Religion and Politics -- LDS Church and Party Affiliation RELOADED

I was busy not working yesterday, and I came across a comment in Rob Miller's "Sacrament Meeting" piece that made a very palpable point regarding politics being preached from the pulpit.

JTH said "Although I believe that politics from any party should not be discussed or preached, in a place of worship. I find even more disturbing when one party is given preference over others. Thanks for an excellent post. After reading all the comments in reference to this post, I have one question. Where is the IRS when you need them?"

While the LDS Church as an organization has come out year after year with statements of neutrality, members who preach political rhetoric do run the risk of getting the LDS church in hot water with the IRS as I discussed in a previous post.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization. Under Internal Revenue Code such an organization would and could lose tax exempt status if they are caught openly endorsing parties or campaigns....... This matter is one that the IRS watches very diligently and accusations are investigated regularly. If there was so much as a campaign poster seen on church property there would be consequences.

Food for thought for anyone who mingles their party affiliation with preaching form the pulpit, you maybe causing some headaches for the organization you profess to love. The IRS does encourage these types of infringements to be reported, and in severe cases an organization could lose exempt status. Although I'm guessing the church's legal department has had to deal with IRS inquiries of this manner many times.

Moral: Don't preach politics at church!

Mike Leavitt Once Again is Plagued by Accusations of Corruption

In an article in the Washington Post, and other national news sources have reported on a Leavitt family foundation which falls very close to one of the IRS' Dirty Dozen tax scams. The foundation failed to meet giving requirements of 5% of assets for 2002, 2003, and 2004 (see returns here) Mike Leavitt claimed 1.2 million in deductions since 2000, while the foundation gave 332,000 to Leavitt Land and Investment, Inc. a land investment company which Sec. Leavitt owns a large stake, and other secured loans for insurance and real estate deals.

Leavitt's Secretary Christina Pearson made a statement that "the foundation's activities are totally legal and proper."However, Rick Cohen, executive director of the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy, said that "the Leavitts are using the foundation as a personal piggy bank, and that's not what the public -- or Congress -- ought to tolerate." Use of "charitable" foundations are often abused as IRS Commissioner notes, "Some promoters in this area have encouraged individuals to establish and operate supporting organizations . . . that they can control for their own benefit. There are a variety of methods of abuse, but a common theme is a 'charitable' donation of an amount to the supporting organization, and a return of the donated amount to the donor, often in the form of a purported loan that may never be repaid."

For more fodder to the culture of corruption crowd, our former Governor and his family seem to be using this foundation as a tax scam. Although I don't know if they crossed from the grey into the black (criminal areas of tax law) it really adds to the evidence that former Governor and now Sec. Leavitt might have subscribed to an ethical paradigm of "as long as it is legal, it is ethical". This is another dismaying charge of corruption with the most prominent politician from Utah in the middle of it.

An interesting note in the story is of the few organizations that the Dixie & Anne Leavitt Foundation support one was the Western Association of Leavitt Families, which promotes genealogical research and religious activities for the descendants of the first Leavitts, who helped establish Utah as a Mormon state. Icing on the cake is Leavitt and his family's ability to take a deduction for doing personal genealogical research.

This case brings up the question how do I know who to give to? The best advice I can give is this, IRS approved charities have their tax returns open to public inspection and there are various websites devoted to giving information about US charities. I suggest researching out charities you are unfamiliar with before giving, and the safest thing you can do is to only give to well-known organizations.

Religion and Politics -- LDS Church and Party Affiliation

Religion & politics has been a topic which I have enjoyed reading in the many posts that have been written throughout the Utah blogosphere since Cliff's piece, "Special Conversations". As a conservative-leaning Republican this topic has made me reflect a great deal on my own political views and how my religious views intermingle.

