Vouchers -- Jeremy's Arguments

I have appreciated that Jeremy has stuck with the voucher debate here. In my last voucher post Jeremy commented and eloquantly laid out a notable and powerful argument against vouchers. The argument isn't one that I can truly refute. Although I disagree with him (depending on his definition of "wealthy types") on who will be the majority beneficiaries of vouchers and his assumption that vouchers for wealthy students will grow much beyond levels currently prescribed; I cannot refute his concerns about what happens if the plan flops.

"I'd love to be able to buy the idea you guys have proposed that there is a possibility that the voucher program could be made to disappear if it is a flop. The problem is that I can't think of another example of an entitlement program that was easily revoked after government started handing the money out...even when the vast majority of beneficiaries were wealthy types who didn't need the entitlement in the first place.

This plan is a great example of a possible perfect storm of government waste that can't be undone. If things go poorly and only 2-3% of public school students use the vouchers do you really think Republicans will agree the experiment they've invested so much political capital in is a failure? They'll let it go another 10 years. By then all the rich kids who never would have been in public schools in the first place will be receiving vouchers (and they likely won't be the small $500 subsidies the program currently hands out to wealthy people...some legislators are already apologizing for how small those vouchers are). Will the Republican legislature be able to count on many of its rich donors to go along with revoking the state entitlement that helps pay for their kids private schools?"

Transformers Rock!!!!

I am a ten year old boy at heart. My wife and I caught the sneek preview of Transformers, and it was sweet. Might I suggest playing hooky to catch a matinee.

Arnold v. Commissioner -- A Strong Case for Regulation of Unlicensed Tax Return Preparers

I have been regularly reading Tax Court Decisions, in preparation of taking the Tax Court exam for admission of non-attorneys. It is considered one of (if not the) most difficult tests in the field of taxation. Yesterday, the U.S. Tax Court released TC Memorandum 2007-168 Arnold V. Commissioner. This case involves a tax accountant husband and a realtor wife who each operated separate S-Corporations for which neither paid themselves W-2 wages, each corporation deducted a myriad of expenses for which no substantiation existed, and to top all of that on their 2002 and 2003 income tax returns claimed Earned Income Credits of $352,854 and $489,827 (the earned income credit is a welfare vehicle to provide an income supplement to low income Americans that has a maximum allowable credit of around $5,000)

The most interesting move the court and the IRS made in regards to this case is treatment of owner compensation. S-Corporation officer-shareholders are required to be paid as employees however in this case the IRS and the Tax Court determined that the Arnolds were each subcontractors of their separate S-Corporations liable to SE tax rather than back FICA tax. The decision is unclear if they had appointed employees as officers, but generally this issue is one where the IRS will reclassify distributions as wages an add on much heavier employer quarterly penalties.

The most unbelievable part of this case is the amounts claimed EIC for 2002 and '03 of a third of a million and a half million dollars respectively. One of the first things any tax preparation class will teach you is the earned income credit is only worth five thousand dollars, and only if your income is in a narrow range is the EIC worth even that amount. For anyone to claim as much EIC as Mr. Arnold claimed is laughable, but for a man who others come to for their tax advise to commit such a brazen act of fraud is alarming. If this man were licensed I am sure his license will soon be (if not already) revoked. However, unless this man is enjoined by a court and without legislation, he can still prepare tax returns without a license (after his jail time, I assume he will do time)

Congress has been debating, and last I heard, is expecting to pass a requirement for all individuals engaged in the practice of tax return preparation to pass a written examination and be subject to the same ethical and continuing education requirements in tax practice to which CPA's, attorneys, and enrolled agents are obligated. This is a strong step in adding oversight to a sector whose conduct has blackened the reputation of a needed and valuable industry. I hope Congress broadens licensing to all tax preparers so that anyone practicing tax at least has to meet a minimal competency requirement, and the IRS will have greater strentgh in keeping unscrupulous swindlers from continuing to use tax as a vehicle for their malfeasance.

Vouchers -- The Ad Hominem's Continue.......

Rob at the Amicus posted the latest of posters from (I believe) Utah Democrats. This one is a winner. This poster is titled "White Flight," in reference to Southerners use of tax-funded private schools in the early days of desegregation as a means of continuing segregation despite Brown v. Board of Education. The picture incorporates images of white folks marching with the confederate flag in protest of desegregation. So what is the intent of this poster......

A commenter tried to defend the poster with the following:

"nowhere do I see any comparisons of voucher supporters to "racist, Confederate flag-waving segregationists from the 1950s South.' "

I'm afraid I don't bite on the poster, or the anonymous commenter's defense of Utah Democrats. Despite the lack of language affirmatively calling voucher supporters racists, it doesn't take a genius to see that the "racist" implication is (to say the least) mildly being suggested. The clever use of negative images (the Confederate flag) is a subtle but clever way of calling someone a racist without actually saying it.

What else are voucher opponents telling us using this argument, lets pause and think about this?

1.)Utah's voucher program is designed to benefit the lowest income students: The script regarding poverty is that it effects minorities first and Caucasians last. So, the reasoning behind "White Flight" fails the first test. Utah's voucher plan is designed (following the White Flight" logic) to benefit minorities first. The poster shows that voucher opponents don't embrace the state's move to provide equal opportunity for less advantage minorities to choose the best suited schools for their children.

2.) Utah schools are succeeding in spite of themselves: One commenter and many voucher opponents have stated in opposition to vouchers that vouchers can serve no purpose with a school system that is flourishing. However, these concerns about "white flight" (not considering the racial stereotyping involved here) show that voucher opponents fear strong students leaving public schools. If Utah's public schools were as great as voucher opponents like to believe, then what difference does it make if strong or weak (minority or Caucasian) students make up the student body. It is a unintended admission that Utah schools succeed in large part to the quality of the students and parents (and some teachers) and in less part due to the bureaucracies which run Utah's schools.

3.) Utah Democrats are perpetuating racial stereotypes: Since we are going to (however subtly) through around accusations of racism. It seems to me, that the Utah Democrats are perpetuating the myth or stereotype that minority students are less apt or able to achieve in academics. Taking seriously the wild assumption that due to vouchers alone Caucasian students will leave Utah schools in droves large enough to constitute the catch phrase "White Flight"; why is there an issue with which students leave a system that is excelling in its job to educate all students? They are, however ambiguously, demonstrating a (in most cases mild) belief in certain racial stereotypes.

The Daily Herald rightly awarded this a "Buffalo Chip Award". Excrement from a large free roaming herbivore seems like an accurate depiction of this piece from the Utah Democrats. Please bring back some intelligent dialogue on this issue.

Big Brother?

This was a little creepy.

My boss, whose office is right next to mine, said he saw a SUV drive by snapping pictures of my office. I didn't see it in the act because I was in the lobby with a client, but I went outside and saw the SUV and a family getting out of the vehicle taking pictures like my office building was a tourist attraction.

I think it's nothing, but I took a license plate number just in case.

Vouchers -- Bureaucratic Turf War

At Steve Urquhart's blog he commented on some of the bureaucratic infighting that seems to be the norm between the Board of Education and legislative committees. State Board Chairman Kim Birmingham in an email respectfully, although in my opinion with a little spite, refused to come to the table with a committee of the Legislature to discuss education issues.

Last week I read a post at KCPW regarding pleas and desires of Governor Huntsman that the State's Education Bureaucracy and the Legislature resolve differences and move past vouchers and the rancor that has existed between the two throughout much of the voucher debate. The first two commenters on the post were Pat Rusk (former NEA president & current Utahns for Public Schools leader) and Sylvia Anderson State representative from district 48. The comments went like this:

Pat Rusk Said,

"Residual impact"? The voucher rancor has clouded every single legislative session for nearly a decade. The past few months have simply brought the issue before the public. Educators working to secure funding and respect for public schools and public school employees have met with the "vouchers or else" mentality for years. Residual impact? You bet there will be residual impact. Many legislators hold not only citizens, but each other hostage with their power. But fortunately the public will now see what many of us have dealt with for years. THEY can end not only the voucher nonsense but also reign of those legislators whose superiority over the rest of us must never be questioned."

Sylvia Andersen Said,

"As a new Legislator, I am surprised and saddened at the "them against us" attitude the pervades the discussion about education. I came to the Hill hoping to be in the Legislature what my role in life has been, that of a peacemaker and facilitator. I met with a couple of leaders in the UEA even before being elected, I suggested a meeting in which a representative of each group associated with educating our young people would gather around a table, putting the needs of our children in the center of the table, and offer constructive suggestions of how address those needs. I suggested that we should have a member of the Board of Education, a member of each of the different organizations that educate our youth; Home Schoolers, Private Schools, Charter Schools, Public Schools; the PTA and Parents for Choice represented at that meeting. The Response to my suggestion was "I won't meet with Parents for Choice!"

