Mormon Culture -- Pioneer Day & "Welfare Mentality"

I read the Facebook feed of a FB friend, I have never met this individual but I know he is a fellow political junky. This friend had decided to commemorate Pioneer Day by posting the following:

"our pioneer ancestors would be ashamed at our welfare mentality."

This produced some jeering agreement, one commenter mentioning "immorality" in Zion (he is a Mike Lee supporter, so maybe he is referring to those not supporting the one-true conservative, constitutional expert for Senate) and some decent with KVNU and Amicus blogger Tom Grover bringing up the United Order and the law of consecration. Tom's inference that the law of consecration and the United Order are akin to welfare, raised a fair amount of debate and disagreement. Some commentators arguing that the two are completely different, and others argued that tithing is the church portion of the law of consecration and the providing for the poor portion of the law has been replaced by government welfare programs through taxation. One argument made mentioned that millennial consecration will be administered by the government, which was countered by a "actually it will be administered by the church" which should be realized (according to the Mormon canon of scripture) that church and government will be one and the same in the millennium.

This debate spurred this internal question: Do Mormons believe it a sin to seek or receive welfare?

Judging from the pious indignation that some commentators on this feed showed, and some comments I have heard made in the communities of "Zion" where I have lived it would sure seem like it. What does "our welfare mentality" mean anyway? I have always believed that we are to have compassion for the poor and the needy -- isn't that the point of welfare, government or church administered? It can be ceded that the LDS church welfare system has a very wise "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" approach -- while much of Federal welfare remains focused on the giving of the fishes. However, the fact remains that both systems serve the purpose of helping the poor and the indigent.

Although I agree that government welfare is in fact different from the law of consecration (although my unrighteous mind can't quite wrap around the idea that everyone will share everything we have without any compulsion, but I also don't support Mike Lee for Senate and therefore am a stubble candidate). As I mentioned in a earlier post, I think many LDS church members need to examine their compliance to a commandment that Christ identified as the second greatest -- LOVE THY NEIGHBOR AS THYSELF. Members of the LDS church here in Utah (self-included) are quick to become myopic in their view of the gospel focusing on some pet commandments or self-imposed dogma (i.e. the commandment of self-reliance, having the mother not work in a family, or the twelfth article of faith) rather than remembering that our observance of commandments needs to be all encompassing -- even the ones (like loving thy neighbor) that require the flexing of a lot of Christ-like muscle. Like Eve, we need to look to the spirit of the commandments rather than, like Adam tried in vain to, be myopically bound to the letter of the law. It is good to self-reliant, but it is not good to condemn those who are unable to be self-reliant (temporary or permanent) for using welfare that is available. The Church of Jesus Christ recognizes this as they maintain one of the most impressive welfare programs in the world, and members who are overly pious about their self-reliance need to realize this as well.

I choose to commemorate Pioneer Day differently -- I believe our pioneer ancestors would be quite proud of the people of Zion. Welfare is available to all when the need arises, and, as the last couple of years has shown, no one is immune to being needy or wanting at sometime or another in their lives. I'm grateful for welfare, church administered or governmental, because it is there to catch me and any of my neighbors when the floor falls out from under us. Most people in Zion do there best to be self reliant, and our church has become a world leader in providing welfare for the poor by helping provide temporal needs in the short-term and educating the needy for job skills necessary to attain self-reliance long-term.

On the other hand. If you are a LDS church member, needing welfare may likely reveals one sinful aspect of that members life -- not following the admonition of the prophets to have a years worth of food storage. There I admit that.

U Accountant -- $100,000 for 10 Days in Jail

Who ever said that "crime doesn't pay" never met former U of U accountant Jara Jane Wimmer.

Wimmer started defrauding the University's theater department in 2001 with the first of many checks. From then until the U finally caught on in 2009, she fraudulently used professors' University credit cards, paid her husband regular checks from the University coffers, charged plane tickets to Cancun on her University credit card, and enjoyed several thousands of dollars in illegitimate purchases which she covered up by forging invoices, delivery slips, and order requisitions.

What is her punishment?

3rd District Judge William Barrett ordered Wimmer, 33, to serve 10 days in jail, perform 200 hours of community service and pay $123,000 in restitution.

The article states that her theft was 100,000 dollars more that the amount that than the restitution order. So, Ms. Wimmer profited 10,000 dollars per day in jail -- not a bad deal. Sure she has community service and she theoretically "has" to pay 123,000 dollars back. However, Ms. Wimmer and her now deceased hubby lived pretty sweet on a pretty small salary and she gets to keep 45% of her booty -- I wonder if my local college is hiring for bookkeepers?

Internal Controls

There appears to be some basic internal controls that the U theater department was missing all those years -- multiple reviews of department books, duel signatures on department checks, and regular reviews of credit card expense reports. All of these internal controls are taught in lower level accounting courses. Kudos (in a sarcastic way) to Ms. Wimmer for identifying Mack truck-sized flaws in the U of U's internal controls -- if only you had a soul, you would have reported them to management instead of buying purses with taxpayer and donor's funds.

The Governor's Photo Op -- I Mean Summit

After being accused of not showing much indignation regarding the infamous DWStapo list, Governor Herbert hosted a "round table discussion" on immigration. He invited 30 state legislature representatives, community activists, religious leaders, and media personalities -- so everyone sees that Governor Herbert is in to giving everyone a fair chance to voice their concerns.

I'm an accountant, and each year I am required to attend 30 hours of continuing education. Inevitably there are always "roundtable discussions" at the events -- I have attended 1 in 6 years. In my experience they are always a waste of time. Governor Herbert didn't disappoint in this regard either.

The discussion started off with the idea of a Utah-ran guest worker program. This program would (somehow) skirt US immigration and allow migrant workers to travel between Utah and their home countries. Utah Farm Bureau supports this idea, citing a tragic incident one farmer endured waiting for Peruvian workers to clear Customs:

“One rancher recently told me about the death of 300 of his lambs while his Peruvian workers were delayed 30 days,”

I guess the thought of offering a little more money to hire locally was a moot point, but I digress. This was ultimately attacked by Rep. and Sen. Wimmer and Waddoups, the former citing that GW programs would bear the appearance of "amnesty" and the latter cited high unemployment as a reason not to be inviting guest workers to our state. Finally it took the rep from the Catholic Diocese to point out that all Utah programs would amount to Band-Aids -- the ultimate solution needs to come from the Fed.

Inevitably the Arizona law was brought up. Wash. Co. Sherriff Smith pointed that the AZ law is pointless unless the suspected undocumented worker is also a felon. However, Happy Valley anti-immigrant Sandstrom pressed the idea of a Utah version of AZ law further claiming:

enabling Utah police to stop suspected undocumented immigrants will give police a way to find those dangerous criminals (because all illegals are here to bring drugs). And even if ICE does let go some immigrants, Sandstrom said, at least there is a record of that person.

That's right. Pull over all the Hispanics so we can have a record of that person -- then rounding them up for the final solution will be so much easier (insert Dr. Evil laugh)

The incumbent governor made sure to place overall blame on the Federal government, and to call on Congress to secure borders -- he's making sure everyone knows he isn't to blame for illegals. He also made sure we knew he is highly involved in investigating the list.

After two hours the meeting ended with no consensus on legislation or policy. However Gov. Gary Herbert encouraged everyone to keep working.

I hope the participants received a free lunch for their time.

