Dixie State College -- Administration V. Alumnus

Posted below is an email detailing the rancor in the discussions to make DSC part of the University of Utah. Although, I am personally in favor of Dixie becoming a full part of the U of U. I would agree that racism is being drummed up as an issue where it shouldn't and probably doesn't exist.



" Let me see if I can set the record straight on all that has happened over the last several weeks. The DSC Board of Trustees in conjunction with the DSC Administration approached law makers, Board ofRegents members and administration officials of the U of U some time ago to determine if it would be possible to develop a "closer affiliation"with the U of U in order to bring more degrees to Dixie. It was determined after that meeting that there was interest by all parties in this affiliation and that the talks should continue. The DSC Board ofTrustees was charged with the task of drafting a proposal outlining the preliminary details of this "closer affiliation." An announcement was made that DSC would seek such an affiliation and that there would be aperiod of 2-3 weeks of discussion with students, faculty, community, and alumni regarding what this proposal would ultimately look like. Discussion began.



I have to insert here that what I say from this point on will be colored by my personal bias on what has happened since the original announcement. I have been for, and fought for, the retention of the name Dixie and for the retention of the Rebels name/mascot. I have never wavered from that goal and have made 6 trips to St. George overthe last 2 1/2 weeks to preserve those traditions. I lost that fight and I am bitterly disappointed. President Caldwell called me on or about the 6th of September to let meknow that the announcement was going to be made within the next day or two and asked me for my support and feed-back. An hour long discussion ensued. He told me that the proposed name of the college within the language of the proposal would be "University of Utah St. George," and outlined to me the benefits of this "closer association" with the U ofU. As you know, we have been the ugly step-child of the Board of Regents for some time now. In the 5 years we have been Dixie State College, we have managed 8 baccalaureate degrees and two certificates.This affiliation with the U of U will dramatically increase our access to U of U resources and has the potential of essentially raising Dixieto university status within 18 months to two years. It is fully possible that we could expand the baccalaureate degrees offered to our students into the 50s within a very short period of time. I told him that I was in favor of the affiliation with the U of U provided that“Dixie” remain in the official name of the college and that we retain our own identity and autonomy. There was no discussion of the“Rebels” mascot at that time. President Caldwell indicated to me that every effort would be made to retain our identity and autonomy citing that current drafts of the proposal retained separate boards of trustees and separate budgets for the two institutions, but that the recommended name would be “U of U St. George.” I told him that I would not be in favor of anything that did not include “Dixie”prominently and officially in the name and that I felt there would be extreme community, alumni and student resistance to the name “U of U St. George.” He offered no further comment except that there would be a period of discovery and discussion over the next 2-3 weeks.What followed was anything but a period of discovery and discussion. What became immediately clear was that Shandon Gubler (Chairman of the Board of Trustees) and President Caldwell, as well as a few other board members and members of the DSC Administration had clearly made up their mind on the issue and that the 2-3 weeks would be a full court press to sell everyone on becoming U of U St. George and upon dropping the“offensive” name “Dixie” from the college’s official name. Every community, or student meeting that I had the opportunity to attend was pure propaganda to that end. Shandon Gubler attended an Alumni Board Meeting and pulled out the old year books from the 60s with their Confederate symbols and asked if “this was really the message we wanted sent out to the world and we enter a national, or even international, stage?” He seemed to forget that the flag and Rodney Rebel disappeared from the campus long ago and that we no-longer even print a year book. He spoke very persuasively about the fact that Dixie could not progress past its current state without losing its name and that he felt that the U of U would not be willing to accept the affiliation with the name “Dixie” attached. In the end, he told us that we should support getting rid of the name Dixie because it was the right thing to do for the college, and that the U of U had not made that demand that that, in conversations with members of the U of U administration including President Young, he was told they would not make that a condition of the proposal. We were told that all options were on the table. Many of the alumni board were affected and even emotional at the end of the meeting. In a side conversation after the meeting, Shandon told Connor Shakespeare (Southern Utah Alumni Chapter President) that we would remain “Rebels.”



