I will comment on local politics as the qualifying candidates for the posts near its end. I'll give you my blunt opinion of the local candidates after that.
I would like to comment on Barbour. As of today, he is a shoo-in for reelection. I believe he'll get between 56%-59% of the vote. I can't see any Democrat defeating him. If the Democrat is weak, Barbour may defer some of his campaign funds to help legislative candidates running under the GOP banner.
In 2003, he did something that has never been done in Mississippi's history: He defeated a conservative Democrat, incumbent Gov. Ronnie Musgrove. Musgrove was very much pro-life and very conservative on other social issues. He was a tightwad on fiscal issues and was the only governor to bring a major manufacturing plant (Nissan) to his (or her) state. My only criticism is that he expanded the Medicaid program to nearly bankrupting the state. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the program expanded from $1.88 billion to $3.476 billion in his four years of office.
Musgrove was criticized for not being aggressive enough. He did have a high-pitched voice and he struck many a person as being a wussy. I met the guy and I can tell you he was a very humble, likeable guy. This was--and is--a sharp contrast to Barbour's cold, aloof manner. I remember when Barbour addressed the Mississippi Tax Institute back on October 27, 2005. He was as aloof as you can get. He didn't talk to you, he talked DOWN to you.
The late Kirk Fordice defeated two liberals when he ran for election and reelection as governor. He defeated incumbent Democrat Ray Mabus in 1991 on the basis of the social issues. The Sunday before Election Day our church had fliers showing how liberal Mabus was on the social issues compared to the conservative stands of Fordice. The pro-life vote sunk Mabus since the pro-lifers were mobilized against Mabus. Remember the bumper stickers that showed a fetus hanging by a thread with the slogan "Save us from Mabus"? Fordice won by a very slim margin against Mabus.
As for 1995, Secretary of State Dick Molpus was perceived to be a liberal. Actually, he was pro-life and was quite conservative on the social issues (I personally asked him where he stood on the abortion issue. He said he was opposed to it other than to save the life of the mother, rape and incest.). But was he arrogant. He even made Fordice look humble (which is no small feat. Fordice was one of the biggest jerks I have ever met. He really WAS mean.). Fordice handily defeated Molpus with 55.9% of the vote.
I was shell-shocked when Barbour was elected. I knew the race was going to be close, but I thought Musgrove would win with 51%-52% of the vote. I thought Barbour was too arrogant and ignorant of Mississippi's problems. After all, he was a high-powered lobbyist in Washington, D.C. He struck me as a fat cat who just wanted to add to his resume' the governorship. Yet he defeated Musgrove by a small but decisive margin. It was not a liberal but a conservative he defeated.
I'll hand it to Barbour. He showed strong leadership and was very decisive during Hurricane Katrina. His connections helped quite a bit. He set a precedent which will hur Democrats in years to come. It's simply this: Even if the Democrat is a staunch conservative, a conservative Republican will probably win.
A little irony here: Fordice and Barbour never switched from the Democratic Party to the GOP. They were Republicans from the start. Every conservative Democrat who switched to the GOP and ran for governor on the GOP ticket lost. Gil Carmichael was always a Republican, but he was moderate to liberal (Remember when he came out for the Equal Rights Amendment and gun control back in 1975 when he ran for governor against Cliff Finch?). Jack Reed was a squishy moderate, but he was a Democrat-turned-Republican.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Changing The Tax System
As you know, there will be big debates as to tax reform. The Democrats want to tax the rich and the Republicans want to help business. You can count on one thing: A real messy tax code. You will hear a lot about tax reform--and that includes tax reform on the state level. Take this CPA's word for it: Ain't gonna happen (with apologies to my English teachers).
I graduated with a degree in accounting from the University of Florida in 1975. Back then, we heard about plans to reform the tax code. The study issued by the Feds was just one volume. Just ten years later, the same study which was a guide for tax reform and simplification was three volumes (I still have them. It's great reading if you have insomnia, but they had some really cool graphs for us number addicts.) . Today, the same study would take six volumes. Believe me, it's the biggest mess you'd ever want to see.
When I was in college, there were no income phase-ins and phase-outs on deductions and credits. Today, there are a lot of those. The reason? The GOP wanted to give away some tax goodies and reductions, but the Democrats wanted to do that only for the poor and middle class. Thirty years ago, the average person could do his own tax return. Today, that same person would be a fool to do it.
