Thoughts from the Middle of Nowhere

After my little rant this morning I thought about the situation a little and wondered if there wasn't a way to support the use of alternative fuels without the Legislators needing to shove a mandate down our throats like they so love doing. I did come up with an idea, I might not like it well but it would allow the power of the consumers wants and needs drive the use of alternative fuels instead of mandating it.

What you do is manipulate the fuel tax for your goal. It's real simple, you reduce the Montana fuel tax by say 50% for biodeisel or ethanol blends that are made with Montana products and keep the fuel tax on everything else the same. This will give retailers the opportunity to price the alternative fuels cheaper than the normal fuels and the consumers, who are always looking for a deal, will by the alternative fuels since they are cheaper. This will help Montana farmers and get the alternative fuels production running in the state.

Now I know that lowering taxes is painful to some politicians, mainly Democrats, so the less attractive alternative is to raise Montana fuel taxes on non biodeisel or ethanol blends. You will have the same results as before since the consumer will buy the alternative fuels since they are now cheaper.

Working with the consumer, by manipulating the taxes, instead of shoving a mandate down their throat would support the Montana alternative fuels industry in a much better way. Politicians don't see it that way though, shove a mandate down the consumers throat. I wish they would find a different way.

When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle. Edmund Burke

The other day when we got mail I noticed that the State of Montana doesn't waste any time getting it's tax forms out. I not only received one book of tax forms, I received two books with all the instructions and forms so I can file my taxes. Real nice, prompt and helpful of the State isn't it.

I actually did get some satisfaction out of these forms though oddly enough. When I took the garbage out and burned it, yes I burn my garbage, I kept the tax forms out and once the fire got going really good I put the tax forms in the fire and watched them burn. It really was pleasurable to watch them burn. Watching the flames curl each page and start it burning was hypnotic and gave me a lift. Then the next page would catch and I would get the same pleasurable feeling again. Is this how drug addicts feel with their drug of choice? This lightness and sweetness? This loss of time and space while your drug of choice does its thing? I can now see what the allure of drugs are if they give this kind of pleasure. Page after page curling up and burning, the flames reaching higher and the ash rising up and falling down like leaves of a big tree floating to the earth. Leaves of the government money tree falling down never to bother me again.

The whole thing was majestic. It somehow gave me a lift for the whole day and made me feel better. Simple things for simple minds I guess.

To give pleasure to a single heart by a single act is better than a thousand heads bowing in prayer. Mohandas Gandhi

Montana Legislature alert. (I'll add this to all post that are very strictly about the Legislature for those not interested.)
With the Montana Legislature in session I have been paging through the bills proposed and a few caught my eye. Here is one.

HB 27

Establish wireless enhanced 9-1-1 system

A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: "AN ACT AUTHORIZING A WIRELESS ENHANCED 9-1-1 EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SYSTEM AND PROVIDING FOR ITS ADMINISTRATION; PROVIDING FOR FUNDING OF THE SYSTEM BY LEVYING A WIRELESS ENHANCED 9-1-1 FEE; ESTABLISHING ACCOUNTS FOR THE DEPOSIT OF FEES COLLECTED; PROVIDING FOR DISTRIBUTION OF THE FEES COLLECTED; DEFINING ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR WIRELESS COST RECOVERY

The way I understand it the wireless enhanced 911 is a federal thing so the states have to come up with the appropriate laws to handle it. Wireless enhanced 911 service Phase I allows the authorities to track a 911 call from a wireless phone to a specific tower area and Phase II when it comes will allow the authorities to pinpoint a call to about 300 feet. The 911 service is a good thing and is nothing to complain about but one thing caught my eye in this bill.

(c) for wireless enhanced 9-1-1 services, a fee of 50 cents a month per access line or subscriber in the state is imposed on the amount charged for telephone exchange access services, wireless telephone service, or other 9-1-1 accessible services.

