Wasatch Astroturf Organization

My New Balanced Budget Amendment

2011-05-21T20:50:00.002-06:00

Here is the text of a Balanced Budget Amendment that will work. I dare Orrin Hatch to submit this one.

Ia. No law, varying the compensation for the services of the President, Vice President, Members of the President's Cabinet, Chiefs of the Armed forces, Senators and Representatives; shall take effect, unless expenditures of the Federal Government are less than or equal to receipts. This law shall take effect five years after the passage of this article.

1b. Thirty years after the passage of this article, no law, varying the compensation for the services of the President, Vice President, Members of the President's Cabinet, Chiefs of the Armed forces, Senators and Representatives; shall take effect, unless the public debt of the United States Government is paid in full.

II. The Congress may not require that the states engage in additional activities without compensation equal to the additional costs.

III. Article 1b of this amendment may be waived during a time of war, natural or man-made disaster or unusual economic hardship, but all public debt of the United States acquired for these purposes must be retired thirty years after the debt has incurred.

IV. After public debt has been retired, Congress may set aside funds for use during time of war, natural or man-made disaster or unusual economic hardship. These funds must be exhausted before Congress may borrow money.

V. Congress may not borrow money from foreign governments. Any debt owed to a foreign power upon the passage of this amendment must be the first to be retired.

VI. Economic hardship, for the purposes of this amendment, is defined as the involuntary idleness of ten percent of the work-force.

What this means.

1. If the federal government is in deficit, Congress does not get a raise. The Congress has 30 years to retire the public debt and if it does not, then Congress does not get a raise.

2. Congress can not push unfunded mandates to the states.

3. This can be waived in time of war, disaster or economic hardship. But Congress has 30 years to pay back any money borrowed.

4. Any rainy-day funds must be exhausted before the government can borrow money.

5. Congress can't borrow money from foreign governments. Any funds owed to foreign governments must be paid first.

6. A U-6 unemployment rate of 10% is the definition of economic hardship for this amendment.

If you like this, share it with a friend. We want the whole country to know about this one.

Balancing the Federal Budget, One Thing That is Missed.

2011-05-21T09:46:00.000-06:00

What do Mike Lee and Amway have in common?

The more I see of Mike Lee in the Senate, the more and more dissatisfied I become with his performance. It seems that all he has done since he went to Washington is agitate, and has not proposed or said one thing positive. I know we he did not go along in Washington, just to get along, but we need more than just a muck-raker, we need someone who will actually help the economy. This is not only my main criticism of Lee, but of the Tea Party in general.

First of all, there is the Laffer Curve. This is what is cited when people say that you can grow the economy simply by cutting taxes. I do not disagree with the principle, I only point out that this is a curve. Think of it as something similar to adding lanes to a highway to improve traffic flow. You have a highway that is one lane in each direction, and you add a second lane, you have increased the capacity of that highway by 100%. When you add the third lane, you increase the capacity of that highway by 50%. When you add a fourth lane you increase the capacity of the highway by 33%. And when you add a 5th lane, you increase the capacity of the highway by 25%. Soon, you get to the point where you are only paving new lanes and not doing much to help at all.

Back to tax cuts, in the early 1980's, the Reagan Tax cuts helped the economy greatly. The Bush tax cuts of the early 2000's helped, but they were arguably less effective. The next round of tax cuts would likely be less effective. Each dollar that is not taken out of the economy has less utility, just like each lane of added to the highway.

The same argument can be made with Keynesian Economics and borrowing money to help improve the economy. The first dollar borrowed will be the most effective. But soon, all you have is debt and you are doing very little to help the big picture.

It is time for the government to think out of the box, and help other people who have the capital to help the economy do more than they have at this time. And this brings me to Amway. I have read from Dave Ramsey that 90% of Amway distributors quit before they make a significant amount of money. Dave says that in order to succeed at multi-level marketing, one has to work very hard. Amway's secret is to pump people op psychologically, to help them feel good about what they are doing. Make people feel good about their chances for success, and eventually, some people can make money at it.

Mike Lee and the Tea Party are similar. They have made a lot of noise about getting the Federal Government to balance the budget in two years. This makes people feel good about voting for them. In reality, the Tea Party Caucus in Congress has done little to improve the economy and get people back to work. Eventually, the Democrats are going to turn this against them. Probably sooner rather than later.

Eventually, the Tea Party needs to come up with a plan to improve employment and help small business succeed other than giving the same old line, "get government out of the way." Most small businesses close within 5 years with or without government in or out of the way. Just like with Amway, feel good politics will only get us so far.

Coming soon, by Memorial Day, this blog will unveil a plan that will both cut the size of government and build small business. Stay tuned...

Selling Utah is Actually a Good Idea.

2011-05-20T23:15:00.000-06:00

A Florida Congressman, Don Ross, half jokingly said that we should "sell Utah" to pay down the national debt. That is not a half bad idea, if done right.

Why it will work?

Currently, Utah has 70% of it's land controlled by the Bureau of Land Management. This is land owned by the Federal Government but not dedicated to the Military, Native Americans, National Parks, National Monuments or National Forests. That is currently, 29.9 million non-forest acres lie inside the borders of the Beehive State. At worst, that land is worth $5,000 per acre. Selling this land at that value would raise at least 149,500,000,000.00, or about 1% of the National Debt. Some of that land is on top of valuable oil and gas reverses and some of this land is prime recreation property and some of this land is valuable range land for the raising of cattle and sheep. Even land that is only used for cattle and sheep could be worth more that 5,000 per acre. Therefore, selling Utah will likely net a lot more than 149 Billion.

Why not other states?

Utah is not the only state with a lot of Federal Land. There is more land controlled by the BLM in Nevada, some 40 million non-forest acres. Although there is not as much water and the likelihood of valuable minerals is much less. But still, it could be worth some 200 Billion. Alaska had the most land, it has 87 Million acres that have not been granted to National Forest Service, which is worth at least a Trillion dollars and probably much more, but most of it is only accessible by air at this time. In the west, there is are 253 million acres of Federal land under BLM control. Some of this over very valuable mineral deposits. There is likely enough money tied up in Federal Land to pay the National Debt and then some. At the low-ball price of 5,000 per acre, it's only about 1.2 trillion, but likely worth a lot more. Again, an acre of wilderness in Alaska is worth a lot more than an acre of desert in Utah. I will put pen and paper to this at some other time and come up with a more accurate figure.

What else can the Federal Government Liquidate?

There are closed military bases, and other federal buildings all over the country that are no longer in use. Selling this surplus property to private buyers is bound to raise additional funds for the government.

Other Positives?

Let's take Garfield, County Utah as an example. The county has 5208 square miles. 97% of that land is owned by the Federal Government. The County can not levy taxes on this land, and has to fund it's law enforcement and schools by property tax on just 3% of it's land. Much of this land lies within the boundaries of National Monuments and National Parks, so the County has to rely on tourism dollars to operate. Roughly the eastern third of the county is BLM-managed federal land. This is land is occupied by the Henry Mountains and lies between Lake Powell and Capitol Reef National Park. It would be land that could be used for tourism and ranching. The middle third of Garfield County is occupied mostly by Capitol Reef National Park, Bryce Canyon National Park and the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. The western third of the county is mostly occupied by the Fishlake National Forest.

If this land were sold; that is if about 1/3 of the 5208 square miles or were sold and privatized, the county would be blessed with about 1,111,040 additional acres it could levy taxes upon. The property tax rate in Garfield County is about 7 dollars per 1,000 of property. At a price of 5,000 per acre, the county would be blessed with about additional 38 million dollars of new property tax revenue annually. (And this is a very conservative estimate and would the case if there were no improvements made to the property). Imagine how well they could pay teachers in Panguitch with an extra 38 million per year? Imagine how Garfield County could improve their police force with this much money? If this model were followed in the rest of Utah, there would be enough funds to bring Utah from being very last in per-pupil spending to at least the 2nd quartile.

