Fair Tax -- Would it Rid Us of the IRS?

Today was the Republican Debate's, and with three kids running around I wasn't able to listen to much of the debate. One part I was able to listen to was regarding the idea of a fair tax. Under the fair tax, we would pay a national sales/consumption tax of 23% and there would be no more income tax, Social Security tax withholding and we would all live in a magical world where there would be no IRS. Although there are many issues with the fair tax that I dislike (the propensity for this tax being a tool of special interests and lobbyists just to name one) one issue that is easily clarified is the fair tax will not rid the nation of the IRS.


It is true that, individual wage earners would be rid of any dealings with the IRS, but small business owners would have a much more powerful and demanding partner in their businesses'. Their are certain state and Federal taxes that are called trust fund taxes (Social Security, Federal Withholding, Medicare tax, and sales tax are a few of them) these taxes carry a powerful punch for those who fail to fully comply with the legal requirements of these laws. The penalty can amount to as much as 100% of the tax that was owed, add on interest and these types of taxes have been the death of many a business enterprise. Another problem with trust fund taxes are the propensity for misappropriation of trust funds -- entrusting 100% of the nation's tax funds to struggling small business owners creates a huge opportunity for fraud. Another problem is the vagueness of most states sales tax laws (after which I assume the national fair tax would be modeled). For example, Utah's sales tax rules (as far as I have experienced) are some of the most vague tax rules I have ever come across I have detailed the vagueness of Utah sales tax at least once or twice in the contents of this blog, and I don't feel like going through it again.

Although a large percentage of the nation would be rid of dealing with IRS, small business owners would find a much more ruthless and powerful IRS reaching its hand into their daily business dealings. This tax would raise the taxes of the poor and the middle class by raising the cost of living, it would be extremely costly to implement, and it would raise the cost of doing business and have a discouraging effect on entrepreneurship in this country. I don't believe the fair tax would be a wise choice for the tax policy of this country.

Three Cheers for Rangel -- Comprehensive AMT Reform

It appears that Charles Rangel (D-NY) is still working to keep his word regarding reforming the dreadful Alternative Minimum Tax. Although Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) is pushing for another one year patch, Congressional leaders Rangel and Neal are pushing for and AMT exemption for couples with income up to $250,000. There are a few other notable tax changes that Rangel and Neal are pushing for among those include, an increase the standard deduction, and possibly expand the EITC and child tax credit. In order to remain Revenue neutral Rangel and Neal propose to raise taxes on those with incomes above 500,000 dollars, the Congressmen do not expound on how high they would raise taxes.

Although I am hesitant to give a full unqualified thumbs up to the Rangel proposal (due to the vague explanation of the 500k + tax hike). I applaud the efforts to continue lessening the tax burden of the poor and middle class families. The push to reform the AMT is a breathe of fresh air to the "sweep it under the rug" approach to AMT reform that Congress has taken for the past several years. For a Democrat Congressman Rangel isn't that bad.

Healthcare -- My Paradigm Shift

As most paradigm shifts occur, mine comes due to very difficult personal issues.

Out of school my first job (the one which I am still employed) is in a very small firm that hasn't provided health care coverage for its employees. I don't curse my employer -- small employer health care plans are about as affordable as the individual employees providing their own insurance. It was soon after this that my doctor noted that my second child didn't gain sufficient weight in her first year, the doctor noted concerns that she may be susceptible to host of different conditions. In this case my wife and I were left with prayer and faith as the strongest source of comfort -- it worked our daughter is robust and healthy. Now my one year old son has been diagnosed with a possibly debilitating disorder known as leukodystrophy (there are several classes of this disorder and the doctors are still uncertain as to the exact type) Fortunately, CHIP enrollment opened again and the income requirements have raised to a level that my children finally qualify.

