Sentiments On The FLDS YFZ Ranch Raid

I’ve wanted to put up a quick opinion on the Texas FLDS issue and have finally found the time to do so. Here’s my opinion.

I think the whole thing stinks.

It is becoming increasingly evident that the huge raid and subsequent mass removal of children (including infants) from their mothers and fathers has all been based on a false report (aka: a prank call).

To me, that means due process was entirely violated. If abuse occurred and there was actual evidence of it, then get the proper warrant for that case and prosecute it. However, latching on to one (false) report to indict every person in that community and launch a massive fishing expedition is absurd and an anthema to the rule of law.

While Texas has split up families, at this time, the case for abuse seems to be bogged down and lacking hard evidence, with one exception: A statement in a Fox News report notes:

Of the 53 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 who are in state custody, 31 either have given birth or are expecting, Azar [Child Protective Services] said.

That one statement is all the evidence and it, too, may be partially invalid based on Texas law (from the Fox News story): “Under Texas law, children under the age of 17 generally cannot consent to sex with an adult.” [emphasis added]

Yesterday, Texas officials stated they found some evidence of abuse but the allegations lacked details (see here and here) and seemed to be a stretch in an effort to justify their actions (the so called ‘broken bone’ evidence is already being questioned). Texas officials also came out with a statement about a pregnant teenager recently giving birth in their custody. The problem is that she may be 18 and even if 17, there may be no crime under Texas laws (depending on when conception occurred). She, too, may face having her newborn taken away from her.

In my opion, all the allegation based on their fishing expedition likely have little legal weight as they have all been ‘found’ based on a highly questionable warrant - there seems to be no legal basis for the original warrant, which throws all evidence found based upon this warrant in question. The allegations Texas CPS is coming out with (especially the broken bone stuff) smack of some serious ex post facto CYA.

From what I have seen, the original warrant seems more based on rumor and hearsay than any concrete evidence. That, in my opinion, compromises the findings resulting from a seemingly baseless raid. The way this has been handled appears to entirely disregard the Constituion and the rule of law.

To this end, I would ask you to join with Connor Boyack (he also authored the petition on the issue) and ask your Representatives and Texas Authorities to intervene in this case and ensure legal and Constitutional rights are honored.

Some Action on Criminal Illegal Immigrants

I recently noted that criminal illegal aliens in our prisons have access to tax funded programs including a GED which then gives some of them access to the in-state tuition benefit at our Universities.

It looks like ICE is going to make it harder for them to use that benefit IF the ICE prison sweeps continue. The SL Trib has a report on the enforcement program (Immigration cops comb jails for criminal suspects in country illegally).

Along the Wasatch Front and in southwest Utah, immigration agents visit jails almost every weekday looking for immigrants who have been arrested by local police. And the patrols are gaining new emphasis.

In March, immigration agents announced an expansion of the jail program, including improved technology to record fingerprints in a database and alert authorities when a previously arrested immigrant is again booked into a jail.

The jail patrols also demonstrate a priority for immigration enforcement. Rather than seeking every undocumented immigrant or making frequent raids at workplaces, federal agents are concentrating on immigrants accused of breaking the law after they arrive in the United States.

The article also has a UC Davis professor who doesn’t like the ICE sweeps give the obligatory “immigrants commit fewer crimes than the native-born population” quote. Of course, that statistic includes (or is exclusively related to) legal immigrants. The professor also seems to fail to comprehend that illegal immigrants have committed at least one crime (illegal entry or violating visa requirements) and likely, have a few more under their belt related to identity fraud if they happened to have a job or applied for a job in the US.

While ICE deporting those who have committed additional crimes is good, we still have a porous border where many can reenter (such as Mr. Escudero-Gonzalez, convicted of drunk driving and drug possession, who is highlighted in the article), if they so desire and, potentially, qualify for in-state tuition.

Finally, an information request (again): If anyone knows of any written rule on how high school attendance is verified by Universities for illegal immigrants applying for the in-state tuition benefit, please pass it along. While I’ve been told that they look at high school transcripts, I still can not find any written policy requiring the verification. If left solely to the State Code (which appears to leave verification to the administrator’s discression), a simple verbal “yes, I attended a Utah High School” could suffice for proof of meeting the requirement.

Criminal Illegal Immigrant Education (Update)

Apparently, we are helping to pay for criminal illegal alien education programs. The Davis County Clipper had an article on April 10, 2008, entitled “Jail inmates offered education programs” (not available on the web). The article notes three programs in place for the inmates: GED certificate (General Education Development, ie ‘High School diploma’), ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages), and ABE (Adult Basic Education - literacy education).

The programs are administered by the Utah State Office of Education. I found the programs are under the Adult Education department (more information is available at the link).