I have a CPA friend who told me when he went into public practice in 1961, the Code was a small volume and you could actually memorize it. Now it's three volumes and you have a basic knowledge if that. Do you know there are lawyers that actually spend their entire careers studying just one or two sections of the tax code? I am not joking.
Here's another little thing people don't know. The IRS tax forms issued for this year are missing a lot of things that were changed late in 2006. Congress passed a tax law just two weeks before the end of the year. The new forms DO NOT reflect those changes. If you are doing your tax return, you are going to have fun. Is it complicated? Does the sun rise in the east and set in the west?
So for the next two years, there'll be a lot of blather about tax reform and simplification. The Democrats and Republicans will be debating it until the cows come home. You can rest assured there will be some changes. But simplified? You can forget it. There will be tax cuts for the middle class and the poor, but there will be those income phase-ins and phase-outs.
For the 2008 tax season, there will be a Schedule O to fill out. All the adjustments to income and all the tax credits will be on that form. What fun. That's to make pages 1 and 2 of the 1040 easier. But it won't be for the average taxpayer.
If the tax code was to be simplified, what would you be willing to have eliminated? Mortgage interest? Forget it. State income taxes? The high tax states such as California and New York would screech. Charity? The non-profits and churches would yell. The child tax credit? Young families would whine. Retirement plans? The investment industries would raise cain. College tuition? Parents who send their child(ren) to college would pitch a fit. Whose ox are you going to gore? What goodie are YOU willing to give up?
Remember: If doing tax returns was easy the homeless would be doing them. I predict to you it will be a lot more complicated in the years to come. But if you hear any of this talk about tax simplification, it's all talk and nothing else. No party has the guts to really simplify and reform the code. They can't afford to anger the special interests. The GOP lost Congress in 1954 and the Senate in 1986 when they reformed and simplified the tax code (Yeah, they simplified it beyond all comprehension.).
Besides, we CPAs thrive on this mess. Simplify it. We can use the mass confusion it'll bring.
I graduated with a degree in accounting from the University of Florida in 1975. Back then, we heard about plans to reform the tax code. The study issued by the Feds was just one volume. Just ten years later, the same study which was a guide for tax reform and simplification was three volumes (I still have them. It's great reading if you have insomnia, but they had some really cool graphs for us number addicts.) . Today, the same study would take six volumes. Believe me, it's the biggest mess you'd ever want to see.
When I was in college, there were no income phase-ins and phase-outs on deductions and credits. Today, there are a lot of those. The reason? The GOP wanted to give away some tax goodies and reductions, but the Democrats wanted to do that only for the poor and middle class. Thirty years ago, the average person could do his own tax return. Today, that same person would be a fool to do it.
I have a CPA friend who told me when he went into public practice in 1961, the Code was a small volume and you could actually memorize it. Now it's three volumes and you have a basic knowledge if that. Do you know there are lawyers that actually spend their entire careers studying just one or two sections of the tax code? I am not joking.
Here's another little thing people don't know. The IRS tax forms issued for this year are missing a lot of things that were changed late in 2006. Congress passed a tax law just two weeks before the end of the year. The new forms DO NOT reflect those changes. If you are doing your tax return, you are going to have fun. Is it complicated? Does the sun rise in the east and set in the west?
So for the next two years, there'll be a lot of blather about tax reform and simplification. The Democrats and Republicans will be debating it until the cows come home. You can rest assured there will be some changes. But simplified? You can forget it. There will be tax cuts for the middle class and the poor, but there will be those income phase-ins and phase-outs.
For the 2008 tax season, there will be a Schedule O to fill out. All the adjustments to income and all the tax credits will be on that form. What fun. That's to make pages 1 and 2 of the 1040 easier. But it won't be for the average taxpayer.
If the tax code was to be simplified, what would you be willing to have eliminated? Mortgage interest? Forget it. State income taxes? The high tax states such as California and New York would screech. Charity? The non-profits and churches would yell. The child tax credit? Young families would whine. Retirement plans? The investment industries would raise cain. College tuition? Parents who send their child(ren) to college would pitch a fit. Whose ox are you going to gore? What goodie are YOU willing to give up?
