Wrongful Conviction Reimbursment Proposal

There is a proposal being floated to reimburse wrongfully convicted prisoners 40,000 dollars for each year they were wrongfully imprisoned, and an additional 30,000 dollars if the individual was on death row. One of the positive features that is being touted about this bill is it will avoid multi-million dollar lawsuits from those who are wrongfully convicted.

This proposal is flawed to say the least.

First -- The attempt to value the loss of reputation, time, and freedom at a mere 40,000-70,000 dollars a year is offensive. That proposal is like a restaurant, that through poor sanitation and hygiene of employees, results in a food poisoning case that kills someone trying to settle damages with a lifetime pass for free food at any of the offending restaurants.

Second -- In many cases, wrongful convictions are the result of poor or rushed police work. This type of malfeasance by law enforcement causes irreparable damage to a person. Limiting the rights to seek damages, and limiting the compensation that these people can receive is unfair to say the least.

If we are trying to set some sort of opportunity cost benchmark of what wrongfully convicted individual could have made on the outside we need to be a little more optimistic. I have a client who was let out of prison three years ago, and he has made over a 100,000 dollars a year since his release. I don't think it is too much to expect that individuals who are robbed of freedom should be compensated a little more handsomely than average, especially those who are wrongfully put on death row.

Mitt Romney Hearts Home-Schoolers

Mitt Romney suggested an idea that I found rather interesting. He suggested (I suppose in connection with Utah's voucher vote) tax credits for home school families. Although this would likely never have a viable chance of passing muster in any state legislature let alone the halls of the US Congress, it is interesting that he acknowledged that homeschooling has provided (in certain circumstances) a sound alternative to public education.

I have a 18 month-old son that my wife and I assume will have special needs for the rest of his life, and we are fully planning on keeping him home-schooled or utilizing Carson Smith special needs vouchers. In researching homeschooling my wife and I hoped we would find an ally with the local schools districts and the state board of education, but to our dismay we have discovered that the local education establishment offers little or no help for those who choose home schooling and in some cases the relationship between the education administration and home schoolers can be rather adversarial.

Although I don't believe I would ever support Romney's idea of a tax credit, I did find his acknowledgment of the sacrifice homeschooling families make refreshing. The state education establishment should take note, and find some means of offering (non-monetary) support to those who take the task of educating their children on their own shoulders.

I'm Back -- Sort of....

Well I have been on a two-month apathy hiatus, and frankly I've really enjoyed it. However, it is time to return to my neglected child. Really not much has been interesting me lately in politics. The voucher debate has fueled up more, however I am so out of touch with the current discussion that attempting to join the debate again would require far more time than I am currently willing to spend. As my father so often said, "it is better to be quiet and appear to be an idiot than to open your mouth and confirm that you are an idiot." So I thought I would simply touch on a few things that have interested me over the past several weeks.

1. President Bush's proposal to offer Federal financing as an option to homeowners in sub prime mortgages who are facing or may face foreclosure -- Unfortunate, but a very predictable result of the mortgage products that were frivolously used to put many people in houses they couldn't afford. The main subject of this problem are ARM's (adjustable rate mortgage's) these loans offered lower interest only payments for a number of years until, after two to five years, the interest rates reset and payments of principal began becoming due. These loans are epidemic in St. George -- for duration of the boom, it was used as the loophole to get lower income families into homes that were ordinarily unaffordable. This is unfortunate, but likely one of the only means of averting epidemic foreclosures. It appears that, at least in Utah, steps are being taken to regulate the mortgage industry and the types of loans that they peddle. (80/20 ARM's may be a thing of the past) I believe I called the housing mess, and I hope it levels out soon.

2. "Barack Obama outlined his plans for changing the tax code, should he become president. Like rival former senator John Edwards (D-NC), Obama proposes to lower the filing burden for taxpayers with simple returns by requiring that the IRS send them pre-prepared returns that would simply require their signatures. Obama also wants to give families a $1,000 tax credit to offset payroll taxes, create a “universal homeowners’ tax credit,” and eliminate income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000. He would raise rates on capital gains and dividends to offset some of his plan’s costs. Notable is Obama’s silence on the AMT, which is recognized almost universally as one of the major problems in the tax code."(NAEA Ealert Newsletter)

I find some of his proposals rather interesting -- some I possible agree with (depending on the specifics) and some I adamantly oppose. First the proposal I oppose, I agree with the Senator that filing a tax return can be difficult and burdensome. However, I have a real problem with the government predetermining my allowable deductions and exemptions. I could see this creating a whole new line of information reporting burdens for businesses and charities, and/or a whole new audit red flag based solely on whether or not you filed the IRS' prefilled tax return. Some of the items I agree with are credits to offset payroll taxes, universal homeowners credit, (depending on specifics) and exempting income tax for seniors with income below 50,000 (although I think he should extend that to single moms and married families). I disagree with increasing the cap gain and dividend rates, but my disagreement is purely ideological -- I think the lower cap gains and dividend rates have been a great benefit to our economy.

3. Rock Concerts are sweet -- In high school during the mid-90's, I was a mosh-pit/rock concert connoisseur. I've mellowed drastically since then -- until September 12th when I attended the Muse concert. It was sweet! The band came back out and performed the BEST encore I have ever enjoyed. My wife (bless her soul didn't know better, it was her first concert) bought reserved seats keeping the kick-arse mosh pits below out of reach, but it brought me to the realization that children and manhood are no reason to stop enjoying the finer things in life.

Anyways, thats my update. I'm trying to care about politics again, but apathy isn't all that bad and I may enjoy it a little longer. To the pro-voucher crusaders -- keep up the fight. To everyone else -- have fun and good luck.

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.)