tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-275491672024-03-07T02:01:04.537-06:00Magic Valley MormonNo People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States.
-- George WashingtonCameronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06016275707476655364noreply@blogger.comBlogger506125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27549167.post-18483858009489839442011-01-12T07:40:00.001-07:002011-01-12T07:44:56.453-07:00Tax Money Going to Fund Not Radio, But NPR ExecutivesFrom <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook/110111_tuesday_morning_quarterback&sportCat=nfl">Greg Easterbrook</a>:<blockquote>Defenders of NPR have noted the Washington main organization -- local stations are the jewels of the public radio crown -- receives only $2.4 million annually in federal grants. That's a small amount as these things go, so why doesn't NPR cover that sum with private donations and voluntarily end the taxpayer-funding contretemps?<br /><br />Now it turns out the NPR president was paid $562,000 last year, and the year before that, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/07/AR2011010706063.html">NPR paid $2.4 million to its top two executives</a>. So much of the federal tax money, derived by borrowing and handing the bill to our children, isn't funding newscasts or opera -- it's going into the pockets of NPR executives. Americans whose median income is about $50,000 are being taxed so that executives can live in luxury. This was offensive when AIG was the beneficiary, and it's offensive with NPR the beneficiary.</blockquote>Cameronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06016275707476655364noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27549167.post-24101629486286765722010-11-11T13:31:00.003-07:002010-11-11T17:39:59.569-07:00Don't Blame the Caucus For Non VotersAccording to the Census Bureau, there are 22,914 people in Eagle Mountain. Of those, 12,053 are adults. Of those adults, 8,179 are registered to vote, which makes for a slightly respectible 67.9%. However, in the recent election only 2,991 of registered Eagle Mountain residents actually voted. That breaks out to a 36.6% registerd voter turnout, but in reality only 24.8% of adults in Eagle Mountain bothered to vote. Which is pretty average for Utah, and for Utah County.<br /><br />Utah's generally paltry voter turnout is a cause for concern. Many point to our caucus system for the low numbers. But I don't buy it. What's being missed is that there are non-caucus related issues on the ballot. Issues which directly affect every person living in a community. <br /><br />As I wrote about <a href="http://magicvalleymormon.blogspot.com/2010/10/eagle-mountain-aquatic-center-bond.html">earlier</a>, Eagle Mountain voted on a bond to build an aquatic center. It was a hotly contested issue which caused turnout to town hall meetings and city council meetings over the last at least two years. It directly affects everyone living in the city limits, and hits the pocket book of every single property owner. It is completely outside of the caucus system, and is direct democracy in action. If the caucus haters are correct, it would bring voters to the polling location in droves. <br /><br />Not only did the issue not bring out more voters, <em><strong>three hundred fewer</strong></em> people voted in the bond election than voted for the other caucus tainted offices.Cameronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06016275707476655364noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27549167.post-35680368132643698872010-10-28T13:38:00.001-06:002010-10-28T13:39:43.690-06:00Alpine School Board ElectionsA few members of the <a href="http://www.alpine.k12.ut.us/asd/board/">Alpine School Board</a> are up for reelection, including my representative, Donna Barnes. I will not be voting for Mrs. Barnes, and am deeply disappointed in the entire board. I feel they have grown to epitomize the "we know better than you, now sit down" attitude elected officials often adopt.<br /><br />One experience I have had with them highlights this point. Recently a new elementary school was built in Eagle Mountain a little over a mile from my home. Prior to its construction my children attended a school which is literally across the street from our neighborhood. The kids walked to school together every day in big groups. Many parents volunteered in large part because it was so close. So when the new lines were drawn up and my neighborhood was being sent to the school over a mile away many of us protested. Parents attended meetings for months, came up with a viable alternative and presented our plan to the Board and its committee.<br /><br />Eventually it came down to a final presentation at a Board meeting. Our group came in large numbers and had an impressive presentation complete with statistics and even traffic studies. It was one of the most impressive displays of grassroots involvement I've ever seen. Perhaps most impressive was that the presentation was based on sound argumentation and was devoid of needless anger or emotion. Which is an important point because of what happened next. Our position was far too commonsensical to be adopted, and we were voted down almost unanimously. One member even abstained from voting because it was just too hard of a decision.<br /><br />That night I went home and penned an email which I sent to every member of the Board. Again, it was not a "Crazy Parent Being Senselessly Angry" email. Quite the contrary. But I did express my frustration at feeling like the decision was made months previous and all the work my neighbors had done to lobby their representatives on the School Board was pointless, that all of the information that had been gathered had been too easily dismissed. I received an email response from the Board president, who I assume was speaking for the Board as a whole, since it was the only response I got. And it was akin to being a kid who's parent tells them "because I said so, now go away." It in no way addressed anything from the presentation or from my email. I wanted some insight as to the decision making process, as nothing that was said at the Board meeting did so. Instead, I was told that if I was less emotional I would agree with the Board, that the decision makers are all professionals who have done this many times and if I weren't so blinded by emotion I would see it their way.<br /><br />In effect, after a presentation full of data and checkable facts, I requested more detail as to what specifically overrode those arguments. And I was told I was much too emotional for that. Huh? Now I feel like the Board gave us a collective pat on the head and sent us on our way. What's ironic is that in their fear (I assume that's the explanation for their behavior) of dealing with angry parents, they have created angry parents.