I must concede that there are a fair portion of members of this state's majority religion who view their Church's statement of neutrality as a "wink and a nod" endorsement of the Republican party. This problem of course is one that comes because many people don't take the time to know what the party they affiliate with stands for, and use one or two issues to classify their political ideals. I have even heard one member hear go so far as to state that "How can a Latter-day Saint be a Mormon and a Democrat" simply because his pet issue (abortion) trumps all others in his political paradigm. I'm sure cases of narrowmindedness like this and others aren't isolated in Zion, although I hope them to be the exception an not a norm.

As the LDS Church's neutrality statement suggest both parties have views and positions that are in harmony with the precepts and doctrines espoused in Mormonism. As I have noted in the past the neutrality statement does have a legal reason for its existence, but it has a sound religious doctrinal purpose as well "members (and all citizens) should study and pray about the candidates" rather than blindly voting down one column of a ballot. I believe this sort of proactive participation is the democracy that the founding fathers had in mind when writing the Constitution, and not vote strictly per myopic, mind-numbing, black and white political paradigms in which many Americans exist. With that thought it may well be said that full and utter allegiance to one political party over another hinders the development and progress of our nation. Party alignment is necessary, however our commitment to democracy needs to be deep enough that we seek candidates who have positions consistent with right principles, and candidates who that stretch their positions beyond the narrow borders of party talking points.

Democracy is one of the greatest inventions in the history of the world, it is an invention that was inspired by God. With such a great gift from God there comes responsibility, our responsibility is to be engaging, thoughtful, prayerful, in the decisions we make when we go to the polls. May we as Utahns, Mormons, non-Momons, Americans stretch our voting decisions beyond party allegiances to learn and vote according to the merits of every candidate rather than the rhetoric and stigmas connected to respective political parties.

Utah Gov. Huntsman backs McCain over fellow Mormon Romney

In a early move Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman announced that he is behind Jon McCain for President in '08. The two have similarly moderate Republican views, but why so early on in the game?

My take on Huntsman's premature endorsement is this, he is a career politician/businessman and every new position he gets (i.e governor of Utah) is another stepping stone up the latter to the pinnacle of of his power goals. He will have served his first term as Governor, and that would be a good time to jump ship for a more prestigious position as either a member of a McCain cabinet, or (highly speculative) as a Vice-President. Huntsman, is betting on his horse now to gain favor with the man he sees conquering in the next presidential race.

His rejection of Romney is merely a verification that he sees Romney as being unelectable because of his Mormon roots. Which leads to another good question -- what are Huntsman's ultimate political goals? President? I wonder if he believes being associated with moderate McCain will relieve him of the stigma of being a Mormon politician.

Tax Reform -- The Pitch

On Tuesday in the Utah GOP leaders out lined tax cut plans in the Deseret News. "There are no losers who would pay more under the new plans", said Rep. Wayne Harper, R-West Jordan, "There are only some big winners — and those are mostly low-income Utahns," The official word on the plan is that there will be a dual tax syatem, from which Utahns choose the most beneficial result. Under flat tax portion of the new tax system, Utahns would pay at a rate of 5.3% with no credit for itemized deductions -- with a twist. In order to combat the tax cut for the rich, the proposal is including exemptions up to a phase out amount. On the traditional tax side, all remains the same except the top rate will either, (a) remain the same with brackets being more spread out, or (b) be lowered from 7% to 6.9%. The Governor is intent on this being passed by the end of the year in time for the '06 tax season.

The flat tax proposal, while still not my favorite I appreciate the effort to make the flat tax (at least) appear to be a viable option for the average taxpayer by allowing exepmtions for lower and middle class taxpayers. On the traditional side, the Gov's .1% top rate drop looks sexy on the outside but I would argue it to be less advantageous than the Legislature's version. Spreading the brackets out would allow for more taxpayers to pay in lower brackets as opposed to the current brackets. Current brackets are incredibly narrow, the highest 7% bracket is reached if taxable income reaches 8700 dollars for married joint filers -- so that generally means a vast majority of taxpayers.

