The Economy -- Where should the blame lie?

At Political Civility, Lyall is discussing the economy, government bailouts, and financial regulation. He infers that if elected Barack Obama will over increase regulation (somehow missing the past several hundred billion dollars the Bush administration has expended in market intervention) and Democrats will push more government intervention into the market, and that doing so will reek disastrous results. While I'm no fan of over-regulation, I'm even less a fan of the Treasury Department throwing cash at a banking industry that has proved incapable of making prudent lending decisions over the past decade.

In rebut to a comment blaming Republicans he points out theories that the subprime mortgage market was sparked by well-intended Carter/Clinton policies regarding the Carter-era Community Redevelopment Act, and therefore the blame for the current market woes falls (not wholly, but in part) with the Democrats. This was later brilliantly impeached by bekkieann who pointed out that it was lenders misuse of the deregulation provided by the CDA that has led to the current crisis:

"Clearly lenders took a concept intended to help low-income people and extended that concept to those who did not need that type of financing, and a lot of people got way in over their heads.
Do you know anyone who had/has an ARM? What income bracket are they in? I know some in my own income bracket. We are not poor.
Deregulation allowed lenders to perpetrate this financing scam on Americans who were eager to live beyond their means. "

In the current situation, increased regulation is warranted and deserved on a banking industry that failed to perform due diligence in lending practices for the past several years. Bailouts of the banking industry, without stringently increased lending regulations is an offense to the American taxpayer footing the bill. (For starters, make sure mortgage originators are qualified to evaluate a customer's ability to repay, objectives in obtaining financing, and matching proper mortgage products to their customers -- Stock brokers need to prove their competency in these respects and individuals suggesting mortgage products should be have these same demonstrable competencies.)

The Economy -- Who will take the lead?

The past few days have been unnerving to say the least. The size and number government bailouts that have happened over the last few months is incredible. One of the largest and once most stable investment banks has filed bankruptcy, AIG has become a US Government subsidiary, and other once rock solid financial institutions are teetering on the brink of collapse and to be honest I'm quite worried that a depression (I admit I'm being over dramatic) may be on the horizon. For me and many Americans this election is quickly becoming about one issue, which party will (if possible) avert economic catastrophe.

Our federal government has been feverishly trying to prop up failing financial institutions, and these bailouts have helped stabilize the disastrous effects of the subprime mortgage market collapse. However, with the latest 85 billion dollar bailout the question needs to be asked how much more can the nation expend on bailouts? It is an ominous sign that the Treasury Department is having to insert itself into the market on a regular basis just to keep the banking industry afloat. It appears that if the invisible hand was allowed to work without government interference, our economy would be in shambles.

Unfortunately, neither candidate for chief executive appears to have or be talking about how they will turn this around. Obama seems to get the severity of the situation better than McCain, while McCain has proposed a commission to solve the financial crisis while claiming that the fundamentals of the economy are strong (I don't blame McCain -- while his career background scores high on the bravery and heroism scale, his scholastic record isn't exactly stellar regarding subjects like economics or even mathematics)

I'm leaning towards Obama on ability to lead our nation out of imminent economic disaster. While the Republican mantra of tax cuts are good and great, they don't combine well with a federal government that is swimming in debt, fighting wars on two fronts, and (seemingly) propping up the entire nation's financial system. McCain's unsettling continued use of the "strong economic fundamentals"line isn't helping ease my concerns that he isn't the sharpest tack on the economy.

While in 2004 I was concerned about the best leader in the war on terror and Iraq, in 2008 staying the course is the least of my concerns.

Sarah Palin Baby Name Game

One of my biggest issues with Sarah Palin is her Child Naming Convention. Well now you can have an orginal Palin-esque name!

Mine is Slicer Mission Palin! I might use this one for child number 4 -- at least I'll suggest it for craps and giggles.

Nice Try, But I Don't Think So

Obama has actually contended that he has more executive experience than Sarah Palin because of running his presidential campaign.

“Well, my understanding is that Governor Palin’s town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We’ve got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. So I think that our ability to manage large systems and to execute I think has been made clear over the last couple of years,”

McCain's campaign called the statement laughable, and I agree. While Obama's campaign has accumulated a large financial war chest, and he has been able to recruit a large following of volunteers, that is a far different story from running a state or the federal government. Sorry Obama, spending money on one massive program (your candidacy) doesn't hold a candle to the responsibility of funding the myriads of programs that states run without having to raise taxes or run deficits. The fact that Obama makes this comparison, might be quite revealing of just how naive and inexperienced Obama is.

You can spend money, that doesn't mean you can manage the Federal budget responsibly.

Palin -- Maybe I was a little harsh.

Okay, maybe my last post was a tad harsh regarding Sarah Palin as the VP pick. There is still one issue with which I'm not comfortable about her, (i.e. the ethics investigation underway in Alaska) but I think she may actually be the perfect addition to the McCain ticket. I've listened to some her recent campaign speeches and she seems quite eloquent but more importantly she seems more than pleasant, a wonderful contrast to her Democratic opponent the ever mouthy Sen. Biden. She has held executive office more than any of the candidates for President or VP, although in a small state it is executive experience nonetheless. It is true that she lacks foreign policy experience, but it should be noted that governors seldom do have extensive foreign policy experience and that lack of experience hasn't stopped the American voter from electing governors to the Presidency nor do I expect that it should stop voters from electing Mrs. Palin as VP.

While I assume the accusations in the her current ethics investigation will be found merit less, I do have concerns that it taints her image as a fighter of corruption and I'm sure that the Dem Duo will (if they feel necessary) use that against her. However as a whole, I think this is the only legitimate negative that overshadows Mrs. Palin's VP nomination. The biggest illegitimate issue I have with Mrs. Palin are the names of her children -- Track and Trig? Are those Biblical names, or European?

I think the upcoming debates (assuming there will be a VP debate) will be interesting to see how she handles Biden. My prediction (hope) is that Biden will try and monopolize the debate with verbose orations and shrill accusations trying to link McCain/Palin to Bush/Cheney, while Mrs Palin will focus on issues and pleasantly win the debate. While I'm cautiously optimistic regarding Mrs. Palin, she is a far more desirable VP than Senator Biden.