Remember: If doing tax returns was easy the homeless would be doing them. I predict to you it will be a lot more complicated in the years to come. But if you hear any of this talk about tax simplification, it's all talk and nothing else. No party has the guts to really simplify and reform the code. They can't afford to anger the special interests. The GOP lost Congress in 1954 and the Senate in 1986 when they reformed and simplified the tax code (Yeah, they simplified it beyond all comprehension.).
Besides, we CPAs thrive on this mess. Simplify it. We can use the mass confusion it'll bring.
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
How the Democrats Can Win in Rankin County
The Democratic Party is essentially weak as my kitten, but it needn't be that way. Indeed, with the right platform, they may be able to make inroads to the Republican monopoly. In fact, an article in today's Jackson CLARION-LEDGER, page 2B, could help galvanize Democratic support.
I'm not a Democrat, but my opinion of the Rankin County GOP is unprintable. In fact, I seriously considered becoming a Democrat back in 2000. I went to the state Democratic Party convention in Jackson that year. I just wanted to observe what was going on. While there were your flaming liberals, I met a lot of conservatives who hated the country club wing of the GOP. If it had not been for a former Rankin County Democratic official who cursed and yelled at me when I was at the convention, humiliating me in front of a lot of folks, I just might have switched. Thanks to this jackass of a sea hag "lady", I decided I wouldn't switch. I would have hated to see her at Rankin County Democratic Executive Committee meetings and having her cursing me in the crudest terms.
Nevertheless, the Democrats are not hopeless in Rankin County despite the demographics. Let us assume the Democrats would nominate social conservatives (i.e., pro-life), otherwise they wouldn't stand a chance. Here is what they should propose and I believe they would be winning issues:
1. The article I referenced in the first paragraph referred to development in Castlewoods. There are a lot of people who are tired of all the development in Rankin County---including me. If I were a Democrat, I would say this: "From Florence to Flowood, from Pearl to Pelahatchie, we are becoming a concrete jungle." I would point out that all of this development has raised our taxes and destroyed the environment. Look at Airport Road. It used to be tree-rich. Now all the trees are being chopped down in the name of "development." Do we want a concrete jungle and traffic gridlock? Do we want to destroy the natural habitat in the name of "development?"
2. Taxes have gone up under GOP rule. I thought the GOP was the party of lower taxes and less government. That hasn't been the case in Rankin County. This unrestrained development is raising taxes and causing traffic congestion. Follow the scenario: We need a good tax base, so we allow more development. Development comes and there is more traffic congestion. So we raise taxes for infrastructure. Plus because more people move in, so more schools have to be built. So we raise taxes to build the schools. To pay for the taxes, we need more development. Notice the vicious cycle? Has the GOP done anything to stop the cycle? Do you believe in Martians?
3. Emergency bidding has cost the county money. Why can't we accept the lowest bids at ALL times, including the purchase of vehicles? I thought the GOP was conservative when it came to spending those coins.
4. Does the Rankin County Board of Supervisors give money to non-government organizations? If so, why? Does it give money to the Rankin County Chamber of Commerce? If so, why? If business is so great in Rankin County, why can't the Chamber of Commerce support itself and not get a dime from the government?
5. Why not zero-based budgeting? That has always been a Republican mantra, but they sure as blue blazes don't follow it. The Democrats would be wise to implement zero-based budgeting. They should turn the tables on the GOP and make them look like big spenders.
6. Have impact fees. If we are going to have unrestrained "cowboy" development in Rankin County, shouldn't some of these developers pay some impact fees to finance the infrastructure where their developments are located? If there are impact fees, shouldn't they be raised?
The Democrats in this county may be surprised at the disenchantment over all this development. The "concrete jungle" is a real possibility in Rankin County and this present bunch of supervisors doesn't even care. If the Democrats have any sense, they would address these issues and nominate candidates. Even in Castlewoods, Crossgates and the Reservoir, there is a lot more disenchantment with all this development than you think.
If I were the Democrats, I would come up with a thorough platform on how they would deal with county matters. People are tired of just the "Development Voice" as propagated by the Republican Party. They are looking for an alternative. Will the Democrats step up to the plate and provide the alternative? If they do, I'd be more than willing to help the Democratic nominee in the election (so long as that individual is conservative on social issues). My disgust with the county GOP is overwhelming. And believe me, I am not alone.
