Mike Lee & Tim Bridgewater -- Immigration Pandering (I mean) Platforms

Bridgewater and Lee had a radio debate a few days ago, and the subject of "anchor baby" came up again. From a SLTrib article, here is what they said:

Lee said, "For someone to be entitled to that citizenship they need to be born to citizens or lawful residents or aliens involved in active U.S. military service,"

He supports a bill, HR 1868, which alters the verbatim interpretation of the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So I get that Mike Lee is for getting back to the original interpretation of the Constitution, or at the article put it "returning the country to its constitutional roots", but what exactly do those roots mean to Mike Lee?

The 14th amendment has been around since the end of the civil war, and it was the amendment that gave all slaves, who were 3/5ths citizens (original intent of the founders?) full (although, restricted for many years after that) American citizenship. So, does Mike Lee support women not being allowed to vote and slaves being considered a little more than half-human? Of course he doesn't! However Mike Lee and Tim Bridgewater are both willing to endorse anything that they believe will endear them to the fear/rage intoxicated right-wing.

Yes, the 14th amendment grants citizenship to anyone born in our borders, and what is wrong with that? My in-laws had their third son on Mexican soil and as such he was a Mexican citizen until the US made him renounce that citizenship when he filed for Selective Service -- the Mexican's do it the same way we do. The right needs to remember that the United States of America is founded on immigrants, they have come here to find better lives since 1868 and protectionism is not what we need to solve our immigration problem.

I cannot fault illegal immigrants. If I was in Mexico and I knew I could make better money in lower paying jobs in America, but in order to do so I would either have to wade through up to ten years of bureaucratic BS or I could sneak to the US border and run across -- I think would run across the border.

The problem isn't the fourteen amendment, the problems is we have been too cheap and stupid to make an effective border wall where we could control the flow of people to our country, and legal immigration is so insanely complex that there is no incentive to go through legal channels.

The right is loosing on this issue! The winning platform is to control the border, and make legal immigration a much cheaper and much more efficient process.

Illegals who are trying to make prosperous (legitimate) lives here in America should get a path to citizenship -- it is our leadership's fault for not controlling our border for the past several decades.

Chaffetz Loses It Over Silly Resolutions

Chaffetz Loses It Over Silly Resolutions

Oh Snap! Jason Chaffetz gets burned.

Good Wednesday

Yesterday sucked, but here's to today.

Utah State Taxes -- Tax Issues Effecting Utah Taxpayers and Tax Professionals?

If you are a CPA EA or a Tax Preparer, please respond.

How has the flat tax effected your clients?
-- Lower Class
-- Middle Class
-- Wealthy

Personally, most of my middle-class clients whose incomes have been consistent have seen tax increases. I would like to know if this is a common problem.

Also, I'd like to have some input on problems with the state tax commission in negotiating installment agreements, offers-in-compromise, and other tax settlement arrangements. If anyone is interested I'd like to start organizing Utah tax pros to lobby for a tax collection statute, and clearer Utah state OIC guidelines.

Comments or email would be fine.

Section 104 Exclusion and Wrongful Termination Settlements

The most recent edition of the EA Journal brought up a 2008 US Tax Court decision regarding section 104 and a wrongful termination lawsuit settlement.

In Ruch Suder v. Commissioner, the Tax Court reaffirmed numerous other decisions regarding the applicability of IRC Section 104 (Exclusion of Non-Punitive Damages for Physical Injury or Physical Sickness). From 2000 to 2001 Ms. Suder was employed as a sales representative for Adelphia and was inexplicably terminated by Adelphia in 2001. She filed a lawsuit alleging defamation and other violations of state and federal employment laws. The lawsuit was settled and she was paid 41,000 dollars with the stipulation that she would pay all of the associated taxes. Is the settlement excludible under for IRC Section 104?

The US Tax Court holds that lawsuit settlements do not qualify for IRC Section 104 exclusion unless the damages are associated with an actual physical injury or a physical sickness. The Tax Court rejected the petitioners claims that the defamation caused damage to Ms. Suder's reputation and that such damage caused mental pain and anguish and as such qualified as physical injury and sickness.

Before IRC Section 104(a)(2) was amended with the by the Small Business Job
Protection Act of 1996 (SBJPA), Pub. L. 104-188, sec. 1605(a) 110 Stat. 1838, the statute allowed the exclusion to include damages associated with physical injury and sickness. In Moulton v. Commissioner, the court stated the following regarding pre-SBJPA Section 104(a)(2):

The reference to personal injuries or sickness included
“nonphysical injuries to the individual, such as those affecting
emotions, reputation, or character”. United States v. Burke,
supra at 235 n.6; see Robinson v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 116,
125-126 (1994), affd. in part and revd. in part on another issue
70 F.3d 34 (5th Cir. 1995).

After SBJPA, the statutory language of IRC Section 104(a)(2) was changed to “the amount of any damages (other than punitive damages)received (whether by suit or agreement and whether as lump sums or as periodic payments) on account of personal physical injuries
or physical sickness”. There was also a subsequent amendment to SBJPA that further narrowed the scope of IRC 104(a)(2) to the following language:

“For purposes of paragraph (2), emotional distress
shall not be treated as a physical injury or physical sickness.
The preceding sentence shall not apply to an amount of damages
not in excess of the amount paid for medical care * * *
attributable to emotional distress.”

