HB 2377 Family Medical Care and Temporary 0.3% General Sales Tax Increase

April 25, 2009

GM should say “NO” to Government Demands for Bankruptcy

April 13, 2009

There is absolutely no reason that GM should bow their knee to the wishes of the United States Government.  The U.S. Government is out of bounds.  The United States Constitution does not say GM needs to take directions from the Government. 

When I am trying to make offers to the IRS I always see or look for what is best for the client and not what is best for the government.  The government always looks at whether they can settle a claim and if not settle or if the client cannot make payments and still pay all of their taxes then and only then do they recommend that a client close down its operations. 

Government taxes must be paid first.  The reason for this is that if they are not paid then the government will get their money out of the executives and the bookkeepers and the payroll clerks.  If the government is not paid first then the operations must be terminated. 

The income taxes cannot be paid or settled in bankruptcy unless the taxes are in arrears and filed and not paid. 

Another fault of going into bankruptcy is that the government will not have to pay back taxes which have been previously paid.  In another name this is called an NOL.  If one has a Net Operating Loss this amount can go backwards for up to five years (the timeframe depends upon if a business, farm or individual, etc.) and starting at a minimum of five years.  Could this indicate that the government would not have enough money in its coffers to payback the back taxes paid to GM or forward for up to 15 years in time.  Come on let’s get real. 

Bankruptcy is not the solution nor is it the answer. 

Leave the running of the automobile business up to the owners of the company.  A small ownership does not need to dictate what needs to be done.

A once proud company just needs to have big brother out of its way.  A once proud company just needs the thugs out of the way.  Government should be striving to get the threat of bankruptcy out of the ownership and put the out-of-touch contracts back into a reality basis.

But the government is not the solution.  Government is the problem.  Always has been and always will be.

AIG – Congress needs to pony up Benefits

March 19, 2009

Just got back from lunch. Radio broadcasters were talking about AIG and employee bonus. But being in the tax field I am always thinking about tax and sometime this is unfortunately.

Back to AIG and Congress and relating the Congress as a shareholder and owner and the duties according to tax law and what this would entail.

The employees of AIG deserve the same medical insurance covereage as what Congress gets due to the tax laws which are in place based upon shareholder ownership percentages and anti-discrimination rules. If discrimination exists then the other party must pay income tax on the amount of the discrimination. In other words it is not tax-free for them. Same with pensions. The basic rules is that if one party or a related group of parties own a minimum of twenty percent of a company then the pension plan which the one owns must be the same offered as what the twenty percent party owns. Thus since the Congress is an owner then the pension plan which Congress has offered itself must be offered to all of the employees of AIG. What a concept. The government as a shareholder must be governed by all of our rules.

This amount of money will seem small in relationship to the AIG bonus payment. Also, to make things equal the government cannot lower the pension amount but must raise the pension to the higher level.

This is one of the reasons why some business acquisition deals do not go through. The selling company employee benefits are too costly and deplete the reason for the bailout or the purchase in the first place.

Good luck Congress in trying to get out of this one.

Letter about State Balanced Budget

March 6, 2009

Dear Senators and Representatives
Would like to find how the Washington State budget will be balanced.  Could you indicate to me the method which you will be using.  Please mention a bill or how much of a particular program you would be cutting off.  Of course a dollar amount should also be indicated. 
My method is to
1)  Save $1 bilion by passing Initiative 1043 – illegal immigrants initiative.
2)  Cut  $2 billion from the medical insurance to children.  The amount which it has grown by in the last several years could be cut back and the parents would have to assume their childrens health care insurance amounts.
3)  Cut $3 billion by implementing State Auditor Brian Sonntag’s performance audit recommendations.  Although many will take several years to get this type of a savings it is really a sound step in the start of this process.
4)  Cut $2.5 Billion from the state nursing home care portion of the budget.  This would be accomplished by making senior citizens either pay for their own nursing home insurance and by electing out of state coverage or by starting to pay for nursing home state insurance at the age of 65 and taking out 15% of the monthly amount from the senior citizens social security checks monthly and automatically.  The exact numbers on this I have not received back from my own representative, Mr. Scott White, but they should be close. 
Total savings of about $8.5 Billion 
Please indicate some recommendations which you would recommend.  If you wish to include only a minimum of $1 Billion please advise.  Will keep your information private for your purposes but will include as a whole for party declaration purposes.  Will not send this to your opposing party however except in the format of a blog or newspaper article unless you specifically say not to include your information.  Again, not from an individual basis but from  a collective basis.  So if three representatives say they would cut $75 million and another says $400 million and another says $300 million then the amount indicated would be $75 million – $400 million or the highest/lowest amount showing from a party collectively. amount.
Keith Ljunghammar

