There is a bill being sponsored in the state legislature that would end publicizing the salary specifics of non-elected and non-appointed public employees. HB266 is being sponsored by Rep Powell of Heber City, which was supposedly inspired by the Heber City payroll manager who claimed publicized salary information of employees was causing "strife" in the workplace.
Although this bill seems harmless, who doesn't want to protect public employees privacy, it would set a bad precedence. Despite the fact that the bill would still provide salary ranges and titles of public employees, it would diminish the rights of taxpayers to know specifics of how their tax dollars are being spent and on whom. Especially in smaller governments, I suspect that nepotism/cronyism is a problem, or at least a perceived problem in Utah. In 2004, Salt Lake County Mayor Workman was charged for using nepotism and County funds. Last year, the Mayor of the small Utah metropolis Stockton attempted to fire a cop for citing his son. Allowing public governments to withhold names of public employees would only increase (1) nepotism/cronyism in city and county governments and/or (2) increase the perception of nepotism/cronyism in these governmental organizations.
Moral of the story is limiting public access to government information is never a good thing. Public employees must realize, and I believe most do, that they are being paid with entrusted funds and that the public has the right to know anything they want about the use of those funds. While I agree with the bills (no doubt) earnest concerns to protect public employees from identity theft, I don't believe the state's city and county officials need to be handed a information vault to do so. State law doesn't require the publishing of SSN's of public employees just the names, titles, and income.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Divorce Decrees and Form 8332
In a Tax Court case Thomas v. Commissioner released 1-19-2010, petitioner asked the court to determine if he is entitled to a dependency exemption despite the fact that the petitioners ex-wife claimed the dependency exemption in violation of the agreement in the divorce decree.
In the divorce decree, the petitioner and the P's ex-wife had agreed to claim the dependency exemption for their child on alternating years with a caveat that the petitioner remained current on child support. In the tax year at issue petitioners ex-wife claimed the exemption in a year that the petitioner was entitled to the exemption and the petitioner was current on his child support. The petitoner paper filed his return but he attached the divorce decree instead of form 8332
The petitioner doesn't meet any of the ordinary criteria to claim the exemption -- his only hope is Section 152(e). The requirements are that the
-- Taxpayer provides over one half of the support for the child (51%)
-- The parents have to be divorced or separated for at least the last 6 months of the tax year.
-- The dependant is in the custody of one or both parents
-- The custodial parent releases the exemption in writing. The written release must conform to the following and only the following:
The declaration includes the children's names and the years for which the exemption is being released
The custodial parents signature and date
The custodial and noncustodial parents name's and SSN's
The court held that petitioner is not entitled to the exemption because (among other things) the divorce decree contained conditions for the exemptions release. Unfortunately the conditional release of the dependancy exemption is a common componant in divorce decree language, and it is in direct opposition to the requirements proscribed by the Treasury Department.
First, I would encourage attorneys to discuss the dependancy exemption much more thoroughly and (if possible) draft language in the decree that conforms to form 8332 and IRC Section 152(e). This is much easier said than done. Due to that fact that conforming language requires an unconditional release of the exemption, custodial parents who agree to form 8332 conforming language will have to accept losing the ability to use the exemption as a bartering tool. On the other hand non-custodial parents who are only able to get conditional exemption releases in the decree language are left somewhat to the whims of the custodial parents to sign form 8332 each year that they are entitled to the dependancy or to violate the decree and claim the child anyway.
Due the paradox that section 152(e) and form 8332 create for divorcing couples, I would like to suggest that Congress consider a limited (to the exemption amount) adjustment or deduction for child support. Doing so would grant some comparable tax relief to non-custodial parents who are honest in paying child support, and it would eliminate major controversies. The custodial parent maintains the exemption and the child tax credit, and the non custodial parent gets relief for taking part in the care of their children, and the IRS would no longer be burdened with trying to chase down who gets the exemption and who has to pay back taxes and penalties for claiming the exemption when they were not entitled to.
In the divorce decree, the petitioner and the P's ex-wife had agreed to claim the dependency exemption for their child on alternating years with a caveat that the petitioner remained current on child support. In the tax year at issue petitioners ex-wife claimed the exemption in a year that the petitioner was entitled to the exemption and the petitioner was current on his child support. The petitoner paper filed his return but he attached the divorce decree instead of form 8332
The petitioner doesn't meet any of the ordinary criteria to claim the exemption -- his only hope is Section 152(e). The requirements are that the
-- Taxpayer provides over one half of the support for the child (51%)
-- The parents have to be divorced or separated for at least the last 6 months of the tax year.
-- The dependant is in the custody of one or both parents
-- The custodial parent releases the exemption in writing. The written release must conform to the following and only the following:
The declaration includes the children's names and the years for which the exemption is being released
The custodial parents signature and date
The custodial and noncustodial parents name's and SSN's
The court held that petitioner is not entitled to the exemption because (among other things) the divorce decree contained conditions for the exemptions release. Unfortunately the conditional release of the dependancy exemption is a common componant in divorce decree language, and it is in direct opposition to the requirements proscribed by the Treasury Department.
First, I would encourage attorneys to discuss the dependancy exemption much more thoroughly and (if possible) draft language in the decree that conforms to form 8332 and IRC Section 152(e). This is much easier said than done. Due to that fact that conforming language requires an unconditional release of the exemption, custodial parents who agree to form 8332 conforming language will have to accept losing the ability to use the exemption as a bartering tool. On the other hand non-custodial parents who are only able to get conditional exemption releases in the decree language are left somewhat to the whims of the custodial parents to sign form 8332 each year that they are entitled to the dependancy or to violate the decree and claim the child anyway.
Due the paradox that section 152(e) and form 8332 create for divorcing couples, I would like to suggest that Congress consider a limited (to the exemption amount) adjustment or deduction for child support. Doing so would grant some comparable tax relief to non-custodial parents who are honest in paying child support, and it would eliminate major controversies. The custodial parent maintains the exemption and the child tax credit, and the non custodial parent gets relief for taking part in the care of their children, and the IRS would no longer be burdened with trying to chase down who gets the exemption and who has to pay back taxes and penalties for claiming the exemption when they were not entitled to.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Boner Candidate -- Mayor of Stockton
I miss X96 and boner awards. In homage to the X96 boner awards, I would like to nominate and award the mayor of Stockton Utah with the Green Jello Boner.
Officer Josh Rowell, who paid his own way through Utah Police Officer training, was running a DUI checkpoint last Tuesday night when he noticed a car appeared to try and evade his checkpoint. He tracked the car down pulled the driver over and ticketed the driver for not having a license.
When I first heard this story I thought of the Dead Milkmen song "Bitchin' Camaro".
Officer Josh Rowell, who paid his own way through Utah Police Officer training, was running a DUI checkpoint last Tuesday night when he noticed a car appeared to try and evade his checkpoint. He tracked the car down pulled the driver over and ticketed the driver for not having a license.
The mayor apparently renigged on the full firing, but suspended Officer Rowell without pay."About 20 minutes later, Rowell found the police chief in the mayor's pickup. "You could tell just the way the mayor's hands were flying, the mayor was upset," Rowell said. When the officer approached the pair, Rowell said the mayor fired him. "Are you the one that gave my son a ticket?" Rowell recalled of the conversation. "I want your badge tomorrow morning."
When I first heard this story I thought of the Dead Milkmen song "Bitchin' Camaro".
My folks bought me a bitchin' CamaroThis is one of those stories that make you cringe. What a moron that mayor must be, his son gets a ticket and he has the unmitigated gal to to fire the officer who did it? Now that the town knows how much respect he has for the law and his own police department -- I'm sure his next reelection bid has gotten much, much more interesting.
With no insurance to match
So if I happen to run you down
Please don't leave a scratch
I ran over some old lady
One night at the county fair
And I didn't get arrested
Because my dad's the mayor
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Come on, Dems! Try working in UK Parliment.
So Democratic house leadership is now going forward with a resolution to rebuke Joe Wilson for having the audacity to shout at President Obama during his health care address. I'm sorry folks, the Dem leadership is wasting time and (I hope the majority of the nation's patience) my patience with crap like this. President Obama is a big boy, he already accepted Wilson's apology -- so why waste time with floor debates about a resolution to rebuke someone when there is so much more important work that needs to be done. The Democrats are making themselves look feeble-minded and petty, and they are again demonstrating why congressional term limits are necessary -- senior congressional leaders become far less concerned about representing their constituents over their party. Seniority and power on the hill need to be decoupled.
Compared to UK Parliament, Congress is an old woman's tea party. Heckling is a regular and (for me personally) cherished part of the English Parliament. Congress could use more passionate questioning of ideas in debate, maybe heckling would wake up Congress enough to actually make sure 700 billion "stimulus" bills are actually read before enacting them into law.
UPDATE -- Congressional Democrats are a bunch of Wankers. They passed the resolution rebuking Rep. Wilson 240-179. I think I want to run for Congress one day on a Heckler platform -- we need more heckling in Congress, not less. Props to Rep. Wilson, speak out!
Compared to UK Parliament, Congress is an old woman's tea party. Heckling is a regular and (for me personally) cherished part of the English Parliament. Congress could use more passionate questioning of ideas in debate, maybe heckling would wake up Congress enough to actually make sure 700 billion "stimulus" bills are actually read before enacting them into law.
UPDATE -- Congressional Democrats are a bunch of Wankers. They passed the resolution rebuking Rep. Wilson 240-179. I think I want to run for Congress one day on a Heckler platform -- we need more heckling in Congress, not less. Props to Rep. Wilson, speak out!
American Indians take the Washingon Redskins to SCOTUS
I'm surprised that this hasn't gone to the high court sooner. Many will remember the NCAA's attempt to crack down on possibly offensive Native American mascots during the 2004-2005 athletic year by banning offending schools from championships (I believe). The NCAA targeted everyone, even if the teams used accurate tribal names as an homage to local tribes -- like Utes, Seminoles, and the Illini.
Redskins has always been like a circa-1940 racist characture from Cowboy and Indian folklore. For it to last unchallenged in the enlightened politically correct east coast is astounding.
My prediction -- Washington Redskins will become the Washington Red Storm in the 2011-2012 season. However, the conservative majority on the court may hold for the NFL team.
Redskins has always been like a circa-1940 racist characture from Cowboy and Indian folklore. For it to last unchallenged in the enlightened politically correct east coast is astounding.
My prediction -- Washington Redskins will become the Washington Red Storm in the 2011-2012 season. However, the conservative majority on the court may hold for the NFL team.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
William Wilberforce -- Healthcare Reform
I have been going through a bit of a refiners fire for several months -- and things have come to what appears to be a rather serious head. This has led to some awakenings -- and I have come to think on William Wilberforce.