I must applaude the Gov. and the members of the Legislature. While I think we need to be honest with ourselves Rep. Harper -- "big winners" are still going to majorly include the wealthy. However, this proposal looks like it may do an adequate job in spreading the cut across the spectrum of Utah taxpayers. I'd like to know more of the specifics of the proposal before I would fully embrace the deal. Any tax cut is better than no tax cut, I'm excited to see this progress.

Political Schizophrenia -- Utah Most Conservative State in The Union, and One of the Highest Taxed

In the Utah Taxpayers Association most recent report, and no surprise, it was announced that Utah has the 4th highest tax and fee burden in the nation. As far as income tax burden, Utah takes the 16th highest bite out of total personal income of its citizens. Although this was something for which I was well aware, it leaves me once again with ample evidence to diagnose our state government with political schizophrenia.

From George W. Bush to Ronald Reagan, we have all become well aware of "conservative" fiscal policy. "The economy is best served when citizens keep more of their money", this is a theory which I believe in. When people feel they have control over their pocket books they are more likely to go out and buy a automobile, give money to their United Way, and start a small business, etc. When people have the expectation, and/or know that the government may take a large portion of their income through taxation they are likely to hold onto their clunker automobile, give less or nothing to charity, and will stick it out in a 9-5 job that offers little chance of advancement. Supposedly, low taxes is policy that "Red Utah" would adhere to. However, with Utah beating out "True Blue" states like California and Massachusetts our legislature likely should take a hard look at themselves and ask what party are we supposedly aligned with? Maybe Democratic Party candidate in Congressional District 1, Steve Olsen, is right on target in his essay “Why Most Utahns Are Democrats and Just Don'’t Know It Yet”, the numbers at which our state levies taxes seems to point to that conclusion.

I believe in low taxation. When the government allows people to hold and spend more of their money, they will do many of the things that bring prosperity to our nation -- without the artificial economic stimulation or spending, and people will be more altruistic to private charities -- without threat of search and seizure. I hope that the Governor and the Legislature will seek tax cuts that are meaningful to all Utahns.

Ure's defeat may mean end of tuition law

The DesNews brought up an interesting point regarding the defeat of Representative Dave Ure of Kamas. The article states that Ure's defeat may mean the "the death of a 2002 law Ure sponsored allowing undocumented students to pay in-state tuition if they have attended a Utah high school for at least three years and graduated." Ure is one of the biggest proponents of the law and was key in defeating a bill that would have repealed the law last year. With Ure's defeat many anti-illegal immigration groups, such as the Utah Minuteman Project, are hoping that this bill will be repealed.

Notwithstanding Ure's defeat, this article brings up an interesting issue regarding Utah policy -- Should illegal immigrants in Utah be allowed to attend state colleges at in-state prices? If we as a country are truly ever going to make a stand against illegal immigration, than it must be said giving financial breaks to those who are in the U.S. illegally could definitely be viewed as counterproductive. On the other hand, one of the major arguments used by anti immigration activists groups is that illegals are simply importing poverty and crime from Mexico into the United States, which is often bred due to a lack of education. Without comprehensive reform being passed in Congress this year due to Hatch's amendment parade, this question may still be a difficult one to answer.

In my perfect world, I would like to see the state keep this law on the books -- but with a few modifications. Educated and intelligent immigrants breath new life into our nation, they take civic duty to heart and are actively engaged, usually, in living the American dream. Because this bill helps educate those who have immigrated to our country I believe this could also help as an incentive to attain citizenship. At the end of the road if an illegal has attended Utah colleges as an in-state student and they finish a Bachelor's degree the state should offer assistance to these students in order for them to attain legal citizenship. The state has paid the price to educate these people, and so the state (which often pines over the need for more college educated citizens) should hang on these people. This law is a powerful step in negating some of the most lamented negative impacts that illegal immigration has on America. However without offering citizenship at the end of the road, this law is not serving the state to its full potential.