There are some positive consequences nationwide. Credit rules will have to be relaxed to qualify people to buy some of this property. This can help the housing market recover all over the country.

Any negatives?

Yes, there will be unintended consequences. First, liquidation is something that can only happen once. The government will still have to figure out how to balance the federal budget and live within their means, but it will be an easier task when with much less allocated to pay interest. Second, there will be economic consequences. If the Feds pay off all of their debt at once, interest rates will plummet further. This could spur inflation.

And one more that can not under-stressed enough. The Sierra Club and other environmental groups will never sit idly by and will do everything in their power to stop something like this. They like the land idle and doing nothing. They will complain about the loss of habitat. There will be a petition to ask President Obama to use the Antiquities Act to block the measure. My response to them is ask them what they would give up to balance the budget. Selling Utah will not happen easily, but most of the consequences will be positive.

Entrepreneurship Is Not a Bad Thing at All

2011-05-17T23:39:00.000-06:00

Entrepreneurship is the answer.

Jim Boehner is right. At the current levels of government revenue, it will take 20 years to balance the budget and another 30 years beyond that to pay off the National Debt. The answer is not another round of challenging incumbent Republicans. There is only so much that can be done with the revenues that the government is pulling in right now. Plus, it would be political suicide to completely get rid of entitlement programs all together. The Government has got to find a way to increase revenue. America, for lack of a better analogy, needs a second job.

Sure, what do you do when you run out of cash from month to month and can not make ends meet? Once you have cut the family budget as much as you can, you get another stream of income. You get a second job.

Trouble is, that during this economy, business start ups have been at record highs. When you can not get a job, then starting one seems logical. But these businesses are not taking off to the point where governments are reaping in massive tax revenues. The reason is simple. Someone who is down on their luck and broke is not going to have a lot of cash to begin a new business in the first place. Their business is going to be very slow at first, and take years to start...if it gets going at all. Starting a business that has a chance of success in a few months or years takes someone with a lot of his own capital to invest, both cash and time. Usually, three years of savings to last the family is a minimum.

As such, the government, particularly the current administration and congress should not look at entrepreneurship as a negative thing. It is something to be encouraged and respected. Eventually, it will lead to greater revenues which will help Congress balance the budget and pay the national debt.

Rebuttal to Tribune Article

2011-05-16T22:58:00.001-06:00

This post is a rebuttal to the article in Saturday's Salt Lake Tribune titled, "Some Latter-day Saint Conservatives Worship Political Dogma" (Olsen, Steve, 2011, "Some LDS Conservatives Worship Political Dogma", Salt Lake Tribune, Retrieved from http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/51713295-82/political-government-idolatry-lds.html.csp)

Senate Candidate I know had an interesting take on the health care debate when she was running to unseat Senator Bob Bennett. Her father was a physician in California. As near as I can now recall, she quoted her father as stating that the Great Society was "the End of Quality healthcare as (was then known) was at an end". Why would a physician make such a statement. As a doctor, wouldn't it be nice to get payment for all of your services from the government and not have to worry about billing? Before Medicare and Medicaid were invented, you are probably wrong if you believe that physicians would terminate a patient relationship once a patient could no longer pay. According to my friend, the doctors would "work things out" and even "write charges off" if necessary. In Mr. Olsen's article, he mentioned that once a patient's means would run out, the patients would be out on the street.

Fact is, we do not know for certain how the medical industry would be today if there were no Medicare or Medicaid. But a simple understanding of economics will explain why government intervention is not sustainable. The simple truth is that our population is getting older. We are having fewer children and people are living longer. It also does not take a Rhodes Scholar to understand that older bodies have more medical problems. Therefore, there is a higher demand on medical services. In addition, the diet and sedentary nature of our American lifestyle has brought more pressure on the system, and will continue to do so. But what LDS Conservatives are most concerned about is the level of entitlement that permeates our society today. Most of us have grown up in a society where some third party insurance company paid most of our medical bills and health care providers have become wealthy. Those days are becoming a thing of the past.

Companies have found that they are unable to provide health insurance for their employees and provide the same level of service to their customers. Many companies have become overburdened from providing health coverage to retirees, and found that they have had to turn that coverage over to the government to avoid bankruptcy. No doubt, these hard times have effected a lot of people.

As an LDS conservative, I recognize the need for a public safety net, especially for older Americans. The only entitlement in the older age group that I am concerned about are the children of the elder generation who emotionally can't understand the difference between saving life and delaying death. It is when that line is crossed that health care can become expensive. The concern is also for those who spend their life abusing their bodies and expect a government and a society that will take care of them for a relatively young age, as early as 20+. These problems can bankrupt any government not matter how high the tax rate is.

Again, we do not know how the health care industry would look if there were no government intervention. But government dependence builds entitlement, which increases demand for services. While the government does little to increase supply. Simple economics tells us that higher demand and steady supply will drive prices higher. As the population ages, demand for medical services will increase. Many believe that without government intervention, that the free market will take care of most problems. As prices increase, more people will be drawn to the medical profession, increasing supplies of goods and services. Thus stabilizing prices. Another concern of conservatives, LDS or not, is that more government intervention drives people away from the profession, reducing supply and bringing more instability to price levels.

Furthermore, please notice that I said all of this without quoting scripture or any statement of church leadership, just like Mr Olsen did. But, I will skip fellow LDS like Glen Beck and Cleon Skousen and appeal directly to the scriptures that say, "Cease to be idle" (D&C 88:124).

I am not a casual observer on the sidelines in such a matter. Several years ago, I was laid off from a job in Texas and at the encouragement of my Bishop took a telemarketing job. This job paid well below the living wage, and I remained on welfare for a time. Eight years later, I am still with the same company, but I am not telemarketing. I am working in a position in my chosen profession and earning more money than I have before. It took me about a year and a half to prove my worth to my current employer. Newton's first law applies to the unemployed as well. While I agree that the unemployed are not lazy by nature, as I have been one of them, someones if one lets go of pride and takes what is available good things can happen. I, myself, am living proof. My grandfather also believed this way, and he was a life-long Democrat.

The Candidate the GOP Wants Does Not Exist.

2011-05-14T08:17:00.005-06:00

There is an article appearing in newspapers all over the country today stating that 45 percent of registered Republicans surveyed are less that satisfied with the GOP field shaping up for 2012. Usually, I would shrug off this kind of survey as an effort by the in-love-with-Obama media to demean the potential GOP field. This case, I do not. I have spoken in person with many Republicans since the election of Obama, and I believe that the 45 percent may be understated a little bit.

If you ask me, and since you are reading my blog, you did; this is the negative effect that the Tea Party and talk radio have had on the Grand Old Party. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck and others have always stated that they are critical of Republicans when warranted, and they are. Those of you who lean to the left don't believe it, but it is true. The trouble is that they have led the GOP base into believing that there is some demigod out there, a second coming of Ronald Reagan, who will lead this country back to Morning in America. Truth is, all potential Presidential Candidates have flaws and all have areas that the Obama campaign will be able to exploit. We will collectively have to decide which flaws we can live with.

We all know about Romneycare, the fact that Ron Paul was once (and perhaps still is) a Libertarian, Newt's former wives and the circumstances about his divorces and Huntsman's stance on environmental issues and Gay Rights. But even Ronald Reagan had flaws.

If Reagan were running in today's GOP, his conservative opponents would have been all over him for some of his flaws,and some of the things that were done when he served as Governor of California.

His stance on abortion was not clear in 1980 and there were those who believed that Reagan was actually pro-choice and not pro-life. As Governor of California, he signed the controversial "Theraputic Abortion Act," which was designed to reduce the number of "back room" abortions. This bill allowed for abortion where the life and well-being of the mother were compromised. A exception that many conservatives consider acceptable today, but not all. Because the line was not clearly drawn, this bill has to date been blamed for over 2 million abortions. Reagan later admitted that this was a mistake. (He used language that many suggest Romney use to distance himself from health reforms in Massachusetts.)