McCain Buries Himself

I think McCain may have dashed his chances of winning with his VP pick. Who could McCain have chosen from? Lieberman, Romney, Huckabee, heavens even our own Jon Huntsman Jr. all of whom have more popularity and better political resumes. Who does he choose? An 18 month governor of Alaska whose only other experience is that of Mayor of Wasilla Alaska. Wait a minute, maybe I shouldn't dismiss it that soon what else is on her resume?

Alaska State High School Girls Basketball team championship team
Miss Wasilla (also Miss Congeniality)
1st Runner up in Miss Alaska pageant
BS in Journalism (Minor in Politics -- I assume Political Science) -- University of Idaho
Sports Broadcaster
Commercial Fishing with Husband

That's it! So, McCain chose a Soccer Mom (oh sorry a "Hockey" Mom). I'm sorry, what the He@# is he thinking? McCain's campaign has been using as one of its big negative campaign points that Obama lacks experience, and McCain proposes to put an individual with less than impressive education, work experience, and even political experience one heartbeat away from the presidency. At least Barack Obama has an impressive resume despite his lacking national political experience, and his political experience I would safely assume, with all due respect, blows her experience out of the water.

In a campaign that is this tight, I think his pick is either an indication of McCain's arrogance or desperation. The fact the she is a woman may sway some moderate women voters, although her position on abortion negates her ability to sway the feminist vote. It is true that BushI successfully ran with an unknown on his ticket, but McCain needs to remember George Sr. was riding the coattails of Ronald Reagan, the end of (what may soon be called) Cold War I, and a strong economy, Bush Sr. would have had to have been caught with a prostitute to have lost the 1988 election. McCain on the other hand is running from the coattails of Bush II, a possibly reignited cold war, high inflation, decreasing individual incomes, and a less that stellar economy -- he is hardly in the same position of BushI. McCain needed a heavyweight boxer and he chose a girls B-Ball player (no offense to Girls B-Ball)

It sounds as though Mrs. Palin has the record of a reformer in the great state of Alaska, she has the conservative views necessary to please the evangelicals, she appears to be somewhat of a maverick which fits well with McCain, and the fact that she is female may help sway more Hillary voters. However, unless Mrs. Palin turns out to be an extraordinarily eloquent orator and debater I have little hope that McCain will pull off a "W" come November.

Stimulus Payments -- Rapid Refunds (RAL and RTs) Screwing the Poor Again

I know I said i wasn't going to write but getting a tad pissed off at the government is as good a reason as any.

I was expecting my stimulus check today in perfect timing to cover some of the myriad of bills I have incurred over the past year -- I was looking forward to the respite. Around 4pm I check my account to discover no check, and so I started to dig around the IRS website. They have brilliantly started a "Where's my Stimulus Check" program, and after entering all of my pertinent information I discover a horrible problem.

My former employer was a small tax firm, so needless to say we prepared a fair number of personal income tax returns. When I purchased my home (before I realized the necessity to move to SLC) my employer gave me a small loan to cover closing cost. While I was working for him he didn't try to collect at all, but when I quit he started pursuing repayment a little more anxiously. So when I filed my tax return I decided (per convenience) that I would have my anticipated refund transferred to my former employer via RT (refund transfer -- a regularly used means of ensuring payment in tax prep firms). The problem occurs due to the fact that the bank account on your return if you use an RT or RAL (rapid refund) is a one time use account, and the IRS therefore never receives your accurate account information and the user of the RT or RAL is left (likely unwittingly) waiting for a paper check that will come much later. (mid-July in my case) I don't think this was communicated in a very vigorous fashion to tax practitioner firms during the filing season -- when the info would have been most helpful.

I assume that my old company may be like many other tax firms in the nation -- unaware of this information when it mattered during the filing season. As a rule (at least as far as I have observed) the majority the people who use these services are the people that need help financially the most. In regards to RAL's especially, these individuals are often charged exorbitant banking fees, and many may currently have a shock when they discover how much longer they will have to wait for the much needed assistance promised from the stimulus package.

Oops, but really did anyone expect anything more from the IRS?

The Start of a Blogging Sabbatical

It has been a while since I have written and I thought I would like to explain why.

The past few months have been rather trying. Earlier this month my wife and I finally learned why my son has been developmentally delayed. While we were grasping a straws trying to figure out what was wrong we consulted a Pediatric Geneticist at the U Med School who ordered a host of genetics test to rule out certain genetics disorders - one of those test involved the PTEN gene. It turns out that the PTEN gene is the culprit in all of this, my son has a disorder known as Bannayan Riley Rulvacaba Syndrome (BRRS). This particular disorder is rare (I'm not sure how rare, but if the genetics department at the U of U needed do some research before they could explain it to me and my wife it must be pretty rare). He then has been evaluated by developmental pediatricians and a pediatric psychiatrist, who have concluded that he is non-traditionally Autistic (meaning there is no clear guidance on how to help him) and has developed to the level of a 9 month old (at age 2). Needless to say it has been an emotional roller coaster.

With that I have found little passion for blogging, and I really don't plan on posting on a regular basis for an extended period of time. I probably ought to officially resign my membership in the Bloghive advisory board, so that another blogger who is actively blogging can provide a much more contribution to that group. I appreciated working with all of them.

As I learn more about special education funding, I am truly shocked how little state assistance is provided in Utah. My future blogging may focus heavily on that issue.

Until then, adieu......

My First MotoQ Post

I purchased a new Moto-Q phone this weekend, and it is sweet. I thought I would try blogging with it.

Super Dell: You So Crazy!

Hat tip Tom Grover

Superdell has, and I was praying he would, started a blog. In his inaugural post has describes his vision for his first fundraising event:

"Hello fans and curious others. Thanks for visiting. This is where you will be getting the inside story on all the latest. Fear not, my fundraising events will be worth their ticket if merely for entertainment value to the sceptics:). We are going to have some serious fun in Utah. I'm already working on my first event. I'm looking for acrobatic aircraft, base jumpers, powered skydiving pilots, helicopters, race cars, monster trucks, pyrotechnics and everything wild and imaginative you can come up with. If you have an awesome talent you would like to donate please let me know. I can assure you nobody will be falling asleep at any of my rallies.More to come..."

I think people will sure take Superdell serious with fundraisers like this. When I think of leadership I think fireworks, air shows, and monster truck rallies. Superdell you are a breath of fresh air to Utah politics!

