Kearns High School -- Class of 1996

I had the opportunity to go home to Kearns for my 10 year class reunion. It was really fun. I skipped out on the formal celebrations and attended a Kearns High home football game. Kearns won a rare victory of 40-0 over West High another working class school. It was exciting to see Kearns win. Some things never change though, the game was rough and there were a ton of cops at the game, but that is how I remember Kearns.

At the picnic I saw a lot of people whom I hadn't seen since graduation. It was interesting to watch old personalities jump out. I found myself quickly assuming the former role of class clown. I was impressed at the paths my classmates had taken, many had graduate degrees or were in the process of doing so, some were working with very prestigious companies, all very remarkable for kids coming from a school and area that is largely dismissed as a "ghetto".

I'm married into a family where most of the kids attended Skyline, the sports equivalent to Notre Dame or Miami in Utah high school football. I've occasionally been teased (always in fun) this time of year by my bro's and father-in-law about my Kearns background. However seeing classmates who have made so much of themselves, I'd have to say I've never been prouder of where I'm from. Kids from my neighborhood may not have won in sports back in school, but they are winning the game of life as adults.

Forgive me for the nostalgia, it was nice to revisit old memories.

Rocky Andersen -- Too Legit 2 Quit

I couldn't find a source on this because I heard it on TV while I was out of town -- I apologize for not citing my source. Apparently Rocky lambasted Jim Matheson because he wasn't "Democrat enough". What does he mean by this, is Matheson not Democrat enough because isn't towing party lines by echoing the "Bush-lied, Bush is a war criminal, we can't win the war" rhetoric? Is he not Democrat enough because he had the courage to vote against party lines, and voted his own mind regarding the marriage amendment? I guess thinking independently is unacceptable in the Democratic party of Ross Andersen.

I grew up in Kearns UT which in Utah has a bit of reputation for being a rough area. I'm guessing everyone has seen behavior of little hoodlums who attack weaker peers in order to gain a sense of power and strength. This tirade of Rocky reminds me of the short, scrawny gangsta' kid who has, due to the incontrollable rage brought on by short man syndrome, become a part of the tough crowd. After the "chiquaqua" hoodlum becomes one of the crowd he is the loudest barking and most vicious defender of his position as a hard core gunshot'. Rocky, who has become a part of the hard core liberal crowd by being a extremely vocal voice of opposition to conservative Utah, thus decides he needs to attack a winning Democrat like Matheson who seems to threaten him by doing a good job of representing his constituents and who actually seems to use thought and reason in his policy decisions.

I don't know if anyone else sees the parallels, but I had fun with it. I'm grateful for politicians like Matheson, who have moral courage to vote the dictates of their hearts. I keep hoping that voters on both red and blue sides start to reject extremists politicians who have no original thought of their own, only the talking points from their respective parties (Rocky and Hatch).

Rocky has quit, please follow suit Senator Hatch.

If I misunderstand the story please correct me.

Tax Reform, The Finished Product?

As long as the Special Session occurs, it sounds like we may be trying an interesting and unique (as far as I know) form of taxation in the state of Utah. I have written much on my disdain for the flat tax, and my skeptism that a flat tax would have produced a tax cut for the majority of Utahns. My initial skeptism on the first flat tax proposal turned out to be correct.

Then the Governor suggested the idea of a dual tax system, which I initially was not fond of, however I have changed my opinion as information has turned up. The flat tax which will turn up benefits for the wealthy and the poor will be used, as well as stretched out brackets and a reduced top tax rate for the regular system which is most benefit the middle class is available. This policy seems like beneficial tax policy for Utah taxpayers across the spectrum of Utah incomes.

I appreciate the innovation which the Governor and the Legislature have shown in coming to this new tax proposal. Although I'm not sure this tax system is the best system, I believe this will be a meaningful tax cut for the majority of Utahns. I'm excited to see tax cuts from Utah.

Thank you Rocky, Ross Andersen

Good old Cliff is promoteing a "Thank You Rocky Blog".

So I thought I would give my thank you as well.

Despite the fact that I have despised nearly all of your views, many of your policies as mayor, and the "in-your face" conduct, I must thank you as well. The disdain I have had for you as a politician and as an activist, has made me be more thoughtful and active in the participatory government we have in America. I think your views are wrong for our nation, state, and your city. However, your passion makes people stand up, listen, and think, that is a much needed contribution to our style of government and society.

I whole heartedly disagree with you on almost everything, but it would be un-American to stand with the McArthy-ites who believe exercising of the first amendment is un-American or embarrassing. You are an American -- not my favorite, but American.

Blogger has tagged me as a Spam Blogger

Has this happened to anyone else? They added a word verification to my post pages, which is really annoying because the letters aren't always clear and so you have to type them over and over again, and with how relyable Blogger is the website freezes and you lose a whole post. I first thought that I had screwed something in the template.

I think I may need to switch to Word Press or something.

Part of the Plan -- Secretly a Bush Speech Writer?

Amazing Ed Partridge knew what Bush was going to speak on when he arrived in Utah. Last night, the President looked like he was either euphoric to be somewhere where people still support him, or like he tipped back a few Cuervo's on the plan ride here.

In other useless news, the Tonight Show had a rather remarkable lookalike of the President on.

Salt Lake Trib Blog: Death To Israel Protest "Not Anti-Semitic and Gutsy?"

The trib has Glen Warchol blogging at demonstrations today. This post made me scratch my head:

"You may not support his cause, but Robert Breeze is probably the gutsiest protester in Salt Lake City today. Breeze is leading a "Death to Israel" rally at the City-County Building's Washington Square. He makes one thing perfectly clear: he is not an anti-Semite."Do I look like a member of the Aryan nation?" he asks. Dressed in shorts, suspenders, and a straw hat, Breeze looks, well, just goofy. Breeze's message is simple: Israel has subjugated and brutalized the Palestinian people for decades under the cover of America's "corporate media."He has only one person with him at 10 a.m.. But Breeze freely acknowledges he has sent someone else to hire what he called "surrogate protestors" at $10 an hour."A lot of wealthy people don't have the time to stand out here, but they are more than happy to pay someone," Breeze says.Meanwhile, across the street, a dozen pro-Israel demonstrators have gathered with Israeli flags. They seem to be more baffled by Breeze than intimidated.Michael Pack is a Salt Lake City Jew who felt compelled to carry the blue and white Israeli flag today."I lost a lot of family in the holocaust," he said. "To sit around and do nothing was something I couldn't do."When asked if he was bothered that he has offended many area Jews, Breeze says: "Too bad for them, it's a free country. Tell them to have a 'Death to Wales' rally and see if I give a shit.' "

So does this make sense to anyone, a man running a "Death to Israel" rally isn't an anti-semite? What in the heck!?! (I promised my wife I would stop cursing) Let's at least be honest here Glen Warchol, a man who shouts "Death to Israel!" is an anti-semite. He has a right to protest...even the KKK has a right to protest. However, let's call a nut-- a nut, and an anti-semite -- an anti-semite.

Don Dolan

This story is heart breaking. PFC Dolan only 19 years old died after only three months in Iraq. He sounds like a wonderful kid. He sounds like he may not have been adequately prepared for the dangerous circumstances he had got himself into, but a kid who bravely served his country. Prayers are with the family, I couldn't imagine loosing a child who was just hitting the prime of his life.

America is hard, it requires sacrifice, service, involvement, and courage. I think all Americans need to reflect on sacrifices of our dead servicemen and ask ourselves what is our resolve in supporting the cause of freedom -- I know I am. I'll admit that I have never served, but I wonder if the best policy for our nation might be a draft or mandatory military service so that the price of freedom may be shared by more Americans than just the few and the proud.

One Utah -- What Terrorist Want.

I read this post over at One Utah. I actually found the post remarkably insightful, because it brings up some strong truths about the nature of terrorism. It is true that the terrorist have succeeded in making us reliquish many of our freedoms, and change our behavior out of fear. I agree that in some respects that this fear has gotten out of hand. I get tired of every single abandoned duffle bag making breaking news, and every nutcase getting news publicity for saying bomb or Al Qaeda on a plane. It is fairly inconvienent to fly because of extrenuous security measures such as disallowing hair gel or bottled water. It is rather firightening to hear some conservatives far to willing to accept and allow the Federal government to rescind many civil liberties in the name of safety. However, what is the best course for us on the home front to take in order to be safe while living free and proud.

Do we drop our guard and go back to a care free pre 9-11 state of mind, or do we accept Bush administration rhetoric that we must allow the government to wiretape without warrents, and to strip personal freedoms in order to avoid violence or death. This dilemma reminds me of "I, Robot," Bush is the Main Robot who discovers a paradox in its duties and thus reasons that in order to protect and defend the nation and the constitution of the United States, some parts of the constitution need be ignored and personal freedoms need to be stripped to keep the American people safe. I think (in part) our country is being ruled by fear, but I don't think that that fear should be ignored.

We must remember that the terrorists do seek for attacks that are as bloody and terrible as possible, and they do consider the size and quantity of the damage and death as an important factor in planning terror attacks. Closing our eyes ignorantly to that fact would be highly dangerous. I don't believe that we should abandon the War on Terror in Iraq or Afghanistan, and I don't believe that their was any reason for the war in Iraq other than we had intelligence that led our leaders to believe to a reasonable (though flawed) certainty that Iraq was trying to attain WMD's. With an increasingly dangerous Iran, it would be disasterous for us to leave Iraq before the Iraqis are strong enough to govern and protect themselves. We must be careful to fight terrorism to keep American lives safe, but I think its a tragedy that many American's seem to be living their lives ruled by fear -- fear of terrorism, and an impending apocalypes from any one of several directions.