William Wilberforce was a British politician & activists that the fight to end the slave trade and to abolish slavery in the British Empire in the early half of the 18th century. He was called a seditionists and struggled to abolish the slave trade for 26 years, and slavery wasn't ultimately abolished until 1833 -- days before his death. I enjoy the account in the movie "Amazing Grace" Wilberforce is portrayed as a politician firm in his convictions and willing to fight for them until they are accomplished. I am great admirer or his strentgh as a politician, and as an advocate for those with no voice.
The are paraleles to Wilberforce's battle, and the healthcare reform fight. It is a kind of oppression in that 46 million American's don't have affrodable access to basic healthcare, and it is wrong that 46 million Americans cannot afford the peace of mind that health insurance coverage provides, it is wrong that 46 million Americans face financial disaster while convalecing from serious injury or illness. This argument is about right and wrong! In most things I believe the market should be left alone, however in the matter of the health care the market hand is and has been to icy.
I was impressed with what I heard from the President the other night (however vauge it was). The fact of this debate is that affordable and available healthcare for all is the right move. I hope that our leaders on the right and left sides of the isle do all that they can to pass health care reform this year or early next year -- this is not something that should be delayed.
The part of the president's plan that was most appealing was the pooling of uninsured small businesses and indivduals in his proposed "National Health Insurance Exchange". Using a public option for the most hard-luck cases seems like a reasonable plan.
I'll admit my bias. Over the past few months my own health deteriorated, and the probable diagnoses that doctors are pursuing go from scary to terrifying. I am also the uninsured controller of a small local company. The fear of where my health problems may lead, and the stress of knowing the financial ruin that will come with it is agonizing. My children and I are high risk and virtually uninsurable because of a rare genetic disorder that pre-disposes us to cancers and various benign tumors. Even before we discovered genetic disorder insurance was unaffordable for my small family of 4 then 5. The last quote for comprehensive insurance that came close to rivalling the insurance provided by large employers was 2X more than my monthly rent payment at the time and nearly as much as my mortgage payment now. Quotes for HSA insurance was as much as car a car payment, and that didn't even include money tucked away in the savings plan. Federal and state guidelines for SCHIP and Medicaid qualifying gross earnings have always been barely too low for me and my family to qualify. We need (at least a type of) the major reforms that are being proposed, and we need to have the moral honesty to admit that this is the right thing to do.
William Wilberforce was a British politician & activists that the fight to end the slave trade and to abolish slavery in the British Empire in the early half of the 18th century. He was called a seditionists and struggled to abolish the slave trade for 26 years, and slavery wasn't ultimately abolished until 1833 -- days before his death. I enjoy the account in the movie "Amazing Grace" Wilberforce is portrayed as a politician firm in his convictions and willing to fight for them until they are accomplished. I am great admirer or his strentgh as a politician, and as an advocate for those with no voice.
The are paraleles to Wilberforce's battle, and the healthcare reform fight. It is a kind of oppression in that 46 million American's don't have affrodable access to basic healthcare, and it is wrong that 46 million Americans cannot afford the peace of mind that health insurance coverage provides, it is wrong that 46 million Americans face financial disaster while convalecing from serious injury or illness. This argument is about right and wrong! In most things I believe the market should be left alone, however in the matter of the health care the market hand is and has been to icy.
I was impressed with what I heard from the President the other night (however vauge it was). The fact of this debate is that affordable and available healthcare for all is the right move. I hope that our leaders on the right and left sides of the isle do all that they can to pass health care reform this year or early next year -- this is not something that should be delayed.
The part of the president's plan that was most appealing was the pooling of uninsured small businesses and indivduals in his proposed "National Health Insurance Exchange". Using a public option for the most hard-luck cases seems like a reasonable plan.
I'll admit my bias. Over the past few months my own health deteriorated, and the probable diagnoses that doctors are pursuing go from scary to terrifying. I am also the uninsured controller of a small local company. The fear of where my health problems may lead, and the stress of knowing the financial ruin that will come with it is agonizing. My children and I are high risk and virtually uninsurable because of a rare genetic disorder that pre-disposes us to cancers and various benign tumors. Even before we discovered genetic disorder insurance was unaffordable for my small family of 4 then 5. The last quote for comprehensive insurance that came close to rivalling the insurance provided by large employers was 2X more than my monthly rent payment at the time and nearly as much as my mortgage payment now. Quotes for HSA insurance was as much as car a car payment, and that didn't even include money tucked away in the savings plan. Federal and state guidelines for SCHIP and Medicaid qualifying gross earnings have always been barely too low for me and my family to qualify. We need (at least a type of) the major reforms that are being proposed, and we need to have the moral honesty to admit that this is the right thing to do.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Healthcare Reform -- The Income Tax circa-1913
I am for health care being made available and affordable to all Americans, and I'm (very cautiously) in favor (at least not completely opposed) to a nationalized health care option. However, I think caution is needed in accepting Congress' current plan and the guarantees the president and congressional leaders make regarding the a fore mentioned Act. I thought I would bring up something from our past to illustrate -- the income tax.
The first tax return was required to be filed by those that made 3,000 dollars+ during the tax year -- over 64,000 dollars adjusted for inflation. The top rate for the uber-rich was a big fat 6%. A minute 1% tax was owed if an individual had net income less that 20,000 dollars -- 430,406 dollars inflated to 2008 value. The income tax promised when it was enacted was supposed to small and painless to We the People, but the tax system promised has turned into a monstrous beast of government influence. The rates are high, it is used as welfare vehicle, and it is incredibly complex, a gross mutation from the simplistic tax system enacted in 1913.
The President and Congressional leaders are promising that the public option (using the Social Security/Medicare system -- the largest ponzi scheme ever) will provide a flowery fix to the problem of ever booming health care costs. We the people need to have our voices heard on this issue. Given the problems that Social Security already has, it gives me pause to think that our leaders want to put the entire health care in the hands of this same agency. It may be that using Social Security is the best option to provide insurance to everyone, but Congress needs to put a little more caution into creating (what may become) one of the most intrusive government programs in American history.
While I yearn to feel confident that my family and I can afford to see doctors when necessary, I am scared to death to think of Social Security-esque bureaucracy becoming a part of the health care system. I have nightmares of taking my kids to the doctors and the offices resembling the stark white, inefficient Social Security offices I have had to misfortune of visiting on a few occasions.
There may be other options.
y-intercept had an interesting post, about the perverse incentives that insurers have in rising health care costs. He suggested that health cost should flow through individual accounts in Medical Savings and Loans, laws of supply and demand would be better able to regulate skyrocketing health care costs.
I hope that our leaders step back before they take us down a road that will be irreversible. I fear that we will soon tie ourselves to a system that our children will curse for generations to come. Everyone needs to be able to see a physician without worrying about bankruptcy, but we should be able to do it without possibly bankrupting the nation or burdening future generations with an even more grievous tax burden.
The first tax return was required to be filed by those that made 3,000 dollars+ during the tax year -- over 64,000 dollars adjusted for inflation. The top rate for the uber-rich was a big fat 6%. A minute 1% tax was owed if an individual had net income less that 20,000 dollars -- 430,406 dollars inflated to 2008 value. The income tax promised when it was enacted was supposed to small and painless to We the People, but the tax system promised has turned into a monstrous beast of government influence. The rates are high, it is used as welfare vehicle, and it is incredibly complex, a gross mutation from the simplistic tax system enacted in 1913.
The President and Congressional leaders are promising that the public option (using the Social Security/Medicare system -- the largest ponzi scheme ever) will provide a flowery fix to the problem of ever booming health care costs. We the people need to have our voices heard on this issue. Given the problems that Social Security already has, it gives me pause to think that our leaders want to put the entire health care in the hands of this same agency. It may be that using Social Security is the best option to provide insurance to everyone, but Congress needs to put a little more caution into creating (what may become) one of the most intrusive government programs in American history.
While I yearn to feel confident that my family and I can afford to see doctors when necessary, I am scared to death to think of Social Security-esque bureaucracy becoming a part of the health care system. I have nightmares of taking my kids to the doctors and the offices resembling the stark white, inefficient Social Security offices I have had to misfortune of visiting on a few occasions.
There may be other options.
y-intercept had an interesting post, about the perverse incentives that insurers have in rising health care costs. He suggested that health cost should flow through individual accounts in Medical Savings and Loans, laws of supply and demand would be better able to regulate skyrocketing health care costs.
I hope that our leaders step back before they take us down a road that will be irreversible. I fear that we will soon tie ourselves to a system that our children will curse for generations to come. Everyone needs to be able to see a physician without worrying about bankruptcy, but we should be able to do it without possibly bankrupting the nation or burdening future generations with an even more grievous tax burden.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Madoff -- He has a Projected Release Date
I found this to be rather interesting. Bernie Madoff received a 150-year sentence for his Ponzi scam. You would think a sentence of 150 years would be treated as a life sentence without the possibility of parole -- the end. However, the Federal Prison Bureau has calculated a projected release date for Madoff and the date is Nov. 14, 2139. The good news for Madoff is he has already knocked 20 years off of his sentence.
I wonder why have a release date for him. There is the obvious answer of federal agencies just following policies and procedures, but there is also a demoralizing factor for a prisoner like Madoff of puting a date to the end of his sentence. "You can get out in 2139" is a lot more vivid than, "you are sentenced to 150 years in prison." Point is -- Madoff is going to die in there.
I wonder why have a release date for him. There is the obvious answer of federal agencies just following policies and procedures, but there is also a demoralizing factor for a prisoner like Madoff of puting a date to the end of his sentence. "You can get out in 2139" is a lot more vivid than, "you are sentenced to 150 years in prison." Point is -- Madoff is going to die in there.
The LDS Church and the Kiss Heard Round the Salt Lake Valley
Before I write anything I want to express that I am a Mormon, and I support my church's teachings. However, too many Church members view the Church's opposition to homosexuality as a lifestyle as a reason and excuse to discriminate and oppress gays and lesbians individually and as a group. For this I am sorry and embarrassed. The second great commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself -- there is no caveat in this commandment for color, religion, or sexual orientation.
Last week a gay couple was asked to leave the church owned Main Street Plaza for kissing, and was subsequently arrested when they refused. This led to a minor firestorm of criticism and protests directed at the LDS church. While I agree that some on that LDS Church security crew handled the confrontation in a bigoted circa-1963 Alabama-esque manner, I think the subsequent rage, and protests are counter-productive and somewhat misguided.