It appears that he is at least honest in one respect -- he doesn't care or have any idea what the issues are in the upcoming election. Maybe he thinks that being Governor is like being prom king. I've got it! Somebody call MTV "Made" (it is show that usually takes undesirable teens and tries to help them become cheerleaders or prom queens) they could get Jesse Ventura to be his mentor and maybe with some luck they could turn him into a viable candidate. At least it would produce a bizarre hour of reality TV.

Moderation in Utah Politics

Some of the events of this past legislative session have made me reflect heavily on my party affiliation, and the ways that public policy decisions are (or should be) made. I have been officially affiliated with the Republican party since my 18th birthday, I was picked as a delegate to the state Republican convention that year (in that convention we started Merrill Cook on the road to his short jaunt in Congress). During the past 12 or more years I have drifted from politically apathetic to interested and somewhat between. My views have likewise varied -- I have been near the point of right wing extremism, and have drifted back to the center of the isle. This last session has made it very clear that we need to take a much harder look at the individuals we elect as our local legislative representatives.

One major problem that Utah Republicans have is their tendency to view public policy debates only through the lens of their own moral and religious views. While it is good to be moral and religious, using such a narrow lens to establish public policy may tend to produce harsh and punishing results for anyone whose moral scope falls outside that of the pious policy makers. The phrase "moderation in all things," and "(do not) run faster than you have strength" would be helpful in forming Utah policy towards social and moral issues. Do not let the morals of the masses create tyranny towards the (religious affiliation) minorities of this state.

Another issue Utahn's have is stereotyping politicians by party affiliations. My former employer related a story of going to dinner with a new member of their LDS ward, the conversation waxed political and to his disbelief he discovered that they were Democrats. "How can you be Mormon and Democrat?" has asked incredulously. Needless to say the discussion didn't harbor closer Christ-like relations among ward members. My employer's opinion is far to prevalent in our state. As a Mormon I find issues to which I can and cannot reconcile my religious beliefs per party platforms on both sides of the isle just as I can find fault with many politicians from both sides of the isle. The point is voters who stick solely to party lines waste their opportunity to have a say in the affairs of our government -- pure party line voters create regimes that stray from representative leadership to tyrannical rule.

I'm removing my Republican affiliation from my voting records, the likes of Buttars, Dayton, Utah Eagle Forum, and Ruzicka have become too much for me. I'm not ready to join the Democrats either, the likes of Billary and Pelosi and issues like abortion keep from going towards that party. I think I will best perform my civic duties by keeping myself unspoiled from the two national parties. We need to care less about whether a D or R is by the politicians name, and more about the character and qualifications of the individuals asking for our votes.

Buttar's Quoted on a White Supremacist's Blog

Hat-tip Salt Lake Crawler:

I hope fellow 10th State Senate District voters take note, Chris Buttars' gaffe is being fondly quoted by white supremacists. The Alaskan white supremacist blogger referred to Buttars as his "favorite" state senator while quoting the infamous "This baby is black" comment. The blogger was discussing his contempt for Jews and the US Holocaust Museum in the referenced post.

Buttars' comment may not have had racist intent, but the comment (and it appears the Senator) sure struck accord with racists. My guess is this disturbed fellow would be quite fond of Margaret Dayton as well. I think we all can be proud of the image that (some of) our state representatives are portraying of our state -- kudos Buttars, Dayton, and Utah Eagle Forum.

HOLY CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Interesting........

Mortgage Crisis -- Bernake, and Negative Equity

I caught a few moments of a Ben Bernake Speech while I was walking out the door, he was discussing defaults and delinquency issues and the issue that many homeowners face of negative equity. The major question he was raising is what can be done about negative equity issues? So far banks have been very willing to grant homeowners in these situations interest rate drops, but they have been rather unwilling to drop principal. If I would have been able to finish the speech his tone was sounding as if he was suggesting that principal reductions and interest rate reductions may need to be used more aggressively in order to help homeowners in these situations.

Negative equity is an issue that is likely to affect many homeowners who bought in locations where home values reached overinflated levels of a few years ago.(i.e. California, Saint George UT, and Las Vegas NV)The solution to these problems are difficult, banks that simply forgive principal may find in a few years (if and when values rebound) that they have thrown significant investments away, and homeowners who were unlucky enough to have fallen into these traps find refinancing very difficult and selling without near catastrophic results impossible as well. Bernake seemed to be advocating for banks to reduce principal where needed to allow sub prime mortgage holders to refinance into a manageable loan.

Another idea which I thought about would be a "qualified" principal reduction, reduce principal currently based on a appraisal so the mortgage can be refinanced. After 5 years or so another appraisal would be required, and if the home's value has rebounded than the forgiven principal would be added back to the loan. If home values haven't rebounded than the forgiven principal would remain forgiven. The tax-ability of the forgiven principal should be suspended until the 5-year appraisal. There really is no easy answer to this problem other than to learn from what has happened and make necessary reforms. I believe the mortgage meltdown will likely turn into the mortgage industry's Enron, Enron gave the accounting industry SOX regulations, and I anticipate the mortgage industry will end up with similar regulations. (FYI NY state is already headed down this path)

If Buttars' Faux Pax Created So Much Ire, I'm Surprised This Flew Under the Radar

The Trib had an article about Buttars getting back to work -- he is quietly trying not to say anything else that would raise the eyebrows of the public. One comment from Sen. Margaret Dayton, R-Orem caught my attention regarding a bill to create a registry for minority-owned businesses that would help them compete for federal, state, and private contracts set aside for such businesses, a bill which she and Buttars both opposed.

"It seems like the white male is such a burden or frustration to society. I really have angst with the growing discrimination towards the white male family-oriented Christian male. I'm just really frustrated with that."

To me, that seems like a much more racially charged comment than Buttars "This baby's black" comment -- you can almost see the robes and pillow cases. Are you serious? Especially here in Utah, where in many parts of the state there is ne'er a minority to be found.

I agree that pursuing affirmative action policies likely isn't the best remedy -- unless there is a problem is bad enough. (i.e. documented cases where a minority was denied a bid for no discernable reason other than race) However, to suggest some kind of a problem with white, male, Christian business owners being discriminated against, here in Utah, is a blatantly exaggerated fabrication.

In a side note, Buttars wisely refused to comment on his opposition to the bill.

Chris Buttars is My State Senator

So I saw a post on The Bloghive about looking up Chris Buttars on Wikipedia, and so I looked him up on Wikipedia and discovered that my new home happens to be in his voting district. What fun!