However, it has been a heart-aching experience over the past year being unable provide my son with all of the health care that his caring physicians have suggested. Not to mention lacking health insurance on my wife and myself has been frightening at times, lets just say I exercise religiously and I drive extremely cautiously. There are many benevolent organizations that have provided my son with therapeutic services virtually cost free, for all of which I am extremely grateful. These events have led me to question my long-held stance that health care needs to remain a fully privatized venture.

Although, I am well acquainted with inefficiencies of a few despised Federal agencies I'm growing (in small steps) to believe that nationalized health care my not be as bad as I have sometimes lamented. I'm not suggesting that the idea of Walter Reed Medical Center's nationwide doesn't repulse me, but a system in which anyone can get (grantedly sub par) health care as opposed to no health care is gaining some appeal to me.

I still have some strong points in opposition. The horror stories of VA medical centers are one example, and the needed increases in tax revenue to pull off such a policy shift are colossal. I heard somewhere the absurd suggestion of a "fat" tax, an idea in tax policy that may create a whole host of new eating disorders.

Something needs to be done to provide affordable health care to all Americans, I'm afraid we all know the answer and for some of the reasons cited above we are loathing to admit it.

Strong Evidence of the Need for the Death Penalty

Do you own a gun?

Utah State Tax Commission Motor Vehicle Division -- DEFENDERS OF PUBLIC MORALITY

I've gone through a bit of an apathetic spell in regards to my blog. I've said all that can be said, and more, about vouchers and haven't really had anything else that I've cared to write about. I'm trying to come back.

This story was a bit over the top. The Utah State Tax Commission has taken up a fight against a merlot Mercedes owner on account of his personalized license plate "MERLOT". The state's arguement in this matter, "merlot is an alcoholic beverage, and the state refuses to have alcohol promoted on its licenses." Nevermind the fact that the car's color is in fact called merlot, the state somehow finds that any reference to a (fairly mild as I understand) alcoholic beverage harmful to the general public. Initially I thought this was just a complete bizzare occurance, "the guy must have pissed off someone during a tax audit, or something".

However, this morning the subject came up during an appointment with one of my tax clients and this client actually had a similar experience with the Utah State Tax Commission. In another state they had a friend with the license "WHO TOOTED" on the family car (in reference to tdigestive function) when they moved here the attempted to get the same tags and were denied. The reason they were denied is (according to the DMV worker) there is a list of words and phrases that cannot be used in connection with personalized tags "tooted" apparently (according to the State of Utah) is a slang term for snorting cocaine. I'm curious if anyone has tried to get the phrase "ASSMAN". This is absurd. I was pretty opposed to Mayor Andersen's rhetoric about Utah being a Taliban-esque theocracy, however when it comes to the Utah State Tax Commission Motor Vehicle Division I have to concede the point to the Mayor.

PS I recommended the client try again, and when denied I have gldly offered to fight the case. Anyone else have this experience?

Vouchers -- Jeremy's Arguments

I have appreciated that Jeremy has stuck with the voucher debate here. In my last voucher post Jeremy commented and eloquantly laid out a notable and powerful argument against vouchers. The argument isn't one that I can truly refute. Although I disagree with him (depending on his definition of "wealthy types") on who will be the majority beneficiaries of vouchers and his assumption that vouchers for wealthy students will grow much beyond levels currently prescribed; I cannot refute his concerns about what happens if the plan flops.

"I'd love to be able to buy the idea you guys have proposed that there is a possibility that the voucher program could be made to disappear if it is a flop. The problem is that I can't think of another example of an entitlement program that was easily revoked after government started handing the money out...even when the vast majority of beneficiaries were wealthy types who didn't need the entitlement in the first place.

This plan is a great example of a possible perfect storm of government waste that can't be undone. If things go poorly and only 2-3% of public school students use the vouchers do you really think Republicans will agree the experiment they've invested so much political capital in is a failure? They'll let it go another 10 years. By then all the rich kids who never would have been in public schools in the first place will be receiving vouchers (and they likely won't be the small $500 subsidies the program currently hands out to wealthy people...some legislators are already apologizing for how small those vouchers are). Will the Republican legislature be able to count on many of its rich donors to go along with revoking the state entitlement that helps pay for their kids private schools?"