<br /><br />This is not how elected officials should behave. Therefore, they should no longer be elected officials.Cameronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06016275707476655364noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27549167.post-41965876081787733672010-10-26T12:54:00.004-06:002010-10-26T13:45:04.626-06:00Eagle Mountain Aquatic Center BondNext week Eagle Mountain City will have a <a href="http://emcity.org/vertical/Sites/%7B1E82B5A1-7214-4119-8B22-41B2DC9546EB%7D/uploads/%7BBABC5D1B-4CE9-4302-90C6-B409E9576C14%7D.PDF">$7 million bond</a> on the ballot to build an aquatic center. The center will have a lap pool, a lazy river, concessions, party room and more. It will cost a $200k home an additional $70 a year in property tax. Commercial property of the same value will pay an additional $125.<br /><br />The center has been a few years in the making, and has actually been pared down from a larger multipurpose recreation facility. Proponents argue that because we have so many children, our city needs a rec center like this one. They say it will attract business to the community as these unnamed business leaders won't take us seriously unless we have additional amenities to offer. What they don't explain is how higher business taxes will be enticing as well.<br /><br />I am not in favor of this bond for a few reasons. One is the previously mentioned increase of business taxes. Another is the increase is personal taxes. Particularly at a time when housing values are falling yet our property tax bills are not. I will be voting no if for no other reason than that watching my neighbors struggle with job losses, decreasing pay and hours, and some even losing their homes trumps my desire for a cool lazy river to take the kids to in the summertime.<br /><br />But another reason has lately reinforced my opinion that this bond is a bad idea. Eagle Mounatin is in the Alpine School district. Alpine passed a $300 million bond in 2006 which built and remodeled schools all over the district, including $65 million for a new high school and $32 million for a middle school, both of which Eagle Mountain students now attend. The $300 million has been spent, and the district is planning on putting another bond on the ballot next year. Included in the district's future spending plans are more schools in Eagle Mountain, specifically our own High School and Middle School. So I ask, when our city has $90 million worth of new schools to build (and this doesn't count additional elementary schools), is it wise to be throwing money at an outdoor pool? For me, this was the final nail in the coffin for the aquatic center. How on earth can anyone rationalize spending millions of dollars on a lazy river and lap pools when we have literally a hundred million dollars to spend in the next 18 months? I for one cannot.Cameronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06016275707476655364noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27549167.post-30184777155176475532010-07-31T09:07:00.002-06:002010-07-31T09:11:19.826-06:00Pure Genius in PrintWitty, timely and humorous. This writer has it all:<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700051712/Take-cue-from-Hollywood.html">http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700051712/Take-cue-from-Hollywood.html</a>Cameronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06016275707476655364noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27549167.post-53342339644932526832010-07-11T15:36:00.003-06:002010-07-11T16:22:32.291-06:00Congress Set To Make History Again, And Again In A Bad WayLast year President Obama tried to push through his brand of health care reform before Congress recessed in August. The rush backfired and proved to be the straw that broke the camel's back for an already angry citizenry. Americans <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111704575355403205238916.html">turned out in droves</a> to congressional town hall meetings that August to express their displeasure. As Peggy Noonan <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111704575355403205238916.html">writes</a> in the Wall Street Journal, members of Congress were caught flat footed by the response and were revealed for the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYfGCMORVoY">unprincipled, elitist and uninformed blow-hards</a> they have always been. <br /><br />But perhaps more amazing is the fact that they passed their reforms anyway. It took them a while, and it looked dead on more than one occasion, even costing them "Teddy Kennedy's Senate Seat". But they did it. And they did it despite almost <a href="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/03/22/rel5a.pdf">60% of the country opposed to it.</a><br /><br />As elected representatives, voting against what your constituency clearly wants is not the best strategy for reelection. And now its time to pay the piper. Democrats are likely to lose a significant number of seats this fall, perhaps even <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700047356/Obama-spokesman-says-Democrats-could-lose-House.html">losing control of the House.</a><br /><br />And what is the Democratic response to clear voter disapproval of their policies?<br /><br />Ram through as much of their crap policies as they possibly can <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704293604575343262629361470.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read">before they're forced out.</a><blockquote>there have been signs in recent weeks that party leaders are planning an ambitious, lame-duck session to muscle through bills in December they don't want to defend before November. Retiring or defeated members of Congress would then be able to vote for sweeping legislation without any fear of voter retaliation. "I've got lots of things I want to do" in a lame duck, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D., W. Va.) told reporters in mid June.