It is not well known today, but well known in the 1970s that Reagan hiked taxes in California to balance the state budget. My how conservatives today would jump all over that one. To his credit, he also froze government hiring in the state as well.

As Governor, Reagan signed the first of its kind no fault divorce law. Many defenders of marriage today consider this act, with Ronald Reagan's signature, as being the first step in weakening marriage today. The first step in leading to our fight against Gay Marriage today.

He was also the former President of the Screen Actor's Guild, a labor union. It is well known that Labor and the GOP are not exactly bunk-mates.

Running today, conservatives would have jumped all over these flaws. But Reagan's conservative legacy as President is clear and often cited by GOP wannabees as the politician they would most like to emulate. Even as Governor of California, Reagan led out as a conservative. One of his campaign slogans was, "send the welfare bums back to work." He advocated less government intervention to allow the economy to grow. As president, the Reagan Revolution expanded the military, contributed to the end of the Cold War and reduced reliance on government programs.

As you can see by examining Reagan's flaws, that no candidate is perfectly conservative. But that's the beauty of it all. We don't have to be perfect. In 1980, Reagan's GOP opponents were moderates and progressives. Today, nearly all of the GOP field have excellent conservative credentials. What needs to be the focus for the GOP is to find someone who has the charisma to win in 2012 and will begin his own or her own revolution. I suggest, as a Republican, we begin looking past some of the perspective candidates faults and look for someone who can win.

Totally Random Thought

2011-05-12T00:05:00.000-06:00

Let's say your sister is the future Queen of England. You are on a supposedly private party with some so-called friends and one takes a photo of you without your top...you can not expect those photos not to end up on the Internet.

Sorry Pippa...welcome to the Royal Family.

Why Newt Is Running

2011-05-09T09:59:00.004-06:00

According to a Newt Spokesperson, former House Speaker Newt Gengrich will announce his candidacy for US President this coming Wednesday. There are three facts to understand about this. 1. Newt can not beat Obama. 2. Newt can not even win the nomination. 3. Newt knows this. Why is Newt running?

In review of history, the only man ever to win the Presidency after a break in his service in the House of Representatives was Abraham Lincoln. I did not personally know Abe Lincoln, but I can tell you that Newt is no Abraham Lincoln. Nor will the black swan that sunk the Democrats in election of 1860 re-appear. We all pray that those circumstances never repeat themselves. Although some would believe that Newt has the ego to believe he can make history, there is no doubt in my mind that not even Newt Gengrich has a big enough ego to believe that he can pull it off. There has to be enough of a realist inside of Newt and his supporters to know what he is up against. Newt has been out of politics for 15 years, he has been a Fox News Contributor, and he has become nothing more than the Pat Buchanan of the 2010's.

The reason why Newt is running for the Presidency is because he believes that Romney and Huckabee, the leaders for the GOP nomination are both too moderate and he wants to push the candidacy to a more conservative nominee. But neither is a clear enough of a front runner to know for certain who the nominee will be at this point. As there is no clear leader right now, he feels that he can influence the voters and move the nomination to someone more conservative. Newt believes he has enough influence in the GOP to pull this off.

There are, of course, some flaws in this thinking. This plan will fail if Newt has no chance of winning the nomination after the South Carolina Primary. But if there is still no clear leader after South Carolina, and Newt is still in the race, then his plan will work. The question then becomes, who does the king maker favor? I can only tell you who he does not like. He does not like some of the more moderate choices out there, namely Romney, Huntsman and Pawlenty. The more conservative choices such as Palin and Daniels are Newt favorites. If one of them is in striking distance, and Newt has some delegates in his pocket, expect him to drop out and make an endorsement.

Group Think in the Utah State Legislature

2011-05-08T08:23:00.000-06:00

The Utah State Legislature decided to override two of Government Hebert's vetos. As a results, I find myself in agreement with KSL's Ethan Millard. Anytime I find myself in agreement with Millard, I get scared.

The first veto that was overridden was the highway bill. This bill dedicates a percentage of sales tax revenue to highway construction and maintenance every single year. I do not wish to under emphasize the importance of highways and their effect on commerce. Not only does good highway maintenance make commerce simpler, it also directly and indirectly keep people employed.

Keep in mind that in Utah, we have fuel taxes, and 100% of fuel taxes are, as they should be, dedicated to the construction and maintenance of highways. The problem is that as fuel costs have sky rocketed in the past five years, people are driving less and purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles. As a result, less fuel tax money goes into state coffers. The legislature feels obligated to ensure another source of revenue for highways.

However, budgeting should be a flexible. Part of the problem that other states have in balancing their state budgets is laws like the one Governor Hebert vetoed. Some years, the legislature needs to spend less on highways, and some years there needs to be more spend on highways. This bill shows some legislative short sidedness. Sure, the bill can be worked around with a simple majority vote of the legislature, but that would become a debate unto itself. It would take time out of the 45-day legislative session. Then time needed for the overall legislative session is lost. The legislature has tied their own hands in forcing this legislation on themselves.

I am certain that in the very near future, education advocates in this state will introduce a petition to repeal this bill at the ballot box. If or when such a petition is presented, I have already endorsed it.

The legislature has also ended the four-day work week in Utah. This is a pity. True, the main reason for implementing a 4-day work week was to spend less on utilities. Those cost savings never materialized for the state, but there were other benefits which are now gone. Let me enumerate those.

-State employees get another day to spend with their families. When the kids are still in school, this is a day to focus on yard work and other dirty details that take away from family time on weekends. Therefore, the quality of family life that state employees enjoyed is now gone.

-State employees will have to go back to commuting to work 5 days per week. For those who drive their own vehicles, this means a 25% cost increase in the fuel used to get to work. In a day when so many perks are being lost, this was a big morale boost to some state employees.

-Citizens will have to return to the days when we had to take time off to take advantage of state services, such as renewing a drivers license or getting a car registered.

-Utah was considered a leader in this regard. The four-day work week showed some initiative, some creative leadership and some out of the box thinking to many outside the state.

I can understand the logic of both bills, but I can not understand the logic of the veto override. Especially with the surprise override of the 4-day work-week bill. Some of the reason why the costs savings did not materialize is because utility costs have, in fact, been increasing during this time. The legislature was looking at dollars spend and not utility units.

The state may suffer for returning to a 5-day work week. The state may suffer because of the highway bill. Especially representatives trying to avoid Tea Party challenges. The legislature looks as if it has been strong armed by Labor Unions and other special interest groups. Fiscal conservatives should look at this action with a weary eye. It will affect how I vote in the next election.

GOP Presidential Wannabee's Power Rankings...May, 2010

2011-05-03T00:35:00.000-06:00

Part 1, who is winning the horse race.

1. Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts Governor.
2. Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas Governor.
3. Donald Trump, businessman and TV personality.
4. Sarah Palin, former Alaska Governor.
5. Michelle Bachmann, Congressperson from Wisconsin
6. Newt Gengritch, former Speaker of the House.
7. Tim Pawlenty, former Governor of Minnesota
8. Jon Huntsman, Jr, former Utah Governor and Ambassador to China
9. Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana
10. Ron Paul, Congressman from Texas

Part 2, same 10 ranked according to who can beat Obama

1. Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas Governor.
2. Tim Pawlenty, former Minnesota Governor.
3. Mitt Romney, former Massachusetts Governor
4. Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana
5. Jon Huntsman, Jr, former Utah Governor and Ambassador to China
6. Sarah Palin, former Alaska Governor
7. Ron Paul, Congressman from Texas
8. Michelle Bachmann, Congressperson from Wisconsin
9. Newt Gengritch, former US House Speaker
10. Donald Trump, businessman and TV Personality

A Replacement for Gasoline Taxes...