I don't think I would be the man to run against him (Peace, anon.) although as I stated in a previous post I've thought about it. I guarantee that I will be volunteering to help who ever does run against Buttars -- Republican or Democrat. I don't think there should be anymore delay in Bro. Buttars' full-time church service on the fabulous streets of San Francisco or in the Big Easy -- The field is white and already to harvest.

Anyone Wonder Who Votes for Buttars

This comment was a follow-up from a comment that I deleted for being less than civil. I decided to give this comment top posting, because it demonstrates what kind of individual agrees with and supports the policy agenda and decisions of Chris Buttars:

"another free speech phoney. can't take the truth huh?

well, once more then: this is a concocted media circus created to punish buttars for opposing the fag marriage registry from the slcf.o.g. (fag occupation government).down with f.o.g., long live buttars."

I would bet that Chris Buttars really would be appalled if he realized his constituency is made up of KKK loving, gay bashing, cross burning individuals like the anon who came trolling to Green Jello -- he would be appalled. However, this is who Buttars attracts.


P.S. If your going to come trolling on my blog looking for a fight at least have the intestinal fortitude to post as you rather than as anonymous. What are your plans this weekend anon? Any cross burnings?

Romney to Endorse McCain......I Wonder

I just heard that Mitt Romney is planning to endorse John McCain. This change of events begs the question, "Is McCain possibly tapping Romney as his running mate?"

It could be a very wise decision given the fact that Romney has such a large bank account, and that he had such a strong following during his bid for the White House. At least regarding Utah, the move might heal the ill-feelings towards McCain harbored by many local Mormons. I would recant any and all predictions I had that Obama would carry Utah.

However, there may be a large downside, Southern Republicans thoroughly rejected Romney due to (speculation) his Mormon faith. Would Southern Republican's still reject the idea of a Mormon VP?

Very interesting.

Buttars' Statement Out of Context

Before I begin I would like to reiterate that I find Chris Buttars to be the very epitome of the Taliban in Utah. The man is an extremist to the utmost degree. However, I think everyone is mis-characterizing the man's supposed racist comment.

Most media outlets (and lets face it fellow Buttars-haters) have reported that he made a comment about black babies being dark and ugly. That isn't what was said, Buttars said "This BABY is black, I'll tell you. This is a dark and ugly thing." To me, he is simple using a common reference to a noun (the bill in question) as a baby. He didn't say "This is like a black baby" or that black babies are dark and ugly, he was opining on the (in his opinion) poor merits of the bill. While I agree that the phrasing was poor, if he would have simply said bill instead of baby this never would have been a story, everyone is getting up in arms about nothing.

This is just one more example of hyper-sensitivity in America.

On a side note I do think the man is terrible hindrance to civil political dialogue in Utah. If I end up moving 20 to 40 blocks north before his next time up for re-election I might seriously consider running against the man.

The State Senate's Attempt to Thwart Benefits for Domestic Partners

Okay, when the nefarious Rocky Andersen pushed the "domestic partners benefits" idea I viewed it as a proverbial "F#@* off" after Utah passed Amendment 3. However, I'm not so sure that the right is right in this matter either. The 1930's throwback Chris Buttars and a cast of bloated social conservatives are pushing to stop a SLC registry to help domestic partners qualify for health benefits. The Right's argument against the registry is that it is in opposition to the states ban on gay marriage, and that as Buttars says "This is nothing but an open checkbook ... (the) 'repugnant' registry attempts to define a class, and therefore, it don't fit." he went on to say, "Some people may disagree with me, but since America was born, marriage is the cornerstone." While I agree that marriage is a critical cornerstone in our society, I cannot accept that idea that monogamous individuals, in a fully committed relationship, cannot enjoy any legal rights of their commitment.

The simplest (and to me the most logical) way to solve this issue is to provide a contractual remedy to these individuals -- i.e. civil unions, or some other binding contractual agreement (I have a hard time with the semantics of calling gay unions as marriage) Individuals would have contractual obligations to one another, and they also could enjoy legal benefits of their union. However, we here in Utah said no to that idea based on true religious and moral objections (I regrettably voted for Amendment 3 for those very reasons). However, this has left those members of the population who are in committed but (for the purposes of Amendment 3) unaccepted committed relationships in a position of inequality with the straight unforgiving majority of this state. For this purpose, SLC's move to provide benefits between domestic partners is somewhat commendable. (To me, the term "domestic partners" is perhaps a bit too broad and might ultimately be too costly. The term domestic partners leaves me to wonder how many straight same-sex roommates will adopt a "Chuck & Larry" approach to benefits in SLC, not to mention the undue expense of allowing uncommitted same-sex couples the same benefits of married individuals. A hetero-sexual couple isn't willing to marry, than they shouldn't be accorded the benefits of those who are in marriages.)

I think the Senate (and more appropriately the Senator from WJ) should butt-out. If there should be any objection the city's domestic partner benefit plan, it should be due the over broad inclusion of all domestic partners -- although we all know the plan would stand no chance if it were in behalf of HOMOSEXUALS IN COMMITTED RELATIONSHIPS exclusively.

The problem here in Utah is there should be a difference between religion and government. While I view homosexuality as a repugnant sin, I don't accept the idea that these individuals should be treated as unequal according to the law. Marriage should not be broken open to allow gay unions, but some sort of legal binding arrangement needs to introduced as an equalizer for Gay and Lesbian community.

Romney has bowed out!

CNN is reporting that Mitt Romney will suspend his campaign for the Republican nomination.

Where does that leave us here, in Utah? If Obama can pull off the nomination -- I think we may see a blue state come November (at least more than it has been in 4 decades). If Hillary wins the nomination, then a wacky third party candidate may stand to make a real solid showing here in Utah.

I have to find out more about Obama, but he seems to be an excellent individual. I guess I really have to see if I can support whatever his agenda may be as President, but given the red alternative for President this time around it may not be that difficult.

Vote Obama

Need I say anymore.

Utah Will Go To a Democrat in November -- Like it Really Matters

So for this Super Tuesday hasn't been kind for Mitt Romney. Although the night is young, I'm going to make a few predictions:

1. Mitt Romney will be finished tonight. (unless he soundly wins California)

2. If Romney does hang up the towel, and the race becomes a two man race between McCain and Huckabee. Utah will go to a Democrat in the general election for the first time since 1964 (if Obama can get the Democratic nomination)

So they aren't really bold predictions. With the acrimony both GOP candidates have produced in regards to Mormonism, if Obama gets the nomination he will have a very good chance at winning Utah in the general election.