Transformers Rock!!!!

I am a ten year old boy at heart. My wife and I caught the sneek preview of Transformers, and it was sweet. Might I suggest playing hooky to catch a matinee.

Arnold v. Commissioner -- A Strong Case for Regulation of Unlicensed Tax Return Preparers

I have been regularly reading Tax Court Decisions, in preparation of taking the Tax Court exam for admission of non-attorneys. It is considered one of (if not the) most difficult tests in the field of taxation. Yesterday, the U.S. Tax Court released TC Memorandum 2007-168 Arnold V. Commissioner. This case involves a tax accountant husband and a realtor wife who each operated separate S-Corporations for which neither paid themselves W-2 wages, each corporation deducted a myriad of expenses for which no substantiation existed, and to top all of that on their 2002 and 2003 income tax returns claimed Earned Income Credits of $352,854 and $489,827 (the earned income credit is a welfare vehicle to provide an income supplement to low income Americans that has a maximum allowable credit of around $5,000)

The most interesting move the court and the IRS made in regards to this case is treatment of owner compensation. S-Corporation officer-shareholders are required to be paid as employees however in this case the IRS and the Tax Court determined that the Arnolds were each subcontractors of their separate S-Corporations liable to SE tax rather than back FICA tax. The decision is unclear if they had appointed employees as officers, but generally this issue is one where the IRS will reclassify distributions as wages an add on much heavier employer quarterly penalties.

The most unbelievable part of this case is the amounts claimed EIC for 2002 and '03 of a third of a million and a half million dollars respectively. One of the first things any tax preparation class will teach you is the earned income credit is only worth five thousand dollars, and only if your income is in a narrow range is the EIC worth even that amount. For anyone to claim as much EIC as Mr. Arnold claimed is laughable, but for a man who others come to for their tax advise to commit such a brazen act of fraud is alarming. If this man were licensed I am sure his license will soon be (if not already) revoked. However, unless this man is enjoined by a court and without legislation, he can still prepare tax returns without a license (after his jail time, I assume he will do time)

Congress has been debating, and last I heard, is expecting to pass a requirement for all individuals engaged in the practice of tax return preparation to pass a written examination and be subject to the same ethical and continuing education requirements in tax practice to which CPA's, attorneys, and enrolled agents are obligated. This is a strong step in adding oversight to a sector whose conduct has blackened the reputation of a needed and valuable industry. I hope Congress broadens licensing to all tax preparers so that anyone practicing tax at least has to meet a minimal competency requirement, and the IRS will have greater strentgh in keeping unscrupulous swindlers from continuing to use tax as a vehicle for their malfeasance.

Vouchers -- The Ad Hominem's Continue.......

Rob at the Amicus posted the latest of posters from (I believe) Utah Democrats. This one is a winner. This poster is titled "White Flight," in reference to Southerners use of tax-funded private schools in the early days of desegregation as a means of continuing segregation despite Brown v. Board of Education. The picture incorporates images of white folks marching with the confederate flag in protest of desegregation. So what is the intent of this poster......

A commenter tried to defend the poster with the following:

"nowhere do I see any comparisons of voucher supporters to "racist, Confederate flag-waving segregationists from the 1950s South.' "

I'm afraid I don't bite on the poster, or the anonymous commenter's defense of Utah Democrats. Despite the lack of language affirmatively calling voucher supporters racists, it doesn't take a genius to see that the "racist" implication is (to say the least) mildly being suggested. The clever use of negative images (the Confederate flag) is a subtle but clever way of calling someone a racist without actually saying it.

What else are voucher opponents telling us using this argument, lets pause and think about this?