2011-04-30T17:10:00.001-06:00

There has been some debate, not just in Utah, but in other state about gas taxes. If you drive a hybrid or an electric car, then you don't pay as much fuel taxes as other drivers. And when gas prices spike, vehicle usage goes down. Fuel tax revenue goes down. But highways, roads and bridges need to be built and maintained and the work can not be outsourced to India.

In my opinion, the time has come to do away with fuel taxes and replace them with another stream of revenue. This is the first time this debate has hit the Beehive State, but in other states, it has been an issue for many years.

In 2009, as cited by a New York Times article, Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood suggested charging vehicles by the mile. However, this would require a device that would track the miles a vehicle is driven. That is a little to "Big Brother" for this blogger. Although such a device could be voluntary to those who do not find this invasion of privacy too creepy. Any other way suggested by the article is complicated and messy.

Therefore, I suggest a simple alternative. Today, the average vehicle gets about 20 miles to the gallon is is driven around 12000 miles per year. This means that the average vehicle will burn 600 gallons of fuel per year. The Federal Gas Tax is 18.4 cents per gallon. This means that the Federal Government gets around 110 dollars per vehicle in gas taxes. In Utah, the gas tax is a little higher than the Federal rate at 24.5 cents per gallon, or about 147 dollars of gas tax per vehicle.

If the Federal Government were to do away with fuel taxes and charge every vehicle with a $110 additional tax, it would generate about 27.5 billion in revenue per year. Of course, that is about 10 billion short of current revenues, but the 27.5 billion is only from passenger vehicles. The Federal Government does not report the percentage of fuel taxes by source, private or commercial, just total revenue. There are about 90 million commercial vehicles on the road, and charging them 150 dollars per until per unit would generate another 13.5 billion in revenue per year. That is over 40 billion in revenue, which is more the 37 billion generated today.

Now, the problem comes in collecting the tax. My suggestion is that at the individual level, an extra 10 dollars per month be withheld from a person's paycheck and reconciled on the tax return. Problem solved.

In Utah, it would not be a problem to eliminate the tax on fuel completely and add an extra 147 dollars to vehicle registration fees. But that may be a little steep for some people, therefore payroll withholding seems to be the answer here as well, but it would be slightly higher. An extra 15 dollars per month. And it would also be reconciled on the state tax return. Problem solved.

Most families, with two wage earners and two vehicles, would see a slightly larger refund at tax time. About another 10 dollars. Those without a vehicle would see all of this money come back to them. Those with more vehicles than wage earners would be the ones hurt by this change.

The reason to push for this? How to we pay for Police and Fire protection? In income taxes, that's how. Why not pay for our highways in the same manner.

Now I have also noticed that the majority of commercial vehicles are using our highways are from out of state. Therefore, the fuel taxes on diesel fuel will need to remain. But, those of you who own diesels should keep your receipts because you could file for a refund on the excess tax as well.

And one last question: what about tourists? Well, if tourists who visit our fair state pay less on fuel because of lower fuel taxes, would they not have more money to spend on other activities? Would that not benefit the state? And wouldn't the lack of fuel taxes provide an extra inducement for people to visit our state? Just some questions to ponder. This is another way in which our state can be a leader. And just imagine how hilarious it would be to see people from Evanston driving to Coalville to save buy gas?

Don't Blame Oil Companies...

2011-04-30T00:28:00.002-06:00

My friends are organizing a boycott of Exxon/Mobile this coming Sunday. I support the right to protest anyone, including Exxon. But I also know that there are things that are beyond the control of Exxon and others. For example, there were laws enacted in the past to prevent Big Oil from squeezing ma and pa gas stations out of existence. That is why nearly every corner gas station in your town has the same price for gas. It is against the law for someone to sell the gas much cheaper than someone else. It's a strange law because, for example, most Chevron gas stations are in fact not owned by Chevron but are ma and pa stores. They only have the Chevron logo on their pumps.

But let's examine the supply and demand equation in big oil. You have limited and regulated supply, plus you have strong, almost inelastic demand. This is the formula for a cash cow. Like it or not, this is not the fault of the oil companies, it is the fault of...government. Government policies created this and only in repealing them can we bring a solution.

Not just the US government, but government everywhere. Some governments are using their vast supply of oil to buy the favor of the people with cradle to grave benefits from healthcare to education. That is why it has been much easier to depose the president of Egypt while the Saud Royal Family is still very much in power in Saudi Arabia. But they are only able to do this because the oil under the ground is state property and they are part of the insane profit equation.

We have not helped the situation here in the United States. We would rather protect pristine wilderness than resolve the problem by doing what makes sense, and that is taking logical steps to dramatically increase supply and stabilize prices. We could also help the equation by the development of alternatives.

There has only been a minor push toward the use of bio fuel. But one must remember that in the US, it takes a lot of fuel to produce crops. It takes fuel to plant the crops, it takes fuel to irrigate the land, it takes fuel to fertilize the crops and defend them from predatory vermin. It also takes fuel to harvest the crops and refine them. We have ethanol that we can burn in our engines, but it is not profitable and heavily subsidized at this time. It also takes food out of the food supply, thus increasing the price level for food as well. Until yield per acre can be increased significantly, bio fuels will not be a replacement for fossil fuels. Besides, there are much better crops than corn that can be used for bio fuels. For example, the Aston-Martin that was used in the Royal Wedding is in fact powered by ethanol distilled from surplus wine. If we can create booze from just about anything, why not ethanol? Anything we can make booze out of, we can make fuel out of. We do not have to insist on corn.

We could push for electric cars, but would need to replace gasoline with electricity, and right now there is not a big push in the country to increase the supply of electricity. Sure, there are clean technologies, such as wind and solar, but at this time can not even come close to replace our current mixture of coal, gas, hydro- and nuclear generated electricity. If we can figure out how to handle the waste, then nuclear becomes a great option. Right now, however, especially after the disaster in Japan, it still seems too risky. But almost every form of electricity generation has an environmental cost. Wind power poses a danger to birds in flight and solar power will block sunlight from reaching the ground and that will result in unnatural cooling.

The worst thing to do at this time is what we are doing right now, while spending just a little money to research clean alternatives; while doing very little increase supplies of known, reliable forms of energy. We would rather argue than find solutions. (Remember, we don't elect our representative to compromise with their colleagues.) This lack of action is bad and will continue to be a drain to the economy. Energy is an input to all economic activity (and most economic activity in Nevada ;-)). Allowing energy costs to continue to remain high will be a mistake. The money that is spent on energy could be spent on other things, like healthcare and beds for the homeless and midnight basketball leagues and condoms in schools and a bunch of other things that social liberals love to spend other people's money on. I would be for a compromise; even a new tax. 1 cent of every dollar of new US oil going to alternative energy research. Almost anything to make our current situation better.

Who Deserves Credit for the Birther Controversy?

2011-04-27T23:04:00.000-06:00

If Trump wants credit for outing Obama's birth certificate, he can have it. Look at how much it helped the economy, helped people get back to work and helped resolve the mortgage and foreclosure crisis. The terrorists are going to sleep tonight, and I can too because we know for certain that Obama was born in Hawaii. Even thought Obama's mother was a US citizen and it likely didn't matter anyway. I am even much more likely to turn in and watch Celebrity Apprentice this weekend, thanks to Trump! We are all better off knowing that Joe Biden is not going to the President anytime soon!

What to do about high fuel costs.

2011-04-23T13:48:00.001-06:00

Sick of high fuel prices. Here is some advice on sticking it to the oil companies. Generally, it means finding ways to drive less and drive more efficiently.

1. Dump stock in oil companies and resist the temptation to buy.
2. Use alternatives to gasoline where available.
3. Use public transportation when practical.
4. Write letters to congress. Encourage the use of American sources of fossil fuels.
5. Plan the use of your vehicle wisely.
6. Grow a garden to limit trips to the grocery store.
7. Car pool.
8. Purcahse store brand products.
9. Purchase locally grown produce, dairy and meats.
10. Do not use the restraunt drive through...park the car and go inside
11. Rent movies on-line and use streaming.
12. Work from home.
13. Maintain a healthy/active lifestyle.
14. Walk wherever possible.
15. Turn down the lights.
16. Remove excess vehicle weight.
17. Observe the speed limit.
18. Avoid excess idling.
19. Cruise control.
20. Keep the car tuned up.
21. Use the proper motor oil weight.