I never was all that hyped on any of the GOP candidates, Romney was the candidate I found most electable (maybe for no other reason than a shared religion). With Romney likely going down, I am pinning my support to Obama.

R.I.P. -- My Video IPod 2005-2007

It was great while it lasted. I got my first IPod for Christmas 2 years ago, a 30 GB video IPod. It was a good friend, it helped me loose 70 lbs, it accompanied me on business trips, and long drives to Salt Lake. Today, it played its last song -- Float On by Modest Mouse.



I tried to reset it, but when the cartoon IPod with a frowning face and x'ed out eyes showed up on the screen I knew it was gone.



Flags at Green Jello offices will be at half staff in Honor of My IPod.

Romney: Huckabee Lets Out His First Negative Comment About Mormomism, and MSNBC's ODonnell is a Religious Bigot

Huckabee, a former Southern Baptist minister who has become a Republican front runner in the Presidential race, finally broke with his policy of silence regarding Mitt Romney's Mormon faith. He was quoted as saying, "don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?" Huckabee's comment isn't all that bad, in a way he isn't all that off base saying what he did. Latter-Day Saints believe that before Satan became Satan by rebellion, he was a spirit child of God and therefore a spirit sibling to Jesus Christ. He has since apologized, and I doubt anyone will think twice about it. I have appreciated the fact that he and his campaign have (for the most part) avoided bring Mormonism out as an issue against Romney's candidacy.

However, I was apalled by the display of MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell on the McLaughlin Group. In what seemed to be a fit of bigotrous rage he went on a Anti-Mormon rant, he alledged that Joseph Smith was a pro-slavery criminal and that Mormonism is a religion based on racism and lies. The man was nearly foaming from the mouth. O'Donnell, who seemed to be the only person on the panel not even slightly impressed by Romney's Religion in America speech, called the speech the worst speech he has heard in his political lifetime. I doubt Mr. O'Donnell disliked the speech because it was a bad speech (at least 99% of GW Bush's speeches would qualify as worse than Romney's religion speech in my opinion) but because Romney didn't cower and apologize for the tenets of Mormonism. He definitely qualifies as the Rectum of the Year award.

Iran -- No Nuke Program

I have for the most part been a supporter of the Bush administration, and when I have found the Bush administration wanting I have looked the other way. No weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- fine. Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator who needed to be removed from power (should have happened over a decade earlier in GWI). The other scandals that have plagued his administration to a certain point seemed like dirty politics, but nothing worse than what I've seen come from other Presidents. However (if reports are accurate) the Bush Administration has crossed a major line.

For months there has been a concerted effort by conservative pundits, the Bush administration, and others in the Federal government to paint the Iranian government as a threat to world peace, with a Nazi-esque leader, and a full scale nuclear weapons program. The suggestion was made by several right-wingers that the US needs to attack Iran preemptively. A frightening proposition, all warranted if the rhetoric coming from the Bush administration is true. Unfortunately, (according to recent reports) one major issue of the Iran rhetoric is false. Iran has no nuclear weapons program, and hasn't for years.

I can accept bad intelligence as an excuse the first time, but a second time, and regarding a matter that has become a central issue in the Bush administration? I shudder to find myself echoing impeachment sentiments of left-wingers like Rocky Andersen and Congressional Democrats. However, given the (apparent) reckless foreign policy of the Bush administration to provoke, intimidate, and condemn (by fraudulent means) foreign powers -- impeachment of the commander-in-chief (quite possibly)needs to be explored.

Utah No Longer Hearts Families of Disabled Utahns

This past week I attended a seminar on tax changes -- gearing up for the 2008 tax season. During the seminar, a representative from the Utah State Tax Commission presented tax changes for 2007 and 2008. For 2007 the tax changes aren't all that significant, if your rich ($150k+ incomes) you may very likely enjoy the benefits of the flat tax and if you are an average Joe you will pretty much have the exact same state income tax situation you had in 2006.

However, starting in 2008 things will change. We will all start using a modified flat tax system. Instead of explaining the specifics of the modified flat tax I'll refer you to a previous post in this blog.

There is at least one item that becomes noticeably absent in 2008. For years the state of Utah has given families with disabled dependants an extra exemption. In 2008 you will no longer be given a deduction for dependants, instead (if you are below certain income thresholds) you will be given a tax credit based on the number of dependants on your return. Inexplicably, the state disabled dependency exemption is not included in the dependency tax credit.

What was the justification of removing what was one of the few family friendly tax provisions in the Utah state tax code? It would be reprehensible if the exemption was removed merely as some revenue neutral provision of last years tax cut. Way to take away tax benefits from often financially burdened families in the name of a tax cut that, although with deduction and exemption based credits is beneficial to most Utah taxpayers, was clearly a tax cut for the rich.

I wonder if local disabled advocacy groups were, or are aware that the dependency exemption was a victim of the 2008 tax cut.

In the interest of full disclosure I am biased in this issue. My son has an (as of yet) undiagnosed neurological disorder. I would not like anyone to think that I view my son as a burden or a trial, but since we have started seeking diagnosis, therapies, and treatment I have become quite aware of the effort, financial cost, and time involved in caring for disabled individuals. Removing a tax break for such families was a heavy-handed move, and one I hope will be remedied.

2007 Tax Year Approaching

We just received our early release version of our 2007 tax software. With all of the tax changes in the state legislature, I wasn't quite sure whether the state was using the credit/flat tax system, dual system, or the traditional system for 2007. In case anyone else was wondering the state is using the dual system for the 2007 tax year. It is pretty incredible how not-beneficial the flat tax is to me.

Traditional 100 dollars of tax
Flat 2458 dollars of tax

December is pretty boring in the tax world. I'm thinking of asking my boss to lay me off for the month of December.

Wrongful Conviction Reimbursment Proposal

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

This proposal is flawed to say the least.

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

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

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

BYU - Utah: Testosterone in the Beehive State

The rivalry game was once again a great game -- until the bitter end. BYU played solid ball at the end, but it was irritating to see the Ref's make such crappy calls during such a pivotal moment in the game. (i.e. the alleged PI call, and the personal foul on the Utes that under identical circumstances a drive earlier with the Y was ignored) I'm not even arguing that the ref's were wrong -- I'm saying when a game is that tight, refs should leave the game in the hands of the players.