</blockquote>This is truly despicable. And blatantly so. They started recess early this year because they don't want to face their constituents with more bad laws just before the election. But they clearly plan to pass every bad law in their play book when actually facing the voters isn't possible. What a horrible, political, tyrannical, disgusting thing to do.Cameronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06016275707476655364noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27549167.post-44979173864745134472010-06-28T18:22:00.004-06:002010-06-30T21:25:33.076-06:00Of Hitler & HubrisOver the years I've heard an argument stated over and over again that's meant to silence debate. The argument is that Nazis were conservatives - that they are examples of the far right. I've always dismissed this argument for the grenade lobbing it is, but the last few months I've been reading a history book called "For the Survival of Democracy" by Alonzo Hamby. Written in 2004, the book looks at the leaders who were swept aside and those that replaced them in the aftermath of the worldwide economic collapse of the early 1930s. Hamby discusses the leadership in Germany, Great Britain and the United States and the social context that each leadership group was working in. <br /><br />As he writes of the Nazi party's rise, Hamby has this to say about their first real party platform:<blockquote>The contest would be primarily a test of Nazi staying power. The party presented for the first time a comprehensive economic recovery program. It called for extensive state control of the economy, national self-sufficiency (autarky), the abandonment of the gold standard, new means of credit based upon the productive power of the nation, the nationalization of the banking system, and the development of a home market in which German agriculture and industry, protected from foreign competition, would produce goods to be consumed by workers paid fair wages. it proposed returning hundreds of thousands of urban workers to small farms on reclaimed marshland. The state would control prices and manage industrial expansion, favoring it in areas that needed enlargement, prohibiting it in those that already were overbuilt. A special income tax would finance a fund for creating employment. Farmers would receive discounted credit. A generous social insurance and old-age pension system would be maintained. All young men - no exceptions for "the educated or the propertied: - would be enrolled in compulsory labor battalions at once serving the state and dignifying manual labor.</blockquote>On what planet does that platform resemble conservatism?<br /><br />One example I've often heard is that in the run up to gaining power the Nazis often violently clashed with Communists. But in learning more about the context of those clashes, it's become clear that they were based more on a struggle for power than they were over opposing ideologies. The Nazis staged most of those riots for the express purpose of weakening the fledgling German democracy. It was about power, and power alone. Hitler would have sent out his brownshirts after any rival political party, regardless of ideology.<br /><br />So while I've always dismissed the Nazi charge as nonsense, it's been interesting to study history and learn that not only is the charge nonsense, it's also factually inaccurate.Cameronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06016275707476655364noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27549167.post-74159498608609954512010-03-05T10:13:00.002-07:002010-03-05T11:13:14.898-07:00Representative Carl Wimmer's Abortion Bill<a href="http://bit.ly/cv0l9h">Here's</a> the text of the original bill, and <a href="http://bit.ly/904Q9R">here's</a> some Tribune reporting.<br /><br />There is much about this bill to debate. Debates which could have brought about very interesting discussions and perhaps even greater understanding. However, instead of that happening, we were bombarded with FUD arguments like sending women to prison for falling down the stairs, or slipping on ice. Take this quote from <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/02/28-0">Common Dreams.org</a>:<blockquote>Statistics suggest that 15 to 20 per cent of recognized pregnancies end in miscarriage. "This creates a law that makes any pregnant woman who has a miscarriage potentially criminally liable for murder," said Missy Bird, director of Planned Parenthood Action Fund of Utah, part of the national organization that champions abortion rights.</blockquote>For crying out loud, this is just stupid. It's nothing but scare tactics, and it's an insult to the intelligence of Utahans.<br /><br />And that's what makes me the most angry. Instead of having a healthy and potentially mind opening discussion, I'm forced to read these lame articles filled with stupid arguments on my friends' facebook pages. These kinds of FUD arguments sound good in the papers and can be very effective at moving legislation, but they harm regular people and distort our water cooler conversations, not to mention feed the anti-Utah undercurrent present in our state.<br /><br />So please, can we just talk like normal people once in a while?Cameronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06016275707476655364noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27549167.post-59554129250304255172010-02-13T08:17:00.003-07:002010-02-13T10:27:34.898-07:00SB 150 - Holding Back Your 1st GraderSenator Karen Morgan introduced <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2010/bills/sbillint/sb0150.htm">SB 150 - Reading Requirements for Student Advancement</a>. It "requires that students in first, second, and third grades read at or above grade level prior to advancing to the next grade, with certain exceptions."<br /><br />The focus of SB150 is to force students, parents, and teachers to ensure students can read at their class level. The goal is not to hold them back a grade, it's to threaten it so that everyone involved takes reading more seriously. Which may sound great in theory, but I think there are a number of possible unintended consequences to this policy.<br /><br />The <a href="http://le.utah.gov/lfa/fnotes/2010/sb0150.fn.htm">fiscal note</a> says that if students are kept back that would add another child to the system for another year, thereby increasing costs. Sen. Morgan <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14383390">said</a> that 20% of students leaving third grade don't read at grade level. If even half of those are held back, that increases our student population by 10%. In a state where we already have a student overpopulation problem, with its attending cost issues and class size problems, this policy doesn't seem like a good idea.