If I understand this section right even non wireless phone lines, telephone exchange access services, are going to pay 50 cents per line to establish this wireless enhanced 911 service. About half the money a customer pays for wireless enhanced 911 service goes to the wireless carriers to maintain the service. So, you don't even have to own a cell phone to help pay for 911 service to people who have cell phones and the money you are paying goes to the cell companies. Something just seems weird about this to me. Why should a non cell phone user be taxed to pay for 911 service for cell phone users?

Referred to the House Federal Relations, Energy, and Telecommunications Committee. Hearings are scheduled for 1/8/2007.

Schweitzer: Budget plan works

Gov. Brian Schweitzer said he thinks his budget proposals, which include double-digit spending increases, are sustainable for future years, contrary to warnings in a new legislative analysis.

Schweitzer said much of the spending is "one-time" for such things as repairing buildings and fixing a troubled state pensions system.

The governor, during an interview Thursday with the Associated Press, responded to a Legislative Fiscal Division analysis that said the budget may set spending levels that can't be maintained.

If you wish hard enough, I guess it will be true, at least according to Gov. Brian Schweitzer. Now I'm not an expert on these things but it does seem to stretch the mind a little to think that such large increases in spending are sustainable. Let's see, cut taxes, spend more money, seems like a recipe for trouble to me.

One thing mentioned in this article is a pet peeve of mine. The bailing out of the "troubled state pensions system." This pension fund lost money in the 2001 stock market crash and now doesn't have enough money to pay for people's pensions. These people are all government employees. Why if I, as a private citizen, lose money in a stock market crash which I am holding for retirement, am I just shit out of luck and have to accept the loss but the government employees just get to take more of my tax dollars to fix their losses so they have the money they want for retirement? Shouldn't they just have to take their lumps like the rest of us do when the stock market has troubles? Seems only fair to me, but fair doesn't apply to government employees obviously and my money gets used to bail them out instead of being used by me for maybe my retirement fund. Then the government employees wonder why people have a low opinion of them. This might be one of the reasons why.

Hell, as a private citizen and business man if I cut my income and increased my spending hoping to spend my way to wealth it wouldn't work very well. Why does the government think it can? Because that's what the people like and tough decisions aren't required by the politicians. I sure hope it works out for the Governor because if it doesn't, I, and a lot of other people, as a taxpayers will pay for it.

I wish my name was Brian because maybe sometimes people would misspell my name and call me Brain. That's like a free compliment and you don't even gotta be smart to notice it. Mitch Hedberg

Thanks to Montana Main Street Blog For this one. We see that US corporate tax rates are second highest in the world. In 2000 the US was rated 6th. The US Corporate tax rate hasn't changed as much as other countries has went down.

This was all interesting but what I found interesting was the footnote that said the US corporate tax rate was variable by the state you were in. I looked up Montana and with our 6.75% corporate tax rate, a company here in Montana pays taxes of a little over 46% in taxes. Attach that to Montana's high personal income tax rate and we have a reason why big companies don't want to locate here in Montana.

Pretty damn interesting if you ask me.

In levying taxes and in shearing sheep it is well to stop when you get down to the skin. Austin O'Malley

In Montana's Senate Race, Jon Tester keeps portraying himself as fiscally conservative and wanting to balance the Federal budget. He continually blasts Sen Burns for cutting taxes and spending money that the country doesn't have. Now Tester has all kinds of ideas on how to spend money, extending CHIPS to all children, but I have never heard him once say how he would balance the budget. He never talks about raising taxes or cutting spending to get the deficit under control, just criticizes Burns for not doing it while proposing spending increases by the Federal government. I've really wondered about all of this since it doesn't really add up. Now, what do I see today?

Tester proposes homeowner tax break

State Sen. Jon Tester, D-Big Sandy, in front of the James and Catherine Bentler home in Billings on Wednesday, outlined federal tax proposals to help homeowners, college students and families.

Tester is the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate opposing U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., who is running for his fourth term. Libertarian Stan Jones of Bozeman is also on the Nov. 7 general election ballot.

Tester said his "Real Tax Relief" plan would provide targeted property tax relief from the federal government, "an idea that has never been tried in Washington." He said the importance of the idea is that it is fair and benefits Montana families and homeowners.