KSL Boards have been interesting regarding the game -- alright somewhat idiotic. Both Utah and BYU fans are bursting with emotion at each other about a game that, to the average fan, should mean little more than a few hours of entertainment on a Saturday afternoon. It is fairly incredible how emotionally invested people become in the wins and losses of a team with which they really have no stake. It is apparent that while many in the Beehive state preach charity and brotherly kindness on Sunday's those rules don't apply in Rice Eccles Stadium, LaVell Edwards Stadium or on KSL.com.

UPDATE: DesNews had the fairest assessment of what happened on Saturday. There were questionable calls, but blowing that 4th and 18 was inexcusable.

On another note, my dislike of zoobies was kindled again by BYU player Austin Collie who commented:

"When your doing what is right, on and off the field, the Lord steps in and plays a part."

The DesNews author rightly rebutted:

"Seems to me (if) the Lord cared so much about BYU winning, the cougars would beat the Utes 100-0 every year and not lose games to UCLA and Tulsa."

Good Luck to BYU in Bowls and B-Ball. The UNC game was great. They have an awesome Coach in Rose who used to coach here at Dixie (I think)

Veterans Day

I found this video on Dave Fletcher's blog. When I reflect on the sacrifices of our men and women of the Armed Forces I feel fairly undeserving of the freedom which these individuals have ensured. We are forever indebted to these individuals, and may we seek to better honor the valor and love that our soldiers have shown.

In the universal measuring stick of bravery and manhood, I am a dwarf compared to those who have taken the weight of the banner of freedom on their shoulders.

Vouchers -- Mr. Byrne Should Crawl Under a Rock

I didn't know much about this fellow during the voucher debate, but he has shown what he is made of since vouchers were shot down.

Mr. Patrick Byrne, founder and CEO of Overstock.com asserts that Utahn's who voted vouchers down are child-hating, racists. He now states that he will bank roll any candidate who can defeat Huntsman -- even a communist.

"I think that he, as a governor, he's house-sitting in the governor's mansion to the day Utah elects an actual governor. I don't care if he's communist. I wouldn't care where he was politically. If any opponent emerged, he would have my unqualified support."

I'm curious as to why this fellow was so emotionally invested in vouchers (other than his 2.7 million dollar contribution to the effort) did he see a possible monetary gain, was he beaten as a child in his public school, or as (I suspect) he is simply a jerk.

He might be a good part of the reason that vouchers were shot down, he made the debate personal and dirty rather than a valuable forum to pursue quality, innovative education reforms.

That is my last post on vouchers, I promise.

Mitt Romney Hearts Home-Schoolers

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

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

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

Vouchers -- Thats All I Have To Say About That

It's over.

I hope innovative education reform innitiatives don't die with it, but at least the annoying UPS and PCE ads will stop. The UPS ads with the teacher with the annoying Utah soccer mom accent was driving me insane, and up until few weeks any time a PCE ad came on I wanted to shoot the television.

Vouchers -- Will the REAL Legislative Fiscal Analyst Please Step Forward?

In my last voucher thread, Rep. Urquhart stated that the voucher math is rather straight forward. However, judging from the debate the Legislative Fiscal Analyst's report has created in the blogosphere I would respectfully disagree.

I would like to offer top posting to the Legislative Fiscal Analyst to explain the results of his report regarding HB148 and 174. However, if blogging on the issue in a private site is unacceptable, than I wonder if there could be some other opportunity to have the man who came up with the numbers explain the report, and respond to questions about the report to anyone in the blogosphere. I will fully admit that there may be something that I am missing in the math, but if that is the case than I know I'm not alone.

I would like to ask if Ric Cantrell, Steve U., or some other blogger on Capital Hill could help set up such an event?

For a Laugh

Apparently I'm having a rough time posting YouTube video today. Brian Regan is one of my favorite comics, and one of my favorite diversions from work. This bit rocks even though it is voiced over some Japanimation film.

Romney: Either not much of a Mormon, or Not Much for Intellectual Honesty

Okay, this comment by Mitt Romney struck me as particularly disingenuous.

"No president could possibly take orders or even input from religious leaders telling him what to do," Romney, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation" program. "My church wouldn't endeavor to tell me what to do on an issue, and I wouldn't listen to them on an issue that related to our nation."

First off, for years presidents have used evangelical pastors like (can't remember the name) Jimmy Swagart (???) as so called spiritual advisers. You can't tell me that those religious figures have not had effects on some decisions that American presidents have made. Second, if Romney is a stout Mormon, the positions and doctrines of the LDS church have an effect into your decision making. (i.e. abortion, gay marriage, and Utah's much lamented liquor laws) For Romney to say, "I wouldn't listen to (LDS leaders) them on an issue that related to our nation" shows a epidemic lack of intellectual honesty.

Personally I would rather hear an LDS presidential candidate (who is worth voting for) acknowledge that the teachings of the LDS church are a core part of their values, and that as such those values will (should) be a major part of his decision making as President. Someone whose decision making is not influenced by their values is like a ship with a captain who has a compass and map but would rather be guided by the whims of his crew and shipmates. They may travel making good time, but with a completely unintended destination.

Romney went on to say:

"I am not going to try and distance myself in any way, shape or form from my faith. The same kind of philosophy that's associated with other Christian faiths and the Jewish faith and others is very much consistent with (Mormonism)ours."

While I agree with Romney on the later point, it appears that (by denying that the Church will influence his decisions as a President) he is distancing himself from his faith. I believe most voters would be more likely to have empathy with Romney if he acknowledged that his faith would effect him, and bring to light some of the Christian values his faith typifies.

Bad form, Romney.

Rangel & the AMT

One of the most daunting issues facing American taxpayers is the alternative minimum tax. This piece of the American Internal Revenue Code came about in 1969, when Congress heard testimony that 155 wealthy individuals paid little or no tax in 1966 (the average inflation-indexed income of the 155 individuals would be near 1 million dollars today) Instead of fixing the problems in the regular tax code, Congress introduced a new tax system based on adding certain regular income tax adjustments or deductions back into taxable income. (extremely vague description) If the AMT is lower than the regular amount of tax than no AMT is owed otherwise the difference is added onto to regular amount of tax and the taxpayer pays AMT in full.