Therefore it appears that Congressional intent and the current legal interpretation of 104(a)(2) only permits the exclusion of damages received that are the result of actual bodily harm and an actual bodily sickness. The court will not exclude damages for emotional distress other than damages that are used directly for medical treatment of mental or emotional trauma.

It is interesting to see how narrow Congress made this exclusion. Not surprisingly, I'd assume this area must have been an area of taxpayer abuse prior to 1996. I wonder if this was a common theme in lawsuit settlement arrangements, lawyers likely made sure that emotional distress was mentioned in the damages in order to qualify for Section 104(a)(2) exclusion. The debilitating effects of emotional stress can be rather subjective especially when taxes and money are involved, and removing this exclusion likely has made a great deal of revenue for the Treasury.

Legal Immigration -- Why Would Anyone Want to Come Here Illegally?

A friend linked this post on Facebook (apologies for the one or two expletives in the linked article, but they are warranted)

This is my favorite line in the article:

At some point, from within a cloud of despair, you'll realize that you could have simply caught a plane from your homeland to Central America, bribed a friendly drug lord to get you across the border, and then paid someone to give you a dead guy's social security number.

That process would have saved you a year of your life, several tons of money, and your sense of trust in the basic competence of the American government and authority in general. Sure, you might be breaking the law. Sure, you might end up dying of thirst in the desert, your bleached bones standing as an ironic symbol of the drawing power of the American dream. But at least none of the drug lords are going to casually pull you aside at the airport and ask you if you've ever been convicted of genocide.

Seriously, is it any wonder why people are sneaking across the border? Any candidate that doesn't get the need to make legal immigration more efficient and cost effective is unelectable.

Mike Lee, Kagen and the Judiciary

Mike Lee and the Judiciary Committee

Mike Lee is a constitutional lawyer, right? At least he sure tries sell his "expertise" in interpreting the constitution as a selling point to voters. Due to his career as a constitutional lawyer, I think we need to carefully scrutinize his statements regarding the judiciary.

Mike Lee has come out as an early opponent of the Supreme Court nominee, Solicitor General, Elena Kagan. The biggest reason for his opposition is due to the fact that Elena Kagan prohibited military recruiters from conducting on campus interviews because of her opposition to "don't ask, don't tell" while Dean of Harvard Law School.

First, the allegation of Ms. Kagan single-handedly prohibiting the military from accessing Harvard students is, as Jason Williams at KVNU's For the People points out, fundamentally incorrect. According to the NYTimes article linked supra, she reinstated the long-held Harvard ban shortly but bowed to pressure from the Federal government to remove the ban and she never banned the military from all access to Harvard Law students -- recruiters were only banned from operating out of the schools career center.

Second, "don't ask, don't tell" is, in fact, a discriminatory policy and as such it's constitutionality is questionable. For Mike Lee to quickly and openly oppose the current nominee because of her opposition to a Federal policy that openly discriminates against a group of people, is either blatant pandering to the right or it shows a complete disregard for thoughtful reasoning and analysis. In the case of Mike Lee, I'm pretty sure it is the former. His immigration platform has already demonstrated his willingness to pander, and embrace about anything necessary in order to get the right to embrace him as the re-embodiment of Ronald Reagan. There are some very reasonable questions about the constitutionality of "don't ask, don't tell" and that should not be an automatic dis-qualifier for a Supreme Court justice.

Kagan

From what I have heard about Kagan, I like her. My favorite part about her is the criticism she placed on the Judiciary committee for allowing nominees to get by with, what she called, "vague answers", and she also has commented that the confirmation process had become "a vapid and hollow charade." Given that this was written before her nomination to the high court, I'm sure Ms. Kagan will probably end up using the same stonewalling tactics that just about every Supreme Court nominee since Bork has used in her confirmation hearings -- but I appreciate that she expressed that sentiment in her pre-nomination writings.

Given the fact that she has been nominated by Obama, I'll assume that she has some pretty strong liberal leanings aside from the opposition to "don't ask, don't tell" -- but she appears to have some moderate views as well. For example, while she worked as counsel to Clinton she urged him to sign a ban on late term abortions and she also has made some comments or has some writings that appear to support keeping terrorists under the scope of battlefield law rather than giving them the rights of US citizens in the US Justice System.

For a nominee from a liberal President, I'm cautiously optimistic that she may turn out to be a good moderate-liberal addition to the court. Anyways, if she isn't Borked, I'm sure time will tell.

Tribune Editorial -- Utah's Broken Caucus/Primary System

I've been perturbed at the recent ousting of Sen. Bennett. I was disappointed to hear of some of the utter disrespect with which delegates treated Sen Bennett's departure.

I've read some hard core right-wingers who are patting themselves on the back and are seething at the opportunity to go after Orrin Hatch in a few years (on a side note, where the hell were you tea party-ers the last time Hatch was up for election? Talk about being in office too long!). Some have mentioned their contempt for moderates in the "Big Tent" Party that the conservative demigod Ronald Reagan sought to build -- a party that had room for differing points of view.