So, Tester wants to cut taxes and increase spending as his platform for getting into the Senate. Doesn't this just sound like Sen Burns's strategy? I'll admit, the tax breaks are different from the ones Burns supports but the strategy is the same. How does this help balance the Federal budget like Tester has been campaigning on? I wish somebody could answer this for me but I'm sure the Tester fanatics out there will just ignore me.

I find the one tax break very interesting.

* Establish a 5 percent tax credit for life for any honorably discharged service member.

As a disclaimer, I will admit this is one that would benefit me personally if they grandfather in anybody that has ever served, but why should a person get this for service to their country? What makes them so special? I served my country for two reasons, one is for the education that was offered and the other was because it was the right thing to do. I am very proud of my service to my country and what I did for my country. I have never asked for any special treatment for this service and I don't think veterans should receive any, unless they were injured while in the service, for their service. I know, I am in the minority on this opinion but pandering to the veterans this way to me demeans their service.

Sorry, I got off track. My whole point here is that Jon Tester is following Conrad Burns right down the same path. Reduce taxes while increasing spending. How does this help Montanans or the country? The short answer is, it doesn't. People need to remember this.

There are three principles in a man's being and life, the principle of thought, the principle of speech, and the principle of action. Martin Buber

Gov. Brian Schweitzer is trying to pass the buck yet again but this time I don't think it's going to work.

Schweitzer proposes suspending water-rights fee

Gov. Brian Schweitzer said Wednesday that he wants to repeal the so-called "water tax" and issue refunds to those who have paid it in sums under $400.

....

The Democratic governor blamed Republicans for the water fee, passed last year by the Montana Legislature. Republicans appointed a study committee in 2003 that helped advance the fee proposal. But it was a Legislature largely controlled by Democrats that passed the 2005 fee measure, to fund what supporters hoped would be the eventual resolution of backlogged water-rights claims.

Schweitzer said he did not veto the bill, because it emerged from the Legislature with overwhelming support.

So, the Democratic controlled Senate and the split House both supported and sent him a bill to add these fees and he signed the bill into law, but the Republicans are to blame for this. What, did they twist his arm and put a gun to his head and tell him to sign the bill into law, or did he sign it on his own? I thought so, the Governor signed it on his own so he is just as guilty on this one as all the rest of those assholes in Helena that passed it.

Now for the part that really frosts my ****s and this is Schweitzer's doing all by himself with no help from anybody.

People who paid less than $400 in fees should get refunds, he said. If they are approved by the Legislature convening in January, then people due money likely would get it in October 2007, Schweitzer said.

So, the fee on this whole fiasco was supposed to be capped at $400 for people with multiple water claims. So, if you paid $400 or got charged more than $400, like I did, you get screwed by the Governor's so called "Square Deal." Why, may I ask, if you paid less than $400 do you deserve to get the money back, but if you paid the same or more than than the legally allowed amount you are going to get screwed over and not get anything back? This is a "Square Deal?" Can anybody answer how this works out to be a "Square Deal?" I know nobody will be able to since the Schweitzer sycophants can never seem to answer such simple questions that I pose. They just keep fawning all over him and ignore such things.

Gee, thanks for nothing Schweitzer. Screw me over in violation of the law and then don't offer to give me the money back when you plan on giving it back to other people. What a "Square Deal" it is. I'm sure it will feel real good getting screwed over again by you.

But I see where I've screwed up big time - I see things that I could have done differently and had a lot more successful ride here. But of course, hindsight is 20/20. Ray Stevens

A lot of people are complaining about the profits the oil industry is making and have all kinds of solutions as to how to help consumers past this stretch of high gas prices. The stupidest of these I've heard is a $100 fuel-cost rebate for millions of taxpayers and suspending the federal 18.4-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax.