This has been one of the most poorly crafted pieces of the Internal Revenue Code. For starters it was not adjusted for inflation so therefore it is affecting more and more of the middle class taxpayers, it disallows deductions for state and local income taxes creating a double taxation effect in some cases, and many other serious problems.

I have commented on Charles Rangel, and his expressed desire to repeal the AMT. In a recent news letter from the National Association of Enrolled Agents it appears that serious AMT reform is likely not going to be a menu item this year with leaders from the House and the Senate both introducing additional 1 year inflation patches. However the house is still working on a massive reform package that will, among other things, include an elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax. Some of his other initiatives include, expending the child tax credit, the earned income credit, and the standard deduction, all tax provisions that are beneficial to middle and lower income taxpaying families. The article also mentioned nearly 1 trillion dollars in tax increasing offsets. I would assume that this would include increasing the capital gains rates back to their pre-Bush levels. This would be a bad move, taxing savings and investments heavily is not the right idea, as we enter a phase in American history where retirees will outnumber workers by a significant margin, and our Social Security system is still in peril of being broke before this era is complete, we need to keep as much savings and investment income in the hands of American taxpayers as possible.

Now the AMT also adds another element to the voucher issue. It was brought up at the end of my last post that it may be better if we support school choice to get the law enacted now and have the legislature fix the flaws in the legislation later. For me though the AMT is like a bright red flag against this kind of approach, Jeremy from Jeremy's Jeremiad eloquently stated the problem in earlier comment on this blog:

"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?"

That is what I finally have seen as the end result of the HB 148 and 174 voucher plan. If bad law is enacted, it becomes institutionalized and entrenched. In my experience government may see the error of past legislation, but usually it isn't until there have been years of waste and misappropriation. Even after lawmakers see the error it is difficult to remove the error because of constituents who now view the "experiment" as an entitlement.

I would rather (however unlikely this may be) that lawmakers revisit the proposal, find a means of making vouchers a truly cost-efficient means of providing school choice to taxpayers while creating savings for public schools.

Vouchers -- Humble Pie

I have been swamped at work still finishing off returns from the 2006 filing season. (I have two days left thanks to an underhanded trick of the trade) :) As the month begins to progress work has continued to pile and I'm doubting that I will have the time to complete the earth shattering, in-depth analysis I was hoping to be able to present before the November vote.

I have been reviewing the LFA report again and again, and I have hit a paradigm shifting roadblock in my support of vouchers. I do still believe vouchers would produce a fairly decent net savings for the first few years (savings ranging somewhere near4-6.2 millon or in a worse case scenario a loss) , but there will come an equilibrium within 5 to 6 years where the savings break even, and when vouchers fully implement in the 13th year and onward vouchers will inevitiably begin to net annual losses. One might argue about the ambiguities of savings from private school student who would have gone to private schools with or without vouchers and the students who may attend private schools because vouchers make the difference, however it is impossible to get around the fact as time goes by (especially after year thirteen) all students in private schools will be receiving voucher money (whether or not they wanted or needed vouchers to incentivize them out of the public school system).

Judging from the Legislative Fiscal Analyst's Report, from year 13 (and I assume from then on) vouchers will net annual losses between $43,088,978 and $59,492,020. There may have been some options that could have alleviated this undesirable effect of subsidizing students who were "no-matter-what-the-cost" private school bound such as requiring a 1 or 2 year period of public school attendance for voucher eligibility. However, with the exception to the eligibility of current Utah-residing, school-aged students no such requirements were included in HB148 or 174.

Idealogically, I do agree with the philosophy of allowing taxpayers a say in how their tax dollars are used to fund the education of their children. The one size fits approach to public education needs innovation and options. Charter schools are a great menu item in our education mix, and I believe providing more accessibility to private schools would also provide another great option for students who need a non-traditional approach to their education needs if it could be done without creating an additional drain from Utah's taxpayers and from the already underfunded public schools system. However, referendum 1 doesn't succeed in this point. After the 13th year and beyond it would be a drain on the public coffers, and I'm afraid it would be viewed as nothing more than another entitlement program.

If HB148 or 174 would have had a provision forcing voucher recipients to enter public school for at least a year or more before being voucher eligible, the thirteen year savings to loss issue may have been solved. This is not the case, HB148 would have its beneficial savings for a season but in the long-run would become a drain of Utah's tax dollars. I hope that if and when Ref 1 is voted down the Legislature reconsiders the issue, and looks at how to resolve the 13 year crunch.

Regretfully, I think I will be dropping my support of referendum 1 with the forlorned hope that the idea doesn't die permanently in this state. If this damages my credibility -- so be it. The idea is good, but the plan's execution has that 1 major flaw for me. This paradigm shift has not been an easy one for me to embrace.

I blog for myself. I find clarity in writing and verbalizing my opinion, and often I find out through my writing that I am wrong.

Have fun everyone!!

Vouchers -- Legislative Fiscal Analyst's Report

Ric Cantrell has provided me with a full breakdown of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst's Report. I don't know that this complete of a copy has been published anywhere. Take a look. I think it provides some clearer insight into one of -- if not the most important arguments in the voucher debate. I will do the same after the extended tax filing deadline passes tonight. I may need a couple of hours to brush up on price elasticity of demand, however I look forward to doing some (hopefully) useful analysis of this issue.

If vouchers will do (provide overall savings to the public school system, while providing taxpayer choice of how and where to educate their children) what proponants believe they will do, than vouchers deserve favorable consideration. However, if their is no financial or class size benefit to the public school system while subsidizing private schools than vouchers are a bad idea and should be voted down.

To me this is the issue! Everything else is noise.

Vouchers -- Thoughts on the New Approach the Legislature Should Take When they Pass Another Voucher Bill in a Few Years

I'm close to throwing in the towel on referendum one due to the abysmal way PCE has conducted the campaign to support vouchers. I can only do so much and reach so many people on my humble little blog. Now I do plan on completing the spreadsheet I have mentioned previously, and I do continue to write in support of Utah's voucher bill. However, Utahn's for Public Schools have ran a very visible, well-planned, efficient, and (judging from the visibility and efficiency) well-funded campaign, while Parent's for Choice has conducted a inefficient, visibility-lacking, possibly poorly-financed, and definitely poorly-managed campaign. I feel rather hopeless for the chances of Referendum 1's passage.