One blog in particular tried to assert that the convention's ousting of Bob Bennett was an ousting by the Utah voter. The blog's author's argument (I'm assuming) goes like this, the state of Utah is known as the most Republican state in the country, therefore the majority of Utah voters must be registered as Republicans, therefore the majority of voters had the opportunity to attend the Republican neighborhood meetings where the delegates were chosen, and therefore the majority of Utah voters chose the delegates that chose to knock Bob Bennett out of the Senate. There are a couple of flaws I'd like to address regarding this line of reasoning:

1.) Many Utahns refuse to declare a party affiliation -- nor should they have to. The Republican party's record for keeping with campaign promises and party platforms has been unreliable at best over the past few decades. Couple that with the Republican Party's current climate of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin-ified rage and fear, and there are quite a few Utahn's who have absolutely no desire to be associated with what once was Ronald Reagan's "Big Tent" Party. Those who are not declared members of a political party are not invited to participate in the delegate selection process or to vote in primary elections -- those voices are not heard in the caucus/primary system

As a side note, I wonder if the Tea Party Republicans (I'm referring to anyone whose views mirror someone like Cherilyn Eager) would embrace Ronald Reagan as their political Messiah if he would have been involved in the race to be Utah's next U.S. Senator. Ronald Reagan gave great speeches about conservative values, but Ronald Reagan's record as president saw large deficits, and high taxes -- two cardinal sins for conservative leadership. It might be argued that he couldn't do anything about that because of the Democratic majority under which the Congress was ruled throughout his tenure as president, but hasn't Senator Bennett been working under same conditions for the past few years?

2.) The purpose of the convention is for the party to choose the candidate which is the most electable not to elect the representative. Especially here in Utah, the Republican candidate will more than likely be the winner of the general election and so the convention results have more importance than it likely should. While the tea party-ers are pleased with their coup, many of the rest of us feel cheated of a good representative for Utah. The key word is for Utah, not for conservatives or for liberals! Senator Bennett, like him or hate him, was able to get things done for our state and there are many that would have voted him in a 4th term if they were given the chance. Unfortunately, they won't be given that chance because the state's convention/primary system is only open 3500 of the most politically active and often the most politically polarized among us.

I agree with the SLTrib editorial board when it wrote:

In the 43 states where the political parties value the input of all members and hold direct or open primary elections to select candidates for statewide offices, the answer would be an unequivocal "yes." Anyone who wants to run can gather signatures from registered voters and have their name placed on the ballot. And anyone who has registered to vote can pick from the entire field.

If that were the case in the Beehive State, Bennett, a clear favorite of the Republican rank and file in public opinion polls, may well have won. But in Utah, one of just seven states where conventions play a primary role in selecting candidates, party delegates do all of the talking, and most of the voting. The rank and file are largely silenced, left to pick between the top two candidates in a primary election only if the top vote-getter fails to amass 60 percent of the delegate vote at convention.

I was pleased to hear that Bennett is considering a write-in campaign. I haven't decided who I will vote for, I would like to learn more about all of the candidates. However, if Bennett want to be written in as Senator I will definitely consider it.

Honestly, I'm not a rabid Bennett supporter or hater. I simply believe in democracy, and when democratic systems fail provide democratic results those systems need to be challenged. The control that the convention/primary system has on the outcome of Utah elections is one of those systems. Olene Walker (not to diminish the great work JMH, Jr. did as Governor) was the last victim of this broken system, she did a great job as Governor is her short tenure and the general population should have been able to pass judgment on Walker's governorship and the general population deserves a vote on Bob Bennett too.

Anyways, I'm going to move on. There are many other issues to discuss.

Bennett and PaliHanniBeckian Utah Republican Delegates

First, I'm not glad to see Bennett go. I believe he was the the type of politician who approached issues with reason and logic, and was able to find room in his heart for compromise and civility.

Second, I think it was the wrong decision. The two candidates that the Utah State Convention chose over Bennett both appear to have impressive resumes, but both of them are far too willing to pander to the Hannity/Palin/Beck-ified Utah conservative base on issues like immigration and health care. The fact that the Republican Party no longer has room for Bennett, makes me wonder if the GOP's may no longer have room for moderate points of view. I'll admit that some life experiences have made me lean a bit more to the left than I have in the past, but the ever increasing degree for which some "Republican's" embrace fear-mongers like Beck, Hannity, and Palin has made me move even closer to joining the Democrats (unfortunately, that party is just as screwed up and direction-less -- with less fear, but more anger)

Mike Lee's campaign immigration platform is ridiculous and, quite frankly, I don't believe he plans on truly pursuing a single word of it if elected. Lee gets the need for congressional term limits, but term limits are/were in his best interest -- so I don't feel like any great credit should be granted for that position. The flat tax is a bad idea (a subject that I written on repeatedly if you care to search my archives) that multiple other Senators have pursued and failed at achieving before, and I anticipate that Mike Lee will pursue it and fail to get support for it as well.

Tim Bridgewater hasn't tried to position himself as far to the right as Lee, and I think it will serve him well in the long-run. Unfortunately, Tim Bridgewater has some credibility issues due to recent revelations of his past business dealings he either sought for Federal Government earmarks for his business enterprises and the enterprises of clients that he advised, and I'll have hard time accepting his assertions of keeping a iron clamp on the Federal purse-strings when he has made a living helping entrepreneurs seek/attain Federal Funds for business purposes. However, despite his continued use of the phrase anchor baby on his campaign website, I think Tim Bridgewater has the most well reasoned approach to illegal immigration of the two Republican candidates.