There are no disqualifications (involving legal residency) for participation in the programs. I understand that the ESOL program is volunteer driven and that no residency criteria is required for the use of Federal (tax) funds. However, all programs are open to those who are here illegally and have engaged in criminal activity.

We have the pleasure of paying for these programs via our tax dollars. At least, only those legally here should have access, but that is not the case.

Further, I would hope that obtaining the GED will not, then, entitle a criminal illegal immigrant who has resided in the state for three years to qualify for our in-state tuition. If so, what a deal: enter illegally (butting in front of those in legal immigration lines), commit a crime, get a taxpayer funded education and then be rewarded with discounted tuition at one of our universities (while legal immigrants and US citizens without criminal records pay the nonresident rate). Good grief.

Your tax dollars at work.

UPDATE:  While I’m still looking for the written administrative rule addressing in-state tuition HS attendance documentation, I am told that High School transcripts are required.  That only partially solves the problem, however (criminals illegal aliens still get tax-funded education and certain criminals will still qualify for the tuition benefit).  See comment 6 for details (and the rest of the comments for background).

Big Retraction: Davis and Weber Commission (UTA Tax)

It is late and I really don’t feel like typing up a post, but this is important as I dislike inaccurate information which can mislead.

I was wrong and partially wrong (government is still raising the price of goods). The Davis and Weber County Commissioners were NOT complicit with the legislature (specifically, Speaker Curt Bramble) in the UTA tax grab.

I had a chance to talk to someone with the Standard Examiner who was present when the legislature voted in the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) tax. While the Standard’s article (which I based my comments and suspicions on) indicated complicity by the commissioners, it should not have and should have made the article clearer on the subject. To their credit, the Standard source I talked to was totally upfront and honest about this. They said, ‘we make mistakes sometimes and do make it a priority to present clear information’. Fair enough. So It is my turn to say the same.

Now for the full story to clear everything up:

Speaker Curtis Bramble got the UTA tax increase passed at the 11th hour of the legislative session. It completely caught the Commissioners off guard. They had zero foreknowledge of the plan.

Why would Bramble care? Here’s why:
The tax money is NOT kept in the county where it is collected. UTA distributes it as they desire - especially into areas they’re developing, expanding, etc. Areas like Utah County. Guess who Bramble represents…

By placing this tax on us, UTA gets their way and Bramble lets us pay for Utah County’s benefit (rather than they pay for it themselves). UTA also gets it’s way in the process. I would guess UTA came up with this and had Bramble carry it out, but I don’t know that for certain.

Frankly, Bramble has made a superb Machiavellian* political move for his ‘principality’ (negligible political cost and reap benefits for him). I don’t like it at all, and this think it was lousy - in many respects, it is as state version of earmarked pork, but it was a shrewd move.

As such, my appologies to the Commissions. While I’m still uncertain, it appears that they were holding the line against UTA’s tax lust and inaccountiblility. The editorial cartoon I posted should have omitted the Commissions.

Going forward, it would be best to focus scrutiny on UTA. I would encourage Weber and Davis Commissioner’s to team up and protest the move. I would also encourage them to expect strict accountability from UTA (especially after the “executive bonus” flap) and, since we’ve had the tax shoved down our throat, press UTA that the money be accounted for and spent in our respective counties.

*Note: Machiavelli gets a bad rap. He just wrote about what has worked historically. When I use “Machiavelli” it isn’t derogatory, usually it indicates political astuteness. However, such tactics can be misused with serious consequences.

Government raises prices in Centerville, Bountiful, and Davis and Weber Counties (Update)

First, there’s the Standard Examiner’s “Lipstick on a pig” editorial regarding the tax increase in Weber and Davis counties for the Utah Transit Authority (UTA). One thing, in particular, struck me. I thought the tax increase was on non-food items. Evidently we’ll be seeing taxes on food (and food costs) increasing:

…the Legislature re-imposed the 0.05 percent sales tax on unprepared food — the grocery tax — to fund Utah Transit Authority operations in Davis and Weber counties.

UPDATE: Correction:  Davis and Weber Commissioners do NOT bear responsibility (click link for details on who is) for the tax hike as indicted.  The rest of the post, is however, correct regarding all the taxes imposed upon us.

The food tax is a regressive tax that impacts the poor proportionally more than others. We can, primarily, thank Davis and Weber County Commissioners for the increase they are trying to avoid taking responsibility for.

Second, the RAP tax kicks in this month (I think it started on April 1 but I’m not positive). Centerville and Bountiful residents now have the pleasure of being forced to subsidize live theater fans’ ticket prices and mayoral or city council pet projects. In other words, prices at Bountiful and Centerville stores just went up. Those in West Bountiful, Woods Cross, and North Salt Lake will remain the same.