House Bill 1793 – alternative student transportation

February 17, 2009

House Bill 1793 – alternative student transportation


from page 1, line 19 equal to one percent of all funds, both state andfederal, expended for the construction of state highways in such year

This amount is being increase from the previous bill from three-tenths of one percent to one percent. For an extremely negative amount showing in the budget perhaps to as much as $8 Billion this increase would show imprudence on the part of the legislators in the State of Washington.

Yes, I would agree that sound and safe pathways for school children should be a priority but these funds should be coming from the general budget and not from the vehicle tax imposed for improving our roads. Perhaps each city and county needs to pass a bond for this extra item. Later, if the budget is fixed, then and only then should extras be put in the capital construction budget. Once again, the left sided agenda is putting pressure on the infrastructure and making it want for a better purpose. Social programs should be reduced or eliminated in order to make programs such as this safety feature a reality.


House Bill 1612 – Prevention of unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases

February 17, 2009

House Bill 1612 – Prevention of unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases


On page 2, line 9-12 reads: ” ‘Evidence-based’ means a program that uses practices proven to the greatest extent possible through research in compliance with scientific methods to effective and beneficial for the target population.

What this means to me is that they say they are right all of the time and I am wrong all of the time. Such arrogance.

In the olden days the scientific methods were:

1) Get the shotgun out honey, we are going to have a wedding tonight. This was just after the board in the center of the bed was kicked out.

2) What is wrong with the mother or father or the brothers and sisters being around each other continually while in the presence of a non-family member. This can reduce pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases to unprecedented levels.

3) Why does a scientific method need to be introduced when true unscientific methods have been used and have stood up to the test of time.

Is it really a duty of the state government to watch over someone when the family unit is supposed to do this. The basic government formation is the family unit.



HB 2133 – Accumulated sick leave for volunteer work

February 16, 2009
HB 2133 – Accumulated sick leave for volunteer work


This bill in its conceptualization seems to be of a positive good-hearted nature. But. This is exactly the opposite of what the employee and the State need for achieving overall personal and state goals.

The purpose of accumulating and even of having sick leave is to be able to continue with the payment of bills if and ever if an accident or a catastrophic illness occurs. Twenty-two days is but only a little bit over one month of accumulation of sick pay. For all purposes this is not enough if a serious illness does occur.

This bill will create ill-will and disillusionment on the part of the government employee. “I helped out during my communities mishappenings and now that I am sick no one else is helping me” syndrome. The world, yes, is cruel and benevolence is noteworthy.

The objective of sick pay is to be accumulated while one is sick and not having money come in because of the reliance upon a continuation of cash flow. Long-term care insurance which would take over in about three months or six months is taken out to guard against the real catastrophies of life. There is no sense in having this catastophe compounded by making the employee suffer financially for five months period of time rather than a shorter period of time.

Ideally the accumulation of sick leave up to the point where the long-term care insurance kicks in is the primary objective of sick pay.

Under current federal law a retiring individual can specify that remaining sick leave be used to pay for health insurance or to be paid out in a lump sum. This lump sum in cash would obviously be taxable. The accumulation of one of the major costs of retirement for future years benefits would greatly enhance the senior citizens prospects of surviving in a more comfortable fashion rather than being paid for the current acts of kindness which would have been better served as future income rather than meeting present income needs.

In no way is this bill in the benefit of the employee overall and in no way is this bill in the best interest of the community and in no way is this bill in the best interest of the greater State of Washington.

This bill also violates the entire premise of sound financial planning for the retirement years which would be ahead.