VIVA Las Vegas

Warren Jeffs was captured leaving Las Vegas.

Back from the IRS Nationwide Tax Forum

I was in exciting Las Vegas last week for a large tax planning convention. There were about 5,000 CPA's EA's and attorneys, all seeking continuing education credits on matters ranging from estate planning to small business tax planning and to new tax law changes for 2006. Here are the best and worst three.

Three Goodies

1. HYBRID VEHICLES -- The tax breaks for hybrid cars shifts from a adjustment to a credit. Hybrid credits this year range from the Toyota Prius at $3100 to a Chevy Silverado at under $1,000. While the Prius as we all remember gives a tax break of zippo in Utah, the Toyota is the best for a Federal tax break IRS.

2. IRA DEDUCTION FOR SOLDIERS WHO HAD NONTAXABLE COMBAT PAY -- Soldiers who had nontaxable combat pay for 2003, 04, and 05 limitations on what they could put into their IRA's. The Hero Act will allow them to count combat pay as earned income overcoming the limits and allowing soldiers to make IRA contributions for any of those tax years until 2009 and the can amend tax returns to take the deduction.

3. EXEMPTION PHASE OUT TO BE PHASED OUT -- For 2006 the amount of phaseout for personal exemption can be phased out only by 2/3 of what the original amounts would have been. The wealthy who used to get 0 for personal and dependancy exemptions now get 1,100 per exemption. The rich can now get some tax benefits for their dependants.

Three stinkers

1. KIDDIE TAX NOW KIDS UNDER 18 FROM 14 -- As a revenue raiser from TIPRA, Congress raised the age for the kiddie tax to 18 from 14. This tax change blows many tax strategies out of the water for high income taxpayers who have been anxiously awaiting the 14th birthday of their children. The kiddie tax initially was made to close a income shifting loophole in the tax code that allowed parents to shift investment income between children in order to pay less tax at their children's lower rates.

2. TUITION AND FEES DEDUCTION PASSES AWAY -- This provision that allowed students an extra method of deducting college expenses besides the two education credits rode off into the sunset.

3. STATE SALES TAX DEDUCTION DIES -- Another provision of the tax code that sunsetted last year. Ridiculous as it may be, you are once again only allowed a deduction for income tax paid and not sales tax paid. It is silly that income tax is only allowed preferance as a deduction when both taxes cut into the income of American taxpayers.

The Dumbest Tax Law Change

NO CHARITABLE DEDUCTION FOR DONATED UNDERWEAR -- Yes its true in case you were wondering, you can no longer donate used underwear and get a deduction. I guess I'll have to throw those old boxers away! Congress actually debated this issue. The speculative rumor is that this provision is a slap on the hand to Clinton who donated underwear and wrote it off.

This should be a fun week with the President in t5own, and the Rocky Andersen freak show.

Rocky Andersen, Cindy Sheehan, and the Democratic Party's Achilles Heal

I wrote a ranting post about Mayor Andersen, and the circus/protest coming for the President's August 30th Utah visit. I deleted the post because I realized that the post was a rant and contributed nothing valuable.

I believe there is one important problem that Mayor Andersen's protest creates, (problem for Democrats) bringing a extreme leftist like Sheehan to the state will be viewed by many Utahns as a validation of the common perception among pulpit politicians that the Democratic party is the party of extreme leftist. Rocky Andersen's leftist policies and actions have been well received in SLC where the most solid Utah liberal Democrat base exists, but here in right wing St. George he is viewed as extreme left as Gloria Steinem, or Jane Fonda. Unfortunately that perception is easily carried on by many Utahns to the rest of the Democratic party, although some Dem's like Jim Matheson has overcome that perception, overcoming that perception isn't easy.

Rocky Andersen is likely to be the biggest liability for Utah Democrats in Novembers upcoming election. Anyone running for office in precincts outside of Salt Lake should distance themselves as far as possible from the lame duck Mayor.

PS Part of the Plan has an excellent post about the negative impact of the August 30th protest. Having never been a soldier myself, I could never adequately express what he says in his post.

Southern Utah Blog : "Leave the Leavitts Alone"

The title sounds like she is defending some weakling from the schoolyard bully.

I was reading the new Southern Utah Blog and I read a post that made me scratch my head, Gloria Bertram of the Daily Spectrum writes regarding the Leavitt Foundation the following:

"The Leavitts have a foundations and they also have rental property.
Their foundation is providing housing scholarships for SUU students. There is another foundation in the middle of this but the end result is that the Leavitt Foundation is providing the funds. The students that get these scholarships are staying at some of the Leavitt's rentals. So the money goes full circle. And here are my thoughts: So what?

1- Students are being helped.
2- The Leavitts are giving the money through their foundation.
3- The Leaviitts are making less money by renting it to students at a "below the market" price, while they could be renting them full price somewhere else!
4- The university has the option to rent somewhere else but chooses the Leavitt out of price and convinience (only one rental contract instead of 12).
5- They are not breaking any laws. They are giving more to the community that what they are getting back. Maybe this is not the case in other areas of their business but it is in this one.
I don't have an issue with this, those that do, please explain.
If the Leavitt Foundation is providing scholarships, and the Leavitt Rentals are providing below market price and convenience, it sounds to me that it is just a good decision from the University standpoint to rent from the Leavitts."

Does anyone else see the problem with Ms. Bertram's thought processes here? As a tax professional I have two major problems. The Leavitt Foundation has as far as I can see been more of a bank for the Leavitts other business ventures than a charity. The Leavitt Foundation with the meager donations that the foundation made, made the donation to a foundation that gave housing scholarships only to SUU students which (not only by circumstance as Ms. Bertram would like her readers to accept) would be used as rental income to another Leavitt owned business. Lets open our eyes, The Leavitt family took substantial charitable deductions to an organization that non-arms length loans to family business, and also received income from money that was also used as a charitable deduction. Can we say abusive tax scam. However, Ms. Bertram as many Southern Utah-ites turns a blind eye to the fact that the Leavitts obviously engaged in (at least) unethical transaction for the sole purpose of tax avoidance. I wouldn't mind if my tithing generated income to me, but oh wait, that's not the purpose of charity is it.

This type of status quo mentality (that exist in the minds of the politically lazy) is the only thing that stands a chance of keeping Hatch in office. Open your eyes So. Utah!

IRS Goes After the BLING BLING Hollywood Gift Bags

In a recent IRS article the IRS and the "Academy" announced an agreement that the Motion Picture Academy would pay an undisclosed sum of money to settle backed taxes Movie stars should have paid gift bags given at previous Academy Awards shows, and that this years recipients would have to cover their own taxes on their gift bags this year. I'd have to say, "LaDeFrickenDa WHAT THE HE**!! The IRS means to tell us they have just (barely!) established that the thousands of dollars of gifts that Movie stars get a awards shows are taxable, but the IRS is going to leave movie stars alone for backed taxes.

I guess that I'm supposed to be impressed at the fairness of the tax system because the IRS has decided to finally tax multi-millionaire movie moguls. Kudos to the Internal Revenue Service.

Hatch -- Electing a Democrat is a Vote for TERRORISTS

Although he claims he doesn't remember making the comment to the "Tooele Transcript Bulletin" he alledgedly said "terrorists are waiting for the Democrats here to take control, let things cool off and then strike again." Hatch really wants us to believe that unless he (I'm not sure he meant the Republican Party) is still in office, America will embrace gay marriage, abandon national security, and degenerate to a pre-Nephite extinction level of corruption. It is ridiculous.

We need politicians that can look at issues openly and honestly. Hatch and Chris Buttars seem to have the same level of critical thinking -- if Rush Limbaugh or Hannity says something we should bring it up on the Senate floor. Hatch is as far to the right as Kerry is to the left, they are tied so tightly to extremist portions of their parties that they cannot provide an ounce of innovation to solve the problems of our times.

I can't stomach Hatch anymore. I don't agree with Ashdown on several issues, but I know that he will at least be critical (and hopefully innovative) in his analysis and approach to issues facing our nation. At least he won't waste time in the Senate promoting ridiculous legislation like flag burning amendments, or bringing ID into high school science classes.

Cindy Sheehan is Coming to Salt Lake

This should be fun. Cindy Sheehan is coming to join is the Rocky Anderson I'm a Liberal-Icon show. Sheehan who has turned her sons death into a badge of moral authority and her sling shot into icon status among Liberals obviously feels that "Salt Lake City is a great opportunity for her to be where Bush is and be in his face." She has openly accused the President of being a Hitler-esque war criminal and she has stopped just shy of labeling US soldiers with Vietnam era epithets of "baby-killers".

Personally, I think Sheehan is a joke. All that aside I think her visit will bring alot of attention to Salt Lake City, and if nothing else make the 30th of August interesting.

Republican Party.... Not Just for Evangelicals

Third Avenue had this story. Apparently a porn star is running as a Republican against Arnold for his office as Governator.

" 'I've actually been sober for five days now,' she said, adding that she intended to give up alcohol until election day in November to focus her energies on the campaign.
Carey's platform includes getting the FBI to 'leave porn stars alone' and concentrate on the war with Iraq and said that if elected she, like Schwarzenegger, would put her film career on hold while she served as governor."

