 | ||||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | 30 July 2001 | Vol. II, No. 66 | ||
|
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | 30 July 2001 | Vol. II, No. 66 | ||
|
| ||||
| ||||
*** Checks being mailed are really an advance on 2001 refunds
By David Milstead
WASHINGTON -- The tax-relief checks that will start arriving in mailboxes next week should have a consumer-warning label: "Warning: This check is not a 'rebate' of taxes you already paid. It's an advance on the refund you'll get when you file next April. "
If it's an advance, you ask, does that mean my refund in April will be $300 smaller than it would have been? And if I'm unlucky enough to owe taxes, does that mean my tax bill will be $300 higher?
The answer to both questions is yes. But you'd never guess that from the 1040 you'll fill out next year. It's been designed so that it's nearly impossible to realize how the 2001 rebate checks affect your tax preparation in 2002.
"I think people think what they're getting is a refund of taxes they paid in 2000," said Gary Dudley, the tax partner-in-charge at Deloitte & Touche's Denver office. "If they think their taxes were going to show up lower April15 (from this change), they're not."
The "immediate tax relief," as the Internal Revenue Service calls it, was designed by Congress and the Bush administration to give taxpayers the benefit of a 2001 tax-rate reduction as soon as possible. Rather than wait for next April, you'll get the tax cut now.
"Congress intended the credit to take care of the rate reduction for 2001," said John McGreevy, an assistant branch chief for administration with the IRS. "They wanted to get money into people's pockets for an economic stimulus."
Bear with us for the math on how your check is calculated: The rate on the first $6,000 of income for singles and $12,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly is being cut from 15 percent to 10 percent. That's why the refund checks range from $300 for singles ($900 in taxes reduced to $600) and $600 for marrieds ($1,800 in taxes reduced to $1,200).
But if you were to fill out the tax form next April using the new rates, you'd get the tax-cut benefits a second time. That's why the tax tables that will accompany next year's 1040 will charge you the old 15 percent tax rate, not the new 10 percent rate.
The IRS could have included a line at the end of the 1040 where you took the amount of the refund check and reduced your refund by $300 or $600 or, even worse, added that money to the tax bill you owe. You won't have to do that, because the amount owed you pull from the tables at the back of the booklet will have already done that for you.
"The risk of that (line) approach is that the adjustment could flip you from a refund to a balance due, and you really wouldn't believe you received that money," Dudley said.
But before you direct your anger at the IRS, look to the folks who designed -- and are taking credit for -- this advance-refund system: Congress and President Bush.
"It was not left to our discretion," said Marilyn Brookens, an IRS attorney in Washington. "It was a congressional and presidential decision to do it this way, and we're implementing what we were told to do."
Brookens points to the tax-cutting language in the report from the House-Senate conference committee that Bush signed into law this year. The law said that in 2001, the advance refund occurs "in lieu of" the rate cut from 15 percent to 10 percent.
That statement, Brookens said, meant "if we didn't do it this way, we would be in trouble with them."
But there are practical reasons, too, Brookens said: "It's an effort to have as few people as possible enter a number on the 1040. Every time there's another computation, it increases the likelihood of errors.
"It's the way that will be quickest, most effective and result in the fewest number of errors," she said.
[ Scripps Howard News Service ]
** Original Motion Has Been Pending Before Judge Lamberth For Over Two Years
** Court's Decision On E-mail Scandal Should Not Further Delay Mrs. Clinton's Deposition
(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes government abuse and corruption, has renewed its motion to depose former First Lady and now New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in its $90 million class-action lawsuit on behalf of the individuals whose files were violated by the Clinton-Gore FBI and White House. While Mrs. Clinton is a defendant in this lawsuit, and while compelling evidence has been gathered showing her as the "mastermind" of the Filegate scandal, the Honorable Royce C. Lamberth has not allowed her to be questioned under oath in the five years since the complaint was filed. Initially, Judge Lamberth ruled that Judicial Watch would have to exhaust other witnesses before deposing Mrs. Clinton. In accordance with that directive, Judicial Watch proceeded to do just that. Then, in June 1999, after other witnesses had been deposed (many of whom implicated Mrs. Clinton in the scandal), Judicial Watch moved to take her deposition. Quite predictably, Mrs. Clinton moved for summary judgment; however a court generally cannot even consider a summary judgment motion before it allows plaintiff the opportunity to depose the defendant who moved for the summary judgment.
In February, 2000, Judicial Watch uncovered the E-mail scandal in the course of its Filegate case. As a result of apparent obstruction of justice, including but not limited to threats to witnesses, Judge Lamberth ordered an evidentiary hearing to determine whether to issue show cause orders. This "mini-trial" ended in January of this year, and Judicial Watch awaits a decision.
