The Noxubee County Mess

The Noxubee County voting mess is now on trial. It is the first time under the 1965 Civil Rights Act where whites were the objects of voting discrimination where they were intimidated from voting in the Democratic primaries. While I think Ike Brown is a flaming racist, I do agree with him on letting Republicans voting in Democratic Party primaries. I think they should vote in GOP primaries and stay out of the Democratic primaries.

However, there is just one flaw with that: There is no party registration in Mississippi. I asked an attorney from the Secretary of State's office if a Republican can be barred from voting in the Democratic primary. He said the only way that can happen is if the Republican goes in there and screams he's a Republican and thinks Democrats basically suck. I have voted in Democratic primaries and have had no objections from the Democratic poll workers. I voted in the U.S. Senate Democratic primaries of 2002 and 2006 and the Presidential primary in 2004 (Obviously, the GOP had no corresponding primaries.). I had no problems voting. Unless you raise a partisan stink, a Republican can vote in a Democratic primary.

Ike Brown's lawsuit forbidding open primaries may bear fruit. Do you remember the 2000 Presidential primaries in California? The state legislature said it was okay for independents to vote in the party primaries (pick one party). The results would be reported in two formats: One primary counting just the registered party voters and another showing the registered party voters and the independent voters. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down that format.

I talked to a couple of state senators and they told me the chances of a bill mandating party registration has as good a chance of passing as a snowball lasting ten minutes on a sidewalk in Key West, Fla. But Ike Brown has a point: Republicans ARE voting in Democratic primaries (and vice versa in Rankin County) and may just vote for the weakest Democrat. Why should the Republicans have the right to vote in a Democratic primary. And why can't the Democratic Party disallow Republicans from voting in their primaries (Remember: The reverse question is valid for Rankin County. And I do know of die-hard Democrats voting in the Republican primaries in Rankin County.)?

If party registration does pass, it will not cripple the blacks or the Republicans. It will cripple the white Democrats--especially in the State Legislature. You can bet your sweet bippy if party registration comes to pass, many white Democrats who tend to vote in Democratic primaries will actually register as Republicans. With the exception of a very small minority of blacks, blacks will register Democratic. White Democratic legislators will either be forced to run in a primary where there is a majority black registration---and probably lose---or switch parties. If you look at past voting in statewide Democratic primaries, the MAJORITY of voters in those primaries are black.

The big gainers in all this will be blacks and Republicans (Talk about an unholy alliance.). Blacks will win the vast majority of primaries and will probably see their legislative and local numbers vastly grow. But so will the GOP. Conservative white Democrats will more than likely vote for the Republican than the Democrat. The only area of Mississippi where white Democrats would outnumber black Democrats would be in the northeast corner of the state (That's where House Speaker Billy McCoy is from.). It may be that a white conservative Democrat may be an endangered species in this state.

Watch this Noxubee County case very carefully. If Ike Brown comes out a winner in this case and his lawsuit on party primaries prevail, it will vastly change Mississippi politics. Even if Brown loses his lawsuit, he may press Democratic Party state chairman Wayne Dowdy to start excluding Republicans from the Democratic state and local primaries. And it may bring pressure among black legislators to press for party registration. The funny thing it would probably pass the State Legislature---thanks to Republican support! And Haley Barbour---a Republican partisan if there ever is one---would gladly sign the bill!

Don't you just love politics in this state? There is rarely a dull moment. And shoot, the year has just started.

Party Switchers

It's qualifying time again! It will be interesting to see how many Democratic officeholders switch to the Republican Party. There have been two so far: A State Senator with the last name of Walley and MDAC Commissioner Lester Spell. I'm sure there will be more popping up before March 1st.

Personally, I'd rather have them stay in the Democratic Party for two reasons. First of all, I'd rather see a Republican beat them because it'll show the true strength of the GOP. Secondly, the switcher makes the Democratic Party and the GOP more liberal. Most of the switchers are too conservative for the Democrats and not conservative enough for the GOP grassroots.

Take my state representative (please), Ray Rogers R-61. He was elected in 1983 as a Democrat. He defeated Ron Morgan in the runoff by a narrow margin of 200 votes. No Republican ran against him. In 1987, he again ran as a Democrat. Billy Brunt (his 1983 opponent in the first Democratic primary) switched parties and ran against Rogers in the general election. Brunt was the first Republican ever to run for state representative in that district. Even though he lost, he got 36% of the vote and was going to run against him in 1991. And 1987 was a Democratic year.

In October 1989, he switched parties. Rogers came before our Rankin County Republican Executive Committee (RCREC) and stated he would run as a Republican in 1991. He said he was basically a conservative and you already know the spiel. He was unopposed in 1991.

Was he now a strong conservative? Nope. Back in 1992, the late Gov. Kirk Fordice vetoed a bill raising the sales tax and doing away with deducting the state income tax on your state tax return. I called Rogers and asked him to sustain the veto. He went on and on telling me how important it was for him to vote to override. I told him it would cost me at least ten to twenty dollars a month. I'll never forget his reply, "John, you're a CPA. You can afford to pay it." I was royally pissed off. Some conservative. I never voted for him again.

In 2003, he signed a pledge stating he would not vote for a tax increase. Well, he voted to increase some fees, stating that fees were not taxes. Why don't we call an increase in taxes a "government investment in the people"? I'll bet you dollars to donuts he'd vote for the tax increase.

Let's look at a real loser who is no more a conservative than my kitty cat is: Lester Spell. He's one of the bright lights who gave us that beef plant fiasco (along with that blowhard Rep. Steve Holland and House Speaker Billy McCoy). He can spend those dollars. Right after that beef plant mess he switched to the GOP. His reason was that he was more in tune with the GOP than the Democrats when it came to spending issues. I'll bet the GOP was real happy.

There are rumors State Sen. Perry Lee may run against Spell in the GOP primary. I don't care who runs against Spell. I'll vote for that candidate. And if Spell should win the primary, I'll vote for the Democrat.

State Democratic Party chairman Wayne Dowdy despises party switchers. I agree with him. A candidate runs as a Democrat and gets elected thanks to state party money and volunteers. Right after he's elected he decides to switch to the GOP. Would I be pissed off if I were Dowdy? You bet your sweet bippy I would.

There should be a state law that if you switch parties before the qualifying period, you must resign your political post and run for election under the new party label. That is not going to happen, but it would be fair. No political party should be forced to spend their hard-earned dollars only to have them blown away because of a party switcher.

I wish a lot of die-hard conservatives would stay in the Democratic Party and not switch. The conservative movement needs Democrats as well as Republicans. I have found out most of the party switchers have made the GOP a lot more "moderate." Believe me, if they were die-hard conservatives they would have run as Republicans in the first place. There are some who switched because they really did have philosophical problems with the Democrats and switched to the GOP. But most of them are those who are political whores who would sell out just for their political ambitions.

As for me, I am very conservative. But if I ran for office, I would seriously consider running as a Democrat. The reason is the Democratic Party needs conservatives. I would probably lose in Rankin County, but at least the Democratic Party and the conservative movement would have a voice. One party (the GOP) must not have a monopoly on the conservative movement. Perhaps if we had more conservatives in the Democratic Party, it wouldn't be so liberal. But because of a very bitter enemy who is a die-hard Democrat and was once chairman of the Rankin County Democratic Executive Committee, I'll probably remain a Republican.

Gov. Haley Barbour's Precedent

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.

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.