Student meetings were laden with language like: “Do you want to continue to be Dixie State College with limited options, or do you want to be U of U St. George with the full support of the U of U?” Never that there might be a second option of reaching the desired level of affiliation and retaining the name “Dixie.”At one point, President Caldwell interrupted a DSC Student Council Meeting to tell them that he expected to receive a letter from officials at the U of U mandating that maintaining the name “Dixie” would kill the deal, and essentially telling them that they could not continue to be Dixie and that they should cease their opposition to the proposal. When Jennifer Shakespeare (DSC Student Body President) called Shandon Gubler to request a copy of the letter she was told that there was no letter, and that there would be no letter. Ralph and Sherry Atkin got involved at some point and circulated a petition that was ultimately signed by over 500 members of the community including most of the college’s biggest local supporters and donors, not to change the name to anything that did not include “Dixie” in the official name of the college. A community meeting was held in the Gardner Ballroom and was well attended by community leaders, donors, and alumni. The meeting was billed as on open discussion. What we got was a carefully orchestrated barrage of ethnic minority students talking about how offensive the term“Dixie” was to them; a carefully written statement from the chair ofthe faculty senate in opposition to “Dixie;” an “older”student who was returning for her degree again opposing the name Dixie on the grounds that it might limit her options for the future, a single mother who needed her degree in order to make more money to support her family, and a student from Snow Canyon High School who said that she would not attend Dixie State College if it bore the name “Dixie.” It was clear to all that attended that each of these individuals had been pressed into action by either the head of the campus Diversity Center (who also spoke in opposition to Dixie;) a member of the administration (one identified herself as having been requested to speakby Donna Dillingham-Evans – Academic VP) or by a member of the Trustees (the high school student who spoke and only identified herself by her first name, turned out to be Shandon Gubler’s daughter.) Many community members spoke to retain the name Dixie. Ralph Atkin asked President Caldwell: “If the Board of Trustees votes to retain the name“Dixie,” will you support their decision?” To which PresidentCaldwell answered: “I don’t have a vote,” followed by a spew of rhetoric worthy of his Juris Doctorate that answered nothing. In fact,several questions were asked and none were answered. I wanted to ask Miss Gubler if it had always been her intention not to attend Dixie State College due to the offensive nature of its name even though her father was the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, but I had already had my turn at the microphone. I did have the chance to let the students of ethnicity know that I was happy that they had decided to come to Dixie and that I felt bad if they had in any way felt unwelcome here. I feel that diversity on our campus is critical, and I told them so. I told them that until this moment I had never witnessed any expression of racism on this campus and that it was my home that this would always be the case at Dixie. I did remind them that they had a choice in coming to Dixie State College and apparently decided to come in spite of the offensive name.



The next day, a final meeting was held for Dixie College students. Itwas poorly attended, mostly by a group of the most ardent supporters of retaining “Dixie.” What was surprising to me (actually not) was than not a single one of the students who had spoken so passionately against “Dixie” were in attendance – not one!



Last Friday an “emergency” meeting was held off campus. It was attended by many influential members of the community and members of the Trustees. In that meeting they were told that the University of Utah had decided to withdraw from the discussion based upon issues of governance and the “Dixie” name. The issue of governance was that“University of Utah St. George’s,” Board of Trustees will become a board of directors that will answer to the U of U’s Board of Trustees. What this means is that we are being acquired by the U of U and that we will no-longer chart our own course without approval from the U ofU’s Board of Trustees. Senator Bill Hickman and Maureen Booth dissented on the vote based on the fact that we are giving up governance of the college. Everyone else at the meeting voted in the affirmative based on a belief that the deal would be dead without making these concessions.



On Monday, the Dixie State College Board of Trustees voted to draft aproposal to be sent to the University of Utah with the following provisions:



--The proposed name of the college will be University of Utah St.George, with the unofficial tag line “Dixie campus.” The Hurricaneand Kanab centers would, likewise, eventually be able to call themselves“Hurricane or Kanab campus” respectively.



--the mascot/name “Rebels” will be removed from DSC (we will needto find a new mascot – we will not become the U of U Utes)



--The DSC Board of Trustees will become a board of directors and will answer to the U of U Board of Trustees.

If in fact the U of U would have refused the deal with the name Dixie than and only should the concession to kill the name Dixie have been made. I'm afraid over-sensitivity and politcial correctness have been the main culprits. It is surprising that push for P.C. was made on DSC's end and not the U of U's end.



--Ralph Atkin was able to get language into the proposal that the students of the college could still refer to themselves as “Dixie”could sing the Dixie Songs and essentially uphold Dixie Traditions andthat the U of U would recognize their right to do so.