First, it is disingenuous of the arrested gay couple to claim that the kiss on the LDS Church owned plaza was just an innocent display of affection. The LDS church is often made to be the main oppressor of the gay and lesbian community in Utah. I would assume that a gay couple living downtown would know this. However, this couple expects the public to believe they were somehow shocked when they were confronted for publicly displaying affection amongst homophobic Mormons on private LDS Church property. Come on! This couple was looking to raise eyebrows, even if they didn't expect they would be arrested and treated so brutally.
Second, the LDS church and the gay and lesbian community will never see eye to eye on this issue. The LDS church (unless this ends up being a major church policy shift caused by a visit from the Deity in person) will never support gay marriage or openly support anything resembling gay marriage. The LDS church will fight gay marriage on all fronts, until the idea is completely rejected in this country, or it becomes institutionalized. I believe the biggest reason the church fights gay marriage so openly is due to our nations civil rights laws, if this was institutionalized nationally our country's civil rights laws would possibly become very cumbersome to any Christian-church that doesn't perform, solemnize, or recognize gay marriages by way of anti-discrimination lawsuits and by other legal issues that face organizations that are viewed as discriminatory. So the point is this, the battle for gay rights should be fought on other fronts (i.e. against political groups like Eagle Forum, and legislators like Chris Buttars), compromises may be needed, and most of all level headed civil political discourse should be maintained. The rage and protests against the LDS church last week seemed a little like childish-pouting. This doesn't excuse the security guards behavior, but targeting the LDS church as an organization is not going to lead gay and lesbian activists to their end goal.
Having said all that. More needs to be done to teach local LDS church members, how be more tolerant of others in this state. The backwardness of many Latter-Day Saints in Zion is somewhat appalling -- tolerance of those who drink alcohol can be a stretch for some members. For a religion that wants members to proselyte to all people, it is interesting that one of the most powerful tools (loving all men as brothers) completely eludes so many of the local Saints.
Personally, I support civil unions (that are treated exactly like marriage) as the best compromise in the gay marriage debate. Civil unions don't seem to be as problematic for Christian churches, and they provide marital benefits and protections to homosexual partners. Most of all I hope that a spirit of peace and compromise may one day lead to a resolution of this issue.
Last week a gay couple was asked to leave the church owned Main Street Plaza for kissing, and was subsequently arrested when they refused. This led to a minor firestorm of criticism and protests directed at the LDS church. While I agree that some on that LDS Church security crew handled the confrontation in a bigoted circa-1963 Alabama-esque manner, I think the subsequent rage, and protests are counter-productive and somewhat misguided.
First, it is disingenuous of the arrested gay couple to claim that the kiss on the LDS Church owned plaza was just an innocent display of affection. The LDS church is often made to be the main oppressor of the gay and lesbian community in Utah. I would assume that a gay couple living downtown would know this. However, this couple expects the public to believe they were somehow shocked when they were confronted for publicly displaying affection amongst homophobic Mormons on private LDS Church property. Come on! This couple was looking to raise eyebrows, even if they didn't expect they would be arrested and treated so brutally.
Second, the LDS church and the gay and lesbian community will never see eye to eye on this issue. The LDS church (unless this ends up being a major church policy shift caused by a visit from the Deity in person) will never support gay marriage or openly support anything resembling gay marriage. The LDS church will fight gay marriage on all fronts, until the idea is completely rejected in this country, or it becomes institutionalized. I believe the biggest reason the church fights gay marriage so openly is due to our nations civil rights laws, if this was institutionalized nationally our country's civil rights laws would possibly become very cumbersome to any Christian-church that doesn't perform, solemnize, or recognize gay marriages by way of anti-discrimination lawsuits and by other legal issues that face organizations that are viewed as discriminatory. So the point is this, the battle for gay rights should be fought on other fronts (i.e. against political groups like Eagle Forum, and legislators like Chris Buttars), compromises may be needed, and most of all level headed civil political discourse should be maintained. The rage and protests against the LDS church last week seemed a little like childish-pouting. This doesn't excuse the security guards behavior, but targeting the LDS church as an organization is not going to lead gay and lesbian activists to their end goal.
Having said all that. More needs to be done to teach local LDS church members, how be more tolerant of others in this state. The backwardness of many Latter-Day Saints in Zion is somewhat appalling -- tolerance of those who drink alcohol can be a stretch for some members. For a religion that wants members to proselyte to all people, it is interesting that one of the most powerful tools (loving all men as brothers) completely eludes so many of the local Saints.
Personally, I support civil unions (that are treated exactly like marriage) as the best compromise in the gay marriage debate. Civil unions don't seem to be as problematic for Christian churches, and they provide marital benefits and protections to homosexual partners. Most of all I hope that a spirit of peace and compromise may one day lead to a resolution of this issue.
Monday, July 06, 2009
Civil Political Discourse -- Southern Utah Style
How marvelous! St. Georgians exercised their freedom to assemble this 4th of July by having one of many National "Tea" Parties. Unfortunately, due to my camping trip to Lake Powell, I was unable to attend. Thankfully the crack squad of reporters from the Daily Spectrum were there to cover the meaningful, civil discourse between angry conservatives and a snarky Washington County Democratic Party Chair.
I don't know if it is the snarky liberal, or the bitter, angry, and phobic conservatives -- but events like this are so obnoxious. The liberal used ad hominem arguments, and baiting tactics and the local conservatives were simply parroting conservative talk radio pundits. It is the same old story -- too many Americans have political myopia.
This was my favorite:
All right, way to push political ideology on your seven year old! What kid wouldn't want to spend his 4th of July hanging out with awnry old farts?
I am sorry if this offends any of the attendees, but the lack of civil, intelligent political discourse is one of the greatest stumbling blocks for our state and nation. We need to open our eyes, pay a little less attention to pundits, give a little more consideration to what problems need to be addressed, and figure out which elected officials are most likely to present real solutions to those problems.
Washington County Democratic Party Chairman Cyril Noble braved a hostile crowd when he stood at the microphone and said, "Repeat after me, 'Obama - a two-term president.'"Amid a growing chorus of boos and shouts of "Traitor!" and "Go home!" Noble said, "He is doing the best he can."
Noble noted his own accent, saying, "I am an American. ... I am an immigrant, which you don't like."
Someone in the crowd called, "Sounds like he's trying to be a victim, to me."
I don't know if it is the snarky liberal, or the bitter, angry, and phobic conservatives -- but events like this are so obnoxious. The liberal used ad hominem arguments, and baiting tactics and the local conservatives were simply parroting conservative talk radio pundits. It is the same old story -- too many Americans have political myopia.
This was my favorite:
Seven-year-old Fox Barrett was one of the speakers to raise his voice against the president from the microphone."I'm a conservative, and I just want to say to Obama, 'Stop stealing my future,'" he said.
"He's been wanting to do this since April," said his father, Brett Barrett, while the pair waited in line.
"So he's going to exercise his First Amendment rights, then we're going to go home and exercise our Second Amendment rights," he said, indicating they were going to go shooting at the local firing range.
All right, way to push political ideology on your seven year old! What kid wouldn't want to spend his 4th of July hanging out with awnry old farts?
I am sorry if this offends any of the attendees, but the lack of civil, intelligent political discourse is one of the greatest stumbling blocks for our state and nation. We need to open our eyes, pay a little less attention to pundits, give a little more consideration to what problems need to be addressed, and figure out which elected officials are most likely to present real solutions to those problems.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Bravo Supreme Court
The Supreme Court released a decision yesterday regarding reverse discrimination. The "ruling that New Haven, Conn., wrongly discriminated against a group of mostly white firefighters who lost out when a promotion exam was scrapped because no blacks scored well enough to advance". Interestingly enough, there seems to be a great deal of debate on whether this ruling creates new problems for businesses or whether the new ruling provides clarity in relation to civil rights practices by employers. The decision shows that employers must be on solid ground before they make a decisions that discriminate against a certain group of employees irregardless of whether the group is a protected minority.
In the opinion of this author, Monday's ruling is a clear indicator that race cannot be the trump card in making employment decisions -- even in regards to protected groups. I hope that this ruling remedies some of the perceived and in certain cases actual perverse results of affirmative action laws. Since affirmative action was enacted there has been legitimate gripes that affirmative actions mandates reverse discrimination in order to counter-balance the history of gross racial inequality in the US. Affirmative action has major problems; it has left reverse-discriminated individuals with racially charged grievances, and it has added an unnecessary concern for businesses in employment matters. This ruling seems to say, as long as the business is doing all it can to make sure employment and advancement policies are fair to all employees, businesses should hire and advance employees by the employers normal policies irregardless of whether or not targeted/protected minorities are among those who qualify for employment and advancement. This is a ruling that clarifies affirmative action, and says it is okay for businesses to hire based of merit and qualification, and (should overtime) remove the incorrect perception that companies must reverse-discriminate in order to be compliant with Civil Rights statutes.
There is one problem. This ruling says that a company can ignore race as an employment factor if the company can show that it made sufficient effort to ensure employment decisions and policies are fair to all groups and races. How does a company prove that their employment policies and practices are fair to all races and groups? I think many employers will have to review their hiring and advancement practices to make sure they have policies in place that not only are fair to protected minorities, but policies that promote and hire qualified employees without using race as the determining factor. This will be difficult for for many entities that have history of reverse discrimination policies as a fail safe method to maintain the appearance of being compliant with affirmative action.
In the opinion of this author, Monday's ruling is a clear indicator that race cannot be the trump card in making employment decisions -- even in regards to protected groups. I hope that this ruling remedies some of the perceived and in certain cases actual perverse results of affirmative action laws. Since affirmative action was enacted there has been legitimate gripes that affirmative actions mandates reverse discrimination in order to counter-balance the history of gross racial inequality in the US. Affirmative action has major problems; it has left reverse-discriminated individuals with racially charged grievances, and it has added an unnecessary concern for businesses in employment matters. This ruling seems to say, as long as the business is doing all it can to make sure employment and advancement policies are fair to all employees, businesses should hire and advance employees by the employers normal policies irregardless of whether or not targeted/protected minorities are among those who qualify for employment and advancement. This is a ruling that clarifies affirmative action, and says it is okay for businesses to hire based of merit and qualification, and (should overtime) remove the incorrect perception that companies must reverse-discriminate in order to be compliant with Civil Rights statutes.