How can we ever improve our educational system with this obvious need to control all that is related to education so prevalent in the attitudes of those who are supposedly serving our youth. I have been so immersed in an atmosphere of "protect your organization's territory at all costs" that it is difficult to see where these organizations prioritize the needs of our children. Is it before or after protecting their own organization and the power they wield? Can it be that it is more important to maintain the status quo of control over funds, power, and our children than addressing all possible options for improvement? Can any one organization possibly think that "they" know what is right for every child and every family? Can any group be so insecure regarding their viability that they refuse to consider ANY other options that would include change? Can we as citizens feel that it is our right and need to control the opportunities for each tax-paying family to determine what will serve the educational needs of their child(ren)best?
I believe that if we worked TOGETHER to address the serious issues surrounding education, without concern for "protecting our territory" we could find the answers, implement the change, and secure a path of success for every child in Utah.

We, as Legislators TOGETHER, passed the largest increase in funding for education in the history of our state. As a percentage of increase, it was the largest in the US. If funding is the measure of our commitment to education, then how can it be doubted?

I know that every Legislator with whom I work is dedicated to doing what is best for their district and the State as a whole. I have not found a single Representative who displays and air of superiority, each has sacrificed a great deal to serve their fellow citizens.

Since then there have been a few other commenters on that post, including Kim Horiuchi, Dixie Allen and others. The former and later commenters were very articulate and even handed in their arguments respectively. However, Ms. Rusk and Andersen provided a very telling look at the bureaucratic infighting that is clouding this debate.

I am afraid that much of this rancor amounts to a proverbial turf war. Some educators (although I disagree with the term "educrat", some look like ducks, walk like ducks, sound like ducks, and therefore are likely ducks) seem wholly opposed to vouchers because it is out of the realm of the classic public education system and a personal affront to their worth. While some elected representatives have come close to using dictator-esque force in dealing with the education bureaucracy.

We have clarity in the referendum vote, and we have many solid arguments for and against vouchers that should be addressed. May the bureaucracies of this state do as the governor recommends, move on with the business of running the state.

From this post, I think it is demonstrative of the stifling, group think, effects that bureaucracies have on innovation and progress.

El Cartoonista had it right with his recently censored cartoon. What is best for Utah's children?

This is the last time I will harp on the tone of the voucher debate. (My wife says the blog is getting stale)

Southern Utah Boy Scouts Exercise Freedom of Speech

I opened the The Spectrum.com to this picture on their homepage, I was taken back until I read the headline. HAHA.

Just a little bored today.

Vouchers -- Censorship by the Davis County Clipper

This is a pretty cool cartoon.

I can't believe it wasn't printed by the Davis County Clipper, it is probably one of the most insightful local politcal cartoons I have seen.

Vouchers -- Let the Ad Hominem Arguments Begin

It started a few weeks ago, with a local article where SLC's NAACP chief Jeanetta Williams equated Utah's voucher program with segregationism. Today, Rob over at Utah Amicus took the ad hominem arguments another direction. In Rob's post today he posted a video of Friedman arguing for the legalization of drugs with the caption, "Does this mean PCE will start a group called, Parents for Choice in Drug Legalization?"

I had been hoping that these type arguments wouldn't become part of such an important debate. However, I guess I was naive in my hopes. The one bright spot in hearing these poorly crafted arguments coming from the anti-voucher corner is that ad hominem attacks have always (at least to me) been a sign of someone being on the losing end of an argument.

BTW, I agree with Jeremy who commented, "I bet they would if they watched this whole video. Friedman was exactly right in arguing against our wasteful "War on Drugs". We've incarcerated a higher percentage of our population than any other nation on earth because of our government's foolish and obsessive focus on our idiotic drug policy. If you are trying to marginalize Friedman you should choose a different video of him. He's absolutely right in this one." Point is -- marginalizing voucher advocates like Friedman with poorly crafted ad hominem attacks does nothing to meaningful contribute to the debate, it makes those using these type arguments, like the argument in Rob's post, look like dirty mud slinging politicians. I hope people see through this crap.

UPDATE: Judging from the tone of comments it appears that readers think I am beating up on Rob too much. Rob's post was being used as an example. There are poorly crafted ad hominem attacks from the pro-voucher side as well. (i.e. the ridculous assertions of a 4th "education" branch of government and the charges of legislating from the bench after the Utah Supreme Court gave the same people making the afore mentioned assertions the decision they requested (not what they wanted)) I hope this levels out the post so that fans of Rob can stop feeling jaded.

P.S. I apologize if this seemed like a personal attack on Rob. I hold Rob in the highest regard.

6 Years Later

(John Canlas Photography the photographer's blog)

My wife and I had faux engagement photos for our anniversary. Six years later, and I'm hairless and very happy.

For a Laugh

Vouchers -- Steve Urquhart's Proposal

On Steve Urquhart's blog he has laid a couple of proposals in overcoming the confusion with the 2 voucher bills. Basically his proposals are this:

1 - Hold a Special Session and through HB148 and 174 out the window.
2 - Pass a new HB1001 with basically the same language as HB174 (the bill that was created as a compromise between voucher advocates and foes)
3 - Hold implementation of HB1001 until after June 2008, with a provision that HB1001 is repealed or implemented depending on the outcome of the November vote.

I like the proposal. It provides the citizens of this state with one law that can be voted on up or down. I don't know that it will keep the two loudly opposing voucher lobbying groups from taking the results of the November vote to the courts, but it at least settles the ambiguity of having two virtually identical bills not being subject to the same referendum voting requirements.

All this would have been helpful when the legislature was originally considering vouchers. But it is better late than never.

Vouchers -- The Fiscal Effect of School Choice Programs

It is time to start talking about vouchers. A few weeks ago Utah Policy.com had a link to the results of a study conducted by the Milton Friedman Foundation regarding the financial impact different voucher programs across the country. It was an interesting read. This study suggests that voucher programs in most areas have saved school districts money, and in districts that didn't experience savings those voucher systems have been revenue neutral.

The study is worth reading. I was going to take the time to do a thorough written analysis of the study, but I have since decided it would be better to recommend reading the study results for yourselves.

Yes, the study was conducted by the Friedman Foundation (a group that voucher adversaries like Craig at the Amicus would marginalize simply because Milton Friedman was a voucher advocate) however, as the study leader states in her introduction, the fact the group who produced the study supports vouchers shouldn't invalidate the scientific methods that were applied in reaching the end conclusion of the study.

Read it. This is a valuable piece in the voucher debate.

Vouchers -- HB174 and the 500 Pound Gorilla in the Corner

I have read recent posts and articles about the State School Board's decision refusing to enact HB174 before the HB148 referendum vote, as well as calls for a special session to attach HB174 to the referendum vote. Steve Urquhart has recently made his opinion of a special session known quite clearly. Derek Staffanson recently commented on the bravery he felt the school board showed by refusing to enact HB174. While I don't necessarily accept the moral high ground that Mr. Staffanson gives to the School board president, I agree that HB174 shouldn't be ram-roded into action while the original substantive HB148 bill hangs in the balance of public opinion and an Election day vote.

I fully believe that there are many in the education establishment who have a solid, and biased agenda of keeping vouchers from becoming law. (they were successful in gaining enough signatures to force a referendum vote) The fact of the matter remains we are having vote on the issue, because there are either enough Utahns who either don't support vouchers, or enough Utahns who want to have more public dialogue on the issue before we are bound to it. It would nullify the democratic process to enact virtually the same law (HB174 was basically an Amendment to HB148 -- the law under scrutiny) before the voice of the people has been heard in a vote, or worse against the will of the people if the referendum is successful in repealing HB148.

While I fully agree with Rep. Urquhart on the merits of vouchers as an efficient, fair, and even handed means of education funding. as well as the need for the education establishment to declare a willingness to truly engage in the process. I strongly feel that voucher bill HB174 should be on hold until after the referendum vote coming this November, and should be repealed if the referendum vote is against the bills implementation.

Mitt Romney has bigger Fish to Fry in Regards to Anti-Mormonism

Hat tip -- JM Bell

After a week where we heard much ado about Al Sharpton's Anti-Mormon comment. It appears that there may be a much more potent and venomous anti-Mormon sentiments from the Christian-right. This shouldn't really be surprising since much of the Christian community in this country has somewhat of an obsession with criticizing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as not being a Christian religion. (I always found this view to be paradoxical for them, given the incredible lengths that the LDS Church has taken to provide some of the greatest charity work on Earth. I guess they missed that part of the New Testament.)