I'm guessing this person needs some help in understanding what Republicans generally stand for. LOL though.

Ah Irony

Have to love Google Adsense. My post, which was written in opposition to abortion, brings ads for abortion clinics to my blog.

Abortion

The Senate site had a recent post regarding legislation being drafted to make abortion illegal (in the event that SCOTUS overturns Roe V. Wade). The exceptions include rape, incest, severe birth defects, and if the life of the mother being endangered all exceptions that are highly reasonable. It was interesting reading some of the rather venomous comments left on the post. Every piece of ludicrous rhetoric you can imagine that is spued by pro-choicers was levied. "Let 'em it do with a coat hanger, that's real safe," and (Gloria Steinem?) said "Keep your laws and your morals off of my body! Make abortion safe, legal, and rare," and my favorite, "We'll see how you boys like being told what to do with your body!" I would like to explore this issue. Warning: my views on abortion may be slightly right-wing.

I have stayed away from association with the Democratic party in large part because of this issue. I can give credit where credit is due, there have been many suggestions such as better sex ed., increased access to contraception (although I'm not sure where in this country it is difficult to get a condom), insurance coverage for birth control, increased push toward abstinence, etc...from Democrats that have alot of potency in slowing the flood of unwanted pregnancies. However, why do we need abortion.

If a pregnancy is unwanted there are several options that are viable opposed to abortion. For infants, there are many barren sets of parents that would anxiously snatch infants up for adoption. In the worse case scenario children may grow up in orphanages if they are abandoned, which one commenter sarcastically said "I'm glad you get to make the decision for the poor kid that gets thrown in an adoption slum because his or parents couldn't make it" I guess compassionate liberals feel it is better for a kid to be dead than to live in poor or depressed circumstances. Some may argue that kids in unwanted pregnancies may grow up abused or neglected, but I'm guessing kids in the worst slums would rather live than have never been given a chance and more effort needs to be made to help these kids make it -- not aborted. Some very successful Americans have come from "adoption" slums, lets ask them if they think it would have been better to be aborted.

We need a focus of sex ed. pushing towards abstinence, increased access to birth control, and increased access to contraception. However, all this does not mean we need elective abortions. It is hypocritical to dismiss prolife as religious pandering, Roe V. Wade is in opposition of the Declaration of independence, "the right to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

As a post script, if abortion should stay legal, lets have some consistency and grant euthanasia to terminally ill people. After all, shouldn't they have a right to say what happens to their bodies?

Politics -- Never Boring!

I've been a little swamped at work and home lately, and what a week.

Mike Leavitt's family charity issue was exposed even more to discover that the little charity money that the Leavitt foundation gave, went to a foundation with ties to SUU as scholarship money which was directed back to the Leavitt family in the form of student housing rents in Leavitt family owned apartments. The Leavitts not only got a deduction but they also earned income on their deductions. The Leavitt family's "altruistic" dealings seem to get shadier and shadier.

Mitt Romney made a Perot-esque faux-pax in using the term "tar baby" I had not ever heard the phrase but it apparently has a double meaning, one coming from the story of Brer rabbit being a messy situation and the other in later years used by some as a slur for a black person. Taken in context it is obvious that Mitt meant the former and not the latter definition. Black leaders in the community were outraged! Come on people he was referring to a "messy situation," and I mean its not as if he used a phrase like niggardly. American oversensitivity continues to overstretch the bounds of reasonableness. I do wonder though if tar baby , combined with Romney Mormon roots, will be used as an issue should Romney get a nomination

The commanding U.S. General acknowledged and opined before a Senate hearing that the situation in Iraq could deteriorate into civil war and that sectarian violence as at its worst level. While I have for the most part been a supporter of the decision to go into Iraq, I believe we, as a nation, are approaching a crossroads. The war against insurgency in Iraq is one that will undoubtedly be almost unceasing (Gadianton Robbers comes to mind) along with the apparent "Hatfield and McCoy" violent rivalry that seems to exist between Sunni's and Shi'a's I feel certain if U.S. involvement continues in Iraq until there is a full peace the US may be in Iraq for at least a decade. Therefore we as a nation have major ethical dilemma approaching, do we continue sacrificing American soldiers in a nation that seems bent on self destruction, and if we continue, do we continue without a system of mandatory military service. This decision is going to be a critical and difficult one.

Personally I believe that with a nuclear Iran, leaving Iraq in the middle of political turmoil would likely amount to negligent homicide on that nation. This leaves with only one alternative -- mandatory service or the draft. It has been inspiring watching and hearing about the bravery our men and women in our volunteer military exhibit. However, it would be altogether unfair for this long-term combat commitment to be shouldered by the volunteers alone. Many of these soldiers have been over there two to three times, and have spent over two years away from their professions and their families. If we are going to stay in a conflict as long-term as it appears Iraq will be, then the burden needs to be shared by all able-bodied men.

Religion and Politics -- LDS Church and Party Affiliation RELOADED

I was busy not working yesterday, and I came across a comment in Rob Miller's "Sacrament Meeting" piece that made a very palpable point regarding politics being preached from the pulpit.

JTH said "Although I believe that politics from any party should not be discussed or preached, in a place of worship. I find even more disturbing when one party is given preference over others. Thanks for an excellent post. After reading all the comments in reference to this post, I have one question. Where is the IRS when you need them?"

While the LDS Church as an organization has come out year after year with statements of neutrality, members who preach political rhetoric do run the risk of getting the LDS church in hot water with the IRS as I discussed in a previous post.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization. Under Internal Revenue Code such an organization would and could lose tax exempt status if they are caught openly endorsing parties or campaigns....... This matter is one that the IRS watches very diligently and accusations are investigated regularly. If there was so much as a campaign poster seen on church property there would be consequences.

Food for thought for anyone who mingles their party affiliation with preaching form the pulpit, you maybe causing some headaches for the organization you profess to love. The IRS does encourage these types of infringements to be reported, and in severe cases an organization could lose exempt status. Although I'm guessing the church's legal department has had to deal with IRS inquiries of this manner many times.

Moral: Don't preach politics at church!

Mike Leavitt Once Again is Plagued by Accusations of Corruption

In an article in the Washington Post, and other national news sources have reported on a Leavitt family foundation which falls very close to one of the IRS' Dirty Dozen tax scams. The foundation failed to meet giving requirements of 5% of assets for 2002, 2003, and 2004 (see returns here) Mike Leavitt claimed 1.2 million in deductions since 2000, while the foundation gave 332,000 to Leavitt Land and Investment, Inc. a land investment company which Sec. Leavitt owns a large stake, and other secured loans for insurance and real estate deals.

Leavitt's Secretary Christina Pearson made a statement that "the foundation's activities are totally legal and proper."However, Rick Cohen, executive director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, said that "the Leavitts are using the foundation as a personal piggy bank, and that's not what the public -- or Congress -- ought to tolerate." Use of "charitable" foundations are often abused as IRS Commissioner notes, "Some promoters in this area have encouraged individuals to establish and operate supporting organizations . . . that they can control for their own benefit. There are a variety of methods of abuse, but a common theme is a 'charitable' donation of an amount to the supporting organization, and a return of the donated amount to the donor, often in the form of a purported loan that may never be repaid."

For more fodder to the culture of corruption crowd, our former Governor and his family seem to be using this foundation as a tax scam. Although I don't know if they crossed from the grey into the black (criminal areas of tax law) it really adds to the evidence that former Governor and now Sec. Leavitt might have subscribed to an ethical paradigm of "as long as it is legal, it is ethical". This is another dismaying charge of corruption with the most prominent politician from Utah in the middle of it.

An interesting note in the story is of the few organizations that the Dixie & Anne Leavitt Foundation support one was the Western Association of Leavitt Families, which promotes genealogical research and religious activities for the descendants of the first Leavitts, who helped establish Utah as a Mormon state. Icing on the cake is Leavitt and his family's ability to take a deduction for doing personal genealogical research.

This case brings up the question how do I know who to give to? The best advice I can give is this, IRS approved charities have their tax returns open to public inspection and there are various websites devoted to giving information about US charities. I suggest researching out charities you are unfamiliar with before giving, and the safest thing you can do is to only give to well-known organizations.

Religion and Politics -- LDS Church and Party Affiliation

Religion & politics has been a topic which I have enjoyed reading in the many posts that have been written throughout the Utah blogosphere since Cliff's piece, "Special Conversations". As a conservative-leaning Republican this topic has made me reflect a great deal on my own political views and how my religious views intermingle.

I must concede that there are a fair portion of members of this state's majority religion who view their Church's statement of neutrality as a "wink and a nod" endorsement of the Republican party. This problem of course is one that comes because many people don't take the time to know what the party they affiliate with stands for, and use one or two issues to classify their political ideals. I have even heard one member hear go so far as to state that "How can a Latter-day Saint be a Mormon and a Democrat" simply because his pet issue (abortion) trumps all others in his political paradigm. I'm sure cases of narrowmindedness like this and others aren't isolated in Zion, although I hope them to be the exception an not a norm.