There is one problem. This ruling says that a company can ignore race as an employment factor if the company can show that it made sufficient effort to ensure employment decisions and policies are fair to all groups and races. How does a company prove that their employment policies and practices are fair to all races and groups? I think many employers will have to review their hiring and advancement practices to make sure they have policies in place that not only are fair to protected minorities, but policies that promote and hire qualified employees without using race as the determining factor. This will be difficult for for many entities that have history of reverse discrimination policies as a fail safe method to maintain the appearance of being compliant with affirmative action.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Utah Rental Law -- Mitigating Damages and Written Terminations
I was in Small Claims Court a couple of nights ago, because of a disputed cleaning bill from an old landlord. I have a few questions for the real lawyers out there. I'm going to provide the basic arguments of my case below and I would like to know if I have a case for an appeal:
Background
I terminated my rental agreement by phone on 2/13/2009. The landlord, who travels a great deal, said he couldn't take the time out of his busy schedule to make arrangements to get the rental re-rented and required that I list and show the home until I either rented it or he found the time to take responsibility for showing and renting the property. I ended up showing the home until March 20th after which point he finally returned to the area, cleaned the property and rented it within days.
The landlord kept a 1,400 security deposit which he accrued to March's rent. When he cleaned and made repairs, he charged over 1500 dollars for his time, water bills that accrued after I vacated, and for supplies. The majority of the bill was for his and his wife's time.
Arguments
The Plaintiff Failed to Provide a Written Itemization within 30 days
Under Utah Code Annotated § 57-17-3 requires that the landlord provide “a written itemization of any deductions from the deposit, and reasons therefore, shall be delivered or mailed to the renter within 30 days after termination of the tenancy or within 15 days after receipt of the renter's new mailing address, whichever is later.” The contract was terminated on February 13th when we notified the landlord that we were going to terminate the lease. As far as the new address requirement is concerned, Landlord received the address long before the date we terminated the contract. Weeks prior to this he asked for the address claiming he’d like to drive by the property whereas he “claimed” he might be interested in purchasing our home. Notwithstanding, the landlord is an experienced landlord (with 2 rental properties on the Wasatch Front and one 2 blocks from my home in St. George) who knows, or should know that property information is public record and easily attainable from any web browser. Landlord knew that we would be moving back to our home in Saint George and had access to the address at any time.
Failure to Mitigate Damages of the Defendant’s Contract Breach
Under Utah State Law, upon premature termination of a rental agreement, the landlord is required to make reasonable efforts find a new renter for the dwelling. During the period from Feb. 20th to March 20th, the plaintiff did not make reasonable attempts to rent the unit. When we notified the Plaintiff on or near February 13th that we were going to terminate the contract, Landlord required us to advertise and show the home to prospective renters. He said he didn’t have time to, and would not, list and show the home. He gave us an implied ultimatum regarding our deposit (i.e. if we could get it rented quickly we might be able to get a portion of the deposit back)
During February and March, Landlord was unavailable to get a new contract executed on multiple occasions due to his travels – he was in Hawaii on one occasion and Las Vegas or Pennsylvania on another. Although he claimed he would be cooperative in showing the home, Landlord never made a good faith effort to do so until March 20th – after he had accrued the majority of the deposit to March’s rent leaving no deposit monies available to cover the plaintiff’s excessive cleaning and repair fees.
As a direct result of plaintiffs’ apathy towards their legal requirement to find a new tenant, defendants were denied recovery of the 1400 dollar security deposit. On account of the plaintiffs’ failure to take mitigating actions after the defendants breach, defendants liability to the plaintiff should be limited to the 1400 security deposit already paid to the plaintiff.
The Security Deposit
The opening line in paragraph 16 states that “the security deposit set forth shall secure the performance of the resident’s obligations”. This is a protection to the defendant limiting costs of vacating the residence to the required deposit. In the contract, the security deposit is broadly defined as being usable for rent, repairs, cleaning, other contractual fees, etc. The plaintiffs’ contract clearly sets forth that the deposit secures the defendant’s obligation, and the shortfall is the fault of the plaintiffs’ for not requiring a larger deposit. The contract makes no provision for additional excess costs to be collected beyond the security deposit, and Utah Code Annotated §57-17 does not provide for collection of excess costs beyond the security deposit. Any ambiguity in the contract is the fault of the plaintiffs who presented the contract to the defendants as a requirement to rent their property.
The Judgment
The judge decision was in favor of the plaintiff because the contract requires that written notification of contract termination must be given and notification was given verbally. The landlord admitted to receiving verbal notification on 2/13 over the telephone, and verbal notification that we moved out the 21st of February. All other arguments that I made were apparently considered moot.
If anyone would like to opine on this matter feel free. As a warning to anyone renting, never ever communicate with your landlord by phone, and negotiate a early termination contingency plan. The judge was on her way to ruling in my favor over the first argument, until the written termination provision was brought up.
I'm just curious
Background
I terminated my rental agreement by phone on 2/13/2009. The landlord, who travels a great deal, said he couldn't take the time out of his busy schedule to make arrangements to get the rental re-rented and required that I list and show the home until I either rented it or he found the time to take responsibility for showing and renting the property. I ended up showing the home until March 20th after which point he finally returned to the area, cleaned the property and rented it within days.
The landlord kept a 1,400 security deposit which he accrued to March's rent. When he cleaned and made repairs, he charged over 1500 dollars for his time, water bills that accrued after I vacated, and for supplies. The majority of the bill was for his and his wife's time.
Arguments
The Plaintiff Failed to Provide a Written Itemization within 30 days
Under Utah Code Annotated § 57-17-3 requires that the landlord provide “a written itemization of any deductions from the deposit, and reasons therefore, shall be delivered or mailed to the renter within 30 days after termination of the tenancy or within 15 days after receipt of the renter's new mailing address, whichever is later.” The contract was terminated on February 13th when we notified the landlord that we were going to terminate the lease. As far as the new address requirement is concerned, Landlord received the address long before the date we terminated the contract. Weeks prior to this he asked for the address claiming he’d like to drive by the property whereas he “claimed” he might be interested in purchasing our home. Notwithstanding, the landlord is an experienced landlord (with 2 rental properties on the Wasatch Front and one 2 blocks from my home in St. George) who knows, or should know that property information is public record and easily attainable from any web browser. Landlord knew that we would be moving back to our home in Saint George and had access to the address at any time.
Failure to Mitigate Damages of the Defendant’s Contract Breach
Under Utah State Law, upon premature termination of a rental agreement, the landlord is required to make reasonable efforts find a new renter for the dwelling. During the period from Feb. 20th to March 20th, the plaintiff did not make reasonable attempts to rent the unit. When we notified the Plaintiff on or near February 13th that we were going to terminate the contract, Landlord required us to advertise and show the home to prospective renters. He said he didn’t have time to, and would not, list and show the home. He gave us an implied ultimatum regarding our deposit (i.e. if we could get it rented quickly we might be able to get a portion of the deposit back)
During February and March, Landlord was unavailable to get a new contract executed on multiple occasions due to his travels – he was in Hawaii on one occasion and Las Vegas or Pennsylvania on another. Although he claimed he would be cooperative in showing the home, Landlord never made a good faith effort to do so until March 20th – after he had accrued the majority of the deposit to March’s rent leaving no deposit monies available to cover the plaintiff’s excessive cleaning and repair fees.
As a direct result of plaintiffs’ apathy towards their legal requirement to find a new tenant, defendants were denied recovery of the 1400 dollar security deposit. On account of the plaintiffs’ failure to take mitigating actions after the defendants breach, defendants liability to the plaintiff should be limited to the 1400 security deposit already paid to the plaintiff.
The Security Deposit
The opening line in paragraph 16 states that “the security deposit set forth shall secure the performance of the resident’s obligations”. This is a protection to the defendant limiting costs of vacating the residence to the required deposit. In the contract, the security deposit is broadly defined as being usable for rent, repairs, cleaning, other contractual fees, etc. The plaintiffs’ contract clearly sets forth that the deposit secures the defendant’s obligation, and the shortfall is the fault of the plaintiffs’ for not requiring a larger deposit. The contract makes no provision for additional excess costs to be collected beyond the security deposit, and Utah Code Annotated §57-17 does not provide for collection of excess costs beyond the security deposit. Any ambiguity in the contract is the fault of the plaintiffs who presented the contract to the defendants as a requirement to rent their property.
The Judgment
The judge decision was in favor of the plaintiff because the contract requires that written notification of contract termination must be given and notification was given verbally. The landlord admitted to receiving verbal notification on 2/13 over the telephone, and verbal notification that we moved out the 21st of February. All other arguments that I made were apparently considered moot.
If anyone would like to opine on this matter feel free. As a warning to anyone renting, never ever communicate with your landlord by phone, and negotiate a early termination contingency plan. The judge was on her way to ruling in my favor over the first argument, until the written termination provision was brought up.
I'm just curious
Monday, June 22, 2009
Cell Phones -- Its about time!
IRS Commissioner released this statement about laws related to personal and business use of employer provided cellular phones. The current rules require a business use log of cell phone calls:
Statement of IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman | |
|
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Universal Healthcare -- Why and how?
Universal health care, one the socialist ills that Ronald Regan spoke out against is currently one of the hot button issues in Congress this year. There is draft legislation circulating to create a national health insurance through medicare, expanded SCHIP, and Medicaid. Due to the fact, the final bill hasn't been presented yet, I would like to discuss the ideology of this issue.
The free market is the best catalyst for innovation and scientific advancement. There is no other system that provides the incentive needed to continually do bigger and better things. Having made this statement, I am immediately going to contradict myself in stating that I am fully (but cautiously) in support of universal health care.
Why?
There is nothing as counter-productive to proper preventative health care in America as the inaccessibility of affordable health insurance. The only people who are not in this boat are those who are lucky enough to land jobs in large corporations, organizations, or government -- otherwise millions of Americans are either forced to take unnecessary health risks if their financial situation is poor, shell out exorbitant premiums for plans with good coverage, or make due with lower premiums for plans that cover virtually no common health problems. This is a poor catalyst for encouraging people to take care of themselves. Aches and pains are ignored, little ailments often grow, and these people risk seeking preventative care after it is too late.
Our current health system is a disincentive for small business entrepreneurship. Without having any actual statistics I'm sure there are a large number of Americans who may hate the job they have now, may have wonderfully innovative entrepreneurial ideas, but will not turn innovative entrepreneurial ideas into productive businesses because the thought of leaving group employer provided health coverage is unacceptable.
Some may argue that universal health care is one step too close to Stalin-ism. I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that we, as a nation, have had and accepted numerous socialist-esque programs for over 100 years. Here in Utah, for example, we fought off the evil capitalist ideals of competition in education. Our protection from fire, crime, foreign enemies, and libraries are all provided at the expense of taxpayer dollars. Why are we so unwilling to get together and make sure that everyone has unfettered access to medical care? No one would be afraid to call the police if they were becoming victims of a crime, and no American should have to fear seeking medical attention because of an inability to pay. To be honest, I now believe the need for universal health care for all Americans should trump the right to free education, or the right to social security when we retire.