Illegal Immigration & the Church

I have been quite wrapped up in the immigration debate -- insanity always intrigues me. The dialogue in this debate has been quite heated, and unfortunately uninformed and xenophobic from some on the extreme right. The really disconcerting part about the right is that much of the really (near-racist) anti-immigration rhetoric is coming from members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It needs to be reminded that the anti-immigrant rhetoric hasn't been echoed by the LDS church's leadership which reiterated its position just yesterday:

"Elected officials have the primary responsibility to find solutions in the best interests of all whose lives will be impacted by their actions."

The Church is again asking for civil discourse when addressing immigration, noting, "Finding a successful resolution will require the best thinking and goodwill of all across the political spectrum, the highest levels of statesmanship and the strongest desire to do what is best for all of God's children."

However we still have openly LDS commentators like former US Senate candidate Eager, Mike Lee, State Rep's Wimmer and Sandstrom, and others who are fanning the flames of xenophobia with arguments like:

"Anchor Baby"
"81 percent of the homicides, when you have a recorded ethnicity, are committed by Hispanics"
"illegals are joining a militant separatist group to take America for Mexico"
"they don't even love our country, because I saw them waving Mexican flags in protest footage on Fox News Channel" (that one came from a family member)

Now, if you are crazy enough, try and tell some of these people they are wrong and watch the accusations of near-heresy fly! Then you may ask, on what grounds do the extreme right use to make such accusations? For Mormons, twelfth Article of Faith:

12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

That's right -- the Hannitized rule of law argument.

Okay, fine. Let's discuss the rule of law and illegal immigration. One of the principle anti-immigration voices is Mike Lee, on his campaign website he advocates the deportation of all illegal immigrants before they can pursue legitimate citizenship (me may mean voluntary, but he means for all of them to go back to their home country before they can be put on a citizenship path). Then the pre-primary Sutherland debate happened. In that debate, Mike Lee was asked how serious he viewed illegal immigration on the criminal spectrum? Mike Lee's answer -- about as serious as a speeding violation. Does that mean, as Ethan Millard pointed out a while back, that police should escort speeders home so they can follow the "rule of law" as they travel? It would seem that ridiculous. Given the "one true conservative constitutional expert's" explanation of illegal immigration's criminal seriousness, let us also consider the hypocrisy in the extreme right's use of "honoring, and sustaining the law."

I live in So. Utah and I travel to SLC once every two to three months, usually for appointments with my doctor or to visit family. On that drive I usually drive 5 to 7 miles over the speed limit, mainly because I have heard police won't pull you over at that speed and I haven't been pulled over at that speed -- so it must be true, right? However, once I reach the Wasatch front 5 to 7 miles over the speed limit is hazardously slow -- the LDS majority on the Wasatch front speeds by more than 5 miles over the limit. So, if illegal immigration is akin to speeding (a crime that a majority of this state commits on a daily basis) in criminal seriousness than the xenophobic extreme right wing of this state need to heed Christ's admonition to "let him who is without sin first caste a stone."

What is more troubling about the immigration debate here in Zion is the lack of compassion towards the Hispanic community. The Hyrum City 4th of July incident is a prime example. During a community gathering before holiday activities began a Hispanic pastor asked permission to say the opening prayer in Spanish. That prayer has led to calls for the resignation of city council members -- it is incredible that a prayer in Spanish can cause so much outrage in a state that claims to be a beacon of Christian values.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has called for civil discourse. Maybe it is time for those who are so invested in the commandment of the 12th Article of Faith to step back and remember the 2nd greatest commandment -- "love thy neighbor as thyself." As the official LDS church statement says,

"Finding a successful resolution will require the best thinking and goodwill of all across the political spectrum, the highest levels of statesmanship and the strongest desire to do what is best for all of God's children."

In order for "the best thinking and goodwill" to be available in this debate, xenophobia-inspired fallacious statistics and incendiary rhetoric need to be left by the way side. Once that is done, our elected representatives and government leaders can use the "desire to do what is best for all God's children" to draft logical well-reasoned immigration policy that can reverse the rotten past of US immigration policy.

Hatch -- A True Frienemy

Hatch, the man Tea Party members claimed to be gunning for after Bob Bennett's ousting, has been practicing major quid pro quo lately with Mike Lee. It turns out that Mike Lee is a life long fan of Hatch and so turning Mike Lee from enemy to lapdog has been quite simple for the Senior Senator (insert Dr. Evil laugh)

Unfortunately there is a paradox for Orrin Hatch, or it would be if Orrin Hatch still had a soul:

Sen. Orrin Hatch is a fan of Sam Granato, the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate. Granato has a room at his flagship store reserved for the senator, and Hatch’s good buddy “Mr. Mac” Christensen is Granato’s campaign co-chairman.

So, how does Senator Hatch treat his friend:

“Mike is being challenged by Sammy Granato. I really like my little friend Sammy. Sammy has no chance of winning. Even Sammy knows he has no chance of winning. I don’t even think Sammy’s a Democrat, but they just came to him and asked him to run. Either way, Mike knows he needs to run scared and not take anything for granted.”

Now I'd like to insert the Flames on the Side of My Face" bit from Clue:


Seriously, I don't know that I have ever read such a condescending, arrogant load of crap. Come on Sam Granato -- move the Hatch room out to the dumpster for that!

The Governor's Response to the Illegal Immigration List

The Utah Amicus posted a press release from Wayne Holland regarding Governor Herbert's less than condemning response to the state's leak of personal information out of Workforce Services. Wayne Holland poses the question, why hasn't he been willing to condemn the list makers?

It's because aggressively migrant-opposed organizations are leading him by the nose so effectively that he won’t even denounce the illegal release of private information.

"Utahns deserve leadership who know where and how to draw the line. Illegal immigration laws need to be strongly enforced, while maintaining an element of humanity. A governor who cannot manage to state a clear answer to such a simple and moralistic issue demonstrates a lack of character and conviction."

I agree with Chariman Holland. Even at the press conference the Governor seemed more concerned with defending his actions rather than condemning such Nazi-esque intimidation tactics. Governor Herbert is the type of Utah Republican that has made me stray from the Republican Party, lacking personal conviction and character, and relying wholly on his membership in the Republican Party to maintain his place in the state's political landscape.

The GOP convention that ousted Bennett would have been wiser to follow the precedent set with the ousting of Olene Walker before he and Huntsman Jr. were elected.

Immigration -- Mr. Boyack.

Conner Boyack has authored an exhaustive piece on immigration. Despite his support of Mike Lee, he supports amnesty for illegal immigrants. His piece was quite long -- too long for a self-employed accountant/Mr. Mom to read in one sitting. There were a few quotes that I found most notable:

Our current immigration situation can be likened to a rotting tree, either in need of being felled or nurtured to good health. If we were to dig up the roots, though, we would see that they are poisoned; the foundation upon which our modern immigration laws rest is evil and wrong. This poison consists of two parts: racism and protectionism........

Both racism and protectionism are evil—nobody has the right to deny another individual, regardless of race, the right to rent or purchase private property (and therefore cannot delegate that authority to the government they have organized), and nobody has the right to mandate through law that their industry be favored through tariffs, salary caps, minimum wage, or anything related.

And yet, these two poisons have produced the rotting tree we now call immigration law; rather than felling it and starting fresh, many people want the tree to grow and extend its branches—all while ignoring the roots.

Mr. Boyack's (although I have only skimmed through it a couple of times so far) is quite refreshing and highly recommended.

My Most Recent Non-US Born Ancestor's Immigration

I was home last week and the discussion of illegal immigration came up with my parents. My mother was in favor of laws like the one enacted in Arizona. My mom is a wonderful woman, but she is as xenophobic as can be. She tried to use the arguments of "rule of law" and "invaders from the south" as justification for her support for laws like that enacted in Arizona, but she later admitted she hates that every time she makes a phone call it asks you whether you want the call in English or Spanish.