What good is $100 going to do me with gas prices the way they are? One hundred dollars doesn't go very far in the Last Best Place and the distances we travel. It's nothing more than a big joke. How much administrative overhead will there be involved in issuing this money out to people? The Government doesn't do anything cheap so I bet this will cost taxpayers at least twice what they receive to get their own damn money back from the government. Lastly how much fraud will there be since the government is handing out money? Offer money like this and fraud happens, pure and simple. Some criminally minded, enterprising individuals, will find a way to get extra money out of this ill advised scheme, guaranteed. Overall the $100 fuel-cost rebate is an idiotic idea.

Now on to suspending the 18.4-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax. Another monumentally stupid idea. Consumer usage of gasoline is, for the most part, dependent on the supply and demand equation. If prices drop for gasoline 18.4-cent-per-gallon all of a sudden, the consumer will just see lower prices and consume more gas at the lower price than if it was a higher price which will drive prices back up. Consumers just accept the tax as part of the price of gas and adjust their buying habits accordingly. So it doesn't do any good in the long run. It might give short term, couple of weeks, relief from prices but they will just drift back up due to demand.

Also, that tax money is all ready spent for highway projects throughout the US so suspending the tax means money going out to the projects still but no money coming in to the treasury. Yea, that's all we need, a bigger deficit to deal with along with high fuel prices. Not real smart.

The easiest way to combat these prices? try to adjust your driving habits so you use less gas. I have here on the ranch. Plant crops that require less farming with a tractor. Make every trip out to work count, plan more jobs per trip, so that you drive around less. Go to town less often and do more when you do go to town. These things are not a lot of fun but they are what you have to do to survive. Bitching and moaning don't get you very far, figuring out ways to cope does.

An intelligent hell would be better than a stupid paradise. Victor Hugo

Tax preparers make many mistakes: study

Professional tax preparers make significant errors on returns and often charge the taxpayer more than the client had been told to expect, according to a government study released on Tuesday.

The study by the Government Accountability Office was a very limited one, involving 19 outlets of commercial chain tax preparers in one major metropolitan area. But lawmakers said it was a red flag about the tax return industry.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, said "bad practices" appear to be "pervasive and systemic in the industry."

GAO investigators presented the tax preparers with fictional, but plausible and not overly elaborate, tax scenarios. Most of the returns ended up wrong -- sometimes inflating the refund for the taxpayer by as much as $2,000 and sometimes costing the taxpayer up to $1,500 in overpayment.

My question is "who's to blame for these problems in the tax industry?" The tax preparers for not do a good enough job preparing taxes or Congress for making the tax law so complicated that nobody can follow it and you are almost guaranteed to make a mistake? I think they should both, Congress and tax prepares, shoulder the blame for these problems in their "industry." Yes, taxes are Congresses industry and they need to suck it up and take their share of the blame.

Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it. George Bernard Shaw

Who will pay for wolf costs undecided

Since it first declared gray wolves in need of protection, the federal government has paid the bill to help rebuild the predator's population in the Northern Rockies.

But with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service now declaring wolves recovered and eager to hand off full management to the three states involved, the question becomes: Who will pay to manage the predators then?

It's like two dogs fighting over the same bone. Who will pay? THE TAXPAYERS YOU IDIOTS!! Whether it's the Federal or the State it all comes form the taxpayers, it's just a different base of taxpayers. My opinion? The people of the US want this more than the people of Montana so the pain should be spread over the whole US and not just the state. Will that happen, no.

If Stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out? Will Rogers

Interesting series of articles in the Gazette about conservation Easements and there use and affects in Eastern Montana.

The Good:

Conservation easement preserve family's way of life

Glasgow-area rancher Steve Page wasn't thinking about tax incentives when he negotiated a conservation easement on 24,000 acres in Valley County.

"The fundamental concern of our conservation easement is preservation of native sagebrush grasslands," he said.

Beyond protection of a family way of life, the easement had the advantage of reducing the value of the ranch. That, in turn, will reduce inheritance tax liability.

As the price of land continues to rise, the reduction in value can become important to multigeneration operations. It can mean the difference between selling the farm to pay the taxes and keeping it in the family for generations to come.

Conservation easements grow in Eastern Montana

Montana ranchers watching as rising land prices spread east of the mountains have started to worry that the legacy of their grandfathers and fathers may be lost in a checkerboard of expensive private hunting preserves.