A Mr. Bill Keller (An ex-convict who was convicted of insider trading turned televangelist -- a man who recognizes that there are vast amounts of money to be made in the service of god. Once a swindler always a swindler.) stated that "If you vote for Mitt Romney, you are voting for Satan!" Mr. Keller continues,

"Romney is an unashamed and proud member of the Mormon cult founded by a murdering polygamist pedophile named Joseph Smith nearly 200 years ago. The teachings of the Mormon cult are doctrinally and theologically in complete opposition to the Absolute Truth of God's Word. There is no common ground. If Mormonism is true, then the Christian faith is a complete lie. There has never been any question from the moment Smith's cult began that it was a work of Satan and those who follow their false teachings will die and spend eternity in hell....Those who follow the false teachings of this cult, believe in the false jesus of the Mormon cult and reject faith in the one true Jesus of the Bible, will die and spend eternity in hell. Romney getting elected president will ultimately lead millions of souls to the eternal flames of hell!"

After making all of these above statements, he piously goes on.

"Please take some time today and pray for Mitt Romney and all those who have been deceived by the lies of the Mormon cult. The fact is that unless they renounce those lies and turn to faith in the one true Jesus of the Bible, they will die and spend eternity in hell. Pray also for these Christian leaders who have for whatever reason, foolishly aligned themselves with Romney. Pray the Holy Spirit will convict them and that they will renounce Romney and find a candidate to support who will hold to Biblical values. There is no excuse, no justification for supporting and voting for a man who will be used by satan to lead the souls of millions into the eternal flames of hell!"

The sad thing is I'm sure there are people who revere this man as being a man of God. Wow! If his hateful-rhetoric really was true Christianity, I'm glad to be a pagan. Comparatively of his view of Christianity, and the LDS view of Christianity this an affirmation of a famous quote of Joseph Smith "if we (the Latter Day Saints) go to hell we will turn the devil out of doors and make a heaven of it." As for Mr Keller, his ministries operate as a 501(c)(3) with over 2 million dollars of donations (here is a link to his 990) you will not find much of his donations funneled to charitable causes like disaster relief, humanitarian aid, or anything like that. The 501(c)(3) funnels nearly every dime into his television programing (BK Media) and from there I can only guess. If anyone is curious you can learn alot about religious and charitable organizations on Guidestar.Org. I'm curious is anyone in the IRS 501(c)(3) unit paying attention to this fellow. He certainly bends (nearly breaking it off) the political neutrality rules of IRC 501(c)(3).

To make a long story short. I'm sure there are many more Christian conservatives like Mr. Keller out there. The distrust that Southern Christians have for Mormons most certainly is still a large hurdle for the Romney campaign. I would like to believe that most people wouldn't vote for Romney because he might be flimsy in his support of conservative social issues (or if a Democrat because you oppose conservative views) rather than hateful rhetoric used by dishonest-swindlers who have discovered a niche by cloaking themselves in the Bible.

Health Benefits, Equality, and the 2008 Presidential Election

Every campaign year many campaigns use accessible, affordable, and equitable health care as a campaign promise. If we can or are to make health coverage equitable and obtainable for everyone, the question is how? I am of the school of thought that this should be done without us dragging our efficient and advanced free market health care system to the depths of Canadian health care or as Pete Ashdown once erroneously said the efficient model of VA hospitals. (Do we really want Walter Reed Medical Center's infamous building 18 to become a norm of American Health Care?)


However, health care coverage in this country is no where near accessible, affordable, and equitable for all Americans. For instance small employers health coverage is extremely unaffordable due the way group plans are written -- the smaller the group the bigger the per employee premium is. In many cases it is worse than that, employers who can't afford the extremely expensive small group plans leave their employees purchasing health care as individuals. Here is where the income tax code currently falls short of providing the desired equity we Americans so desperately seek. From a taxation standpoint, if you are covered by an fairly large employer-sponsored plan you receive pretty solid benefits, otherwise you may are hosed one way or another. Here is a breakdown of Health care and taxation:

Employees Covered by Employer

-- No income tax on premiums paid from wages
-- No FICA and Medicare tax on premiums from wages
-- No State income tax on premiums from wages
-- Employees of a large employer receive coverage at very little cost
-- Employees of a small employer pay significantly larger premiums.

Self-Employed Coverage

-- Premiums are deducted from Adjusted Gross Income (AGI)
-- Nearly the same effect as employee's covered by an employer.

Employees who have to cover themselves

-- Premiums are not deducted from AGI
-- Taxes are paid for FICA and Medicare on wages used to pay premiums
-- Premiums can be deducted as a severely limited itemized deduction (A floor of 7.5% of AGI in most cases taxpayers do not have enough medical expenses to deduct)

In this regard President Bush's recent health care tax proposal in the 2007 State of the Union address, would be a step in the right direction. The proposal plans use the Internal Revenue Code to allow those taxpayers who self-fund their own health insurance would pay no FICA, Medicare, or Income tax on the wages used to purchase health insurance. The change would also require those who benefit from larger-employer plans to recognize some income on some of the premiums covered by their better large-employers health plans. The proposal would level the playing field between those who have large-employer health care coverage and those who have pricey small-group or self coverage. This is one of the most innovative ideas I have heard regarding health care. Due to the fact that the rabid anti-war movement has the Bush administration on the ropes regarding Iraq, a meaningful and innovative domestic policy change like this has little chance of passage.

I do hope to hear more innovative ideas like this from the current field of presidential candidates on both sides of the isle.

(P.S. I wrote an similarly titled earlier post that was inspired by a year-old OneUtah post, which I erroneously and unbelievably thought was current. I guess that's what happens when you live in a cave for the 1st four months out of the year.)

Voucher Vote is in November

The Governor changes his mind on the voucher vote again. The vote will be on November 6, 2007.

At least it is sooner rather than later.

SLC Council overrides Rocky's veto of the Skybridge

While Rocky and his staff may have (on taxpayers dime) prepared a mountain of evidence for the utterly meaningless "SMACK DOWN" with Sean Hannity, he once again fails to have a meaningful impact on the affairs of the city he officially (however occasionally)manages. In another indictment of Rocky Andersen's ineptitude (or apathy) as mayor, the SLC council has overridden Rocky's veto of a proposed skybridge in the LDS church's downtown reconstruction project . It is somewhat pathetic, this one of few acts Rocky has actually made recently in regards to city planning, infrastructure, and management, and he fails to make his influence stick here.

Oh well. I'm sure he is as excited as everyone else is for his term to finally end, so he can take his rightful place as a (certain to be) iconic left-wing poster-boy. I really have found many of the candidates for mayor in SLC to be refreshing changes to the divisiveness of Mayor Andersen.

"The Mormons" -- ERA and the Church's Opposition

I received this email from my uncle regarding "The Mormons" documentary on PBS. My uncle was an Attorney for Senate Republicans untill a couple of years ago, his career included assistance in drafting legislation like the Defense of Marrages Act and other key pieces of conservative legislation. He is currently working with a conservative group that is working to maintain traditional marriage.

I thought this email provided some insightful reasoning into the Mormon Church's opposition to ERA, and is useful to the dialouge produced by the recent PBS documentary.

"I did not see the first night's episode, but I did see all of the second. I thought it was excellent.

I write, though, to say something about a subject I know something about, namely the Equal Rights Amendment. Persons interested in the Church's position can find it in an extensive booklet that the Church published, and, if I recall correctly, included as an insert in the "The Ensign". Rex Lee's book, "A Lawyer Looks at the ERA" also acquired a sort of authoritative status, although not official.

The Church did not oppose the amendment for reasons given in "The Mormons" by a professor of political science, which more or less boiled down to what he saw as the Church's interest in keeping women barefoot and pregnant. He gave sort of a standard p.c. blurb.

Just for a little background, ERA applies only to "state action" and most employment is in the private sector; additionally, the civil rights statutes (particularly Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) forbids sex discrimination in employment in the private sector, and latter was amended to include state governments. During the ERA debate the Supreme Court had already brought sex discrimination within the scope of the 14th Amendment. The professor's claims about employment and opportunity are simply mistaken in my judgment.

If you want to know why the Church opposed ERA (I am giving my opinion) take a look at a recent decision by a Maryland trial court in which that State's marriage law was held unconstitutional under the State's ERA. (The case is now pending at the State's highest court, awaiting a decision.) Maryland has an express statute saying that marriage requires a man and a woman. The judge said this was sex discrimination because, for example, a man could marry a woman but not a man and this distinction is simply based on the sex of the partner. In many other cases now being litigated, marriage is challenged as being a form of sex discrimination.