<br /><br />I would much <a href="http://magicvalleymormon.blogspot.com/2008/02/class-size-reduction-ideas.html">rather see</a> our efforts going toward lowering class sizes in grades 1-3 because that has shown to have the greatest effect on student achievement. With smaller class sizes, students in those grades would not only increase their reading ability but would show improvement across the board.Cameronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06016275707476655364noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27549167.post-21409321674276633692010-02-10T17:56:00.002-07:002010-02-10T19:55:58.242-07:00Should Cities Fund Rec Centers?I live in Eagle Mountain, which has about 20,000 residents. Last year around this time city officials started circulating a plan to build a rec center. The closest center to Eagle Mountain is in Lehi, about a 20 minute drive away. Having our own center has been a strong desire of many residents, and many elected officials, for some time. However, when the city's plan to finance one was made known last year, there was strong opposition based on economic issues. So strong, in fact, that the city put all plans on hold. I'm sure that it being an election year had nothing to do with that decision.<br /><br />I attended some of last year's meetings regarding the proposed rec center. It was stated that no private enterprise would build a facility like those that cities build. The closest thing we would have would be a Gold's Gym type workout center. But anything with swimming facilities and climbing walls and senior citizen areas etc. would never be built without public funding. There is just no money to be made in that area, we were told.<br /><br />Since then our pro-rec center mayor was reelected and we added a strong proponent of the center to the city council, so it comes as no surprise that the idea is anything but dead. However, what strikes me about this issue is that the economic concerns voiced by the public last year have not really gone away, and even if they had for most people, there will always be some who have economic problems. If it's unjust to impose higher taxes when everyone is feeling threatened by the economy, then isn't it unjust if even one homeowner feels threatened?<br /><br />So it would seem that raising taxes to pay for a rec center hinges on the question of whether a rec center is necessary for the common good. In this vein, I've heard it compared to city parks. Parks are paid for and maintained by public funds - everyone is taxed for them and they consistently need public funding to remain solvent. No one seems to have any problem with city parks which are clearly recreational facilities, so why would there be opposition to an indoor recreation facility?<br /><br />While that argument seems logical, I'm not sold. Racquetball courts and family swimming centers would be great. My family would certainly love it. But I remain unconvinced that it is something that falls within an acceptable use of tax revenue.Cameronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06016275707476655364noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27549167.post-55962472785060636582010-01-25T06:07:00.000-07:002010-01-25T06:07:00.148-07:00Did Lies Change Health Care Reform Debate?That's the question many are in a rush to answer in the wake of the Democrats losing their 60th seat in the US Senate. It's not that the public doesn't want this reform, the reasoning goes, it's that Republicans lied about reform and those lies are what turned the tide.<br /><br />In light of this, let's review the history of the health care reform debate, and take a look at the lies it <a href="http://magicvalleymormon.blogspot.com/2009/08/health-care-lies-that-are-deceiving.html">produced.</a><br /><br />-There are 46 million uninsured Americans<br />-Democrats only want a public option, not a single payer. And the public option won't ever lead to a single payer system<br />-You will get to keep your current insurance if you want it even after the reform is passed<br />-We have a free market health care system in the US, and that is what is to blame for rising costs<br />-Preventive care drastically reduces total health care costs<br />-There are no <a href="http://magicvalleymormon.blogspot.com/2009/08/cheneyed-by-guy-named-barack-obama.html">sweetheart deals</a> with the drug company lobbyists<br />-It will only <a href="http://magicvalleymormon.blogspot.com/2009/10/more-absurd-lies-in-health-care.html">cost</a> a <a href="http://magicvalleymormon.blogspot.com/2009/09/2009-democrats-need-to-learn-lessons-of.html">trillion dollars</a><br />-All the deal making would be shown on <a href="http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2010/01/05/obamas-c-span-problem/">C-Span</a><br />-There would be no tax on so-called <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8wmN3wvhNM">"Cadillac Plans"</a><br /><br />Democrats lost the health care reform debate for two reasons: 1) Their ideas don't work 2) They lied about their ideas not workingCameronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06016275707476655364noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27549167.post-40511190045426463812010-01-23T13:01:00.003-07:002010-01-23T13:11:27.718-07:00Was the Supreme Court's Decision a Victory for Free Speech, Or Did It Do Damage?I'm not sold either way just yet. Though I lean towards thinking that if the government had less influence over the economy, then business would have less interest in wasting money trying to buy off government.<br /><br />But here's a few quotes from Fox News that I'd like feedback <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/22/ken-klukowski-supreme-court-amendment-mccain-feingold/?test=latestnews">on:</a><blockquote>On Thursday, the Court overruled that earlier case and also part of a 2003 case involving BCRA, finding the earlier anti-distortion rationale to be “unconvincing and insufficient” to justify government censorship of political speech. Instead, the Court noted that ordinary people often need to pool their money into an organization they support, to use those pooled funds to get their message out about the issues they care about when elections are approaching. Rather than drown out the little guy, this option allows groups, be they Citizens United, the National Rifle Association, or the Family Research Council, to be a megaphone for the little guy, informing the voters of what’s at stake.</blockquote>If this argument holds water, then the Court's decision would be seen as a victory for free speech, no?<br /><br />Here's <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/22/john-lott-supreme-court-campaign-finance-mccain-feingold/?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g2:r1:c0.155913:b29989330:z0">another:</a><blockquote>Suppose that a company or a union can't take out radio or television ads supporting a candidate. It still has other options: It can produce a critical movie, such as "Hillary: The Movie," or publish a critical book. Authors making the rounds of radio and television shows during their book tours can help provide information that supports one candidate over another.