. I pledge to try (it will be hard because the Sandstrom law has such a racially discriminatory nature) and keep racial arguments from my posts from here on.

I look forward to see where Millard v. Urquhart ends up.

Sandstrom -- Tries to Sweeten, But Then Throws Excrement on His AZ Style Law

2010-08-10T13:02:00.000-07:00

In a DesNews article that is tracking the developments behind Sandstrom's (R-Orem) Arizona style law recently noted three changes to his bill that are of interest. One in particular is fairly positive, and the other is fluff, and the other proposal stinks to high heaven.

First, Sandstorm is now collaborating with Hispanic state senator Luz Robles on providing an incentive for legal migration with streamlined permission for worker visas. Although it is another example of states attempting to usurp Federal jurisdiction, it is a step in a better direction from the "pin a yellow star on them" Nazi-esque policy that Sandstrom was originally pursuing and that Arizona already tried to mandate. It will be interesting to see how, and if, the state of Utah can make guest worker programs a reality without the cooperation and mandate of the Federal government.

The second change is language that specifically outlaws racial profiling:

Second, Sandstrom, R-Orem, said he is trying to take extra measures to ensure that his bill will not allow racial profiling. "It specifically prohibits racial profiling. It's the first time in state law we've actually specifically prohibited racial profiling," he said.

The only problem is in enforcement. I have known more than one Utah police officer that has admitted that they can find cause to pull any motorist over in five minutes. Except for in the most blatant and (quite frankly) ludicrous circumstances, there is no way to enforce racial profiling laws against police officers. The nature of this law requires racial profiling. If a police officer has the urge, that officer will have no problem finding cause to pull over a brown skinned motorist. Although I appreciate the attempt to sweeten the bills overpowering stench, like a pubescent boy, Rep Sandstrom needs to be reminded that Brut Aftershave over BO generally makes for stinkier-musky BO.

The final change is the addition of language introduced by Sen. Dennis Stowell (R-Parowan) that allows state workers to rat out suspected illegal immigrants. Glen Warchol's recent blog post quoted the duo as follows:

Stowell:"We need to set up a process where the employees can go and feel safe. That they're not going to violate any laws."

Sandstrom explained the paranoid-snitch section of his law to ABC 4 News: "If [state workers] suspect that somebody is fraudulently attempting to gain benefits here in our state, they have to turn over those names to law enforcement."

This addition to Sandstrom's bill smells to high heaven. When I first heard of the Stowell proposal, I joked that Sandstrom and Stowell should combine proposed bills and throw in the re-opening of Topaz Internment Camp as a jobs measure. Unfortunately, I can see now that such proposals aren't that far-fetched. Given Herbert's lack of a spine and his pre-session promise to sign the immigration bill that the Lege puts on his desk, Sandstrom and Stowell's proposal may very likely be signed into law this year.

Therefore I recant my last post's jocular position. Don't re-open Topaz Internment Camp!

Immigration -- Stowell Raises Sandstrom's Crazy in the Beehive State

2010-08-09T14:51:00.000-07:00

Not to be outdone by Senator Sandstrom or Arizona, Utah state Senator Stowell (R-Parowan) is considering legislation that would allow state employees to rat out illegal immigrants. I'm assuming he received many of the same types of emails that Governor Herbert received after "List-Gate" suggesting that the crusading Utah DWS employees deserved medals rather that firings and possible criminal charges for making the list.

Maybe Senators Stowell and Sandstrom can work on a joint bill and add the reopening of Topaz Mountain Internment Camp, after all they're going to need holding areas when we round up 120,000 people. It could be part of a jobs package and lets not forget that Governor Herbert has already said he'll sign off on an immigration bill next year.

To all people of Mexican or Latin decent -- I apologize for the xenophobic protectionists that are trying to intimidate you from the marble halls of the Utah State Capital.

Update: Sandstrom is throwing the Stowell proposal into his AZ-style law.

Lee -- What's Not to Like About the Guy?

2010-08-06T06:41:00.000-07:00

I will not vote for Mike Lee. I'm sure he is a nice fellow. When a candidate tries as hard as Lee has to tie himself to the extreme elements of his party, it is usually a sign that the candidate lacks any individual integrity or character. Here is my list of reasons to keep Lee out of the Senate:

He exploits obscure extreme LDS doctrine.
He panders to xenophobes and racists.

Making clear that illegal aliens will not receive amnesty in any form, and must return to their own countries before applying for a visa; illegal aliens should receive no benefit from having entered the United States illegally, and should not be granted guest-worker visas or the opportunity to “purchase” lawful immigration status.

He has already gotten in bed with Orrin Hatch.
He supports bailing out BP, while deriding the financial bailout through his other face.
He believes in salad bar conservatism.
He wants Congress to check with state legislatures before doing anything.
He has his interpretation of the Constitution (Lionel Hutz-like smile and yes-nod) and there is the Judicial system's interpretation of the Constitution (Lionel Hutz-like frown and no-nod):

He reached this opinion through his reading of a section of the U.S. Constitution known as the “enclave clause,” which he argues requires a state to give up all legal rights to land that would become off-limits to development.

Lee, an attorney, acknowledges the courts don’t support his interpretation. They instead have found that the federal government does not need permission to turn already public lands into protected wilderness.

“It’s not,” Lee said, “how the courts would look at it today.”

He has a Bill Clinton like ability to define his illegal actions within the scope of following the rules.

Granato, come on! Hit him in the throat with this!

iPods and Kearns High School

2010-08-05T08:35:00.000-07:00

Senator McCain and Rooster Coburn are not happy with Kearns High's plan to use stimulus money for iPod's. They identified the KHS plan as one of 100 questionable stimulus projects nationwide.

Kearns is planning on the iPods becoming a valuable classroom tool for use with download-able textbooks, lessons, and online research.

The Granite School District says Kearns is moving toward the future by giving students the iPod Touches.
"We feel like textbooks are really on their way out the door, and we will be utilizing these devices," said district spokesman Ben Horsley.
He said it's also an incentive to get kids to graduate: "Kind of a reward, and keeping them on task toward graduation," Horsley explained. "They don't get to keep it unless they meet graduation requirements."
About the concerns that have been raised, Horsley says the stimulus funds can only be spent on technology in education and could not be used anywhere else.

I think the decision to use funds in this way is innovative on the part of Granite School District. Hand held devices provide a lower cost alternative to printed textbooks, and they have so many applications that can be helpful in providing teachers with powerful tools in the classroom. If they can also provide an incentive for students to keep on track to graduation, then it is a plan that has merit and should be praised.

I don't believe the stimulus as a whole was a wise path for our leaders to pursue. However, using the money to promote and foster the use of technology in the classroom is something that two US Senators should praise, rather than deride, coming from America's less than stellar public school system.

Prop. 8 -- Knocked Down. Judge Walker is Gay

2010-08-05T06:18:00.000-07:00

Judge Vaughn Walker ruled California Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional yesterday with the following ruling:

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

This was not a shock, nor does anyone have delusions that this case will settle the issue.

However, this author was surprised to learn is that Judge Walker is a homosexual. Is that an issue? Due to the fact he was hearing a case that was seeking to overturn voter-mandated law that discriminated against the judge personally, I think it probably should have been made a major issue, and will be made an issue in the appeal, by pro-Proposition 8 counsel. In order to help the judge seem more capable of impartiality despite his orientation, the SFGate article mentioned that the judge has his opponents in the gay community in California due to his representation of the US Olympic Committee against the SF Gay Olympics. The SFGate also quoted a gay California state senator as follows:

"It seems curious to me, that when the state Supreme Court heard a challenge to Prop. 8, the justices' sexual orientation was never discussed."

This argument on Walker's behalf suggests that impugning Judge Walker's impartiality due to his sexuality requires that the sexuality of any judge who hears a gay marriage case must likewise be impugned. The problem with his argument is with the target of the law. Someone who is heterosexual (and not involved with anti-gay marriage groups) can look at this issue far more impartially than (I believe) someone who is gay because the decision has no effect on such a heterosexual's personal life or the status of a group for which such a judge would be personally connected. Conversely, a homosexual (or even a Mormon) being the judge in a gay marriage case will impugn, either the judges actual judgment or the validity that others place in the impartiality of that judgment. Judge Walker should have recused himself and by not doing so he has provided ammunition for the appeal.

On the judicial front, this case is destined for a SCOTUS finale. Yesterday, before the expected judgment was released, fellow blogger Tom Grover discussed the problems that the current Supreme Court holds for gay marriage proponents on a Facebook feed. Despite the additions of two liberal female justices (after Kagen is sworn in) the court has one of the most conservative benches in recent history. With such a conservative bench there is a strong likelihood that state's rights may trump anti-discrimination clauses and produce a possibly insurmountable anti-gay marriage precedence. In this regard, the longer this process takes to get to the Supreme Court the better for gay marriage proponents and vice versa for the opposition.

As for the opinion of Green Jello, I believe that civil unions provide the best option for a fair compromise on this issue. Consenting adults are allowed to enter into any number of contractual arrangements. Marital contracts that the law recognizes should be no different, and I do not see how allowing two men or women to enter into such contracts effects my rights.

However, I can see a problem for religious organizations and unions between between gays being defined as marriages. If gay unions are defined as marriage and a religious group refuses to solemnize such contracts there would be possible exposure to anti-discrimination accusations and challenges to such groups tax-exempt status. Due to this issue, marriage may need to be best defined in the law as a wholly religious rite separate from the civil marital contract. This would provide equality in the law without placing undue pressure on religions to recognize and solemnize something that violates such religion's creeds.

I doubt any such compromises will ever be pursued. This case will be decided by the high court in the near future and all side will have to live with that decision. I hope that this debate will follow the course asked for in a recent LDS church statement:

We recognize that this decision represents only the opening of a vigorous debate in the courts over the rights of the people to define and protect this most fundamental institution—marriage.

“There is no doubt that today’s ruling will add to the marriage debate in this country and we urge people on all sides of this issue to act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility toward those with a different opinion.”

Propaganda, Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics -- Blind Belief in Statistics that Support your Bias

2010-07-30T12:56:00.000-07:00

I have been dumb-founded by the lack of logic and integrity (or even respect for a legitimate contention of an opponent) at a certain right-wing blog mentioned in a recent similarly titled post. It is clear that many of the anti-immigrants of this state and nation are beyond reason.

When a writer provides statistical data, I have always been taught to approach data with skepticism.

If the writer includes statistical data and has cited sources (other than "I got this from my friend") than the writer has passed the first test of integrity. Next, readers should check the source. If the source comes from groups who are not known to have certain biases (i.e. government agencies, and (although they often fail) educational research universities) then the data overcomes my level of skepticism and I will accept it as factual. I may disagree with the methodology of the calculations or the conclusions of the statistical data, but I no longer question the author's integrity.

Conversely, if a writer uses statistical data and cites no legitimate traceable source, then my skepticism alarm is (at least minority) set off. Next, I ask the writer for there source. If the writer either provides a legitimate and traceable source or admits that they don't have a legitimate source -- I am appeased and I either accept the data as factual or in the least I can stop questioning the author's integrity. However, if the author passes off something official looking that has no relation to the data that the writer provided -- that author is a poor journalist. If the writer insists that the source provided is accurate I check the sources further. If the source cited by the writer shows no discernible connection to the writer's data after thorough review -- the author becomes a fraud.

This other blogger's lack of integrity with her sourcing has reached fraudulent status for me.

Her commentators derided skepticism as liberalism and one mocked my questions with the epithet "FBI Jr. Fact Checker". The same commentator claims that this is what blogs have devolved into. Sadly, I fear he may be right. I guess you can say anything on blogs even if you have no evidence.

You know what -- I drink lots of milk and I don't have cancer. A friend of mine who also drinks milk and also doesn't have cancer therefore is totally engulfed in milk's cancer fighting ability sent me this:

"The CDC reports that people who drink milk are less likely to have cancer"

Since I drink milk and don't have cancer. The CDC information from my "friend" must be true. Therefore milk must prevent cancer.

I think I am going to market milk to oncologists.

Senator Hatch -- Unethical (un éthik'l)

2010-07-29T20:50:00.000-07:00

The title is an homage to the Senator's 2006 Campaign Billboards.

Senator Hatch, the Senator that I love to hate, is such a beacon of honesty and integrity from the Beehive state. For example, he wouldn't dream of skirting federal tax laws. I'm sure he would never try and pay off a GOP official to the tune of 5,000 dollars a month after being appointed Utah State GOP chairman.

Oops.

It's true. Mike Lee's idol, the senior senator from Utah who has successfully skirted Federal employment tax laws through his campaign for years -- the same laws that cost small businessmen a 100% penalty if caught disobeying. Senator Hatch has kept paying his former campaign manager Dave Hansen 5,000 dollars a month since he officially resigned as Hatch's campaign manager after being elected Utah GOP chief in 2009 -- although he is paid only as a subcontractor.

Dave Hansen's explanation:

He calls the $60,000 “a bonus” for his past work as Hatch’s campaign manager.

That's right a bonus. Is that what Rangel would call it?

At least Hatch finally appears to (hopefully) have his employee classification correct.

Hatch paid Hansen 10,000 a month from 2004 to 2009. Illegally (at least in my opinion) he claimed and paid Hansen as a subcontractor for employment tax purposes. That position was a major stretch to say the least while Hansen was his campaign manager. Unless Hatch allowed Hansen to moonlight as campaign manager for other campaigns, he was an employee.

Is anyone there?

2010-07-29T14:16:00.000-07:00

I took a blog hiatus for a while, and it looks like no one is reading blogs anymore.

Hello!?!

Please feel free to comment. I enjoy comments that are with me or against me. Anyone?

Propaganda, Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics -- Reloaded

2010-07-27T06:35:00.000-07:00

On the blog Lady Logician, the blogger used a few statistical pieces of evidence that illegals are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime in the US. I am separating this post into two pieces because state Sen. Jon Greiner has graciously provided me with more data regarding the Weber/Morgan Narcotics Strike Force study that was released shortly after the governor's summit several days ago and was quoted by the blogger Lady Logician. I need to spend some time with the report that the Senator provided me so that I can be more objective and fair in my analysis. Don't get me wrong my opinion will be included, but I want to take the time to at least read all available information before opining again on that data.

In the second half of the blog post "The Cost of Illegal Immigration, Pt 1" the lady quotes an alleged 2006 FBI report. She provided no source link, but instead the blogger uses the tried and who knows if it is true "the friend lives near the border, so they are totally engulfed in the story and it must be true" argument. That's right, data coming from someone near the border has zero hidden agendas regarding immigration, right? Here is the data:

The following information is compiled from Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Homeland Security reports(for 2006 ed):
* 83% of warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens.

* 86% of warrants for murder in Albuquerque are for illegal aliens.

* 75% of those on the most wanted list in Los Angeles , Phoenix and Albuquerque are illegal aliens.

* 24.9% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals

* 40.1% of all inmates in Arizona detention centers are Mexican nationals

* 48.2% of all inmates in New Mexico detention centers are Mexican nationals

* 29% (630,000) convicted illegal alien felons fill our state and Federal prisons at a cost of $1.6 billion annually

* 53% plus of all investigated burglaries reported in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Texas are perpetrated by illegal aliens.

* 50% plus of all gang members in Los Angeles are illegal aliens

* 71% plus of all apprehended cars stolen in 2005 in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California were stolen by Illegal aliens or "transport coyotes".

* 47% of cited/stopped drivers in California have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 47%, 92% are illegal aliens.

* 63% of cited/stopped drivers in Arizona have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 63%, 97% are illegal aliens
* 66% of cited/stopped drivers in New Mexico have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 66% 98% are illegal aliens.

The blogger got into a tiff with a commentator who asked for the source data, and the writer cited "it was complied from a 2006 FBI/DHS report that is online" as a source. I asked for further clarification like a HTML and she provided this link. She apparently never bothered to look at the link. The link is a FBI state by state analysis of all US crime for 2006 and the list of crimes, ironically, includes no mention of illegal immigration.

I tried Googling the header of the data and I actually found the source. It was on a blog called Free Republic and many commentators asked the same questions I did regarding the authenticity of the alleged FBI report cited by the blog mentioned supra, Lady Logician, and her border-residing friend. One commentator did some digging and this is what was found:

i really need some fact checking on these stats to believe them.
For what it's worth, I took a shot at it. LOL.
I went to the URL linked in Post 1 and it says that these stats were published at PollPundit.com. I went to the web page where these stats were published and the statistics came "from a reader."
Sunday, November 12th, 2006
From a reader, "INS/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigrants"
snip statistics
This information was provided by a reader. There are comments in the thread that are questioning the accuracy of this information. Another reader, provided a link for immigration statistical information, HERE.
("HERE" is www.immigrationcounters.com/.)
ImmigrationCounters.com refers you to www.immigrationcounters.com/datasource.html. No INS/FBI report is linked there. Maybe (and I stress maybe) the reader who posted at PoliPundit.com went to all the links listed there and compiled his stats from those different sources.
I searched at Google for "INS/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigrants" and came up with three websites. They are:
PoliPundit.com » INS/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigrants
INS/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigrants. 2006 (First Quarter) INS/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigrants. CRIME STATISTICS ..
polipundit.com/index.php?p=15968 - 28k - Nov 12, 2006 - Cached - Similar pages rss 2.0

... (First Quarter) INS/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigrants
CRIME STATISTICS 95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens. ...
polipundit.com/wp-rss2.php - 8k - Nov 12, 2006 - Cached - Similar pages

Slowplay.com » Sports
INS/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigrants. Polipundit - 3 hours ago. Drudge · DRUDGE RADIO LIVE SUNDAY NIGHT 10 PM ET TO 1 AM. ...
www.slowplay.com/categories/sports/ - 25k - Nov 12, 2006 - Cached - Similar pages
Since the INS doesn't exist anymore, I doubt if there is a report actually titled "INS/FBI Statistical Report on Undocumented Immigrants". I am no closer to finding a source for this than I was when I started out. Oh well!

Here is a real "smoking gun" example of anti-immigrant pundits extrapolating data to all illegal immigrants that was (as far as this author can tell) invented completely out of whole cloth! More importantly it demonstrates how willing xenophobes are to disregard reason, logic, and even produce fabrications in order to maintain the status quo or pass Nazi-like Arizona laws. Xenophobes are not interested in finding the best solution to immigration, they want people to go back where they came from.

Now is the time to reverse the xenophobic past that has led our immigration system to the embarrassing point it has finally reached. Fabricated, inflated statistics and incendiary rhetoric from the xenophobic, anti-immigrant side is doing nothing to help, as the most recent LDS church statement says:

Find a successful resolution that requires the best thinking and goodwill of all across the political spectrum, the highest levels of statesmanship and the strongest desire to do what is best for all of God's children.

My parents and wife's parents have discussed some embarrassing moments of racist paranoia that they had to put up with from aged relatives in their adolescence. In one instance one of their relatives publicly whispered in a loud, near yelling volume, "hide my purse, its a black person!" Obviously, this was extremely embarrassing. The fallacious, incendiary rhetoric used (in some cases) with statistics that are (in at least one verified case) pure hearsay are just as embarrassing to the state of Utah and the logically minded, informed citizens of this state.

Arizona's Immigration Law -- Perverse Incentive

2010-07-26T06:29:00.000-07:00

Larry Bergen at "One Utah" found this Arizona news report. It highlights the disconnect between anti-immigrant rhetoric and reality in the debate, but it also brings to light a possible conflict of interest for the Governor who signed SB 1070 into law.

I don't know that Pancho Sandstrom has any such connections, but I thought the Governor's evasiveness to the reporters questions were revealing.

Mike Lee -- Anti-Business Conservatism

2010-07-25T12:01:00.000-07:00

In what will be one of many pre-election clashes, the Tribune had an article highlighting the differences between Mike Lee and Sam Granato on the subject of immigration. Officially, Sam Granato supports a proposal by President Obama that requires illegal immigrants to do the following before being granted a path to legal residency and citizenship:

1.) Pay Back Taxes -- This might be simple or quite expensive for some illegals depending on how they have been treated by employers and how the actual legislation is drafted.
2.) Learn English.
3.) Pay a fine.

Given Mike Lee's own interpretation of the criminal seriousness of illegal border crossing, this is the most logical approach for illegals -- speeders don't face exile, and neither should undocumented workers.

However, Mike Lee doesn't support this approach. Mike Lee instead believes that the government needs to step in with a heavy hand and crack down on American businesses that choose to hire undocumented workers. By so doing, he believes that illegals will simply go home because they will be unable to find work. He wants every illegal in the country (I'm not sure if he means by compulsion or "agency") to return home and to come back through existing legal channels.

My question to Mike Lee supporting right-wingers is this: Can Mike Lee represent conservative values when he is opting for increased government intrusion into businesses who are making decisions based on the economic laws that conservatives claim to embrace?

Taking Mike Lee's own beliefs and statements on immigration, the only reason Mexicans cross the border illegally is because they can find better paying jobs in the United States. The US demands cheaper labor than is available from US citizens due to things like minimum wage, Social Security taxes and many other (usually government caused) issues that cause the price for legal American labor to be high. The Mexican laborers supply cheaper labor and see a benefit in more money than they could make in Mexico. Businesses like farmers, manufacturers, and service businesses (many of which have high overhead without even counting labor costs) benefit by having workers at a price they can afford. These businesses demand the cheaper labor because their profit margins are usually low enough that they cannot afford, let alone find, good American labor at imposed American minimum wage price floors.