Senate opens debate on Hatch flag amendment -- Stop the Madness

Today, Senator Hatch is trying to amend the Constitution ... again. This time he is seeking to amend the constitution to prohibit flag desecration. Although I did agree with the marriage definition amendment, this amendment leaves me again to wonder why have we kept him in the Senate so long. Is there not more important issues in Congress than treatment of an effigy? It seems like this type of political rhetoric is akin to idolatry, something as a Mormon Sen. Hatch should be opposed to. I do find it offensive when the flag is burned for any reason, but it is form of political speech which speech is a bedrock of our constitution.

While the flag is a symbol of our nation - it is only a symbol. Another symbol of our nation is the right to speak out against the policies and actions of our leaders. Offensive as it may be, flag burning is an strong form of political speech. Our men and women of the armed forces have fought and died, not to defend the flag alone, but the freedoms that the flag represents.

Senator Hatch, freedom is the true symbol of our nation -- not the flag. The constitution has answered the question regarding flag burning -- it is a matter of free speech.

Transportation Initiative -- Raise Sales Tax?

The Senate Site had an interesting post regarding a transportation initiative to increase sale tax in order to meet mass transit and highway expansion goals at an accelerated pace. The current debate is stemming as to whether the transportation tax proposal merits a debate during special session. Judging from the Senate Site post it sounds like it will not be debated during the special session. However, it is a question that has merit. Should we, as Utahns, increase our ranking in the US to the third highest taxed state in the nation for more roads?

As a state with such a high tax burden I would have to say I would feel quite concerned if such a tax proposal was passed without some major efforts to finance such projects through the private sector. Revenue bonds (this is on memory from the last finance class I took 4 years ago) could be an excellent method of raising some of these funds --revenue bonds are paid from revenue received from the project that the debt was used to finance. In reference to my last post, offering the wealthy tax credits for contributing to such projects could be another means of coming up with the needed funds. I hope the legislature will continue to look at all options before lifting the states taxes.

However, if all else fails, a raise in sales tax may be a valid method of funding the project. With rising fuel and energy cost, the per capita monetary benefits of using mass transit could possibly justify the tax burden citizens would have to absorb for those who use mass transit.

That comment feels rather hypocritical for me. I often find myself commenting that Utah's conservatism ends when it comes to taxes.

Tax Reform -- the New Angle.

I'm curious if the Governor's main purpose in getting elected was to have the flat tax established so he could leave office as the Champion of Wealthy and the Elite. In a DesNews article on tax reform the newest attempt to get the flat tax passed has a new spin on it. A dual tax system! Just to make filing your income taxes a bit more complicating, the state of Utah is proposing as system where taxpayers choose from filing under the reduced 5% flat tax rate or filing under the current system and rate. The Guv seems to believe that this should please everyone, however some key members of the legislature are a little more skeptical.

"The lion's share of the $70 million tax cut allocated to the flat-tax returns would assuredly go to the wealthiest of Utahns— who don't get that much of a tax benefit from the current system's deductions and exemptions.
You would see the wealthiest among us, those making $250,000 a year and more, eating up most of that $70 million tax cut because they would choose to pay the lower rate. I have a real problem with that, and so would many of my House colleagues," Curtis said.

This latest proposal seems to be a blatant "wealthy" only tax cut. Instead of at least keeping all tax payers using the same tax computations, middle class tax payers get to keep the same tax burden as before or they get to choose a method or pay more under the "fairer-flatter" tax. I wish the Governor would advocate for a more modest approach like that of Steve Urquhart:

"Tax reform may sound sexy, but it is not necessary," said Urquhart. "What we need this year is a tax cut, drop the top rate a bit. Our current tax system is good, except that it takes too much money from taxpayers."

If I had any influence whatsoever on the goings on in the legislature, I would advocate for either a simple rate reduction under the current system or meaningful tax credits under the current system at the current tax rate.