As the LDS Church's neutrality statement suggest both parties have views and positions that are in harmony with the precepts and doctrines espoused in Mormonism. As I have noted in the past the neutrality statement does have a legal reason for its existence, but it has a sound religious doctrinal purpose as well "members (and all citizens) should study and pray about the candidates" rather than blindly voting down one column of a ballot. I believe this sort of proactive participation is the democracy that the founding fathers had in mind when writing the Constitution, and not vote strictly per myopic, mind-numbing, black and white political paradigms in which many Americans exist. With that thought it may well be said that full and utter allegiance to one political party over another hinders the development and progress of our nation. Party alignment is necessary, however our commitment to democracy needs to be deep enough that we seek candidates who have positions consistent with right principles, and candidates who that stretch their positions beyond the narrow borders of party talking points.

Democracy is one of the greatest inventions in the history of the world, it is an invention that was inspired by God. With such a great gift from God there comes responsibility, our responsibility is to be engaging, thoughtful, prayerful, in the decisions we make when we go to the polls. May we as Utahns, Mormons, non-Momons, Americans stretch our voting decisions beyond party allegiances to learn and vote according to the merits of every candidate rather than the rhetoric and stigmas connected to respective political parties.

Utah Gov. Huntsman backs McCain over fellow Mormon Romney

In a early move Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman announced that he is behind Jon McCain for President in '08. The two have similarly moderate Republican views, but why so early on in the game?

My take on Huntsman's premature endorsement is this, he is a career politician/businessman and every new position he gets (i.e governor of Utah) is another stepping stone up the latter to the pinnacle of of his power goals. He will have served his first term as Governor, and that would be a good time to jump ship for a more prestigious position as either a member of a McCain cabinet, or (highly speculative) as a Vice-President. Huntsman, is betting on his horse now to gain favor with the man he sees conquering in the next presidential race.

His rejection of Romney is merely a verification that he sees Romney as being unelectable because of his Mormon roots. Which leads to another good question -- what are Huntsman's ultimate political goals? President? I wonder if he believes being associated with moderate McCain will relieve him of the stigma of being a Mormon politician.

Tax Reform -- The Pitch

On Tuesday in the Utah GOP leaders out lined tax cut plans in the Deseret News. "There are no losers who would pay more under the new plans", said Rep. Wayne Harper, R-West Jordan, "There are only some big winners — and those are mostly low-income Utahns," The official word on the plan is that there will be a dual tax syatem, from which Utahns choose the most beneficial result. Under flat tax portion of the new tax system, Utahns would pay at a rate of 5.3% with no credit for itemized deductions -- with a twist. In order to combat the tax cut for the rich, the proposal is including exemptions up to a phase out amount. On the traditional tax side, all remains the same except the top rate will either, (a) remain the same with brackets being more spread out, or (b) be lowered from 7% to 6.9%. The Governor is intent on this being passed by the end of the year in time for the '06 tax season.

The flat tax proposal, while still not my favorite I appreciate the effort to make the flat tax (at least) appear to be a viable option for the average taxpayer by allowing exepmtions for lower and middle class taxpayers. On the traditional side, the Gov's .1% top rate drop looks sexy on the outside but I would argue it to be less advantageous than the Legislature's version. Spreading the brackets out would allow for more taxpayers to pay in lower brackets as opposed to the current brackets. Current brackets are incredibly narrow, the highest 7% bracket is reached if taxable income reaches 8700 dollars for married joint filers -- so that generally means a vast majority of taxpayers.

I must applaude the Gov. and the members of the Legislature. While I think we need to be honest with ourselves Rep. Harper -- "big winners" are still going to majorly include the wealthy. However, this proposal looks like it may do an adequate job in spreading the cut across the spectrum of Utah taxpayers. I'd like to know more of the specifics of the proposal before I would fully embrace the deal. Any tax cut is better than no tax cut, I'm excited to see this progress.

Political Schizophrenia -- Utah Most Conservative State in The Union, and One of the Highest Taxed

In the Utah Taxpayers Association most recent report, and no surprise, it was announced that Utah has the 4th highest tax and fee burden in the nation. As far as income tax burden, Utah takes the 16th highest bite out of total personal income of its citizens. Although this was something for which I was well aware, it leaves me once again with ample evidence to diagnose our state government with political schizophrenia.

From George W. Bush to Ronald Reagan, we have all become well aware of "conservative" fiscal policy. "The economy is best served when citizens keep more of their money", this is a theory which I believe in. When people feel they have control over their pocket books they are more likely to go out and buy a automobile, give money to their United Way, and start a small business, etc. When people have the expectation, and/or know that the government may take a large portion of their income through taxation they are likely to hold onto their clunker automobile, give less or nothing to charity, and will stick it out in a 9-5 job that offers little chance of advancement. Supposedly, low taxes is policy that "Red Utah" would adhere to. However, with Utah beating out "True Blue" states like California and Massachusetts our legislature likely should take a hard look at themselves and ask what party are we supposedly aligned with? Maybe Democratic Party candidate in Congressional District 1, Steve Olsen, is right on target in his essay “Why Most Utahns Are Democrats and Just Don'’t Know It Yet”, the numbers at which our state levies taxes seems to point to that conclusion.

I believe in low taxation. When the government allows people to hold and spend more of their money, they will do many of the things that bring prosperity to our nation -- without the artificial economic stimulation or spending, and people will be more altruistic to private charities -- without threat of search and seizure. I hope that the Governor and the Legislature will seek tax cuts that are meaningful to all Utahns.

Ure's defeat may mean end of tuition law

The DesNews brought up an interesting point regarding the defeat of Representative Dave Ure of Kamas. The article states that Ure's defeat may mean the "the death of a 2002 law Ure sponsored allowing undocumented students to pay in-state tuition if they have attended a Utah high school for at least three years and graduated." Ure is one of the biggest proponents of the law and was key in defeating a bill that would have repealed the law last year. With Ure's defeat many anti-illegal immigration groups, such as the Utah Minuteman Project, are hoping that this bill will be repealed.

Notwithstanding Ure's defeat, this article brings up an interesting issue regarding Utah policy -- Should illegal immigrants in Utah be allowed to attend state colleges at in-state prices? If we as a country are truly ever going to make a stand against illegal immigration, than it must be said giving financial breaks to those who are in the U.S. illegally could definitely be viewed as counterproductive. On the other hand, one of the major arguments used by anti immigration activists groups is that illegals are simply importing poverty and crime from Mexico into the United States, which is often bred due to a lack of education. Without comprehensive reform being passed in Congress this year due to Hatch's amendment parade, this question may still be a difficult one to answer.

In my perfect world, I would like to see the state keep this law on the books -- but with a few modifications. Educated and intelligent immigrants breath new life into our nation, they take civic duty to heart and are actively engaged, usually, in living the American dream. Because this bill helps educate those who have immigrated to our country I believe this could also help as an incentive to attain citizenship. At the end of the road if an illegal has attended Utah colleges as an in-state student and they finish a Bachelor's degree the state should offer assistance to these students in order for them to attain legal citizenship. The state has paid the price to educate these people, and so the state (which often pines over the need for more college educated citizens) should hang on these people. This law is a powerful step in negating some of the most lamented negative impacts that illegal immigration has on America. However without offering citizenship at the end of the road, this law is not serving the state to its full potential.

Senate opens debate on Hatch flag amendment -- Stop the Madness

Today, Senator Hatch is trying to amend the Constitution ... again. This time he is seeking to amend the constitution to prohibit flag desecration. Although I did agree with the marriage definition amendment, this amendment leaves me again to wonder why have we kept him in the Senate so long. Is there not more important issues in Congress than treatment of an effigy? It seems like this type of political rhetoric is akin to idolatry, something as a Mormon Sen. Hatch should be opposed to. I do find it offensive when the flag is burned for any reason, but it is form of political speech which speech is a bedrock of our constitution.

While the flag is a symbol of our nation - it is only a symbol. Another symbol of our nation is the right to speak out against the policies and actions of our leaders. Offensive as it may be, flag burning is an strong form of political speech. Our men and women of the armed forces have fought and died, not to defend the flag alone, but the freedoms that the flag represents.

Senator Hatch, freedom is the true symbol of our nation -- not the flag. The constitution has answered the question regarding flag burning -- it is a matter of free speech.

Transportation Initiative -- Raise Sales Tax?

The Senate Site had an interesting post regarding a transportation initiative to increase sale tax in order to meet mass transit and highway expansion goals at an accelerated pace. The current debate is stemming as to whether the transportation tax proposal merits a debate during special session. Judging from the Senate Site post it sounds like it will not be debated during the special session. However, it is a question that has merit. Should we, as Utahns, increase our ranking in the US to the third highest taxed state in the nation for more roads?

As a state with such a high tax burden I would have to say I would feel quite concerned if such a tax proposal was passed without some major efforts to finance such projects through the private sector. Revenue bonds (this is on memory from the last finance class I took 4 years ago) could be an excellent method of raising some of these funds --revenue bonds are paid from revenue received from the project that the debt was used to finance. In reference to my last post, offering the wealthy tax credits for contributing to such projects could be another means of coming up with the needed funds. I hope the legislature will continue to look at all options before lifting the states taxes.

However, if all else fails, a raise in sales tax may be a valid method of funding the project. With rising fuel and energy cost, the per capita monetary benefits of using mass transit could possibly justify the tax burden citizens would have to absorb for those who use mass transit.

That comment feels rather hypocritical for me. I often find myself commenting that Utah's conservatism ends when it comes to taxes.

Tax Reform -- the New Angle.