To me, it seems like Mike Lee is playing into the liberal hands that first passed the minimum wage and American unions -- all of which have decimated American's competitive edge in the global market place. Although impossible at this point, the "one true conservative" Mike Lee should pursue an end to minimum wages so that the laws of supply and demand, the invisible hand, can work to allow American laborers and businesses to reach market equilibrium. By Mike Lee's own arguments he should be fighting government intervention rather than pursuing more government intrusions into the marketplace -- historically bad governmental market interventions are one issue that makes illegal labor attractive to American employers.

The approach of amnesty and legal residency is a far more business friendly path. Undocumented workers who are usually highly valued by those that employ them can keep farmers and smaller less affluent businesses running. Undocumented workers can be put on a path to legally staying in this country. More importantly, illegals (who in many cases have been taxed for social security and medicare without credit) can begin to be legal voters, can openly file taxes, and can contribute to our society in ways that they can't while they are hiding from ICE.

Otherwise law abiding (no drug smugglers, or felons) illegal immigrants should be granted a path to legal residency and (if desired) citizenship. Our current system is founded on the racism and xenophobia of the 19th century. The time has come for us to return to the original intent of the founders and to, once again, embrace the poor and huddled masses that yearn for the prosperity and freedom our nation provides.

True Conservative? Exactly!

Mormon Culture -- Pioneer Day & "Welfare Mentality"

2010-07-24T05:59:00.000-07:00

I read the Facebook feed of a FB friend, I have never met this individual but I know he is a fellow political junky. This friend had decided to commemorate Pioneer Day by posting the following:

"our pioneer ancestors would be ashamed at our welfare mentality."

This produced some jeering agreement, one commenter mentioning "immorality" in Zion (he is a Mike Lee supporter, so maybe he is referring to those not supporting the one-true conservative, constitutional expert for Senate) and some decent with KVNU and Amicus blogger Tom Grover bringing up the United Order and the law of consecration. Tom's inference that the law of consecration and the United Order are akin to welfare, raised a fair amount of debate and disagreement. Some commentators arguing that the two are completely different, and others argued that tithing is the church portion of the law of consecration and the providing for the poor portion of the law has been replaced by government welfare programs through taxation. One argument made mentioned that millennial consecration will be administered by the government, which was countered by a "actually it will be administered by the church" which should be realized (according to the Mormon canon of scripture) that church and government will be one and the same in the millennium.

This debate spurred this internal question: Do Mormons believe it a sin to seek or receive welfare?

Judging from the pious indignation that some commentators on this feed showed, and some comments I have heard made in the communities of "Zion" where I have lived it would sure seem like it. What does "our welfare mentality" mean anyway? I have always believed that we are to have compassion for the poor and the needy -- isn't that the point of welfare, government or church administered? It can be ceded that the LDS church welfare system has a very wise "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" approach -- while much of Federal welfare remains focused on the giving of the fishes. However, the fact remains that both systems serve the purpose of helping the poor and the indigent.

Although I agree that government welfare is in fact different from the law of consecration (although my unrighteous mind can't quite wrap around the idea that everyone will share everything we have without any compulsion, but I also don't support Mike Lee for Senate and therefore am a stubble candidate). As I mentioned in a earlier post, I think many LDS church members need to examine their compliance to a commandment that Christ identified as the second greatest -- LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF. Members of the LDS church here in Utah (self-included) are quick to become myopic in their view of the gospel focusing on some pet commandments or self-imposed dogma (i.e. the commandment of self-reliance, having the mother not work in a family, or the twelfth article of faith) rather than remembering that our observance of commandments needs to be all encompassing -- even the ones (like loving thy neighbor) that require the flexing of a lot of Christ-like muscle. Like Eve, we need to look to the spirit of the commandments rather than, like Adam tried in vain to, be myopically bound to the letter of the law. It is good to self-reliant, but it is not good to condemn those who are unable to be self-reliant (temporary or permanent) for using welfare that is available. The Church of Jesus Christ recognizes this as they maintain one of the most impressive welfare programs in the world, and members who are overly pious about their self-reliance need to realize this as well.

I choose to commemorate Pioneer Day differently -- I believe our pioneer ancestors would be quite proud of the people of Zion. Welfare is available to all when the need arises, and, as the last couple of years has shown, no one is immune to being needy or wanting at sometime or another in their lives. I'm grateful for welfare, church administered or governmental, because it is there to catch me and any of my neighbors when the floor falls out from under us. Most people in Zion do there best to be self reliant, and our church has become a world leader in providing welfare for the poor by helping provide temporal needs in the short-term and educating the needy for job skills necessary to attain self-reliance long-term.

On the other hand. If you are a LDS church member, needing welfare may likely reveals one sinful aspect of that members life -- not following the admonition of the prophets to have a years worth of food storage. There I admit that.

U Accountant -- $100,000 for 10 Days in Jail

2010-07-23T06:16:00.000-07:00

Who ever said that "crime doesn't pay" never met former U of U accountant Jara Jane Wimmer.

Wimmer started defrauding the University's theater department in 2001 with the first of many checks. From then until the U finally caught on in 2009, she fraudulently used professors' University credit cards, paid her husband regular checks from the University coffers, charged plane tickets to Cancun on her University credit card, and enjoyed several thousands of dollars in illegitimate purchases which she covered up by forging invoices, delivery slips, and order requisitions.

What is her punishment?

3rd District Judge William Barrett ordered Wimmer, 33, to serve 10 days in jail, perform 200 hours of community service and pay $123,000 in restitution.

The article states that her theft was 100,000 dollars more that the amount that than the restitution order. So, Ms. Wimmer profited 10,000 dollars per day in jail -- not a bad deal. Sure she has community service and she theoretically "has" to pay 123,000 dollars back. However, Ms. Wimmer and her now deceased hubby lived pretty sweet on a pretty small salary and she gets to keep 45% of her booty -- I wonder if my local college is hiring for bookkeepers?

Internal Controls

There appears to be some basic internal controls that the U theater department was missing all those years -- multiple reviews of department books, duel signatures on department checks, and regular reviews of credit card expense reports. All of these internal controls are taught in lower level accounting courses. Kudos (in a sarcastic way) to Ms. Wimmer for identifying Mack truck-sized flaws in the U of U's internal controls -- if only you had a soul, you would have reported them to management instead of buying purses with taxpayer and donor's funds.

The Governor's Photo Op -- I Mean Summit

2010-07-20T12:59:00.000-07:00

After being accused of not showing much indignation regarding the infamous DWStapo list, Governor Herbert hosted a "round table discussion" on immigration. He invited 30 state legislature representatives, community activists, religious leaders, and media personalities -- so everyone sees that Governor Herbert is in to giving everyone a fair chance to voice their concerns.

I'm an accountant, and each year I am required to attend 30 hours of continuing education. Inevitably there are always "roundtable discussions" at the events -- I have attended 1 in 6 years. In my experience they are always a waste of time. Governor Herbert didn't disappoint in this regard either.

The discussion started off with the idea of a Utah-ran guest worker program. This program would (somehow) skirt US immigration and allow migrant workers to travel between Utah and their home countries. Utah Farm Bureau supports this idea, citing a tragic incident one farmer endured waiting for Peruvian workers to clear Customs:

“One rancher recently told me about the death of 300 of his lambs while his Peruvian workers were delayed 30 days,”

I guess the thought of offering a little more money to hire locally was a moot point, but I digress. This was ultimately attacked by Rep. and Sen. Wimmer and Waddoups, the former citing that GW programs would bear the appearance of "amnesty" and the latter cited high unemployment as a reason not to be inviting guest workers to our state. Finally it took the rep from the Catholic Diocese to point out that all Utah programs would amount to Band-Aids -- the ultimate solution needs to come from the Fed.

Inevitably the Arizona law was brought up. Wash. Co. Sherriff Smith pointed that the AZ law is pointless unless the suspected undocumented worker is also a felon. However, Happy Valley anti-immigrant Sandstrom pressed the idea of a Utah version of AZ law further claiming:

enabling Utah police to stop suspected undocumented immigrants will give police a way to find those dangerous criminals (because all illegals are here to bring drugs). And even if ICE does let go some immigrants, Sandstrom said, at least there is a record of that person.

That's right. Pull over all the Hispanics so we can have a record of that person -- then rounding them up for the final solution will be so much easier (insert Dr. Evil laugh)

The incumbent governor made sure to place overall blame on the Federal government, and to call on Congress to secure borders -- he's making sure everyone knows he isn't to blame for illegals. He also made sure we knew he is highly involved in investigating the list.

After two hours the meeting ended with no consensus on legislation or policy. However Gov. Gary Herbert encouraged everyone to keep working.

I hope the participants received a free lunch for their time.

Illegal Immigration & the Church

2010-07-20T05:48:00.000-07:00

I have been quite wrapped up in the immigration debate -- insanity always intrigues me. The dialogue in this debate has been quite heated, and unfortunately uninformed and xenophobic from some on the extreme right. The really disconcerting part about the right is that much of the really (near-racist) anti-immigration rhetoric is coming from members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It needs to be reminded that the anti-immigrant rhetoric hasn't been echoed by the LDS church's leadership which reiterated its position just yesterday:

"Elected officials have the primary responsibility to find solutions in the best interests of all whose lives will be impacted by their actions."
The Church is again asking for civil discourse when addressing immigration, noting, "Finding a successful resolution will require the best thinking and goodwill of all across the political spectrum, the highest levels of statesmanship and the strongest desire to do what is best for all of God's children."

However we still have openly LDS commentators like former US Senate candidate Eager, Mike Lee, State Rep's Wimmer and Sandstrom, and others who are fanning the flames of xenophobia with arguments like:

"Anchor Baby"
"81 percent of the homicides, when you have a recorded ethnicity, are committed by Hispanics"
"illegals are joining a militant separatist group to take America for Mexico"
"they don't even love our country, because I saw them waving Mexican flags in protest footage on Fox News Channel" (that one came from a family member)

Now, if you are crazy enough, try and tell some of these people they are wrong and watch the accusations of near-heresy fly! Then you may ask, on what grounds do the extreme right use to make such accusations? For Mormons, twelfth Article of Faith:

12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

That's right -- the Hannitized rule of law argument.

Okay, fine. Let's discuss the rule of law and illegal immigration. One of the principle anti-immigration voices is Mike Lee, on his campaign website he advocates the deportation of all illegal immigrants before they can pursue legitimate citizenship (me may mean voluntary, but he means for all of them to go back to their home country before they can be put on a citizenship path). Then the pre-primary Sutherland debate happened. In that debate, Mike Lee was asked how serious he viewed illegal immigration on the criminal spectrum? Mike Lee's answer -- about as serious as a speeding violation. Does that mean, as Ethan Millard pointed out a while back, that police should escort speeders home so they can follow the "rule of law" as they travel? It would seem that ridiculous. Given the "one true conservative constitutional expert's" explanation of illegal immigration's criminal seriousness, let us also consider the hypocrisy in the extreme right's use of "honoring, and sustaining the law."

I live in So. Utah and I travel to SLC once every two to three months, usually for appointments with my doctor or to visit family. On that drive I usually drive 5 to 7 miles over the speed limit, mainly because I have heard police won't pull you over at that speed and I haven't been pulled over at that speed -- so it must be true, right? However, once I reach the Wasatch front 5 to 7 miles over the speed limit is hazardously slow -- the LDS majority on the Wasatch front speeds by more than 5 miles over the limit. So, if illegal immigration is akin to speeding (a crime that a majority of this state commits on a daily basis) in criminal seriousness than the xenophobic extreme right wing of this state need to heed Christ's admonition to "let him who is without sin first caste a stone."

What is more troubling about the immigration debate here in Zion is the lack of compassion towards the Hispanic community. The Hyrum City 4th of July incident is a prime example. During a community gathering before holiday activities began a Hispanic pastor asked permission to say the opening prayer in Spanish. That prayer has led to calls for the resignation of city council members -- it is incredible that a prayer in Spanish can cause so much outrage in a state that claims to be a beacon of Christian values.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has called for civil discourse. Maybe it is time for those who are so invested in the commandment of the 12th Article of Faith to step back and remember the 2nd greatest commandment -- "love thy neighbor as thyself." As the official LDS church statement says,

"Finding a successful resolution will require the best thinking and goodwill of all across the political spectrum, the highest levels of statesmanship and the strongest desire to do what is best for all of God's children."

In order for "the best thinking and goodwill" to be available in this debate, xenophobia-inspired fallacious statistics and incendiary rhetoric need to be left by the way side. Once that is done, our elected representatives and government leaders can use the "desire to do what is best for all God's children" to draft logical well-reasoned immigration policy that can reverse the rotten past of US immigration policy.

Hatch -- A True Frienemy

2010-07-19T15:44:00.000-07:00

Hatch, the man Tea Party members claimed to be gunning for after Bob Bennett's ousting, has been practicing major quid pro quo lately with Mike Lee. It turns out that Mike Lee is a life long fan of Hatch and so turning Mike Lee from enemy to lapdog has been quite simple for the Senior Senator (insert Dr. Evil laugh)

Unfortunately there is a paradox for Orrin Hatch, or it would be if Orrin Hatch still had a soul:

Sen. Orrin Hatch is a fan of Sam Granato, the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate. Granato has a room at his flagship store reserved for the senator, and Hatch’s good buddy “Mr. Mac” Christensen is Granato’s campaign co-chairman.

So, how does Senator Hatch treat his friend:

“Mike is being challenged by Sammy Granato. I really like my little friend Sammy. Sammy has no chance of winning. Even Sammy knows he has no chance of winning. I don’t even think Sammy’s a Democrat, but they just came to him and asked him to run. Either way, Mike knows he needs to run scared and not take anything for granted.”

Now I'd like to insert the Flames on the Side of My Face" bit from Clue:

Seriously, I don't know that I have ever read such a condescending, arrogant load of crap. Come on Sam Granato -- move the Hatch room out to the dumpster for that!

The Governor's Response to the Illegal Immigration List

2010-07-17T07:10:00.000-07:00

The Utah Amicus posted a press release from Wayne Holland regarding Governor Herbert's less than condemning response to the state's leak of personal information out of Workforce Services. Wayne Holland poses the question, why hasn't he been willing to condemn the list makers?

It's because aggressively migrant-opposed organizations are leading him by the nose so effectively that he won’t even denounce the illegal release of private information.

"Utahns deserve leadership who know where and how to draw the line. Illegal immigration laws need to be strongly enforced, while maintaining an element of humanity. A governor who cannot manage to state a clear answer to such a simple and moralistic issue demonstrates a lack of character and conviction."

I agree with Chariman Holland. Even at the press conference the Governor seemed more concerned with defending his actions rather than condemning such Nazi-esque intimidation tactics. Governor Herbert is the type of Utah Republican that has made me stray from the Republican Party, lacking personal conviction and character, and relying wholly on his membership in the Republican Party to maintain his place in the state's political landscape.

The GOP convention that ousted Bennett would have been wiser to follow the precedent set with the ousting of Olene Walker before he and Huntsman Jr. were elected.

Immigration -- Mr. Boyack.

2010-07-15T10:45:00.000-07:00

Conner Boyack has authored an exhaustive piece on immigration. Despite his support of Mike Lee, he supports amnesty for illegal immigrants. His piece was quite long -- too long for a self-employed accountant/Mr. Mom to read in one sitting. There were a few quotes that I found most notable:

Our current immigration situation can be likened to a rotting tree, either in need of being felled or nurtured to good health. If we were to dig up the roots, though, we would see that they are poisoned; the foundation upon which our modern immigration laws rest is evil and wrong. This poison consists of two parts: racism and protectionism........

Both racism and protectionism are evil—nobody has the right to deny another individual, regardless of race, the right to rent or purchase private property (and therefore cannot delegate that authority to the government they have organized), and nobody has the right to mandate through law that their industry be favored through tariffs, salary caps, minimum wage, or anything related.

And yet, these two poisons have produced the rotting tree we now call immigration law; rather than felling it and starting fresh, many people want the tree to grow and extend its branches—all while ignoring the roots.

Mr. Boyack's (although I have only skimmed through it a couple of times so far) is quite refreshing and highly recommended.

My Most Recent Non-US Born Ancestor's Immigration

I was home last week and the discussion of illegal immigration came up with my parents. My mother was in favor of laws like the one enacted in Arizona. My mom is a wonderful woman, but she is as xenophobic as can be. She tried to use the arguments of "rule of law" and "invaders from the south" as justification for her support for laws like that enacted in Arizona, but she later admitted she hates that every time she makes a phone call it asks you whether you want the call in English or Spanish.

This discussion led to a discussion of my grandmother's 1939 immigration to the US. My mother honestly didn't know the specifics of her immigration, so we made a few phone calls. It turns out that her sister, and likely my grandmother were sponsored for visas by President Heber J. Grant. My grandmother's sister worked as a maid for the prophet, and often had early morning conversations with him -- I hope someone can find her journals. My grandmother met my grandfather, a Cache valley native, got married and secured a permanent resident visa.

What's the point of my bringing my grandmother up? Mostly, just because I found it interesting.

Mr. Boyack points out in his essay that illegal immigration didn't exist in the American legal system until passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 -- the rotten roots of our current immigration system. Since then we have strayed further and further away from the intent of the founders desire ( I especially like the Madison quote in Mr. Boyacks essay:

“America was indebted to emigration for [America's] settlement & prosperity”)

for a nation that had open borders and openly let anyone desiring prosperity to come here and do so.

My own grandmother, although coming legally, used the marriage exception to secure permanent residency. There was no fraud involved -- my grandparents were happily married for 50+ years. However, her permanent residency was secured by one of the most despised exceptions to US xenophobes. Her marriage came within months of her arrival, and I have no doubt that many anti-immigrants would question the marriage's speed as being an illegitimate loophole to the "rule of law".

Since the 1930's even, the system's mountainous bureaucracy has become nearly impenetrable for those who attempt to do it legally. It is no wonder that illegal immigration is so popular.

Mr. Boyack is dead on (although I wonder how his sensible views on immigration reconciles to his support of Mike Lee). Amnesty is necessary to allow illegals who are here with legitimate desires to partake of the American dream can do so without fear of lists and being exiled from their new homes for a violation that even Mike Lee admits is less serious than a misdemeanor.

Mike Lee & Sen. Hatch

2010-07-14T06:23:00.000-07:00

Hattip: Thomas Burr

Senator Hatch, who I suspect is feeling a tad vulnerable after Senator Bennett's ousting, hosted a fundraiser for Mike Lee. During the fundraiser Senator Hatch praised Mike Lee, and Mike Lee returned the favor:

noting for the audience that in high school he had pictures of Hatch and Karl Malone in his bedroom.

Sorry, hold on a moment, I think I threw up a little in my mouth.

What kind of Senator will Mike Lee be? Mike Lee will be Orrin Hatch the man he idolized in high school along with Karl Malone. Lee supporters can believe whatever they want under their tin-foil hats about Mike Lee being the candidate who will rise up and save the US Constitution, but the fact remains that Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch are political twins 30+ years removed.

DOMA striken in US District Court

2010-07-08T20:58:00.000-07:00

In an interesting decision, US District Judge Tauro struck DOMA down with unequivocal language:

Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies
entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it
disapproves. Such a classification, the constitution clearly will not
permit.

So, where will this take the gay marriage debate? I assume we are a major step closer to a SCOTUS battle that will decide the issue once and for all.

For what it is worth, here is my two cents. Judge Tauro is somewhat right -- the purpose of DOMA was to quell gay marriage. While I am not fond of the idea of gay marriage, I realize that oppressing the desires of consenting adults to be lawfully bound in marriage is discrimination.

Due to the sacredness of marriage to many religions, I would prefer the nation adopt and enforce civil unions that are treated as marriages for all legal and governmental purposes.

Honestly, I think the biggest problem of gay marriage for opponents (especially where religions are involved) is the use of the term "marriage." One of the biggest legitimate legal reason (as far I see) for the fear of gay marriage by religions is anti-discrimination laws and IRC Section 501(c)(3) status. One stipulation of 501(c)(3) is that the tax exempt organization doesn't promote hate or discrimination. Gay marriage could quite possibly (and probably) open the flood gates for discrimination complaints against religions that refuse to perform gay marriage -- possibly risking 501(c)(3) status for various religions that don't decide to adjust religious doctrines in order to allow gay marriage.

Anyways, this debate is likely to heat up again in the coming days. It is going to be interesting to see what happens.

Utah County Republicans -- "Those rules weren't meant for us? We're the true political party."

2010-07-08T07:33:00.000-07:00

Quelle Surprise! The Republican party is held to a different "completely ignore the rules" standard in the Utah County Freedom Festival. Does this surprise anyone? Isn't the Utah County Freedom Festival about conservative talk show (Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck) hosts and the Republican party -- the Utah County Democrats should be grateful they were even allowed to have a parade entry!

Seriously, the Freedom Festival sent rules to the Utah County Democratic Party informing them that they could not let any campaigning at all occur on the parade route -- no campaign stickers, no candidates campaigning on the parade route, no campaign T-shirts, or campaign paraphernalia of any kind. According to the Tribune report and the Utah County Dem chairman, this was followed by the UCDemocratic Party. The Utah County Republican Party apparently got a different memo

Republicans were allowed to identify their candidates, plaster their parade
float with political messages, and have one candidate actually campaign as he
walked the parade route.