The credits I would propose would consist of a nonrefundable child tax credit that could adequately account for the rising cost of raising a family, a credit for education expenses incurred in reaching under graduate and graduate degrees, and a continuation of any and all vehicle energy credits (such as the Utah State hybrid vehicle credit that is expired for'06). For wealthy taxpayers who are often phased out of a great deal of these types of credits, offer charitable giving credits on a non-phased out limited dollar-for-dollar basis which could prove beneficial on a number of issues. For instance, Steve Urquhart suggested that wealthy citizens could be encouraged to donate funds to help the state provide dental insurance to the general public. Offering a non-phased out, limited dollar-for-dollar credit would be one means of encouraging such altruism among those who carry such a large tax burden in our state.

My Worthless Blog

I was on another blog and I noticed an icon saying "My blog is worth $XXXXX". I checked it out and discovered that My blog was worth $0.00, wawawaaa. A little sad but not a big deal, I find my blog to have a great deal of value to me.

I got curious about other blogs in the Utah blogosphere and I found The World According to Me and SLCSpin topping out at a value of nearly 21,000 dollars each. Mozeltopf! That is only second to Alito's blog at nearly 25,000 dollars. Now the only question for Ethan and Bob is how to tap into those funds.

Happy Blogging!

Pandora is Sweet. Thanks Steve U.

Hats off to everyone's favorite Utah State legistator Steve Urquhart. This site is sweet.

I'm sure that Havaianas are cool to.

Gay Marriage -- Some of my thoughts after the debate.

Its been a few weeks since the Marriage amendment was struck down in the Senate. I've participated in a lot of lively debates regarding this issue. I've come to some conclusions about the issue that are important and need to be considered.

1.) This issue cannot be totally in the states individual hands. There is one major all-encompassing reason that the Fed will have to define marriage. Every American has to file income tax returns and marital status can make a large difference in what the outcome will be on an individual income tax return.

2.)A full ban on gay marriage will never pass. Although the evidence is weak and sill far from full wide acceptance that gay behavior is fully genetic and natural, the rhetoric that gays are a oppressed minority has successfully become engrained in much of the American psyche. As such, there is no way I see a broad enough majority of lawmakers voting for something that might label them as homophobic bigot to amend the law of the land.

3.) A Charley Foster-esque compromise unfortunately will not be fool proof. Tax cases are some of the most frequent and heavily contested issues. Because of the tax issues alone, gay marriage legal in some states and banned in others is assured to see a major Federal Court decision.

4.) Federal court presidence (from what i understand) leans toward gay marriage legalization. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not going to quotes cases, but it seems like a majority of federal court cases strike down laws pertaining to bedroom activities between consenting adults.

Personally, while I am wholly opposed to gay marriage becoming an institution in our nation, I don't believe the battle to ban it will be a successful endeavor. Irritating as legalized abortion, this issue is one, I fear, that morality and wholesomeness will likely take a backseat.

Stenar has been writing about the BYU professor's firing. The professor was fired because he questioned the leaders of the Mormon church, an Stenar was miffed that his questioning leaders of the church that he is member of, and the church that operates the University where he teaches, led to his termination. Problem for that professor is LDS doctrine is expicit about supporting the leaders of the church, it is one of the major interview questions for temple recommends. Church doctrine has often stated that a lack of support for church leaders is a first step to apostasy from the LDS church. So as and American he is okay protesting LDS church official proclamations and doctrine, but as a Mormon he is definitely endangering his LDS membership.

However, because of a hypothetical issue, (a coworker brought this point up) it is surprising that the LDS supported the Amendment with one man one woman. The LDS church believes that polygamy is a law that God requires to be practiced in a place and manner he deems necessary, so hypothetically Mormons could some day be polygamists. Limiting marriage to one man and one woman might have been a hypothetical bullet through their foot.