<br /><br />Indeed, when President Obama's Deputy Solicitor General, Malcolm Stewart, first argued the case "Hillary: The Movie" before the Supreme Court last March, Justice Samuel Alito asked him if the government could prohibit companies from publishing books. Stewart said that was indeed possible. "That's pretty incredible," Alito responded, and then he pointed out that most book publishers are corporations.<br /><br />"If [the book] has one name, one use of a candidate’s name, it could be covered?” Chief Justice John Roberts then asked. And Stewart replied: “That’s correct.” “It’s a 500-page book, and at the end it says, so vote for X. The government could ban that?” Roberts asked. Again, Stewart said yes.</blockquote>This makes it sound as though it's just another attempt to get rid of the Glenn Becks and Ann Coulters of the publishing world, who also just so happen to dominate the best seller lists. But perhaps more sinister is the realization that the law gives the government considerable power in determining what is "proper" political speech. And that's not something that either the Left or Right should be approving of.Cameronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06016275707476655364noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27549167.post-56924707924468399262010-01-22T17:00:00.004-07:002010-01-22T17:45:51.026-07:00Move On Tells Us the Magnitude of Scott Brown's WinIn the aftermath of Scott Brown beating Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts Senate race, pundits, both of the professional and the in-your-parent's-basement type, have been playing <a href="http://hollyonthehill.wordpress.com/2010/01/20/welcome-to-hell/">tug</a> of <a href="http://thesidetrack.blogspot.com/2010/01/ma-sen-was-rebuke-of-everything.html">war</a> over what the election really means. Reading all these pundits simply shows that hindsight in this case seems to muddy rather than clear the waters. For that reason I went back to the archives and found this breathless email from Moveon.org, sent on January 8th, 11 days before the election, titled, <blockquote><span style="font-weight:bold;">"Urgent: A Republican in Ted Kennedy's seat?"</span></blockquote>Horror of all horrors! They said a Coakley loss would be "devastating", and that "health care could die, and the Republicans could block pretty much anything they want."<br /><br />In order to avoid such a catastrophic outcome, Moveon invoked "progressive hero" Ted Kennedy's name seven times in the email. They quoted Kennedy's widow Vicki, who said, "My husband fought for healthcare reform for more than 40 years. Martha Coakley shares those critical beliefs."<br /><br />Clearly Moveon saw this election as a referendum on health care. Clearly they thought that Massachusetts voters wouldn't dream of replacing a progressive health care reform icon with the very vote that could end the momentum of what is the closest the country has been to progressive reform in decades. Clearly, they were wrong.Cameronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06016275707476655364noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27549167.post-79278539178591454412009-12-24T10:28:00.000-07:002009-12-24T10:28:00.284-07:00Peter Breinholt - Christmas Eve Song<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aL-dBYa9Gcs&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aL-dBYa9Gcs&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Cameronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06016275707476655364noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27549167.post-66309932085951752552009-12-21T11:07:00.000-07:002009-12-21T11:08:25.096-07:00What Will You Give<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0FSQuHDIsVw&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0FSQuHDIsVw&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Cameronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06016275707476655364noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27549167.post-61552603284338478352009-12-04T17:16:00.000-07:002009-12-04T17:17:04.390-07:00Christmas HymnsMy two favorite Christmas hymns are Silent Night and O Holy Night. <br /><br />The words to Silent Night were written in Austria in 1816 by a priest named Joseph Mohr. He wrote it as a poem, and took it with him when he was transferred to a village called Oberndorf the next year. On Christmas Eve 1818 he travelled to his friend Franz Gruber’s house in a nearby village and asked him to write a melody for his poem. That night the two of them sang Silent Night with a guitar accompaniment for Midnight Mass. From these humble beginnings came one of the most popular songs of all time.<br /><br />O Holy Night was written when a French poet named Placide Cappeau was asked by a priest to write a poem for Christmas Mass. Cappeau was on a trip to Paris on December 3, 1847 when he pondered the birth of Jesus as recorded in Luke chapter two. He pictured what it would be like if he had been there the night of the Savior’s birth and through that inspiration came the words to O Holy Night. Though only asked to write a poem, upon arriving in Paris he asked his friend Adolphe Adam to put it to music. As the song gained in popularity over the ensuing years, its author and composer both suffered through persecution and hardship. As with Silent Night, the authors of O Holy Night were of humble origins and hardly knew they had written what would become one of the world’s most beloved hymns.<br /><br />To me, the stories behind my favorite Christmas carols perfectly represent the spirit of the season. Christmas has become a hugely popular holiday the world over, but it has its beginnings in a humble stable. It was hardly what one would expect of the birth of a King. Perhaps this is why I love Christmas music so much – it helps me to remember the circumstances surrounding the birth of Christ, as well as the life He lived. It is a joyful and exciting event, yet it’s also a sacred and humbling one.Cameronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06016275707476655364noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27549167.post-10747058051918369672009-11-02T11:30:00.003-07:002009-11-02T11:49:02.624-07:00California: "Think of it as a forced, interest-free loan"I'm an accountant. As such I've done tax returns in the past as part of my employment, and still do a few here and there each year. One of my biggest pet peeves is people having a large withholding balance at year end when they don't really need one. See, the way taxes work is that each paycheck your employer withholds paying you a certain amount and sends that amount to the federal and state government. The reason for this is so that the government has consistent cash flow throughout the year to pay its bills. At the end of the year and sometime before April 15 you figure out what your tax bill is, and then you subtract what you've already sent to the government. If the number is positive, then you have to pay more to make up the difference. If it's negative, then that means you've overpaid and you get money back. Overpayment means that you have lent the government money all year long, interest free. So even though you're excited to get a big tax return, you've actually lost money on the deal.