Of all the things to classify, this is what the Bush administration chose to keep secret. Not because it threatened national security, but because it threatened a political policy to deny the reality of climate change. This from the people who like to say, "All the science isn't in yet." Now we know what happens when the science does come in. They slap a classification stamp on it and bury it.
The irony is not lost on me that this isn't exactly a short response to Jason's complaints about the "quantity" of my comments. Yeah, it's a bout 9 1/2 minutes long... but worth every second! ;-)
Congressman Jason Chaffetz takes a moral stand on FInancial Literacy in the face of ballooning deficits. But was he this concerned when deficits were running amuck under a Republican controlled government?
Conservatives claim to be against activist judges; but considering the type of Supreme Court Nominee they would prefer to have in the current political climate, their words just don't ring true.
This post is in response to a "cot-side chat" by my Congressman, Jason Chaffetz, who is sponsoring legislation regarding the TSA's use of Whole Body Imaging technology. Whole Body Imaging seems a bit TOO invasive of airline passengers' privacy so the Congressman would like to pull the plug on using the technology at airlines to screen passengers. I think this is a great idea!
And I would like to cite "fair use" for the inclusion of footage from the 1990 movie "Total Recall" since I use it in both an expository context and in a short parody. "Total Recall" is available for purchase in the U.S. through 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment... Here's hoping they'll appreciate my pimping their movie and not sue. ;-)
And here are the details on my little pitch (the fine print, if you will):
Yes, I am totally serious.
What's the point of making such a proposition? To show people in the upper brackets that even after taxes they're doing much better (assuming they're living within their means) than the other 95% of Americans who are much more seriously effected by taxes even at lower rates.
But let's review the basic components of my proposal so I can clarify my use of certain semantics.
I speak of putting "your money where MY mouth is," services "that I can offer," a promise that "I pay all appropriate federal and state taxes," that "I will donate a portion of that money...reducing MY net proceeds to 50%" and that "I won't claim a deduction," "Leaving ME with $100,000" but you will note that I do not use the word "income" in reference to ME.
When I do contract work of any kind--videography, writing, acting, etc.--I operate through my non profit, Utah FilmWorks. All proceeds, either through contracts or direct donations, go toward fulfilling the organization's mission. I DO NOT draw a salary (my personal income is unrelated to my efforts with the organization) BUT I do make all decisions regarding how organization funds are spent so, in that sense, it certainly feels like "my money" even though technically it isn't; though when the organization has no funds in its bank account, I will often make certain purchases (MiniDV tapes, travel, equipment, etc.) for which I can be compensated later. I have also invested a great deal of my own money over the years into the purchase of equipment and overhead costs. Utah FilmWorks has a board of Trustees, including myself (I also serve as President), and a Vice President but I run the organization on my own making periodic reports to my V.P. and the other Trustees. Utah FilmWorks is a registered "non profit corporation" in the State of Utah but does NOT have tax exempt status under 501(c)(3) statutes THUS it is still subject to corporate taxes on funds received for services rendered.
That being said, I want it to be understood that my use of the words "I," "Me" and "My"--within the context of the proposal--are essentially stand-in pronouns in reference to Utah FilmWorks (which is essentially MY organization). But I also want it to be understood that my continuing investment of time, energy and capital into Utah FilmWorks also makes it a very PERSONAL project. I benefit through personal satisfaction and having the opportunity to use Utah FilmWorks' equipment for my own projects (that are within the stated mission of the organization).
So, I do not want anyone to think that I'm not making a sacrifice just because the money doesn't go directly to me where it can be taxed as income. That's why I am offering to make some cash donations to cover any differences between corporate tax rates and those on personal income to the point of reducing the net proceeds by 50%.
Why am I doing this instead of accepting payment directly?
Utah FilmWorks is my passion and since my personal needs are already met, I would like to see it continue to serve my community. I've accomplished quite a bit since the organization started out as Utah Filmmakers in 2002 and did it with very little money. Having learned from day one to be frugal with our resources, $100,000 would go a long way to doing good for the community.
As for the donations in fine arts education, there are two schools that I have worked with closely over the years, North Sanpete High School and Wasatch Academy, that I would like to show my appreciation to; specifically their drama programs. There's also a contemporary art gallery in my community that I have close ties with and would like to contribute to as well.
Spencer Bachus (R-Alabama) claims there are 17 socialists in Congress. For a U.S. Congressman, he sure has a lot to learn about basic government and economic theory.
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
joepuente's journal