Nominating the right candidate...it's important.

2011-04-23T08:55:00.000-06:00

In the election of 2004, George W. Bush was vulnerable. He was waging an increasingly unpopular war. The economy was limping. Bush won, but probably not by a comfortable enough margin and he won without carying a single state north nor east of Pennsylvania. Could it be that the democrats nominated the wrong candidate in 2004?

Out of the declared candidates in 2004, there were 5 democrats with the historical precedent to defeat a sitting President. (In our history, only former senators and state governors have ever defeated a sitting president, and only state governors have pulled off the feat since 1888). Of those 5, there were 4 senators and one state governor, former Governor Howard Dean of Vermont. In 2004, there were other democratic governors in office, who had completed at least four years in office, but not many were interested in running for the White House. They inluded Gary Locke of Washington and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, but none of them had the National coverage of Howard Dean, who was the front runner heading into the primaries. But the Dean campaign stumbled out of the gate. The Democrats were left with the campaign of Kerry, who in the end could not stand up to Bush.

In 2004, the right candidate could have defeated Bush, but was no where to be found. Here is my analysis of those who failed to defeat a sitting President and if there was a better candidate for the opposite pary available.

2004--Senator John Kerry of Nebraska lost to President George W. Bush. Who could have defeated Bush? The only former or current state governor who ran for the Democratic nomination was Howard Dean. There were some personality issues that likely cost Dean the nomination and in the end, cost the Democrats the White House.

1996--Senator Bob Dole lost to President Bill Clinton. Who could have defeated Clinton? Long-time Tennesse Governor Lamar Alexander, who had served as the Secratary of Education under George HW Bush had the historical precedence to defeat Bill Clinton. But his campaign never got traction in the early primaries. Possibly because the federal Department of Education is considered as non-essential by many fiscal conservatives. Clinton did not win 50% of the popular vote either time he was elected.

1984--Former Vice President Walter Mondale lost to President Ronald Reagan. Who could have defeated Reagan? No one. In 1984, Reagan's popularity with the public was soaring and there was likely no chance any Democrat could have defeated him. There were no former or current state governors running for the Democratic nod in 1984. Mario Cuomo of New York had a lot of traction before the campaign but decided not to run.

1972--Senator George McGovern lost to President Richard Nixon. Who could have defeated Nixon? If George Wallace, former Alabama Governor, had not run as an independent in 1968, he could have easily captured the Democratic nod and possibly defeated Nixon.

1964--Senator Barry Goldwater lost to President Lyndon Johnson. Who could have defeated Johnson?Governor Nelson Rockerfeller of New York was a front runner early on, but could not fight off rumors that an extra-marital affair led to his divorce from his first wife and the loss of the custody of his children 2 years ealier. This sort of thing seems to common now-a-days that most of us would not consider this a disqualification. But things were different in 1964.

1956--Governor Adlai Stevenson lost to President Dwight Eisenhower. Who could have defeated Eisenhower? Probably no one. Stevenson did not have the historical precendence because he had been defeated by Eisenhower 4 years earlier when he only had 2 years as Governor under his belt. No other governor was interested in the nomination and the Democrats nominated Stevenson a second time.

1948--Governor Thomas E Dewey lost to President Harry Truman. Who could have defeated Truman? Governor Earl Warren of California was also running for the Republican nod in 1948. Warren became the Vice Presidential running mate to Dewey. Warren won the popular vote in the primaries, but lost in convention. The majority of convention delegates in 1948 were unpledged in those days as the majority of states did not hold primaries. In my analysis, this election, like 1988, is where the losing ticket was upside down. Had the VP nominee become the presidential nominee (In 1988 Bentsen/Dukakis would have been more successful than Dukakis/Bentsen) the election would have changed. In 1948, Dewey was running for the White House at the top of the ticket for the second time. The first time, he had only two years in office as Governor of New York. Dewey had two historical strikes against him. 2nd-time nominees rarely win and he did not have enough experience as governor the first time. Warren would eventually become the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. His court was monumental in the some civil rights decisions and criminal rights. Perhaps in the end in 1948, Dewey's popularity led to a malaise in the electorate that kept a lot of people home on election day, especially in Ohio, California and Illinois where the election turned. Again, California was Warren's home state.

1944--Governor Dewey lost to President Franklin Roosevelt. Who could have defeated Roosevelt? Probably no one. Americans would not have considered Changing the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces at this point in World War II. However, the eventual VP nominee, Governor John W. Bricker of Ohio was probably a better choice in spite of Dewey's popularity.

1940--Lawyer/Businessman Wendell Wilkie lost to President Franklin Roosevelt. Who could have defeated Roosevelt? probably no one. There were no state governors running for the GOP nomination in 1940. The other major candidates were opposed to US involvement in World War II and the GOP convention was held just days after France fell to the Nazis. There were not enough electorial votes in close states to turn the election.

Donald Trump, Candidate...

2011-04-16T12:13:00.010-06:00

Donald Trump is getting some serious poll number as a potential Republican nominee. I have to say in response, really?

If you have followed this blog, you know that I have pointed out the historical futility of the very wealthy running for President. Certainly, politics is not a poor-man's game. It takes some degree of personal wealth to run for political office. Usually, a candidate leaves his or her regular job for a period of time to focus on a campaign. Those that lack the personal wealth need to have some degree of financial backing from supporters to be successful. George W. Bush, for example, was wealthy enough to be a part owner of a major league baseball team. It seems that our most recent presidents had some degree of wealth or like Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama were well backed, life-long public servants.

But the wealthy that have eventually become our Cheif Executive, also worked their way through other minor offices before becoming the President. Those who have tried to short-cut their way to the White House have traditionally failed. Three names comes to mind when speaking of those who tried short cuts. They are H Ross Perot, Wendell Wilkie and William Randolf Hearst.

Perot is the IT Billionaire who was famous for his charts showing the need for governmental restraint in the 1992 election. He wooed fiscal conservatives away from George W. Bush and gave the 1992 election to Bill Clinton. But he lost momentum in the campaign after ending it and then beginning it again. Then he chose languishing Admiral Stockdale as a running mate. He could not get enough momentum to overcome Clinton.

With World War II raging in Europe in 1940, and the United States yet to be involved, the Republican Party was split between isolationists and interventionists. They were ripe for a dark horse candidate to rise up and take the nomination. Wilkie, who never before held office nor a high military rank, beat out Senator Robert Taft from Ohio (Son of former President and Supreme Court Justice William Howard Taft) for the nomination. Wilkie campaigned to do everything to help the embattled British and Russian allies short of formal declaration of War, where Taft was concerned that War could lead America further down the road to Socialism. Taft and the other major candidates were isolationists. Just days before the GOP convention, France fell to the Nazi's, and the tide turned toward Wilkie. But his campaign lacked a consistent message and Roosevelt easily won. Wilkie was never able to unite the party. After the election, Wilkie turned to back Roosevelt programs and became a key member of his team.

I have been able to find no other evidence of a very rich individual making an impact on the presidential race as a candidate. Others may have tried, but realized that their money would speak louder than their candidacy. The same could be the case for Trump. Some of the wealthy will have tried other offices before running for president.

Hearst tried for, but never won the nomination of his party and when news of an extra-marital affair came to light, he retired from politics.

It is time for Republicans who are smart to fight the Trump candidacy and unite behind someone else. There are reasons why a Trump candidacy is bad.