"Judicial Watch has tremendous respect for Judge Lamberth, and the American people owe him a great debt of gratitude for his actions in protecting the public interest against corrupt and dishonest government officials. However, those who criticized him for being overly aggressive and bold have done so unfairly. While he has a heavy caseload, Judicial Watch trusts that he will now allow the deposition of Hillary Clinton to proceed, since justice delayed is justice denied. The time has come to hold the Clintons accountable, and it is not too late for justice to be done. In this way, an example will be set that never again will we allow such rampant criminality in our executive branch," stated Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman.
[ Judicial Watch ]
Liberty University Chancellor the Rev. Jerry Falwell slammed "CBS Evening News" anchorman Dan Rather Thursday, complaining that if a conservative had publicly uttered the racial epithet "Buckwheats," as Rather did last week in a nationally broadcast radio interview, he'd be crucified by the liberal media.
"[But] Rather has not faced any form of reprimand from his network," Falwell complained. "You can bet that if a conservative media figure like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity had made this remark - although I can't imagine either one doing so - we would be seeing a blistering backlash by the liberal watchdogs who are so aggressively willing to savage their opponents."
The conservative cleric cited the example of Ed Tyll, the one-time Atlanta talk radio host who was suspended in 1987 for suggesting that Georgia Rep. John Lewis sounded like the stereotyped black youth in the "Little Rascals" comedies.
After being beseiged by protests from the NAACP and others, the management of Tyll's station forced him to make on an on-air apology as a condition of his return to work.
Falwell noted that recent history is littered with examples of liberal hate-speech that passes without consequence.
"Liberal film director Spike Lee can exclaim that he wants to shoot NRA President Charlton Heston and the media yawns. Leftist actor Alec Baldwin can tell late-night host Conan O'Brien that people should stone pro-life Rep. Henry Hyde [R-Ind.] and his entire family, and that's OK. Democratic senator Robert Byrd can use a term like "White N-----" and he's quickly excused. And Dan Rather can use offensive language without fear of repercussion because, well, because he's a liberal."
"What's so disgraceful is that your political affiliation gets you a pass and a wink when you say the wrong thing. But watch the hammer come down in an instant if you say the very same thing and you happen to be - God forbid - a conservative."
Talk radio icon Bob Grant would be hard pressed to disagree, since his own experience at the hands of the liberal speech police bears Falwell's argument out in spades.
Grant was fired from WABC radio in New York in 1996 after its parent company Disney came under intense presssure from Jesse Jackson, the NAACP, and others who said the popular radio host had made a racist remark on his drivetime show.
Grant's sin? Indulging in a bit of gallows humor on the day Clinton Commerce Secretary Ron Brown's plane crashed in Yugoslavia.
"CNN is reporting there's a lone survivor," Grant told his listeners hours before Brown's death was confirmed. "I have a feeling it's Ron Brown. But I'm a pessimist at heart."
The remark passed without notice for a full week. But soon liberal armies began marshalling behind the scenes. Then, out of the blue, WABC came under seige for Grant's "pessimist at heart" comment. A week after that, Disney gave the order to fire the most popular talk radio host in the media captial of the world.
On Thursday, Grant recalled the episode while interviewing Project 21 spokesman Kevin Martin, one of three prominent black leaders who have demanded an explanation from Rather.
"There are some of us who have said things that perhaps were even more innocuous, who were villified because we were on the political right," Grant told Martin from his new post as WOR radio's popular afternoon drivetime host.
Martin agreed that Rather is getting a pass from Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Kweisi Mfume because of his left-leaning politics.
"If this had been a conservative, Bob, believe me, they would have been down at the station with the torches and pitchforks demanding someone's head. But because Dan Rather is a pillar of the liberal left, groups like the NAACP, groups like Rainbow/PUSH, groups like the National Action Network ... they cover their eyes and run away."
"Civil rights should be a bipartisan issue," Martin told Grant.
[ WND ]
** SUIT ALLEGES CRIMINAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND COVER-UP
** Clinton Holdover Rossotti Made Decisions to Benefit Major IRS Contractor He Founded and Held Stock In
** Wife Also Worked For Company **
(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced that it filed suit today to obtain documents and information concerning prima facie illegal conflict of interest involving Clinton holdover IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti. As IRS Commissioner, Rossotti has - despite longstanding law and ethics regulations - made decisions concerning a company he founded (and in which he still owned stock) that is a major contractor with the IRS. Rossotti's spouse also continued to hold a position in the company (while her husband was IRS Commissioner). The company is American Management Systems, Inc. (AMS), which provides computer software for the IRS.