This discussion led to a discussion of my grandmother's 1939 immigration to the US. My mother honestly didn't know the specifics of her immigration, so we made a few phone calls. It turns out that her sister, and likely my grandmother were sponsored for visas by President Heber J. Grant. My grandmother's sister worked as a maid for the prophet, and often had early morning conversations with him -- I hope someone can find her journals. My grandmother met my grandfather, a Cache valley native, got married and secured a permanent resident visa.

What's the point of my bringing my grandmother up? Mostly, just because I found it interesting.

Mr. Boyack points out in his essay that illegal immigration didn't exist in the American legal system until passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 -- the rotten roots of our current immigration system. Since then we have strayed further and further away from the intent of the founders desire ( I especially like the Madison quote in Mr. Boyacks essay:

“America was indebted to emigration for [America's] settlement & prosperity”)

for a nation that had open borders and openly let anyone desiring prosperity to come here and do so.

My own grandmother, although coming legally, used the marriage exception to secure permanent residency. There was no fraud involved -- my grandparents were happily married for 50+ years. However, her permanent residency was secured by one of the most despised exceptions to US xenophobes. Her marriage came within months of her arrival, and I have no doubt that many anti-immigrants would question the marriage's speed as being an illegitimate loophole to the "rule of law".

Since the 1930's even, the system's mountainous bureaucracy has become nearly impenetrable for those who attempt to do it legally. It is no wonder that illegal immigration is so popular.

Mr. Boyack is dead on (although I wonder how his sensible views on immigration reconciles to his support of Mike Lee). Amnesty is necessary to allow illegals who are here with legitimate desires to partake of the American dream can do so without fear of lists and being exiled from their new homes for a violation that even Mike Lee admits is less serious than a misdemeanor.

Mike Lee & Sen. Hatch

Hattip: Thomas Burr

Senator Hatch, who I suspect is feeling a tad vulnerable after Senator Bennett's ousting, hosted a fundraiser for Mike Lee. During the fundraiser Senator Hatch praised Mike Lee, and Mike Lee returned the favor:

noting for the audience that in high school he had pictures of Hatch and Karl Malone in his bedroom.

Sorry, hold on a moment, I think I threw up a little in my mouth.

What kind of Senator will Mike Lee be? Mike Lee will be Orrin Hatch the man he idolized in high school along with Karl Malone. Lee supporters can believe whatever they want under their tin-foil hats about Mike Lee being the candidate who will rise up and save the US Constitution, but the fact remains that Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch are political twins 30+ years removed.

DOMA striken in US District Court

In an interesting decision, US District Judge Tauro struck DOMA down with unequivocal language:

Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies
entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it
disapproves. Such a classification, the constitution clearly will not
permit.

So, where will this take the gay marriage debate? I assume we are a major step closer to a SCOTUS battle that will decide the issue once and for all.

For what it is worth, here is my two cents. Judge Tauro is somewhat right -- the purpose of DOMA was to quell gay marriage. While I am not fond of the idea of gay marriage, I realize that oppressing the desires of consenting adults to be lawfully bound in marriage is discrimination.

Due to the sacredness of marriage to many religions, I would prefer the nation adopt and enforce civil unions that are treated as marriages for all legal and governmental purposes.

Honestly, I think the biggest problem of gay marriage for opponents (especially where religions are involved) is the use of the term "marriage." One of the biggest legitimate legal reason (as far I see) for the fear of gay marriage by religions is anti-discrimination laws and IRC Section 501(c)(3) status. One stipulation of 501(c)(3) is that the tax exempt organization doesn't promote hate or discrimination. Gay marriage could quite possibly (and probably) open the flood gates for discrimination complaints against religions that refuse to perform gay marriage -- possibly risking 501(c)(3) status for various religions that don't decide to adjust religious doctrines in order to allow gay marriage.

Anyways, this debate is likely to heat up again in the coming days. It is going to be interesting to see what happens.

Utah County Republicans -- "Those rules weren't meant for us? We're the true political party."

Quelle Surprise! The Republican party is held to a different "completely ignore the rules" standard in the Utah County Freedom Festival. Does this surprise anyone? Isn't the Utah County Freedom Festival about conservative talk show (Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck) hosts and the Republican party -- the Utah County Democrats should be grateful they were even allowed to have a parade entry!

Seriously, the Freedom Festival sent rules to the Utah County Democratic Party informing them that they could not let any campaigning at all occur on the parade route -- no campaign stickers, no candidates campaigning on the parade route, no campaign T-shirts, or campaign paraphernalia of any kind. According to the Tribune report and the Utah County Dem chairman, this was followed by the UCDemocratic Party. The Utah County Republican Party apparently got a different memo

Republicans were allowed to identify their candidates, plaster their parade
float with political messages, and have one candidate actually campaign as he
walked the parade route.

In response to these allegation the Freedom Festival organizers said the committee would review the rules and tighten up on some of the parade regulations. However, they also said that Chairman Davis was "making a mountain out of a mole hill." Really, your right -- I doubt this would have gotten it's segment own the Sean Hannity show if the situation was reversed.

The Utah County Republican chairman had the best response to these allegations:

Taylor Oldroyd, Davis’ Republican counterpart, said it was the Democrats who broke rules by having a float that wasn’t self-propelled, as required by the rules, and having someone follow the Republican float to harass them.

“They can’t win at the ballot box, and they can’t win on issues, so this is what they do,” Oldroyd said.

Way to go Mr. Oldroyd! You ignored the parade rules, likely with the Freedom Festival organizers duplicity, and once caught you found a much more egregious error by your rival -- not having a self-propelled float. Quick, someone call the Federal Election Commission!

Now, as icing on the cake, you may be asking who was the candidate that walked the parade route? The walking candidate was none other than Mike "lobbyist's rules don't apply to me because I'm the one true-conservative constitutional expert" Lee. However, we should excuse Mr. Lee because as non-douche bag UT County GOP chairman Taylor Oldroid said:

Lee walked with the float, but he only went to greet family members when he
was told that it was a violation by an unidentified member of the
Democratic party

Apparently, Mike Lee is only responsible for following rules when someone tells him he is breaking one. Mike, when elected, here is a list of a few rules you shouldn't break, taking bribes, when lobbying, not registering as a lobbyist (oops), and I wonder how your tax returns look? (Commenters should feel free to add to this list)

Doug Robinson Feeds Zoobite Sorrow and Anger at Ute PAC-10 Invite

In a recent sports article, Deseret News sports writer Doug Robinson cries foul on the PAC-10 for claiming that the Utah invite over BYU was due in part to the University of Utah's research mission. He even insinuates (as maybe true) anti-Mormite (antisemitism for LDS Church members)sentiments might be to blame:

The Cougars came with what most would consider baggage: They won't play on Sunday, which would create headaches for the Pac-10 TV contract, and their honor code and conservative living don't fit in with the liberal Pac-10 crowd.

Doug Robinson doesn't buy a word of the PAC-10's claim to support research driven institutions -- he fails to look at the academic facts.

Here are a few statistics to compare BYU and Utah:

Utah Nobel Prize Winners -- 2(Google)
Mario Cappechi -- Medicine
Venkatraman Ramakrishnan -- Chemistry
Actually won for work at the U of U!