In response to these allegation the Freedom Festival organizers said the committee would review the rules and tighten up on some of the parade regulations. However, they also said that Chairman Davis was "making a mountain out of a mole hill." Really, your right -- I doubt this would have gotten it's segment own the Sean Hannity show if the situation was reversed.

The Utah County Republican chairman had the best response to these allegations:

Taylor Oldroyd, Davis’ Republican counterpart, said it was the Democrats who broke rules by having a float that wasn’t self-propelled, as required by the rules, and having someone follow the Republican float to harass them.

“They can’t win at the ballot box, and they can’t win on issues, so this is what they do,” Oldroyd said.

Way to go Mr. Oldroyd! You ignored the parade rules, likely with the Freedom Festival organizers duplicity, and once caught you found a much more egregious error by your rival -- not having a self-propelled float. Quick, someone call the Federal Election Commission!

Now, as icing on the cake, you may be asking who was the candidate that walked the parade route? The walking candidate was none other than Mike "lobbyist's rules don't apply to me because I'm the one true-conservative constitutional expert" Lee. However, we should excuse Mr. Lee because as non-douche bag UT County GOP chairman Taylor Oldroid said:

Lee walked with the float, but he only went to greet family members when he
was told that it was a violation by an unidentified member of the
Democratic party

Apparently, Mike Lee is only responsible for following rules when someone tells him he is breaking one. Mike, when elected, here is a list of a few rules you shouldn't break, taking bribes, when lobbying, not registering as a lobbyist (oops), and I wonder how your tax returns look? (Commenters should feel free to add to this list)

Doug Robinson Feeds Zoobite Sorrow and Anger at Ute PAC-10 Invite

2010-07-02T17:31:00.000-07:00

In a recent sports article, Deseret News sports writer Doug Robinson cries foul on the PAC-10 for claiming that the Utah invite over BYU was due in part to the University of Utah's research mission. He even insinuates (as maybe true) anti-Mormite (antisemitism for LDS Church members)sentiments might be to blame:

The Cougars came with what most would consider baggage: They won't play on Sunday, which would create headaches for the Pac-10 TV contract, and their honor code and conservative living don't fit in with the liberal Pac-10 crowd.

Doug Robinson doesn't buy a word of the PAC-10's claim to support research driven institutions -- he fails to look at the academic facts.

Here are a few statistics to compare BYU and Utah:

Utah Nobel Prize Winners -- 2(Google)
Mario Cappechi -- Medicine
Venkatraman Ramakrishnan -- Chemistry
Actually won for work at the U of U!

BYU Nobel Prize Winners -- 1
Paul D. Boyer -- Chemistry (Work Done at UCLA -- PAC-10 School)

Academic Ranking of World Universities
Utah (World) 80th
BYU (World) 303rd to 401st

Utah (US) 47th
BYU (US) 135th -162nd

Times Higher Education World University Rankings
Utah 259th
BYU 501st to 600th

Utah has a renowed research hospital and medical school -- BYU doesn't.

The facts support that Utah is more of a research institution than BYU. So let's cut the "crapola" Doug -- the PAC-10 can choose whoever they want to for their conference by whatever criteria they deem relavant. Stop feeding the "We're persecuted Mormon's" fire that already rages in "tin foil hat" wearing Utah County!

The other members of the PAC-10 are highly ranked academic & research institutions as well:

Arizona
Arizona State
Berkeley
Stanford
UCLA (BYU's lone Nobel Recipient did his award winning work at UCLA)
(tired of making links -- you get the idea)

Hatch votes No on Kagen and says "Please Don't Can Me!"

2010-07-02T12:33:00.000-07:00

Senator Hatch announced that, for the second time in 34 years, he will vote against a SCOTUS nominee.

So why the no vote? Answer: He knows (or at least feels) that his days are numbered.

Unfortunately Hatch fails to show intellectual honesty or respect for the intelligence of his constituency in this strategy. Senator Hatch gave nothing but glowing praise for Kagen as a Solicitor General nominee, "brilliant legal scholar" are some the words Hatch used to describe the SCOTUS nominee back then -- why a no vote for SCOTUS? His answer:

Hatch said he is not convinced that Kagan wouldn’t become an “activist” justice and that she fails to meet the standard to which he’s held previous nominees.

Seriously?!? Senator Hatch wants the voters of this state to believe he held Ruth "The Crypt Keeper" Bader-Ginsberg to the same standard that is keeping him from voting for Kagen? If you believe that, I have a lovely 4 bedroom home in So. Utah that I'd like to sell you for a mere 300k. Senator Hatch is as corrupt a Washington politician as they come. If any good comes, now or later. from Sen. Bennett's ousting I hope that it includes the ousting of Senator Hatch in '12 -- at least Bennett's ousting got Hatch pretending to try and follow (or even care about) the will of Utah voters.

What a schmuck!

Granato needs to make Mike Lee wear this!

2010-06-27T06:50:00.000-07:00

hat tip -- Richard Warnick & SLTrib

The GOP chose the worst possible candidate (I guess Cherilyn Eager would have been worse) and opportunity is knocking for Utah Democrats -- make Mike Lee wear this every chance you get Sam Granato!

Utah's Closed Primaries

2010-06-25T14:00:00.000-07:00

Utah had our next Senator decided in last week in the closed Republican Primary. Many are crying foul because Utah has a 30+ year unblemished record of blindly sending GOP candidates to the Senate, therefore making the November election a coronation (for lack of a better term) rather than a real election. Critics of this argument point out that anyone can register as Republican to vote in GOP primaries and that those who complain that there voices weren't heard because of the GOP closed primaries are at fault for not registering GOP.

I'll ask the question -- why shouldn't I register GOP? Other than the fact that I have vowed never to register with a political party again, is there any harm in registering Republican just to vote in the GOP primary? From a "signed" unsolicited picture of President Bush while I was a registered Republican, I know that the Utah GOP benefits from receiving my personal information which it shares with the RNC when I register as a Republican. However, there is a bigger question for which I would like an answer:

1.) Do Utah GOP's benefit financially from each voter who declares themselves as Republicans?

If any one can answer this question, let me know. I've inquired with my county and the Lieutenant Governor's office, but I have not yet received a response.

If the answer is no, than those in favor of the closed primary are right. If you want to vote in the GOP primary, the real Utah election, than you either register GOP or shut up about it. However, if the answer is yes, than we have a really abusive system in place that either shuts voters out of the system or forces voters not only to declare alligence to a political party they may not believe in, but to monetarily support one party over another through state dollars. That is wrong!

I will never register with a political party, and I'm prepared to deal with the consequences of that decision in myopically GOP Utah. However, I think we need to ask some questions of the GOP majority (and more importantly the GOP controlled state government) especially since they have closed primary elections at the expense of all Utahns.

Streamlined Death

2010-06-25T06:40:00.000-07:00

The governor of Utah is for a more streamlined death penalty. I suppose the specter of a 25-year death row occupant being gunned down last Friday, was a bit of an embarrassment for Herbert. The Governor is wanting to pursue limits for appeals of Death Row inmates. Here are a handful of quotes from Governor Herbert on the matter:

"25 years is just too long, there ought to be a process that’s more timely."

“It’s just too long and it becomes too much of a circus atmosphere. … And it doesn’t serve the families very well.”

“I think justice delayed is justice denied,”

To be honest, I think the governor is partially right. The death penalty has become a circus, and it is far more expensive to the system than it is worth. If we are going to embrace barbaric 19th century justice, than we should be barbarically expeditious in carrying those sentences out. Yes, the state would run the risk of killing falsely condemned individuals, but its a price the state needs to be prepared to deal with if Utah decides to "streamline" sending convicts to the eternities.

Abandoning the Death Penalty

On the other hand, maybe the governor should consider removing the death penalty all together. Information from the Death Penalty Information Center suggests that states without the death penalty have consistently lower murder rates that state that have a death penalty -- apparently impending death hasn't been as great a deterrent to murder as many people think.

Utah doesn't sentence very many individuals to die. Between 1985 and today Utah has 9 live prisoners on death row, and Utah has carried out the death sentence 6 times for a grand total of 15 death sentences in 25 years. Between 1996 and 2008, Utah averaged 54.21 murders a year. So, if Utah only hands the death sentence out in a small minority of cases and these cases end up costing the state its reputation and millions in legal fees -- why should the state continue the practice?

The answer for some may very well be the outdated notion of blood-atonement and for others it is simple vigilante-ism. Murder is an awful crime, and (usually) murderers that are granted a death sentence are guilty of an extra level of brutality against their victims. I'm sure the abrupt termination of these monster's lives provides at least momentary satisfaction for retribution for the family members of condemned murderers victims. However, is justice truly being served or is it the appetite for retribution that is being satiated? For those who cling to the blood-atonement notion, maybe it needs to be reminded (assuming the belief in blood-atonement is connected to a belief in God) that all men will be rewarded for their works in the eternities -- that includes those who use the death sentence when it is not warranted.

Personally I think we should abandon the death penalty. Although there will continue to be horrific crimes that warrant it's use (like the Sloop case) I'm don't believe the monetary and ethical costs are worth it.

For example, in Ronnie Lee Gardner's case, he was on trial for 2nd degree murder for a bar robbery and he killed again trying to escape an impending guilty conviction and a long prison term -- these all sound like 2nd degree murder to me. Combine that to the disallowed mitigating evidence of a screwed up life at his trial and we have misused the death penalty. There is no doubt that the man was a slime, but I'm pretty sure that the death penalty may not have been warranted in his case.

Mike Lee is the GOP choice.

2010-06-24T06:25:00.000-07:00

Mike Lee pulled out the W. The Tribune gives some of the credit to rural Utah and Mike Lee's work as attorney in Kane County’s lawsuit insisting it has rights to roads in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and (illegally) lobbying the Legislature on a proposal for the state to use eminent domain power to seize federal lands.

He says he will be just as alienating in the general election campaign as he has been in the primary:

“I don’t. The message is right. It just resonates with people,” he said. “It’s the right message based on truth. It’s based on a 223-year-old document that created the federal government … and not one I tailor for one audience or another.”

I suppose "constitutional expert" Mike Lee dislikes the ability to amend the 223 year old document. Which ones does he want to repeal? So far he wants to get rid of 14 and 17:

The Simpsons - An Amendment To Be

I agree with the Granato campaign:

“The answers to our nation’s toughest problems are not held exclusively by Democrats or Republicans. If we put partisanship aside, I believe we can develop common sense solutions to the important issues, including a return to fiscal responsibility, sustainable economic growth and long-term job creation. It will take every single one of us, regardless of party affiliation, to develop these sensible solutions for America’s future.”

Utahn's need to seriously look at candidates, and stop myopically voting down Republican party lines. As soon-to-be former Senator Bennett and candidate Granato suggest, we need common sense and reason in Washington rather than more partisan rancor.

A level-headed approach to immigration reform in Utah:

Sutherland Institute policy manager Derek Monson wrote a great piece regarding the Arizona immigration bill and proposals that Utah pursue a similar course. The best line from his piece is as follows:

To ensure a reality-based approach, we must view our undocumented neighbors as we view ourselves — as people, not objects. We must reject the Arizona solution which simply objectifies human beings as "criminals" that can be rounded up and shipped out in the pursuit of an unreasonable definition of the "rule of law."
Rejecting Arizona's strategy in favor of a reality-based approach will be difficult, as doing the right thing often is. It will require Utahns to check their emotions, including their frustration with the federal government's ineffective immigration system. Even more difficult, a reality-based approach will involve a lot of soul searching and critical self-reflection, which may reveal things about our thinking we may find to be unpleasant.

Hey, Mike Lee -- tell me how is the mass-deportation of 20 million people is realistic or fair for a violation you admit is as severe a crime as speeding -- a crime I'm guilty of each time I get in a car?

Today's Vote

2010-06-22T16:15:00.000-07:00

As an independent, I didn't vote in either primary today. Did you?

Ethan Millard isn't fond of Mike Lee supporters calling for Election Day fasts on Twitter. I have to agree with him. Although the LDS Church has suggested that members use spiritual tools like prayer and fasting in determining whom will be the best candidate to elect, I don't think it is appropriate for a political campaign to openly ask for a fast. Such rhetoric alienates the non-LDS population of Utah and erroneously suggests that Mormonism and the Republican Party are (although unofficially "wink") connected.

Mike Lee has been trying to intertwine Mormonism and his candidacy. The use of "he's a true conservative" is just a small example of his campaigns manipulative strategies to connect his candidacy to Utah's predominant religion.

I'm not fond of either GOP candidate. I'm leaning towards Sam Granato irregardless of which GOP candidate wins tonight.

On the Democratic primary side, I'm pretty certain the Democrats won't be dumb enough to vote Matheson out -- doing so would be all but ensure a Morgan Philpot victory. THE Democrat Claudia Wright would lose in a landslide everywhere but SLC.

Bennett States the Obvious

2010-06-21T11:16:00.000-07:00

In an apparent jab at his ousters, Senator Bennett told the Deseret News that the new senator will be unable bring change to Washington for quite some time:

it can take years to earn enough respect to start influencing other senators to the point of enacting policy.
Bennett also points out the new senator won't be given Bennett's powerful seat on the appropriations committee.

So take that GOP Convention delegates! Although it is sad to watch a good man desperately cling to his position of power, the choice voters are given for his replacement is worse.

Mike Lee seems more sincere and trustworthy, but some of his positions are as one commentator pointed out "horse@*&$". Tim Bridgewater has more reasonable positions (especially on immigration -- although "anchor baby" makes him look like a jerk) but the inconsistencies between his business dealing and his rhetoric make him look like a potential charlatan.

What the hell! Maybe voting Democrat is the best idea this year -- at least Utah might have a better place at the table in the currently Democratic party controlled Senate. As Bennett says the new senator won't be a factor is Washington for years, so why shouldn't we have a voice on the controlling side of the isle

Does party affiliation really matter anyways?

Utah Utes' PAC-12 Financial Windfall -- Not So Fast!

2010-06-19T06:11:00.000-07:00

Well it happened. Utah accepted an invitation to join the PAC-10. Now we Ute fans are supposed to be so excited for all the wonderful changes that will happen to University of Utah Athletics. One of the changes that is being lauded so loudly is the increase in TV revenues.

That isn't actually the case. ESPN reports the following:

Here’s the quote:
“Our conference has a long-standing policy of equal revenue sharing with some exceptions for football television revenue,” Scott said. “We intend to keep that concept in place. There may be some changes as things evolve. The principles will stay in place. The arrangement worked out is that Utah will become a full member of the conference over a period of three years in regards to revenue sharing.”

The next question pertained to Colorado’s revenue share and Scott said the Buffs will be full members in 2012 and there will be discussions about full member benefits if the Buffs join in 2011.

So basically, Utah will only get a portion of the revenue sharing for the first three years because it's coming from a nonautomatic qualifying conference and it has to prove itself.

That's right! Utah, two time BCS bowl game winner, has to prove itself worthy of PAC-12 money while Colorado Buffalo's (no BCS appearances) will be given full membership almost immediately.

I wonder if that policy will hold true if the Utes' earn a PAC-12 championship (Rose Bowl bid) in year one or two. Isn't it great! One of the highest BCS bowl winning teams is being treated like little brother.

PAC sucks. I hope the Utes' stick it to them and run the table in the first year.

Immigration, The Old Testament, and the Arizona and Utah Immigration Crusaders (or Marauders?)

2010-06-16T05:55:00.000-07:00

I found this blog post last night and I thought it was quite profound, especially here in Mormon Utah. The author is discussing a couple of verses that he found in the Old Testament:

The Israelites are told directly in Leviticus 19:33-34 that “if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex (or oppress) him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself.”

Mr. Miller than discusses that our policy towards illegal immigrants should more closely follow this admonition.

I wonder if Utah Senate candidate Lee, Utah Rep. Sandstrom and his Aryan-loving friend the Honorable Rep. Pearce from AZ have read Leviticus lately? In Reps. Pearce and Sandstrom's case, I would guess that they haven't.

Pearce is proposing AZ legislation, and Rep. Sandstrom would love to pursue the same course in Utah, that would not make it illegal to provide birth certificates to babies of illegal immigrants born in the United States. Beyond the violation of the 14th amendment, there are a ton of problems with this proposal. First, this bill would (although not explicitly mentioned) require hospitals to inquire of the immigration status of patients -- would the bill require hospitals then to turn in the illegal expectant mothers? It seems like the kind of cheap Gestapo-esque trick that the Arizona legislature would pull. Second, is the constitutional ramifications of the bill. The 14th amendment states the following:

Section 1 -- All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Especially this proposed legislation, and (I believe) the already enacted legislation are both clearly unconstitutional. Not providing birth certificates doesn't change the fact of birth location and the qualifications for citizenship in the 14th Amendment. Arizona legislators must realize this and so the only reason (or what I hope would be the reason) I could see Arizona passing a law like this is for this law's controversial nature -- possibly in a effort to push Congress to finally act on illegal immigration.

Otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants deserve a pathway to citizenship without being forced to leave the country first. The illegal immigrants I have dealt with have come seeking better opportunities like the millions of immigrants that this country has openly received since its inception. All these proposed mass-deportation proposals are ill-conceived and knee jerk reactions to fallacious, bigoted rhetoric from some on the extreme far-right. The mass-deportation arguments don't consider cost or fairness, and they do nothing to solve the illegal immigration problem.

We need to follow the admonition in Leviticus and try and find ways to help illegal immigrants achieve citizenship in an efficient and cost-effective manner, instead of spewing hateful and often false rhetoric about the stereotyped ills that illegal immigrants are bringing across the border -- in a majority of cases these stereotypes aren't true.

Utes to Leave the MWC, and Ron Paul endorses Lee

2010-06-15T20:55:00.000-07:00

First, this is a non-political issue but it is an issue that is important to Utah. It is being reported that the Utes are going to receive an invite to the PAC-1?. Although I hope against hope that the Utes aren't actually considering this, statements from Utah President Young indicate otherwise:

On Friday, Young said while Utah and BYU have benefited from being in the same conference as rivals, the two schools had to do what was best for themselves. He expressed a desire for the rivalry to continue no matter what happens.
"At the end of the day I feel a real sense of commitment to this conference," Young said of the MWC. "But every circumstance is different and you have to evaluate what is best for your institution, just as (BYU) President (Cecil) Samuelson does. If they got an offer from the Big 12 and we didn't, we wouldn't stand in their way if it is the right thing for their school and we'd think they'd do the same for us. We'd miss them and work with them, but we'd find ways to continue to work with them."

A Bay area sports website has gone online with information confirming that the invite will be formally extended to Utah tomorrow.

I really wish Utah wouldn't take the invite.

First, the MWC is so close to getting an AQ spot in the BCS and Utah is a critical piece of the puzzle. The PAC-10 is a competitive league, but the MWC could be just as competitive if Utah or the other strong schools in the conference don't jump ship for the bigger money leagues.

Second, I enjoy the BYU-Utah rivalry almost more than Christmas. If Utah and BYU are no longer in the same league than the rivalry game becomes a meaningless (or less important) non-conference game -- it will still have venom and passion for fans without meaning or importance to the players.

Oh well.

Ron Paul

In what appears to seal Mike Lee's (to quote Ethan Millard) "fulfillment of the white horse prophecy" campaign, fellow beloved politician of far-right wingers Ron Paul has endorsed Mike Lee for Utah senator. Paul gave the following statement to the press:

Mike is a dynamic young leader who understands our constitution and will fight against out-of-control government to restore our liberty. Mike has the courage to stand up against the bailouts and government takeovers being forced down our throats by Washington insiders"

The Lee campaign appears to take the endorsement in stride saying that they realized that the Paul endorsement is not a game changer.

Ron Paul was a candidate who turned a lot of people off with the rhetoric used by supporters. For instance, one of the clearest memories I have of the Paul campaign was a (this is the only way I can describe him) street preacher proclaiming the end to be near and Ron Paul to be the man that will save us all outside the ESA before Jazz games in 2008. A whole lot of Mike Lee's rhetoric turns me off as well.

I have a hard time taking Mike Lee seriously, mainly because he is so willing to advocate for the mass deportation of 20 million illegal aliens while admitting that crossing the border illegally is a civil violation akin to "speeding". Tim Bridgewater, despite his continued use of the term "anchor baby", at least gets the fact that the immigration solution needs to include border protection and immigration laws that allow hopeful citizens to attain that goal in less time and for less than their entire life's fortune.

UPDATE: The Utah Board of Trustees has set a meeting for Thursday. The Tribune reports that it expects the board to approve the departure from the MWC for the PAC-12. The meeting is set for 12:30pm tomorrow.

The Sutherland Debate -- What I have heard.

2010-06-11T10:21:00.000-07:00

I was supposed to be in Salt Lake for the Senate debate at the Sutherland Institute, but circumstances that were beyond my control kept me from making it.

The only account I have read so far has been that of Tribune writer Robert Gehrke. From what I read in Gehrke's column the debate was just how you'd expect a GOP Senate debate to go down. Both candidates trying to prove they are Ronald Reagan reincarnated. There were some interesting clarifications made by both candidates regarding their views.