Third, Bountiful residents also get to see power bills increase, unspecified cuts in power services, and the city maintain its $2 million transfer to itself via the covert power tax.

Ultimately, Bountiful residents get a governmental tax-and-spend hat trick (UTA, RAP, and the power tax) but all will see costs of goods increase as retailers charge the tax(es) and pass the power costs onto consumers.

Bountiful Keeps Covert Tax

As I’ve noted in the past, Bountiful uses its power rates to keep a nice cash flow into the city’s general fund. The city, essentially, overcharges users to maintain this flow into the city coffers.

The benefit is the city: 1. avoids potentially messy truth-in-taxation hearings and 2. can, disingenuously, claim lower (than actual) tax/fee burdens on residents. Additionally, the city has, in the past, suprisingly boasted, that control of the power rates allows them to get money from tax-exempt facilities like churches, food banks, and other charities. Hey - it’s about time those dastardly tax-dodgers pay!

Power rates are going to jump another 10% for Bountiful residents/businesses. Fortunately, the city will maintain its $2 million slush fund transfer:

BL&P [Bountiful Light and Power], as a public business concern, has traditionally transferred a portion of revenues to other city uses. [The city manager] said that will continue.

However, maintenance of that transfer may come at an, unspecified, cost (emphasis added):

“Normally all of this would translate to a 15 percent increase (in power rates), but we’re cutting other things down,” [The city manager] said.

Another noteworthy point is that while Bountiful’s power company does not pay taxes, and, to my knowledge, does not face the same scruitying from the Utah Public Service Commission, its rates may be the same or higher (We could be higher (than Rocky Mountain Power),” after the rate hike, [BP&L director] said) than the private Rocky Mountain Power (which faces and adds the scrutiny and taxes into its power rates).

A few years ago, Bountiful’s council (or city manager, or both), stated that they would consider selling BP&L, if it cost residents more than private power. I doubt that was a serious pledge, however. City government enoys its cloaked tax revenue too much for that in the near future.

Finally, the city is spinning that the transfer is proportionally less than in the past.  That’s not surprising as power rates have increased and continue to do so - throughout it all the city has continued to maintain it’s slush fund.

UTA Has It’s Way With Davis County (tax increase)(Update)

The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) went to the legislature and our taxes have been increased as UTA desired, like it or not:

Davis and Weber County residents will pay the 0.05 percent sales tax earmarked for the Utah Transit Authority beginning July 1. Following a Council of Governments meeting last week in Sunset, Davis County Commissioner Bret Millburn said the decision was taken out of the hands of commissioners during the recently-completed legislative session, when it was determined that the intent of SB 245, passed in 2007, was that residents of any county in the state with transit systems would pay the 0.05 percent sales tax.

NOTICE: Read this post before reading further!

Did the County Commissioners oppose this power grab by the legislature ala Real Stadium deal?

In both cases the legislature took the decision from the governmental jurisdiction (the county) and those most effected by it (county citizens).

This may be nothing more than another political ‘washing of hands’ we’ve seen before. Commissioners can claim the decision was taken away from them while quietly offering no opposition in an attempt to avoid culpability. Based on the following statement, I doubt Commissioners opposed the power grab:

Millburn added [referring to meetings with UTA], “I believe growth took place on both sides. Through the hours of sessions, I believe it developed in a way there was parity across the board.”

In the meantime, it looks like another sunny day for a tax-subsidized business.

Background: Davis County Commision Going Wobbly on UTA Tax?

UPDATE: Please see the link provided in the comments for proof that Davis Commissioners were, knowingly complicit in this tax increase.

MAJOR UPDATE: See Big Retraction: Davis and Weber Commission (UTA Tax)

Hatch, Bennett, and Earmarks

I called both Hatch’s and Bennett’s offices to ask how they voted on Senator DeMint’s moratorium on earmarks (pork). Both opposed the moratorium. That wasn’t surprising given that both are proud pork-barrel proponents.

What was surprising, was how Hatch’s staffer reacted at my question and subsequent statement that I was disappointed in his vote. Evidently, the issue touched a nerve, as the staffer went into a very defensive and argumentative mode stating that earmarks are great for bringing money into the State for necessary programs and earmarks are not pork. I, politely, noted that if the programs were so expedient, certainly they could be brought up on their own merits rather than being stuck into essential spending bills which are totally unrelated to the program (especially when it benefits a special interest). The staffer stated that earmarks were necessary as agencies waste the money. I countered that if the agency is being wasteful, propose a budget cut. We ended up agreeing to disagree (note: while the staffer was somewhat terse, we both kept our cool during our conversation).

Frankly, I was unprepared for the confrontation. Anyone contacting Hatch’s (and Bennett’s office) should read Citizens Against Government Waste’s (CAGW) “All About Pork: The Abuse of Earmarks and the Needed Reforms“. It will guide you through the process and help you avoid having to ’shoot from the hip’ as I did.