How can we the people uphold the values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if we have to bind ourselves to jobs we don't like because of health benefits, or fear seeking necessary health care because we may not be able to afford it. The truth is we can't.
How?
This is where we must be cautious, and I'm afraid there are no easy answers. Our national debt is out of control and ballooning, the tax code is abused and incomprehensible, and our economy is still floundering. The prospect of Congress or the President developing an hasty, under planned Social Security-esque regime is frightening. There are also other questions:
-- Would employers continue to provide coverage, or have any incentive to do so?
-- How high would effective tax rates rise in order to responsibly finance a National Healthcare System?
-- More frightening, would all US hospitals, and clinics become federally owned and operated?
However, I think is important to make affordable health care for everyone a reality. The how is a daunting question for men who are smarter than I, and one I hope can be answered.
Some of my random ideas -
-- Phase Social Security out and phase in Health care security (over several decades -- America's addiction to not saving for their own retirement is a habit that will be hard to break)
-- Force Americans to save/invest for retirement and make those invested funds sacred and untouchable until retirement. (for the lower/middle classes the EIC and/or ACTC could be forced into savings or investment accounts)
-- Phase down public funding for education (maybe making education more of a privilege will make our system better) (probably too radical an idea, even for this writer)
Anyways, I believe in this. I just wish I could believe our elected officials could make it happen with out bankrupting the nation.
The free market is the best catalyst for innovation and scientific advancement. There is no other system that provides the incentive needed to continually do bigger and better things. Having made this statement, I am immediately going to contradict myself in stating that I am fully (but cautiously) in support of universal health care.
Why?
There is nothing as counter-productive to proper preventative health care in America as the inaccessibility of affordable health insurance. The only people who are not in this boat are those who are lucky enough to land jobs in large corporations, organizations, or government -- otherwise millions of Americans are either forced to take unnecessary health risks if their financial situation is poor, shell out exorbitant premiums for plans with good coverage, or make due with lower premiums for plans that cover virtually no common health problems. This is a poor catalyst for encouraging people to take care of themselves. Aches and pains are ignored, little ailments often grow, and these people risk seeking preventative care after it is too late.
Our current health system is a disincentive for small business entrepreneurship. Without having any actual statistics I'm sure there are a large number of Americans who may hate the job they have now, may have wonderfully innovative entrepreneurial ideas, but will not turn innovative entrepreneurial ideas into productive businesses because the thought of leaving group employer provided health coverage is unacceptable.
Some may argue that universal health care is one step too close to Stalin-ism. I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that we, as a nation, have had and accepted numerous socialist-esque programs for over 100 years. Here in Utah, for example, we fought off the evil capitalist ideals of competition in education. Our protection from fire, crime, foreign enemies, and libraries are all provided at the expense of taxpayer dollars. Why are we so unwilling to get together and make sure that everyone has unfettered access to medical care? No one would be afraid to call the police if they were becoming victims of a crime, and no American should have to fear seeking medical attention because of an inability to pay. To be honest, I now believe the need for universal health care for all Americans should trump the right to free education, or the right to social security when we retire.
How can we the people uphold the values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness if we have to bind ourselves to jobs we don't like because of health benefits, or fear seeking necessary health care because we may not be able to afford it. The truth is we can't.
How?
This is where we must be cautious, and I'm afraid there are no easy answers. Our national debt is out of control and ballooning, the tax code is abused and incomprehensible, and our economy is still floundering. The prospect of Congress or the President developing an hasty, under planned Social Security-esque regime is frightening. There are also other questions:
-- Would employers continue to provide coverage, or have any incentive to do so?
-- How high would effective tax rates rise in order to responsibly finance a National Healthcare System?
-- More frightening, would all US hospitals, and clinics become federally owned and operated?
However, I think is important to make affordable health care for everyone a reality. The how is a daunting question for men who are smarter than I, and one I hope can be answered.
Some of my random ideas -
-- Phase Social Security out and phase in Health care security (over several decades -- America's addiction to not saving for their own retirement is a habit that will be hard to break)
-- Force Americans to save/invest for retirement and make those invested funds sacred and untouchable until retirement. (for the lower/middle classes the EIC and/or ACTC could be forced into savings or investment accounts)
-- Phase down public funding for education (maybe making education more of a privilege will make our system better) (probably too radical an idea, even for this writer)
Anyways, I believe in this. I just wish I could believe our elected officials could make it happen with out bankrupting the nation.
Friday, March 27, 2009
The Journal of an Unemployed American -- Month 1
Hello everyone,
It has been some of the roughest weeks of my life. I was laid off in February, and at that time I almost looked at it as an opportunity to go back to what I loved doing. I have a high opinion of my credentials in small business and individual tax consulting, and I thought that I would have no problem finding a job during tax season in one of the several busy accounting offices in Southern Utah that thrive on tax work. I was mistaken.
I have found a client who is in dire need of help for which I am extremely grateful. He has helped keep me afloat for the past several weeks -- but one client can only provide so much income.
I was hired a week ago by what I thought was an honest tax preparation firm. Unfortunately, when I reviewed returns with due diligence and questioned my "supervisor" on some of the many questionable deductions -- I was relieved of my position. I thought there were laws protecting whistle blowers?
Jobs are extremely scarce in the southern part of the state. The only jobs that are plentiful are commission sales jobs, but I guess it doesn't hurt to hire salesmen that don't make anything if they can't sale anything.
I will be one month behind on my mortgage in a few days, and I am scared. My old landlord in SLC is after me, bills are piling up, and I feel desperate.
I love my country, and I believed in our government for most of my life. Unfortunately, I can't believe it anymore. I'm just praying that I can find a way to keep my home and keep food in my family's stomachs. Meanwhile, those that are in charge of our nation are handing free money to the very bankers and industries that have caused our economy to collapse -- the very bankers that threaten to cut off my financial head if I can't catch-up. These same incompetent (excuse the expression) bastards in Congress still take a "required" pay increase each and every year.
I guess the only option is to go into business for myself. I've bought good tax software and am trying to market myself to former clients, but it seems that I am sowing seeds that I will not be able to reap this year.
May God change the hearts of our leaders, and help them remember the burdens that their actions place on individuals.
It has been some of the roughest weeks of my life. I was laid off in February, and at that time I almost looked at it as an opportunity to go back to what I loved doing. I have a high opinion of my credentials in small business and individual tax consulting, and I thought that I would have no problem finding a job during tax season in one of the several busy accounting offices in Southern Utah that thrive on tax work. I was mistaken.
I have found a client who is in dire need of help for which I am extremely grateful. He has helped keep me afloat for the past several weeks -- but one client can only provide so much income.
I was hired a week ago by what I thought was an honest tax preparation firm. Unfortunately, when I reviewed returns with due diligence and questioned my "supervisor" on some of the many questionable deductions -- I was relieved of my position. I thought there were laws protecting whistle blowers?
Jobs are extremely scarce in the southern part of the state. The only jobs that are plentiful are commission sales jobs, but I guess it doesn't hurt to hire salesmen that don't make anything if they can't sale anything.
I will be one month behind on my mortgage in a few days, and I am scared. My old landlord in SLC is after me, bills are piling up, and I feel desperate.
I love my country, and I believed in our government for most of my life. Unfortunately, I can't believe it anymore. I'm just praying that I can find a way to keep my home and keep food in my family's stomachs. Meanwhile, those that are in charge of our nation are handing free money to the very bankers and industries that have caused our economy to collapse -- the very bankers that threaten to cut off my financial head if I can't catch-up. These same incompetent (excuse the expression) bastards in Congress still take a "required" pay increase each and every year.
I guess the only option is to go into business for myself. I've bought good tax software and am trying to market myself to former clients, but it seems that I am sowing seeds that I will not be able to reap this year.
May God change the hearts of our leaders, and help them remember the burdens that their actions place on individuals.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
PCU -- Dixie State College...Red Storm?
I grew up with parents who were fanatical Dixie College alumni (ironically neither of them actually received degrees from the school). Dixie College Rebels was a mascot that fit the schools name and the nickname of the region.I understand the connection that the politically oversensitive make between the mascot and the states who succeeded from the U.S. because of slavery. The school saw the unfortunate connection over a decade ago and has done several things to disconnect itself from that image (removing the Confederate Flag as the official flag, redesigning the physical mascot from a Confederate soldier costume to a bird, and other changes).
However, forces of political correctness didn't give up -- the schools mascot is now a red storm!?! What the hell does a red storm mean? The illustration the school gave is a tornado with bull horns and a bull ring, and the costumed mascot is a bull.
Okay, good now the schools mascot isn't offensive, or is it? What about Midwestern people who actually suffer through tornadoes, or cattle ranchers who have been hurt in a senseless bull charging? We must think of a less offensive mascot.......maybe the seagull would have a better connection to state (although we can't offend people who have had their cars shat upon) they could have gone with Red Necks and brought back the old confederate soldier costume. Collegiate PC is so much fun.
Any suggestions for a less offensive mascot than a half atmospheric phenomenon-half cow?
Oh well, if this post was gay I apologize -- I'm feeling quite bored today and I fear my wit may have deserted me.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
A Tax Cheat to Run the Treasury Department
So Treasury Secretary Nominee, Timothy Geithner, has passed the Senate Finance Commitee Hearing despite the fact he appears to be a reformed tax cheat.
He apparently has made numerous tax errors, including failure to pay SE Tax for 4 years. His excuses are pitiful and self-serving, the kinds of excuses that would draw heavy critisim from US Tax Court judges (if he used those excuses in that court). However, because he has paid those taxes up with interest he may still be given the job as head of the US Treasury -- the same organization that runs the IRS, and handles the billions of dollars of bailout funds.
This may get interesting, especially in relationship to the IRS. Many people need very little justification to cheat on their income taxes, and now they have one more -- the boss of the IRS did it so why can't I.
Unfortunately, Mr Geithner doesn't stand from a strong moral position as future head of the Department responsible for collecting taxes, and viciously pursuing people who have the made the same "mistakes" that Mr. Geithner has made. His historically "flexible" tax compliance makes him a poor candidate for Sec. Treas., he should be replaced as nominee and he should be offered some sort of finance advisory position.
Oh well..... I guess I have one more hurdle to leap in explaining why you have to be fair and honest in your dealings with the Federal Government. I guess I'll need to focus on not getting incarcerated for tax crimes.
He apparently has made numerous tax errors, including failure to pay SE Tax for 4 years. His excuses are pitiful and self-serving, the kinds of excuses that would draw heavy critisim from US Tax Court judges (if he used those excuses in that court). However, because he has paid those taxes up with interest he may still be given the job as head of the US Treasury -- the same organization that runs the IRS, and handles the billions of dollars of bailout funds.