BYU Nobel Prize Winners -- 1
Paul D. Boyer -- Chemistry (Work Done at UCLA -- PAC-10 School)

Academic Ranking of World Universities
Utah (World) 80th
BYU (World) 303rd to 401st

Utah (US) 47th
BYU (US) 135th -162nd

Times Higher Education World University Rankings
Utah 259th
BYU 501st to 600th

Utah has a renowed research hospital and medical school -- BYU doesn't.

The facts support that Utah is more of a research institution than BYU. So let's cut the "crapola" Doug -- the PAC-10 can choose whoever they want to for their conference by whatever criteria they deem relavant. Stop feeding the "We're persecuted Mormon's" fire that already rages in "tin foil hat" wearing Utah County!

The other members of the PAC-10 are highly ranked academic & research institutions as well:

Arizona
Arizona State
Berkeley
Stanford
UCLA (BYU's lone Nobel Recipient did his award winning work at UCLA)
(tired of making links -- you get the idea)

Hatch votes No on Kagen and says "Please Don't Can Me!"

Senator Hatch announced that, for the second time in 34 years, he will vote against a SCOTUS nominee.

So why the no vote? Answer: He knows (or at least feels) that his days are numbered.

Unfortunately Hatch fails to show intellectual honesty or respect for the intelligence of his constituency in this strategy. Senator Hatch gave nothing but glowing praise for Kagen as a Solicitor General nominee, "brilliant legal scholar" are some the words Hatch used to describe the SCOTUS nominee back then -- why a no vote for SCOTUS? His answer:

Hatch said he is not convinced that Kagan wouldn’t become an “activist” justice and that she fails to meet the standard to which he’s held previous nominees.

Seriously?!? Senator Hatch wants the voters of this state to believe he held Ruth "The Crypt Keeper" Bader-Ginsberg to the same standard that is keeping him from voting for Kagen? If you believe that, I have a lovely 4 bedroom home in So. Utah that I'd like to sell you for a mere 300k. Senator Hatch is as corrupt a Washington politician as they come. If any good comes, now or later. from Sen. Bennett's ousting I hope that it includes the ousting of Senator Hatch in '12 -- at least Bennett's ousting got Hatch pretending to try and follow (or even care about) the will of Utah voters.

What a schmuck!

Granato needs to make Mike Lee wear this!

hat tip -- Richard Warnick & SLTrib



The GOP chose the worst possible candidate (I guess Cherilyn Eager would have been worse) and opportunity is knocking for Utah Democrats -- make Mike Lee wear this every chance you get Sam Granato!

Utah's Closed Primaries

Utah had our next Senator decided in last week in the closed Republican Primary. Many are crying foul because Utah has a 30+ year unblemished record of blindly sending GOP candidates to the Senate, therefore making the November election a coronation (for lack of a better term) rather than a real election. Critics of this argument point out that anyone can register as Republican to vote in GOP primaries and that those who complain that there voices weren't heard because of the GOP closed primaries are at fault for not registering GOP.

I'll ask the question -- why shouldn't I register GOP? Other than the fact that I have vowed never to register with a political party again, is there any harm in registering Republican just to vote in the GOP primary? From a "signed" unsolicited picture of President Bush while I was a registered Republican, I know that the Utah GOP benefits from receiving my personal information which it shares with the RNC when I register as a Republican. However, there is a bigger question for which I would like an answer:

1.) Do Utah GOP's benefit financially from each voter who declares themselves as Republicans?

If any one can answer this question, let me know. I've inquired with my county and the Lieutenant Governor's office, but I have not yet received a response.

If the answer is no, than those in favor of the closed primary are right. If you want to vote in the GOP primary, the real Utah election, than you either register GOP or shut up about it. However, if the answer is yes, than we have a really abusive system in place that either shuts voters out of the system or forces voters not only to declare alligence to a political party they may not believe in, but to monetarily support one party over another through state dollars. That is wrong!

I will never register with a political party, and I'm prepared to deal with the consequences of that decision in myopically GOP Utah. However, I think we need to ask some questions of the GOP majority (and more importantly the GOP controlled state government) especially since they have closed primary elections at the expense of all Utahns.

Streamlined Death

The governor of Utah is for a more streamlined death penalty. I suppose the specter of a 25-year death row occupant being gunned down last Friday, was a bit of an embarrassment for Herbert. The Governor is wanting to pursue limits for appeals of Death Row inmates. Here are a handful of quotes from Governor Herbert on the matter:

"25 years is just too long, there ought to be a process that’s more timely."

“It’s just too long and it becomes too much of a circus atmosphere. … And it doesn’t serve the families very well.”

“I think justice delayed is justice denied,”

To be honest, I think the governor is partially right. The death penalty has become a circus, and it is far more expensive to the system than it is worth. If we are going to embrace barbaric 19th century justice, than we should be barbarically expeditious in carrying those sentences out. Yes, the state would run the risk of killing falsely condemned individuals, but its a price the state needs to be prepared to deal with if Utah decides to "streamline" sending convicts to the eternities.

Abandoning the Death Penalty

On the other hand, maybe the governor should consider removing the death penalty all together. Information from the Death Penalty Information Center suggests that states without the death penalty have consistently lower murder rates that state that have a death penalty -- apparently impending death hasn't been as great a deterrent to murder as many people think.

Utah doesn't sentence very many individuals to die. Between 1985 and today Utah has 9 live prisoners on death row, and Utah has carried out the death sentence 6 times for a grand total of 15 death sentences in 25 years. Between 1996 and 2008, Utah averaged 54.21 murders a year. So, if Utah only hands the death sentence out in a small minority of cases and these cases end up costing the state its reputation and millions in legal fees -- why should the state continue the practice?

The answer for some may very well be the outdated notion of blood-atonement and for others it is simple vigilante-ism. Murder is an awful crime, and (usually) murderers that are granted a death sentence are guilty of an extra level of brutality against their victims. I'm sure the abrupt termination of these monster's lives provides at least momentary satisfaction for retribution for the family members of condemned murderers victims. However, is justice truly being served or is it the appetite for retribution that is being satiated? For those who cling to the blood-atonement notion, maybe it needs to be reminded (assuming the belief in blood-atonement is connected to a belief in God) that all men will be rewarded for their works in the eternities -- that includes those who use the death sentence when it is not warranted.

Personally I think we should abandon the death penalty. Although there will continue to be horrific crimes that warrant it's use (like the Sloop case) I'm don't believe the monetary and ethical costs are worth it.

For example, in Ronnie Lee Gardner's case, he was on trial for 2nd degree murder for a bar robbery and he killed again trying to escape an impending guilty conviction and a long prison term -- these all sound like 2nd degree murder to me. Combine that to the disallowed mitigating evidence of a screwed up life at his trial and we have misused the death penalty. There is no doubt that the man was a slime, but I'm pretty sure that the death penalty may not have been warranted in his case.

Mike Lee is the GOP choice.

Mike Lee pulled out the W. The Tribune gives some of the credit to rural Utah and Mike Lee's work as attorney in Kane County’s lawsuit insisting it has rights to roads in the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and (illegally) lobbying the Legislature on a proposal for the state to use eminent domain power to seize federal lands.

He says he will be just as alienating in the general election campaign as he has been in the primary:

“I don’t. The message is right. It just resonates with people,” he said. “It’s the right message based on truth. It’s based on a 223-year-old document that created the federal government … and not one I tailor for one audience or another.”

I suppose "constitutional expert" Mike Lee dislikes the ability to amend the 223 year old document. Which ones does he want to repeal? So far he wants to get rid of 14 and 17:

The Simpsons - An Amendment To Be

I agree with the Granato campaign:

“The answers to our nation’s toughest problems are not held exclusively by Democrats or Republicans. If we put partisanship aside, I believe we can develop common sense solutions to the important issues, including a return to fiscal responsibility, sustainable economic growth and long-term job creation. It will take every single one of us, regardless of party affiliation, to develop these sensible solutions for America’s future.”