By reading the short publication, you will learn earmarks are a new tactic and not Founding Father approved (despite assertions by Senator Harry Reid and other porkers). Additionally, the guide helped me understand why the staffer seemed to take a personal interest in the subject (see pages 7 and 8).

Staffers may bring up the fact that earmarks can be voted on in session. This is only partially true. It is highly unlikely that a legislator is going to risk strong political reprisals by contesting earmarks and most of the debate tends to focus on the mountainous spending bill (especially omnibus bills) which most have not had the time to read (they, likely, won’t know about the earmarks). The staffers are also misleading you, as once the bill is passed and goes to conference committee, things can be added without debate.

With the help of President Bush, this year, the public can find out about some earmarks at the OMB’s earmarks site. However, the data is old (still catching up) and doesn’t show who requested the earmark. CAGW, has a much better suggestion: ask your legislator to list all their earmark requests on their House/Senate website. After all, both Hatch and Bennett boast that they are proud of their earmarks - why not advertise those requests.

Finally, if either Bennett’s or Hatch’s office tries to say that earmarks are for legitimate government operations, ask them how Michael Leavitt’s Oquirrh Institute serves a core federal function, after receiving $550,000 from taxpayers and a $300,000 earmark from Senator Bennett in 2006 (not sure how much, if any, was received in 2007). Not bad for a place that doesn’t even have its own website (site is part of parkcitycenter.org).

Lastly, the pork binge is certainly not limited to the federal government. Locally, there are several projects I can think of that benefit special interests at taxpayer expense. A statement in CAGW’s earmark guide is applicable to all levels:

In recent years, pork-barrel spending has been characterized by a loss of shame. More and more municipalities, universities, and nonprofits see lobbying for earmarks as a legitimate means of raising funds.

Further reading on recent earmark actions:

Study Finds Record Education Earmarks - Universities eating from the trough (also addressed in CAGW’s publication)
Pork pull in the Senate: Moratorium bid fails in the dark
Your Congress at work: raising taxes, dodging pork vote - a nice double whammy

I have also linked up CAGW (including “The Swine Line” blog) and Porkbusters in the blogroll.

Shocked: State of Utah Using E-Verify (Update)

First, Governor Huntsman actually signed SB 81 which will require the State and State Contractors to use E-Verify on their new hires beginning July, 2009. Again, I’ll remind you that this law will require very careful attention in the 2009 legislative session as it will be a non-election year and legislators will be tempted to gut the law to please the pro-illegal immigrant lobby and cheap labor donors. Frankly, you can count on no opposition of such a move by Gov. Huntsman.

Now for the shocking stuff. I’m certain this started very recently, but am not sure on the actual date this was implemented (look at the bold red lettering below the “Sort Open Jobs by” box):

Looks like identity thieves will find it much harder to get a State job (in the Executive Branch). Same can’t be said of regular jobs in Utah, yet. I assume the Governor ‘okayed’ the policy shift. Hopefully this is a good sign for the future…

PS - Don’t forget this is an election year - this may be exerting a temporary influence on the Governor and Legislators. We’ll see how long E-verify is used.

UPDATE: I was informed that the State has been using E-Verify since October and is very pleased with it, thus far. Also, the assumption that Governor Huntsman approved of its use may be wrong, this may have been an administrative decision by the personnel department. Whoever decided to implement this - kudos!

Finally, this ONLY applies to State hires.  Contractors who receive tax/State money can still hire illegal workers until July, 2009 (IF SB 81 isn’t tampered with next year).

Fugitive Job Protection

South Salt Lake’s Most Wanted has been captured. As I’ve stated on numerous occasions, illegal immigrants are not the only one’s who steal social security numbers and engage in identity theft for work. Fugitives do so as well. Yet another example:

Police say Barnes got a job using a family member’s identity. She is also accused of other identity theft crimes and has more than $200,000 in warrants.

The Legislature finally passed a bill that begins to deal with requiring employers to verify the ID of those they hire using the free SSA-ICE E-Verify program. However, that bill was limited to businesses who contract with the State and was delayed until 2009 by pressure from Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce and the illegal immigrant (including businesses using that labor) lobby. Several other states (such as Arizona, Oklahoma, and Colorado) require verification by all employers. There is also the possibility that Governor Huntsman may veto the bill and that the legislature will gut the bill in the 2009 session.   At least, contacting Huntsman’s office (801-538-1000) and asking that he sign SB 81 would be a good idea.

In the meantime, fugitives, deadbeat parents, illegal immigrants etc. can comfort themselves that Utah will remain a friendly state for them to find work by victimizing someone else’s identity (especially children, as they are the prime target of ID thieves).