I'm curious if the Governor's main purpose in getting elected was to have the flat tax established so he could leave office as the Champion of Wealthy and the Elite. In a DesNews article on tax reform the newest attempt to get the flat tax passed has a new spin on it. A dual tax system! Just to make filing your income taxes a bit more complicating, the state of Utah is proposing as system where taxpayers choose from filing under the reduced 5% flat tax rate or filing under the current system and rate. The Guv seems to believe that this should please everyone, however some key members of the legislature are a little more skeptical.

"The lion's share of the $70 million tax cut allocated to the flat-tax returns would assuredly go to the wealthiest of Utahns— who don't get that much of a tax benefit from the current system's deductions and exemptions.
You would see the wealthiest among us, those making $250,000 a year and more, eating up most of that $70 million tax cut because they would choose to pay the lower rate. I have a real problem with that, and so would many of my House colleagues," Curtis said.

This latest proposal seems to be a blatant "wealthy" only tax cut. Instead of at least keeping all tax payers using the same tax computations, middle class tax payers get to keep the same tax burden as before or they get to choose a method or pay more under the "fairer-flatter" tax. I wish the Governor would advocate for a more modest approach like that of Steve Urquhart:

"Tax reform may sound sexy, but it is not necessary," said Urquhart. "What we need this year is a tax cut, drop the top rate a bit. Our current tax system is good, except that it takes too much money from taxpayers."

If I had any influence whatsoever on the goings on in the legislature, I would advocate for either a simple rate reduction under the current system or meaningful tax credits under the current system at the current tax rate.

The credits I would propose would consist of a nonrefundable child tax credit that could adequately account for the rising cost of raising a family, a credit for education expenses incurred in reaching under graduate and graduate degrees, and a continuation of any and all vehicle energy credits (such as the Utah State hybrid vehicle credit that is expired for'06). For wealthy taxpayers who are often phased out of a great deal of these types of credits, offer charitable giving credits on a non-phased out limited dollar-for-dollar basis which could prove beneficial on a number of issues. For instance, Steve Urquhart suggested that wealthy citizens could be encouraged to donate funds to help the state provide dental insurance to the general public. Offering a non-phased out, limited dollar-for-dollar credit would be one means of encouraging such altruism among those who carry such a large tax burden in our state.

My Worthless Blog

I was on another blog and I noticed an icon saying "My blog is worth $XXXXX". I checked it out and discovered that My blog was worth $0.00, wawawaaa. A little sad but not a big deal, I find my blog to have a great deal of value to me.

I got curious about other blogs in the Utah blogosphere and I found The World According to Me and SLCSpin topping out at a value of nearly 21,000 dollars each. Mozeltopf! That is only second to Alito's blog at nearly 25,000 dollars. Now the only question for Ethan and Bob is how to tap into those funds.

Happy Blogging!

Pandora is Sweet. Thanks Steve U.

Hats off to everyone's favorite Utah State legistator Steve Urquhart. This site is sweet.

I'm sure that Havaianas are cool to.

Gay Marriage -- Some of my thoughts after the debate.

Its been a few weeks since the Marriage amendment was struck down in the Senate. I've participated in a lot of lively debates regarding this issue. I've come to some conclusions about the issue that are important and need to be considered.

1.) This issue cannot be totally in the states individual hands. There is one major all-encompassing reason that the Fed will have to define marriage. Every American has to file income tax returns and marital status can make a large difference in what the outcome will be on an individual income tax return.

2.)A full ban on gay marriage will never pass. Although the evidence is weak and sill far from full wide acceptance that gay behavior is fully genetic and natural, the rhetoric that gays are a oppressed minority has successfully become engrained in much of the American psyche. As such, there is no way I see a broad enough majority of lawmakers voting for something that might label them as homophobic bigot to amend the law of the land.

3.) A Charley Foster-esque compromise unfortunately will not be fool proof. Tax cases are some of the most frequent and heavily contested issues. Because of the tax issues alone, gay marriage legal in some states and banned in others is assured to see a major Federal Court decision.

4.) Federal court presidence (from what i understand) leans toward gay marriage legalization. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not going to quotes cases, but it seems like a majority of federal court cases strike down laws pertaining to bedroom activities between consenting adults.

Personally, while I am wholly opposed to gay marriage becoming an institution in our nation, I don't believe the battle to ban it will be a successful endeavor. Irritating as legalized abortion, this issue is one, I fear, that morality and wholesomeness will likely take a backseat.

Stenar has been writing about the BYU professor's firing. The professor was fired because he questioned the leaders of the Mormon church, an Stenar was miffed that his questioning leaders of the church that he is member of, and the church that operates the University where he teaches, led to his termination. Problem for that professor is LDS doctrine is expicit about supporting the leaders of the church, it is one of the major interview questions for temple recommends. Church doctrine has often stated that a lack of support for church leaders is a first step to apostasy from the LDS church. So as and American he is okay protesting LDS church official proclamations and doctrine, but as a Mormon he is definitely endangering his LDS membership.

However, because of a hypothetical issue, (a coworker brought this point up) it is surprising that the LDS supported the Amendment with one man one woman. The LDS church believes that polygamy is a law that God requires to be practiced in a place and manner he deems necessary, so hypothetically Mormons could some day be polygamists. Limiting marriage to one man and one woman might have been a hypothetical bullet through their foot.

Lobby for a Siesta Patterned Workweek

I live is St. George. Brigham Young alledgedly said, if given the choice between St. George and Hell he would choose Hell. It is with that quote I'm considering lobbying Congress for a work week in summer that has everyone sleep during the hottest part of the day and working a major part of the night.

I'm sitting in my office with blinds closed, and its sweltering. I can only imagine how bad it must be for those that work for a living. I guess I need to get a petition going.

Correction: Brigham Young's quote I think is likely more attributable to the cursing Apostle J. Golden Kimball. I still can't find any written citation of it.

Charley Foster answers the Question of the Marriage Amendment

I've grown very tired of the Marriage Amendment debate. I as an LDS member supported the Amendment because, (a.) I have had concerns that liberal federal courts might make rulings that supersede the states laws and rights in this matter, (b) I believe my church leaders are led by divine inspiration and I follow their counsel. From the tone of many conversations I've heard regarding this issue I guess that I was quite in the minority. I was visiting Charley Foster's blog and he brought up an excellent solution regarding the timing and or language of a Marriage related amendment.

"If the federal courts threaten to take the question away from the several states, I say then pass an amendment giving the question to the states once and for all."

I know that this solution would not totally please the LDS church hierarchy, who for many years have been quite candid on this issue. However such an amendment would solve the concern that Federal court decisions could overrule state approved constitutional amendments. The amendment wouldn't (as Democratic senators alledged) chisel bigotry into the US constitution, but it would allow right leaning states to decide the issue how they wanted and left leaning states can allow gay marriage if they like.

The only Federal question I see is what marriages will the Treasury Department recognize for income tax purposes. If they allow individual state laws to rule, then alot of recognized marriages in some states would be nullified if the couple moved. If the Fed decided any marriage will be recognized no matter where it is solomnized, than states right will still be overruled. The Fed will still have to answer this question, what will marriage be defined as?

Charley rules!

Amnesty will not be cheap.

This came from the EAJournal:

A comprehensive immigration reform bill passed by the Senate last month has run into constitutional trouble over some tax provisions. S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006, was introduced by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) and passed the Senate on a 62-36 vote. If signed into law, the bill would increase border security, expand a guest-worker program, and offer illegal immigrants a path to citizenship based on certain requirements. In order to better enforce hiring laws, the bill would require the disclosure of certain taxpayer information by employers and certain government agencies. Additionally, and most importantly for enrolled agents, while S. 2611 would require illegal immigrants to pay back taxes, it would bar them from claiming any tax credits for past years.

The enactment of a tax provision by the Senate while not only unconstitutional, would prove expensive for illegals seeking amnesty that are required to file past tax returns. These "guest" workers, often have several children and I'm guessing most of them don't have itemized deductions. Citizens get a 1000 dollar tax credit per child, for which a married family of 3 would with income of 40,000 dollars could escape the Federal government tax free. Without the child tax credits they are assured of paying a tax of at least 1500 dollars less interest and tax penalties.

I'm glad to see this provision, because it does require illegals to pay taxes that they owed without giving tax credits that often produce tax refunds for lower-middle income tax payers. Even if I feel that amnesty is wrong, at least guest workers will pay their share of income tax. If only the government could secure the border and make citizenship a 2 year, monitarily affordable, lawyerless proposition.

LDS Church encourages Members to write their National Reps regarding Marriage Amendment

Last week, it was announced that the LDS Church released a letter encouraging Congress to define marriage between a man and a woman through a constitutional amendment. Hatch and Bennett are strong supporters of the legislation, and here is one issue in which I back Hatch. This issue is one of the biggest issues that keeps me away from aligning myself with the Democratic party. I believe this issue is one that must be handled by the Federal government with a constitutional amendment, because the issue will be decided -- if not by Congress, than by court presidence.

While marriage is considered a sacred issue by many religions, but it is also a ethical and moral issue. As British legislator Benjamin Disraeli (paraphrased, sorry I couldn't find the quote I was thinking of) points out that as a society adheres to religious teachings and doctrines government legislation is less necessary and less intrusive, but as religion is rejected in society it becomes necessary for government legislate morality and ethics. Marriage has been sacred to nearly all religions and societies for thousands of years as the means of perpetuating mankind and the ideal environment in which children should be raised, however continuous attacks at the open practice of religion and the moral desensitization of America and the world in regards to sexual purity and ethical behavior has led us to the point where anything good and righteous is disregarded as religious fanaticism. Adults can do whatever they desire in the bedroom, however don't ask me to sanction it. I guarantee if gay marriage is allowed and legalized (as will happen if the amendment isn't passed) polygamy, polyandry, and (why not) prostitution may be legal as well.