1.)Utah's voucher program is designed to benefit the lowest income students: The script regarding poverty is that it effects minorities first and Caucasians last. So, the reasoning behind "White Flight" fails the first test. Utah's voucher plan is designed (following the White Flight" logic) to benefit minorities first. The poster shows that voucher opponents don't embrace the state's move to provide equal opportunity for less advantage minorities to choose the best suited schools for their children.

2.) Utah schools are succeeding in spite of themselves: One commenter and many voucher opponents have stated in opposition to vouchers that vouchers can serve no purpose with a school system that is flourishing. However, these concerns about "white flight" (not considering the racial stereotyping involved here) show that voucher opponents fear strong students leaving public schools. If Utah's public schools were as great as voucher opponents like to believe, then what difference does it make if strong or weak (minority or Caucasian) students make up the student body. It is a unintended admission that Utah schools succeed in large part to the quality of the students and parents (and some teachers) and in less part due to the bureaucracies which run Utah's schools.

3.) Utah Democrats are perpetuating racial stereotypes: Since we are going to (however subtly) through around accusations of racism. It seems to me, that the Utah Democrats are perpetuating the myth or stereotype that minority students are less apt or able to achieve in academics. Taking seriously the wild assumption that due to vouchers alone Caucasian students will leave Utah schools in droves large enough to constitute the catch phrase "White Flight"; why is there an issue with which students leave a system that is excelling in its job to educate all students? They are, however ambiguously, demonstrating a (in most cases mild) belief in certain racial stereotypes.

The Daily Herald rightly awarded this a "Buffalo Chip Award". Excrement from a large free roaming herbivore seems like an accurate depiction of this piece from the Utah Democrats. Please bring back some intelligent dialogue on this issue.

Big Brother?

This was a little creepy.

My boss, whose office is right next to mine, said he saw a SUV drive by snapping pictures of my office. I didn't see it in the act because I was in the lobby with a client, but I went outside and saw the SUV and a family getting out of the vehicle taking pictures like my office building was a tourist attraction.

I think it's nothing, but I took a license plate number just in case.

Vouchers -- Bureaucratic Turf War

At Steve Urquhart's blog he commented on some of the bureaucratic infighting that seems to be the norm between the Board of Education and legislative committees. State Board Chairman Kim Birmingham in an email respectfully, although in my opinion with a little spite, refused to come to the table with a committee of the Legislature to discuss education issues.

Last week I read a post at KCPW regarding pleas and desires of Governor Huntsman that the State's Education Bureaucracy and the Legislature resolve differences and move past vouchers and the rancor that has existed between the two throughout much of the voucher debate. The first two commenters on the post were Pat Rusk (former NEA president & current Utahns for Public Schools leader) and Sylvia Anderson State representative from district 48. The comments went like this:

Pat Rusk Said,

"Residual impact"? The voucher rancor has clouded every single legislative session for nearly a decade. The past few months have simply brought the issue before the public. Educators working to secure funding and respect for public schools and public school employees have met with the "vouchers or else" mentality for years. Residual impact? You bet there will be residual impact. Many legislators hold not only citizens, but each other hostage with their power. But fortunately the public will now see what many of us have dealt with for years. THEY can end not only the voucher nonsense but also reign of those legislators whose superiority over the rest of us must never be questioned."

Sylvia Andersen Said,

"As a new Legislator, I am surprised and saddened at the "them against us" attitude the pervades the discussion about education. I came to the Hill hoping to be in the Legislature what my role in life has been, that of a peacemaker and facilitator. I met with a couple of leaders in the UEA even before being elected, I suggested a meeting in which a representative of each group associated with educating our young people would gather around a table, putting the needs of our children in the center of the table, and offer constructive suggestions of how address those needs. I suggested that we should have a member of the Board of Education, a member of each of the different organizations that educate our youth; Home Schoolers, Private Schools, Charter Schools, Public Schools; the PTA and Parents for Choice represented at that meeting. The Response to my suggestion was "I won't meet with Parents for Choice!"