Utahn's need to seriously look at candidates, and stop myopically voting down Republican party lines. As soon-to-be former Senator Bennett and candidate Granato suggest, we need common sense and reason in Washington rather than more partisan rancor.

A level-headed approach to immigration reform in Utah:

Sutherland Institute policy manager Derek Monson wrote a great piece regarding the Arizona immigration bill and proposals that Utah pursue a similar course. The best line from his piece is as follows:

To ensure a reality-based approach, we must view our undocumented neighbors as we view ourselves — as people, not objects. We must reject the Arizona solution which simply objectifies human beings as "criminals" that can be rounded up and shipped out in the pursuit of an unreasonable definition of the "rule of law."

Rejecting Arizona's strategy in favor of a reality-based approach will be difficult, as doing the right thing often is. It will require Utahns to check their emotions, including their frustration with the federal government's ineffective immigration system. Even more difficult, a reality-based approach will involve a lot of soul searching and critical self-reflection, which may reveal things about our thinking we may find to be unpleasant.

Hey, Mike Lee -- tell me how is the mass-deportation of 20 million people is realistic or fair for a violation you admit is as severe a crime as speeding -- a crime I'm guilty of each time I get in a car?

Today's Vote

As an independent, I didn't vote in either primary today. Did you?

Ethan Millard isn't fond of Mike Lee supporters calling for Election Day fasts on Twitter. I have to agree with him. Although the LDS Church has suggested that members use spiritual tools like prayer and fasting in determining whom will be the best candidate to elect, I don't think it is appropriate for a political campaign to openly ask for a fast. Such rhetoric alienates the non-LDS population of Utah and erroneously suggests that Mormonism and the Republican Party are (although unofficially "wink") connected.

Mike Lee has been trying to intertwine Mormonism and his candidacy. The use of "he's a true conservative" is just a small example of his campaigns manipulative strategies to connect his candidacy to Utah's predominant religion.

I'm not fond of either GOP candidate. I'm leaning towards Sam Granato irregardless of which GOP candidate wins tonight.

On the Democratic primary side, I'm pretty certain the Democrats won't be dumb enough to vote Matheson out -- doing so would be all but ensure a Morgan Philpot victory. THE Democrat Claudia Wright would lose in a landslide everywhere but SLC.

Bennett States the Obvious

In an apparent jab at his ousters, Senator Bennett told the Deseret News that the new senator will be unable bring change to Washington for quite some time:

it can take years to earn enough respect to start influencing other senators to the point of enacting policy.

Bennett also points out the new senator won't be given Bennett's powerful seat on the appropriations committee.

So take that GOP Convention delegates! Although it is sad to watch a good man desperately cling to his position of power, the choice voters are given for his replacement is worse.

Mike Lee seems more sincere and trustworthy, but some of his positions are as one commentator pointed out "horse@*&$". Tim Bridgewater has more reasonable positions (especially on immigration -- although "anchor baby" makes him look like a jerk) but the inconsistencies between his business dealing and his rhetoric make him look like a potential charlatan.

What the hell! Maybe voting Democrat is the best idea this year -- at least Utah might have a better place at the table in the currently Democratic party controlled Senate. As Bennett says the new senator won't be a factor is Washington for years, so why shouldn't we have a voice on the controlling side of the isle

Does party affiliation really matter anyways?

Utah Utes' PAC-12 Financial Windfall -- Not So Fast!

Well it happened. Utah accepted an invitation to join the PAC-10. Now we Ute fans are supposed to be so excited for all the wonderful changes that will happen to University of Utah Athletics. One of the changes that is being lauded so loudly is the increase in TV revenues.

That isn't actually the case. ESPN reports the following:

Here’s the quote:

“Our conference has a long-standing policy of equal revenue sharing with some exceptions for football television revenue,” Scott said. “We intend to keep that concept in place. There may be some changes as things evolve. The principles will stay in place. The arrangement worked out is that Utah will become a full member of the conference over a period of three years in regards to revenue sharing.”

The next question pertained to Colorado’s revenue share and Scott said the Buffs will be full members in 2012 and there will be discussions about full member benefits if the Buffs join in 2011.

So basically, Utah will only get a portion of the revenue sharing for the first three years because it's coming from a nonautomatic qualifying conference and it has to prove itself.

That's right! Utah, two time BCS bowl game winner, has to prove itself worthy of PAC-12 money while Colorado Buffalo's (no BCS appearances) will be given full membership almost immediately.

I wonder if that policy will hold true if the Utes' earn a PAC-12 championship (Rose Bowl bid) in year one or two. Isn't it great! One of the highest BCS bowl winning teams is being treated like little brother.

PAC sucks. I hope the Utes' stick it to them and run the table in the first year.

Immigration, The Old Testament, and the Arizona and Utah Immigration Crusaders (or Marauders?)

I found this blog post last night and I thought it was quite profound, especially here in Mormon Utah. The author is discussing a couple of verses that he found in the Old Testament:

The Israelites are told directly in Leviticus 19:33-34 that “if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex (or oppress) him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself.”

Mr. Miller than discusses that our policy towards illegal immigrants should more closely follow this admonition.

I wonder if Utah Senate candidate Lee, Utah Rep. Sandstrom and his Aryan-loving friend the Honorable Rep. Pearce from AZ have read Leviticus lately? In Reps. Pearce and Sandstrom's case, I would guess that they haven't.

Pearce is proposing AZ legislation, and Rep. Sandstrom would love to pursue the same course in Utah, that would not make it illegal to provide birth certificates to babies of illegal immigrants born in the United States. Beyond the violation of the 14th amendment, there are a ton of problems with this proposal. First, this bill would (although not explicitly mentioned) require hospitals to inquire of the immigration status of patients -- would the bill require hospitals then to turn in the illegal expectant mothers? It seems like the kind of cheap Gestapo-esque trick that the Arizona legislature would pull. Second, is the constitutional ramifications of the bill. The 14th amendment states the following:

Section 1 -- 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.

Especially this proposed legislation, and (I believe) the already enacted legislation are both clearly unconstitutional. Not providing birth certificates doesn't change the fact of birth location and the qualifications for citizenship in the 14th Amendment. Arizona legislators must realize this and so the only reason (or what I hope would be the reason) I could see Arizona passing a law like this is for this law's controversial nature -- possibly in a effort to push Congress to finally act on illegal immigration.

Otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants deserve a pathway to citizenship without being forced to leave the country first. The illegal immigrants I have dealt with have come seeking better opportunities like the millions of immigrants that this country has openly received since its inception. All these proposed mass-deportation proposals are ill-conceived and knee jerk reactions to fallacious, bigoted rhetoric from some on the extreme far-right. The mass-deportation arguments don't consider cost or fairness, and they do nothing to solve the illegal immigration problem.

We need to follow the admonition in Leviticus and try and find ways to help illegal immigrants achieve citizenship in an efficient and cost-effective manner, instead of spewing hateful and often false rhetoric about the stereotyped ills that illegal immigrants are bringing across the border -- in a majority of cases these stereotypes aren't true.

Utes to Leave the MWC, and Ron Paul endorses Lee

First, this is a non-political issue but it is an issue that is important to Utah. It is being reported that the Utes are going to receive an invite to the PAC-1?. Although I hope against hope that the Utes aren't actually considering this, statements from Utah President Young indicate otherwise:

On Friday, Young said while Utah and BYU have benefited from being in the same conference as rivals, the two schools had to do what was best for themselves. He expressed a desire for the rivalry to continue no matter what happens.