However being a realist, I doubt that lawmakers will have the moral courage to stand up out of the crowd and support such a measure. It is sad commentary on our society when the support of wholesome family values is a political stand that American lawmakers are hesitant to make.

Tax Season 2006

It is over! Another tax year has passed and it time to reflect on the part of government that most affects average everyday citizens. This year seemed to be an exceptionally good year for many people (which means an exceptionally painful one in regards to taxes.) Although it is a duty of every citizen to pay their fair share of tax, I do not believe that the founding fathers intended that American citizens need suffer the degree of intrusion that is inflicted in the name of civic duty. I don't advocate the positions of many crackpot organizations who believe that taxation isn't constitutional, or that the word "United States" is some covert "federal" corporation that is secretly profiting off of your tax dollars. I'm saying that the system is unfair and I contiue to hope that some day financing freedom can become a little less painful to American citizens. Taxes are necessary, for example, in wartime the government should have a right to require taxes of its citizens, as well as tax dollars for maintaining the national defense and enforcing the law through the Justice Department, and some educational support, are worthy of tax support. However the myriad of extracurricular federal progarms are severely burdening Americans.

To demonstrate how massive government has become financially let's consider the payroll of the IRS (the Federal Government's version of Guido) their workforce at last count I believe is 110,000 employees. Figuing the average salary at 40,000 (some are more and some are less) that would amount to at least 4,400,000,000 dollars in salaries per year alone. Not to mention the inflated salaries of our elected officials in Congress, at last count I remember the average pay per lawmaker was 162,000 dollars for a grand total of 87,156,000 dollars to people who for the most part independantly wealthy.

Our Federal government has strecthed far beyond the original intent of the founding fathers, while repealing taxation is rather unlikely (damn near impossible) there are many things that could make the tax system fairer. In my Utopia the IRS would pay interest on all excess refundable withholdings, the social security tax that is withheld would go into retirement focused investment accounts, and the first 50,000 dollars of income would be exempt. Otherwise, I'd like to see the income tax structure abandoned for a national sales tax, a flat tax (with a 50,000 dollar exemption), or tariffs on imported goods. The most important change to make the income tax structure fair would be to illiminate estate taxes.

Regardless the IRS and state governments will continue to intrude and we taxpayers will continue to pay the price affixed to freedom. This past year a couple of my clients made some very profound observations. The first came from a client who was alittle unprepared for the bad news that he would owe, he said the most sensitive nerves in the human body are the nerves that extend from the heart to the pocket book. The second came from a client who has been facing some severe actions from the IRS for noncompliance, he said, "200+ years ago there was a revolution because of unfair taxation, how many generations until our children have to do the same." May our lawmakers consider more efficient means of financing freedom so that its citizens can breath a little easier in an ever more competitive world.

Interesting ...... Utah State Tax Commission Economist Retires......

...because of a memo sent by Palmer Depaulis, Utah tax commissioner. The article in the DesNews quoted the memo as saying, "To avoid any misunderstandings, the staff should only give clear, unbiased and objective data and information while representing the Tax Commission in a public meeting, and that information should be given without subjective nuance or argumentative tone. Therefore, when staff is representing the Tax Commission or acting as an agent of the Tax Commission they are not free to express their own positions, opinions and views. . . . In the future, if this guidance is not followed, disciplinary action may be taken." Palmer Depaulis claims that the letter was not a gag order and had nothing to with the personal income tax reform issue. The economist, Doug MacDonald, had 27 years with the commission and was often called upon my the Legislature to testify regarding tax matters. MacDonald was quoted as his reasoning for retiring as "threats of taking disciplinary action against me for answering" lawmakers' questions combined with HB213, a post-retirement health-care law that took effect Friday, were reasons enough to leave."

My problem with this issue is that in an issue as important as this (one I have written about ad nauseum) should encourage dissenting viewpoints and opinions. My second problem is that the language of the letter almost would forbid this economist fromtestifyingg to the legislature, because the legislature is asking for an opinion to be given. The governor and his "brain trust" are claiming that the reforms into a flatter tax will result in tax cuts almost universally for all Utahn's and those that see increases will see increases of "10 to 20 dollars". That seems incredulous with the information (lacking as it is) while most other evidence leans toward the flat tax resulting in higher taxes. Therefore all expert opinions should be given unimpeded, and valued.

I don't believe that their is any conspiracy to pass the flatter tax, however that memo (especially if it was targeted at this economist as the article leads one to believe) was agrievouss mistake regarding an issue as critical as totally overhauling the state's income tax structure.

Democrats Trying to Require Mandatory Retirement Plans from Employers

This came from a professional journal I read that does not allow links to the online version so I have quoted a major portion of the text from the EAJournal :

"Baucus introduces retirement savings bill
Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) last week introduced S. 2431, the Savings Competitiveness Act of 2006, which seeks to increase personal retirement savings through a number of different tax provisions. The bill would require employers who do not sponsor retirement plans to set up a payroll deduction system for employees to make automatic deposits into individual retirement accounts (IRAs). Companies with fewer than 25 employees would be eligible for a tax credit up to $250 to offset the costs of starting such a program and would be eligible for the credit for another two years if employees were automatically enrolled in the program. The bill would redesign the saver's credit, making it refundable, and providing for its direct payment into a taxpayer's Roth IRA. Taxpayers would also be able to direct the IRS to deposit their tax refunds straight into their IRAs. Further, the bill would encourage low-income workers to save by prohibiting the inclusion of retirement savings in means testing for federal assistance programs."

This idea sounds vaguely familiar, hmmm kind of like .... SOCIAL SECURITY!!!!! The solution offered by Democrat icon FDR to provide retirement and death benefit security to American citizens -- the one that Democrats in Washington vehemitly deny being broken. Employers are already forced to contribute to a Democrat created "retirement" plan, so why should employers have to be forced to pay into another mandatory retirement plan unless the Democratic party is (underhandedly) admitting that Social Security has gone the way of every other government social plans -- into bureaucracy and abuse.

Social Security private accounts is best solution offered so far, and one of the few really good ideas that GW has come up with. Your Social Security taxes would go into individual accounts (like IRAs) which would be invested in the private market offering a POSITIVE return on your taxes -- currently Soc. Sec. goes into the general fund and pays benefits for current retirees and other government social programs. With private accounts the money that is forcibly paid by you and for you could be properly invested. For example, the average wage earner makes 40,000 dollars a year at a combined employee and employer contribution rate of 12.4% for a combined contribution of 5,000 dollars for one citizen. If that 5,000 dollars (excluding the fact that the same amount would be contributed a year) were placed in a regular bank savings account earning 3% interest annually that original sum would grow to 5,800 dollars in 5 years.

I'm guessing that most Americans would rather that their "retirement" money be invested in a manner that would offer even meager returns. However, here we are Congress refusing to take logical steps to ensure better retirements for Americans opting instead to create more bureaucracy that will make doing business in America less and less affordable and attractive.

Larry H. Miller -- Apparently Uof U Students Don't Want to Take Your Money.

University of Utah students, professors, and community activists signed a petition last week demanding that the University cancel a keynote address to be given by Larry H Miller. "As of Thursday, almost 1,400 people had signed the online petition asking the university to "rescind this thoughtless invitation and issue a formal statement of apology" to the community" the article stated. Kt Farley, a U student who started the petition had this to say, "By yanking the movie from his screens, Miller showed he is not open-minded and doesn't value academic freedom..... I wouldn't object to Miller speaking at the university, as long as the subject was not higher education. They should get him to talk about his political stands or why he canceled the movie" U of U student once again are showing us the light as to the true meaning of diversity. "Anything you do that offends us, makes you a racist and a closed-minded ideological Nazi"

First, this is America and I thought if a movie house owner finds something offensive with a movie depicting homosexuality, he has the right to do so. I must concede he may not have proved himself wholly pure on the morality issue with some of the other films he showed at the time, but that aside it is his right to show what he will at his theatre.

Second, it is rather hypocritical of the students and professors of the U to throw out the battle cry "Diversity!" because the man had the courage to stand by his convictions regarding a moral issue (homosexuality is a MORAL issue !!! Even if there is a gay gene it doesn't make homosexuals into a race, there are genes that have been proven to cause criminal behavior -- I don't see anyone fighting for the rights of criminals to commit crimes). Larry H. Miller has stood up for diversity, he stood up for his beliefs. Apparently diversity training hasn't prepared U students for someone not agreeing with popular college campus opinion.

Dear Larry. . . apparently U students don't want your donations. I know of institutions in Southern Utah that are in dire need of additional funding -- it sounds like you can channel money wasted at the U down here.

Polygamist Riding Gay Coattails -- Maybe or Maybe Not

The DesNews had an article regarding gay marriage and a possible external result of the gay marriage battle. If gay marriage is ultimately upheld, as I suspect it will, other seemingly reprehensible exceptions such as polygamy or polyandry will have to be allowed also despite arguements made by gay & lesbian rights coalitions that there aren't similarities between the two issues. However for tax reasons polygamist stand to lose substantial amounts of tax refund money if polygamy becomes a recognized and defined form of marriage.