Marriage is not the only problematic area; abortion is another (and there are others, sports teams and the military draft, to name just two). Years ago, "Dialogue" (isn't it the "Journal of Mormon Thought"?) published an article of mine on this subject. At the time, the editor of "Dialogue" was a member of this Ward, a supporter of ERA, and possibly the wife of the Bishop (if not, it happened later when he was ordained). Perhaps she still supports ERA; you can ask her. Arlington Ward was a hot bed of liberated women. Still is. At that time, though, some feelings ran hot.

(You want to be a radical woman? Try being a stay-at-home mom and see if society doesn't think you are either (a) weird, (b) ignorant and uneducated, or (c) under the thumb of some benighted patriarch.)

I do not believe the claim (or implication) in "The Mormons" that Sonia Johnson was excommunicated for "supporting" the ERA. Sonia Johnson was a member of this Stake (at the time, it was Oakton Stake) when she was excommunicated, and although we never get to hear the Church's side of these disputes, we do know that Sonia Johnson had advocated that persons not welcome "Mormon" missionaries until the Church changed its position on ERA. Now, if you tell the world not to hear the message of our missionaries for any reason whatsoever, you are, in my judgment, putting your membership at risk.

Sonia Johnson has gone on to become a leading Wiccan (unless I am confusing my pagan sects), and her recent books give evidence of where her heart and mind have gone. Her soul has followed -- or perhaps vice versa.

I would like to know more about the professor of classics on "The Mormons" who says she was excommunicated for her feminist writings. I, for one, was impressed by her. The thing is, we'll never know why the Church acted (through her stake president).

Here's my summing-up: I regard the Church's stand on ERA as one of the more powerful recent evidences of divine inspiration within the hierarchy. That stand was, in my judgment, the work of prophets and seers. Law consists in large part in forecasting (or guessing) what courts will do in the future. I count the Church's position as a brilliant job of constitutional lawyering.

We are in the midst of a world-wide revolution on sex/gender (if you think there are just two sexes/genders you haven't been keeping up). This comes on the heels of the largely successful revolution on sex/the act. ERA was ("is" -- it's still around and being urged in the states), in my judgment, a weapon in these revolutions. A religious organization that can issue the "Proclamation on the Family" would have a problem with the Equal Rights Amendment, and with some (not all) of the hopes and goals of some (not all) of the advocates of that amendment."

Voucher Vote May Wait Untill February 2008 -- Are you kidding me!

(Hat Tip also The Third Avenue )

The governor and the legislature have apparently decided that a vote on vouchers (provided there are plenty of valid signatures) needs to wait until the 2008 presidential primary. So much for really wanting to have the voice of the people heard.

It seems that the Governor and the Legislature are either trying to bury this vote as long from now as possible to let the support garnered by Utahns for Public Schools cool, or (and I don't know if this logic really works) they are trying to keep this vote as far away from local lawmakers as possible.

Either way holding the vote out that long strikes me as a little shady, especially after the governor expressed his commitment to having a vote on the issue as soon as possible. Let the voucher bill stand on its merit, and let us have a spirited debate leading to this vote. It is disappointing to see the "Powers that Be" try to pull a win on this issue by pushing the vote as far away as possible in order to allow voter apathy to fester.

Bad Form Huntsman and Legislature.

Deadline for Taxes

Here I am at 1:30 AM, and I am no longer productive working so I thought I would throw out my last minute tip.......

1. File an extention -- This is something that many people are afraid of, but remarkably it can provide many benefits. Some positive benefits include -- more time to save money to make deductible traditional or SEP IRA contributions for 2006, sanity for your accountant, lower audit risk (although denied by the IRS) statistically extended returns have a slightly lower audit rate. The major con is a two edged sword -- extending lentghens the statute of limitations 6 months, providing the IRS more time to audit and you more time to amend returns an collect refunds. Although the extra 6 months to the IRS examination department is daunting, the extra time to claim refunds on amended returns can be invaluable in some cases.

2. Pay the State of Utah on time -- If you owe tax on your return, payment on the deadline is important. Remember an extention only extends the time to file, not pay! However, if you owe both the Federal government and the State of Utah and cannot afford to pay both -- pay Utah in full on time. Utah's penalty for not paying on time is 10% or 40 bones, if you owe less than 400 dollars or less you could have as much as a 40% penalty for $100 tax or a 400% penalty for $1 tax for not paying on time! Ouch! The IRS is much kinder and gentler on this issue, the Federal penalty for not paying on time on extention is .5% a month up to 5% of the tax owed. Both carry a 8% interest factor. Moral is pay Utah on time or suffer the consequence.

I'll be signing off untill the 18th.

Happy Filing.

Vouchers -- It Appears That There will be a Vote.

Utah Amicus, and Salt Lake Tribune are reporting that there are enough signatures to have a referendum vote on HB148.

Looks like vouchers will continue as a main topic here at Green Jello.

"Wayne Holland & Utah Amicus call Parents for Choice CHICKEN!" --- A Response From the Utah Amicus

Rob posted this in response to my previous post:

"The word "Chicken" was not actually used but it will do for now.

Republican leadership strong-armed HB 148 through the House. Please remember that it only passed by one vote.

When Democratic Senators tried to amend the bill their concerns and amendments were ignored. Why? Because Republican leadership understood that HB 148 might fail in the House on the second go-round, a chance they were not willing to take.

If vouchers go to a vote, and if vouchers pass I will be the first one to move on. However, if organizations and associations like the PTA, the UEA, and Utahns for Public Schools are not able to bring in the required signatures needed to move forward with the referendum, then we have a different problem and situation.

ARTICLE VI
Section 1. [Power vested in senate, House, People.]

(1) The legislative power of the State shall be vested in:

(a) A Senate and House of Representatives which shall be designated the Legislature of the State of Utah; and
(b) the people of the State of Utah as provided in Subsection (2).

(To see a complete ARTICLE VI check out The Utah Amicus)


If the guidelines for gathering signatures for the referendum petition are unobtainable then the citizens of Utah must realize that the Utah State Legislature is jealous of their power, and that the legislature has put into law a statute that takes away the equal vested power that the people of Utah are constitutionally guaranteed.

It is my hope that this is not the case. And, as I stated above, if the good people of Utah are allowed the opportunity to vote on this matter, and if the people vote to sustain vouchers then I will be the first person to say, "the people have spoken."

Now let's talk about how the people voted this last election cycle on vouchers.

PCE targeted several seats in the legislature including Rep. Sheryl Allen's seat. The people of Utah voted against those voucher candidates, and yet, those incumbents that were in safe districts still decided to strong-arm HB 148 through the legislature.

A minority (PCE) who support tax dollars for private academies purchased HB 148 from the majority Party. So when you say the people have spoken through their elected officials you are not actually telling the entire story. How many safe legislators actually campaigned on the voucher ticket?

Thanks for advancing the dialogue, and thanks for allowing me the same opportunity.

By the way, when I call someone a chicken I usually put photo of a chicken on my blog or say, "Bawk, BaWK!"

With every best wish,

The Utah Amicus"

Thanks, Rob.

Wayne Holland & Utah Amicus call Parents for Choice CHICKEN!

Rob posted on comments made by Wayne Holland regarding Parent's for Choice, lack of support for the voucher referendum. The Amicus poses the question, "If PCE is so confident about the opinions of Utahn's regarding HB148, why does the group focus so intensely on preventing the vote on the voucher referendum." Here is my answer, they don't want a vote on vouchers because they already have the bill passed by the elected state legislature. (Pretty Simple)

Although, I personally feel a vote is never a bad idea (this is America). I'm guessing PCE really doesn't care what a vote would bring on this issue, because a vote holds nothing but uncertainty. Keeping the bill off of a ballot will certainly keep the voucher system they and I desire in progress.

I appreciate the schoolyard antics, but everyone knows (as polls cited by both sides suggest) polls provide little certainty of how an actual vote will turn out. For all I or PCE knows voter turn out on the special election might be small due to apathy (I've been surprised talking to people how apathetic many people are to this issue), and the decision could be made by a minority of voters who will represent who knows which side of the voucher issue. PCE is as wise as I assume Utahns for Public Schools is, they will fight for the sure thing -- keeping HB148 off of a ballot.

Point is calling the opposition chicken is certainly dramatic, but it really isn't going to get this debate anywhere. I haven't heard, is the petition going to have enough signatures in time?

P.S. Although I support the voucher bills that are under scrutiny, I agree with the Amicus that vouchers should come to a vote that will be honored by the state legislature and the governor.

St. George -- America's Fastest Growing Community

I learned that my town is the fastest growing community in the United States. It is always interesting to receive any "#1" distinction, but I wonder if St. George is handling the growth. According to Yahoo, St. George's median house price for new homes has dropped 48% at 299,900 and the overall median price is still nearly 400,000 -- very pricey for anyone looking for starter homes. Washington County School District cannot attract enough teachers to this county, and from what I understand the fire and police departments are experiencing similar woes respectively. Another subject of irritation for me is the roads and public services in this town, as my visiting brother-in-law put it, "St. George is a big city without the infrastucture."