I actually think that the biggest thing that the Republican convention succeeded at in ousting Bennett is offering Utah Democrats their best opportunity at a Senate seat in decades. If Granato can position himself as a Jim Mathesonian moderate Democrat, than he stands a good chance at winning the Senate seat.

Grading the Candidates -- Bob Bennett

I have decided not to go through the same grading scale that was used for Mike Lee and Tim Bridgewater with Bob Bennett. The reason why is that Bob Bennett is the incumbent, and we already have a good idea of what kind of Senator he has been. The question is do we as voters in Utah want to keep Bennett (the devil we know) or do we want to go with one of the challengers.

Reasons to Keep Bennett --
1. Seniority -- Even if I hate the seniority system in Washington -- it is the system that is in place. getting rid of Sen. Bennett would mean forfeiting a certain level of power and influence for Utah in Washington.
2. Solid Moderate-Conservative -- While there are votes that Bennett has made which are unpopular with Utah's right wing base, they were (in my opinion) the right votes to cast. I believe he represents the views of most Utahns

Reasons to Ditch Bennett --
1. He has been there too long -- His biggest strength may also be a major weakness. Orrin Hatch has been in the Senate longer than I have been alive, and that length may lead, or appear to constituents to cause, a major disconnect with the constituents that these Congressional leaders are supposed to represent.
2. May be overly willing to compromise on values that his constituents hold -- Some of the things that are causing Bennett trouble are votes that appear in opposition to core conservative values.

Conclusion -- Bennett may not be great, but he has been building seniority in Washington. Unfortunately seniority is still a crucial sword in order wield power in Washington on behalf of the State of Utah. Until a congressional term limit is finally enacted, I don't believe Utah can afford to drop a senior senator -- especially for a candidate whose potential congressional career will inevitably mirror that of the senior senator that we would be removing from office.

If you (referring to delegates) are mad at Bennett because of the past couple of painful years, get over it. However. if you seriously want a different direction for Utah's Congressional delegation -- vote for the Democrat. Otherwise, you will force our state to lose a fair amount of influence in Washington without having really changed a thing.

Grading the Candidates -- Tim Bridgewater

Tim Bridgewater

The Economy and Government Spending – Mr. Bridgewater has a much longer treatise on this issue than Mike Lee has. He rails against the ills of government spending, Bob Bennett’s record, and the consequences of Congress spending too much. In the end he claims that he will vote no on spending bills in a majority of cases. He claims he will support spending for government agencies that he feels have a constitutional role.

Unfortunately, Mr. Bridgewater’s professional record is (at least in a small way) contradictory of his position. The SL-Trib exposed some inconsistencies related to his business dealings and his (and his clients) being beneficiaries of government earmarks and the very programs that Mr. Bridgewater rails against.

Honesty – A
Best Move for our Country – B
Realistic – D (I don’t believe for an instant that Tim Bridgewater will manage to vote no on a vast majority of appropriations bills, as the campaign site puts it “when I have cast 133 votes on appropriations bills, most of them will have been NO votes.”)
Believability – C (The revelations of his business dealings call his believability into question on this issue)

Average – C+

Afghanistan (and Iraq) – Mr. Bridgewater’s stated position on Iraq and Afghanistan is that he doesn’t support withdrawing from Afghanistan. He claims he believes we need to make sure that those countries understand that our commitment isn’t open ended, but that we cannot have a cut and run strategy (the idea of openly setting a deadline to be out of the US military commitments). He believes that discussions of withdraw need to be done behind closed doors because, he asserts, discussions of military withdraw might provide encouragement to enemy organizations – and that it would promote Iranian expansionism.

While I agree that we need to make sure the nations where our troops are deployed understand that our commitments are not open ended and that we don’t provide encouragement to the enemy, Mr. Bridgewater needs to answer the fundamental question of when do we need to finish these engagements and return our troops home. The Saddam regime has been gone for years – how long will it take for the Iraqi’s to take control of their nation? Mr. Bridgewater also fails to provide much insight into how he would suggest that Congress should avoid quagmires like that of Iraq and Afghanistan, and his opponent Mike Lee defeats him soundly on this point.

Honesty – C
Best Move for our Country – C
Realistic – A
Believability – C

Average – C+

Immigration – For starters, the Bridgewater campaign is still using the infamous and offensive “anchor baby” phrase to describe the Mexican-American babies born to illegal immigrants here in the United States. Strike one. However, the Bridgewater position on illegal immigration does get better.

Bridgewater supports controlling the border with physical barriers and additional Border Patrol enforcement. I agree with him on this point.

Unlike Mike Lee, Tim Bridgewater acknowledges that the immigration system is broken costing on average thousands of dollars to attain citizenship and several years. He would support a “massively comprehensive” (snarky reference to the campaign site) reformation of Immigration and Naturalization – this is crucial if we are to incentivize would-be immigrants to come here through proper channels.