1. Party unity. With all of his money and business sense he needs to be taken serious, but let down gradually. If Trump decides to run as a third party candidate, we may as well swear in Obama for another 4 years. Both GOP leaders and Trump know this well, and this plays to Trump's advantage. Donald Trump is an ego, perhaps the biggest ego in the world and has the money to support it. He knows his wealth holds power over the party. Someone that rich has no reason to be loyal to the party or the platform. And therefore, he will not be able to unite the GOP behind his candidacy. The people that he needs to support his campaign may say all the right things publicly, but will likely not unite behind him.

2. Political experience. There is a big difference between running a business enterprise and running the country. How can Trump unite Congress and get them to be in step with him when he does not have the power to fire them? The President of the United States does not call all of the shots, especially in powers that the Constitution gives specifically to the Congress, like the power of the budget. In business, the executive branch is over the legislative branch. In Government, these branches are (in theory) equal. This will be an adjustment that Trump may not be able to make.

3. Message. In business, it is much easier to change your message and then get the masses to follow along. It is not so easy to do in politics. One will be labeled as a turncoat or a flip-flop, even when evidence supports making a change in policy. The message needs to be consistent, even on social issues. How does Trump feel about Global Warming, Abortion, Gay Rights, etc? Will he change his mind after winning the nomination, like Wilkie did? Will he change his mind, change the sails in one direction one day, and then return to the old course the next?

4. How the masses react? In business, it is your loyal customer that dictate how the business is run. It is they, the loyal customers that you, as a businessman can't afford to lose. Word of mouth is a powerful advertising message in business. The good words of your loyal customers are worth more than any advertising campaign. In politics, it is those who do not support you that you need to woo. It is those who do not normally vote for your party or your message that have the power to elect you. Trump would have to find a way to bring loyal conservative Republicans, Independents, some Democrats and those who normally do not vote at all out to vote for him. Generally, word of mouth advertising does not work in politics as people do not like to discuss politics among friends.

5. Experience. In our history, only Wendell Wilkie received the nomination of his party after never serving as a Vice President, Governor, Senator, Member of the House of Representatives, Cabinet Secretary, Supreme Court Justice, Criminal Judge or Military Officer. H Ross Perot was the only serious 3rd-party candidate to gain a significant percentage of the vote who also never held a major office. With all of the anti-career politician talk, certainly Americans prefer someone with a little experience as a president. Could Trump run as governor or mayor of New York before running for President? How about a term in the Senate? He certainly would not take being VP very well.

6. Perception. Of course, Trump will become a media darling. His candidacy makes it look as if the Republicans are desperate and willing to nominate just about anyone to knock Obama out of the White House. Republicans should realize that the Trump candidacy is more than another media stunt. He is serious. And primary voters should understand how the Trump candidacy will play out when he is up against Obama in November of 2012.

Trump may be able to learn a lot by looking over the failed campaigns of Wilkie and Perot and learning from them. If he does, his campaign may be successful. My gut feeling is that this will not happen. Trump's money would be better served if he supported a candidate who has a better profile for President, and aligned closely with the Trump philosophy...whatever that is.

However, like Wilkie, the Trump candidacy could be bad for the GOP in the long run. The Wilkie candidacy left the Republican party without course and direction and it would be another 12 years before the nation would elect another Republican to the White House.

If Trump were to ask my advice, I would advise him that if he really wants to be the President to run for Governor of New York state or Mayor of New York City first and to serve at least one complete term. This will show the American people that he is serious about politics and can lead a government. This will also help him flesh out his political philosophy and develop a consistent message. This, after all, is the way that others have done it.

Recent presidents that had some degree of wealth or fame outside of public service before entering politics...
George W. Bush--Part owner of the Texas Rangers Baseball Club. Political family. Former Texas Governor.
Ronald Reagan--Actor. Former California Governor.
Jimmy Carter--Successful (considered wealthy) businessman and farmer. Former Georgia Governor.
John F. Kennedy--Family wealth. Former Congressman and Senator from Massachusetts.
Harry Truman--Successful businessman in Kansas City before he ran for the US Senate.

Life-long public servants of recent presidents.
Barrack Obama
Bill Clinton
Gerald Ford
Richard Nixon
Lyndon Johnson
Dwight Eisenhower

A government shutdown...yes, you voted for this...

2011-04-08T16:06:00.001-06:00

Not everyone voted for this, actually, and not even the majority of people who voted for Republicans last fall voted for this, but two groups of people did. The first group of people that votes for this were the Tea Party folks. It is only the Tea Party that would celebrate the government shut down and claim that this is a victory. There are many that would consider a compromise a mistake that would cost Tea Party candidates in the next election. If you voted for a Tea Party candidate in your GOP primary, congratulations, you won. You should hail the shutdown as a victory.

If you don't believe me, let me ask if this sounds familiar?

"I'm not going along just to get along!"

I think that says it all.

Now those of you who did not vote also share some of the blame and credit for this shutdown. Especially here in Utah. You who think that you do not matter. That can not be further from the truth. There is a big difference in winning by 20% of the vote and winning by 2% of the vote. And let's say you support a 3rd party candidate. Then understand that there is a big difference in winning with 60% of the vote and winning with 48% of the vote. Your vote for the loser sends a bigger message than your non-vote.

Because 67% of the voting-eligible public does not vote and 16% of the people support the Tea Party I figure that the government shutdown passed with 83% of the vote. That, my friends, is a landslide.

Comments about Overstock.com and Sales Tax

2011-04-04T10:48:00.004-06:00

Overstock.com, a place on the Internet where I have found some excellent electronics deals, has decided to cut it's advertising ties with states that charge sales tax with Internet sales. It calls the practice of charging sales tax on internet ads in those states unconstitutional. If you live in those states, you can still use Overstock.com to purchase goods, but there will not longer be advertising in those areas.

I know that sales companies make such decisions all of the time. It is one thing for a company to support and endorse political candidates. It is another when a company, like Overstock, makes a political statement like this. It rarely happens.

Generally, the reason why a company does not become so overtly political is because they do not want to risk offending customers. For example. When working on a Master's degree, I focused on the grocery store industry. Harmon's, an independent Utah chain with about a dozen stores in the state does not get involved in politics at all. Croger, the parent company of Smith's, is highly involved in the Democratic party. But in Utah, where the Democratic party is weak, their involvement is minimal.

It is risky for a company to get involved in politics at this level. It costs the firm potential customers, even those that agree with the company in principal. Which is what Overstock is doing. It is intentionally reducing it's customer base, costing itself revenue and employee jobs, to make a point. Many of the customers affected by the decision agree with the company and think that paying this type of sales tax is somehow wrong. The employees that will lose their jobs as a result probably also agree with Overstock.

This is not the correct way to make a point. Customers will find other online discount retailers. So will suppliers. So will investors. So will employees. The only ones that will be hurt by the decision is Overstock.com itself, their investors, their suppliers and their employees. As a customer who believes with Overstock in principle, I believe that Overstock.com should rethink the methods they use to make a point.

HB477 The Alternative.

2011-03-23T22:19:00.000-06:00

I offered to help the Legislature in crafting an alternative to HB477...chances are that I am not the only person who has done so. Odds are, that there are Legislators that would not like what I have to say, anyhow. Any time that Chris Buttars and Ethan Millard agree on something, people should listen.

The Grama (Government Records and materials act) policy needs to be crated with the understanding that there should be no expectation of privacy when information is transferred on the public internet...period. You can craft any law that you want to, but it will have no effect. Somewhere, someone is going to squeal and embarrassing information will be made public. Think twice before you hit send. What can the Legislature do?

1. Identify the risks to the state for communicating over the Web.

2. Purchase and deploy equipment and software that will help mitigate the risks.

3. Develop a standard of expectation that even legislators are expected to abide by. There should also be realistic and enforceable punishments for those who violate this policy...from the Governor down to every elected and appointed city and town official in the state.