This may get interesting, especially in relationship to the IRS. Many people need very little justification to cheat on their income taxes, and now they have one more -- the boss of the IRS did it so why can't I.
Unfortunately, Mr Geithner doesn't stand from a strong moral position as future head of the Department responsible for collecting taxes, and viciously pursuing people who have the made the same "mistakes" that Mr. Geithner has made. His historically "flexible" tax compliance makes him a poor candidate for Sec. Treas., he should be replaced as nominee and he should be offered some sort of finance advisory position.
Oh well..... I guess I have one more hurdle to leap in explaining why you have to be fair and honest in your dealings with the Federal Government. I guess I'll need to focus on not getting incarcerated for tax crimes.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
The Presidency of George W Bush
With the new Obama administration coming in, and the "supposed" worst president in history going out I've been reflecting on the Bush presidency -- how bad was it?
Did George Bush accomplish anything?
Keeping America safe post 9-11: Agree or disagree with his tactics and decisions, we have not endured a terrorist attack on US soil since 9-11. Some argue that his tactics have produced more hatred and animosity towards the US, and will breed more hatred of the US in the Middle East and breed more Islamic jihadists who seek American blood. This may be a horrifyingly accurate depiction of the future. However, (by luck or the Bush-formed Homeland Security Department) we have been safe on US soil for coming on 8 years.
Lowered taxes: George Bush successfully kept taxes low through-out his presidency. This wasn't only for the rich -- the refundable child tax credit, increased standard deductions and exemptions, 5% capital gains rate, and other provisions have been highly beneficial to the lower and middle classes. Conveniently ignoring the housing bubble and subsequent banking collapses, his tax cuts were instrumental in increased investment and economic growth for a large part of his presidency.
Despite the tax cuts, revenue increased substantially during his Presidency. This is because the President appointed IRS administrators who ended the "kinder, gentler, IRS" for a "smarter, more efficient IRS". The IRS has spent his presidency updating stone age computers, and hiring new IRS agents who go into audit meetings usually knowing that the target has unreported income or over reported deductions that will bring in additional revenue to the US coffers.
I can't think of any others:
Failures:
Afghanistan: We never found Osama.
Iraq: No weapons of mass destruction. Declaring victory almost 6 years too soon.
Spending: He spent like a drunken sailor. He ran extremely high deficits.
Social Security Reform: He was never able to get on Social Security reform proposal through Congress.
Illegal Immigration: Instead of doing what the right wanted or what the left wanted, George Bush did nothing!
So it is my opinion that Bush II was not a good president, but I don't know that he was a horrible President either.
I respected Bush because he stuck to his guns on a lot of issues, despite to enormous unpopularity that resulted. However, he made rushed decisions regarding foreign policies that will be costly in future Middle East relations, he couldn't stay fiscally conservative (a "walk middle, squish just like grape" policy is bankrupting us now) and he failed to move one meaningful permanent piece reform through (except the Dept. of Homeland Sec.) that he proposed.
Did George Bush accomplish anything?
Keeping America safe post 9-11: Agree or disagree with his tactics and decisions, we have not endured a terrorist attack on US soil since 9-11. Some argue that his tactics have produced more hatred and animosity towards the US, and will breed more hatred of the US in the Middle East and breed more Islamic jihadists who seek American blood. This may be a horrifyingly accurate depiction of the future. However, (by luck or the Bush-formed Homeland Security Department) we have been safe on US soil for coming on 8 years.
Lowered taxes: George Bush successfully kept taxes low through-out his presidency. This wasn't only for the rich -- the refundable child tax credit, increased standard deductions and exemptions, 5% capital gains rate, and other provisions have been highly beneficial to the lower and middle classes. Conveniently ignoring the housing bubble and subsequent banking collapses, his tax cuts were instrumental in increased investment and economic growth for a large part of his presidency.
Despite the tax cuts, revenue increased substantially during his Presidency. This is because the President appointed IRS administrators who ended the "kinder, gentler, IRS" for a "smarter, more efficient IRS". The IRS has spent his presidency updating stone age computers, and hiring new IRS agents who go into audit meetings usually knowing that the target has unreported income or over reported deductions that will bring in additional revenue to the US coffers.
I can't think of any others:
Failures:
Afghanistan: We never found Osama.
Iraq: No weapons of mass destruction. Declaring victory almost 6 years too soon.
Spending: He spent like a drunken sailor. He ran extremely high deficits.
Social Security Reform: He was never able to get on Social Security reform proposal through Congress.
Illegal Immigration: Instead of doing what the right wanted or what the left wanted, George Bush did nothing!
So it is my opinion that Bush II was not a good president, but I don't know that he was a horrible President either.
I respected Bush because he stuck to his guns on a lot of issues, despite to enormous unpopularity that resulted. However, he made rushed decisions regarding foreign policies that will be costly in future Middle East relations, he couldn't stay fiscally conservative (a "walk middle, squish just like grape" policy is bankrupting us now) and he failed to move one meaningful permanent piece reform through (except the Dept. of Homeland Sec.) that he proposed.
Florida concedes the Title to Utah
I have not received a response from Urban Meyer. Therefore by not addressing the challenge, he has conceded to title to the Utah Utes (in the world of Phramahaphil)
Friday, January 09, 2009
An open letter to Urban Meyer
Dear Coach Meyer,
Congratulations on your win last night. Your team had a wonderful season.
I am and always will be a big fan of yours. You brought Utah Football the next level while you were here and Kyle Whittingham is continuing that legacy. You are truly a legendary coach.
I believe you and I would agree that champions should be made on the football field and not in computer calculations, or by the votes of sports columnists. This system kept you from competing for a championship while you were Utah's head coach in 2004, and will keep your 2009 championship from being indisputable. Utah has the best record in college football, they beat the team that you defeated to get into the BCS title game, they beat Bama by a larger margin than you beat them. This year will always be known as a year that the championship failed to produce a legitimate champion because Utah wasn't allowed a shot at the title in a post-season playoff. This complaint isn't new.
The BCS system is a system of discrimination, monopolization, and elitism. This situation reminds me of Seabiscuit v War Admiral. In 1938 an unheralded racehorse was allowed a unsanctioned shot at what may have been the "greatest" racehorse of the time. War Admiral was bigger, had defeated much more notable opponents, and was believed by sports writers and many to be unbeatable especially by a smaller racehorse from the west. However, War Admirals owner realized one important fact -- the word maybe would always precede the words greatest racehorse of the time unless War Admiral faced the smaller contender from the west.
I believe we have a chance to create a Seabiscuit vs. War Admiral event for the 2008/09 college football season. The Florida Gators have been crowned as champions by the powers that be in college football, but there is a small racehorse in Utah, that you helped create, who has a rightful claim to that title. Your "2009 BCS championship" will always have a cloud over it unless your championship team faces Utah.
The game doesn't have to be sanctioned by the NCAA, the outcome (if Utah won) wouldn't change any history of your championship. What it would do is produce the first EARNED and PROVEN champion in college football! A championship that cannot be disputed. I believe a proven champion is something all college football fans would love to have. My hope is that a game like this might lead the BCS to move to some sort of playoff system, so that fans can celebrate and admire proven champions.
Florida maybe the best team in college football this year, but the word maybe will always accompany that phrase unless Florida and Utah meet on the field. The BCS championship will always receive jeers of the BS championship until a playoff is derived. Fans from non-power conferences will always feel cheated until they are allowed to see their championship level teams compete.
You have to power to help change the course of college football. I propose a scrimmage game, Gators v. Utes, on the Saturday before Super Bowl Sunday. I doubt that there would be an empty seat in whatever arena this occurs in, or a TV in America that would not tune in.
American College Football Fan
Congratulations on your win last night. Your team had a wonderful season.
I am and always will be a big fan of yours. You brought Utah Football the next level while you were here and Kyle Whittingham is continuing that legacy. You are truly a legendary coach.
I believe you and I would agree that champions should be made on the football field and not in computer calculations, or by the votes of sports columnists. This system kept you from competing for a championship while you were Utah's head coach in 2004, and will keep your 2009 championship from being indisputable. Utah has the best record in college football, they beat the team that you defeated to get into the BCS title game, they beat Bama by a larger margin than you beat them. This year will always be known as a year that the championship failed to produce a legitimate champion because Utah wasn't allowed a shot at the title in a post-season playoff. This complaint isn't new.
The BCS system is a system of discrimination, monopolization, and elitism. This situation reminds me of Seabiscuit v War Admiral. In 1938 an unheralded racehorse was allowed a unsanctioned shot at what may have been the "greatest" racehorse of the time. War Admiral was bigger, had defeated much more notable opponents, and was believed by sports writers and many to be unbeatable especially by a smaller racehorse from the west. However, War Admirals owner realized one important fact -- the word maybe would always precede the words greatest racehorse of the time unless War Admiral faced the smaller contender from the west.
I believe we have a chance to create a Seabiscuit vs. War Admiral event for the 2008/09 college football season. The Florida Gators have been crowned as champions by the powers that be in college football, but there is a small racehorse in Utah, that you helped create, who has a rightful claim to that title. Your "2009 BCS championship" will always have a cloud over it unless your championship team faces Utah.
The game doesn't have to be sanctioned by the NCAA, the outcome (if Utah won) wouldn't change any history of your championship. What it would do is produce the first EARNED and PROVEN champion in college football! A championship that cannot be disputed. I believe a proven champion is something all college football fans would love to have. My hope is that a game like this might lead the BCS to move to some sort of playoff system, so that fans can celebrate and admire proven champions.
Florida maybe the best team in college football this year, but the word maybe will always accompany that phrase unless Florida and Utah meet on the field. The BCS championship will always receive jeers of the BS championship until a playoff is derived. Fans from non-power conferences will always feel cheated until they are allowed to see their championship level teams compete.
You have to power to help change the course of college football. I propose a scrimmage game, Gators v. Utes, on the Saturday before Super Bowl Sunday. I doubt that there would be an empty seat in whatever arena this occurs in, or a TV in America that would not tune in.
American College Football Fan
Monday, November 24, 2008
The BCS, the Opponant Utah doesn't need.
Mike Sorensen at DesNews seems to believe the BCS needs to be upheld. He suggests that Utah should be rooting for a lower ranked BCS conference champion in whichever game it plays in. I assume this is because he holds to the BCS motto that non-BCS teams are inferior and they have no right and therefore deserve no possibility to compete for the national title. The BCS may very well sack Utah in this position again, but Utah shouldn't hope for this scenario.