Some final thoughts:



There is a huge amount of detail that I do not have the time to include(heated personal conversations with President Caldwell and Shandon Gubler, conversations with alumni and alumni board members, etc….) In the end, it is my strong opinion that it was the design of the current administration and several of the trustees to eradicated the name“Dixie” from the campus from the get go. I strongly believe that the actions of the University of Utah were, in the end, strongly influenced by members of our own administration and board of trustees seeking support of their point of view. I believe the mandate from theU of U to drop the name “Dixie” from the official name of the college and the Rebels mascot/name were directly solicited by ShandonGubler or President Caldwell or both. My basis for this belief is that we were told that the U of U had stated that they would take no stand on these issues, but as Ralph Atkin and others began to garner support for“Dixie” from key members of the Board of Trustees it began to be apparent that they might lose the vote at the trustees meeting. I believe that Shandon and/or President Caldwell solicited officials from the U of U to take a stronger stand to bolster support from trustees who were either in favor of retaining “Dixie” or were undecided. We still have no official document from the U of U administration stating their opposition to either “Dixie,” or “Rebels.” Everything was done by “conversations” between Shandon Gubler and, as yet, un-named individuals from the U of U administration.



Though there is language in the proposal that gives lip service to retaining the “Dixie” name and traditions, I think it is naive to believe “Dixie” or its traditions will long endure in an atmosphere now charged with such negative emotions. The “D” on the hill will still stands for “Dixie” for as long as it remains, and the songs still sing of “Dixie” for as long as students and alumni will singthem. If “Dixie” is perceived as a term of hatred, how long do we really think it will last in a school that no-longer even controls its own destiny – that has given up its right to self determination to a larger university that has nothing invested in it keeping its name orits traditions alive. I would say that the proponents of this proposal are just fooling themselves, but I think they are more savvy than that. I think the believe they are fooling us.



An even larger issue in my mind is that the actions of the administration and/or certain trustees of DSC have irreversibly raised the issue of racism on a campus where no racism previously existed. Itis my belief that one or both of these parties solicited support from the director of the Ethnic Diversity Center on campus to find students of ethnicity willing to oppose “Dixie” in the public meeting based on in being a term of hatred toward blacks. I further believe they presented those students with one sided evidence to that end and then requested that they represent that point of view at the public meeting. Indeed one of the students who spoke of “Dixie” being a term ofracial hatred and stated that she was considering leaving Dixie College over this issue, spoke only one week earlier to a group of the campus ambassadors (she is herself an ambassador) stating that Dixie was not offensive to her and that she had never experienced any expressions ofracism on campus. I believe that the actions of those individuals in the administration and trustees who leveraged that emotion in their cause are both irresponsible and reprehensible.



From a philosophical point of view, I believe that the perceived connotation of any term or expression (like “Dixie” or “Rebels”)lies primarily in the mind or minds of the person or group who either uses or receives that term. A few weeks ago I was hiking Havasupai Canyon. I was approached by a Native American who, with derision, called me a Mormon. I simply said, “Yes, I am a Mormon; I am proud to be a Mormon.” I am descended from a religious minority who was singled out, with government authority, for extermination in the state of Missouri, driven out of Ohio and Illinois, and persecuted by mobs to the point of being forced to leave the United States and relocate to a desolate wasteland in Mexican territory at the edge of civilization, based simply on the fact that they were “Mormons.” My ancestors were brutalized for who they were and for what they believed. Some died along the trail to Utah. The term “Mormon” is a term of hatred to some. To me it conjures up images of self sacrifice, devout goodness, and a personal belief in God. To me, “Mormon” is a term of endearment. It is not offensive to me because I have chosen to see it in a different light than those who might use it as a term of derision.



Yes, the Southeastern region of the United States is referred to as Dixie. And yes, it was the location of the Confederacy during the Civil War. And yes, it was the region where slavery was practiced until a Civil War was fought to end that terrible era in our history as a nation. Likewise, Germany was the region that gave birth the Third Reich and Nazism and to the genocide of the Holocaust. And if memory serves me, I believe the founders of the this nation were once called“Rebels” by those who sought to oppress them. Why is it that we can now say “Germany” with impunity but the “Dixie” still carries the stench of the Confederacy?



Maybe we should remember that “Dixie” is also the place where a woman named Rosa Parks refused to go to the back of a bus because she was black, and where Rev. Martin Luther King said, “I have a dream….” -- the very birthplace of human rights in America (I'm not sure many people think of Washington DC as Dixie fo the old south, but I digress)



…or a desolate region of Southwestern Utah where a group of pioneers ofthe Mormon Church were sent by their prophet to grow cotton, struggled to survive, and said they had been called to “Dixie.”