When land prices soar, so does the tax liability of the estate a rancher may want to pass to another generation. Many in Western Montana, where land has become more valuable for recreation and development than for traditional agricultural uses, are embracing the concept of conservation easements. The idea is moving east of the divide.

You will note both these articles mention the fact that a benefit of Conservation Easements is the reduction of tax liability of the estate of a landowner passing away. Everybody tells me the estate tax is a good thing and those evil rich people should pay more money and it doesn't affect Montanans. These stories seem to say something different than that. They are saying that the tax liability is so great that efforts have to be made to reduce the tax or risk losing the place. This is the reason the Estate Tax don't seem to affect many farms and ranches. Farmers and Ranchers tend to do something about the situation before it kicks in. Every day farmers and ranchers are penalized, by having to do things to avoid the tax, for working the land and passing it on to their families. The Conservation Easement is one tool they use.

The Bad:

Landowners seek security

Conservation easements aren't for everyone, Big Timber real estate agent and land manager Mark Norem advises.

There are a lot of things to consider when placing restrictions on a piece of property that will forever prevent subdivision, surface mining or other commercial development.

"You have to measure the benefits and weigh the risks," he said.

Placing restrictions on what you can do to the place might not be what future generations want. You are limiting their course of actions.

The Ugly:

Critics of easements take issue with permanence

Conrad farmer/rancher Llew Jones has a one-word objection to conservation easements -- perpetuity.

"A lot of people are beginning to worry about 'forever,' " he said.

Perpetuity. How can I have any idea what my grand kids or Great-grand kids, if I have any, know what they want to do with this place? Do I want to place these conservation burdens on them? Do the tax advantages outweigh the loss of freedom?

These are all questions that make the whole Conservation Easement situation such a hard thing to figure out. Locking your descendants into a mode they might not want to be in. Is this right and proper? I don't know that I have the answer to that. Most of what drives these decisions is tax liability, particularly estate tax. If active farmers and ranchers didn't have to worry about this it wouldn't become the tipping point that drives people into the conservation easement.

As you can tell I am not a big fan of the easements but they are a way of life nowadays. Hopefully I can avoid burdening my family in the future with one of these contraptions and limiting them into how they can use the land and lead their lives. Only time will tell.

I see humanity now as one vast plant, needing for its highest fulfillment only love, the natural blessings of the great outdoors, and intelligent crossing and selection. Luther Burbank

Using images from above, USDA prosecutes farmers

Satellites have monitored crop conditions around the world for decades, helping traders predict futures prices in commodities markets and governments anticipate crop shortages.

But those satellite images are now increasingly turning up in courtrooms across the nation as the Agriculture Department's Risk Management Agency cracks down on farmers involved in crop insurance fraud.

Strikes me as kind of scary that they are using satellites to keep track of what you are doing. Don't get me wrong, I am glad they are catching people in insurance fraud cases but using satellites to do it strikes me odd. This leads me to a question, does taking pictures of your crops from space violate the 4th amendment restrictions against unreasonable search? Why are they taking pictures if they don't suspect you? Do they need a warrant? Since your crops are out in the open I assume no warrant is needed but it still seems like an unreasonable search. What's next, use satellites to track home improvements so the government can increase your taxes? How far will this satellite surveillance go to keep track of the ordinary citizen? Technology always leads to interesting questions.

Advances in technology will continue to reach far into every sector of our economy. Future job and economic growth in industry, defense, transportation, agriculture, health care, and life sciences is directly related to scientific advancement. Christopher Bond

I got my bill in the mail for water rights. I find the statement that a persons bill could be up to $400 dollars a laugh.

Individuals can expect to pay $20 per water right every two years for the next decade. People with multiple water rights will pay up to $400.

My bill comes to just under $600 for two years. Almost $3000 dollars over the ten years. Thirty three percent more than the article quoted would be the maximum. I love the way they, the government, lies about these things. It makes things sound better I guess. Just another way to tax farmers and ranchers to death.

You don't pay taxes - they take taxes. Chris Rock