To make matters worse, Rossotti received an "after the fact" conflict of interest waiver from the Clinton Administration in its final days - reminiscent of Clinton's last-minute scandalous pardons - as part of a likely quid pro quo for conducting political audits against persons and entities adverse to the Clinton Administration.
Judicial Watch requested documents from Rossotti about the scandal on June 6, 2001 and has yet to receive one document. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit was filed today in federal court in Washington, DC.
Rossotti's IRS has a long history of misdeeds, having audited many perceived adversaries of Bill and Hillary Clinton. As just one example, Juanita Broaddrick, who was raped by Bill Clinton, has been facing an audit by the IRS for over one year. The audit was commenced after she filed suit against the Clinton White House. Judicial Watch obtained Treasury Department documents showing that an IRS agent refused to take a polygraph concerning the motivation behind the obviously political Broaddrick audit.
"Rossotti must go and be criminally prosecuted. As long as he remains Commissioner, the American people cannot trust the IRS. The fact that he is covering up his role in a major conflict of interest scandal makes him unfit to serve in this sensitive position," stated Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman.
[ Judicial Watch ]
(St. Louis, MO) -- The American Center for Law and Justice, an international public interest law firm, announced today that a federal appeals court has upheld a lower court ruling and has said that the State of Missouri was wrong when it tried to fire a social worker whose deeply held religious beliefs prompted him to object to the state licensing homosexual foster parents.
"This is an important decision that underscores the fact that the government cannot discriminate against employees because of their religious beliefs," said Francis J. Manion, Senior Counsel of the ACLJ, who represents the social worker in the case. "First a jury ruled in favor of our client - then a federal judge upheld that decision. Now, a federal appeals court agrees with our position. The message is clear: the government simply cannot take action against employees because of their religious beliefs. It is our hope that the case ends here. If a decision is made to appeal, we will continue to vigorously defend our client's constitutional rights."
The case began in 1997 when the ACLJ filed a federal lawsuit in Kansas City, Missouri against the Department of Social Services for the State of Missouri on behalf of Larry Phillips, who was employed as a social worker. The suit charged that the state discriminated against Phillips because he told supervisors that his religious beliefs prevented him from endorsing the granting of a foster parent license to an admitted lesbian. The suit contended that Phillips suffered disciplinary action because of his religious beliefs - including a move by supervisors to lower his performance evaluations and a recommendation that he be fired.
In October 1999, a federal jury ruled on behalf of Phillips and assessed actual and punitive damages against the state totaling $26,000. A federal judge affirmed the jury verdict in April 2000 and Phillips was awarded attorneys' fees totaling nearly $60,000.
The state appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis. In a decision released today, a three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit upheld the lower court decision and ruled that Phillips' supervisor had no intention of accommodating his religious beliefs and should have known better than to take disciplinary action against Phillips because of those beliefs.
In a 13-page opinion released today, the appellate court ruled " . . . that an objectively reasonable official would understand that it is unlawful to recommend the termination of a subordinate . . . based on that employee's request for accommodation of his religious beliefs."
"The appeals court understands that the state of Missouri went too far in utilizing its heavy-handed tactics to intimidate Larry Phillips," said Manion. "The actions of the state amounted to nothing more than state-sponsored religious discrimination - actions that are not only unlawful, but actions that simply should not be permitted to occur in the work environment."
The ACLJ is an international public interest law firm and educational organization that focuses on constitutional issues issues. The ACLJ is headquartered in Virginia Beach, VA. The Web site address is www.aclj.org.
[ ACLJ ]
The Smith-Hostettler bills essentially apply Article IV of the Constitution to concealed firearms.
This provision requires that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State; And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof."
In other words, if states are not willing to recognize another state's acts (such as concealed carry licenses), then Congress has the authority to pass laws requiring states to recognize the other state's measures.
Imagine if one or more states refused to recognize driver's licenses issued in other states (perhaps because those other states were issuing licenses to teenagers under 18). Congress would have authority under Article IV to step in and require all states to recognize driver's licenses issued within the United States.
After eight years of having a Presidential veto threat in Washington, gun owners are hopeful that sensible pro-gun legislation can be signed into law.
George Bush signed a concealed carry law as governor of Texas. He could get the chance to do so as President, as well.
[ GOA ]
In a rebuke to the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), an internal review board reported on scores of examples of police abuse in March.
What should be of special interest to gun owners is the rate of corruption in the LAPD.
"The LAPD by its own admission perpetrates more violent crimes than do [carry] permit holders in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia combined," opines columnist Brad Edmonds, who analyzed the results of the study.
The report was forthcoming in admitting to the official corruption by police. Nevertheless, Erwin Chemerinsky of the University of Southern California faulted investigators for minimizing the magnitude of the scandal.