<br /><br />Well, the state of California has taken that scenario one step further.<br /><br />Because California is so inept at budgeting, they've found themselves in serious red ink. They don't have enough cash to pay their bills. Usually when states find themselves in this situation, states like <a href="http://magicvalleymormon.blogspot.com/2009/10/sutherland-institutes-prosperity-forum.html">our very own</a>, they either raise taxes or cut spending. But the geniuses out west <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-state-tax31-2009oct31,0,2028140.story?track=rss">are doing neither</a>.<br /><br />California is simply going to withhold 10% more money from its residents. It's not a tax increase, so they'll pay it back when you file your return next year. But between now and next spring Californians are unwillingly going to give their state a huge, $1.7 billion interest free loan.Cameronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06016275707476655364noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27549167.post-86091168492071370922009-10-29T13:31:00.003-07:002009-10-29T14:41:53.483-07:00Sutherland Institute's Prosperity Forum: Utah's BudgetI attended the Sutherland forum on the state budget this afternoon. The panelists were Representative Rob Bigelow, Salt Lake Chamber president Lane Beattie, Deputy State Superintendent Dr. Martell Menlove, and former Governor Norm Bangerter.<br /><br />Lane Beattie spoke first, stating that this is "one of the most difficult years in the history of Utah". He said the state had revenues of $5.3 billion in 2007, and has dropped a billion dollars to only $4.3 billion. Budget cuts need to be the "right cuts, right time, in the right place". <br /><br />He said the state funded for growth in public education, but not in higher education. A situation he thinks is a mistake since higher ed has seen large increase in demand specifically because of the economic downturn. This year the Chamber expects a 12,000 student increase in higher education, and the chamber wants more funding. They advocate reinstating the sales tax on food, indexing the tax on motor fuel, taxing coal, and rescinding other tax cuts and exemptions if even for a short period of time.<br /><br />Next up was Dr. Martell Menlove, who said officially public education had a 2% budget reduction last year, but because of 15,000 enrollment growth the effective cut amounted to 7 1/2%. Without those cuts 500 additional teachers would have been hired. He proposed that public education received level funding this year.<br /><br />Finally, Norm Bangerter spoke. He recognized that there are polls showing current support for higher taxes to fund education. He then told the story of when he was governor and had the same situation; polls in favor of higher taxes. So he raised taxes for education, and consequently saw his approval rating drop from 75% to 41% in just two weeks. I spoke with him about this for a few moments after the forum, and he again remarked that there is at times a disconnect with how Utahans answer polls and how they actually vote. I found this interesting coming on the heals of my recent education funding <a href="http://magicvalleymormon.blogspot.com/2009/10/another-call-for-reducing-class-sizes.html">post.</a> Governor Bangerter said he supports reinstating the sales tax on food, but also said, "I don't think we can take a general tax increase."<br /><br />At the end of the panelist remarks there was a Q&A session. The most interesting part of which was when, on the heels of a questionor being told that every department should expect a lower budget, someone asked if government has a moral responsibility to needy or disabled citizens. Representative Bigelow answered that yes there is a responsibility, but the state only has a certain amount of money, and the budget must be balanced. This led to Dee Rowland, who I recognized from her time as a panelist for <a href="http://magicvalleymormon.blogspot.com/2009/06/sutherlands-utah-prosperity-forum-is.html">Sutherland's SB81 forum</a>, to say that she saw the need for higher revenue (read: higher taxes) and thinks that Utahans would support this as well. She then asked what she and others could do to help the Legislature drum up support for raising taxes. Representative Bigelow's response was interesting. He said that he often hears people say they would be willing to pay more taxes to fund X program. The problem is that the support is not broad based. Everyone has certain things they would like to fund, but it's really an issue of balance, and balancing the needs of different groups. These budgeting issues are really about shifting the impact from one group to another. As for convincing the public to support higher taxes, Rep Bigelow didn't seem too optimistic. He said the public generally drives itself and that even the media with all its influence can't really drive it. At this point Governor Bangerter interjected and said that the polls may say there's support for higher taxes, but that he doesn't believe it was true. <br /><br />Also of note is that after the forum was over, the lady who asked the question about government's moral responsibility to provide for people spoke with Gov Bangerter about that topic. Part of his response was that often those who talk about wanting the government to provide assistance don't provide that assistance themselves, despite being very well off. He said we currently have a president who made a million dollars last year and gave about 1% of it to charity.Cameronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06016275707476655364noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27549167.post-66478278999443165662009-10-28T14:25:00.006-07:002009-10-28T14:34:42.982-07:00Utah's Medicaid Doesn't Check for Fraud. On Unrelated Note, Medicare Losing $90 Billion A Year to FraudI recently discovered that our state Medicaid program is <a href="http://magicvalleymormon.blogspot.com/2009/10/utahs-medicaid-has-major-issues.html">incredibly inept at catching fraud.</a> Why is this important, you ask? Because <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5419844n&tag=api">60 Minutes</a> just did a piece about how Medicare is being defrauded out of $90 billion a year because they too are inept at catching it.