The biggest revelations came in regards to both candidates tough campaign positions on illegal immigration. Both Mike Lee and Bridgewater concede that illegal immigration's seriousness as a crime is more a civil infraction than that of a felony. Paul Mero posed a fairly enlightening hypothetical:

Assume you have an ecclesiastical calling (both Lee and Bridgewater are Mormon) and your next-door neighbor is a Hispanic family. You are asked to minister to one of their sick children and in the course of a heartfelt moment they tell you they're here illegally. Do you rat them out?

Both candidates said they would not rat out the offending family, but Bridgewater said he would encourage the family to "begin the process to follow the law and come into the country legally." I assume that "come into the country legally" means go back where they came from and go down the ludicrous "legal" pathway to American citizenship. Somehow I find it hard to believe that Mr. Bridgewater would, in the capacity of a ecclesiastical leader, tell members of his congregation that they need to leave the country and come back to the US legally. By this we see that Mr. Bridgewater can pander on the immigration issue just as well as Mike Lee can. It needs reminding that Bridgewater has refused to remove the term "anchor baby" from his website despite its offensive connotation -- Lee at least did that although his plan for immigration is much harsher on illegals than Bridgewater's.

In an attempt out-Chaffetz Jason Chaffetz, Mike Lee and Bridgewater both claim they refuse to set up a residence in Washington D.C. -- Mike Lee plans to buy a cot. (Collective Eye-roll at the lame "I'm a regular guy" attempt)

I'm a tad surprised that neither man wants to try and privatize the Postal Service. I don't disagree with them, but I'm surprised that two "fiscal conservatives" wouldn't want to rid the Federal government of a socialized program. Isn't the Post Office is a socialist program? Both UPS and FedEx are prime examples that private industry could successfully serve the nation's parcel needs, and it is interesting that two candidates who loudly proclaim against the ills of Obama-socialism wouldn't want a program that can be carried by the private sector off of the US government's Balance Sheet.

Not only are both men are against Elena Kagen's SCOTUS nomination, they feel she is unqualified. I assume her "lack of qualification" is due to the party affiliation of the President nominating her. Mike Lee can harp about her lack of judicial experience all her likes, but he cannot ignore the fact that several SCOTUS nominees have come from places other than the judiciary and that her professional and academic resume are of the highest quality. Mike Lee's opposition of the Kagen nomination is almost a case of plausible-deniabilty. If elected, everyone in this state knows Lee would eventually sit on the Judiciary Committee and he needs (or thinks he needs) to make sure that everyone in this state believes he would oppose every nomination made by abortion-loving Democrats no matter how qualified the nominees may be. He won't get a chance to vote on the Kagen nomination and so he has the luxury of opposing the nomination as candidate Lee while knowing full well that he couldn't do so as Senator Lee without looking like a partisan right-wing zealot.

As far as my vote goes, I'm not sure what I'm going to do. Due to my lack of Republican party affiliation, I'm excluded from voting between Mike Lee and Tim Bridgewater. To keep the November vote interesting for me I hope that Tim Bridgewater is the winner -- I have pretty much eliminated Mike Lee from contention for my vote. The possible November race between Tim Bridgewater and Sam Granato is still a tight one -- Bridgewater may be slightly ahead if for no other reason than I don't want to solidify a Democratic party super-majority in the Senate.

P.S. Former Congressman Jim Hansen just called to let me know he supports Mike Lee. I think that may have changed my mind...no, no I still don't like Mike Lee.

Boise State to the Mountain West Conference

2010-06-11T10:13:00.000-07:00

Boise State just made the MWC's bid to be a BCS automatic qualifying conference more viable. Report's are out that the Broncos have accepted a invite to join the MWC.

Utah State is cheering.

However, this may be a perilous move for the three MWC powerhouses. If the move pays off with the MWC winning automatic qualifier status -- the MWC champ will always make it to the BCS. If the gamble fails -- these four powerful schools may likely end up cannibalizing each other out of the BCS for many years.

Nonetheless, next football season just got more fun and interesting!

Political Endorsements and Party Affiliation

2010-06-10T08:27:00.000-07:00

With a few days to go before the primary elections, endorsements in the Republican primary have been emerging.

For Tim Bridgewater, the first big endorsement came from former Senate Candidate Cherilyn Eager. Glen Warchol put it best when he posted in Salt Lake Crawler:

Cherilyn Eagar should help land the most distant right of Utah's conservative voters. Eagar says Bridgewater has "mature statesmanship," which apparently means he listens politely to her Utah County tin-foil hat crazy talk.

That "Utah County tin-foil hat crazy talk" quote made me spew milk out of my nose -- bravo Mr. Warchol. She was a favorite for some of the Sarah Palin-loving far-right members of the GOP and her endorsement of Bridgewater may bring some of her supporters to his camp.

The second big endorsement for Bridgewater came today when it was announced that soon-to-be former Senator Bennett will endorse Bridgewater's candidacy. While this endorsement may bring back some disenfranchised Bennett supporters, it may prove problematic with the far right of the GOP. Mike Lee has definitely seen the Bennett endorsement as a potential advantage trying to use the Bennett endorsement as evidence that Bridgewater will join in "politics as usual in Washington if he is elected" -- although I suspect that Mike Lee's apparent partisan style politics would be more of a problem for Utah than Bridgewater's more moderate approach.

Another blogger made an excellent point about endorsements an the partisanship that exists in our two party system. He quoted Washington and made the following observations:

In his 1792 farewell address Washington warned us on the dangers of political parties:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the
spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and
countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful
despotism.
In my vision of "What would Washington do?" it would be exactly this on their first day in office: renounce being head of the Party. The Chief Executive, as our Supreme Court, should be above partisanship and the politicking of endorsement; and being the leader of a private political party does nothing to speak of representing the interests of ALL AMERICANS. While Washington might advocate the complete abolition of political parties, Executive declination of the leadership role while remaining part of the party would be a tremendous step in the right direction.

I am in complete agreement, but I wouldn't mind taking it to the level of Washington's warning. American politics has reached the despotism that Washington warned of in the farewell quote mentioned supra. By eliminating political parties American voters would be forced to examine candidates views and platforms rather closely, and we might be better at electing bright and innovative leaders and representatives. More importantly, partisanship would be a much more difficult political strategy to pursue in Congress -- representatives might actually take some time to analyze and truly debate bills that are brought to the floor rather than voting blindly on 2000 page bills at the urging of the prevailing party's leadership.

Utah State Tax Commission -- Offers in Compromise

2010-06-06T06:07:00.000-07:00

I have been focusing my work on offers-in-compromise and taxpayer representation for the past several months. I receive lead from several different states including Colorado, Kansas, North Dakota, and our great state of Utah. Most of these leads are interested in pursuing offers-in-compromise, settlements of tax debts for less than you owe.

The IRS has a fairly clear and well-defined offer-in-compromise program. It explains in detail the reasons for which you may request an offer, how the amount of the offer may be calculated, and it outlines the terms for the offers acceptance and fulfillment. Colorado also has clearly defined offer-in-compromise program requirements and clearly explained procedures for submitting an offer to the Colorado state Department of Revenue.

Utah, on the other hand, doesn't give really clear criteria on how an offer is evaluated, and what requirements must be met for an offer to be accepted. The only official guidance that the the state of Utah provides is Utah State Tax Commission Publication 22, in Pub. 22 the statement for who qualifies to have an offer-in-compromise accepted is as follows:

When an analysis of taxpayer’s assets, liabilities, income and
expenses shows that a liability cannot realistically be paid in
full in the foreseeable future, an offer in compromise may be
considered.

If you compare that to the IRS' 46 page book complete with instructions, forms, and detailed formulas to assist taxpayers in completing acceptable offers.

I'll admit the IRS isn't the perfect model of fairness in accepting offers-in-compromise, but most offers that are denied by the IRS have (if not, logical) discernible reasons for the settlement request's denial. Offers-in-compromise that are rejected by the state of Utah are often offers that the IRS has already accepted without denial -- in one case that a colleague related the taxpayer being rejected a Utah State Tax Commission OIC was a widow who had her tax debt almost completely forgiven by the IRS without any IRS OIC denials or counter-offers (the taxpayer finally had the offer accepted by the State of Utah after an appeal). In the previous case the only discernible reason for initial offers denial was bad whether or a fight offer investigator must have the night before with their spouse.

The Utah Legislature could improve the offer-in-compromise by 1.) enact rules requiring the state of Utah to accept offers already accepted by the Internal Revenue Service, 2.) enacting a collections statute of limitations, and 3.) establishing an taxpayer appeals process that includes a "Utah State Tax Court" (a place where taxpayers can appeal Tax Commissions to independent third parties). If the State of Utah would simply accept IRS accepted offers than the state could save some money on offer investigation costs and taxpayers could have some assurance as to whether or not their offers-in-compromise would be accepted by the state of Utah. Enacting a collections statute of limitations would incentivize the state of Utah to accept a greater number of offers. Lastly, establishing an independent appeals process and a review court of tax commission determinations would allow taxpayers and taxpayer representatives a fairer playing field with the tax commission in the audit and collection functions of the Utah State Tax Commission.

Senate Candidates -- "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," Social Security and Taxes

2010-06-05T13:18:00.000-07:00

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

The candidates have all opined on the reversal of "don't ask, don't tell". All three have towed the party line (at least, locally) regarding this subject. Granato has parroted Democratic party talking points calling the military policy a "violation of civil rights" while the Republican duo has stated solid opposition to removing the ban on gays being allowed to serve openly in the Armed Forces.

No one wins here.

Forcing people to keep a key part of their identity secret in order to avoid losing their jobs is a violation of civil rights. However, the dangers and stresses of combat that the Armed Forces work under may merit different consideration regarding workplace policies. If the military can show that gays serving openly in the military (I have no idea how this is possible, but for the sake of argument I'm making the point) will cause a detriment to the Armed Forces ability to be effective -- then "don't ask, don't tell" should remain. I've never been in the military (I don't believe any of the Senate candidates have either) and I don't know how or why gays in the military is a problem, but if it truly is than we shouldn't make a policy shift like this especially while our country has wars on two fronts.

Social Security --

Mike Lee and Tim Bridgewater came out and openly discussed their views on what should happen to Social Security. Both Lee and Bridgewater support the ideas of raising retirement ages and giving American citizens control over Social Security in privatized investment accounts (the idea GW Bush recommended to Congress during his presidency) Lee went a little further -- Lee questioned the constitutionality of Social Security and suggested that control over Social Security be handed over to individual states.

The suggestion that Social Security be handed over to the states prompted a blunt response from a University of Wisconsin professor to SL Tribune reporter Robert Gehrke:

Timothy Smeeding, a professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison who studies Social Security, was blunt in his assessment of Lee's proposal: "That is total horseshit."

"What happens to people who move in and out of the state? It's just knee-jerk," he said. "[Social Security] is a federal program. It covers you no matter where you live and as long as you live."

With workers moving between states, a state-by-state patchwork is an idea that is impractical and should be discarded, Smeeding said.

While I agree that a few of Mike Lee's positions are "total horses*&@!", I'm not sure that allowing the states to control Social Security is that bad of an idea. Although Professor Smeeding in Wisconsin is concerned that the idea wouldn't be practical for people moving in and out of different states, I'm not sure that the social security funds couldn't be tied to voter registration and that it wouldn't be something that is completely unworkable. Social Security is a mess. It was created with shortsightedness and we are desperately needing Congress to address that shortsightedness and come up with solutions that will make Social Security a viable program once again. While I don't believe the "state's control" proposal is a viable solution to the Social Security problem, I appreciate that Mike Lee proposed it and that he is willing to bring up unpopular recommendations to a problem that many (if not most) Congressional leaders seem to ignore like a 800 pound gorilla in the room.

While I like the idea of private accounts, I wonder about how it would be implemented. There are a ton of questions that will need the best and brightest to solve. Unfortunately, as the baby-boomer crunch draws near the problem may be bigger than our ability to solve.

In a perfect world, Social Security would have been a forced savings or investment system from the beginning instead of the pay as you go system that we have now. American workers would have been able to build nest eggs through earnings from interest, dividends, and gains on investments. Federal government intervention would be necessary on a more limited scale at this point, and (all other things being equal) we would have a government run banking/investment system. However, what we got was a system that didn't account for an increasing average lifespan, the baby boom, and a major deficiency in social security tax-paying workers to support that baby boom generation in their retirement years and in a few years our nation will reach the squalor of those good intentions.

The social security staus quo will not cut it for future generations, and the longer changes are not made the more likely financial disaster becomes an inevitability for the social security program.

1 and 1/2 Points for Lee (showed some innovation), 1 point Bridgewater.
Taxes --

Both Republicans are advocating a flat tax or a "fair" tax system. I have written ad naseum regarding my opposition to all flat tax proposals. Before Utah enacted its "flat tax cut" I predicted that it would be a tax hike for Utahn's in the middle class whose incomes are consistently the same from year to year -- personally my tax bill went up more than 400% in the first year after the flat tax was enacted while my income dropped more tan 7000 dollars in the same year. Flat taxes can be tax cuts, but only if your income is high enough that a majority of middle class tax benefits have phased out

Sam Granato came out in opposition of flat tax proposals:

“The middle class is the backbone of this country. When middle class families prosper, we all prosper. And yet, even in these difficult economic times, the Republican candidates in this race are supporting a so-called ‘fair’ or ‘flat’ tax plans that economists say could result in substantial tax increases for 83 percent of American families. That doesn’t sound fair to me at all,”

While it sounds fair in theory that all Americans pay the same percentage of income as a tax (even more so in 10% tithe paying Utah) the numbers don't work out that way. A 10% bite of income for someone living on 40,000 is quite a bit different than a 10% bite out of income for someone making 400,000 -- one is left with 36,000 dollars to live on during the year and the other is left with 360,000 dollars (Fair, right?).

2 points Granato, 0 points Lee and Bridgewater

Dr. Wakefield's License is Revoked -- Autism and Vaccines Are Not Connected.

2010-05-25T07:09:00.000-07:00

One of the biggest frustrations as a parent of an Autistic child, is all of the crap theories and off-based suggestions that come at you from all directions -- from Jenny McCarthy to a stranger on the street that inquires about your child's strange behavior and from gluten and casein to the now debunked and irresponsible immunization theory. There is a myriad of books, causation theories, and treatments that regularly bombard parents of Autistic kids. It may be helpful for those without Autistic family members to realize that the Autistic spectrum is very broad -- my son who is Nonverbal Autistic is quite a bit different from the kid with Asperger's who rambles incessantly about his obsession with NASA and space travel. As a rule, I thank most people for asking and trying to be helpful but in most cases they have no idea what they are talking about and it is annoying having to deal with the misguided (albeit well-intended) suggestions and comments of family and strangers.

The immunization theory has sparked one of the most common comments from family and strangers, "Did you have him immunized? You know the MMR causes Autism." This comment, although it never felt accurate or made any real sense to me, often caused concern and worry that my wife and I may have caused my child's severe disability -- this despite the fact that my wife and I have the benefit of an additional genetic diagnosis that our doctors have pointed to as a causal link to my son's Autism. I can imagine the guilt and doubt that Dr. Wakefield's irresponsible and erroneous research has caused many other parents who have no known causal link to their child's condition.

In 1998 Dr. Andrew Wakefield of the UK released a study that showed a possible causal link between the MMR shot and Autism in twelve "allegedly" normal children prior to receiving the vaccine.

This link was debunked by a couple of sources (if you get the chance watch the Frontline documentary from a few weeks ago on this subject) the WSJ article linked in the the title mentioned one in particular "a 2004 statistical review of existing epidemiological studies by the Institute of Medicine, a respected nonprofit organization in the U.S., concluded that there was no causal link between the MMR vaccine and autism" as the biggest piece of research that has debunked Wakefield's theory.

Dr. Wakefield's research, it turns out, was funded by a lawyer representing parents who believed the MMR shot had harmed their children. This conflict of interest was one of the biggest reasons for his disbarment from the UK Medical Registry.

Who knows what good could have been done in Autistic research, if the scientific community wouldn't have been forced to look into this charlatan's irresponsibly conducted "research" and his fraudulent conclusions. What's even more frustrating is the number of children (mine and yours) that are needlessly endangered from diseases that were virtually eradicated a few decades ago. This man has caused what may be decades of irreparable damage.

With the misinformation available on the internet, devout crusaders of the vaccination=autism link, and the increasing distrust that many in the public have for the medical field it is highly likely that the myth caused by the former Dr. Wakefield will exist is the public's mind for many years to come. Hopefully state and local governments that instituted optional vaccination policies in public schools because of the mythical vaccination=autism link will soon reverse those policies so that the well-meaning but irresponsible actions of concerned parents won't put children at needless risk from diseases that can and should be prevented.

I hope Sam Granato has been taking notes!

2010-05-24T15:15:00.000-07:00

I like Jim Matheson! I like him alot.

I appreciate the way he has represented the state of Utah. For alot of representatives and politicians, the way you vote is a more of a matter of the party with which you are affiliated than the needs and desires of the voters that elected them. I don't have that complaint with Jim Matheson.

Mike Lee and Tim Bridgewater have, thus far, appeared to be pandering right wing puppets who will say and support anything they believe the far right "tea partyers" embrace. I have little doubt at this point that both men will become part of the problem in Washington as soon as they are elected. So who do we elect of these two men?

The answer may come by doing something that some Utahn's may consider a sin -- vote the Democratic candidate into office. If Sam Granato has political leanings similar to Mr. Matheson (which, from what I have read it sounds like he does), and if he is a man that will be willing to buck the party in the name of serving Utah voters as often as Rep Matheson has, I think he may our best choice for the next Utah Senator (I'm still considering his candidacy). My biggest hesitations are (1) a lot of the Granato campaign information has seemed somewhat vague and that vagueness doesn't give me full confidence that he isn't a raging liberal in moderate clothing, and (2) adding to the Democratic super majority likely isn't in the best interest of the country or (especially) the state of Utah.

Unfortunately the two party system has been most favorable to the state of Utah when Republicans are in the majority, and although Matheson (and possibly Granato) may be great representatives -- their mere presence in Congress may give detrimental power levels to the far-left factions of their party.

Nevertheless, I think Sam Granato's candidacy deserves solid consideration by all Utah voters. I think many Utah voters would rather have a representative like Jim Matheson over one would-be representative who panders extremely hard to the "your not a worthy member of the LDS Church if you vote Democrat" right wing and another whose personal history and campaign rhetoric are in seemingly sharp contrast.

Hooray for Rep. Ray and Shelby's Law!

2010-05-24T14:53:00.000-07:00

The Ethan Stacy case may lead to the use of a law that (I'm sure) lawmakers hoped would never be needed again.

In 2006, Shelby Andrews died after being brutally abused by her parents Ryan and Angela Andrews for a year or more. When charges were filed, Syracuse Police were frustrated to learn that aggravated murder charges were not an option in that case. Syracuse Police later testified to the legislature in committee hearings to help get Shelby's law passed.

Four years passed by, and unfortunately, the brutality of unfit parents remains with this new and horrific example. Ethan Stacy's mother and "stepfather," or mother's boyfriend deserve the death penalty and whatever suffering the next world may inflict on the cruel and inhumane.

Bravo to the Legislature for passing Shelby's law, and I hope the the Davis County DA is brave enough to use it. Parents who are that brutal to their children, or who fail to protect their children from such violence deserve the most severe punishments that can be inflicted upon them.

Mike Lee & Tim Bridgewater -- Immigration Pandering (I mean) Platforms

2010-05-23T19:49:00.000-07:00

Bridgewater and Lee had a radio debate a few days ago, and the subject of "anchor baby" came up again. From a SLTrib article, here is what they said:

Lee said, "For someone to be entitled to that citizenship they need to be born to citizens or lawful residents or aliens involved in active U.S. military service,"

He supports a bill, HR 1868, which alters the verbatim interpretation of the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So I get that Mike Lee is for getting back to the original interpretation of the Constitution, or at the article put it "returning the country to its constitutional roots", but what exactly do those roots mean to Mike Lee?

The 14th amendment has been around since the end of the civil war, and it was the amendment that gave all slaves, who were 3/5ths citizens (original intent of the founders?) full (although, restricted for many years after that) American citizenship. So, does Mike Lee support women not being allowed to vote and slaves being considered a little more than half-human? Of course he doesn't! However Mike Lee and Tim Bridgewater are both willing to endorse anything that they believe will endear them to the fear/rage intoxicated right-wing.

Yes, the 14th amendment grants citizenship to anyone born in our borders, and what is wrong with that? My in-laws had their third son on Mexican soil and as such he was a Mexican citizen until the US made him renounce that citizenship when he filed for Selective Service -- the Mexican's do it the same way we do. The right needs to remember that the United States of America is founded on immigrants, they have come here to find better lives since 1868 and protectionism is not what we need to solve our immigration problem.

I cannot fault illegal immigrants. If I was in Mexico and I knew I could make better money in lower paying jobs in America, but in order to do so I would either have to wade through up to ten years of bureaucratic BS or I could sneak to the US border and run across -- I think would run across the border.

The problem isn't the fourteen amendment, the problems is we have been too cheap and stupid to make an effective border wall where we could control the flow of people to our country, and legal immigration is so insanely complex that there is no incentive to go through legal channels.

The right is loosing on this issue! The winning platform is to control the border, and make legal immigration a much cheaper and much more efficient process.

Illegals who are trying to make prosperous (legitimate) lives here in America should get a path to citizenship -- it is our leadership's fault for not controlling our border for the past several decades.