"Police officers framed innocent individuals by planting evidence and committing perjury to gain convictions," Chemerinsky said.
"Innocent men and women pleaded guilty to crimes they did not commit and were convicted by juries because of the fabricated cases against them. Many individuals were subjected to excessive police force and suffered very serious injuries as a result."
[ GOA ]
You've been lied to, friends and neighbors. You've been lied to by some of the slickest and most dangerous con-men you will ever encounter. The lies have been coming thick and furious for so many years that you have trouble seeing the truth - in spite of all your brains and good, old-fashioned common sense.
You've been told violence is a terrible thing. You've been told that folks are killing each other all over the world, and they will certainly stop if we can just control this terrible flood of weapons and keep them in the hands of the officials who should properly have them. Most recently, the U.N. is trying desperately to improve everybody's life by getting firearms off the open market. The world will be a safer and kinder place if they can just manage it.
If you truly believe that, my friends, please allow me to sell you some oceanfront property in Utah.
Is violence a terrible thing? Yes, it most certainly is. Is violence morally wrong? Of course. Will it go away? Not before Hell freezes over! It is the human condition.
Well, then, should we contribute to violence by allowing firearms to be sold?
This is the trickiest question of all. You see, firearms do not contribute to violence. Only people can do that. And taking firearms off the general market will have appalling sociological consequences.
That's right. You heard me correctly. I said "appalling consequences."
I know you've all heard the argument that if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns, so I won't talk about that today. Let's play a little game instead. Let's pretend that every single gun on this planet can be destroyed. Let's pretend that enterprising souls won't make any zip guns in their garages. Firearms are completely gone - history. Not so much as a slingshot left. It's over.
This would be the end of a terrible chapter in human history, wouldn't it?
Oh, no. It wouldn't be the end of Hell. It would be the beginning!
It would be Mayhem. You, your wives, your kids, and your friends - you would all be at the mercy of every gorilla with a knife, a club, a set of brass knuckles, or even a good-sized rock. No one alive today remembers when might was right, but we'd learn about it again in very short order. Pool cues and fire pokers would be the order of the day. No woman would be safe, ever again, and very few men would either. You'd stop carrying a wallet and shift to a money belt, and then it would just be a question of time before everything you own was taken from you, and probably your life as well.
It would be absolute horror, and it would be inevitable.
Okay, bad idea. So let's keep a few guns, just for the cops and the military. That should solve the problem, right?
Wrong.
The founding fathers of this country knew what they were doing when they wrote the Bill of Rights in 1781 AD. In that day and age, it was unthinkable for a grown man not to have weapons, so why did they need to specifically state that the right to keep and bear arms was sacred?
They said this because most of them had come here from Europe, from countries where they had good reason to fear governmental authority. Most European countries were already beginning to disarm their citizens, and an intelligent man didn't need a roadmap to see where this was going. An armed government and a disarmed populace is an absolute guarantee of tyranny.
This is what the U.N. wants to do to you. They want you to surrender your arms meekly and beg the protection of your government. They want to permanently forbid you to sell arms to less fortunate men and women anywhere in the world who are shedding blood to resist tyranny.
Of course, keep in mind that the men and women who are trying to make this decision for you are all representatives of various governments themselves, and many of those governments are very repressive indeed.
Small wonder they want their people disarmed and kept that way! It might help to keep their collective hides unperforated for just a bit longer.
I believe it is time to remove our nation from the United Nations, and to remove the United Nations - forcibly if necessary - from U.S. soil. Have you written your congressman to say so?
Is it moral to carry arms? You bet it is! When I enter your home or your business with a firearm, concealed or otherwise, I am tacitly agreeing to share with you the responsibility for defending your property and your family.
When I eat in the same restaurant, I am prepared to shed my blood in your defense. There are survivors of the horror at Luby's in Killeen, Texas, who would appreciate what I am saying here.
I will never, never need to ask some poor cop to die for me. I value my own life enough to defend it myself. I carry arms proudly, as a free American.
Do you?
Kathryn A. Graham
http://www.devtex.net/graham/kate.html
http://www.safetynetassociates.com/
http://communities.iuniverse.com/2ndamed
[ KABA ]
TCN Comment: All violence is not morally wrong as this writer contends. Self defense can be quite violent, but failure to defend one's self or others is the act that would be morally wrong. The basic premise of this article however, is right on the money.
The homepage and archives for The Conservative Newsletter are located on the WWW at http://www.wilderness-cry.net/tcn/
This newsletter is sent by subscription only. If you do not wish to be on the mailing list, please let us know and you will be removed immediately. To be removed from this mailing list, simply reply to this newsletter with the word REMOVE in the body of your reply. You may also send your request to tcn@wilderness-cry.net .
Thank you.