Lobby for a Siesta Patterned Workweek

I live is St. George. Brigham Young alledgedly said, if given the choice between St. George and Hell he would choose Hell. It is with that quote I'm considering lobbying Congress for a work week in summer that has everyone sleep during the hottest part of the day and working a major part of the night.

I'm sitting in my office with blinds closed, and its sweltering. I can only imagine how bad it must be for those that work for a living. I guess I need to get a petition going.

Correction: Brigham Young's quote I think is likely more attributable to the cursing Apostle J. Golden Kimball. I still can't find any written citation of it.

Charley Foster answers the Question of the Marriage Amendment

I've grown very tired of the Marriage Amendment debate. I as an LDS member supported the Amendment because, (a.) I have had concerns that liberal federal courts might make rulings that supersede the states laws and rights in this matter, (b) I believe my church leaders are led by divine inspiration and I follow their counsel. From the tone of many conversations I've heard regarding this issue I guess that I was quite in the minority. I was visiting Charley Foster's blog and he brought up an excellent solution regarding the timing and or language of a Marriage related amendment.

"If the federal courts threaten to take the question away from the several states, I say then pass an amendment giving the question to the states once and for all."

I know that this solution would not totally please the LDS church hierarchy, who for many years have been quite candid on this issue. However such an amendment would solve the concern that Federal court decisions could overrule state approved constitutional amendments. The amendment wouldn't (as Democratic senators alledged) chisel bigotry into the US constitution, but it would allow right leaning states to decide the issue how they wanted and left leaning states can allow gay marriage if they like.

The only Federal question I see is what marriages will the Treasury Department recognize for income tax purposes. If they allow individual state laws to rule, then alot of recognized marriages in some states would be nullified if the couple moved. If the Fed decided any marriage will be recognized no matter where it is solomnized, than states right will still be overruled. The Fed will still have to answer this question, what will marriage be defined as?

Charley rules!

Amnesty will not be cheap.

This came from the EAJournal:

A comprehensive immigration reform bill passed by the Senate last month has run into constitutional trouble over some tax provisions. S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006, was introduced by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-PA) and passed the Senate on a 62-36 vote. If signed into law, the bill would increase border security, expand a guest-worker program, and offer illegal immigrants a path to citizenship based on certain requirements. In order to better enforce hiring laws, the bill would require the disclosure of certain taxpayer information by employers and certain government agencies. Additionally, and most importantly for enrolled agents, while S. 2611 would require illegal immigrants to pay back taxes, it would bar them from claiming any tax credits for past years.

The enactment of a tax provision by the Senate while not only unconstitutional, would prove expensive for illegals seeking amnesty that are required to file past tax returns. These "guest" workers, often have several children and I'm guessing most of them don't have itemized deductions. Citizens get a 1000 dollar tax credit per child, for which a married family of 3 would with income of 40,000 dollars could escape the Federal government tax free. Without the child tax credits they are assured of paying a tax of at least 1500 dollars less interest and tax penalties.

I'm glad to see this provision, because it does require illegals to pay taxes that they owed without giving tax credits that often produce tax refunds for lower-middle income tax payers. Even if I feel that amnesty is wrong, at least guest workers will pay their share of income tax. If only the government could secure the border and make citizenship a 2 year, monitarily affordable, lawyerless proposition.

LDS Church encourages Members to write their National Reps regarding Marriage Amendment

Last week, it was announced that the LDS Church released a letter encouraging Congress to define marriage between a man and a woman through a constitutional amendment. Hatch and Bennett are strong supporters of the legislation, and here is one issue in which I back Hatch. This issue is one of the biggest issues that keeps me away from aligning myself with the Democratic party. I believe this issue is one that must be handled by the Federal government with a constitutional amendment, because the issue will be decided -- if not by Congress, than by court presidence.