Chaffetz Loses It Over Silly Resolutions

2010-05-20T12:13:00.001-07:00

Chaffetz Loses It Over Silly Resolutions

Oh Snap! Jason Chaffetz gets burned.

Good Wednesday

2010-05-19T07:02:00.001-07:00

Yesterday sucked, but here's to today.

Utah State Taxes -- Tax Issues Effecting Utah Taxpayers and Tax Professionals?

2010-05-18T15:51:00.001-07:00

If you are a CPA EA or a Tax Preparer, please respond.

How has the flat tax effected your clients?
-- Lower Class
-- Middle Class
-- Wealthy

Personally, most of my middle-class clients whose incomes have been consistent have seen tax increases. I would like to know if this is a common problem.

Also, I'd like to have some input on problems with the state tax commission in negotiating installment agreements, offers-in-compromise, and other tax settlement arrangements. If anyone is interested I'd like to start organizing Utah tax pros to lobby for a tax collection statute, and clearer Utah state OIC guidelines.

Comments or email would be fine.

Section 104 Exclusion and Wrongful Termination Settlements

2010-05-18T09:06:00.000-07:00

The most recent edition of the EA Journal brought up a 2008 US Tax Court decision regarding section 104 and a wrongful termination lawsuit settlement.

In Ruch Suder v. Commissioner, the Tax Court reaffirmed numerous other decisions regarding the applicability of IRC Section 104 (Exclusion of Non-Punitive Damages for Physical Injury or Physical Sickness). From 2000 to 2001 Ms. Suder was employed as a sales representative for Adelphia and was inexplicably terminated by Adelphia in 2001. She filed a lawsuit alleging defamation and other violations of state and federal employment laws. The lawsuit was settled and she was paid 41,000 dollars with the stipulation that she would pay all of the associated taxes. Is the settlement excludible under for IRC Section 104?

The US Tax Court holds that lawsuit settlements do not qualify for IRC Section 104 exclusion unless the damages are associated with an actual physical injury or a physical sickness. The Tax Court rejected the petitioners claims that the defamation caused damage to Ms. Suder's reputation and that such damage caused mental pain and anguish and as such qualified as physical injury and sickness.

Before IRC Section 104(a)(2) was amended with the by the Small Business Job
Protection Act of 1996 (SBJPA), Pub. L. 104-188, sec. 1605(a) 110 Stat. 1838, the statute allowed the exclusion to include damages associated with physical injury and sickness. In Moulton v. Commissioner, the court stated the following regarding pre-SBJPA Section 104(a)(2):

The reference to personal injuries or sickness included
“nonphysical injuries to the individual, such as those affecting
emotions, reputation, or character”. United States v. Burke,
supra at 235 n.6; see Robinson v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 116,
125-126 (1994), affd. in part and revd. in part on another issue
70 F.3d 34 (5th Cir. 1995).

After SBJPA, the statutory language of IRC Section 104(a)(2) was changed to “the amount of any damages (other than punitive damages)received (whether by suit or agreement and whether as lump sums or as periodic payments) on account of personal physical injuries
or physical sickness”. There was also a subsequent amendment to SBJPA that further narrowed the scope of IRC 104(a)(2) to the following language:

“For purposes of paragraph (2), emotional distress
shall not be treated as a physical injury or physical sickness.
The preceding sentence shall not apply to an amount of damages
not in excess of the amount paid for medical care * * *
attributable to emotional distress.”

Therefore it appears that Congressional intent and the current legal interpretation of 104(a)(2) only permits the exclusion of damages received that are the result of actual bodily harm and an actual bodily sickness. The court will not exclude damages for emotional distress other than damages that are used directly for medical treatment of mental or emotional trauma.

It is interesting to see how narrow Congress made this exclusion. Not surprisingly, I'd assume this area must have been an area of taxpayer abuse prior to 1996. I wonder if this was a common theme in lawsuit settlement arrangements, lawyers likely made sure that emotional distress was mentioned in the damages in order to qualify for Section 104(a)(2) exclusion. The debilitating effects of emotional stress can be rather subjective especially when taxes and money are involved, and removing this exclusion likely has made a great deal of revenue for the Treasury.

Legal Immigration -- Why Would Anyone Want to Come Here Illegally?

2010-05-16T18:03:00.000-07:00

A friend linked this post on Facebook (apologies for the one or two expletives in the linked article, but they are warranted)

This is my favorite line in the article:

At some point, from within a cloud of despair, you'll realize that you could have simply caught a plane from your homeland to Central America, bribed a friendly drug lord to get you across the border, and then paid someone to give you a dead guy's social security number.

That process would have saved you a year of your life, several tons of money, and your sense of trust in the basic competence of the American government and authority in general. Sure, you might be breaking the law. Sure, you might end up dying of thirst in the desert, your bleached bones standing as an ironic symbol of the drawing power of the American dream. But at least none of the drug lords are going to casually pull you aside at the airport and ask you if you've ever been convicted of genocide.

Seriously, is it any wonder why people are sneaking across the border? Any candidate that doesn't get the need to make legal immigration more efficient and cost effective is unelectable.

Mike Lee, Kagen and the Judiciary

2010-05-13T17:16:00.000-07:00

Mike Lee and the Judiciary Committee

Mike Lee is a constitutional lawyer, right? At least he sure tries sell his "expertise" in interpreting the constitution as a selling point to voters. Due to his career as a constitutional lawyer, I think we need to carefully scrutinize his statements regarding the judiciary.

Mike Lee has come out as an early opponent of the Supreme Court nominee, Solicitor General, Elena Kagan. The biggest reason for his opposition is due to the fact that Elena Kagan prohibited military recruiters from conducting on campus interviews because of her opposition to "don't ask, don't tell" while Dean of Harvard Law School.

First, the allegation of Ms. Kagan single-handedly prohibiting the military from accessing Harvard students is, as Jason Williams at KVNU's For the People points out, fundamentally incorrect. According to the NYTimes article linked supra, she reinstated the long-held Harvard ban shortly but bowed to pressure from the Federal government to remove the ban and she never banned the military from all access to Harvard Law students -- recruiters were only banned from operating out of the schools career center.

Second, "don't ask, don't tell" is, in fact, a discriminatory policy and as such it's constitutionality is questionable. For Mike Lee to quickly and openly oppose the current nominee because of her opposition to a Federal policy that openly discriminates against a group of people, is either blatant pandering to the right or it shows a complete disregard for thoughtful reasoning and analysis. In the case of Mike Lee, I'm pretty sure it is the former. His immigration platform has already demonstrated his willingness to pander, and embrace about anything necessary in order to get the right to embrace him as the re-embodiment of Ronald Reagan. There are some very reasonable questions about the constitutionality of "don't ask, don't tell" and that should not be an automatic dis-qualifier for a Supreme Court justice.

Kagan

From what I have heard about Kagan, I like her. My favorite part about her is the criticism she placed on the Judiciary committee for allowing nominees to get by with, what she called, "vague answers", and she also has commented that the confirmation process had become "a vapid and hollow charade." Given that this was written before her nomination to the high court, I'm sure Ms. Kagan will probably end up using the same stonewalling tactics that just about every Supreme Court nominee since Bork has used in her confirmation hearings -- but I appreciate that she expressed that sentiment in her pre-nomination writings.

Given the fact that she has been nominated by Obama, I'll assume that she has some pretty strong liberal leanings aside from the opposition to "don't ask, don't tell" -- but she appears to have some moderate views as well. For example, while she worked as counsel to Clinton she urged him to sign a ban on late term abortions and she also has made some comments or has some writings that appear to support keeping terrorists under the scope of battlefield law rather than giving them the rights of US citizens in the US Justice System.

For a nominee from a liberal President, I'm cautiously optimistic that she may turn out to be a good moderate-liberal addition to the court. Anyways, if she isn't Borked, I'm sure time will tell.

Tribune Editorial -- Utah's Broken Caucus/Primary System

2010-05-11T06:26:00.000-07:00

I've been perturbed at the recent ousting of Sen. Bennett. I was disappointed to hear of some of the utter disrespect with which delegates treated Sen Bennett's departure.

I've read some hard core right-wingers who are patting themselves on the back and are seething at the opportunity to go after Orrin Hatch in a few years (on a side note, where the hell were you tea party-ers the last time Hatch was up for election? Talk about being in office too long!). Some have mentioned their contempt for moderates in the "Big Tent" Party that the conservative demigod Ronald Reagan sought to build -- a party that had room for differing points of view.

One blog in particular tried to assert that the convention's ousting of Bob Bennett was an ousting by the Utah voter. The blog's author's argument (I'm assuming) goes like this, the state of Utah is known as the most Republican state in the country, therefore the majority of Utah voters must be registered as Republicans, therefore the majority of voters had the opportunity to attend the Republican neighborhood meetings where the delegates were chosen, and therefore the majority of Utah voters chose the delegates that chose to knock Bob Bennett out of the Senate. There are a couple of flaws I'd like to address regarding this line of reasoning:

1.) Many Utahns refuse to declare a party affiliation -- nor should they have to. The Republican party's record for keeping with campaign promises and party platforms has been unreliable at best over the past few decades. Couple that with the Republican Party's current climate of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin-ified rage and fear, and there are quite a few Utahn's who have absolutely no desire to be associated with what once was Ronald Reagan's "Big Tent" Party. Those who are not declared members of a political party are not invited to participate in the delegate selection process or to vote in primary elections -- those voices are not heard in the caucus/primary system

As a side note, I wonder if the Tea Party Republicans (I'm referring to anyone whose views mirror someone like Cherilyn Eager) would embrace Ronald Reagan as their political Messiah if he would have been involved in the race to be Utah's next U.S. Senator. Ronald Reagan gave great speeches about conservative values, but Ronald Reagan's record as president saw large deficits, and high taxes -- two cardinal sins for conservative leadership. It might be argued that he couldn't do anything about that because of the Democratic majority under which the Congress was ruled throughout his tenure as president, but hasn't Senator Bennett been working under same conditions for the past few years?

2.) The purpose of the convention is for the party to choose the candidate which is the most electable not to elect the representative. Especially here in Utah, the Republican candidate will more than likely be the winner of the general election and so the convention results have more importance than it likely should. While the tea party-ers are pleased with their coup, many of the rest of us feel cheated of a good representative for Utah. The key word is for Utah, not for conservatives or for liberals! Senator Bennett, like him or hate him, was able to get things done for our state and there are many that would have voted him in a 4th term if they were given the chance. Unfortunately, they won't be given that chance because the state's convention/primary system is only open 3500 of the most politically active and often the most politically polarized among us.

I agree with the SLTrib editorial board when it wrote:

In the 43 states where the political parties value the input of all members and hold direct or open primary elections to select candidates for statewide offices, the answer would be an unequivocal "yes." Anyone who wants to run can gather signatures from registered voters and have their name placed on the ballot. And anyone who has registered to vote can pick from the entire field.

If that were the case in the Beehive State, Bennett, a clear favorite of the Republican rank and file in public opinion polls, may well have won. But in Utah, one of just seven states where conventions play a primary role in selecting candidates, party delegates do all of the talking, and most of the voting. The rank and file are largely silenced, left to pick between the top two candidates in a primary election only if the top vote-getter fails to amass 60 percent of the delegate vote at convention.

I was pleased to hear that Bennett is considering a write-in campaign. I haven't decided who I will vote for, I would like to learn more about all of the candidates. However, if Bennett want to be written in as Senator I will definitely consider it.

Honestly, I'm not a rabid Bennett supporter or hater. I simply believe in democracy, and when democratic systems fail provide democratic results those systems need to be challenged. The control that the convention/primary system has on the outcome of Utah elections is one of those systems. Olene Walker (not to diminish the great work JMH, Jr. did as Governor) was the last victim of this broken system, she did a great job as Governor is her short tenure and the general population should have been able to pass judgment on Walker's governorship and the general population deserves a vote on Bob Bennett too.

Anyways, I'm going to move on. There are many other issues to discuss.

Bennett and PaliHanniBeckian Utah Republican Delegates

2010-05-09T15:23:00.000-07:00

First, I'm not glad to see Bennett go. I believe he was the the type of politician who approached issues with reason and logic, and was able to find room in his heart for compromise and civility.

Second, I think it was the wrong decision. The two candidates that the Utah State Convention chose over Bennett both appear to have impressive resumes, but both of them are far too willing to pander to the Hannity/Palin/Beck-ified Utah conservative base on issues like immigration and health care. The fact that the Republican Party no longer has room for Bennett, makes me wonder if the GOP's may no longer have room for moderate points of view. I'll admit that some life experiences have made me lean a bit more to the left than I have in the past, but the ever increasing degree for which some "Republican's" embrace fear-mongers like Beck, Hannity, and Palin has made me move even closer to joining the Democrats (unfortunately, that party is just as screwed up and direction-less -- with less fear, but more anger)

Mike Lee's campaign immigration platform is ridiculous and, quite frankly, I don't believe he plans on truly pursuing a single word of it if elected. Lee gets the need for congressional term limits, but term limits are/were in his best interest -- so I don't feel like any great credit should be granted for that position. The flat tax is a bad idea (a subject that I written on repeatedly if you care to search my archives) that multiple other Senators have pursued and failed at achieving before, and I anticipate that Mike Lee will pursue it and fail to get support for it as well.

Tim Bridgewater hasn't tried to position himself as far to the right as Lee, and I think it will serve him well in the long-run. Unfortunately, Tim Bridgewater has some credibility issues due to recent revelations of his past business dealings he either sought for Federal Government earmarks for his business enterprises and the enterprises of clients that he advised, and I'll have hard time accepting his assertions of keeping a iron clamp on the Federal purse-strings when he has made a living helping entrepreneurs seek/attain Federal Funds for business purposes. However, despite his continued use of the phrase anchor baby on his campaign website, I think Tim Bridgewater has the most well reasoned approach to illegal immigration of the two Republican candidates.

I actually think that the biggest thing that the Republican convention succeeded at in ousting Bennett is offering Utah Democrats their best opportunity at a Senate seat in decades. If Granato can position himself as a Jim Mathesonian moderate Democrat, than he stands a good chance at winning the Senate seat.

Grading the Candidates -- Bob Bennett

2010-05-07T10:34:00.000-07:00

I have decided not to go through the same grading scale that was used for Mike Lee and Tim Bridgewater with Bob Bennett. The reason why is that Bob Bennett is the incumbent, and we already have a good idea of what kind of Senator he has been. The question is do we as voters in Utah want to keep Bennett (the devil we know) or do we want to go with one of the challengers.

Reasons to Keep Bennett --
1. Seniority -- Even if I hate the seniority system in Washington -- it is the system that is in place. getting rid of Sen. Bennett would mean forfeiting a certain level of power and influence for Utah in Washington.
2. Solid Moderate-Conservative -- While there are votes that Bennett has made which are unpopular with Utah's right wing base, they were (in my opinion) the right votes to cast. I believe he represents the views of most Utahns

Reasons to Ditch Bennett --
1. He has been there too long -- His biggest strength may also be a major weakness. Orrin Hatch has been in the Senate longer than I have been alive, and that length may lead, or appear to constituents to cause, a major disconnect with the constituents that these Congressional leaders are supposed to represent.
2. May be overly willing to compromise on values that his constituents hold -- Some of the things that are causing Bennett trouble are votes that appear in opposition to core conservative values.

Conclusion -- Bennett may not be great, but he has been building seniority in Washington. Unfortunately seniority is still a crucial sword in order wield power in Washington on behalf of the State of Utah. Until a congressional term limit is finally enacted, I don't believe Utah can afford to drop a senior senator -- especially for a candidate whose potential congressional career will inevitably mirror that of the senior senator that we would be removing from office.

If you (referring to delegates) are mad at Bennett because of the past couple of painful years, get over it. However. if you seriously want a different direction for Utah's Congressional delegation -- vote for the Democrat. Otherwise, you will force our state to lose a fair amount of influence in Washington without having really changed a thing.

Grading the Candidates -- Tim Bridgewater

2010-05-06T20:26:00.000-07:00

Tim Bridgewater

The Economy and Government Spending – Mr. Bridgewater has a much longer treatise on this issue than Mike Lee has. He rails against the ills of government spending, Bob Bennett’s record, and the consequences of Congress spending too much. In the end he claims that he will vote no on spending bills in a majority of cases. He claims he will support spending for government agencies that he feels have a constitutional role.

Unfortunately, Mr. Bridgewater’s professional record is (at least in a small way) contradictory of his position. The SL-Trib exposed some inconsistencies related to his business dealings and his (and his clients) being beneficiaries of government earmarks and the very programs that Mr. Bridgewater rails against.

Honesty – A
Best Move for our Country – B
Realistic – D (I don’t believe for an instant that Tim Bridgewater will manage to vote no on a vast majority of appropriations bills, as the campaign site puts it “when I have cast 133 votes on appropriations bills, most of them will have been NO votes.”)
Believability – C (The revelations of his business dealings call his believability into question on this issue)

Average – C+

Afghanistan (and Iraq) – Mr. Bridgewater’s stated position on Iraq and Afghanistan is that he doesn’t support withdrawing from Afghanistan. He claims he believes we need to make sure that those countries understand that our commitment isn’t open ended, but that we cannot have a cut and run strategy (the idea of openly setting a deadline to be out of the US military commitments). He believes that discussions of withdraw need to be done behind closed doors because, he asserts, discussions of military withdraw might provide encouragement to enemy organizations – and that it would promote Iranian expansionism.

While I agree that we need to make sure the nations where our troops are deployed understand that our commitments are not open ended and that we don’t provide encouragement to the enemy, Mr. Bridgewater needs to answer the fundamental question of when do we need to finish these engagements and return our troops home. The Saddam regime has been gone for years – how long will it take for the Iraqi’s to take control of their nation? Mr. Bridgewater also fails to provide much insight into how he would suggest that Congress should avoid quagmires like that of Iraq and Afghanistan, and his opponent Mike Lee defeats him soundly on this point.

Honesty – C
Best Move for our Country – C
Realistic – A
Believability – C

Average – C+

Immigration – For starters, the Bridgewater campaign is still using the infamous and offensive “anchor baby” phrase to describe the Mexican-American babies born to illegal immigrants here in the United States. Strike one. However, the Bridgewater position on illegal immigration does get better.

Bridgewater supports controlling the border with physical barriers and additional Border Patrol enforcement. I agree with him on this point.

Unlike Mike Lee, Tim Bridgewater acknowledges that the immigration system is broken costing on average thousands of dollars to attain citizenship and several years. He would support a “massively comprehensive” (snarky reference to the campaign site) reformation of Immigration and Naturalization – this is crucial if we are to incentivize would-be immigrants to come here through proper channels.

Honesty – A
Best Move for our Country – A
Realistic – A
Believability – A

Average – A

Tax Reform – Mr. Bridgewater’s tax position is that if spending is controlled, than taxes will be kept low as well. The tax talking point is basically a reiteration of his earlier position on deficits and congressional spending. Again, if Mr. Bridgewater can be successful at slowing congressional spending and using restraint in voting for appropriations bills, than I believe this would be good for the country.

For consistency, I’m handing the exact same grade for this as his position for the economy and congressional spending.

Honesty – A
Best Move for our Country – B
Realistic – D
Believability – C

Average – C+

Education – Mr. Bridgewater advocates a number of suggestions for education. These suggestions include the following:

 Return more power to state and local governments
 Cutting Federal spending on early childhood education and higher education programs (or at least give states more authority over these programs funds)
 (Without saying vouchers) Vouchers for private schools and even home schools
 Expand innovative education systems like charter schools

I agree with Mr. Bridgewater on lowering the Federal impact on public education, however I doubt that vouchers (especially for home schooling) would be passable into law.

Honesty – A
Best Move for our Country – C
Realistic – D
Believability – A

Average – B-

Healthcare – In lieu of the 2000 page healthcare bill that recently was signed into law, Mr. Bridgewater suggests that we pass 4 bills:

1. Bill 1: Creating real competition & choice in the insurance market – The plan includes refundable tax credits for the purpose of paying private insurance premiums for lower income families, the nationwide insurance market proposed by Obama, health insurance pooling for small businesses, expansion of HSA’s.

2. Bill 2: Litigation reform – Bridgewater wants to make it more difficult to get large malpractice settlements.

3. Bill 3: Move Medicare and Medicaid to the States’ Control – Bridgewater believes that if Medicaid and Medicare were controlled more by the states, than these two programs would be more efficient and economical.

4. Bill 4: Investing in science & innovation – Government spending should focus on speeding medical innovations to the marketplace, and on making new and better innovations in medicine.

This position strikes me as a reiteration and parroting of many right-wing talking points after the Obama-care bill was passed on Christmas Eve. I appreciate that Mr. Bridgewater is supportive of the national insurance market suggested by Barack Obama, allowing small businesses to from health insurance pools, and forcing some sort of litigation reform (although we need to be careful about caps due to the devastating nature of so many malpractice caused injuries).

Honesty – A
Best Move for our Country – B
Realistic – C
Believability – A

Average – B+

Overall GPA 2.92 (B-)

Conclusion: Despite the distasteful use of the term “anchor baby” and the apparent contradictions between his business dealings and his rhetoric. I actually like a few of Mr. Bridgewater’s positions. I really appreciate that he seems to get the need to make immigration more attainable to would-be immigrants and that he doesn’t suggest that the Federal government mandate all estimated 20+ million illegal immigrants be deported before they can take steps to attain legitimate citizenship.