<br /><br />But yeah, a single payer system would be totally cool.<br /><br /><embed src='http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/player-dest.swf' FlashVars='linkUrl=http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5419844n&tag=api&releaseURL=http://cnettv.cnet.com/av/video/cbsnews/atlantis2/player-dest.swf&videoId=50078666&partner=news&vert=News&si=254&autoPlayVid=false&name=cbsPlayer&allowScriptAccess=always&wmode=transparent&embedded=y&scale=noscale&rv=n&salign=tl' allowFullScreen='true' width='425' height='324' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer'></embed><br/><a href='http://www.cbsnews.com'>Watch CBS News Videos Online</a>Cameronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06016275707476655364noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27549167.post-7285450372739266182009-10-25T13:42:00.002-07:002009-10-25T14:41:28.671-07:00Jeffrey R Holland - Safety for the Soul<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dx5VsdfJ8mFFOtlfk8deDqkTrYdFngbtVIgkCypDWAm8AaGBOA5jqYQEJKC1Z_7dD1izRTnM5lcOhA' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe>Cameronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06016275707476655364noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27549167.post-30663161571636560642009-10-21T21:39:00.000-06:002009-10-21T21:39:00.099-06:00Heather Graham Starring as Public Option - She Should Be Running By HerselfBecause that's <a href="http://magicvalleymormon.blogspot.com/2009/08/dueling-health-care-videos.html">what the public option is all about.</a><br /><br /><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bvaJYYeXf70&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bvaJYYeXf70&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>Cameronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06016275707476655364noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27549167.post-58551716080759782022009-10-21T11:37:00.003-06:002009-10-21T13:14:56.083-06:00More Absurd Lies in Health Care DiscussionI <a href="http://magicvalleymormon.blogspot.com/2009/09/2009-democrats-need-to-learn-lessons-of.html">recently wrote</a> about an interview NPR conducted with the author of a new book which shows that Lyndon Johnson lied to the American public in order to get Medicare passed. In the words of the author, <blockquote>"One of the things he did was suppress the costs...if the true cost of Medicare had been known, if Johnson hadn't basically hidden them, the program would never have passed."</blockquote>I tied this propensity for lying to the various lies and misrepresentations coming from Congress and the White House in the ongoing health care reform debate. This of course was dismissed as "full of logical absurdities".<br /><br />In light of that discussion I was interested to read <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113925743">this editorial</a> reprimanding the White House for using legislative tricks, in other words lying, to suppress the true cost of the latest health care reform bill being bandied about. It seems that in order to get under their self-imposed cost threshold, Congress has simply moved $247 billion in costs to a different bill which wouldn't go into effect for a year. It's the very definition of a shell game. This one designed to trick deficit conscious people into supporting this reform bill.Cameronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06016275707476655364noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27549167.post-77176189882385223732009-10-16T17:23:00.003-06:002009-10-16T21:15:44.360-06:00Utah's Medicaid Has Major IssuesIn August Utah's Legislative Auditor General released the findings of its <a href="http://le.utah.gov/audit/09_12rpt.pdf">audit</a> of the state's Medicaid program. What it found was a program which spends $1.7 billion a year, but has almost no oversight of where it's going.<br /><br />Reading through the 100 page report, I was struck by the systemic failure exhibited by Medicaid. There is an appalling lack of oversight in basically every area the auditors looked at. From prior authorizations, to provider screening and enrollment, to fraud recovery, and internal policing - it all failed miserably. Each of these areas are critical points in keeping costs down and avoiding fraud and waste, yet the guidelines are either non-existent or so lazily enforced as to be worth less than the paper they're printed on.<br /><br />For clarification, Medicaid is health insurance for low income people administered by the state of Utah, but funded with both state and federal money. Utah kicks in about $500 million of the total $1.7 billion spent.<br /><br />There were a couple of things in the audit that stuck out at me. First is that 95% of that $1.7 billion is not reviewed for fraud at all. Organizationally, Medicaid is set up to ignore whether those payments to dentists, doctors, and hospitals are legit or not. There could be double billing, useless tests or exams, or out and out fraud, an no one will ever find out. Which in itself is concerning, but then it's coupled with the fact that Medicaid doesn't review its providers (the doctors, dentists, and hospitals) either. Anyone who wants to be a part of the Medicaid program is accepted, <i>even if they have a history of fraud.</i> So we accept any possible fraudster out there, and then we don't monitor their billings at all. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.<br /><br />And disaster might be what we're getting. The auditors cite a national study which says that on average the low end of fraudulent cases is 3% of total billings. The auditors stress this is a conservative estimate. Well, Utah Medicaid finds and gets money back on about 1.7% of its total spending. But even that low number is misleading because most of that returned money comes not through our efforts, but because private insurance companies find out that Medicaid had paid for a service that was actually the private company's responsibility, and instead of pocketing the savings they fix the problem and pay for it themselves. So Medicaid on its own actually only finds and recovers a fraction of 1% of fraud. Again, this speaks to the total lack of oversight and due diligence by the program.<br /><br />The most glaring deficiency in the audit is that, again because of poor guidelines and organization, Medicaid itself is never audited. There are no independent internal audits being conducted to ensure everything is on the up and up. So not only does Medicaid not audit providers or look for fraud, but no one is auditing Medicaid either.