I'm not a Democrat, but my opinion of the Rankin County GOP is unprintable. In fact, I seriously considered becoming a Democrat back in 2000. I went to the state Democratic Party convention in Jackson that year. I just wanted to observe what was going on. While there were your flaming liberals, I met a lot of conservatives who hated the country club wing of the GOP. If it had not been for a former Rankin County Democratic official who cursed and yelled at me when I was at the convention, humiliating me in front of a lot of folks, I just might have switched. Thanks to this jackass of a sea hag "lady", I decided I wouldn't switch. I would have hated to see her at Rankin County Democratic Executive Committee meetings and having her cursing me in the crudest terms.
Nevertheless, the Democrats are not hopeless in Rankin County despite the demographics. Let us assume the Democrats would nominate social conservatives (i.e., pro-life), otherwise they wouldn't stand a chance. Here is what they should propose and I believe they would be winning issues:
1. The article I referenced in the first paragraph referred to development in Castlewoods. There are a lot of people who are tired of all the development in Rankin County---including me. If I were a Democrat, I would say this: "From Florence to Flowood, from Pearl to Pelahatchie, we are becoming a concrete jungle." I would point out that all of this development has raised our taxes and destroyed the environment. Look at Airport Road. It used to be tree-rich. Now all the trees are being chopped down in the name of "development." Do we want a concrete jungle and traffic gridlock? Do we want to destroy the natural habitat in the name of "development?"
2. Taxes have gone up under GOP rule. I thought the GOP was the party of lower taxes and less government. That hasn't been the case in Rankin County. This unrestrained development is raising taxes and causing traffic congestion. Follow the scenario: We need a good tax base, so we allow more development. Development comes and there is more traffic congestion. So we raise taxes for infrastructure. Plus because more people move in, so more schools have to be built. So we raise taxes to build the schools. To pay for the taxes, we need more development. Notice the vicious cycle? Has the GOP done anything to stop the cycle? Do you believe in Martians?
3. Emergency bidding has cost the county money. Why can't we accept the lowest bids at ALL times, including the purchase of vehicles? I thought the GOP was conservative when it came to spending those coins.
4. Does the Rankin County Board of Supervisors give money to non-government organizations? If so, why? Does it give money to the Rankin County Chamber of Commerce? If so, why? If business is so great in Rankin County, why can't the Chamber of Commerce support itself and not get a dime from the government?
5. Why not zero-based budgeting? That has always been a Republican mantra, but they sure as blue blazes don't follow it. The Democrats would be wise to implement zero-based budgeting. They should turn the tables on the GOP and make them look like big spenders.
6. Have impact fees. If we are going to have unrestrained "cowboy" development in Rankin County, shouldn't some of these developers pay some impact fees to finance the infrastructure where their developments are located? If there are impact fees, shouldn't they be raised?
The Democrats in this county may be surprised at the disenchantment over all this development. The "concrete jungle" is a real possibility in Rankin County and this present bunch of supervisors doesn't even care. If the Democrats have any sense, they would address these issues and nominate candidates. Even in Castlewoods, Crossgates and the Reservoir, there is a lot more disenchantment with all this development than you think.
If I were the Democrats, I would come up with a thorough platform on how they would deal with county matters. People are tired of just the "Development Voice" as propagated by the Republican Party. They are looking for an alternative. Will the Democrats step up to the plate and provide the alternative? If they do, I'd be more than willing to help the Democratic nominee in the election (so long as that individual is conservative on social issues). My disgust with the county GOP is overwhelming. And believe me, I am not alone.
Monday, November 27, 2006
Why Richard Redfern Lost
I was very much surprised Richard Redfern lost. When the candidates qualified, I would have given Redfern the edge in being elected Chancery Judge. He is well-known and is a very likeable guy. I've talked to him before and found him to be a very gracious person. So why did he lose?
Here are the reasons I believe he lost. I've talked to a lot of people and here is what I found:
1. The fact he misrepresented Dan Fairly's record. He was cited by some State Supreme Court committee for that when he stated Fairly was never a judge (He was judge pro-tem for the city of Flowood). Earlier, he was admonished for using "Judge" preceding his name, letting voters think he was the incumbent.