"At the end of the day I feel a real sense of commitment to this conference," Young said of the MWC. "But every circumstance is different and you have to evaluate what is best for your institution, just as (BYU) President (Cecil) Samuelson does. If they got an offer from the Big 12 and we didn't, we wouldn't stand in their way if it is the right thing for their school and we'd think they'd do the same for us. We'd miss them and work with them, but we'd find ways to continue to work with them."

A Bay area sports website has gone online with information confirming that the invite will be formally extended to Utah tomorrow.

I really wish Utah wouldn't take the invite.

First, the MWC is so close to getting an AQ spot in the BCS and Utah is a critical piece of the puzzle. The PAC-10 is a competitive league, but the MWC could be just as competitive if Utah or the other strong schools in the conference don't jump ship for the bigger money leagues.

Second, I enjoy the BYU-Utah rivalry almost more than Christmas. If Utah and BYU are no longer in the same league than the rivalry game becomes a meaningless (or less important) non-conference game -- it will still have venom and passion for fans without meaning or importance to the players.

Oh well.

Ron Paul

In what appears to seal Mike Lee's (to quote Ethan Millard) "fulfillment of the white horse prophecy" campaign, fellow beloved politician of far-right wingers Ron Paul has endorsed Mike Lee for Utah senator. Paul gave the following statement to the press:

Mike is a dynamic young leader who understands our constitution and will fight against out-of-control government to restore our liberty. Mike has the courage to stand up against the bailouts and government takeovers being forced down our throats by Washington insiders"

The Lee campaign appears to take the endorsement in stride saying that they realized that the Paul endorsement is not a game changer.

Ron Paul was a candidate who turned a lot of people off with the rhetoric used by supporters. For instance, one of the clearest memories I have of the Paul campaign was a (this is the only way I can describe him) street preacher proclaiming the end to be near and Ron Paul to be the man that will save us all outside the ESA before Jazz games in 2008. A whole lot of Mike Lee's rhetoric turns me off as well.

I have a hard time taking Mike Lee seriously, mainly because he is so willing to advocate for the mass deportation of 20 million illegal aliens while admitting that crossing the border illegally is a civil violation akin to "speeding". Tim Bridgewater, despite his continued use of the term "anchor baby", at least gets the fact that the immigration solution needs to include border protection and immigration laws that allow hopeful citizens to attain that goal in less time and for less than their entire life's fortune.


UPDATE: The Utah Board of Trustees has set a meeting for Thursday. The Tribune reports that it expects the board to approve the departure from the MWC for the PAC-12. The meeting is set for 12:30pm tomorrow.

The Sutherland Debate -- What I have heard.

I was supposed to be in Salt Lake for the Senate debate at the Sutherland Institute, but circumstances that were beyond my control kept me from making it.

The only account I have read so far has been that of Tribune writer Robert Gehrke. From what I read in Gehrke's column the debate was just how you'd expect a GOP Senate debate to go down. Both candidates trying to prove they are Ronald Reagan reincarnated. There were some interesting clarifications made by both candidates regarding their views.

The biggest revelations came in regards to both candidates tough campaign positions on illegal immigration. Both Mike Lee and Bridgewater concede that illegal immigration's seriousness as a crime is more a civil infraction than that of a felony. Paul Mero posed a fairly enlightening hypothetical:

Assume you have an ecclesiastical calling (both Lee and Bridgewater are Mormon) and your next-door neighbor is a Hispanic family. You are asked to minister to one of their sick children and in the course of a heartfelt moment they tell you they're here illegally. Do you rat them out?

Both candidates said they would not rat out the offending family, but Bridgewater said he would encourage the family to "begin the process to follow the law and come into the country legally." I assume that "come into the country legally" means go back where they came from and go down the ludicrous "legal" pathway to American citizenship. Somehow I find it hard to believe that Mr. Bridgewater would, in the capacity of a ecclesiastical leader, tell members of his congregation that they need to leave the country and come back to the US legally. By this we see that Mr. Bridgewater can pander on the immigration issue just as well as Mike Lee can. It needs reminding that Bridgewater has refused to remove the term "anchor baby" from his website despite its offensive connotation -- Lee at least did that although his plan for immigration is much harsher on illegals than Bridgewater's.

In an attempt out-Chaffetz Jason Chaffetz, Mike Lee and Bridgewater both claim they refuse to set up a residence in Washington D.C. -- Mike Lee plans to buy a cot. (Collective Eye-roll at the lame "I'm a regular guy" attempt)

I'm a tad surprised that neither man wants to try and privatize the Postal Service. I don't disagree with them, but I'm surprised that two "fiscal conservatives" wouldn't want to rid the Federal government of a socialized program. Isn't the Post Office is a socialist program? Both UPS and FedEx are prime examples that private industry could successfully serve the nation's parcel needs, and it is interesting that two candidates who loudly proclaim against the ills of Obama-socialism wouldn't want a program that can be carried by the private sector off of the US government's Balance Sheet.

Not only are both men are against Elena Kagen's SCOTUS nomination, they feel she is unqualified. I assume her "lack of qualification" is due to the party affiliation of the President nominating her. Mike Lee can harp about her lack of judicial experience all her likes, but he cannot ignore the fact that several SCOTUS nominees have come from places other than the judiciary and that her professional and academic resume are of the highest quality. Mike Lee's opposition of the Kagen nomination is almost a case of plausible-deniabilty. If elected, everyone in this state knows Lee would eventually sit on the Judiciary Committee and he needs (or thinks he needs) to make sure that everyone in this state believes he would oppose every nomination made by abortion-loving Democrats no matter how qualified the nominees may be. He won't get a chance to vote on the Kagen nomination and so he has the luxury of opposing the nomination as candidate Lee while knowing full well that he couldn't do so as Senator Lee without looking like a partisan right-wing zealot.

As far as my vote goes, I'm not sure what I'm going to do. Due to my lack of Republican party affiliation, I'm excluded from voting between Mike Lee and Tim Bridgewater. To keep the November vote interesting for me I hope that Tim Bridgewater is the winner -- I have pretty much eliminated Mike Lee from contention for my vote. The possible November race between Tim Bridgewater and Sam Granato is still a tight one -- Bridgewater may be slightly ahead if for no other reason than I don't want to solidify a Democratic party super-majority in the Senate.

P.S. Former Congressman Jim Hansen just called to let me know he supports Mike Lee. I think that may have changed my mind...no, no I still don't like Mike Lee.

Boise State to the Mountain West Conference

Boise State just made the MWC's bid to be a BCS automatic qualifying conference more viable. Report's are out that the Broncos have accepted a invite to join the MWC.

Utah State is cheering.

However, this may be a perilous move for the three MWC powerhouses. If the move pays off with the MWC winning automatic qualifier status -- the MWC champ will always make it to the BCS. If the gamble fails -- these four powerful schools may likely end up cannibalizing each other out of the BCS for many years.

Nonetheless, next football season just got more fun and interesting!

Political Endorsements and Party Affiliation

With a few days to go before the primary elections, endorsements in the Republican primary have been emerging.

For Tim Bridgewater, the first big endorsement came from former Senate Candidate Cherilyn Eager. Glen Warchol put it best when he posted in Salt Lake Crawler:

Cherilyn Eagar should help land the most distant right of Utah's conservative voters. Eagar says Bridgewater has "mature statesmanship," which apparently means he listens politely to her Utah County tin-foil hat crazy talk.