For example, you have one polyg man and his original wife filing joint with income of 30k with 3 kids, he has a tiny amount of tax, all which would be swallowed by child tax credits, any remaining child tax credit and earned earned income credit (welfare for the working poor) is refunded to him. 2 to 3 thousand dollars in money the family never paid in -- free money. Then you have wives 1,2,3 .... etc each with 2 to 3 children from polyg man. The extra wives likely make around 15k to 20k per woman thereby maximizing the earned income credit for total family refunds of 11k to 20k in free government money. If the polygamist family group had to file taxes on only one return, all those refundable credits we be limited and diminished as the extra wives income is mingled with married couple number 1's income in one return.

Polygamist make alot of money (your tax dollars) off of their oppressed circumstances. I see a fair number of polygamist and they usually walk out of my office with refunds of 3-6 thousand dollars in refunds per return most of which is refundable tax credits.

LDS letter gives hope to Democrats that the LDS Church may be Willing to Endorse Both Parties .... Don't be so Sure!

DesNews and other local and state news agencies have noted a letter that the LDS church does not endorse any candidate or party, as proof that Mormon church feels that Mormonism can be compatible with liberalism. However the optimism may be a little overstated. First, this letter is read every year over pulpits to LDS members who have often been accused of ostracizing those with liberal views. Second, there is a major tax law issue involved in this that better explains the Church's reason for issuing the letter.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization. Under Internal Revenue Code such an organization would and could lose tax exempt status if they are caught openly endorsing parties or campaigns. So the letter is more of a disclaimer rather than an endorsement of both parties platforms. By disclaiming any endorsements of a party or candidates the church is kept safe from possible accusations that the church is engaging in politics. This matter is one that the IRS watches very diligently and accusations are investigated regularly. If there was so much as a campaign poster seen on church property there would be consequences.

I have never heard leaders push candidates from the pulpit, however many Dem or liberal views (gay marriage, abortion, etc..) are expressly opposed by church doctrine. As a whole, (this may be my own ideological views) the church is far more supportive of the Republican-conservative agenda. For Dems or Republicans to be cheered by this as some kind of endorsement is a little naive. Look at official church statements regarding social issues overall to judge the church's politics which must be kept openly neutral.

Hybrids are great for tax breaks in Utah .... except the Toyota Prius

I have many clients to whom I have suggested that purchasing a hybrid vehicle would generate a nice Federal deduction and a State of Utah tax credit. The Federal deduction is working as it should. The State of Utah however has written the credit so that only one car on the market is excluded -- a Toyota Prius. It just so happens that a client of mine went out and bought a Prius based partly on my advice regarding hybrid vehicles, and because somehow the legislature specifically excluded that one vehicle (for no possible logical reason other that making a trap regarding this credit) my client will only get half the tax benefit he was counting on.

Steve Urquhart, if you are out there could you tell me why has this credit included such a ridiculous provision as excluding a vehicle based solely on the fact that the manfacturer didn't choose to make a non-hybrid version. It is highly discriminatory to disallow a tax benefit to a taxpayer that would otherwise qualify, based solely on the type of vehicle. This loophole is like disallowing the child tax credit because the childs first name starts with the letter P.

I guess this situation would argue in favor of the flat tax. The state can't insert nonsensical provisions into its tax code that hurt taxpayers that get caught in their web.

I must admit that I deserve the blame -- a little more research would have saved me from this situation

To my other readers, hybrid vehicles are great for tax write-off's I just hope you avoided the Prius.

Kris Lounsbury for Congress

An acquaitance has thrown his hat in the ring for Utah's 2nd congressional district. Kris Lounsbury is a regular hard working American and he is an example of the American political process at its finest. Every American, well connected or not, has the right to say, "I see a problem with the way that the government is run and I want to stand up and help implement changes in our society." This is what the process should be about. I appreciate people like Kris that stand up and offer thermselves as servants to our country without motives for fame, fortune, and power.

Judge Alito is a Blogger

I was on State of the Beehive, and I noticed a post by Judge Alito. He has been blogging throughout the hearings. It is a fun read.

Main Street Plaza -- 7 years later it is finally over.

Today the deadline for the ACLU to appeal the Main Street Plaza decision runs out. The DesNews published a story recalling the issue and the divide it seemed to create among residents of the state at that time. Although the issue is one that irritated me, being an oversensitive Mormon, I have to admit Rocky Anderson may have been roasted more than he deserved over the issue. It seemed (and many felt screwed) that the city was dealing unfairly with the church, however Deedee Corradini and the LDS Church could have, and likely should have included the easement with the original purchase. Anti-Mormon or not, Rocky Anderson likely just saw (and took advantage) an opportunity to get more out of a poorly executed transaction. After all he is a lawyer.

One interesting thought came from Dani Eyer, executive director of the ACLU's Utah chapter. Eyer said, " 'I guess the question I have at the end of it is, did this exacerbate the religious divide or was it an interesting civic dialogue?" Eyer said. "Instead of talking about basketball, people talked about the meaning of the Constitution and the value of the First Amendment (and) whether there is value in protecting a majority from criticism. I said it over the years, but I still maintain that this community conversation was healthy.' " Okay I'll bite. It is good that people talk about the constitution and think about the meaning of the rights therein. However, it seems rather petty for the ACLU to rear its ugly head in a case where the intent of both parties was rather obvious. The Church bought the land with the intent to make it into a solemn place near a sacred site of the religion, it was clear that the Church's control of behavior on the plaza was an important issue in the deal. The city sold the property, and the ACLU rears its head in a lawsuit where the ACLU showed once again its constitutional philosophy that freedom of speech trumps freedom OF (not from) religion.

Are debates about constitutional freedoms necessary? Yes. However long protracted court battles are hardly the most effective places to have these debates. Fine, we had the discussion, everything said and done the original intent of the deal between the city and the church stands -- except from more land became involved. However, the original deal's cost increased by several thousands of dollars in legal fees for the city and the LDS church, shouldn't the ACLU be required to repay the city and the church their legal fees. I'd argue, everything said and done, this was a frivolous suit (like many the ACLU files) maybe if the ACLU had to repay legal fees of defendants they would be less likely to file lawsuits against 501(c)(3) charities.

Mom, 13, is ruled a sex crime offender

I was shocked when I read this. I nearly choked on a Pepsi.

It appears that this 13 year old infant who became pregnant by a twelve year old is now a child sex offender for having intercouse with the afore mentioned infant. I don't know what to make of it. It is incredibly ridiculous to me that children this young are engaging in sexual activity, and even more ridiculous is that the government is actually holding one of these children out as being a perpetrator.

If the courts were to charge anyone of a crime it should be the children's parents -- charge them with being incredibly lousy parents. My heavens, 12- 13 year olds should still be playing with dolls and avoiding the other sexes cooties.

This is one of those cases that make me long for the past. Kids could be kids for more than 11 years.

2006 Filing Season

It's that time of year again, New Years is about here and soon the tax filing season will be in full swing. During, this time of year my wife & children are pretty much orphaned and my blog will likely fall in that category. However, I'd like to give my business website address that is under construction and will be fully operational in a few weeks.

As a reminder I'd like to offer a few last minute tips to lower your tax bill. If you are wondering if your withholdings are insufficient you can submit a new W-4 before your last paycheck for the year is issued, the IRS has an excellent calculator on its website to determine your withholding allowances. You can also make extra contributions to your 401k. Purchasing a hybrid vehicle is an excellent last minute tax saving move if you can get your hands on one, the deductions are available to individuals as well as businesses and the state of Utah has a substantial tax credit in connection to the purchase of that vehicle. If you anticipate extraordinarily high income from a business, you may be able to reduce your liability by making purchases of business assets. You can write off as much as 100,000 dollars of asset purchases made before year end 2005, there are restrictions and issues that apply so contact your tax professional for details.

Thanks for your readership, and plan on regular posts after 4/15/2006 .

Homesteading: An Interesting Solution to Skyrocketing Housing Cost

Steve U suggested an interesting idea to solve the out of control housing prices (this maybe a little more applicable to So. Utah than the rest of the state). If by chance the state could finally get land the Federal government has been promising to give back to Utah, offering developments to "homesteaders".

Its an interesting idea that I really like, although I'm sure it would be several years before anything would likely come of it.

Bob Schultz -- "We The People"

On Steve U's blog there was a commenter on the budget post that kept refering to a Bob Schultz and We the People. The commenter had a high opinion of this man and asked Steve Urquhart to render an opinion of Mr. Schultz's arguements about the legality of the income tax. It is apparent that Steve didn't feel the need to bother with this (Steve's a smart man thats why he gets elected) likely because of the lunacy of the arguements.

Concerned Citizen -- Quatloos (an organization devoted to uncovering financial fraud schemes) has rendered an excellent opinion of Bob Schultz. I suggest anyone who has been approached about such schemes and scammers pay a visits the the above mentioned website.

I do appreciate the dramatics that Mr. Schultz likes to resort to, some of his antics have included threatening the IRS to arrest him (this was predictably toned down after Lynne Meredith, fellow scamer, was indicted) and even going on a hunger strike to draw attention to himself. He's just another swindler selling lies to eager listeners like Concerned Citizen.

Update: this is a recent decision involving a WTP disciple.