Honesty – A
Best Move for our Country – A
Realistic – A
Believability – A

Average – A

Tax Reform – Mr. Bridgewater’s tax position is that if spending is controlled, than taxes will be kept low as well. The tax talking point is basically a reiteration of his earlier position on deficits and congressional spending. Again, if Mr. Bridgewater can be successful at slowing congressional spending and using restraint in voting for appropriations bills, than I believe this would be good for the country.

For consistency, I’m handing the exact same grade for this as his position for the economy and congressional spending.

Honesty – A
Best Move for our Country – B
Realistic – D
Believability – C

Average – C+

Education – Mr. Bridgewater advocates a number of suggestions for education. These suggestions include the following:

 Return more power to state and local governments
 Cutting Federal spending on early childhood education and higher education programs (or at least give states more authority over these programs funds)
 (Without saying vouchers) Vouchers for private schools and even home schools
 Expand innovative education systems like charter schools

I agree with Mr. Bridgewater on lowering the Federal impact on public education, however I doubt that vouchers (especially for home schooling) would be passable into law.

Honesty – A
Best Move for our Country – C
Realistic – D
Believability – A

Average – B-

Healthcare – In lieu of the 2000 page healthcare bill that recently was signed into law, Mr. Bridgewater suggests that we pass 4 bills:

1. Bill 1: Creating real competition & choice in the insurance market – The plan includes refundable tax credits for the purpose of paying private insurance premiums for lower income families, the nationwide insurance market proposed by Obama, health insurance pooling for small businesses, expansion of HSA’s.

2. Bill 2: Litigation reform – Bridgewater wants to make it more difficult to get large malpractice settlements.

3. Bill 3: Move Medicare and Medicaid to the States’ Control – Bridgewater believes that if Medicaid and Medicare were controlled more by the states, than these two programs would be more efficient and economical.

4. Bill 4: Investing in science & innovation – Government spending should focus on speeding medical innovations to the marketplace, and on making new and better innovations in medicine.

This position strikes me as a reiteration and parroting of many right-wing talking points after the Obama-care bill was passed on Christmas Eve. I appreciate that Mr. Bridgewater is supportive of the national insurance market suggested by Barack Obama, allowing small businesses to from health insurance pools, and forcing some sort of litigation reform (although we need to be careful about caps due to the devastating nature of so many malpractice caused injuries).

Honesty – A
Best Move for our Country – B
Realistic – C
Believability – A

Average – B+

Overall GPA 2.92 (B-)

Conclusion: Despite the distasteful use of the term “anchor baby” and the apparent contradictions between his business dealings and his rhetoric. I actually like a few of Mr. Bridgewater’s positions. I really appreciate that he seems to get the need to make immigration more attainable to would-be immigrants and that he doesn’t suggest that the Federal government mandate all estimated 20+ million illegal immigrants be deported before they can take steps to attain legitimate citizenship.

Unfortunately, there are enough negatives that keep me from believing that he is the change candidate that Utah voters are looking for.

Grading the Candidates -- Mike Lee

Grading Scale

Honesty -- Whether the position has been thoughtfully considered, and shows intellectual honesty.
Best Move For Our Country -- Whether this position (if successfully passed into law) would lead the country on a better course than it is now on.
Realistic -- Whether the position is mere pandering to the right wing with no realistic chance of being successfully mandated if the candidate was elected.
Believability -- Whether the position enhances or diminishes the candidates trustworthiness. Heavy pandering diminishes trustworthiness, and thoughtful well designed positions enhance trustworthiness.

Maybe a tad redundant. However, I needed some sort of a scale to evaluate the candidates.


Mike Lee

Issues from his campaign site:

End Deficit Spending – Mike Lee supports a balanced budget amendment like that of most states. Okay, great – what Republican doesn’t theoretically believe in having a balanced budget?

One problem with the balanced budget amendment is that it doesn’t always make sense for the nation’s economy. Many economists argue that government’s ability to spend can be a key to quickening economic recovery during recessions. One example of arguable and unproven success is the Bush and subsequent Obama stimulus packages – the economy appears to be improving even if the improvement hasn’t been all that apparent to the average taxpayer.

Balanced Budgets sound great. Unfortunately, I don’t believe they can be realistically achieved at the Federal level and to a certain level I’m not sure that it is best to tie the Fed to a balanced budget each and every year.

Honesty – A
Best move for our country – B
Realistic – C
Believability – A

Average – B+

Strengthen National Security – Mike Lee’s campaign site suggest that our armed forces have clear objectives before deployments are authorized – and that troops are sent home as soon as objectives are met. The second suggestion is that our militaries “hands are not tied by unnecessary rules of engagement.”

I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Lee on the first point. The two front war that our nation is currently engaged in has become a quagmire that has no visible end in sight. Part of the problem is the lack of planning and purpose – especially in Iraq. I believe this objective (if achieved) would be in the nations best interest.

Unfortunately, and this is dependant on what he means by “unnecessary rules of engagement”, I disagree with Mr. Lee on the second point. While possibly cumbersome, the rules of engagement that our troops abide by are necessary to keep our troops safe and to keep civilians safe in the areas where we deploy our troops to serve. When the job includes the use of deadly force, rules and encumbrances are necessary to keep our troops on the right side of the thin line that divides soldiers from criminals of wartime crimes against humanity

Mr. Lee's campaign is somewhat vague in explaining the position. If he is asserting that Congress should allow the military to have complete control over rules of engagement, than I disagree. However, I would still disagree with his position if he is asserting that Congress needs complete control over rules of engagement. Rules of engagement should be set by the military and should be checked and reviewed as needed by Congress. The military should be free to do their job, but rules and regulations need to be in place to make sure the military isn’t crossing moral and ethical lines.