How can we ever improve our educational system with this obvious need to control all that is related to education so prevalent in the attitudes of those who are supposedly serving our youth. I have been so immersed in an atmosphere of "protect your organization's territory at all costs" that it is difficult to see where these organizations prioritize the needs of our children. Is it before or after protecting their own organization and the power they wield? Can it be that it is more important to maintain the status quo of control over funds, power, and our children than addressing all possible options for improvement? Can any one organization possibly think that "they" know what is right for every child and every family? Can any group be so insecure regarding their viability that they refuse to consider ANY other options that would include change? Can we as citizens feel that it is our right and need to control the opportunities for each tax-paying family to determine what will serve the educational needs of their child(ren)best?
I believe that if we worked TOGETHER to address the serious issues surrounding education, without concern for "protecting our territory" we could find the answers, implement the change, and secure a path of success for every child in Utah.

We, as Legislators TOGETHER, passed the largest increase in funding for education in the history of our state. As a percentage of increase, it was the largest in the US. If funding is the measure of our commitment to education, then how can it be doubted?

I know that every Legislator with whom I work is dedicated to doing what is best for their district and the State as a whole. I have not found a single Representative who displays and air of superiority, each has sacrificed a great deal to serve their fellow citizens.

Since then there have been a few other commenters on that post, including Kim Horiuchi, Dixie Allen and others. The former and later commenters were very articulate and even handed in their arguments respectively. However, Ms. Rusk and Andersen provided a very telling look at the bureaucratic infighting that is clouding this debate.

I am afraid that much of this rancor amounts to a proverbial turf war. Some educators (although I disagree with the term "educrat", some look like ducks, walk like ducks, sound like ducks, and therefore are likely ducks) seem wholly opposed to vouchers because it is out of the realm of the classic public education system and a personal affront to their worth. While some elected representatives have come close to using dictator-esque force in dealing with the education bureaucracy.

We have clarity in the referendum vote, and we have many solid arguments for and against vouchers that should be addressed. May the bureaucracies of this state do as the governor recommends, move on with the business of running the state.

From this post, I think it is demonstrative of the stifling, group think, effects that bureaucracies have on innovation and progress.

El Cartoonista had it right with his recently censored cartoon. What is best for Utah's children?

This is the last time I will harp on the tone of the voucher debate. (My wife says the blog is getting stale)

Southern Utah Boy Scouts Exercise Freedom of Speech

I opened the The Spectrum.com to this picture on their homepage, I was taken back until I read the headline. HAHA.

Just a little bored today.

Vouchers -- Censorship by the Davis County Clipper

This is a pretty cool cartoon.

I can't believe it wasn't printed by the Davis County Clipper, it is probably one of the most insightful local politcal cartoons I have seen.

Vouchers -- Let the Ad Hominem Arguments Begin

It started a few weeks ago, with a local article where SLC's NAACP chief Jeanetta Williams equated Utah's voucher program with segregationism. Today, Rob over at Utah Amicus took the ad hominem arguments another direction. In Rob's post today he posted a video of Friedman arguing for the legalization of drugs with the caption, "Does this mean PCE will start a group called, Parents for Choice in Drug Legalization?"

I had been hoping that these type arguments wouldn't become part of such an important debate. However, I guess I was naive in my hopes. The one bright spot in hearing these poorly crafted arguments coming from the anti-voucher corner is that ad hominem attacks have always (at least to me) been a sign of someone being on the losing end of an argument.

BTW, I agree with Jeremy who commented, "I bet they would if they watched this whole video. Friedman was exactly right in arguing against our wasteful "War on Drugs". We've incarcerated a higher percentage of our population than any other nation on earth because of our government's foolish and obsessive focus on our idiotic drug policy. If you are trying to marginalize Friedman you should choose a different video of him. He's absolutely right in this one." Point is -- marginalizing voucher advocates like Friedman with poorly crafted ad hominem attacks does nothing to meaningful contribute to the debate, it makes those using these type arguments, like the argument in Rob's post, look like dirty mud slinging politicians. I hope people see through this crap.