That "Utah County tin-foil hat crazy talk" quote made me spew milk out of my nose -- bravo Mr. Warchol. She was a favorite for some of the Sarah Palin-loving far-right members of the GOP and her endorsement of Bridgewater may bring some of her supporters to his camp.

The second big endorsement for Bridgewater came today when it was announced that soon-to-be former Senator Bennett will endorse Bridgewater's candidacy. While this endorsement may bring back some disenfranchised Bennett supporters, it may prove problematic with the far right of the GOP. Mike Lee has definitely seen the Bennett endorsement as a potential advantage trying to use the Bennett endorsement as evidence that Bridgewater will join in "politics as usual in Washington if he is elected" -- although I suspect that Mike Lee's apparent partisan style politics would be more of a problem for Utah than Bridgewater's more moderate approach.

Another blogger made an excellent point about endorsements an the partisanship that exists in our two party system. He quoted Washington and made the following observations:

In his 1792 farewell address Washington warned us on the dangers of political parties:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the
spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and
countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful
despotism.

In my vision of "What would Washington do?" it would be exactly this on their first day in office: renounce being head of the Party. The Chief Executive, as our Supreme Court, should be above partisanship and the politicking of endorsement; and being the leader of a private political party does nothing to speak of representing the interests of ALL AMERICANS. While Washington might advocate the complete abolition of political parties, Executive declination of the leadership role while remaining part of the party would be a tremendous step in the right direction.

I am in complete agreement, but I wouldn't mind taking it to the level of Washington's warning. American politics has reached the despotism that Washington warned of in the farewell quote mentioned supra. By eliminating political parties American voters would be forced to examine candidates views and platforms rather closely, and we might be better at electing bright and innovative leaders and representatives. More importantly, partisanship would be a much more difficult political strategy to pursue in Congress -- representatives might actually take some time to analyze and truly debate bills that are brought to the floor rather than voting blindly on 2000 page bills at the urging of the prevailing party's leadership.

Utah State Tax Commission -- Offers in Compromise

I have been focusing my work on offers-in-compromise and taxpayer representation for the past several months. I receive lead from several different states including Colorado, Kansas, North Dakota, and our great state of Utah. Most of these leads are interested in pursuing offers-in-compromise, settlements of tax debts for less than you owe.

The IRS has a fairly clear and well-defined offer-in-compromise program. It explains in detail the reasons for which you may request an offer, how the amount of the offer may be calculated, and it outlines the terms for the offers acceptance and fulfillment. Colorado also has clearly defined offer-in-compromise program requirements and clearly explained procedures for submitting an offer to the Colorado state Department of Revenue.

Utah, on the other hand, doesn't give really clear criteria on how an offer is evaluated, and what requirements must be met for an offer to be accepted. The only official guidance that the the state of Utah provides is Utah State Tax Commission Publication 22, in Pub. 22 the statement for who qualifies to have an offer-in-compromise accepted is as follows:

When an analysis of taxpayer’s assets, liabilities, income and
expenses shows that a liability cannot realistically be paid in
full in the foreseeable future, an offer in compromise may be
considered.

If you compare that to the IRS' 46 page book complete with instructions, forms, and detailed formulas to assist taxpayers in completing acceptable offers.

I'll admit the IRS isn't the perfect model of fairness in accepting offers-in-compromise, but most offers that are denied by the IRS have (if not, logical) discernible reasons for the settlement request's denial. Offers-in-compromise that are rejected by the state of Utah are often offers that the IRS has already accepted without denial -- in one case that a colleague related the taxpayer being rejected a Utah State Tax Commission OIC was a widow who had her tax debt almost completely forgiven by the IRS without any IRS OIC denials or counter-offers (the taxpayer finally had the offer accepted by the State of Utah after an appeal). In the previous case the only discernible reason for initial offers denial was bad whether or a fight offer investigator must have the night before with their spouse.

The Utah Legislature could improve the offer-in-compromise by 1.) enact rules requiring the state of Utah to accept offers already accepted by the Internal Revenue Service, 2.) enacting a collections statute of limitations, and 3.) establishing an taxpayer appeals process that includes a "Utah State Tax Court" (a place where taxpayers can appeal Tax Commissions to independent third parties). If the State of Utah would simply accept IRS accepted offers than the state could save some money on offer investigation costs and taxpayers could have some assurance as to whether or not their offers-in-compromise would be accepted by the state of Utah. Enacting a collections statute of limitations would incentivize the state of Utah to accept a greater number of offers. Lastly, establishing an independent appeals process and a review court of tax commission determinations would allow taxpayers and taxpayer representatives a fairer playing field with the tax commission in the audit and collection functions of the Utah State Tax Commission.

Senate Candidates -- "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," Social Security and Taxes

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell"

The candidates have all opined on the reversal of "don't ask, don't tell". All three have towed the party line (at least, locally) regarding this subject. Granato has parroted Democratic party talking points calling the military policy a "violation of civil rights" while the Republican duo has stated solid opposition to removing the ban on gays being allowed to serve openly in the Armed Forces.

No one wins here.

Forcing people to keep a key part of their identity secret in order to avoid losing their jobs is a violation of civil rights. However, the dangers and stresses of combat that the Armed Forces work under may merit different consideration regarding workplace policies. If the military can show that gays serving openly in the military (I have no idea how this is possible, but for the sake of argument I'm making the point) will cause a detriment to the Armed Forces ability to be effective -- then "don't ask, don't tell" should remain. I've never been in the military (I don't believe any of the Senate candidates have either) and I don't know how or why gays in the military is a problem, but if it truly is than we shouldn't make a policy shift like this especially while our country has wars on two fronts.



Social Security --

Mike Lee and Tim Bridgewater came out and openly discussed their views on what should happen to Social Security. Both Lee and Bridgewater support the ideas of raising retirement ages and giving American citizens control over Social Security in privatized investment accounts (the idea GW Bush recommended to Congress during his presidency) Lee went a little further -- Lee questioned the constitutionality of Social Security and suggested that control over Social Security be handed over to individual states.

The suggestion that Social Security be handed over to the states prompted a blunt response from a University of Wisconsin professor to SL Tribune reporter Robert Gehrke:

Timothy Smeeding, a professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison who studies Social Security, was blunt in his assessment of Lee's proposal: "That is total horseshit."

"What happens to people who move in and out of the state? It's just knee-jerk," he said. "[Social Security] is a federal program. It covers you no matter where you live and as long as you live."

With workers moving between states, a state-by-state patchwork is an idea that is impractical and should be discarded, Smeeding said.

While I agree that a few of Mike Lee's positions are "total horses*&@!", I'm not sure that allowing the states to control Social Security is that bad of an idea. Although Professor Smeeding in Wisconsin is concerned that the idea wouldn't be practical for people moving in and out of different states, I'm not sure that the social security funds couldn't be tied to voter registration and that it wouldn't be something that is completely unworkable. Social Security is a mess. It was created with shortsightedness and we are desperately needing Congress to address that shortsightedness and come up with solutions that will make Social Security a viable program once again. While I don't believe the "state's control" proposal is a viable solution to the Social Security problem, I appreciate that Mike Lee proposed it and that he is willing to bring up unpopular recommendations to a problem that many (if not most) Congressional leaders seem to ignore like a 800 pound gorilla in the room.

While I like the idea of private accounts, I wonder about how it would be implemented. There are a ton of questions that will need the best and brightest to solve. Unfortunately, as the baby-boomer crunch draws near the problem may be bigger than our ability to solve.