Given the relative hopelessness of the current situation, I thought I would convey a little advice should the Legislature decide to pass a repackaged voucher-type bill in the distant (or not so distant) future. The HB148-174 voucher bill had always faced one major challenge even if the referendum never came to the ballot and/or the referendum passed on Election Day -- separation between church and state. Arizona has a voucher plan that uses tax credits. Many voucher opponents feel this law was passed under false pretenses, although I don't know how anyone couldn't understand the law's intent given that the tax credit was issued only to private school students because they go to private schools. I digress. Given that the funds from the refundable credit are given first to the taxpaying parent, then to a School Tuition Organization (STO) than the STO awards the scholarship to the student at the private or religious institution of the student's choice. The tax credit was deemed constitutional during its only court challenge (Kotterman v. Killian -- Arizona Supreme Court). It appears that the main factor that made Arizona's tax credit survive judicial scrutiny it the buffer of the STO between the State of Arizona the taxpayer and the religious tuition-receiving educational institutions.

Utah's current voucher plan did not have any such buffer, and I would guess has (possibly had) a strong chance of being deemed unconstitutional.

However, tax credits are like blood in a shark tank to tax fraudsters, and such a plan would carry a heavier added cost of policing the plan to make sure abuse is limited. However, I believe a tax credit would have been a better engine for vouchers to overcome the hurdle of separation between church and state.

PCE -- Possibly HB148 and HB174's Worst Enemy

So PCE hasn't done a very good job in bringing to light the positive aspects of vouchers. They started out with a proven winner, associate the opposition with the far left, a campaign strategy that led to John Swallow being elected to the House of Representatives over Jim Matheson..... oh wait a minute he was beaten soundly. Apparently the accusation is out that PCE is paying spam bloggers, one swashbuckling spam blogger in particular.

I'm wondering when are they going to lay out a real campaign. The money spent on TV ads so far have been a waste. The pirate is a waste. If the referendum 1 election result is dependent solely off of the quality of the political campaigns only I'd have to say I would expect Utahn's for Public Education could win in a walk.

This organization has made me feel rather hopeless regarding the chances for Referendum 1 to pass. Spend some money on making arguments regarding the benefits of vouchers, benefits of competition, savings to the education system, reduced public school class sizes, right of self-determination by parents of Utah's school children. Do something! Pay me to blog about the benefits of vouchers, at least I would make some points about the actual issues. Enlisting the disingenuous buccaneer in such a valuable cause to me is insulting.

Hattip Jeremy and Bob Aagard

Vouchers -- Financial Analysis "Its About the Money"

This is a revision of the post I wrote last night.

Yesterday I was reading some comments at Steve Urquhart's blog and I noticed there seems to be confusion on how much savings there will or will not be from voucher implementation. I spent some time last night writing a spreadsheet model based on certain assumptions (no currently attending private school students could receive vouchers, only students switching from public to private, out of state move ins, and new kindergartners will receive vouchers -- 100% savings per voucher issued) however I realize a large flaw with my assumption due to the fact that many new students (out of state move ins, and new kindergartners) many not have ever gone to public schools without vouchers. As far as my calculations go I don't really see any circumstances where there would not be a net financial benefit to public schools because of voucher implementation, however I haven't figured out how to account for the money that isn't saved due to voucher receiving students who never would have attended public school without vouchers. I would like some help making the model as accurate as possible -- if interested in collaborating or if you just want to access the spreadsheet please email me. If anyone knows how to make a Google spreadsheet open for anyone to view and alter please tell me. The idea with the spreadsheet is that anyone can alter the variables and see the net effect on savings from those changes.

I believe vouchers provide a powerful means of increasing per student spending in state of Utah. By allowing parents the right to take a portion of the money the state was going to spend on their kids for education elsewhere, the remaining funds can be stretched to help increase per student spending on the kids that stay in public school.

I also believe giving taxpayers the right to determine how their tax dollars are used to educate their children is the right move. I don't believe the one size fits all model of education for which most public schools operate is best for all Utah children. Charter schools are a fantastic asset to the state's educational menu. Vouchers provide another menu item for parents to tailor how best to meet the educational needs of their children. Vouchers also can save money for public schools to improve education for public school children.

Utah's public schools are great, I am product of them and I pretty sure that most of my children will be schooled in public school as well. However I believe vouchers are a worthy experiment that can help improve Utah education in many aspects.

Best Tounge n' Cheek Comment of the Month -- Vouchers

Very Sincere Hattip to Alienated Wannabe,

With the voucher vote coming up, I have been trying to muster up the energy to get back into the debate. I'll probably start writing heavy on the issue after the extended tax deadline on October 15th. Till then read the bills (which are available on this blog and almost any other Utah blog) analyze some of the pro's and con's (if possible without being sucked into the BS that UPS and PCE have peddled) and make as informed a decision as possible as to what will most benefit Utah education. Now for the comment of the month, Rob was announcing UPS anti-voucher signs had arrived and how to order some to which fellow voucher supporter AW replied:

"For those interested, I am also taking orders for my PRO-VOUCHER yard signs. I borrowed my son's crayons and made them myself. They are really cool looking, and they have catchy slogans like the following:

1) Edward Kennedy, Nancy Palosi, Moveon.org, Joseph Stalin and Charles Manson are all opposed to school vouchers. Don't be like them. Join our 90% plus Active Mormon Legislature, an enthusiastic Governor Jon Huntsman, and the Hosts of Heaven in voting to protect our noble Utah law granting parents the choice in deciding how to best educate their children. Support vouchers! (A bit on the long side, but I am confident that passing motorists can catch it all if they read fast.)

2) Vote for vouchers, or be damned!

3) Don't be like all those dumb public-school-educated L-worders out there. Vote for vouchers!

4) What would Ronald Reagan do? Vote for vouchers!

5) Satan's plan is to take away your choice, just like the anti-voucher evil doers. You are either for us or against us. Vote for vouchers!

6) The Utah Axis of Evil: The UEA, the Utah Democratic Party, and Rocky Anderson -- all opposed to vouchers. Need I say more?Or, my personal favorite:

7) Go ye out from among the wicked. Vote for vouchers!

Please place your orders on my blog. I look forward to hearing from you. Working together, we can protect the rights of Utah parents to raise their children according to what they think is best. That is all I want.

Love,

A.W.

That comment made my day!

Seriously, if you vote against vouchers your going to hell.

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.