UPDATE: Judging from the tone of comments it appears that readers think I am beating up on Rob too much. Rob's post was being used as an example. There are poorly crafted ad hominem attacks from the pro-voucher side as well. (i.e. the ridculous assertions of a 4th "education" branch of government and the charges of legislating from the bench after the Utah Supreme Court gave the same people making the afore mentioned assertions the decision they requested (not what they wanted)) I hope this levels out the post so that fans of Rob can stop feeling jaded.

P.S. I apologize if this seemed like a personal attack on Rob. I hold Rob in the highest regard.

6 Years Later

(John Canlas Photography the photographer's blog)

My wife and I had faux engagement photos for our anniversary. Six years later, and I'm hairless and very happy.

For a Laugh

Vouchers -- Steve Urquhart's Proposal

On Steve Urquhart's blog he has laid a couple of proposals in overcoming the confusion with the 2 voucher bills. Basically his proposals are this:

1 - Hold a Special Session and through HB148 and 174 out the window.
2 - Pass a new HB1001 with basically the same language as HB174 (the bill that was created as a compromise between voucher advocates and foes)
3 - Hold implementation of HB1001 until after June 2008, with a provision that HB1001 is repealed or implemented depending on the outcome of the November vote.

I like the proposal. It provides the citizens of this state with one law that can be voted on up or down. I don't know that it will keep the two loudly opposing voucher lobbying groups from taking the results of the November vote to the courts, but it at least settles the ambiguity of having two virtually identical bills not being subject to the same referendum voting requirements.

All this would have been helpful when the legislature was originally considering vouchers. But it is better late than never.

Vouchers -- The Fiscal Effect of School Choice Programs

It is time to start talking about vouchers. A few weeks ago Utah Policy.com had a link to the results of a study conducted by the Milton Friedman Foundation regarding the financial impact different voucher programs across the country. It was an interesting read. This study suggests that voucher programs in most areas have saved school districts money, and in districts that didn't experience savings those voucher systems have been revenue neutral.

The study is worth reading. I was going to take the time to do a thorough written analysis of the study, but I have since decided it would be better to recommend reading the study results for yourselves.

Yes, the study was conducted by the Friedman Foundation (a group that voucher adversaries like Craig at the Amicus would marginalize simply because Milton Friedman was a voucher advocate) however, as the study leader states in her introduction, the fact the group who produced the study supports vouchers shouldn't invalidate the scientific methods that were applied in reaching the end conclusion of the study.

Read it. This is a valuable piece in the voucher debate.

Vouchers -- HB174 and the 500 Pound Gorilla in the Corner

I have read recent posts and articles about the State School Board's decision refusing to enact HB174 before the HB148 referendum vote, as well as calls for a special session to attach HB174 to the referendum vote. Steve Urquhart has recently made his opinion of a special session known quite clearly. Derek Staffanson recently commented on the bravery he felt the school board showed by refusing to enact HB174. While I don't necessarily accept the moral high ground that Mr. Staffanson gives to the School board president, I agree that HB174 shouldn't be ram-roded into action while the original substantive HB148 bill hangs in the balance of public opinion and an Election day vote.

I fully believe that there are many in the education establishment who have a solid, and biased agenda of keeping vouchers from becoming law. (they were successful in gaining enough signatures to force a referendum vote) The fact of the matter remains we are having vote on the issue, because there are either enough Utahns who either don't support vouchers, or enough Utahns who want to have more public dialogue on the issue before we are bound to it. It would nullify the democratic process to enact virtually the same law (HB174 was basically an Amendment to HB148 -- the law under scrutiny) before the voice of the people has been heard in a vote, or worse against the will of the people if the referendum is successful in repealing HB148.