I wonder what the coming months and years will have for St. George. I have a feeling that they maybe quite painful.

A vast number of locals who have purchased homes recently are in ARM's or negative ammortization loans. I have recently heard many stories of clients who have been approached about predatory lending arrangements, or clients that know people who are in predatory lending arrangements. I had a mortgage officer-client who discovered over 18 of his neighbors had signed into the infamous Franklin Squires ponzai scheme. As a reference, the scheme goes like this: Franklin Squires basically arrange to buy houses at above market prices and give a kickback to the buyer. They then offer (or rather require) for the buyer to invest the borrowed money with their company to keep their ponzai scheme going.

I fear that there may be many foreclosures eminent in this the fastest growing town.

Heritage Foundation -- Tax Increase

I got an email from my mother this morning linking to a YouTube video of "Heritage in Focus", these are short 2 minute episodes about various current issues. Some might call these videos "propaganda," but this one was fun, my cousin is the announcer in this episode.

I agree quite strongly with the Heritage Foundation on this subject. Surprisingly, under George W. Bush revenues in the US Treasury have reached some of the highest highs in recent decades and it has happened without tax hikes. (Apology -- this is information I heard during a tax practitioner conference and I don't recall (or am too lazy to) recall the sources) It would appear that one of the largest contributing factors in increasing revenues is one of the strongest efforts in history to give the Internal Revenue Service the needed resources to close the tax gap. The Democratic party rhetoric that the Bush tax cuts were only for the wealthy is very misleading, I have seen a vast majority of my client-taxpayers, and I would argue most people have, benefited under the tax cuts enacted during the past 6 years. Make the Bush tax cuts permanent!

Update: I received some criticism on this post, and I wrote as if I had nothing but praise for the Bush Administration fiscal management of our nation. Federal spending by Bush and the formerly GOP Congress has been inexcusably high especially on earmarks and nonessential, entitlement, non-defense programs. However, I disagree that tax cuts are the problem. If we would have had a GOP congress that would have stuck the fiscal conservatism GOP'ers claim to embrace (low taxes and low federal spending) the current debt/deficit situation could be much different. If congress and the President reigned in non-essential spending (I believe) a balanced budget would occur.

I have at times in my life believed in Santa Claus so why not believe Congress and the President can stop its addiction to over-spending.

I hope that lowers the critically high propaganda levels of this post. I posted this more because I thought it was neat that my cousin was in the video.

Rocky V. Hannity -- Celebrity Deathmatch: Blowhard Brawl

Blowhard Brawl is on !!!!

Despite my disdain for Rocky Anderson, I think within ten minutes he will leave Hannity in the dust. I don't say this because I feel Rocky is right or that I feel that Bush should be impeached, I just don't think that Hannity will be able to handle a verbal assault that he can't hang up on with his patented "Get off the phone, you big dope!" recording.


May 4th
8:00 PM

Vouchers -- Attorney General says "Voucher Vote Will Not Effect Program"

Attorney General Mark Shurtleff has issued the Attorney General's opinion on whether HB 174 would be sufficient to keep the voucher plan in force if HB 148 is voted down through referendum. It seems that HB 174 will keep the voucher program active with or without HB 148. I'm not sure what this will mean regarding a possible voucher vote, a few days ago in a SLTrib article the Governor eluded that he would honor the result of a referendum induced vote with a qualifier regarding the opinion of Attorney General Shurtleff. With a voucher affirming opinion in hand, I wonder if the Governor's commitment to the will of the voters will waiver.

I had found an article that I wanted to introduce that presented some very logical arguments against vouchers made by Emily at Utah Amicus. Emily brought up very strong points about availability and cost effectiveness of voucher schools around the state:

"Vouchers are promoted as the solution to overcrowded schools. To relieve this pressure, there would need to be enough affordable private schools in Utah to absorb the demand for private schools that voucher supporters claim exists. But Utah doesn't enjoy a large number of private schools - let alone affordable ones.

A Google search of private schools in Utah shows Cedar City has exactly one private school listed on www.allprivateschools.org. With 16 students (all from out of state) it is a school for "at risk youth." Under the voucher law a school must have at least 40 students to qualify and at least one of the student's parents must live in Utah.

In Washington County, five schools are listed. The majority of these schools are for "at risk teenagers" whose parents live out of the state. There is neither significant demand for private schools in our region nor much capacity to relieve pressure on the public school system.

Baker claims that with vouchers, private schools will be "affordable to all Utah parents." It is not clear whether vouchers will lower the price of a private education enough to entice parents away from public schools, especially when the majority of Utah parents are happy with them.

According to the National Association of Independent Schools, the median tuition for its member private schools is $14,000. The maximum a low-income family could expect to receive under Utah's voucher legislation is $3,000. Assuming Utah's few private schools could approach the national median tuition, it is hard to accept Baker's claim that all parents in Utah could afford to send their children to a private school even if they wanted to."

I appreciate her points, (a) given that vouchers will be given only to students whose families are on the lower end of the income spectrum, a large number of those who are the intended beneficiaries of vouchers scholarships may still be priced out of private schools. (b) Even if private schools were affordable, Utah's established private schools likely don't have the capacity to accept enough voucher students to make a substantial dent in large class sizes. This is very true, as Emily stated regarding Washington county, there are a handful and a majority are schools for at-risk teens which (as I understand HB148) may not be qualifying vouchers schools due to this line in HB 148:

(3) The following are not eligible to enroll scholarship students:

186 (c) a residential treatment facility licensed by the state.

If this is true there is likely at no more than a couple of voucher eligible schools in Washington county, and none of these schools have a capacity large enough to accept more than a few hundred voucher receiving students.

Anyways, I haven't shifted my opinion regarding Utah's voucher law. Despite these arguments against vouchers, I think the problem of available seats in eligible private schools will be an issue only in the short-run and that many private schools will take on expansion to provide a greater number of available seats. I feel that although the price of private schools may be high for those receiving voucher scholarships, it is better to have the power given to taxpaying parents to have control over how their tax dollars are used to educate their children. Anti-voucher advocates argue that school choice has always existed, which is only a half truth. People have always been allowed to determine whether they would educate their children in public or private schools, but there has never been access to their tax dollars as funding to send their children to their schools of choice.

Thanks Emily, for providing some fresh reasonable arguments (fresh to me at least).

The New Tax System -- Legislature Briefing

(Hattip The Senate Site) This just in. the legislature released a briefing of the effects of the tax reforms enacted in the last session.

The Utah Taxpayers Association also posted an updated analysis of what does tax reform mean to a family of four.

Take a look.

Vouchers -- To Vote and How to Vote

It appears that we are likely headed for a vote on vouchers. It appears that the governor and the legislature will honor the vote, despite the blunder of not putting both HB 174 and HB 148 on the referendum. The question becomes what issues should Utahn's consider when deciding how to vote on Utah's proposed voucher system. Utahns for Public Schools is the largest organization heading up the referendum opposing the voucher system, they believe that Utah's voucher system is merely a stepping stone try and abolish public schools in Utah. I had Craig Johnson, Utah Amicus contributor, and UFPS supporter visit Green Jello and he quoted some highly touted Christian conservatives, Republicans, the and even famous economist Milton Friedman as evidence for the voucher systems "real agenda".

Choice in Education, is the largest organization in support of Utah's voucher plans. They believe that vouchers will increase the quality of public and private education through the market forces. They have a section of their website devoted to dissuading individuals from signing the petition, the even are soliciting reported uses of public resources in contributing signatures.

So, the question is what is best for the school children of Utah? While I don't doubt that there are those like Milton Friedman who would like to see the public school system abolished, I don't believe that the Utah plan has the end of Utah public schools as its end goal. Despite, Mr Johnson's insistence that the Mitigation clause in the voucher proposal is "malarkey" I believe that Utah's voucher plan has been well studied and designed to be a value supplement to Utah's K-12 education system. Study the bills HB 148 and HB 174. The bills have provisions to make sure that voucher accepting private schools meet safety requirements, have educators that hold baccalaureate or higher degrees, and that these private schools have regular financial audits from Certified Public Accountants to ensure that ensure that state funds are not misappropriated. I don't see anything malicious against the public schools system in these pieces of legislation, and the rhetoric used by those opposed to the voucher plan is a little alarmist for the current situation.

Summary:
There are many anti-voucher groups, who are employing scare tactics to solicit support for the referendum. I'm not saying Utahn's shouldn't vote on vouchers, but I encourage Utahns to seek the facts of the voucher legislation that the state legislature approved. I would encourage groups like Utahns for Public Schools and Choice in Education to keep the arguments to the actual legislation, rather than using smear campaigns based on quotes from dead economist, right wing pundits, ex-school administrators, former UEA presidents, and support newly found support of deceased ex-President Ronald Regan.