I’m a Mormon from Dixie! I must be really depraved! One might even call me – a Rebel.

U of U-Dixie vs. U of U-Saint George: What's in a Name?

Dixie State College is trying to gain approval to become a part of the University of Utah. Most people believe this would be a huge benefit to the town. For years, it has been a frustration that the largest metropolitan area south of Provo has limited higher education. If you want any graduate degree or an undergraduate degree in anything but Education or Business you had to move or you had to to commute over 100 miles a day to attend classes at SUU. Gaining access to the full spectrum of degree programs offered by the U would be tremendously beneficial, not to mention shedding the Dixie "party school" image. I think it is safe to say no one thinks DSC becoming part of the U is a bad idea for Saint George. The problem is the name.

On one side of the isle you have folks like Ed Kociela of the The Spectrum (or as an esteemed local professor of mine referred to as the Rectum) who feel the name Dixie has such strong racial connotations that we need to shun association with the nickname of the southeastern Confederate states. In the other corner you have locals and alumni, who feel the school will lose its history and identity if Dixie is lost from the name. For example, my parents belong to a group of fanatical alumni (PB alumni) who have been faithful at having reunions for more than 30 years. This group is one of the foremost fighting the loss of Dixie from the institutions name.

Personally I don't feel keeping the mere name U of U-Dixie would be that detrimental to the schools image that people would not come to this school simply because of the racial connotations. However if the name Dixie is enough of an issue to the U of U to stop the merger, than the name Dixie needs to be put to rest for U of U-St. George for the betterment of the community.

Informal Poll: Which name works U of U-Dixie or U of U-St. George?

Subprime Mortgages and the Bankruptcy Protection Act

There was an interesting post at Utah Amicus. The title of the post, "Did Orrin Hatch cause the Sub prime Mortgage Meltdown,"made me wonder what kind of BS Steve Olsen was peddling. But the post brought up a solid point that the Bankruptcy Protection Act may have helped fuel the conditions that have caused the mortgage failures of the past year.

The only thing I would add is that mortgage brokers need to be brought under the auspices of Federal regulation. For example, securities dealers and brokers are heavily regulated they need to provide a thorough analysis of a customers financial situation to determine whether their situation is feasible for investing. Until a year or so there was absolutely no licensing requirement for mortgage originators, and despite the licensing requirement that was introduced I have seldom (to never) seen mortgage originators conduct any real solid analysis of a lendee's financial situation to determine how much loan a borrower could afford. Many times I was approached by loan originators to write "CPA letters" for some of my tax clients that were slightly outside the realm of honesty. That type of behavior in other financial services industries would lead to expulsion from practice, unfortunately during the housing boom (bubble) the loan peddlers operated unregulated and unfettered.

During the boom here in Southern Utah, middle class families were being put into 300k sub prime loans left and right with little or no explanation of what would happen in a few years if they didn't refinance the loan or sell the home out of the loan, and absolutely NO effort to determine whether the home buyer could afford a 300k+ home. There are many home buyers who will be left picking up the pieces. We lost one family to foreclosure from our neighborhood this week, and I'm sure many other families in this town and nationwide will suffer the same consequences.

Parents for Choice in Education Recent Campaign ad a Big Miss

Okay -- I'm all for vouchers. However I was extremely disappointed with the only pro-voucher ad I have seen here in Sant George. I found the closest version I could on YouTube. This ad is about as pathetic as John Swallow's (I think that was the name of the loser who ran against Matheson a few years ago) negative attack ads that tried to align Matheson with Nancy Pelosi, and Ted Kennedy (ahhh!). Swallow's campaign failed miserablely then, and if this type of ad is the only kind of ammo PCE is going to use in the voucher debate Referendum 1 may fail miserably as well.

Although I disagree with the anti-voucher crowd, I give them an A for keeping their campaign focused on the issues. (Even if I find many of their cited issues moot and invalid)



Anywho, that was just my small rant for the day and I hope that the PCE leaders take another look at their ad campaign. There are many positives of the voucher plan other than "conservatives support vouchers, and if your against vouchers you are flaming liberal or a pinko Commi!" Last of all -- please PCE, don't bring Mormonism into the debate like Paul Mero alledgedly did.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fair Tax -- Would it Rid Us of the IRS?