2. A few long-time Rankin Countians remembered he ran as a REPUBLICAN for Justice Court in 2003. He was appointed as Justice Court Judge and later narrowly defeated Charles Tillman for the post. That special election was nonpartisan. So it was going to be interesting if he was going to run as a Democrat in 2003. After all, he was once chairman of the Rankin County Democratic Party in 1996 (He graciously invited me to the state Democratic convention as his guest.). He ran for DA in 1991 as a Democrat, losing by over a hundred votes to John Kitchens. Imagine the shock of a lot of Democrats when he ran as a Republican in 2003. In my opinion, I think he would have been elected if he had run as a Democrat. A lot of Democrats are angry over party-switchers and may have taken it out on Redfern at the polls.
3. It was "time for a change." Richard Redfern has been in politics in Rankin County for years. Dan Fairly was the "new kid on the block." People were willing to give Fairly the benefit of the doubt.
4. Dan Fairly wisely appeared on talk radio. In a low-profile race such as Chancery Judge, that was one way to get the message out. On at least three occaisions, Fairly appeared on WJNT's "Kim Wade Show", which airs Monday through Friday 5-6PM. Conservatives listen to that show and is the leading drive-by talk show in the area. Fairly came off as a staunch conservative whom conservatives could easily vote for. Redfern did advertise on WJNT, but did not appear on the show (at least when I listened to it, which is every day except Wednesday).
5. Fairly was a formidable opponent. He was well-funded and had plenty of advertising. I have at least four mailouts he sent out.
6. One of Redfern's fliers it stated the churches Fairly and Redfern went to--Redfern is a Baptist and Fairly a Presbyterian. This is not as innocuous as it seems. A few people felt it was to get fellow Baptists to vote for Redfern. What was the purpose of bringing out the denominations of the two candidates?
This is not to knock Richard Redfern. I believe he would have been a good judge. He is fair and honest. And as a person, I happen to like him. But this was not his year.
Here are the reasons I believe he lost. I've talked to a lot of people and here is what I found:
1. The fact he misrepresented Dan Fairly's record. He was cited by some State Supreme Court committee for that when he stated Fairly was never a judge (He was judge pro-tem for the city of Flowood). Earlier, he was admonished for using "Judge" preceding his name, letting voters think he was the incumbent.
2. A few long-time Rankin Countians remembered he ran as a REPUBLICAN for Justice Court in 2003. He was appointed as Justice Court Judge and later narrowly defeated Charles Tillman for the post. That special election was nonpartisan. So it was going to be interesting if he was going to run as a Democrat in 2003. After all, he was once chairman of the Rankin County Democratic Party in 1996 (He graciously invited me to the state Democratic convention as his guest.). He ran for DA in 1991 as a Democrat, losing by over a hundred votes to John Kitchens. Imagine the shock of a lot of Democrats when he ran as a Republican in 2003. In my opinion, I think he would have been elected if he had run as a Democrat. A lot of Democrats are angry over party-switchers and may have taken it out on Redfern at the polls.
3. It was "time for a change." Richard Redfern has been in politics in Rankin County for years. Dan Fairly was the "new kid on the block." People were willing to give Fairly the benefit of the doubt.
4. Dan Fairly wisely appeared on talk radio. In a low-profile race such as Chancery Judge, that was one way to get the message out. On at least three occaisions, Fairly appeared on WJNT's "Kim Wade Show", which airs Monday through Friday 5-6PM. Conservatives listen to that show and is the leading drive-by talk show in the area. Fairly came off as a staunch conservative whom conservatives could easily vote for. Redfern did advertise on WJNT, but did not appear on the show (at least when I listened to it, which is every day except Wednesday).
5. Fairly was a formidable opponent. He was well-funded and had plenty of advertising. I have at least four mailouts he sent out.
6. One of Redfern's fliers it stated the churches Fairly and Redfern went to--Redfern is a Baptist and Fairly a Presbyterian. This is not as innocuous as it seems. A few people felt it was to get fellow Baptists to vote for Redfern. What was the purpose of bringing out the denominations of the two candidates?
This is not to knock Richard Redfern. I believe he would have been a good judge. He is fair and honest. And as a person, I happen to like him. But this was not his year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)