Rocky V. O'Reilly

Rocky and O'Reilly went at it last night. I think Hannity ought to watch this (and probably did) and avoid his debate with Rocky (which it appears he is still doing). I would argue that O'Reilly is a far more eloquant debator, and he didn't fair all that well against the rival blowhard.

However, I think this moment should be added to the mountain of evidence that Rocky should have quit being mayor years ago so he could go be the activists that he truely is.

The New Tax System -- (Hat Tip: Utah Taxpayers Association, Tyler Farrer)

Thanks to Tyler Farrer reminding me of the Utah State Taxpayers Association Blog, The folks over at the UTA have provided a comprehensive outline of the new tax system. Here is the outline they provided:

"1. Utah’s previous top marginal rate of 7% (reduced to 6.98% for one year) will be replaced by a single rate of 5%. This will be the first time in recent memory, if ever, that Utah's individual income tax rate has been lower than the national average (currently 5.3%, non-weighted). However, a broader tax base will ensure that Utah's individual income tax burden as a percent of personal income will remain above the national average.

2. The new system will not have tax brackets.

3. Moderate progressivity will be maintained by offering non-refundable credits that are phased out as income increases.

4. Credits are phased out at a rate of 1.3 cents per dollar of adjusted gross income in excess of $24,000 for married households and $12,000 for singles. Since the credits are completely phased out at high income levels, Utah’s new system will be a 5% flat tax for high income households.

5. Taxpayers will be able to choose a non-refundable credit based on either 6% of the federal standard deduction (approximately $10,900 in TY2008) or 6% of federal itemized deductions (excluding Utah income taxes paid).

6. Taxpayers will be able to claim non-refundable credits for each household member equal to 4.5% of the federal personal exemption (or 6% of 75% of the federal personal exemption). The federal personal exemption will be about $3,500 in TY2008.

7. Existing credits such as historic preservation, renewable energy, and several others that appear on the TC-40S form and are reported on lines 20 and 30 of the TC-40 will not be impacted by these changes."

I am pretty pleased with the new tax structure. The legislature has provided a solid tax cut using a flat tax structure. I'm pretty confident that a large majority will benefit from the proposed legislation. I spent time to make a comparative spreadsheet on Google Documents -- Give it a try at Flat Tax Vs. Regular Tax.

The New Tax System

State income taxation is one of the biggest issues that Green Jello has focused on. After the recent session, I feel almost completely in the dark as to what to expect next tax year.

I know the duel plan was dropped and the flat tax system was modified with some credits for charitable giving, mortgage interest, and dependency exemptions. These developments sound very encouraging that the legislature may have found a way to make the tax cut beneficial for all Utahns at all income levels. However, I have been completely unsuccessful at finding actual numbers on how these credit will work.

If anyone has any links to hard numbers on how the tax credits are written please let me know about it. As an empiricist accountant, running on faith is an annoying proposition. Nonetheless, I'm excited to have the taxpayer-minded legislature in office that we now have.

Hannity v. Rocky -- The Showdown

This morning I heard it reported that Hannity and Rocky Anderson were going to go the rounds on Fox News, and so I tuned in to his show curious as to whether there would be a debate on the radio. A caller in SLC called in saying that KSL reported the debate was cancelled and Anderson claimed that Hannity was Chicken (seriously the call was almost this sophmoric) and Hannity metaphorically took the dare and annonced that he wants to set up a debate with Rocky in SLC for local charities.


This debate deserves a nickname, i.e Rumble in the Jungle, Blowhard Brawl. Nonetheless, I think I would buy this ticket.

Vouchers - Utahns for Public Schools Anti-Voucher Referendum

Over at Politicopia, Steve Urquhart and voucher foes are going the rounds about HB 148 (Education Vouchers). This a debate I missed out on during the legislative session (my blogging hiatas). The arguements against vouchers provided by Utahns Against Public School is akin to conspirocy theory at best, Mr Johnson argues that "vouchers are a stepping-stone on a path to eliminate all of our public schools," and that "the late Milton Friedman, Paul Mero of the Sutherland Institute, and Ed Crane, President of the Cato Institute, outline a clear plan to destroy public education."

It seems like those proposing this referendum are as a commenter noted, " 'Utahns for Public Schools consists of a number of groups including the UEA, Utah School Boards Association, NAACP, Utah PTA and individual citizens.' Their spokesperson is Pat Rusk, former UEA President. So, it is just a business deal. These aren't concerned parents, they are administrators who feel threatened by the new law." I fail to see how offering a choice of education plans, and schools, could be a negative thing. As for the conspirists argument that "vouchers are a stepping-stone on a path to eliminate all of our public schools" that is a broad and unfounded generalization. Judging from the '06-07 appropriations for vouchers, it doesn't appear that the legislature has any intention of voucher funding ever coming close to overtaking public school funding. From studies cited on Politicopia, there is strong evidence that competition from voucher school sytems has done much to improve public schools.

The strongest reason I have for supporting vouchers is this -- as a parent I feel that I know how best to educate my child. It is a fair handed move to allow taxpayers to have an opportunity to have choice in how their tax dollars are spent. Public schools are an important part of our society and will always remain the central piece of the education system, but public schools have taken there central role for granted and by creating competition between public and private schools will do wonders to increase innovation and improve education in the public school system.

Join the debate at Politcopia

President Curious George

I was informed by my kids preschool teacher that my three year old was asked who our president was, and her reply was "Curious George". Who says that kids can't understand political satire.

Bravo! Greg Bell

Hello again after my long absence! I have had a hard time motivating myself to blog lately, and the commencement of another tax filing season hasn't helped my apathy. However, I was rather excited and impressed at SB62 proposed by Sen.. Greg Bell R-Fruit Heights.

SB62 offers a refundable tuition credit to college students of 300 dollars to offset the cost of recent tuition hikes. I think it is a very positive idea that will help Utah down the right path towards fairer tax administration. The lack of broad and useful individual income tax breaks has been one of the biggest flaws with the Utah tax code and a useful education credit like this would be a very positive move.

There are some major concerns that should be addressed with this bill, (a) would the credit be available to parents of dependent college students, (b)would the state colleges and the Board of Regents use this credit as an excuse for additional tuition hikes. My other concern is that this credit is not written with any ridiculous exclusionary provisions (i.e. the famed Utah state hybrid credit )

GREEN JELLO - A Porn Site?

My office has a clean internet filter, for gaming, porn, chat, etc, and as I tried to see blog the fiter blocked my site as "general pornography". I know that taxes and politics are sexy, but I had no idea that my musings were pornographic. I then tried my personal little family blog and had the same result. It looks like anyone using the clean internet filter from Infowest will be shut out of Blogger for the day at least.

Post 100 -- I discovered that I'm running a pornographic political site without even realizing it.

Post Number 99 -- For a Laugh

This made me laugh, I thought I'd share so I could somewhat decrease the critically high nerd factor of this blog.

Year-End Tax Tips

With one week till the end of the year, I would like to offer a few last minute tips in order to save on your 2006 Individual Income Tax Return.

1) Pay as much as possible as a charitable donation -- If you are Mormon this means paying your tithing in full before Dec. 31st. If you are not Mormon and living in Utah, take advantage of the situation by donating as much as ten percent to a charity of your choice. The culture in Utah offers an opportunity to donate a higher percentage of your income without increased audit risk as opposed to other parts of our nation.

2.) Pay future deductible expenses before Dec. 31st -- prep state income taxes, January's mortgage, and tithing. By doing so you can deduct expenses now that would be incurred in 2007. There is an AMT trap regarding early payments of state income taxes, and paying January's mortgage early. Consult a competent tax consultant.

3) Business owners should make inventory/equipment purchases before Jan. 1 -- Making such purchases before January 1 offers a wider variety of alternatives to lower taxable ordinary income, including the use of the accelerated depreciation deduction.

4) By a Hybrid/Qualifying energy efficient vehicle -- hybrid still offer great Federal breaks to business owners and individuals. There is no longer a tax credit for the purchase of a Toyota Prius (credits were limited to the first several thousand vehicles sold).

No strategy is right for all taxpayers consult a competent professional on whether any of these tax strategies are right for you. Competent tax advise can keep the tax tail from waging the economic dog in your finances.

Tax Reform/Relief -- Revisited

At the Senate Site they revisited the ever perplexing question of what should the Legislature do in order to provide meaningful tax relief to all Utahn's. I would like repost my comments from the Senate Site post:

""If we a) want a tax cut package that directly benefits lower as well as higher income brackets, yet b) find it unwise to completely delete the tax on food... what other options should we be considering?"