UTAH QUARTER: Mormon symbol doesn't belong on coin

Ah yes the Salt Lake Tribune editorial board.... They published an editorial this weekend that seems fairly ridiculous to me. I guess they think that everything about Utah must be politically incorrect. The article states, "The beehive is a beloved and enduring symbol of Mormon culture. The federal guidelines for the U.S. Mint's popular 50 State Quarters Program prohibit depictions that are specific to one religious organization. If you know anything about Utah history and the symbols of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you know immediately that the beehive should be disqualified. " Nevermind the fact that the beehive is on the state flag, nevermind the fact that Utah's nickname has always been the "Beehive state", and nevermind the fact that the Mormon church has always avoided symbols as items of worship. As Charley Foster so aptly points out in his blog today, "by the Tribs logic the atheist's lawsuit against the Highway should have been based on the fact the beehive is on the crosses, and not the cross itself."

First, if you know anything about the Mormon Church, there are no symbols. I'll grant you the angel Moroni is the closest (the statue on top of all temples). I don't know why the church keeps the beehive on the pulpit of the conference center, but I assure all of my readers that Mormons don't see the beehive as a symbol of worship or reverence. The beehive was intended (as far as I understand) as a symbol of being industrious, of self-sufficiency -- all traits that are desirable to a society.

Second, why shouldn't a symbol that has been an intricate part of the state's history be excluded from the commemorative quarter. It's not like the beehive is a swastika, or the confederate flag of the old south. If they wanted the Angel Moroni on it, than I could see the religious offense. It just seems like the same old ACLU/Cliff Lyon/Rocky Anderson BS. If there is anything Mormon-esque it must be opposed and taunted all in the name of protecting the delicate feelings of oppressed non-LDS people residing in the State of Utah.

I guess someone should probably sue to get rid of the seagull as the state bird. After all the seagull has its roots with Mormon pioneers. Actually everything in regards to the state except national parks and skiing is likely offensive by SLTrib standards.

More Buttars !!! Outlaw Gay Clubs.

Buttars wants to pass a bill to outlaw gay clubs in public schools. This issue was answered pretty strongly when in 1995, a group of East High students asked to form a gay-straight alliance, resulting in a firestorm of debate over homosexuality. The issue made it into a lawsuit and eventually East High and other districts in Salt Lake County relented allowing such clubs to exist. I was unaware that these clubs are all over Salt Lake Valley. McCoy of the ACLU called Buttars timing curious, " 'I suppose it has to do with the Provo (High alliance and) being an election year.' It is not unusual for some Republicans to introduce conservative, moral legislation in an election year, and if Democratic lawmakers vote against the bills then GOP challengers have an issue to take after the Democratic incumbents. "

I appreciate what Buttars wants, however I disagree with him. Buttars used this reasoning when he announced the bill. " I'm concerned about gay clubs. In my mind, if you are in the chess club, what do you talk about? Chess. If you are in the dance club, what do you talk about? Dance. If you are in a gay club, what do you talk about? I just don't believe members of sexual orientation clubs should be sanctioned by the public schools what they are talking about even a part of the public schools. They should not be allowed to have that on school property at all. It's just wrong." Give me a break! How does he view these clubs -- some kind of gay brothel in public schools. However we live in the real world where there are kids that struggle with these issues. Although I believe homosexuality is immoral, I can't dismiss the clubs as septic pools of immorality. These kids have to deal with depressionn, low self-esteem, and persecution from other students they deserve the right to assemble for support.

Senator Buttars, I don't know what kind of sterile bubble you live in. I don't know if West Jordan is that kind of town. People have different back grounds, opinions, and ideas. Your "more holiness give me" approach to life may be a great way to live and perfect ideal to preach in church, but as a voter your desire to eliminate any opposing ideas is a turnoff -- its almost Hitler-esque.

Year-end tax planning

It is the year end and many people are calling asking about how they can lower there tax bill. Here is my top ten list.

1. Own your home -- Home Mortgage is fully deductible on both the state of Utah tax return (at the moment) and on the Federal Return.
2. Pay a full 10% Donation to your religion of choice -- Normally charitable deductions of more than 2% would trigger an audit. However, living in Utah you have the advantage of living amongst a religious majority that is required to give a full 10% and everyone can take advantage of this.
3. Donate to Katrina related charities -- The charitable deduction limitations are lifted on all Katrina related donations.
4. Contribute 4,000 dollars to your traditional IRA -- If you aren't covered by an employer sponsored retirement plan you are eligible for a full 100 % page one deduction.
5. Purchase a Hybrid vehicle -- They are expensive, but there is a sweet page one deduction on your Federal return, and an even better credit from the state of Utah.
6. Use your car to run errands that are business related -- If you own a business you are eligible to deduct during the last few months of '05 48.5 cents per mile (44.5 cents for 2006) of all business related miles. If you can run errands as an employee you are eligible for the same milage rates, however the deduction is limited to 2% of gross income. Documentation needs to be kept to substantiate the claim.
7. Start a small business -- If you have a hobby that you are talented at, try going into business. Your business expenses are 100% deductible, and you would be eligible to depreciate your assets.
8. Set up a small business corporation -- As a sole proprietor, you are eligible for many great deductions. However, there is a 15.3% tax on the net income of your business on top of the income tax. As a corporation you may be able to limit the amount of SE tax involved.
9. Purchase Assets -- Whether or not you are in business, there substantial deductions available in connection with the purchase of assets. The IRS allows a deduction of estimated sales tax paid for the year with additional large ticket sales tax added on top of the IRS estimated sales tax. Buy purchasing a car or a boat you may be able to have larger deduction than your state income tax paid would have provided, and when you use the state sales tax deduction your state tax refund isn't taxable. If you are in business you are able to deduct as much as 102,000 dollars of 100% business use property costs (limitations apply use a professional)
10. Have a family -- When you get married and have children you are entitled to many tax credits that for many families zero out federal tax liabilities. The child tax credit is 1,000 dollars per child up to three children, and a portion of the credit left over can possibly be refunded. The exemption is 3,200 dollars per person. A family of 5 has 16,000 dollars of write off available in exemptions alone.

The first day of E-File is 1/15/2006.

I hope everyone has a good year.

The "flatter" tax appears to be the plan.

The governor released his proposed budget on Friday. "This budget is a lot more Santa than Scrooge," Huntsman said. The budget includes a much needed pay hike for state workers (my mother works for the state and the last time they saw a cost of living raise was in the 1990's) a raise for teachers, and a raise for law enforcement. There was also a sum of 176 million dollars set aside for Medicaid, an initiative the governer has set forth to make get all Utahns insured. All of these spending increases paired with the record 60 million dollar tax "cut" (I'm still sceptical about the "flatter" tax) is giving the governor a jolly Ole' Saint Nick attitude about the state.

I appreciate the removal of the tax cut on food greatly, it is a truely repressive tax. However, I'm very hesitant to embrace a system that on the surface appears to be of benefit to the wealthy first and foremost. As I demonstrated in a previous post, the flat tax will be a hike to a great deal of people. Unless the proposed credits are far more substantial that the original proposal demonsrated (a flash calculator on the Gov.'s website when the governor originally announced the flat tax that I can't find anymore), I doubt that this will be a cut to the average wage earner. If anyone has seen a concrete explanation of the proposed credits, I'd like to hear about it before I can give the flat tax a strong vote of confidence.

Other than my rant about the flat tax, Bravo Mr Huntsman! The pay increases for state law enforcement/general employees, and the raises for public and college educators is very much needed. The other spending will be beneficial as well, I'm sure.

St. George among top 5 U.S. cities in home value appreciation

In the DesNews this morning it was announced that housing prices are soaring, with my home, St. George leading the pack. "With an appreciation rate of 31.57 percent, St. George earned a No. 4 spot among 265 U.S. cities and was the only Utah city to break the top 20." St. George apparently beat out Orlando FL. The article interviewed the owner of REmax in SG and he attributed the price increase to out of state investors. "They are buying everything." El-Bakri said, "but you've also got 38 million baby boomers that are getting ready to retire. Today, I'm driving down the street and my car says it's 61 degrees, and it's December. I actually played golf yesterday. This is the lifestyle that people want." Although the weather may be good in St. George, it sure is cold if you aren't in a home here now.

The driver of this housing market, I suspect, is almost purely speculative. On average I have at least one client call me a week about building spec. homes, and all of the new business clients I see are new construction start-up businesses or realtors. This growth can't be sustained without a starter home market, and soon the starter home market will be totally out of reach for the start-up families. It is frustrating to me to see a market in this town (void of industry other than construction, and medicine) where the only housing BARELY under 150k is a home on wheels.

Forgive my coming rant.

The prices in St. George are ridiculous. From the city's website, the average salary in St. George is $1,351 dollars a month, the median family income is 40k, and a neighbor in my last neighborhood just sold a 1100 sq. foot townhome (no yard) for 205k. Judging from my memory of a personal finance class I took as a freshman in college, generally a family or individual should only take on, and banks are likely hesitant to give a loan at payments more than 30% of their income. Given that, for the average wage earner owning a home is an impossibility, at 40k a year even owning a small townhome is pretty much out of reach, so how can this market be sustained?


Something has to break here. Without an influx of major industry to St. George the house values will either fall drastically, or other communities (Cedar City, Mesquite, or Kanab) will have to serve as a home for many middle class families. As supply is (I believe) starting to outweigh demand, I feel that many people will suffer the disappointment of seeing meager returns on their home equity. However realtors argue and historically land prices don't drop drastically, therefore I think that many middle-class families (like mine) will have to leave St. George to live in rural surrounding communities and commute to SG, or leave the area all together, in order to obtain the American dream.

Damn it I need a raise!