Point 1
Honesty – A
Best move for our country – A
Realistic – A
Believability – A

Average – A

Point 2
Honesty – A
Best move for our country – C
Realistic – C
Believability – B

Overall – B+

Reform the Tax System – Mr. Lee supports the flat tax or the fair tax. Both of these proposals fail to take one major, albeit altruistic, point into consideration – 5% to a family living at the poverty level is much different than 5% to the rich. Having all Americans pay the same amount of tax is almost as regressive as taxing food at the grocery store. In my opinion the current tax code, although far from perfect or fair, has been developed through nearly 80 years of trial and error. The graduated tax rates keep those who have very little from being burdened with an additional tax liability, and has most taxpayers paying what they can (or should be able to) afford.

However, I agree that tax entitlements have gotten out of control. Although I’m not complaining about one of the biggest refunds I have ever received this year, I think the tax entitlements should be entitled for only those who are at or below the poverty level. Keep the middle class from paying too much, but we don’t need to give those who have enough to get by free hand outs.

Honesty – A
Best Move for our Country – D
Realistic – D (How many Congresses have had flat taxes introduced?)
Believability – A

Average – C+

Reduce Government Regulations – The talking point is a vague assertion that government regulations are bad for the market. Every good Republican would agree with this, but it isn’t all realistic. Given how vague the talking point is, I doubt Mr. Lee believes that it realistic either.

Overall – C (Vague)

Term Limits – Mr. Lee claims that he is for a twelve year limit on Congressional terms. This is something that I wholeheartedly agree with. However, it is also something that is pretty unrealistic to actually happen. I wonder if Mike Lee will believe in term limits after (and if) he is elected?

Honesty – A
Best move for our country – A
Realistic – C+
Believability – C

Average B+

Illegal Immigration – Mike Lee listed a whole list of items that he believes will help solve the illegal immigration problem. Items that I agree with him on:

1. Securing the border
2. Enforce Existing Law
3. Improve and Promote the Use of E-Verify

These are all important to control the flow of new immigrants to the United States. We need to control who comes in to the US from Mexico and Canada and we need to know who they are, but we also need to offer new immigrants (all immigrants) a pathway to legitimate citizenship that takes less than a year (at least less than a decade) and doesn’t require the intervention of a lawyer.

Specific items that I disagree with Lee on include:

1. Mandating and enforcing the denial of welfare benefits to (illegal) immigrants
2. NO Amnesty

First, I see the right-wing pandering in the position statement that we need to deny any welfare benefits to illegal immigrants. However, I also see a harsh reality for millions of people who (although illegally) have come to our nation seeking a better life. Life in America is often difficult for first generation immigrants, and I can’t accept the idea of refusing denying welfare to any new comer who may need assistance.

Second, and most important, Mike Lee proposes (as have many extreme right-wing pundits) that no amnesty be granted to the estimated nearly 20 million illegal immigrants currently living in the US. He even suggest that the government mandate that everyone return home and go through the proper channels before they can return. While pleasing the extreme-right’s fear of being overrun by our neighbors to the south, the proposal is unrealistic and illogical. We need to first get complete control of our borders, and second we need to offer a citizen path to any who are here and are legitimately trying to prosper in the land of the free – 5-10 year conditional green cards (no felonies, and proof of income) for all with citizenship after the waiting period.

Honesty – B-
Best move for our country – C
Realistic – D
Believability – D

Average D+



Other issues

Entitlements – C
Education – C
Abortion – A (I’m pro-life)
Federal Lands – A (Great idea to push for the property taxation of Federal Lands – probably unrealistic)

Overall GPA 2.85 (B-)

Conclusion -- While I disagree with Mike Lee on a few of his stated positions and I'm not a fan of some of his campaign moves, I'm pretty convinced that he would be no better or worse than Bob Bennett or any other member of Utah's Congressional delegation if elected albeit with less of that cursed but crucial word in Washington D.C. -- seniority. I'm pretty sure he is pandering heavily to the right on some of his less realistic campaign positions (immigration, education, finance, and entitlements) However, given his previous employment with former Governor and current Ambassador Jon Huntsman, I'm somewhat hopeful that he is more of a moderate in right-wing clothing during the pre-convention stage of his campaign.

Grading the Candidates

As a commenter noted, I may be guilty of drive-by commentary in the Republican senate race(I hate using the Limbaugh-phrase).

In order to rectify this I'm going to spend a few days grading the Republican candidates -- hopefully before the convention.

First up -- Mike Lee (tomorrow)

Utah Tax Commission -- Stories of Incompetence and Malpractice

I had a new potential client call me with a sales tax issue.

To make a long story short and confidential, the state tax commission audited this man's business for sales tax purposes and hit him with as much tax as possible -- much of it completely erroneous. After months of negotiation and review, the tax commission and this individual and his business partner had come to an agreement about the final tax bill owed.

The taxpayers each secure enough financing to pay there share of the assessed liability. The partners cashes out all of his retirement and pays his portion of the liability, and the potential client set up a home refi in order to cover his portion of the liability.