In 2004, Utah was made to play Pitt (a team that should have been in the Armed Forces Bowl or the Poinsettia Bowl). Utah won that trip to the BCS soundly, but that win was highly discreditable by the BCS, elitist coaches and sports writers. In that sense Utah's 2004 BCS bust wasn't much of a bust in at all -- more like a toe in the door. Personally I think this is why the BCS gave Utah Pitt in 2004 -- a Utah win would be discreditable, and a Utah loss would solidify the BCS' legitimacy.
The BCS is like sports' apartheid. In order to defeat this discriminatory system, Utah, BSU, and other teams that get chances to play in the BCS need to defeat credible foes. Utah is to second highest ranked team in the polls. They should, if not play in the title game, at least be allowed a playoff with other teams (BSU should be included) in contention for the title game. Only by playing and defeating teams in higher echelons of the BCS can the BCS be truly busted.
In 2004, Utah was made to play Pitt (a team that should have been in the Armed Forces Bowl or the Poinsettia Bowl). Utah won that trip to the BCS soundly, but that win was highly discreditable by the BCS, elitist coaches and sports writers. In that sense Utah's 2004 BCS bust wasn't much of a bust in at all -- more like a toe in the door. Personally I think this is why the BCS gave Utah Pitt in 2004 -- a Utah win would be discreditable, and a Utah loss would solidify the BCS' legitimacy.
The BCS is like sports' apartheid. In order to defeat this discriminatory system, Utah, BSU, and other teams that get chances to play in the BCS need to defeat credible foes. Utah is to second highest ranked team in the polls. They should, if not play in the title game, at least be allowed a playoff with other teams (BSU should be included) in contention for the title game. Only by playing and defeating teams in higher echelons of the BCS can the BCS be truly busted.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
The BCS, Utah v. BYU, Boise State & Utah are the only legitimate contenders to face Bama in the Title Game.
I'm waiting for the game to start. I am a loyal U fan (I attended SUU, and they haven't been worth watching) I've been U fan since my older brother was a BYU fan as a kid (although he ended up as a cheerleader at the U and switched alligiences). This game is really the only game I enjoy watching each year.
I didn't finish this till after the game. Go Utes! I am a longtime Ute fan and am excited that Utah is going back to the BCS. Given Texas Tech's loss and Alabama and BSU being the only other unbeaten teams, Utah has a powerful claim to go to the national title game (although we all know that the BCS overlords won't allow that to happen). Although the title game won't likely be in Utah's cards, at least they can put another crack in the BCS' legitimacy -- in that I hope BYU fans can take consolation.
The BCS was created to try and come up with an indisputable national champion. Instead we have an elitist system that shuts out college teams in smaller conferences, and by so doing the BCS denies legends. Some of the greatest sports legends are created when David is allowed to fight (and at times defeat) Goliath. When Goliath is the only one fighting the outcome is always certain -- Goliath wins. We have been establishing a national champion for the past decade based on mathematical certainties, probabilities, and some (I assume) brilliantly created actuarial models all of which deny the greatest and most unpredictable componant of athletics -- heart and spirit.
Pressure must be brought to bear on the powers that be in college sports to abolish the BCS system. The only way to bring that pressure is to bust the BCS, and I am grateful that Utah and Boise State are in a position of strentgh to challenge the BCS system's legitimacy. With a looming economic crisis that may rival the Great Depression, now would be an ideal time to fix this problem. During the Great Depression sporting events were one of the biggest outlets for Americans who were suffering and some of the greatest legends in sports were made. Seabiscuit, a race horse that had no business in big time horse racing, became legend by challenging Goliath and winning. Utah and Boise State should have a playoff to face Alabama in the national title game.
ALLOW CHAMPIONS TO BE MADE ON THE FIELD AND NOT IN COMPUTER MODELS!
I didn't finish this till after the game. Go Utes! I am a longtime Ute fan and am excited that Utah is going back to the BCS. Given Texas Tech's loss and Alabama and BSU being the only other unbeaten teams, Utah has a powerful claim to go to the national title game (although we all know that the BCS overlords won't allow that to happen). Although the title game won't likely be in Utah's cards, at least they can put another crack in the BCS' legitimacy -- in that I hope BYU fans can take consolation.
The BCS was created to try and come up with an indisputable national champion. Instead we have an elitist system that shuts out college teams in smaller conferences, and by so doing the BCS denies legends. Some of the greatest sports legends are created when David is allowed to fight (and at times defeat) Goliath. When Goliath is the only one fighting the outcome is always certain -- Goliath wins. We have been establishing a national champion for the past decade based on mathematical certainties, probabilities, and some (I assume) brilliantly created actuarial models all of which deny the greatest and most unpredictable componant of athletics -- heart and spirit.
Pressure must be brought to bear on the powers that be in college sports to abolish the BCS system. The only way to bring that pressure is to bust the BCS, and I am grateful that Utah and Boise State are in a position of strentgh to challenge the BCS system's legitimacy. With a looming economic crisis that may rival the Great Depression, now would be an ideal time to fix this problem. During the Great Depression sporting events were one of the biggest outlets for Americans who were suffering and some of the greatest legends in sports were made. Seabiscuit, a race horse that had no business in big time horse racing, became legend by challenging Goliath and winning. Utah and Boise State should have a playoff to face Alabama in the national title game.
ALLOW CHAMPIONS TO BE MADE ON THE FIELD AND NOT IN COMPUTER MODELS!
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Are we on the verge of Great Depression II?
This opinion piece was on CNN.com:
"Every time the economy and stock market turn down, financial historians get predictable calls from reporters. Could this be the start of another Great Depression? Could "it" possibly happen again? My stock answer has always been no.The Great Depression resulted from a series of economic and financial shocks -- the end of a housing bubble in 1926 and the end of a high-tech bubble in 1929 -- but also from truly breathtaking neglect and incompetence on the part of policymakers. It couldn't happen again precisely because policymakers know this history. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is a student of the Great Depression. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson remembers the mistakes of Andrew Mellon, Herbert Hoover's treasury secretary. We can be confident, I always answered, that there will not be another Great Depression because policymakers have read financial histories like mine. At least that was my line until recently. Now I have stopped taking reporters' calls
The first thing that made the Great Depression great, of course, was the Fed's failure to act. It basically stood by as the banking system and the economy collapsed around it. This time, in contrast, the Fed can hardly be criticized for inaction. Not only has it cut rates, but it has rolled out one new unprecedented initiative after another.
Unfortunately, it has reacted more than acted. First, it provided funds to the commercial banks. Then, it targeted broker-dealers. Now, it is desperately propping up the commercial paper market. All the while however, the problem has been infecting new parts of the financial system
One thing that restrained the Fed in the 1930s was the fear that rate cuts might cause capital to flee to other countries and the dollar to crash. The danger was that the same liquidity that the Fed poured in through the top of the bucket might just leak back out through these holes in the bottom.
There was a solution: coordinated rate cuts here and in Europe. Unfortunately, central bankers couldn't agree on what was needed. The result was further instability.
That central banks have learned this lesson of history and now see the need for coordinated action is at least one ground for hope. The problem is that they have already used their bullets.
U.S. Treasury bill rates have essentially fallen to zero, and the Fed's policy interest rates are only slightly above that level. Central banks are out of ammunition. This is no longer a problem they can solve by themselves.
What is needed now is Treasury action to address what has morphed into a global banking crisis. Between 1930 and 1933, not just the U.S. but also Europe and Latin America experienced rolling banking crises.
When Austria took desperate measures to prop up its banking system, its banking crisis only shifted to Germany. When Germany did the same, the crisis spread to the United States.
This was beggar-thy-neighbor policy at its worst. We have seen some disturbing evidence of the same in recent weeks, as when Ireland unilaterally guaranteed all bank deposits and thereby sucked funds out of the British banking system.
G7 leaders, when they meet in Washington at the end of this week, need to explain exactly how they will address this aspect of the problem. They need to commit money to recapitalizing their banking systems -- now, and not next week.
The U.K., which has just announced a $50 billion plan for bank recapitalization, has shown how this can be done in a matter of days. But a coordinated initiative will require the U.S. to put up a considerably larger sum.
My recommendation would be to abandon the idea of reverse auctions for toxic assets and instead use the $700 billion of the recently passed rescue plan for bank recapitalization. Although the Great Depression started in 1929, it took until 1933 for American leaders to grasp this nettle and recapitalize the banks. We can't afford to wait for years this time around.
A final thing that made the Great Depression such a catastrophe was that some of the worst shocks occurred right before the 1932 presidential election. There then followed an extended interregnum between the election and inauguration of the new president when no one was in charge.
The outgoing president, Hoover, asked his successor designate, Franklin Roosevelt, to cooperate with him on joint statements and policies, but FDR refused to do so. Meanwhile, the banking crisis deepened. Corporations failed.
The economy was allowed to spiral downward. It was this disaster that led us to amend the constitution to shorten the time between presidential election and inauguration from 4 to 2½ months.
The implication is clear. The two presidential candidates should be assembling their financial SWAT teams now. Paulson should promise that they will be invited into his office on November 5. This problem cannot wait until Inauguration Day."
Amen.
"Every time the economy and stock market turn down, financial historians get predictable calls from reporters. Could this be the start of another Great Depression? Could "it" possibly happen again? My stock answer has always been no.The Great Depression resulted from a series of economic and financial shocks -- the end of a housing bubble in 1926 and the end of a high-tech bubble in 1929 -- but also from truly breathtaking neglect and incompetence on the part of policymakers. It couldn't happen again precisely because policymakers know this history. Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is a student of the Great Depression. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson remembers the mistakes of Andrew Mellon, Herbert Hoover's treasury secretary. We can be confident, I always answered, that there will not be another Great Depression because policymakers have read financial histories like mine. At least that was my line until recently. Now I have stopped taking reporters' calls
The first thing that made the Great Depression great, of course, was the Fed's failure to act. It basically stood by as the banking system and the economy collapsed around it. This time, in contrast, the Fed can hardly be criticized for inaction. Not only has it cut rates, but it has rolled out one new unprecedented initiative after another.
Unfortunately, it has reacted more than acted. First, it provided funds to the commercial banks. Then, it targeted broker-dealers. Now, it is desperately propping up the commercial paper market. All the while however, the problem has been infecting new parts of the financial system
One thing that restrained the Fed in the 1930s was the fear that rate cuts might cause capital to flee to other countries and the dollar to crash. The danger was that the same liquidity that the Fed poured in through the top of the bucket might just leak back out through these holes in the bottom.
There was a solution: coordinated rate cuts here and in Europe. Unfortunately, central bankers couldn't agree on what was needed. The result was further instability.