While I am appreciative of the tax cuts that the legislature has passed, I believe there has been many viable options that have been balked at.

-- The Governor has a flat tax. Tax relief for the upper class is signed and delivered. (If anyone needs my analysis of the flat tax as a break for the rich, I invite a visit to my blog archives for an exhaustive review)

-- The rate drop to 6.98% from 7% is nice, but could have been more friendly with brackets that are actually in a real income range (11,000 is where the top bracket phases in). True tax relief for the lower and middle class could benefit from some smaller implementations of a few Federal tax breaks (family friendly Child Tax credits, Saver's credits for lower-middle class families who save for retirement, and a smaller version of an Earned Income Credit for low income wage earners)

Once more I appreciate the steps taken to cut taxes in this state, however a broader effort could have been made to offer real tax relief to the middle and lower income taxpayers. The wealthy definitely pay there fair share and deserve some relief, but not at the cost of those who are less able to pay taxes.

Lastly, our State Tax Commission does a masterful job at collecting tax, but I believe they should have some reigns put on their tax collecting power. The Federal government requires the IRS to collect tax debts within 10 years, and requires the IRS to accept all reasonable offers to settle outstanding tax debts. The State of Utah has put no such reigns on the power of Utah State Tax Commission. As a tax practitioner I have seen many gross abuses of this power against taxpayers (in one case even breaking federal law that disallows liens to be placed against active duty soldiers). There needs to be operational reigns placed on the Utah State Tax Commission. "


Of all of the above suggestions listed, I would like to strongly recommend stronger operational reigns being placed on the Utah State Tax commission. The Tax Commission operates without a collections statute of limitations, and therefore has little incentive to truly consider offers to settle outstanding tax debts. One solid break the legislature could give to Utah taxpayers is a taxing authority that operates a little more fairly.

"Preying On The Troops" Payday Loans Prey on Soldiers and the Poor

Ed Partridge had this gem on Part of the Plan. It comes from a DesNews article about payday-loan companies. This is an issue that really gets my blood boiling. These organizations prey on poor, and or desperate people who are taken advantage of in transactions that charge usurious fees and interest. These groups operate legally, but they leave the realms ethical business practices in the dust.

In the tax realm, the scam business plan is to offer loans on large EITC/ACTC refunds that are generally largest for families whose income is in only in the range of 15,000 dollars. These poor families who often stupidly ignorantly sign for these loans end up sucking 10 to 25% of their tax credit funds away because they can't wait less than 2 weeks that a normal refund would take from the IRS. It is of course a large portion of the victim's fault that they lacked needed patience, but for the remainder of those who are sucked into these scams it is completely unethical of these organizations to take advantage of Federal funds that are intended as a supplement to incomes of poor families, or single parents.

Better still, it appears from the DesNews article, an effort to regulate this industry in Utah maybe thwarted by Legislators who lacked the moral integrity to refuse campaign donations from such charlatans. I would be very interested in finding who has accepted bribes campaign donations from these unethical organizations.

The Redistricting Committee Agrees on a Map with "Stunning" Bipartisan Support

Hat tip Ric Cantrell at the Senate Site:

I got this email on Wednesday regarding the map that would be recommended to bring in a fourth seat for Utah.

"The Redistricting Committee agreed on a map this morning with surprising (some would say stunning) bipartisan support. It doesn't answer the constitutional questions, but I thought you'd be interested in the update."

This map seems reminiscent on the map that SLCSpin was so displeased with earlier in the year (I would link Ethan's posts, but alas I'm too lazy this Sunday morning). I actually have no objections to boundaries that have been drawn up. I don't see a problem with having one specific district setup in which Democrats can enjoy better chances in this red state, although the new district 2 could foreseeably be too liberal for Matheson.

I still feel that pursuing our fourth seat via a D.C. congressional seat compromise, is selling our states best interest short. The only thing that could change my mind on this is if the soon to be Democrat controlled Congress will push the D.C. seat regardless of whether or not Utah supports the compromise (if we can beat it than we might as well join it philosophy) otherwise I think it would be wiser to back off until after the next census results around 2012.

Former Utah State Tax Commission Economist Makes Surplus Estimates That The State Refuses To Make.

In a recent DesNews article former state tax economists used numbers from the state tax commission's last TC-23 to extrapolate an estimated $150 million surplus over budget (in the first four months" of fiscal year 2006-07, if the model were ran through all of fiscal'06-'07 (6/30-7/1) the "legislators and Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. could be looking at $450 million in one-time monies — a new record for the tax-rich Utah state government."

All of this is unofficial because the officials over at the tax commission refuse to give public estimates.

"they didn't believe such estimates -- without Macdonald's work -- were reliable."

It is frustrating that such a tax rich state refuses to show more accountability of tax funds. It was interesting in one of my earliest staff meetings in the accounting firm that I currently work withcolleaguegue presented a federal report regarding tax collections and government spending. I naively asked where is the report from the state of Utah. "Other than the TC-23, there isn't anything so in depth," was the reply I got -- then the state dropped that as well.

The State Tax Commission needs to at least bring back the TC-23 -- and add much, much more to it! In my ideal world, I would like to see much more analysis of where tax dollars are spent. I would also like to have more information on the budgets of respective state government agencies.

Rocky Says He Will Have An "Open-Mind" Regarding Skybridge

I've been bored of Utah politics lately, other than the Legislature selling out our fourth seat, there really hasn't much that I have felt like writing about. However we can always count on "Rocky" to make Utah politics interesting (even if slightly) again.

The DesNews had an article this morning on Rocky's fear that a skybridge in the new Downtown plan being pursued by the LDS Church might threaten downtown vitality, but that he is "softening" his opposition. This was my favorite part of the article "Anderson said Monday that the council has the final say, unless he vetoes their decision." I guess he is either, giving a lesson on our system of government (the legislative branch (city council) votes, and the executive branch (Rocky) either signs off or vetoes the proposed issue), or he is unofficially planning a veto if things don't go his way.

After a tenure as mayor that has done nothing of substantial benefit for Salt Lake City (other than the little orange flags at street corners for the Olympics, national political activism, and acrimony between his office and the state legislature) he now asserts himself adversely when a real solid plan for urban revitalization is being introduced. He stated that "no one seems to have fully considered or analyzed the tremendous amount of time and the comprehensive public policy" that went into the '90s-era plans". Last time I checked the 90's era plans have left downtown SLC a graveyard of failed businesses and empty shops, one key to good government and good leadership is the ability to adapt when one plan fails other options need to be pursued. Rocky seems to lack this trait, he has failed to act in the city's best interest on countless occasions.

I don't care for Rocky Andersen, but I will admit that I will miss his antics, he has made politics in this state a much more interesting topic. However, Salt Lake City will be better off (at least economically, and managerially) when his tenure finally comes to an end.

Utah Utes Snatch Defeat from the Claws of Victory

I'm not bitter. Urban come back!

Apparently Politics is Not As Interesting As Kramer

Yesterday I posted a link to TMZ video of Michael Richard's racial tyraid before an audience at a comedy club. That post brought the most traffic that Green Jello has ever seen! It was little disappointing that a post that took 10 minutes to write, was more interesting than many posts which took alot more of my time and energy to produce.

Maybe Green Jello needs to focus more time on Hollywood scandals, or maybe a frontal lobotamy would be nice instead.

In case you missed the awkward Letterman apology, here is video from iVillage.

Utah's 4th Seat

SLCSPIN, The Senate Site, and others are discussing a recent proposal being bandied around to give Utah a 4th Congressional seat and Washington D.C. a voting seat in Congress. While this proposal would give Utah a seat quicker than waiting for another census, I think it is a big mistake to proceed.

Wannabe Alienated has laid out some very solid arguments against the bill. I think that we as Utahn's need to stand against this. It is folly to push for a nullified 4th seat by giving a seat to a territory (which is unconstitutional) especially when it is highly likely (almost a certainty) that Utah will attain a 4th seat in a few more years after the next census.

Say it Ain't So Kramer

Kramer shows himself to be a raging racists. Video link is here. Unbelievable!

I was an insanely loyal Seinfeld viewer as I grew up, and Michael Richard's performance as Kramer was a big reason why. I'm not sure that I can watch old Seinfeld episodes now without feeling a little surreal knowing what kind of man Michael Richards is. His tyraid may even be enough to stop me from buying anymore DVD 's of Seinfeld.

Too bad that Michael Richards didn't sit back in retirement and live off of the millions of dollars that Seinfeld is making in royalties. He obviously isn't cut out to handle the stand-up comedy circut.

Apology for the Deleted Utah Porn Ranking Post

As Tom Grover pointed out, my last post, which I deleted, regarding Salt Lake's porn was pretty poorly conceived. Sorry for the uninspired work lately.