When the taxpayer was set to close, the USTC agent sends the mortgage company (never mentions this to taxpayer) a payoff that was 17,000 dollars more than the amount known to the taxpayer. When the taxpayer questioned the USTC agent she said she made a mistake! The taxpayer lost his interest rate (not sure I understood why) and he need to come up with a new mortgage.

This is probably one of the worst case screw ups I have ever heard of. To come back and try and assess an additional 17,000 dollars because of a agents mistake after the assessment had been agreed to is unconscionable. Anyone in the private sector would face an E&O suit for a similar mistake. Come on USTC!

Mike Lee -- This is insane!

Utah Republicans need to vote this guy out of the primary.

I don't have complete faith that they will. Unfortunately, much of Utah Republican ideology seems to have been hijacked by the rhetoric of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. Combine that with the "Republican Party = Temple Worthy Mormon" idiots in this state, and we this video may lead us to have this schmuck as a Senator.

I agree with Ethan Millard. Delegates, please don't give us another Chaffetz!

As a Mormon, this video is quite disturbing and insulting. It is disconcerting that either Mike Lee, or a supporter or Mike Lee, believes that this religiously manipulative crap can win votes. Even more disconcerting, is that I can see some RP=TWM delegates actually feeling "the spirit" from this piece and casting their votes for this guy.

Immigration -- Legal or Not?

Fellow blogger and Facebook friend Tom Grover left a status update that made me think:

I can't be sure that all of my family immigrated legally to the US, and neither can you.

Thinking made me fairly suspicious about the legality of one family member's immigration to the US.

My grandmother came to the US in 1939 from Northern England, and by the end of the year she married my grandfather. From outside appearances it could easily have been asserted that she may have been marrying my grandfather for his U.S. citizenship. She was an attractive woman, and he was a half-deaf, nearly crippled man that was 10 years her senior. She also had two sisters in England who later immigrated, and my grandmothers marriage to an American citizen was likely very helpful in securing citizenship for those sisters

Her marriage, even if it had some level of convenience/necessity in 1939, did grow into a 50+ year happy marriage. The children of that marriage all received college educations and the grandchildren have gone on to become successful members of society including doctors, lawyers, social workers, counselors, educators, engineers, and business leaders.

The point is this: America has always been and will continue to be the land of opportunity. The poor and huddled masses want to come here, and they will use whatever means necessary to get in. Should we condemn them for it? The answer should be a resounding no.

We must control our border, but we must also make it possible for the sincere seeker of prosperity and freedom to pass through the gates into American citizenship. While many on the right are calling for tougher laws to crack down on those who entered the US illegally, it must be remembered that someone in all of our ancestries sought to anchor themselves to the land of the free anyway they possible could.

Some of the current GOP senate candidates have used the phrase "anchor baby" to describe Mexican immigrants who come the US to have babies that will be US citizens. The offensive nature of this catch phrase is beyond the scope of this essay. We are all "anchor babies". Stop condemning those who are anxious to enjoy a better life -- the problem isn't with those who want to come to America. The problem is with those who don't believe there is enough prosperity to go around. I believe in America, and that it can bring great fortune to anyone who desires prosperity and has the will to work for that dream.

Tim Bridgewater -- The Business Candidate or a Hypocrite

Tim Bridgewater has been presenting himself as a business friendly candidate and as someone who would be a champion against big government spending. However, it was revealed this week Tim Bridgewater advised client companies to seek government earmarks and funding from the stimulus, and that he co-founded and operated a company which operated to take advantage of the NCLB program. This revelation does make Mr. Bridgewater look at least slightly hypocritical, and majorly untrustworthy to taxpayers.

So, Mr. Bridgewater has advised his clientele to take advantage of cheap government money -- who wouldn't? Yes, Mr. Bridgewater is correct in his assertion that his clients would have been foolish not to use the government financing options that he has condemned. The problem is that Mr. Bridgewater wants us, the taxpaying voters, to believe he is somehow different than everyone else who is in Congress or who is running for Congress. This revelation, if not damning, is disconcerting. His business dealings show that he is just as willing as anyone else to say one thing to the voter in order to get elected, and do something completely different in his regular life or when faced with pressure from party leaders if elected. Although I agree with Mr. Bridgewater that he was prudent in advising clients to seek after, and he was prudent in seeking cheap government financing in his own business -- it doesn't show a man who stands firm on his convictions (especially the ones that he preaches from the campaign podium)

I doubt that Tim Bridgewater is the solution to our problems in Congress that he is hoping we will believe he is.

I'm pretty thoroughly convinced that nothing can change in Washington until there are some major changes to the way Congress operates.

First, it is time that we have term limits to Congress and the Senate. Congressional leadership spend so much time in Washington that they have no real connection to the areas that elected them. Second, cut Congressional pay. It is insulting that members of Congress, a majority of whom are independently wealthy, go to Congress only to be paid larger salaries than most Americans and to be granted lifetime benefits that employees of some of the most stable American corporations would envy -- especially when so many Americans are struggling financially. Third, we need a system that is favorable to any and all comers -- stop the two party control of Washington. The two party system is one of the biggest causes of organizational myopia in the Federal Government. Decisions should be made by merit of ideas presented and thoughtful debate and negotiation, not by the letter that you have affixed next to your name.