<br /><br />The reason all of this is important really comes into focus through a specific, real life example written of in the audit. A provider bills medicaid for $370,000. Medicaid has to determine if the services were actually necessary before they pay for them, so they request medical history documentation. The requested documents never come, so Medicaid doesn't pay. The provider starts an appeal process so they can get their money, but even then they file the appeal late and still don't send the medical documents. Finally, they drop the appeal and go straight to the Medicaid director. Up to this point everything has been handled ok, despite the persistent lateness of the provider. Even going to the director is somewhat supported by written guidelines. At this point the director should have gotten the medical documents, reviewed them, and then made a decision. Instead, he unilaterally gave the provider $370,000 without even reviewing the case. Only after the auditors found this example <span style="font-style:italic;">two years later<span style="font-weight:bold;"></span></span> did Medicaid finally get the appropriate documentation. Medicaid's director's reason for handing over $370,000 without even reviewing the case? He said sometimes that's necessary in order to "maintain relationships with providers."<br /><br />I can imagine the stress this audit must have created for everyone in the Medicaid office. As a controller of a large company, I get audited every year, and it's a stressful time. I have to justify every decision I've made over the course of the year, and provide documentation as part of the justification. If you're organized and prepared, audits can be relatively simple. If not, they can be a major source of heartburn.<br /><br />This report is possibly the worst conceivable outcome of the audit. The only way it could have been worse is if the auditors caught Medicaid management stealing funds. The audit shows medicaid fits the stereotype of an inefficient, poorly managed, wasteful government program.Cameronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06016275707476655364noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27549167.post-37806062496524898542009-10-15T04:11:00.000-06:002009-10-15T04:11:00.124-06:00This Is Gonna Be The Easiest Money I've Ever Made!From the inbox:<blockquote>Dear Sir/Madam,<br /> Our company was founded in 1977 . The company produces various clothing materials, batiks, assorted fabrics and traditional costume.As a result of our<br /> competent records for treating customer demands and supplies, customers have refered us to other possible clients and we have been recieving orders from North<br /> America, United Kingdom, South America, Canada, Europe and Australia.<br /> We serve our customers by using high class and precise equipments to produce first-class quality products.<br /> This message is send in English for universal understanding.<br /> Our company <a href="http://www.phishbucket.org/main/content/view/4500/103/">TOTAL CONCEPTS TEXTILE COMPANY</a>, a small manufacturing company in South Korea has been mandated to seek individuals/representative in North<br /> America, South America, Canada, Europe and Australia and all over the World for this purpose.We are able to get your email address with the help of marketing research<br /> based on our location.<br /> The Representative will act as a receiving payment agent and also placing orders for goods and products from customers.<br /> You can be compensated with between 10% and 15% for your service. We guarantee you a minimum of $6,000 monthly part time and can reach $20,000 based on the<br /> volume of the payments receiving and experience as time goes on.<br /> You will be receiving these funds through checks or wire transfer which are the safest means of receiving and sending funds in the modern world.<br /> All this is possible because of delaying getting approval for oversea branch.<br /><br /> If you are interested in working with us, Please fill out the form below and send the details to us.<br /> 1)Your Full Name:<br /> 2)Your Current Address:<br /> 3)Your City & State:<br /> 4)Your Zip Code:<br /> 5)Your Phone Numbers:<br /> 6)Your Age:<br /> 7)Your Occupation:<br /> 8)Your Nationality:<br /> 9)Name of bank:</blockquote>Cameronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06016275707476655364noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27549167.post-91355245521241896142009-10-13T20:56:00.000-06:002009-10-13T20:56:24.408-06:00Another Call For Reducing Class SizesThe Deseret News ran another <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705334549/In-our-opinion-Editorial-Educate-Utah-legislators.html">editorial</a> advocating reducing Utah's class sizes. They reiterated the statistics showing Utah as last in per pupil spending, as well as polls showing most Utahans believe class sizes are too large and education spending is too small. Quoting Benjamin Franklin, the News writes, <blockquote>"The only thing more expensive than education is ignorance."</blockquote>What the Deseret News seems to have forgotten though is that the state spent over $700 million over a decade for the sole purpose of reducing class sizes, and netted a whole two teachers for the effort. <br /><br />Two years ago the state conducted an audit of their class size reduction (CSR) program. It was this audit that revealed the two net teacher gain despite hundreds of millions of dollars. I wrote about this audit <a href="http://magicvalleymormon.blogspot.com/2008/02/class-size-reduction-ideas.html">here</a>, <a href="http://magicvalleymormon.blogspot.com/2008/01/class-size-reduction-funding-in-utah.html">here</a>, and <a href="http://magicvalleymormon.blogspot.com/2008/01/legislative-audit-proves-accountants.html">here</a>.<br /><br />The reason for such a poor return on investment is that the number of children entering school increased by far more than was expected. The problem with the Deseret News's argument about cost is that the child increase is expected to continue - so much so that the state will be fortunate just to keep the unacceptable class sizes we have now, let alone reduce them. In fact, the Utah Taxpayers Association put numbers to the traditional class size goal of 15 students, and found it would cost almost $5 billion to reach it.<br /><br />Reducing class sizes is a worthy goal, but it's important to understand the reality behind the numbers. Editorial boards like the News would do well to remember the lessons learned from audits like the one conducted just two years ago, and use those lessons to shape their policy proclamations.Cameronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06016275707476655364noreply@blogger.com9