Who should develop this policy? Someone from the Governor's office, the state Attorney General, the state Director of Information Systems, the state Director of Personnel, someone from the press people of both parties respect like Carole Mikita, a member of the house and senate committee's responsible for Information Management in the state from each party, a commissioner from 4-6 counties in the state, a city/town council member from 4-6 cities/towns in the state and a recorder/scribe. It may even include a faculty member from one of our universities as a technical adviser. Having a policy ready for next Winter's legislative session will be plenty of time.

Once a policy, or expectation is developed, then electronic media forms transferred via electronic means and inside a virtual private network can be safely enveloped into Grama.

HB 477 Needs to Go

2011-03-21T11:32:00.001-06:00

It is scary when KSL's Ethan Millard and I are on the same side of an issue. Either I am wrong or we are both right. In this case, I am standing firm. HB477 is a bad idea and there needs to be some serious consequences for those who have passed it, even those who have changed their mind. They do not belong in government. Let me again quote from the Utah GOP platform:

ETHICS AND STANDARDS
We demand honesty, integrity, morality, and accountability of our public officials. We will work to
expose and stop corruption.

HB477 is against the Utah GOP platform...the same platform that those who are elected to public office agree to uphold. It is for secrecy. Period. Those who voted for this bill, including Governor Herbert who signed it, need to resign from office and let those who agree to uphold the platform serve in those offices. The only answer is a complete repeal of the bill.

Now the Governor and the House have agreed to special session to consider the repeal of the bill. Both houses of the State Legislature need to vote for this repeal, and if the open records law needs a tweak, then take your time over the next year to work out all of the problems. Perhaps the best policy is an acceptable use policy for all state officials including elected officials. As an Information Systems professional, this is my best advice. In fact, I am willing to volunteer my services, if necessary. Please contact me and I will help. I can provide my resume and references. I will do this free of charge as a public service. But first, let me say that there needs to be an understanding that any communication on a public system is meant for the public, while understanding that legislators need to have private communication with their families.

For your enrichment, here is a list of sponsors for this legislation. Let the letter writing begin. Please contact your state senator or state representative and let them hear you.

One Big Problem With Utah's Immigration Law

2011-03-19T10:02:00.000-06:00

Let's say that the "Utah" plan passes constitutional muster in the courts...and is adopted by several other states the problem is how to deal with discovered identity theft issues. The Utah bill does not address this, and many feel that identity thieves may get a pass and avoid jail time as a result of this new guest worker program.

But let's examine the following scenario. Joe came into the US undocumented. Works a minimum wage job. Decided that he does not wish to fear deportation any long. Applies for the guest work program and comes up with the 2500 to pay the fine for crossing our borders illegally. During the criminal background check, it is discovered that Joe is actually using the Social Security Number of a deceased individual. He never used this number to apply for credit. Never purchased a home or a car with it. Just used the number to work around the system. How will a situation like this be handled.

How will it look when Joe is arrested and put in jail for identity theft when he was just trying to beat the system and never ruined anyone's good name? The easy answer is to put Joe in jail anyway...he did the crime and he should do the time as well. Does Joe then get deported when his jail sentence is over?

One can not simply give Joe a pass either. That will not go over well should the public find out.

Dealing with the identity theft that goes along with illegal immigration is the pit fall of the Utah plan, and something that probably can not be overlooked. It would be better to do all that we can to stem the problem before the guest worker program goes into effect. It will be something that Congress will need to address at the Federal Level and something that the individual states will need to address as well. This is something that State and Federal officials will need to work together on to resolve.

But one thing is possible. Credit will reports will confirm whether or not Joe is telling the truth...that the card was only used for identification purposes and was never used to obtain credit. It is also likely that Joe did not get his fraudulent social security number by himself. If he can prove that he did not use his stolen identification to gain credit--that he did no harm to the stolen good name and he can help bring down the ring that gave him is identification, maybe a slap on the wrist is appropriate. Otherwise, it would be best to take care of all of the identity theft issues before the guest worker program goes into effect.

Congressional Redistricting...What the Legislature Will Choose From

2011-03-17T00:44:00.001-06:00

Four plans came out of committee on redistricting Utah. None of them are similar to my plan from back in December where my bright idea was to put Davis and Weber Counties into separate districts to help protect Hill Air Force Base.

None of the plans keep Salt Lake County whole. All of the plans build the new districts around the current delegation. Congressman Bishop lives in Brigham City, so every plan has the Box Elder County in the First District. Congressman Matheson lives in Salt Lake City. Northeast Salt Lake County is always in the Second district. Congressman Chaffetz lives in Alpine. The Third District always includes northeast Utah County. All of them seem to put Carl Wimmer, the Tea Party favorite, in the 4th district.

Source: Provo Daily Herald and the Utah Legislature.

My comments on each plan...

Plan A

Out of the four plans, this is my favorite because it appears to balance the population between the four districts...even though that is not a constitutional requirement. It splits the national parks between the 2nd and 3rd districts. The new district is Southern Salt Lake County. The First District will continue to be a strong Republican district. The Third District has the strong Democratic base in Summit, Grand and Carbon counties against Utah County...meaning that if the GOP messes up there, it would be possible for a Democrat to win. Jim Matheson will likely be able to keep his job representing the second district, but could be replaced by a Republican when he leaves office. The new 4th district would also be a strong GOP district. All four districts would have growth areas. What I like about it is that there is districts, mostly, are culturally matched.

Plan G

This is my least favorite because it not only splits Salt Lake County into three, but splits the populated part of Utah County from the new growth part of the county. It guarantees a Democrat in the Second District and a Republican in the other three districts. It is population balanced, but not growth balanced. There are very little new growth areas in the established part of Salt Lake County, the part that would be the second district. It emphasizes the differences between the parties in Utah. This is what is called the donut plan. The second and third district are the donut hole.

Plan I

It is workable, but I really don't like the idea of separating Rich County from Cache County nor do I like the idea of separating Morgan County from Weber County. This separates the rural from suburban in Northern Utah in a bad way. This plan also separates Park City...mostly Democratic from the rest of Summit County. Although the Democratic Stronghold of Northern Salt Lake County remains in tact. But on the other hand, there are enough Democrats in Park City, Carbon and Grand Counties to keep the Republicans in Utah County in check.

Plan J

This plan is the second best plan, in my opinion. It is better than plan I because it keeps Rich County with Cache County and does not divide any county other than Salt Lake County. It almost guarantees a Democrat will represent the Second District, but a hard working moderate Republican could win. Like some of the other plans, it help keep a Utah County congressman honest by putting some Democratic-leaning counties in the district. I would rather see Morgan and Weber Counties together. But otherwise, this plan looks almost natural. You could probably fix this by taking Morgan County out of the Second District and giving them northern Summit County, giving the 4th District Garfield and Kane Counties and giving the 2nd District West Davis County (Clearfield, Syracuse, Clinton and West Point). But giving the 2nd District Morgan County makes for a nicer map.

The plan the Tea Party did not get.

If the GOP in Utah really wanted to screw the Democrats out of seat, the districts would have been divided like this:

This is the plan that would have ensured that all four Utah Congressional districts would be solid Republican.

This plan would have protected the one Democratic Seat in Utah...

The main difference between this plan and the plan I had in mind is that Salt Lake County is split north and south. My plan was to split Salt Lake County East and West. Salt Lake County becomes more Democratic as you move to the north.

Which plan do you like best? Please leave a comment.

Utah's New Immigration Law

2011-03-16T01:01:00.009-06:00

I've heard that a lot of people are upset about the Utah Immigration Law and what they believe is in it. Also, a lot of people are upset that the Chambers of Commerce in the state and the LDS Church have supported it. Even the ultra-conservative Sutherland Group is for this series of laws. Hopefully, I can help clear up some misconceptions.

What is is:

1. A Guest Worker Program that allows those who are already here a chance to apply for permits if they pay a 2500 fine and 1000 if they overstay their visa. It also will include a criminal background check for those wishing to apply.
2. Worker Exchange Program with the Mexican State of Nuevo Leon.
3. Requirement that employers verify the legal status of employees.
4. Allows employers and citizens to sponsor an immigrant laborers.