Unfortunately, there are enough negatives that keep me from believing that he is the change candidate that Utah voters are looking for.

Grading the Candidates -- Mike Lee

2010-05-05T21:04:00.000-07:00

Grading Scale

Honesty -- Whether the position has been thoughtfully considered, and shows intellectual honesty.
Best Move For Our Country -- Whether this position (if successfully passed into law) would lead the country on a better course than it is now on.
Realistic -- Whether the position is mere pandering to the right wing with no realistic chance of being successfully mandated if the candidate was elected.
Believability -- Whether the position enhances or diminishes the candidates trustworthiness. Heavy pandering diminishes trustworthiness, and thoughtful well designed positions enhance trustworthiness.

Maybe a tad redundant. However, I needed some sort of a scale to evaluate the candidates.

Mike Lee

Issues from his campaign site:

End Deficit Spending – Mike Lee supports a balanced budget amendment like that of most states. Okay, great – what Republican doesn’t theoretically believe in having a balanced budget?

One problem with the balanced budget amendment is that it doesn’t always make sense for the nation’s economy. Many economists argue that government’s ability to spend can be a key to quickening economic recovery during recessions. One example of arguable and unproven success is the Bush and subsequent Obama stimulus packages – the economy appears to be improving even if the improvement hasn’t been all that apparent to the average taxpayer.

Balanced Budgets sound great. Unfortunately, I don’t believe they can be realistically achieved at the Federal level and to a certain level I’m not sure that it is best to tie the Fed to a balanced budget each and every year.

Honesty – A
Best move for our country – B
Realistic – C
Believability – A

Average – B+

Strengthen National Security – Mike Lee’s campaign site suggest that our armed forces have clear objectives before deployments are authorized – and that troops are sent home as soon as objectives are met. The second suggestion is that our militaries “hands are not tied by unnecessary rules of engagement.”

I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Lee on the first point. The two front war that our nation is currently engaged in has become a quagmire that has no visible end in sight. Part of the problem is the lack of planning and purpose – especially in Iraq. I believe this objective (if achieved) would be in the nations best interest.

Unfortunately, and this is dependant on what he means by “unnecessary rules of engagement”, I disagree with Mr. Lee on the second point. While possibly cumbersome, the rules of engagement that our troops abide by are necessary to keep our troops safe and to keep civilians safe in the areas where we deploy our troops to serve. When the job includes the use of deadly force, rules and encumbrances are necessary to keep our troops on the right side of the thin line that divides soldiers from criminals of wartime crimes against humanity

Mr. Lee's campaign is somewhat vague in explaining the position. If he is asserting that Congress should allow the military to have complete control over rules of engagement, than I disagree. However, I would still disagree with his position if he is asserting that Congress needs complete control over rules of engagement. Rules of engagement should be set by the military and should be checked and reviewed as needed by Congress. The military should be free to do their job, but rules and regulations need to be in place to make sure the military isn’t crossing moral and ethical lines.

Point 1
Honesty – A
Best move for our country – A
Realistic – A
Believability – A

Average – A

Point 2
Honesty – A
Best move for our country – C
Realistic – C
Believability – B

Overall – B+

Reform the Tax System – Mr. Lee supports the flat tax or the fair tax. Both of these proposals fail to take one major, albeit altruistic, point into consideration – 5% to a family living at the poverty level is much different than 5% to the rich. Having all Americans pay the same amount of tax is almost as regressive as taxing food at the grocery store. In my opinion the current tax code, although far from perfect or fair, has been developed through nearly 80 years of trial and error. The graduated tax rates keep those who have very little from being burdened with an additional tax liability, and has most taxpayers paying what they can (or should be able to) afford.

However, I agree that tax entitlements have gotten out of control. Although I’m not complaining about one of the biggest refunds I have ever received this year, I think the tax entitlements should be entitled for only those who are at or below the poverty level. Keep the middle class from paying too much, but we don’t need to give those who have enough to get by free hand outs.

Honesty – A
Best Move for our Country – D
Realistic – D (How many Congresses have had flat taxes introduced?)
Believability – A

Average – C+

Reduce Government Regulations – The talking point is a vague assertion that government regulations are bad for the market. Every good Republican would agree with this, but it isn’t all realistic. Given how vague the talking point is, I doubt Mr. Lee believes that it realistic either.

Overall – C (Vague)

Term Limits – Mr. Lee claims that he is for a twelve year limit on Congressional terms. This is something that I wholeheartedly agree with. However, it is also something that is pretty unrealistic to actually happen. I wonder if Mike Lee will believe in term limits after (and if) he is elected?

Honesty – A
Best move for our country – A
Realistic – C+
Believability – C

Average B+

Illegal Immigration – Mike Lee listed a whole list of items that he believes will help solve the illegal immigration problem. Items that I agree with him on:

1. Securing the border
2. Enforce Existing Law
3. Improve and Promote the Use of E-Verify

These are all important to control the flow of new immigrants to the United States. We need to control who comes in to the US from Mexico and Canada and we need to know who they are, but we also need to offer new immigrants (all immigrants) a pathway to legitimate citizenship that takes less than a year (at least less than a decade) and doesn’t require the intervention of a lawyer.

Specific items that I disagree with Lee on include:

1. Mandating and enforcing the denial of welfare benefits to (illegal) immigrants
2. NO Amnesty

First, I see the right-wing pandering in the position statement that we need to deny any welfare benefits to illegal immigrants. However, I also see a harsh reality for millions of people who (although illegally) have come to our nation seeking a better life. Life in America is often difficult for first generation immigrants, and I can’t accept the idea of refusing denying welfare to any new comer who may need assistance.

Second, and most important, Mike Lee proposes (as have many extreme right-wing pundits) that no amnesty be granted to the estimated nearly 20 million illegal immigrants currently living in the US. He even suggest that the government mandate that everyone return home and go through the proper channels before they can return. While pleasing the extreme-right’s fear of being overrun by our neighbors to the south, the proposal is unrealistic and illogical. We need to first get complete control of our borders, and second we need to offer a citizen path to any who are here and are legitimately trying to prosper in the land of the free – 5-10 year conditional green cards (no felonies, and proof of income) for all with citizenship after the waiting period.

Honesty – B-
Best move for our country – C
Realistic – D
Believability – D

Average D+

Other issues

Entitlements – C
Education – C
Abortion – A (I’m pro-life)
Federal Lands – A (Great idea to push for the property taxation of Federal Lands – probably unrealistic)

Overall GPA 2.85 (B-)

Conclusion -- While I disagree with Mike Lee on a few of his stated positions and I'm not a fan of some of his campaign moves, I'm pretty convinced that he would be no better or worse than Bob Bennett or any other member of Utah's Congressional delegation if elected albeit with less of that cursed but crucial word in Washington D.C. -- seniority. I'm pretty sure he is pandering heavily to the right on some of his less realistic campaign positions (immigration, education, finance, and entitlements) However, given his previous employment with former Governor and current Ambassador Jon Huntsman, I'm somewhat hopeful that he is more of a moderate in right-wing clothing during the pre-convention stage of his campaign.

Grading the Candidates

2010-05-04T20:02:00.000-07:00

As a commenter noted, I may be guilty of drive-by commentary in the Republican senate race(I hate using the Limbaugh-phrase).

In order to rectify this I'm going to spend a few days grading the Republican candidates -- hopefully before the convention.

First up -- Mike Lee (tomorrow)

Utah Tax Commission -- Stories of Incompetence and Malpractice

2010-05-04T16:05:00.000-07:00

I had a new potential client call me with a sales tax issue.

To make a long story short and confidential, the state tax commission audited this man's business for sales tax purposes and hit him with as much tax as possible -- much of it completely erroneous. After months of negotiation and review, the tax commission and this individual and his business partner had come to an agreement about the final tax bill owed.

The taxpayers each secure enough financing to pay there share of the assessed liability. The partners cashes out all of his retirement and pays his portion of the liability, and the potential client set up a home refi in order to cover his portion of the liability.

When the taxpayer was set to close, the USTC agent sends the mortgage company (never mentions this to taxpayer) a payoff that was 17,000 dollars more than the amount known to the taxpayer. When the taxpayer questioned the USTC agent she said she made a mistake! The taxpayer lost his interest rate (not sure I understood why) and he need to come up with a new mortgage.

This is probably one of the worst case screw ups I have ever heard of. To come back and try and assess an additional 17,000 dollars because of a agents mistake after the assessment had been agreed to is unconscionable. Anyone in the private sector would face an E&O suit for a similar mistake. Come on USTC!

Mike Lee -- This is insane!

2010-05-04T10:36:00.000-07:00

Utah Republicans need to vote this guy out of the primary.

I don't have complete faith that they will. Unfortunately, much of Utah Republican ideology seems to have been hijacked by the rhetoric of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. Combine that with the "Republican Party = Temple Worthy Mormon" idiots in this state, and we this video may lead us to have this schmuck as a Senator.

I agree with Ethan Millard. Delegates, please don't give us another Chaffetz!

As a Mormon, this video is quite disturbing and insulting. It is disconcerting that either Mike Lee, or a supporter or Mike Lee, believes that this religiously manipulative crap can win votes. Even more disconcerting, is that I can see some RP=TWM delegates actually feeling "the spirit" from this piece and casting their votes for this guy.

Immigration -- Legal or Not?

2010-05-02T11:34:00.000-07:00

Fellow blogger and Facebook friend Tom Grover left a status update that made me think:

I can't be sure that all of my family immigrated legally to the US, and neither can you.

Thinking made me fairly suspicious about the legality of one family member's immigration to the US.

My grandmother came to the US in 1939 from Northern England, and by the end of the year she married my grandfather. From outside appearances it could easily have been asserted that she may have been marrying my grandfather for his U.S. citizenship. She was an attractive woman, and he was a half-deaf, nearly crippled man that was 10 years her senior. She also had two sisters in England who later immigrated, and my grandmothers marriage to an American citizen was likely very helpful in securing citizenship for those sisters

Her marriage, even if it had some level of convenience/necessity in 1939, did grow into a 50+ year happy marriage. The children of that marriage all received college educations and the grandchildren have gone on to become successful members of society including doctors, lawyers, social workers, counselors, educators, engineers, and business leaders.

The point is this: America has always been and will continue to be the land of opportunity. The poor and huddled masses want to come here, and they will use whatever means necessary to get in. Should we condemn them for it? The answer should be a resounding no.

We must control our border, but we must also make it possible for the sincere seeker of prosperity and freedom to pass through the gates into American citizenship. While many on the right are calling for tougher laws to crack down on those who entered the US illegally, it must be remembered that someone in all of our ancestries sought to anchor themselves to the land of the free anyway they possible could.

Some of the current GOP senate candidates have used the phrase "anchor baby" to describe Mexican immigrants who come the US to have babies that will be US citizens. The offensive nature of this catch phrase is beyond the scope of this essay. We are all "anchor babies". Stop condemning those who are anxious to enjoy a better life -- the problem isn't with those who want to come to America. The problem is with those who don't believe there is enough prosperity to go around. I believe in America, and that it can bring great fortune to anyone who desires prosperity and has the will to work for that dream.

Tim Bridgewater -- The Business Candidate or a Hypocrite

2010-05-01T11:45:00.000-07:00

Tim Bridgewater has been presenting himself as a business friendly candidate and as someone who would be a champion against big government spending. However, it was revealed this week Tim Bridgewater advised client companies to seek government earmarks and funding from the stimulus, and that he co-founded and operated a company which operated to take advantage of the NCLB program. This revelation does make Mr. Bridgewater look at least slightly hypocritical, and majorly untrustworthy to taxpayers.

So, Mr. Bridgewater has advised his clientele to take advantage of cheap government money -- who wouldn't? Yes, Mr. Bridgewater is correct in his assertion that his clients would have been foolish not to use the government financing options that he has condemned. The problem is that Mr. Bridgewater wants us, the taxpaying voters, to believe he is somehow different than everyone else who is in Congress or who is running for Congress. This revelation, if not damning, is disconcerting. His business dealings show that he is just as willing as anyone else to say one thing to the voter in order to get elected, and do something completely different in his regular life or when faced with pressure from party leaders if elected. Although I agree with Mr. Bridgewater that he was prudent in advising clients to seek after, and he was prudent in seeking cheap government financing in his own business -- it doesn't show a man who stands firm on his convictions (especially the ones that he preaches from the campaign podium)

I doubt that Tim Bridgewater is the solution to our problems in Congress that he is hoping we will believe he is.

I'm pretty thoroughly convinced that nothing can change in Washington until there are some major changes to the way Congress operates.

First, it is time that we have term limits to Congress and the Senate. Congressional leadership spend so much time in Washington that they have no real connection to the areas that elected them. Second, cut Congressional pay. It is insulting that members of Congress, a majority of whom are independently wealthy, go to Congress only to be paid larger salaries than most Americans and to be granted lifetime benefits that employees of some of the most stable American corporations would envy -- especially when so many Americans are struggling financially. Third, we need a system that is favorable to any and all comers -- stop the two party control of Washington. The two party system is one of the biggest causes of organizational myopia in the Federal Government. Decisions should be made by merit of ideas presented and thoughtful debate and negotiation, not by the letter that you have affixed next to your name.

In general, members of Congress receive a great deal from their time in Congress. Many find gainful employment as lobbyist, business leaders, bureaucrats, and financial gain by being public figures. Congressional pay and benefits are obscene, as is the job security and length of time for which congressional leaders serve. We need fresh ideas and faces every few years to combat the myopia and group-think which seems to command most of the decision making that comes out of Washington.

I'm sure Mr. Bridgewater is a nice guy and a good businessman, but I'm just as sure that he would become part of the problem within seconds of taking the oath of office.

LDS Church -- Green Buildings

2010-04-28T11:50:00.000-07:00

I thought this was interesting. The LDS church unveiled a new green meetinghouse with solar panels, electric car designated parking, and xeriscaped landscaping.

Although I'm not one who has really embraced environmentalism, I'm glad to see the church take steps like this.

Death Row Inmate Gardner: 'I would like the firing squad, please'

2010-04-28T09:29:00.000-07:00

Last week, Ronnie Lee Gardner made headlines by requesting death by firing squad. One of the punishment's that make Europeans say -- "they do that in America?" While it is interesting that the next Utah executed has chosen the least peaceful means of death offered by the Utah Penal Code, I find it more noteworthy to discuss the waste of time and money that the death penalty has become in the US.

One of the major recent arguments made by Ronnie Lee Gardner's attorney's is that it would be cruel and inhumane to execute him after he has been on death row for more than 25 years. While I disagree with them that execution would after 25 years be somehow inhumane, I do agree that 25 years is a long time to be on death row -- TOO LONG.

Since the death penalty was reinstated in the 1970's most death sentences take several years to multiple decades before the sentence is carried out. Attorney's for the accused file unlimited appeals and motions to keep the sentence from being carried out, and rack up thousands of dollars of expense that is ultimately shouldered by the taxpaying public. The days of the gallows being assembled in the town square shortly after the trial are gone.

The death penalty actually seems to be a rather liberating and (in a bizarre way) rewarding sentence; the condemned are isolated from the general prison population, they can be relatively sure that they will not die for several years, and they know how they are going to die. There is also a bit of notoriety involved for the condemned, for example Gary Gilmore is mentioned every time there is a execution scheduled in this state and the current condemned receives a fair amount of publicity before their sentence is carried out. The last Utah inmate to choose the firing squad did so for the very purpose of gaining some notoriety and causing embarrassment to the state of Utah.

The cost of keeping a man on death row is very expensive. Surprisingly (or not) it is now far more expensive to kill a murderer than to house that criminal in prison for the rest of his natural life. In a research paper by Mark Leeman at the University of Indiana, the author cited the average annual cost of housing a prisoner in California is 20,760 dollars a year while the cost for holding someone in death row is 22,400 dollars a year. The same author cited another paper that showed the average lifetime incarceration cost is 250,000 and 869,000 dollars for death row and general prison population inmates respectively, but that legal cost associated with death row inmates increased the lifetime incarceration cost for death row inmates by several thousands (and millions in some cases) of dollars more than the lifetime cost associated with general prison population inmates.

So, how do we best accomplish the requirements of Justice in regards to the perpetrators of heinous crimes like rape and murder? I submit that either the death penalty should be repealed permanently, or the appeals process for convicted murderers be seriously limited. Although there is something John Wayne-ish about sentencing these scum to die, the reality of a 10 to 20+ year waiting period before that occurs takes a fair amount of the justice out of the death penalty. With the lengthy appeals process and the sometimes immortalizing notoriety, and the millions of dollars that taxpayers expend for the legal costs associated with administering justice to these scoundrels it seems that the victims and the taxpaying public is the group who is really punished in a death row case.

I have no problem with killing killers, but I do have a problem with inefficiency and waste. I understand that some may argue that the appeals process helps save possibly erroneously condemned men from dying, and to that I would argue for the complete repeal of the death penalty. However, if we as a society are going to continue to embrace this kind of barbarism we need to be efficiently barbaric -- in the words of Mr Miagi "Walk right side, safe. Walk left side, safe. Walk middle, squish just like grape."

http://www.rasmusen.org/g492/paper_examples/Leeman.G492.doc

Should the pay of Utah public employees and bureaucrats be public record?

2010-01-30T05:21:00.000-08:00

There is a bill being sponsored in the state legislature that would end publicizing the salary specifics of non-elected and non-appointed public employees. HB266 is being sponsored by Rep Powell of Heber City, which was supposedly inspired by the Heber City payroll manager who claimed publicized salary information of employees was causing "strife" in the workplace.

Although this bill seems harmless, who doesn't want to protect public employees privacy, it would set a bad precedence. Despite the fact that the bill would still provide salary ranges and titles of public employees, it would diminish the rights of taxpayers to know specifics of how their tax dollars are being spent and on whom. Especially in smaller governments, I suspect that nepotism/cronyism is a problem, or at least a perceived problem in Utah. In 2004, Salt Lake County Mayor Workman was charged for using nepotism and County funds. Last year, the Mayor of the small Utah metropolis Stockton attempted to fire a cop for citing his son. Allowing public governments to withhold names of public employees would only increase (1) nepotism/cronyism in city and county governments and/or (2) increase the perception of nepotism/cronyism in these governmental organizations.

Moral of the story is limiting public access to government information is never a good thing. Public employees must realize, and I believe most do, that they are being paid with entrusted funds and that the public has the right to know anything they want about the use of those funds. While I agree with the bills (no doubt) earnest concerns to protect public employees from identity theft, I don't believe the state's city and county officials need to be handed a information vault to do so. State law doesn't require the publishing of SSN's of public employees just the names, titles, and income.

Divorce Decrees and Form 8332

2010-01-26T11:46:00.001-08:00

In a Tax Court case Thomas v. Commissioner released 1-19-2010, petitioner asked the court to determine if he is entitled to a dependency exemption despite the fact that the petitioners ex-wife claimed the dependency exemption in violation of the agreement in the divorce decree.

In the divorce decree, the petitioner and the P's ex-wife had agreed to claim the dependency exemption for their child on alternating years with a caveat that the petitioner remained current on child support. In the tax year at issue petitioners ex-wife claimed the exemption in a year that the petitioner was entitled to the exemption and the petitioner was current on his child support. The petitoner paper filed his return but he attached the divorce decree instead of form 8332

The petitioner doesn't meet any of the ordinary criteria to claim the exemption -- his only hope is Section 152(e). The requirements are that the

-- Taxpayer provides over one half of the support for the child (51%)
-- The parents have to be divorced or separated for at least the last 6 months of the tax year.
-- The dependant is in the custody of one or both parents
-- The custodial parent releases the exemption in writing. The written release must conform to the following and only the following:
The declaration includes the children's names and the years for which the exemption is being released
The custodial parents signature and date
The custodial and noncustodial parents name's and SSN's
The court held that petitioner is not entitled to the exemption because (among other things) the divorce decree contained conditions for the exemptions release. Unfortunately the conditional release of the dependancy exemption is a common componant in divorce decree language, and it is in direct opposition to the requirements proscribed by the Treasury Department.
First, I would encourage attorneys to discuss the dependancy exemption much more thoroughly and (if possible) draft language in the decree that conforms to form 8332 and IRC Section 152(e). This is much easier said than done. Due to that fact that conforming language requires an unconditional release of the exemption, custodial parents who agree to form 8332 conforming language will have to accept losing the ability to use the exemption as a bartering tool. On the other hand non-custodial parents who are only able to get conditional exemption releases in the decree language are left somewhat to the whims of the custodial parents to sign form 8332 each year that they are entitled to the dependancy or to violate the decree and claim the child anyway.
Due the paradox that section 152(e) and form 8332 create for divorcing couples, I would like to suggest that Congress consider a limited (to the exemption amount) adjustment or deduction for child support. Doing so would grant some comparable tax relief to non-custodial parents who are honest in paying child support, and it would eliminate major controversies. The custodial parent maintains the exemption and the child tax credit, and the non custodial parent gets relief for taking part in the care of their children, and the IRS would no longer be burdened with trying to chase down who gets the exemption and who has to pay back taxes and penalties for claiming the exemption when they were not entitled to.

Boner Candidate -- Mayor of Stockton

2009-10-27T05:36:00.000-07:00

I miss X96 and boner awards. In homage to the X96 boner awards, I would like to nominate and award the mayor of Stockton Utah with the Green Jello Boner.