In general, members of Congress receive a great deal from their time in Congress. Many find gainful employment as lobbyist, business leaders, bureaucrats, and financial gain by being public figures. Congressional pay and benefits are obscene, as is the job security and length of time for which congressional leaders serve. We need fresh ideas and faces every few years to combat the myopia and group-think which seems to command most of the decision making that comes out of Washington.

I'm sure Mr. Bridgewater is a nice guy and a good businessman, but I'm just as sure that he would become part of the problem within seconds of taking the oath of office.

LDS Church -- Green Buildings

I thought this was interesting. The LDS church unveiled a new green meetinghouse with solar panels, electric car designated parking, and xeriscaped landscaping.

Although I'm not one who has really embraced environmentalism, I'm glad to see the church take steps like this.

Death Row Inmate Gardner: 'I would like the firing squad, please'

Last week, Ronnie Lee Gardner made headlines by requesting death by firing squad. One of the punishment's that make Europeans say -- "they do that in America?" While it is interesting that the next Utah executed has chosen the least peaceful means of death offered by the Utah Penal Code, I find it more noteworthy to discuss the waste of time and money that the death penalty has become in the US.

One of the major recent arguments made by Ronnie Lee Gardner's attorney's is that it would be cruel and inhumane to execute him after he has been on death row for more than 25 years. While I disagree with them that execution would after 25 years be somehow inhumane, I do agree that 25 years is a long time to be on death row -- TOO LONG.

Since the death penalty was reinstated in the 1970's most death sentences take several years to multiple decades before the sentence is carried out. Attorney's for the accused file unlimited appeals and motions to keep the sentence from being carried out, and rack up thousands of dollars of expense that is ultimately shouldered by the taxpaying public. The days of the gallows being assembled in the town square shortly after the trial are gone.

The death penalty actually seems to be a rather liberating and (in a bizarre way) rewarding sentence; the condemned are isolated from the general prison population, they can be relatively sure that they will not die for several years, and they know how they are going to die. There is also a bit of notoriety involved for the condemned, for example Gary Gilmore is mentioned every time there is a execution scheduled in this state and the current condemned receives a fair amount of publicity before their sentence is carried out. The last Utah inmate to choose the firing squad did so for the very purpose of gaining some notoriety and causing embarrassment to the state of Utah.

The cost of keeping a man on death row is very expensive. Surprisingly (or not) it is now far more expensive to kill a murderer than to house that criminal in prison for the rest of his natural life. In a research paper by Mark Leeman at the University of Indiana, the author cited the average annual cost of housing a prisoner in California is 20,760 dollars a year while the cost for holding someone in death row is 22,400 dollars a year. The same author cited another paper that showed the average lifetime incarceration cost is 250,000 and 869,000 dollars for death row and general prison population inmates respectively, but that legal cost associated with death row inmates increased the lifetime incarceration cost for death row inmates by several thousands (and millions in some cases) of dollars more than the lifetime cost associated with general prison population inmates.

So, how do we best accomplish the requirements of Justice in regards to the perpetrators of heinous crimes like rape and murder? I submit that either the death penalty should be repealed permanently, or the appeals process for convicted murderers be seriously limited. Although there is something John Wayne-ish about sentencing these scum to die, the reality of a 10 to 20+ year waiting period before that occurs takes a fair amount of the justice out of the death penalty. With the lengthy appeals process and the sometimes immortalizing notoriety, and the millions of dollars that taxpayers expend for the legal costs associated with administering justice to these scoundrels it seems that the victims and the taxpaying public is the group who is really punished in a death row case.

I have no problem with killing killers, but I do have a problem with inefficiency and waste. I understand that some may argue that the appeals process helps save possibly erroneously condemned men from dying, and to that I would argue for the complete repeal of the death penalty. However, if we as a society are going to continue to embrace this kind of barbarism we need to be efficiently barbaric -- in the words of Mr Miagi "Walk right side, safe. Walk left side, safe. Walk middle, squish just like grape."

http://www.rasmusen.org/g492/paper_examples/Leeman.G492.doc

Should the pay of Utah public employees and bureaucrats be public record?

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.

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.

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.

"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."

The mayor apparently renigged on the full firing, but suspended Officer Rowell without pay.

When I first heard this story I thought of the Dead Milkmen song "Bitchin' Camaro".

My folks bought me a bitchin' Camaro
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

This 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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

This month, the Internal Revenue Service asked for comments on ways to simplify compliance with rules related to employer-provided cellular telephones. The current law, which has been on the books for many years, is burdensome, poorly understood by taxpayers, and difficult for the IRS to administer consistently. Some have incorrectly implied that the IRS is "cracking down" on employee use of employer-provided cell phones. To the contrary, the IRS is attempting to simplify the rules and eliminate uncertainty for businesses and individuals. Although some of the proposed changes would add clarity, the current law will inevitably leave widespread confusion among employees and businesses. Therefore, Secretary Geithner and I ask that Congress act to make clear that there will be no tax consequence to employers or employees for personal use of work-related devices such as cell phones provided by employers. The passage of time, advances in technology, and the nature of communication in the modern workplace have rendered this law obsolete. It's about time!

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.