While marriage is considered a sacred issue by many religions, but it is also a ethical and moral issue. As British legislator Benjamin Disraeli (paraphrased, sorry I couldn't find the quote I was thinking of) points out that as a society adheres to religious teachings and doctrines government legislation is less necessary and less intrusive, but as religion is rejected in society it becomes necessary for government legislate morality and ethics. Marriage has been sacred to nearly all religions and societies for thousands of years as the means of perpetuating mankind and the ideal environment in which children should be raised, however continuous attacks at the open practice of religion and the moral desensitization of America and the world in regards to sexual purity and ethical behavior has led us to the point where anything good and righteous is disregarded as religious fanaticism. Adults can do whatever they desire in the bedroom, however don't ask me to sanction it. I guarantee if gay marriage is allowed and legalized (as will happen if the amendment isn't passed) polygamy, polyandry, and (why not) prostitution may be legal as well.

However being a realist, I doubt that lawmakers will have the moral courage to stand up out of the crowd and support such a measure. It is sad commentary on our society when the support of wholesome family values is a political stand that American lawmakers are hesitant to make.

Tax Season 2006

It is over! Another tax year has passed and it time to reflect on the part of government that most affects average everyday citizens. This year seemed to be an exceptionally good year for many people (which means an exceptionally painful one in regards to taxes.) Although it is a duty of every citizen to pay their fair share of tax, I do not believe that the founding fathers intended that American citizens need suffer the degree of intrusion that is inflicted in the name of civic duty. I don't advocate the positions of many crackpot organizations who believe that taxation isn't constitutional, or that the word "United States" is some covert "federal" corporation that is secretly profiting off of your tax dollars. I'm saying that the system is unfair and I contiue to hope that some day financing freedom can become a little less painful to American citizens. Taxes are necessary, for example, in wartime the government should have a right to require taxes of its citizens, as well as tax dollars for maintaining the national defense and enforcing the law through the Justice Department, and some educational support, are worthy of tax support. However the myriad of extracurricular federal progarms are severely burdening Americans.

To demonstrate how massive government has become financially let's consider the payroll of the IRS (the Federal Government's version of Guido) their workforce at last count I believe is 110,000 employees. Figuing the average salary at 40,000 (some are more and some are less) that would amount to at least 4,400,000,000 dollars in salaries per year alone. Not to mention the inflated salaries of our elected officials in Congress, at last count I remember the average pay per lawmaker was 162,000 dollars for a grand total of 87,156,000 dollars to people who for the most part independantly wealthy.

Our Federal government has strecthed far beyond the original intent of the founding fathers, while repealing taxation is rather unlikely (damn near impossible) there are many things that could make the tax system fairer. In my Utopia the IRS would pay interest on all excess refundable withholdings, the social security tax that is withheld would go into retirement focused investment accounts, and the first 50,000 dollars of income would be exempt. Otherwise, I'd like to see the income tax structure abandoned for a national sales tax, a flat tax (with a 50,000 dollar exemption), or tariffs on imported goods. The most important change to make the income tax structure fair would be to illiminate estate taxes.

Regardless the IRS and state governments will continue to intrude and we taxpayers will continue to pay the price affixed to freedom. This past year a couple of my clients made some very profound observations. The first came from a client who was alittle unprepared for the bad news that he would owe, he said the most sensitive nerves in the human body are the nerves that extend from the heart to the pocket book. The second came from a client who has been facing some severe actions from the IRS for noncompliance, he said, "200+ years ago there was a revolution because of unfair taxation, how many generations until our children have to do the same." May our lawmakers consider more efficient means of financing freedom so that its citizens can breath a little easier in an ever more competitive world.

Interesting ...... Utah State Tax Commission Economist Retires......