Officer Josh Rowell, who paid his own way through Utah Police Officer training, was running a DUI checkpoint last Tuesday night when he noticed a car appeared to try and evade his checkpoint. He tracked the car down pulled the driver over and ticketed the driver for not having a license.

"About 20 minutes later, Rowell found the police chief in the mayor's pickup. "You could tell just the way the mayor's hands were flying, the mayor was upset," Rowell said. When the officer approached the pair, Rowell said the mayor fired him. "Are you the one that gave my son a ticket?" Rowell recalled of the conversation. "I want your badge tomorrow morning."

The mayor apparently renigged on the full firing, but suspended Officer Rowell without pay.

When I first heard this story I thought of the Dead Milkmen song "Bitchin' Camaro".

My folks bought me a bitchin' Camaro
With no insurance to match
So if I happen to run you down
Please don't leave a scratch

I ran over some old lady
One night at the county fair
And I didn't get arrested
Because my dad's the mayor

This is one of those stories that make you cringe. What a moron that mayor must be, his son gets a ticket and he has the unmitigated gal to to fire the officer who did it? Now that the town knows how much respect he has for the law and his own police department -- I'm sure his next reelection bid has gotten much, much more interesting.

Come on, Dems! Try working in UK Parliment.

2009-09-15T10:58:00.000-07:00

So Democratic house leadership is now going forward with a resolution to rebuke Joe Wilson for having the audacity to shout at President Obama during his health care address. I'm sorry folks, the Dem leadership is wasting time and (I hope the majority of the nation's patience) my patience with crap like this. President Obama is a big boy, he already accepted Wilson's apology -- so why waste time with floor debates about a resolution to rebuke someone when there is so much more important work that needs to be done. The Democrats are making themselves look feeble-minded and petty, and they are again demonstrating why congressional term limits are necessary -- senior congressional leaders become far less concerned about representing their constituents over their party. Seniority and power on the hill need to be decoupled.

Compared to UK Parliament, Congress is an old woman's tea party. Heckling is a regular and (for me personally) cherished part of the English Parliament. Congress could use more passionate questioning of ideas in debate, maybe heckling would wake up Congress enough to actually make sure 700 billion "stimulus" bills are actually read before enacting them into law.

UPDATE -- Congressional Democrats are a bunch of Wankers. They passed the resolution rebuking Rep. Wilson 240-179. I think I want to run for Congress one day on a Heckler platform -- we need more heckling in Congress, not less. Props to Rep. Wilson, speak out!

American Indians take the Washingon Redskins to SCOTUS

2009-09-15T09:54:00.000-07:00

I'm surprised that this hasn't gone to the high court sooner. Many will remember the NCAA's attempt to crack down on possibly offensive Native American mascots during the 2004-2005 athletic year by banning offending schools from championships (I believe). The NCAA targeted everyone, even if the teams used accurate tribal names as an homage to local tribes -- like Utes, Seminoles, and the Illini.

Redskins has always been like a circa-1940 racist characture from Cowboy and Indian folklore. For it to last unchallenged in the enlightened politically correct east coast is astounding.

My prediction -- Washington Redskins will become the Washington Red Storm in the 2011-2012 season. However, the conservative majority on the court may hold for the NFL team.

William Wilberforce -- Healthcare Reform

2009-09-10T10:17:00.000-07:00

I have been going through a bit of a refiners fire for several months -- and things have come to what appears to be a rather serious head. This has led to some awakenings -- and I have come to think on William Wilberforce.

William Wilberforce was a British politician & activists that the fight to end the slave trade and to abolish slavery in the British Empire in the early half of the 18th century. He was called a seditionists and struggled to abolish the slave trade for 26 years, and slavery wasn't ultimately abolished until 1833 -- days before his death. I enjoy the account in the movie "Amazing Grace" Wilberforce is portrayed as a politician firm in his convictions and willing to fight for them until they are accomplished. I am great admirer or his strentgh as a politician, and as an advocate for those with no voice.

The are paraleles to Wilberforce's battle, and the healthcare reform fight. It is a kind of oppression in that 46 million American's don't have affrodable access to basic healthcare, and it is wrong that 46 million Americans cannot afford the peace of mind that health insurance coverage provides, it is wrong that 46 million Americans face financial disaster while convalecing from serious injury or illness. This argument is about right and wrong! In most things I believe the market should be left alone, however in the matter of the health care the market hand is and has been to icy.

I was impressed with what I heard from the President the other night (however vauge it was). The fact of this debate is that affordable and available healthcare for all is the right move. I hope that our leaders on the right and left sides of the isle do all that they can to pass health care reform this year or early next year -- this is not something that should be delayed.

The part of the president's plan that was most appealing was the pooling of uninsured small businesses and indivduals in his proposed "National Health Insurance Exchange". Using a public option for the most hard-luck cases seems like a reasonable plan.

I'll admit my bias. Over the past few months my own health deteriorated, and the probable diagnoses that doctors are pursuing go from scary to terrifying. I am also the uninsured controller of a small local company. The fear of where my health problems may lead, and the stress of knowing the financial ruin that will come with it is agonizing. My children and I are high risk and virtually uninsurable because of a rare genetic disorder that pre-disposes us to cancers and various benign tumors. Even before we discovered genetic disorder insurance was unaffordable for my small family of 4 then 5. The last quote for comprehensive insurance that came close to rivalling the insurance provided by large employers was 2X more than my monthly rent payment at the time and nearly as much as my mortgage payment now. Quotes for HSA insurance was as much as car a car payment, and that didn't even include money tucked away in the savings plan. Federal and state guidelines for SCHIP and Medicaid qualifying gross earnings have always been barely too low for me and my family to qualify. We need (at least a type of) the major reforms that are being proposed, and we need to have the moral honesty to admit that this is the right thing to do.

Healthcare Reform -- The Income Tax circa-1913

2009-07-31T12:33:00.000-07:00

I am for health care being made available and affordable to all Americans, and I'm (very cautiously) in favor (at least not completely opposed) to a nationalized health care option. However, I think caution is needed in accepting Congress' current plan and the guarantees the president and congressional leaders make regarding the a fore mentioned Act. I thought I would bring up something from our past to illustrate -- the income tax.

The first tax return was required to be filed by those that made 3,000 dollars+ during the tax year -- over 64,000 dollars adjusted for inflation. The top rate for the uber-rich was a big fat 6%. A minute 1% tax was owed if an individual had net income less that 20,000 dollars -- 430,406 dollars inflated to 2008 value. The income tax promised when it was enacted was supposed to small and painless to We the People, but the tax system promised has turned into a monstrous beast of government influence. The rates are high, it is used as welfare vehicle, and it is incredibly complex, a gross mutation from the simplistic tax system enacted in 1913.

The President and Congressional leaders are promising that the public option (using the Social Security/Medicare system -- the largest ponzi scheme ever) will provide a flowery fix to the problem of ever booming health care costs. We the people need to have our voices heard on this issue. Given the problems that Social Security already has, it gives me pause to think that our leaders want to put the entire health care in the hands of this same agency. It may be that using Social Security is the best option to provide insurance to everyone, but Congress needs to put a little more caution into creating (what may become) one of the most intrusive government programs in American history.

While I yearn to feel confident that my family and I can afford to see doctors when necessary, I am scared to death to think of Social Security-esque bureaucracy becoming a part of the health care system. I have nightmares of taking my kids to the doctors and the offices resembling the stark white, inefficient Social Security offices I have had to misfortune of visiting on a few occasions.

There may be other options.

y-intercept had an interesting post, about the perverse incentives that insurers have in rising health care costs. He suggested that health cost should flow through individual accounts in Medical Savings and Loans, laws of supply and demand would be better able to regulate skyrocketing health care costs.

I hope that our leaders step back before they take us down a road that will be irreversible. I fear that we will soon tie ourselves to a system that our children will curse for generations to come. Everyone needs to be able to see a physician without worrying about bankruptcy, but we should be able to do it without possibly bankrupting the nation or burdening future generations with an even more grievous tax burden.

Madoff -- He has a Projected Release Date

2009-07-14T12:37:00.000-07:00

I found this to be rather interesting. Bernie Madoff received a 150-year sentence for his Ponzi scam. You would think a sentence of 150 years would be treated as a life sentence without the possibility of parole -- the end. However, the Federal Prison Bureau has calculated a projected release date for Madoff and the date is Nov. 14, 2139. The good news for Madoff is he has already knocked 20 years off of his sentence.

I wonder why have a release date for him. There is the obvious answer of federal agencies just following policies and procedures, but there is also a demoralizing factor for a prisoner like Madoff of puting a date to the end of his sentence. "You can get out in 2139" is a lot more vivid than, "you are sentenced to 150 years in prison." Point is -- Madoff is going to die in there.

The LDS Church and the Kiss Heard Round the Salt Lake Valley

2009-07-14T08:49:00.000-07:00

Before I write anything I want to express that I am a Mormon, and I support my church's teachings. However, too many Church members view the Church's opposition to homosexuality as a lifestyle as a reason and excuse to discriminate and oppress gays and lesbians individually and as a group. For this I am sorry and embarrassed. The second great commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself -- there is no caveat in this commandment for color, religion, or sexual orientation.

Last week a gay couple was asked to leave the church owned Main Street Plaza for kissing, and was subsequently arrested when they refused. This led to a minor firestorm of criticism and protests directed at the LDS church. While I agree that some on that LDS Church security crew handled the confrontation in a bigoted circa-1963 Alabama-esque manner, I think the subsequent rage, and protests are counter-productive and somewhat misguided.

First, it is disingenuous of the arrested gay couple to claim that the kiss on the LDS Church owned plaza was just an innocent display of affection. The LDS church is often made to be the main oppressor of the gay and lesbian community in Utah. I would assume that a gay couple living downtown would know this. However, this couple expects the public to believe they were somehow shocked when they were confronted for publicly displaying affection amongst homophobic Mormons on private LDS Church property. Come on! This couple was looking to raise eyebrows, even if they didn't expect they would be arrested and treated so brutally.

Second, the LDS church and the gay and lesbian community will never see eye to eye on this issue. The LDS church (unless this ends up being a major church policy shift caused by a visit from the Deity in person) will never support gay marriage or openly support anything resembling gay marriage. The LDS church will fight gay marriage on all fronts, until the idea is completely rejected in this country, or it becomes institutionalized. I believe the biggest reason the church fights gay marriage so openly is due to our nations civil rights laws, if this was institutionalized nationally our country's civil rights laws would possibly become very cumbersome to any Christian-church that doesn't perform, solemnize, or recognize gay marriages by way of anti-discrimination lawsuits and by other legal issues that face organizations that are viewed as discriminatory. So the point is this, the battle for gay rights should be fought on other fronts (i.e. against political groups like Eagle Forum, and legislators like Chris Buttars), compromises may be needed, and most of all level headed civil political discourse should be maintained. The rage and protests against the LDS church last week seemed a little like childish-pouting. This doesn't excuse the security guards behavior, but targeting the LDS church as an organization is not going to lead gay and lesbian activists to their end goal.

Having said all that. More needs to be done to teach local LDS church members, how be more tolerant of others in this state. The backwardness of many Latter-Day Saints in Zion is somewhat appalling -- tolerance of those who drink alcohol can be a stretch for some members. For a religion that wants members to proselyte to all people, it is interesting that one of the most powerful tools (loving all men as brothers) completely eludes so many of the local Saints.

Personally, I support civil unions (that are treated exactly like marriage) as the best compromise in the gay marriage debate. Civil unions don't seem to be as problematic for Christian churches, and they provide marital benefits and protections to homosexual partners. Most of all I hope that a spirit of peace and compromise may one day lead to a resolution of this issue.

Civil Political Discourse -- Southern Utah Style

2009-07-06T13:18:00.000-07:00

How marvelous! St. Georgians exercised their freedom to assemble this 4th of July by having one of many National "Tea" Parties. Unfortunately, due to my camping trip to Lake Powell, I was unable to attend. Thankfully the crack squad of reporters from the Daily Spectrum were there to cover the meaningful, civil discourse between angry conservatives and a snarky Washington County Democratic Party Chair.

Washington County Democratic Party Chairman Cyril Noble braved a hostile crowd when he stood at the microphone and said, "Repeat after me, 'Obama - a two-term president.'"
Amid a growing chorus of boos and shouts of "Traitor!" and "Go home!" Noble said, "He is doing the best he can."
Noble noted his own accent, saying, "I am an American. ... I am an immigrant, which you don't like."
Someone in the crowd called, "Sounds like he's trying to be a victim, to me."

I don't know if it is the snarky liberal, or the bitter, angry, and phobic conservatives -- but events like this are so obnoxious. The liberal used ad hominem arguments, and baiting tactics and the local conservatives were simply parroting conservative talk radio pundits. It is the same old story -- too many Americans have political myopia.

This was my favorite:

Seven-year-old Fox Barrett was one of the speakers to raise his voice against the president from the microphone.
"I'm a conservative, and I just want to say to Obama, 'Stop stealing my future,'" he said.
"He's been wanting to do this since April," said his father, Brett Barrett, while the pair waited in line.
"So he's going to exercise his First Amendment rights, then we're going to go home and exercise our Second Amendment rights," he said, indicating they were going to go shooting at the local firing range.

All right, way to push political ideology on your seven year old! What kid wouldn't want to spend his 4th of July hanging out with awnry old farts?

I am sorry if this offends any of the attendees, but the lack of civil, intelligent political discourse is one of the greatest stumbling blocks for our state and nation. We need to open our eyes, pay a little less attention to pundits, give a little more consideration to what problems need to be addressed, and figure out which elected officials are most likely to present real solutions to those problems.

Bravo Supreme Court

2009-06-30T08:11:00.001-07:00

The Supreme Court released a decision yesterday regarding reverse discrimination. The "ruling that New Haven, Conn., wrongly discriminated against a group of mostly white firefighters who lost out when a promotion exam was scrapped because no blacks scored well enough to advance". Interestingly enough, there seems to be a great deal of debate on whether this ruling creates new problems for businesses or whether the new ruling provides clarity in relation to civil rights practices by employers. The decision shows that employers must be on solid ground before they make a decisions that discriminate against a certain group of employees irregardless of whether the group is a protected minority.

In the opinion of this author, Monday's ruling is a clear indicator that race cannot be the trump card in making employment decisions -- even in regards to protected groups. I hope that this ruling remedies some of the perceived and in certain cases actual perverse results of affirmative action laws. Since affirmative action was enacted there has been legitimate gripes that affirmative actions mandates reverse discrimination in order to counter-balance the history of gross racial inequality in the US. Affirmative action has major problems; it has left reverse-discriminated individuals with racially charged grievances, and it has added an unnecessary concern for businesses in employment matters. This ruling seems to say, as long as the business is doing all it can to make sure employment and advancement policies are fair to all employees, businesses should hire and advance employees by the employers normal policies irregardless of whether or not targeted/protected minorities are among those who qualify for employment and advancement. This is a ruling that clarifies affirmative action, and says it is okay for businesses to hire based of merit and qualification, and (should overtime) remove the incorrect perception that companies must reverse-discriminate in order to be compliant with Civil Rights statutes.

There is one problem. This ruling says that a company can ignore race as an employment factor if the company can show that it made sufficient effort to ensure employment decisions and policies are fair to all groups and races. How does a company prove that their employment policies and practices are fair to all races and groups? I think many employers will have to review their hiring and advancement practices to make sure they have policies in place that not only are fair to protected minorities, but policies that promote and hire qualified employees without using race as the determining factor. This will be difficult for for many entities that have history of reverse discrimination policies as a fail safe method to maintain the appearance of being compliant with affirmative action.

Utah Rental Law -- Mitigating Damages and Written Terminations

2009-06-26T08:44:00.000-07:00

I was in Small Claims Court a couple of nights ago, because of a disputed cleaning bill from an old landlord. I have a few questions for the real lawyers out there. I'm going to provide the basic arguments of my case below and I would like to know if I have a case for an appeal:

Background

I terminated my rental agreement by phone on 2/13/2009. The landlord, who travels a great deal, said he couldn't take the time out of his busy schedule to make arrangements to get the rental re-rented and required that I list and show the home until I either rented it or he found the time to take responsibility for showing and renting the property. I ended up showing the home until March 20th after which point he finally returned to the area, cleaned the property and rented it within days.

The landlord kept a 1,400 security deposit which he accrued to March's rent. When he cleaned and made repairs, he charged over 1500 dollars for his time, water bills that accrued after I vacated, and for supplies. The majority of the bill was for his and his wife's time.

Arguments

The Plaintiff Failed to Provide a Written Itemization within 30 days

Under Utah Code Annotated § 57-17-3 requires that the landlord provide “a written itemization of any deductions from the deposit, and reasons therefore, shall be delivered or mailed to the renter within 30 days after termination of the tenancy or within 15 days after receipt of the renter's new mailing address, whichever is later.” The contract was terminated on February 13th when we notified the landlord that we were going to terminate the lease. As far as the new address requirement is concerned, Landlord received the address long before the date we terminated the contract. Weeks prior to this he asked for the address claiming he’d like to drive by the property whereas he “claimed” he might be interested in purchasing our home. Notwithstanding, the landlord is an experienced landlord (with 2 rental properties on the Wasatch Front and one 2 blocks from my home in St. George) who knows, or should know that property information is public record and easily attainable from any web browser. Landlord knew that we would be moving back to our home in Saint George and had access to the address at any time.

Failure to Mitigate Damages of the Defendant’s Contract Breach

Under Utah State Law, upon premature termination of a rental agreement, the landlord is required to make reasonable efforts find a new renter for the dwelling. During the period from Feb. 20th to March 20th, the plaintiff did not make reasonable attempts to rent the unit. When we notified the Plaintiff on or near February 13th that we were going to terminate the contract, Landlord required us to advertise and show the home to prospective renters. He said he didn’t have time to, and would not, list and show the home. He gave us an implied ultimatum regarding our deposit (i.e. if we could get it rented quickly we might be able to get a portion of the deposit back)

During February and March, Landlord was unavailable to get a new contract executed on multiple occasions due to his travels – he was in Hawaii on one occasion and Las Vegas or Pennsylvania on another. Although he claimed he would be cooperative in showing the home, Landlord never made a good faith effort to do so until March 20th – after he had accrued the majority of the deposit to March’s rent leaving no deposit monies available to cover the plaintiff’s excessive cleaning and repair fees.

As a direct result of plaintiffs’ apathy towards their legal requirement to find a new tenant, defendants were denied recovery of the 1400 dollar security deposit. On account of the plaintiffs’ failure to take mitigating actions after the defendants breach, defendants liability to the plaintiff should be limited to the 1400 security deposit already paid to the plaintiff.

The Security Deposit

The opening line in paragraph 16 states that “the security deposit set forth shall secure the performance of the resident’s obligations”. This is a protection to the defendant limiting costs of vacating the residence to the required deposit. In the contract, the security deposit is broadly defined as being usable for rent, repairs, cleaning, other contractual fees, etc. The plaintiffs’ contract clearly sets forth that the deposit secures the defendant’s obligation, and the shortfall is the fault of the plaintiffs’ for not requiring a larger deposit. The contract makes no provision for additional excess costs to be collected beyond the security deposit, and Utah Code Annotated §57-17 does not provide for collection of excess costs beyond the security deposit. Any ambiguity in the contract is the fault of the plaintiffs who presented the contract to the defendants as a requirement to rent their property.

The Judgment

The judge decision was in favor of the plaintiff because the contract requires that written notification of contract termination must be given and notification was given verbally. The landlord admitted to receiving verbal notification on 2/13 over the telephone, and verbal notification that we moved out the 21st of February. All other arguments that I made were apparently considered moot.

If anyone would like to opine on this matter feel free. As a warning to anyone renting, never ever communicate with your landlord by phone, and negotiate a early termination contingency plan. The judge was on her way to ruling in my favor over the first argument, until the written termination provision was brought up.

I'm just curious

Cell Phones -- Its about time!

2009-06-22T11:45:00.001-07:00

IRS Commissioner released this statement about laws related to personal and business use of employer provided cellular phones. The current rules require a business use log of cell phone calls:

Statement of IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman

This month, the Internal Revenue Service asked for comments on ways to simplify compliance with rules related to employer-provided cellular telephones. The current law, which has been on the books for many years, is burdensome, poorly understood by taxpayers, and difficult for the IRS to administer consistently. Some have incorrectly implied that the IRS is "cracking down" on employee use of employer-provided cell phones. To the contrary, the IRS is attempting to simplify the rules and eliminate uncertainty for businesses and individuals.

Although some of the proposed changes would add clarity, the current law will inevitably leave widespread confusion among employees and businesses. Therefore, Secretary Geithner and I ask that Congress act to make clear that there will be no tax consequence to employers or employees for personal use of work-related devices such as cell phones provided by employers. The passage of time, advances in technology, and the nature of communication in the modern workplace have rendered this law obsolete.

It's about time!

Universal Healthcare -- Why and how?

2009-06-11T08:24:00.000-07:00

Universal health care, one the socialist ills that Ronald Regan spoke out against is currently one of the hot button issues in Congress this year. There is draft legislation circulating to create a national health insurance through medicare, expanded SCHIP, and Medicaid. Due to the fact, the final bill hasn't been presented yet, I would like to discuss the ideology of this issue.