That central banks have learned this lesson of history and now see the need for coordinated action is at least one ground for hope. The problem is that they have already used their bullets.
U.S. Treasury bill rates have essentially fallen to zero, and the Fed's policy interest rates are only slightly above that level. Central banks are out of ammunition. This is no longer a problem they can solve by themselves.
What is needed now is Treasury action to address what has morphed into a global banking crisis. Between 1930 and 1933, not just the U.S. but also Europe and Latin America experienced rolling banking crises.
When Austria took desperate measures to prop up its banking system, its banking crisis only shifted to Germany. When Germany did the same, the crisis spread to the United States.
This was beggar-thy-neighbor policy at its worst. We have seen some disturbing evidence of the same in recent weeks, as when Ireland unilaterally guaranteed all bank deposits and thereby sucked funds out of the British banking system.
G7 leaders, when they meet in Washington at the end of this week, need to explain exactly how they will address this aspect of the problem. They need to commit money to recapitalizing their banking systems -- now, and not next week.
The U.K., which has just announced a $50 billion plan for bank recapitalization, has shown how this can be done in a matter of days. But a coordinated initiative will require the U.S. to put up a considerably larger sum.
My recommendation would be to abandon the idea of reverse auctions for toxic assets and instead use the $700 billion of the recently passed rescue plan for bank recapitalization. Although the Great Depression started in 1929, it took until 1933 for American leaders to grasp this nettle and recapitalize the banks. We can't afford to wait for years this time around.
A final thing that made the Great Depression such a catastrophe was that some of the worst shocks occurred right before the 1932 presidential election. There then followed an extended interregnum between the election and inauguration of the new president when no one was in charge.
The outgoing president, Hoover, asked his successor designate, Franklin Roosevelt, to cooperate with him on joint statements and policies, but FDR refused to do so. Meanwhile, the banking crisis deepened. Corporations failed.
The economy was allowed to spiral downward. It was this disaster that led us to amend the constitution to shorten the time between presidential election and inauguration from 4 to 2½ months.
The implication is clear. The two presidential candidates should be assembling their financial SWAT teams now. Paulson should promise that they will be invited into his office on November 5. This problem cannot wait until Inauguration Day."
Amen.
McCain -- Claims he will cut spending but than proposes to buy mortgages in order to write down over-valued mortgages
John McCain has derided Obama, and Democrats in general, as big spenders. However, no doubt in an attempt to seems like a friend to the middle-class, John McCain has just suggested that the Federal government buy $300B in over-valued mortgages in order to refinance and write-down those mortgages at current home values. Although I agree that under-valued homes is a great problem, (one that I actually face) I absolutely do not desire to see the Federal government buy 300B of mortgage receivables only to write off a meaty chunk of those receivables at the cost of the US taxpayers.
The reasons why this is bad policy are numerous. The biggest problem is that this proposal strongly contradicts John McCain's claims that he will keep US spending down. With this proposal John McCain (before being elected President) has taken national debt which has topped $10T, and slingshot it closer to $11T. People whose home values have declined, is a difficult problem. However, more government intervention is not the answer and the fact the he has suggested this certainly impeaches his conservative credentials.
There are many ideas that I would find much less objectionable and costly. For instance offering certain incentives to lenders who write down loans could be a positive means of helping out owners of devalued real estate - tax credits, consequences for home-owners that default on principle-decreased mortgages, or some sort of insurance on written-down mortgages that default might work.
I continue to be disappointed in John McCain, and his campaign. Evidenced by his continued use of negative campaigning, he seems to have few logical plans that will improve and lead our country. Unfortunately, I don't really see that Barack Obama is the great hope that he would like us to see. Obama has had many questionable social and political connections (not ignoring McCain and the Keating 5) he is highly inexperienced in political leadership, and I have no doubt that he will lead our government into several renewed Johnson-era war on poverty programs. However, of the two candidates Barack Obama seems like he is the most in-tune with the issues and the more likely of the two to come up with logical solutions to issues that we may face. I have little faith in either of the two. Due to that fact that neither of them would be making important decisions without their cabinet, it might be helpful if both of them made there cabinet nominations -- it would be easier to choose one of them if Warren Buffet had accepted a Treasury Secretary nomination.
Is Ron Paul still running?
The reasons why this is bad policy are numerous. The biggest problem is that this proposal strongly contradicts John McCain's claims that he will keep US spending down. With this proposal John McCain (before being elected President) has taken national debt which has topped $10T, and slingshot it closer to $11T. People whose home values have declined, is a difficult problem. However, more government intervention is not the answer and the fact the he has suggested this certainly impeaches his conservative credentials.
There are many ideas that I would find much less objectionable and costly. For instance offering certain incentives to lenders who write down loans could be a positive means of helping out owners of devalued real estate - tax credits, consequences for home-owners that default on principle-decreased mortgages, or some sort of insurance on written-down mortgages that default might work.
I continue to be disappointed in John McCain, and his campaign. Evidenced by his continued use of negative campaigning, he seems to have few logical plans that will improve and lead our country. Unfortunately, I don't really see that Barack Obama is the great hope that he would like us to see. Obama has had many questionable social and political connections (not ignoring McCain and the Keating 5) he is highly inexperienced in political leadership, and I have no doubt that he will lead our government into several renewed Johnson-era war on poverty programs. However, of the two candidates Barack Obama seems like he is the most in-tune with the issues and the more likely of the two to come up with logical solutions to issues that we may face. I have little faith in either of the two. Due to that fact that neither of them would be making important decisions without their cabinet, it might be helpful if both of them made there cabinet nominations -- it would be easier to choose one of them if Warren Buffet had accepted a Treasury Secretary nomination.
Is Ron Paul still running?
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Shame on you PETA!
This pisses me off.
Autism is something that leaves families affected by it full of questions and little answers. There are real scientists researching causes of autism, and hopefully they will continue to make some solid discoveries that may help decrease the number of individuals who have autism, and even cure this disorder.
What is not needed is an activist organization making broad generalizations from less than compelling scientific data in order to further their political agenda. These rat bastards can go to hell!
Monday, September 29, 2008
The Bailout Bill Fails
In a blow to Paulsen and the Bush administration, Congress voted down the 700 billion dollar bailout package. I'm not really sure how to feel about that -- on the one hand I'm glad that Congress saw that bailing out a corrupt Wall Street was a heavy-handed move against the American taxpayer, and on the other is the worry-wart wondering if Congress is about to propel us into Great Depression II.
For the most part I am willing to suck it up and accept a bailout of Wall Street, sure the large banks of America are to blame for this mess (bad government policies may have opened the door, but bad banking decisions shoved us through the door) if banks keep tanking it will make all of our lives far worse off. I think that this bailout needs to be a little more even handed to home-owners who are actually suffering from the sub-prime mortgage debacle. For example in markets of declining value, I would suggest allowing homeowners to go the Fed in situations where they have an un-refinancible mortgage. The only help for suffering homeowners that the bailout package provided (at least to my understanding) is to help homeowners keep their homes if they land in bankruptcy -- if banks can be bailed out of bad debts well before bankruptcy becomes an issue distressed homeowners should have the same opportunity.
The Wall Street Journal has reported that Republicans may not have voted the package down because of its merits, but because of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California). Apparently the Speaker gave a highly partisan address before the vote which angered allot of the Republican lawmakers. In her speech she laid blame for the crisis almost solely on the President and the Republican party. I hope you are thinking.....WHAT THE HELL! Basically, we may be hanging on the thread of the first depression in seven to eight decades and the reason our lawmakers fail to act is Partisanship. I would be fine with the package being voted down due to the bills poor conception, but voting it down because Ms. Pelosi offended the ego of the elephant party is unacceptable and an indictment of the collapsing two party system. I long for a system and leaders who are most concerned about the good of the nation and not the good of the party.
Maybe the time has come for some kind of abolishment of the two party system in elections, I'm not saying outlawing the Republican or Democratic parties, I'm arguing we end party affiliations for elected officials. I mean when we vote, there is no more R and D by the candidates names -- instead of the R & D, a synopsis of the ideals that each candidate supports and plans for how to make our nations and communities better. I guess I'm thinking of a political system kind of like Dr. Seuss's "The Sneetches," if you have never read it I suggest you go to your library and check it out -- it might be the best way to end the partisan bickering and bottlenecks that keep plaguing Washington.
Heaven Help our Leaders Grow Up!
For the most part I am willing to suck it up and accept a bailout of Wall Street, sure the large banks of America are to blame for this mess (bad government policies may have opened the door, but bad banking decisions shoved us through the door) if banks keep tanking it will make all of our lives far worse off. I think that this bailout needs to be a little more even handed to home-owners who are actually suffering from the sub-prime mortgage debacle. For example in markets of declining value, I would suggest allowing homeowners to go the Fed in situations where they have an un-refinancible mortgage. The only help for suffering homeowners that the bailout package provided (at least to my understanding) is to help homeowners keep their homes if they land in bankruptcy -- if banks can be bailed out of bad debts well before bankruptcy becomes an issue distressed homeowners should have the same opportunity.
The Wall Street Journal has reported that Republicans may not have voted the package down because of its merits, but because of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California). Apparently the Speaker gave a highly partisan address before the vote which angered allot of the Republican lawmakers. In her speech she laid blame for the crisis almost solely on the President and the Republican party. I hope you are thinking.....WHAT THE HELL! Basically, we may be hanging on the thread of the first depression in seven to eight decades and the reason our lawmakers fail to act is Partisanship. I would be fine with the package being voted down due to the bills poor conception, but voting it down because Ms. Pelosi offended the ego of the elephant party is unacceptable and an indictment of the collapsing two party system. I long for a system and leaders who are most concerned about the good of the nation and not the good of the party.
Maybe the time has come for some kind of abolishment of the two party system in elections, I'm not saying outlawing the Republican or Democratic parties, I'm arguing we end party affiliations for elected officials. I mean when we vote, there is no more R and D by the candidates names -- instead of the R & D, a synopsis of the ideals that each candidate supports and plans for how to make our nations and communities better. I guess I'm thinking of a political system kind of like Dr. Seuss's "The Sneetches," if you have never read it I suggest you go to your library and check it out -- it might be the best way to end the partisan bickering and bottlenecks that keep plaguing Washington.
Heaven Help our Leaders Grow Up!
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
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.)
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.)
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
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.
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.
Mine is Slicer Mission Palin! I might use this one for child number 4 -- at least I'll suggest it for craps and giggles.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
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.
“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.
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.
Friday, August 29, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, May 16, 2008
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?
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?
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
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......
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......
Thursday, April 03, 2008
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.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, March 07, 2008
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
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)
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)