Today was the Republican Debate's, and with three kids running around I wasn't able to listen to much of the debate. One part I was able to listen to was regarding the idea of a fair tax. Under the fair tax, we would pay a national sales/consumption tax of 23% and there would be no more income tax, Social Security tax withholding and we would all live in a magical world where there would be no IRS. Although there are many issues with the fair tax that I dislike (the propensity for this tax being a tool of special interests and lobbyists just to name one) one issue that is easily clarified is the fair tax will not rid the nation of the IRS.


It is true that, individual wage earners would be rid of any dealings with the IRS, but small business owners would have a much more powerful and demanding partner in their businesses'. Their are certain state and Federal taxes that are called trust fund taxes (Social Security, Federal Withholding, Medicare tax, and sales tax are a few of them) these taxes carry a powerful punch for those who fail to fully comply with the legal requirements of these laws. The penalty can amount to as much as 100% of the tax that was owed, add on interest and these types of taxes have been the death of many a business enterprise. Another problem with trust fund taxes are the propensity for misappropriation of trust funds -- entrusting 100% of the nation's tax funds to struggling small business owners creates a huge opportunity for fraud. Another problem is the vagueness of most states sales tax laws (after which I assume the national fair tax would be modeled). For example, Utah's sales tax rules (as far as I have experienced) are some of the most vague tax rules I have ever come across I have detailed the vagueness of Utah sales tax at least once or twice in the contents of this blog, and I don't feel like going through it again.

Although a large percentage of the nation would be rid of dealing with IRS, small business owners would find a much more ruthless and powerful IRS reaching its hand into their daily business dealings. This tax would raise the taxes of the poor and the middle class by raising the cost of living, it would be extremely costly to implement, and it would raise the cost of doing business and have a discouraging effect on entrepreneurship in this country. I don't believe the fair tax would be a wise choice for the tax policy of this country.

Three Cheers for Rangel -- Comprehensive AMT Reform

It appears that Charles Rangel (D-NY) is still working to keep his word regarding reforming the dreadful Alternative Minimum Tax. Although Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) is pushing for another one year patch, Congressional leaders Rangel and Neal are pushing for and AMT exemption for couples with income up to $250,000. There are a few other notable tax changes that Rangel and Neal are pushing for among those include, an increase the standard deduction, and possibly expand the EITC and child tax credit. In order to remain Revenue neutral Rangel and Neal propose to raise taxes on those with incomes above 500,000 dollars, the Congressmen do not expound on how high they would raise taxes.

Although I am hesitant to give a full unqualified thumbs up to the Rangel proposal (due to the vague explanation of the 500k + tax hike). I applaud the efforts to continue lessening the tax burden of the poor and middle class families. The push to reform the AMT is a breathe of fresh air to the "sweep it under the rug" approach to AMT reform that Congress has taken for the past several years. For a Democrat Congressman Rangel isn't that bad.

Healthcare -- My Paradigm Shift

As most paradigm shifts occur, mine comes due to very difficult personal issues.

Out of school my first job (the one which I am still employed) is in a very small firm that hasn't provided health care coverage for its employees. I don't curse my employer -- small employer health care plans are about as affordable as the individual employees providing their own insurance. It was soon after this that my doctor noted that my second child didn't gain sufficient weight in her first year, the doctor noted concerns that she may be susceptible to host of different conditions. In this case my wife and I were left with prayer and faith as the strongest source of comfort -- it worked our daughter is robust and healthy. Now my one year old son has been diagnosed with a possibly debilitating disorder known as leukodystrophy (there are several classes of this disorder and the doctors are still uncertain as to the exact type) Fortunately, CHIP enrollment opened again and the income requirements have raised to a level that my children finally qualify.

However, it has been a heart-aching experience over the past year being unable provide my son with all of the health care that his caring physicians have suggested. Not to mention lacking health insurance on my wife and myself has been frightening at times, lets just say I exercise religiously and I drive extremely cautiously. There are many benevolent organizations that have provided my son with therapeutic services virtually cost free, for all of which I am extremely grateful. These events have led me to question my long-held stance that health care needs to remain a fully privatized venture.

Although, I am well acquainted with inefficiencies of a few despised Federal agencies I'm growing (in small steps) to believe that nationalized health care my not be as bad as I have sometimes lamented. I'm not suggesting that the idea of Walter Reed Medical Center's nationwide doesn't repulse me, but a system in which anyone can get (grantedly sub par) health care as opposed to no health care is gaining some appeal to me.