The free market is the best catalyst for innovation and scientific advancement. There is no other system that provides the incentive needed to continually do bigger and better things. Having made this statement, I am immediately going to contradict myself in stating that I am fully (but cautiously) in support of universal health care.

Why?

There is nothing as counter-productive to proper preventative health care in America as the inaccessibility of affordable health insurance. The only people who are not in this boat are those who are lucky enough to land jobs in large corporations, organizations, or government -- otherwise millions of Americans are either forced to take unnecessary health risks if their financial situation is poor, shell out exorbitant premiums for plans with good coverage, or make due with lower premiums for plans that cover virtually no common health problems. This is a poor catalyst for encouraging people to take care of themselves. Aches and pains are ignored, little ailments often grow, and these people risk seeking preventative care after it is too late.

Our current health system is a disincentive for small business entrepreneurship. Without having any actual statistics I'm sure there are a large number of Americans who may hate the job they have now, may have wonderfully innovative entrepreneurial ideas, but will not turn innovative entrepreneurial ideas into productive businesses because the thought of leaving group employer provided health coverage is unacceptable.

Some may argue that universal health care is one step too close to Stalin-ism. I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that we, as a nation, have had and accepted numerous socialist-esque programs for over 100 years. Here in Utah, for example, we fought off the evil capitalist ideals of competition in education. Our protection from fire, crime, foreign enemies, and libraries are all provided at the expense of taxpayer dollars. Why are we so unwilling to get together and make sure that everyone has unfettered access to medical care? No one would be afraid to call the police if they were becoming victims of a crime, and no American should have to fear seeking medical attention because of an inability to pay. To be honest, I now believe the need for universal health care for all Americans should trump the right to free education, or the right to social security when we retire.

How can we the people uphold the values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if we have to bind ourselves to jobs we don't like because of health benefits, or fear seeking necessary health care because we may not be able to afford it. The truth is we can't.

How?

This is where we must be cautious, and I'm afraid there are no easy answers. Our national debt is out of control and ballooning, the tax code is abused and incomprehensible, and our economy is still floundering. The prospect of Congress or the President developing an hasty, under planned Social Security-esque regime is frightening. There are also other questions:

-- Would employers continue to provide coverage, or have any incentive to do so?
-- How high would effective tax rates rise in order to responsibly finance a National Healthcare System?
-- More frightening, would all US hospitals, and clinics become federally owned and operated?

However, I think is important to make affordable health care for everyone a reality. The how is a daunting question for men who are smarter than I, and one I hope can be answered.

Some of my random ideas -

-- Phase Social Security out and phase in Health care security (over several decades -- America's addiction to not saving for their own retirement is a habit that will be hard to break)
-- Force Americans to save/invest for retirement and make those invested funds sacred and untouchable until retirement. (for the lower/middle classes the EIC and/or ACTC could be forced into savings or investment accounts)
-- Phase down public funding for education (maybe making education more of a privilege will make our system better) (probably too radical an idea, even for this writer)

Anyways, I believe in this. I just wish I could believe our elected officials could make it happen with out bankrupting the nation.

The Journal of an Unemployed American -- Month 1

2009-03-27T09:59:00.000-07:00

Hello everyone,

It has been some of the roughest weeks of my life. I was laid off in February, and at that time I almost looked at it as an opportunity to go back to what I loved doing. I have a high opinion of my credentials in small business and individual tax consulting, and I thought that I would have no problem finding a job during tax season in one of the several busy accounting offices in Southern Utah that thrive on tax work. I was mistaken.

I have found a client who is in dire need of help for which I am extremely grateful. He has helped keep me afloat for the past several weeks -- but one client can only provide so much income.

I was hired a week ago by what I thought was an honest tax preparation firm. Unfortunately, when I reviewed returns with due diligence and questioned my "supervisor" on some of the many questionable deductions -- I was relieved of my position. I thought there were laws protecting whistle blowers?

Jobs are extremely scarce in the southern part of the state. The only jobs that are plentiful are commission sales jobs, but I guess it doesn't hurt to hire salesmen that don't make anything if they can't sale anything.

I will be one month behind on my mortgage in a few days, and I am scared. My old landlord in SLC is after me, bills are piling up, and I feel desperate.

I love my country, and I believed in our government for most of my life. Unfortunately, I can't believe it anymore. I'm just praying that I can find a way to keep my home and keep food in my family's stomachs. Meanwhile, those that are in charge of our nation are handing free money to the very bankers and industries that have caused our economy to collapse -- the very bankers that threaten to cut off my financial head if I can't catch-up. These same incompetent (excuse the expression) bastards in Congress still take a "required" pay increase each and every year.

I guess the only option is to go into business for myself. I've bought good tax software and am trying to market myself to former clients, but it seems that I am sowing seeds that I will not be able to reap this year.

May God change the hearts of our leaders, and help them remember the burdens that their actions place on individuals.

PCU -- Dixie State College...Red Storm?

2009-01-27T12:36:00.000-08:00

I grew up with parents who were fanatical Dixie College alumni (ironically neither of them actually received degrees from the school). Dixie College Rebels was a mascot that fit the schools name and the nickname of the region.

I understand the connection that the politically oversensitive make between the mascot and the states who succeeded from the U.S. because of slavery. The school saw the unfortunate connection over a decade ago and has done several things to disconnect itself from that image (removing the Confederate Flag as the official flag, redesigning the physical mascot from a Confederate soldier costume to a bird, and other changes).

However, forces of political correctness didn't give up -- the schools mascot is now a red storm!?! What the hell does a red storm mean? The illustration the school gave is a tornado with bull horns and a bull ring, and the costumed mascot is a bull.

Okay, good now the schools mascot isn't offensive, or is it? What about Midwestern people who actually suffer through tornadoes, or cattle ranchers who have been hurt in a senseless bull charging? We must think of a less offensive mascot.......maybe the seagull would have a better connection to state (although we can't offend people who have had their cars shat upon) they could have gone with Red Necks and brought back the old confederate soldier costume. Collegiate PC is so much fun.

Any suggestions for a less offensive mascot than a half atmospheric phenomenon-half cow?

Oh well, if this post was gay I apologize -- I'm feeling quite bored today and I fear my wit may have deserted me.

A Tax Cheat to Run the Treasury Department

2009-01-22T20:55:00.000-08:00

So Treasury Secretary Nominee, Timothy Geithner, has passed the Senate Finance Commitee Hearing despite the fact he appears to be a reformed tax cheat.

He apparently has made numerous tax errors, including failure to pay SE Tax for 4 years. His excuses are pitiful and self-serving, the kinds of excuses that would draw heavy critisim from US Tax Court judges (if he used those excuses in that court). However, because he has paid those taxes up with interest he may still be given the job as head of the US Treasury -- the same organization that runs the IRS, and handles the billions of dollars of bailout funds.

This may get interesting, especially in relationship to the IRS. Many people need very little justification to cheat on their income taxes, and now they have one more -- the boss of the IRS did it so why can't I.

Unfortunately, Mr Geithner doesn't stand from a strong moral position as future head of the Department responsible for collecting taxes, and viciously pursuing people who have the made the same "mistakes" that Mr. Geithner has made. His historically "flexible" tax compliance makes him a poor candidate for Sec. Treas., he should be replaced as nominee and he should be offered some sort of finance advisory position.

Oh well..... I guess I have one more hurdle to leap in explaining why you have to be fair and honest in your dealings with the Federal Government. I guess I'll need to focus on not getting incarcerated for tax crimes.

The Presidency of George W Bush

2009-01-17T10:53:00.000-08:00

With the new Obama administration coming in, and the "supposed" worst president in history going out I've been reflecting on the Bush presidency -- how bad was it?

Did George Bush accomplish anything?

Keeping America safe post 9-11: Agree or disagree with his tactics and decisions, we have not endured a terrorist attack on US soil since 9-11. Some argue that his tactics have produced more hatred and animosity towards the US, and will breed more hatred of the US in the Middle East and breed more Islamic jihadists who seek American blood. This may be a horrifyingly accurate depiction of the future. However, (by luck or the Bush-formed Homeland Security Department) we have been safe on US soil for coming on 8 years.

Lowered taxes: George Bush successfully kept taxes low through-out his presidency. This wasn't only for the rich -- the refundable child tax credit, increased standard deductions and exemptions, 5% capital gains rate, and other provisions have been highly beneficial to the lower and middle classes. Conveniently ignoring the housing bubble and subsequent banking collapses, his tax cuts were instrumental in increased investment and economic growth for a large part of his presidency.

Despite the tax cuts, revenue increased substantially during his Presidency. This is because the President appointed IRS administrators who ended the "kinder, gentler, IRS" for a "smarter, more efficient IRS". The IRS has spent his presidency updating stone age computers, and hiring new IRS agents who go into audit meetings usually knowing that the target has unreported income or over reported deductions that will bring in additional revenue to the US coffers.

I can't think of any others:

Failures:

Afghanistan: We never found Osama.
Iraq: No weapons of mass destruction. Declaring victory almost 6 years too soon.
Spending: He spent like a drunken sailor. He ran extremely high deficits.
Social Security Reform: He was never able to get on Social Security reform proposal through Congress.
Illegal Immigration: Instead of doing what the right wanted or what the left wanted, George Bush did nothing!

So it is my opinion that Bush II was not a good president, but I don't know that he was a horrible President either.

I respected Bush because he stuck to his guns on a lot of issues, despite to enormous unpopularity that resulted. However, he made rushed decisions regarding foreign policies that will be costly in future Middle East relations, he couldn't stay fiscally conservative (a "walk middle, squish just like grape" policy is bankrupting us now) and he failed to move one meaningful permanent piece reform through (except the Dept. of Homeland Sec.) that he proposed.

Florida concedes the Title to Utah

2009-01-17T10:51:00.000-08:00

I have not received a response from Urban Meyer. Therefore by not addressing the challenge, he has conceded to title to the Utah Utes (in the world of Phramahaphil)

An open letter to Urban Meyer

2009-01-09T07:31:00.000-08:00

Dear Coach Meyer,

Congratulations on your win last night. Your team had a wonderful season.

I am and always will be a big fan of yours. You brought Utah Football the next level while you were here and Kyle Whittingham is continuing that legacy. You are truly a legendary coach.

I believe you and I would agree that champions should be made on the football field and not in computer calculations, or by the votes of sports columnists. This system kept you from competing for a championship while you were Utah's head coach in 2004, and will keep your 2009 championship from being indisputable. Utah has the best record in college football, they beat the team that you defeated to get into the BCS title game, they beat Bama by a larger margin than you beat them. This year will always be known as a year that the championship failed to produce a legitimate champion because Utah wasn't allowed a shot at the title in a post-season playoff. This complaint isn't new.

The BCS system is a system of discrimination, monopolization, and elitism. This situation reminds me of Seabiscuit v War Admiral. In 1938 an unheralded racehorse was allowed a unsanctioned shot at what may have been the "greatest" racehorse of the time. War Admiral was bigger, had defeated much more notable opponents, and was believed by sports writers and many to be unbeatable especially by a smaller racehorse from the west. However, War Admirals owner realized one important fact -- the word maybe would always precede the words greatest racehorse of the time unless War Admiral faced the smaller contender from the west.

I believe we have a chance to create a Seabiscuit vs. War Admiral event for the 2008/09 college football season. The Florida Gators have been crowned as champions by the powers that be in college football, but there is a small racehorse in Utah, that you helped create, who has a rightful claim to that title. Your "2009 BCS championship" will always have a cloud over it unless your championship team faces Utah.

The game doesn't have to be sanctioned by the NCAA, the outcome (if Utah won) wouldn't change any history of your championship. What it would do is produce the first EARNED and PROVEN champion in college football! A championship that cannot be disputed. I believe a proven champion is something all college football fans would love to have. My hope is that a game like this might lead the BCS to move to some sort of playoff system, so that fans can celebrate and admire proven champions.

Florida maybe the best team in college football this year, but the word maybe will always accompany that phrase unless Florida and Utah meet on the field. The BCS championship will always receive jeers of the BS championship until a playoff is derived. Fans from non-power conferences will always feel cheated until they are allowed to see their championship level teams compete.

You have to power to help change the course of college football. I propose a scrimmage game, Gators v. Utes, on the Saturday before Super Bowl Sunday. I doubt that there would be an empty seat in whatever arena this occurs in, or a TV in America that would not tune in.

American College Football Fan

The BCS, the Opponant Utah doesn't need.

2008-11-24T06:23:00.000-08:00

Mike Sorensen at DesNews seems to believe the BCS needs to be upheld. He suggests that Utah should be rooting for a lower ranked BCS conference champion in whichever game it plays in. I assume this is because he holds to the BCS motto that non-BCS teams are inferior and they have no right and therefore deserve no possibility to compete for the national title. The BCS may very well sack Utah in this position again, but Utah shouldn't hope for this scenario.

In 2004, Utah was made to play Pitt (a team that should have been in the Armed Forces Bowl or the Poinsettia Bowl). Utah won that trip to the BCS soundly, but that win was highly discreditable by the BCS, elitist coaches and sports writers. In that sense Utah's 2004 BCS bust wasn't much of a bust in at all -- more like a toe in the door. Personally I think this is why the BCS gave Utah Pitt in 2004 -- a Utah win would be discreditable, and a Utah loss would solidify the BCS' legitimacy.

The BCS is like sports' apartheid. In order to defeat this discriminatory system, Utah, BSU, and other teams that get chances to play in the BCS need to defeat credible foes. Utah is to second highest ranked team in the polls. They should, if not play in the title game, at least be allowed a playoff with other teams (BSU should be included) in contention for the title game. Only by playing and defeating teams in higher echelons of the BCS can the BCS be truly busted.

The BCS, Utah v. BYU, Boise State & Utah are the only legitimate contenders to face Bama in the Title Game.

2008-11-22T13:46:00.000-08:00

I'm waiting for the game to start. I am a loyal U fan (I attended SUU, and they haven't been worth watching) I've been U fan since my older brother was a BYU fan as a kid (although he ended up as a cheerleader at the U and switched alligiences). This game is really the only game I enjoy watching each year.

I didn't finish this till after the game. Go Utes! I am a longtime Ute fan and am excited that Utah is going back to the BCS. Given Texas Tech's loss and Alabama and BSU being the only other unbeaten teams, Utah has a powerful claim to go to the national title game (although we all know that the BCS overlords won't allow that to happen). Although the title game won't likely be in Utah's cards, at least they can put another crack in the BCS' legitimacy -- in that I hope BYU fans can take consolation.

The BCS was created to try and come up with an indisputable national champion. Instead we have an elitist system that shuts out college teams in smaller conferences, and by so doing the BCS denies legends. Some of the greatest sports legends are created when David is allowed to fight (and at times defeat) Goliath. When Goliath is the only one fighting the outcome is always certain -- Goliath wins. We have been establishing a national champion for the past decade based on mathematical certainties, probabilities, and some (I assume) brilliantly created actuarial models all of which deny the greatest and most unpredictable componant of athletics -- heart and spirit.

Pressure must be brought to bear on the powers that be in college sports to abolish the BCS system. The only way to bring that pressure is to bust the BCS, and I am grateful that Utah and Boise State are in a position of strentgh to challenge the BCS system's legitimacy. With a looming economic crisis that may rival the Great Depression, now would be an ideal time to fix this problem. During the Great Depression sporting events were one of the biggest outlets for Americans who were suffering and some of the greatest legends in sports were made. Seabiscuit, a race horse that had no business in big time horse racing, became legend by challenging Goliath and winning. Utah and Boise State should have a playoff to face Alabama in the national title game.

ALLOW CHAMPIONS TO BE MADE ON THE FIELD AND NOT IN COMPUTER MODELS!

Are we on the verge of Great Depression II?

2008-10-09T16:24:00.000-07:00

This opinion piece was on CNN.com:

"Every time the economy and stock market turn down, financial historians get predictable calls from reporters. Could this be the start of another Great Depression? Could "it" possibly happen again? My stock answer has always been no.The Great Depression resulted from a series of economic and financial shocks -- the end of a housing bubble in 1926 and the end of a high-tech bubble in 1929 -- but also from truly breathtaking neglect and incompetence on the part of policymakers. It couldn't happen again precisely because policymakers know this history. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is a student of the Great Depression. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson remembers the mistakes of Andrew Mellon, Herbert Hoover's treasury secretary. We can be confident, I always answered, that there will not be another Great Depression because policymakers have read financial histories like mine. At least that was my line until recently. Now I have stopped taking reporters' calls

The first thing that made the Great Depression great, of course, was the Fed's failure to act. It basically stood by as the banking system and the economy collapsed around it. This time, in contrast, the Fed can hardly be criticized for inaction. Not only has it cut rates, but it has rolled out one new unprecedented initiative after another.

Unfortunately, it has reacted more than acted. First, it provided funds to the commercial banks. Then, it targeted broker-dealers. Now, it is desperately propping up the commercial paper market. All the while however, the problem has been infecting new parts of the financial system

One thing that restrained the Fed in the 1930s was the fear that rate cuts might cause capital to flee to other countries and the dollar to crash. The danger was that the same liquidity that the Fed poured in through the top of the bucket might just leak back out through these holes in the bottom.
There was a solution: coordinated rate cuts here and in Europe. Unfortunately, central bankers couldn't agree on what was needed. The result was further instability.

That central banks have learned this lesson of history and now see the need for coordinated action is at least one ground for hope. The problem is that they have already used their bullets.

U.S. Treasury bill rates have essentially fallen to zero, and the Fed's policy interest rates are only slightly above that level. Central banks are out of ammunition. This is no longer a problem they can solve by themselves.

What is needed now is Treasury action to address what has morphed into a global banking crisis. Between 1930 and 1933, not just the U.S. but also Europe and Latin America experienced rolling banking crises.
When Austria took desperate measures to prop up its banking system, its banking crisis only shifted to Germany. When Germany did the same, the crisis spread to the United States.

This was beggar-thy-neighbor policy at its worst. We have seen some disturbing evidence of the same in recent weeks, as when Ireland unilaterally guaranteed all bank deposits and thereby sucked funds out of the British banking system.

G7 leaders, when they meet in Washington at the end of this week, need to explain exactly how they will address this aspect of the problem. They need to commit money to recapitalizing their banking systems -- now, and not next week.

The U.K., which has just announced a $50 billion plan for bank recapitalization, has shown how this can be done in a matter of days. But a coordinated initiative will require the U.S. to put up a considerably larger sum.

My recommendation would be to abandon the idea of reverse auctions for toxic assets and instead use the $700 billion of the recently passed rescue plan for bank recapitalization. Although the Great Depression started in 1929, it took until 1933 for American leaders to grasp this nettle and recapitalize the banks. We can't afford to wait for years this time around.

A final thing that made the Great Depression such a catastrophe was that some of the worst shocks occurred right before the 1932 presidential election. There then followed an extended interregnum between the election and inauguration of the new president when no one was in charge.

The outgoing president, Hoover, asked his successor designate, Franklin Roosevelt, to cooperate with him on joint statements and policies, but FDR refused to do so. Meanwhile, the banking crisis deepened. Corporations failed.

The economy was allowed to spiral downward. It was this disaster that led us to amend the constitution to shorten the time between presidential election and inauguration from 4 to 2½ months.

The implication is clear. The two presidential candidates should be assembling their financial SWAT teams now. Paulson should promise that they will be invited into his office on November 5. This problem cannot wait until Inauguration Day."

Amen.

McCain -- Claims he will cut spending but than proposes to buy mortgages in order to write down over-valued mortgages

2008-10-09T12:05:00.000-07:00

John McCain has derided Obama, and Democrats in general, as big spenders. However, no doubt in an attempt to seems like a friend to the middle-class, John McCain has just suggested that the Federal government buy $300B in over-valued mortgages in order to refinance and write-down those mortgages at current home values. Although I agree that under-valued homes is a great problem, (one that I actually face) I absolutely do not desire to see the Federal government buy 300B of mortgage receivables only to write off a meaty chunk of those receivables at the cost of the US taxpayers.

The reasons why this is bad policy are numerous. The biggest problem is that this proposal strongly contradicts John McCain's claims that he will keep US spending down. With this proposal John McCain (before being elected President) has taken national debt which has topped $10T, and slingshot it closer to $11T. People whose home values have declined, is a difficult problem. However, more government intervention is not the answer and the fact the he has suggested this certainly impeaches his conservative credentials.

There are many ideas that I would find much less objectionable and costly. For instance offering certain incentives to lenders who write down loans could be a positive means of helping out owners of devalued real estate - tax credits, consequences for home-owners that default on principle-decreased mortgages, or some sort of insurance on written-down mortgages that default might work.

I continue to be disappointed in John McCain, and his campaign. Evidenced by his continued use of negative campaigning, he seems to have few logical plans that will improve and lead our country. Unfortunately, I don't really see that Barack Obama is the great hope that he would like us to see. Obama has had many questionable social and political connections (not ignoring McCain and the Keating 5) he is highly inexperienced in political leadership, and I have no doubt that he will lead our government into several renewed Johnson-era war on poverty programs. However, of the two candidates Barack Obama seems like he is the most in-tune with the issues and the more likely of the two to come up with logical solutions to issues that we may face. I have little faith in either of the two. Due to that fact that neither of them would be making important decisions without their cabinet, it might be helpful if both of them made there cabinet nominations -- it would be easier to choose one of them if Warren Buffet had accepted a Treasury Secretary nomination.

Is Ron Paul still running?