Full Employment and The Minimum Wage

With the advent of our new Democratic ran Congress the debate regarding minimum wage is heating up again. Some of the most inspired debate about this issue is on Hot Blava. In this post, Bradley discusses a proposal an alternative to a minimum wage increase is better utilization of the advanced earned income tax credit.

As a brief history and analysis of the EIC, I quote the entry from Wikipedia:

"Enacted in 1975, the then very small EITC was expanded in 1986, 1990, 1993, and 2001 with each major tax bill, regardless of whether the tax bill in general raised taxes (1990), lowered taxes (2001), or eliminated other deductions and credits (1986). Today, the EITC is one of the largest anti-poverty tools in the United States (despite the fact that income measures, including the poverty rate, generally do not account for the credit), and enjoys broad bipartisan support."

The structure and benefit that the EIC provides is as follows:

"Currently, for a family with two dependent children, the credit is equal to 40 percent of the first $10,750 earned, plateaus at a maximum credit of $4,400, begins to phase-out when earnings increase beyond approximately $15,000, and reaches zero when earnings pass approximately $35,000. For filers using the Married Filing Jointly status, the phase-out thresholds are increased by $2000. For a family with one dependent child, the structure is similar but has a phase-in rate of 34 percent and a maximum credit of $2,604. For those filing without dependents, there is a small credit of 7.65 percent of earnings with a maximum of $399, which covers the employee's portion of the social security and medicare payroll taxes. All dollar amounts are now indexed to inflation."

In the cases where a family of four is actually living on wages of $15,000, and therefore qualifying for the maximum earned income credit, utilization of the AEITC would increase monthly income from 1,250 to 1,617 dollars. For a family of the same size that is actually living on 5.15 an hour income would increase from 893 to 1,251 dollars a month -- an hourly increase to 7.21 dollars. On paper is appears to provide nearly the same benefit, except if you forget that an actual wage increase to 7.25 an hour would move a given wage earner to 19000 a year in actual wages instead of 15,000 dollars a year in actual income.

So I would actually argue that a increase in the minimum wage and better utilization of the advanced earned income tax credit, would be the ideal means of giving the poor a living wage. Although realistically it should be noted that 19,000 dollars a year as a living wage for a family with four children is far from a living wage, maybe another means of giving a living wage would be initiating an Advanced Additional Child Tax Credit -- a Bush administration tax provision that allows for unused child tax credit to be refunded to those within earned income and investment limits. The most costly part of such proposals is implementation, calculation of AEITC is fairly complicated and thus far highly underutilized, it would take a solid commitment of the IRS to help educate the public of the benefits of such tax provisions.

If you are living on incomes of 5.15 to 7.25 dollars an hour check with your employers about the Advanced Earned Income Tax Credit, it could increase your monthly income substantially.

Chairman Rangel and the AMT

Most of my co-workers like to listen to conservative talk radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh and Hannity, and I'll admit I do as well. I sometimes agree with Hannity, but often I find Hannity to be a Kool-Aid drinking blowhard. Yesterday was one of those blowhard days. On the Hannity show Chairman-elect of the House Ways and Means Committee Charles Rangel was being badgered on the issue of whether the Democrat Congress will raise taxes or not, a somewhat ludacris arguement considering the Democrats don't have a large enough majority to overrule inevitable Bush vetoes of any proposed tax hikes while he is in office. However, I must say that I was at least somewhat impressed with a few of Rangel's responses regarding the Alternative minimum tax.

Here is a brief history of the AMT, the Democrat ran 91st Congress enacted the AMT in 1969 following testimony by the Secretary of the Treasury that 155 people with adjusted gross income above $200,000 had paid zero federal income tax on their 1967 tax returns. In inflation-adjusted terms, those 1967 incomes would be roughly $1.17 million in today’s dollars. This tax avoidance by a few high-income taxpayers was widely perceived as unfair. Rather than directly addressing the problem by eliminating the deductions and credits in the tax code that were leading to the tax avoidance, Congress laid an additional layer of complexity over the regular income tax in the form of the AMT.

Congressman Rangel claimed in his interview with Hannity that his main focus as chairman will be "fixing" the AMT. Depending on what he means by "fixing" the AMT, I am rather impressed at his commitment to fix on of the most poorly conceived and uninsightful parts of the tax code. The AMT, because of how poorly crafted the law was, is now growing closer to affecting several million Americans (because of 155 Americans in 1967) whom the 91st Congress never intended to burden with this tax. I look forward to see how the Ways and Means Committee addresses this issue.

I still am concerned as to what portions of current tax law that the Democrat Ways and Means Committee will seek to repeal in order to raise revenue and or make the changes that Rangel claims need to be made. I would solidly argue there are many individual tax cuts that need to be made permanent are the child tax credit, the higher standard deductions, the home mortgage interest deduction, and a large host of individual deductions. The issues that the Ways and Means Committee need to focus on in regards to revenue raising, are giving the IRS the needed funding to increase enforcement, customer service, and collection efforts. I strongly hope that this Congress will focus on fixing issues that need fixing (such as the AMT) and solidifying postive tax law changes that have been made during the current president's administration.

Democrats Take Control of Congress

Nothing really worked out as I had hoped, Hatch won and Democrats control both Houses. I guess that's the way the cookie crumbles.

I'm hoping that this Democrat run Congress does what it claims it will do -- work with the GOP and the President. I am yet skeptical as to how the power change will effect the war in Iraq and American security, but I will have an open mind.

"I Voted"

I voted today, I'm a bit of a traditionalists and decided to wait until today to vote. It went smoothly. I voted against Hatch, for Christensen (I decided to take the Republican who affiliates with the Republican party), and locally I voted mostly Republican. However one other Republican I voted down was a county commissioner candidate with quotation marks around his name, I cannot take a candidate seriously who has his name in "quotes". It was rather disappointing to see how many Washington county races were uncontested, I wrote myself in for county assessor, I think Washington county has a real problem with the "good ole boys" network.

Listening to news reports, I'm feeling more confident in my predictions of voter fraud allegations if Democrats don't win as many races as they think they should. I usually scoff at conspiracy theorists voter fraud allegations, but I can see potential problems with the age of the poll workers. Seniors and computers as a whole don't mix too well (oops I'm stereotyping aren't I).

To Vote and How to Vote, that is the question

Well its near Election Day, while some have already performed their civic duty, I'm still mulling the decision over. I have grown very weary of the rhetoric being recited ad nauseum by candidates on both sides of the scale, and I'm wary of voting based on the seven year itch. My voting decisions are going to based on who I believe is listening to me and my peers as constituents, and so (as you can imagine) those parroting party talking points are definitely going to be on the losing end of my vote.

Despite my inability to reconcile my sociopolitical views to Ashdown's platform, I have committed myself to vote Ashdown. As in the words of my father-in-law, "it is the only message that I can send to Hatch." Although I agree with Pete Ashdown on a very limited number of issues, I believe he will be a true representative of Utah and not his only his political party. Hatch has long since trashed his connections to his constituents for highly visible party leadership positions. He reminds me of a narcissistic lover in a doomed relationship who recounts all of the hardwork the person has put in to be successful, attractive, and popular, with the endline "I did it all for you, baby!" When it is clearly obvious that all that work is for egomaniac himself. Hatch, you have had a impressive career, but lets be honest everything has to do with you and your political visibility even if occasionally you let the dogs (Utah) eat the scraps off of your table. I have delusions of an Ashdown victory, Utahns are too fond of incumbants (especially those deeply entrenched), Hatch will win another term and possibly reach his retirement point after this term. Hopefully in another six years we will finally have a contested race for Hatch's Senate seat.

Regarding the other national vote between Matheson and LaVar, its is pretty difficult to differentiate between the two of them. They both act like Republican's, ones a moderate (who should change party affiliation) and ones a conservative. The problem with the two choices is official party affiliation. Although Matheson has done well representing the views (as a whole) that I hold, his affiliation as a Democrat maybe critical if there are a significant number of Republican seats that are lost in the House. I can't believe it, I am actually leaning towards LaVar Christensen if only to pull one more seat on the Republican side of the isle. I really can't differentiate between the two of them anymore, one candidate is truly a Republican (even if not that impressive) and one candidate is an imposter Republican. Moral for Jim Matheson: if you are going to run a campaign on Republican ideals, you might as well become a Republican.

My hopes for the election nationally, are that the Republicans hold both houses (at worst loose the Senate) without the senior senator from the state of Utah. My predictions are that the election will be too close to call, and many elections will be contested by Democrats on accusations of electronic voting machine fraud. The final result in some races drag on for weeks. (or everything may run smoothly)

Get out and vote.