While I fully agree with Rep. Urquhart on the merits of vouchers as an efficient, fair, and even handed means of education funding. as well as the need for the education establishment to declare a willingness to truly engage in the process. I strongly feel that voucher bill HB174 should be on hold until after the referendum vote coming this November, and should be repealed if the referendum vote is against the bills implementation.

Mitt Romney has bigger Fish to Fry in Regards to Anti-Mormonism

Hat tip -- JM Bell

After a week where we heard much ado about Al Sharpton's Anti-Mormon comment. It appears that there may be a much more potent and venomous anti-Mormon sentiments from the Christian-right. This shouldn't really be surprising since much of the Christian community in this country has somewhat of an obsession with criticizing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as not being a Christian religion. (I always found this view to be paradoxical for them, given the incredible lengths that the LDS Church has taken to provide some of the greatest charity work on Earth. I guess they missed that part of the New Testament.)

A Mr. Bill Keller (An ex-convict who was convicted of insider trading turned televangelist -- a man who recognizes that there are vast amounts of money to be made in the service of god. Once a swindler always a swindler.) stated that "If you vote for Mitt Romney, you are voting for Satan!" Mr. Keller continues,

"Romney is an unashamed and proud member of the Mormon cult founded by a murdering polygamist pedophile named Joseph Smith nearly 200 years ago. The teachings of the Mormon cult are doctrinally and theologically in complete opposition to the Absolute Truth of God's Word. There is no common ground. If Mormonism is true, then the Christian faith is a complete lie. There has never been any question from the moment Smith's cult began that it was a work of Satan and those who follow their false teachings will die and spend eternity in hell....Those who follow the false teachings of this cult, believe in the false jesus of the Mormon cult and reject faith in the one true Jesus of the Bible, will die and spend eternity in hell. Romney getting elected president will ultimately lead millions of souls to the eternal flames of hell!"

After making all of these above statements, he piously goes on.

"Please take some time today and pray for Mitt Romney and all those who have been deceived by the lies of the Mormon cult. The fact is that unless they renounce those lies and turn to faith in the one true Jesus of the Bible, they will die and spend eternity in hell. Pray also for these Christian leaders who have for whatever reason, foolishly aligned themselves with Romney. Pray the Holy Spirit will convict them and that they will renounce Romney and find a candidate to support who will hold to Biblical values. There is no excuse, no justification for supporting and voting for a man who will be used by satan to lead the souls of millions into the eternal flames of hell!"

The sad thing is I'm sure there are people who revere this man as being a man of God. Wow! If his hateful-rhetoric really was true Christianity, I'm glad to be a pagan. Comparatively of his view of Christianity, and the LDS view of Christianity this an affirmation of a famous quote of Joseph Smith "if we (the Latter Day Saints) go to hell we will turn the devil out of doors and make a heaven of it." As for Mr Keller, his ministries operate as a 501(c)(3) with over 2 million dollars of donations (here is a link to his 990) you will not find much of his donations funneled to charitable causes like disaster relief, humanitarian aid, or anything like that. The 501(c)(3) funnels nearly every dime into his television programing (BK Media) and from there I can only guess. If anyone is curious you can learn alot about religious and charitable organizations on Guidestar.Org. I'm curious is anyone in the IRS 501(c)(3) unit paying attention to this fellow. He certainly bends (nearly breaking it off) the political neutrality rules of IRC 501(c)(3).

To make a long story short. I'm sure there are many more Christian conservatives like Mr. Keller out there. The distrust that Southern Christians have for Mormons most certainly is still a large hurdle for the Romney campaign. I would like to believe that most people wouldn't vote for Romney because he might be flimsy in his support of conservative social issues (or if a Democrat because you oppose conservative views) rather than hateful rhetoric used by dishonest-swindlers who have discovered a niche by cloaking themselves in the Bible.