I still have some strong points in opposition. The horror stories of VA medical centers are one example, and the needed increases in tax revenue to pull off such a policy shift are colossal. I heard somewhere the absurd suggestion of a "fat" tax, an idea in tax policy that may create a whole host of new eating disorders.

Something needs to be done to provide affordable health care to all Americans, I'm afraid we all know the answer and for some of the reasons cited above we are loathing to admit it.

Strong Evidence of the Need for the Death Penalty

Do you own a gun?

Utah State Tax Commission Motor Vehicle Division -- DEFENDERS OF PUBLIC MORALITY

I've gone through a bit of an apathetic spell in regards to my blog. I've said all that can be said, and more, about vouchers and haven't really had anything else that I've cared to write about. I'm trying to come back.

This story was a bit over the top. The Utah State Tax Commission has taken up a fight against a merlot Mercedes owner on account of his personalized license plate "MERLOT". The state's arguement in this matter, "merlot is an alcoholic beverage, and the state refuses to have alcohol promoted on its licenses." Nevermind the fact that the car's color is in fact called merlot, the state somehow finds that any reference to a (fairly mild as I understand) alcoholic beverage harmful to the general public. Initially I thought this was just a complete bizzare occurance, "the guy must have pissed off someone during a tax audit, or something".

However, this morning the subject came up during an appointment with one of my tax clients and this client actually had a similar experience with the Utah State Tax Commission. In another state they had a friend with the license "WHO TOOTED" on the family car (in reference to tdigestive function) when they moved here the attempted to get the same tags and were denied. The reason they were denied is (according to the DMV worker) there is a list of words and phrases that cannot be used in connection with personalized tags "tooted" apparently (according to the State of Utah) is a slang term for snorting cocaine. I'm curious if anyone has tried to get the phrase "ASSMAN". This is absurd. I was pretty opposed to Mayor Andersen's rhetoric about Utah being a Taliban-esque theocracy, however when it comes to the Utah State Tax Commission Motor Vehicle Division I have to concede the point to the Mayor.

PS I recommended the client try again, and when denied I have gldly offered to fight the case. Anyone else have this experience?

Vouchers -- Jeremy's Arguments

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

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

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

Transformers Rock!!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A commenter tried to defend the poster with the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big Brother?

This was a little creepy.

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

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

Vouchers -- Bureaucratic Turf War

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

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

Pat Rusk Said,

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

Sylvia Andersen Said,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Southern Utah Boy Scouts Exercise Freedom of Speech

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

Just a little bored today.

Vouchers -- Censorship by the Davis County Clipper

This is a pretty cool cartoon.

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

Vouchers -- Let the Ad Hominem Arguments Begin

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

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

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

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

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

6 Years Later

(John Canlas Photography the photographer's blog)

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

For a Laugh

Vouchers -- Steve Urquhart's Proposal

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

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

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

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

Vouchers -- The Fiscal Effect of School Choice Programs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hat tip -- JM Bell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health Benefits, Equality, and the 2008 Presidential Election

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


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

Employees Covered by Employer

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

Self-Employed Coverage

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

Employees who have to cover themselves

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

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

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

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

Voucher Vote is in November

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

At least it is sooner rather than later.

SLC Council overrides Rocky's veto of the Skybridge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Hat Tip also The Third Avenue )

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

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

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

Bad Form Huntsman and Legislature.

Deadline for Taxes

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

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

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

I'll be signing off untill the 18th.

Happy Filing.

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

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

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

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

Rob posted this in response to my previous post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With every best wish,

The Utah Amicus"

Thanks, Rob.

Wayne Holland & Utah Amicus call Parents for Choice CHICKEN!

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

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

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

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

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

St. George -- America's Fastest Growing Community

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

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

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

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

Heritage Foundation -- Tax Increase

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

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

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

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

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

Rocky V. Hannity -- Celebrity Deathmatch: Blowhard Brawl

Blowhard Brawl is on !!!!

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


May 4th
8:00 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The New Tax System -- Legislature Briefing

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

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

Take a look.

Vouchers -- To Vote and How to Vote

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

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

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

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

Rocky V. O'Reilly

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

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

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

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

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

2. The new system will not have tax brackets.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The New Tax System

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

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

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

Hannity v. Rocky -- The Showdown

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


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

Vouchers - Utahns for Public Schools Anti-Voucher Referendum

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

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

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

Join the debate at Politcopia

President Curious George

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

Bravo! Greg Bell

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

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

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

GREEN JELLO - A Porn Site?

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

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

Post Number 99 -- For a Laugh

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