...because of a memo sent by Palmer Depaulis, Utah tax commissioner. The article in the DesNews quoted the memo as saying, "To avoid any misunderstandings, the staff should only give clear, unbiased and objective data and information while representing the Tax Commission in a public meeting, and that information should be given without subjective nuance or argumentative tone. Therefore, when staff is representing the Tax Commission or acting as an agent of the Tax Commission they are not free to express their own positions, opinions and views. . . . In the future, if this guidance is not followed, disciplinary action may be taken." Palmer Depaulis claims that the letter was not a gag order and had nothing to with the personal income tax reform issue. The economist, Doug MacDonald, had 27 years with the commission and was often called upon my the Legislature to testify regarding tax matters. MacDonald was quoted as his reasoning for retiring as "threats of taking disciplinary action against me for answering" lawmakers' questions combined with HB213, a post-retirement health-care law that took effect Friday, were reasons enough to leave."

My problem with this issue is that in an issue as important as this (one I have written about ad nauseum) should encourage dissenting viewpoints and opinions. My second problem is that the language of the letter almost would forbid this economist fromtestifyingg to the legislature, because the legislature is asking for an opinion to be given. The governor and his "brain trust" are claiming that the reforms into a flatter tax will result in tax cuts almost universally for all Utahn's and those that see increases will see increases of "10 to 20 dollars". That seems incredulous with the information (lacking as it is) while most other evidence leans toward the flat tax resulting in higher taxes. Therefore all expert opinions should be given unimpeded, and valued.

I don't believe that their is any conspiracy to pass the flatter tax, however that memo (especially if it was targeted at this economist as the article leads one to believe) was agrievouss mistake regarding an issue as critical as totally overhauling the state's income tax structure.

Democrats Trying to Require Mandatory Retirement Plans from Employers

This came from a professional journal I read that does not allow links to the online version so I have quoted a major portion of the text from the EAJournal :

"Baucus introduces retirement savings bill
Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) last week introduced S. 2431, the Savings Competitiveness Act of 2006, which seeks to increase personal retirement savings through a number of different tax provisions. The bill would require employers who do not sponsor retirement plans to set up a payroll deduction system for employees to make automatic deposits into individual retirement accounts (IRAs). Companies with fewer than 25 employees would be eligible for a tax credit up to $250 to offset the costs of starting such a program and would be eligible for the credit for another two years if employees were automatically enrolled in the program. The bill would redesign the saver's credit, making it refundable, and providing for its direct payment into a taxpayer's Roth IRA. Taxpayers would also be able to direct the IRS to deposit their tax refunds straight into their IRAs. Further, the bill would encourage low-income workers to save by prohibiting the inclusion of retirement savings in means testing for federal assistance programs."

This idea sounds vaguely familiar, hmmm kind of like .... SOCIAL SECURITY!!!!! The solution offered by Democrat icon FDR to provide retirement and death benefit security to American citizens -- the one that Democrats in Washington vehemitly deny being broken. Employers are already forced to contribute to a Democrat created "retirement" plan, so why should employers have to be forced to pay into another mandatory retirement plan unless the Democratic party is (underhandedly) admitting that Social Security has gone the way of every other government social plans -- into bureaucracy and abuse.

Social Security private accounts is best solution offered so far, and one of the few really good ideas that GW has come up with. Your Social Security taxes would go into individual accounts (like IRAs) which would be invested in the private market offering a POSITIVE return on your taxes -- currently Soc. Sec. goes into the general fund and pays benefits for current retirees and other government social programs. With private accounts the money that is forcibly paid by you and for you could be properly invested. For example, the average wage earner makes 40,000 dollars a year at a combined employee and employer contribution rate of 12.4% for a combined contribution of 5,000 dollars for one citizen. If that 5,000 dollars (excluding the fact that the same amount would be contributed a year) were placed in a regular bank savings account earning 3% interest annually that original sum would grow to 5,800 dollars in 5 years.

I'm guessing that most Americans would rather that their "retirement" money be invested in a manner that would offer even meager returns. However, here we are Congress refusing to take logical steps to ensure better retirements for Americans opting instead to create more bureaucracy that will make doing business in America less and less affordable and attractive.