What is is not:

1. Amnesty. It simply states law enforcement agencies in the State of Utah will not enforce Federal immigration law. It is no worse that the status quo. It keeps the state out of it. This is something that Police Chief Burbank of Salt Lake City and other law enforcement agencies asked for. However, Governor Hebert will file a grievance with the Feds asking for stronger enforcement of the law. Amnesty is a complete pardon for a crime. Paying 2500 is not amnesty. At minimum wage, that is about 8 and 1/2 weeks of labor. You would not consider working for 8 and 1/2 weeks for any misdemeanor fine amnesty. If you are the kind of person that believes anything short of deportation is amnesty, there will never be an executable law that you will like.
2. A pass for identity theft. No where does the new law excuse identity theft nor does it excuse any other crime. Those who fake their identities or steal the identity of another will still be punished according to the law. This is perhaps the biggest misconception that I heard on KNRS radio this afternoon. Shame on Rod Arquette for not clarifying this with his listeners and callers.
3. An attempt at an Arizona-style immigration law.
4. A path to US Citizenship. That has already been defined by the Constitution and by Federal Law. The State of Utah itself has no authority to grant citizenship.

Will it work? It is doubtful that anything other than the employment verification bill will pass constitutional muster, but I am no constitutional expert. It seems, however, that the Utah Department of Public Safety does not have the authority to issue a visa, but I could be wrong about that.

Rather than condemned, the state leaders should be commended for passing this series of laws.

Further Commentary...
As a state GOP delegate (former delegate, I had to surrender my position when I moved), I voted against the immigration provision for three reasons.

1. The language is unclear. According to the language of the platform plank, the party is opposed to a guest worker program IF that program provides a pathway to citizenship. This is clearly not the intent of that plank. The sponsors were completely opposed to a guest worker program...period.
2. Amnesty is one of those words that sparks an emotional response, but is not clear in it's meaning. To some people, some punishment, even when light, is not amnesty. And yes, those people are Republicans. To others, anything short of deportation is amnesty. Those people are also Republicans. People in the Utah GOP need to realize that this is a wedge issue that could cost our state dearly.
3. A punitive approach seems racist. We are not racist in the GOP. Therefore, the plank needs to be reworded.

The current plank:

America is a stronger and better nation because of the hard work and entrepreneurial spirit of legal immigrants, and the Republican Party honors them. We believe that control of our borders is an urgent national security interest and our national sovereignty depends on those secure borders.

We oppose illegal immigration and all forms of amnesty, or legal status, for illegal immigrants. We support suspending automatic U.S. citizenship to children born to illegal immigrant parents. We oppose granting government benefits to those illegally present in the US. We oppose any temporary or "guest" worker program that would offer an automatic path to citizenship. We believe that current laws against employing illegal immigrants should be vigorously enforced, particularly to stem the now too common crime of identity theft in obtaining employment.

How it should read:

America is a stronger and better nation because of the hard work and entrepreneurial spirit of legal immigrants, and the Republican Party honors them. We believe that control of our borders is an urgent national security interest and our national sovereignty depends on those secure borders.

We believe that those who cross international borders illegally into our country or those who over-stay a visa, no matter their nation of origin, are not entitled the same rights and privileges granted to natural-born or naturalized citizens nor the same privileges and rights granted to legal immigrants and those with a current visa. We strongly encourage vigorous enforcement current immigration and identity law. We do not support laws that provide a pathway to citizenship for any undocumented immigrant without a just remedy. We encourage businesses to conduct background checks on prospective employees and refer any suspected violations to the proper authorities.
(This is no amnesty without saying the word amnesty.)

We do not support birthright citizenship for the children of those who are not in the United States legally and call for Federal Government to fix this oversight in law, even if the Constitution of the United States needs to be amended. We do not support enforcement of immigration law of the type that would break families apart and allow children to remain in our country while their parents are deported.

We support programs that will allow foreigners to work or gain an education in our nation legally, provided they have obtained gainful employment or admittance to an accredited school; but do not support the idea that such programs should provide an automatic path to citizenship. We strongly encourage authorities to ensure that no guest worker or student overstays a work or education visa.

(The following could be a new plank.)
We do not support the selective enforcement of immigration law or any law when the sole basis for suspicion is race, religion, nation of origin, gender, age or sexual orientation. We believe that justice should be blind in such matters.

Utah State Senate approves bill to restore a full sales tax on food.

2011-02-28T17:33:00.006-07:00

The six readers that follow this blog know that we are fairly consistent in our opposition to this. The State Senate has passed the bill. The action is still pending in the House. For those in our Utah State Legislature who do not get it...let me spell this out in plain and simple language.

-A restored tax IS a tax increase!

Those of you in the legislature who voted in favor of this bill have violated your "No Tax Increase" pledge.

Please sign this petition asking Governor Herbert to veto this bill. Please tell all of your friends to sign the petition as well.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/utahfoodtaxrestoration/Publish Post

Here is the list of members of the Utah State Senate who violated their "No Tax Increase" pledge and voted for this bill:

Howard Stevenson
Stuart Adams

Kudos to those who stood pat:

Michael Waddops

Lists will be updated.

Because the action is still pending in the house, we urge you to contact your state representative asking him or her not to support this bill. Please follow this link to do so.

Pulse on Obama's Reelection, how is it going?

2011-02-26T10:11:00.001-07:00

I found six point that would cost Obama's chances at reelection in 2012. Here is how he is doing as of February 2011.

How is Obama doing?

1. He must avoid a serious primary challenge. So far, no one serious from the Democratic party has risen to challenge Obama. This would need to be a state governor, senator or cabinet secretary. So far, Hillary Clinton seems to be serious about her current job. Obama grade so far A-

2. He must unite his party. The aggressive republicans in the House and in the various state houses are giving the Democrats something to unite about. The Dems do a better job at uniting when the opposition is strong than the Republicans do. Obama grade so far A.

3. He must not let the campaign get too personal. Stuff like this will not help the President. Obama grade so far D+

4. The economy needs to improve and Americans need to return to work. U3, the traditional employment number is at 9.7 percent in March. The U6 rate, which includes those who are marginally looking for work and those who have taken part-time jobs to help pay the bills is at 16.9 percent for the same period. It does not count those who have completely given up. This is still above where it used to be. Obama grade so far D+.

5. Perceived popularity of his policies. You can be the judge of that right now. Obama grade so far C. I improved his grade slightly with the capture of bin Laden, but that will be a memory next November. If this had been the October surprise of 2012, it would be much better. B-

6. Try to keep a strong left-leaning third-party challenger out of the race. Bloomberg is leaning toward getting into the race as an independent. This will not be good for the President. Obama grade so far D+

Obama so far: C+

How are the Republicans doing?

1. Picking a strong candidate. Michelle Bachmann and Ron Paul, who won the straw poll at CPAC, have popular policies but there is no historical precedent for their candidacy. History is against them. Trump was also strong until his tirade of F bombs and until Seth Meyers put him into place. Right now, Romney holds a slight lead over Huckabee. Both would be strong nominees for the GOP. Neither is the clear front-runner. GOP grade B.

2. Non-economy strategies? How about a bill requiring insurance companies cover physicals, smoking cessation, physician supervised exercise plans, early cancer screenings and other methods to lower heath care costs? Right now, the GOP alternatives to Obama policies really do lack creativity. GOP grade C-.

3. Avoiding wedge issues like immigration and gay rights? You be the judge on that one. Right now, the GOP is stepping into it with both feet. GOP grade D-.

4. Pushing the President on unpopular items? GOP grade B+.

5. Tone? Some one needs to silence Governor Palin or at least she needs to learn that she does not need to voice her opinion on every issue. Trump silenced Palin, Newt and Bachmann for a while...but not for long. B-.

GOP so far: C+

As of May, 2011, there is a slight edge to Obama. Once the GOP decides on a candidate and a message, things get a lot tougher for the President.