In a perfect world, Social Security would have been a forced savings or investment system from the beginning instead of the pay as you go system that we have now. American workers would have been able to build nest eggs through earnings from interest, dividends, and gains on investments. Federal government intervention would be necessary on a more limited scale at this point, and (all other things being equal) we would have a government run banking/investment system. However, what we got was a system that didn't account for an increasing average lifespan, the baby boom, and a major deficiency in social security tax-paying workers to support that baby boom generation in their retirement years and in a few years our nation will reach the squalor of those good intentions.

The social security staus quo will not cut it for future generations, and the longer changes are not made the more likely financial disaster becomes an inevitability for the social security program.

1 and 1/2 Points for Lee (showed some innovation), 1 point Bridgewater.
Taxes --

Both Republicans are advocating a flat tax or a "fair" tax system. I have written ad naseum regarding my opposition to all flat tax proposals. Before Utah enacted its "flat tax cut" I predicted that it would be a tax hike for Utahn's in the middle class whose incomes are consistently the same from year to year -- personally my tax bill went up more than 400% in the first year after the flat tax was enacted while my income dropped more tan 7000 dollars in the same year. Flat taxes can be tax cuts, but only if your income is high enough that a majority of middle class tax benefits have phased out

Sam Granato came out in opposition of flat tax proposals:

“The middle class is the backbone of this country. When middle class families prosper, we all prosper. And yet, even in these difficult economic times, the Republican candidates in this race are supporting a so-called ‘fair’ or ‘flat’ tax plans that economists say could result in substantial tax increases for 83 percent of American families. That doesn’t sound fair to me at all,”

While it sounds fair in theory that all Americans pay the same percentage of income as a tax (even more so in 10% tithe paying Utah) the numbers don't work out that way. A 10% bite of income for someone living on 40,000 is quite a bit different than a 10% bite out of income for someone making 400,000 -- one is left with 36,000 dollars to live on during the year and the other is left with 360,000 dollars (Fair, right?).

2 points Granato, 0 points Lee and Bridgewater

Dr. Wakefield's License is Revoked -- Autism and Vaccines Are Not Connected.

One of the biggest frustrations as a parent of an Autistic child, is all of the crap theories and off-based suggestions that come at you from all directions -- from Jenny McCarthy to a stranger on the street that inquires about your child's strange behavior and from gluten and casein to the now debunked and irresponsible immunization theory. There is a myriad of books, causation theories, and treatments that regularly bombard parents of Autistic kids. It may be helpful for those without Autistic family members to realize that the Autistic spectrum is very broad -- my son who is Nonverbal Autistic is quite a bit different from the kid with Asperger's who rambles incessantly about his obsession with NASA and space travel. As a rule, I thank most people for asking and trying to be helpful but in most cases they have no idea what they are talking about and it is annoying having to deal with the misguided (albeit well-intended) suggestions and comments of family and strangers.

The immunization theory has sparked one of the most common comments from family and strangers, "Did you have him immunized? You know the MMR causes Autism." This comment, although it never felt accurate or made any real sense to me, often caused concern and worry that my wife and I may have caused my child's severe disability -- this despite the fact that my wife and I have the benefit of an additional genetic diagnosis that our doctors have pointed to as a causal link to my son's Autism. I can imagine the guilt and doubt that Dr. Wakefield's irresponsible and erroneous research has caused many other parents who have no known causal link to their child's condition.

In 1998 Dr. Andrew Wakefield of the UK released a study that showed a possible causal link between the MMR shot and Autism in twelve "allegedly" normal children prior to receiving the vaccine.

This link was debunked by a couple of sources (if you get the chance watch the Frontline documentary from a few weeks ago on this subject) the WSJ article linked in the the title mentioned one in particular "a 2004 statistical review of existing epidemiological studies by the Institute of Medicine, a respected nonprofit organization in the U.S., concluded that there was no causal link between the MMR vaccine and autism" as the biggest piece of research that has debunked Wakefield's theory.

Dr. Wakefield's research, it turns out, was funded by a lawyer representing parents who believed the MMR shot had harmed their children. This conflict of interest was one of the biggest reasons for his disbarment from the UK Medical Registry.

Who knows what good could have been done in Autistic research, if the scientific community wouldn't have been forced to look into this charlatan's irresponsibly conducted "research" and his fraudulent conclusions. What's even more frustrating is the number of children (mine and yours) that are needlessly endangered from diseases that were virtually eradicated a few decades ago. This man has caused what may be decades of irreparable damage.

With the misinformation available on the internet, devout crusaders of the vaccination=autism link, and the increasing distrust that many in the public have for the medical field it is highly likely that the myth caused by the former Dr. Wakefield will exist is the public's mind for many years to come. Hopefully state and local governments that instituted optional vaccination policies in public schools because of the mythical vaccination=autism link will soon reverse those policies so that the well-meaning but irresponsible actions of concerned parents won't put children at needless risk from diseases that can and should be prevented.

I hope Sam Granato has been taking notes!

I like Jim Matheson! I like him alot.

I appreciate the way he has represented the state of Utah. For alot of representatives and politicians, the way you vote is a more of a matter of the party with which you are affiliated than the needs and desires of the voters that elected them. I don't have that complaint with Jim Matheson.

Mike Lee and Tim Bridgewater have, thus far, appeared to be pandering right wing puppets who will say and support anything they believe the far right "tea partyers" embrace. I have little doubt at this point that both men will become part of the problem in Washington as soon as they are elected. So who do we elect of these two men?

The answer may come by doing something that some Utahn's may consider a sin -- vote the Democratic candidate into office. If Sam Granato has political leanings similar to Mr. Matheson (which, from what I have read it sounds like he does), and if he is a man that will be willing to buck the party in the name of serving Utah voters as often as Rep Matheson has, I think he may our best choice for the next Utah Senator (I'm still considering his candidacy). My biggest hesitations are (1) a lot of the Granato campaign information has seemed somewhat vague and that vagueness doesn't give me full confidence that he isn't a raging liberal in moderate clothing, and (2) adding to the Democratic super majority likely isn't in the best interest of the country or (especially) the state of Utah.

Unfortunately the two party system has been most favorable to the state of Utah when Republicans are in the majority, and although Matheson (and possibly Granato) may be great representatives -- their mere presence in Congress may give detrimental power levels to the far-left factions of their party.

Nevertheless, I think Sam Granato's candidacy deserves solid consideration by all Utah voters. I think many Utah voters would rather have a representative like Jim Matheson over one would-be representative who panders extremely hard to the "your not a worthy member of the LDS Church if you vote Democrat" right wing and another whose personal history and campaign rhetoric are in seemingly sharp contrast.

Hooray for Rep. Ray and Shelby's Law!

The Ethan Stacy case may lead to the use of a law that (I'm sure) lawmakers hoped would never be needed again.

In 2006, Shelby Andrews died after being brutally abused by her parents Ryan and Angela Andrews for a year or more. When charges were filed, Syracuse Police were frustrated to learn that aggravated murder charges were not an option in that case. Syracuse Police later testified to the legislature in committee hearings to help get Shelby's law passed.

Four years passed by, and unfortunately, the brutality of unfit parents remains with this new and horrific example. Ethan Stacy's mother and "stepfather," or mother's boyfriend deserve the death penalty and whatever suffering the next world may inflict on the cruel and inhumane.

Bravo to the Legislature for passing Shelby's law, and I hope the the Davis County DA is brave enough to use it. Parents who are that brutal to their children, or who fail to protect their children from such violence deserve the most severe punishments that can be inflicted upon them.

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.