Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Martin says… File your NJ 2002 return. You can get a credit for taxes paid to another state. What type of PA return did you file? Hey Allen, This was just this past year, 2003.  I’ve never filed any type of return in Pennsylvania, as I live in New Jersey. Thanks,

What is state tax?  Are you talking about sales tax or income tax?

Response:

HI Joe, I’m a CPA in the Philadelphia, PA area so I’m familiar with both states. You should immediately have your company stop withholding PA income taxes and start withholding NJ taxes for 2004.  In fact they should move any taxes paid to PA to NJ for 2004 and adjust your withholdings so you are not underwithheld for 2004. For 2003 they should have withheld taxes for the state where you live and work but since they did not you will have to get it corrected.  The first thing you need to do is see if they show the taxes as PA on your W-2 which I assume they do.  If so, you should talk to the accounting department/person and see what they can do to help fix this.  I’m not sure who is at fault for the error (generally the employer should know where you live and work so it sounds like it is their fault) but perhaps your employer can help fix it by amending the returns they filed with the states and moving the withholdings from PA to NJ.  What should happen is that you will file in both states, get a refund from PA for the taxes you paid to them and then remit taxes to NJ. The NJ tax rate is much higher than the PA rate so you will have to pay considerably more, depending on your earnings.  If Philadelphia taxes were also paid it gets even more complicated although it does help even out the tax rates between the states.  It would be advisable to consult with a local accountant and have them help you since you could be assessed late fees for not having NJ taxes withheld.  They can also ensure that all returns get filed correctly and help resolve any problems that may occur. I feel for you as I know that this type of situation can be a real headache for everyone involved. Sincerely, Stephen Lewis

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I just found out that I’ve been paying state tax to the wrong state.  My company is based in Pennsylvania, but I work for a division in New Jersey, and I live in New Jersey.  I paid state tax to Pennsylvania last year. What do I do? Thank you, JW

Response:

says… File your NJ 2002 return. You can get a credit for taxes paid to another state. What type of PA return did you file?

Hey Allen, This was just this past year, 2003.  I’ve never filed any type of return in Pennsylvania, as I live in New Jersey. Thanks, JW

Response:

Martin says… File your NJ 2002 return. You can get a credit for taxes paid to another state. What type of PA return did you file? Hey Allen, This was just this past year, 2003.  I’ve never filed any type of return in Pennsylvania, as I live in New Jersey. Thanks,

It sounds like this is a problem for your employer to straighten out. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – JW

Response:

I just found out that I’ve been paying state tax to the wrong state.  My company is based in Pennsylvania, but I work for a division in New Jersey, and I live in New Jersey.  I paid state tax to Pennsylvania last year. What do I do? Thank you, JW

Response:

File your NJ 2002 return. You can get a credit for taxes paid to another state. What type of PA return did you file?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I just found out that I’ve been paying state tax to the wrong state.  My company is based in Pennsylvania, but I work for a division in New Jersey, and I live in New Jersey.  I paid state tax to Pennsylvania last year. What do I do? Thank you, JW

Response:

Question:

On March 3, in a widely circulated radio interview on the Jack Stockwell Show in Salt Lake City (see EIR, March 14), Lyndon LaRouche had singled out Strauss as one of the leading intellectual figures, along with Bertrand Russell and H.G. Wells, steering the United States into a disastrous replay of the Peloponnesian War, which led to the collapse of Athens. Within days of the LaRouche interview, Leo Strauss was the subject of a series of public attacks, in the German, French and American media (see Documentation), for his role in producing the current generation of neo-conservatives. Indeed, author Shadia B. Drury, in her 1997 book, Leo Strauss and the American Right, named the following prominent Washington players as among Strauss’ prot

Question:

    1.  I can’t answer your question but I can tell you what I did. I am brewing with two five gallon Rubbermaid coolers. I have pro-mash but you could do this with a spread sheet if you had a formula. I made no attempt to figure out thermal mass since I knew that those coolers are pretty efficient.  Yesterday I mashed in at 154f which was the temp. I was looking for. I had heated the strike water to 170f and I had measured the water into the tun to be a grain to water ratio of 1.1 qts to 1 lb of grain. I put all the information into the formula and looked to see what promash wanted me to do to get the result I got.  I then fiddled with the value on the thermal mass window to replicate the result that I got.  I came up with .050 – .070.  Pro mash says a good default value is .300.  I have heard those coolers are pretty tight.  2.   Now that said, I am now connected to some other brewers and I am watching them mash.  What I am seeing is dead reckoning.  Big Boss heats up some water usually to 168 or 170 172f and starts mixing grain with water until it "looks right" He doesn’t measure much.   Big Boss takes temp of mash and almost always adds further quantity of hot water.  This hot water has been sitting under the heat while the other mashing has been going on and is now hotter than the original strike temp.  Big Boss may add two or three cups at a time.     Also, it has been my experience that in my system the mash is actually a bit warmer five or six minutes later than it seems at the time you mix it, so I close it up for a few and look again at the temp.     Anyway, that’s what I have seen.  Anyway, I am learning that hitting your temp. is perhaps not as difficult or precise as it might seem when first I tried it.  I have always come out low except once.  I keep a frozen plastic pop bottle handy for cooling the mash without adding water. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What is the formula for finding the thermal mass of a Mash Tun? I’m thinking this is where I’m having a slight error in determining my initial strike temperature for single infusion mashing – no accounting for the thermal mass of my equipment. Thanks!

Response:

Heat about the same volume of water that the mash tun is expected to hold and record its temperature.  Move it to the mash tun in a manner that is similar to how you intend to strike and record its temperature.  The difference between the two temperatures and times the weight of water is its thermal mass IIRC. — Dan Listermann Check out our E-tail site at www.listermann.com – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What is the formula for finding the thermal mass of a Mash Tun? I’m thinking this is where I’m having a slight error in determining my initial strike temperature for single infusion mashing – no accounting for the thermal mass of my equipment. Thanks!

Response:

Dan, What units are you using?  Gallons, Quarts, pints, metric I am working hypotheticals with english units and I am getting huge numbers. Could you give an example?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Heat about the same volume of water that the mash tun is expected to hold and record its temperature.  Move it to the mash tun in a manner that is similar to how you intend to strike and record its temperature.  The difference between the two temperatures and times the weight of water is its thermal mass IIRC. — Dan Listermann Check out our E-tail site at www.listermann.com What is the formula for finding the thermal mass of a Mash Tun? I’m thinking this is where I’m having a slight error in determining my initial strike temperature for single infusion mashing – no accounting for the thermal mass of my equipment. Thanks!

Response:

It has been a while since I screwed with this stuff.  Usually thermal mass is expressed in pounds IIRC.  However in brewing, gallons of water is very handy.  I recall calculating that my five gallon cooler had a thermal mass of about 0.15 gallons or 1.25 pounds.  Malt has a specific heat of 0.4 and hence a thermal mass of the same if I understand things. A pound of malt has the thermal mass of 1/21 gallons of water. — Dan Listermann Check out our E-tail site at www.listermann.com

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Dan, What units are you using?  Gallons, Quarts, pints, metric I am working hypotheticals with english units and I am getting huge numbers. Could you give an example? Heat about the same volume of water that the mash tun is expected to hold and record its temperature.  Move it to the mash tun in a manner that is similar to how you intend to strike and record its temperature.  The difference between the two temperatures and times the weight of water is its thermal mass IIRC. — Dan Listermann Check out our E-tail site at www.listermann.com What is the formula for finding the thermal mass of a Mash Tun? I’m thinking this is where I’m having a slight error in determining my initial strike temperature for single infusion mashing – no accounting for the thermal mass of my equipment. Thanks!

Response:

What is the formula for finding the thermal mass of a Mash Tun? I’m thinking this is where I’m having a slight error in determining my initial strike temperature for single infusion mashing – no accounting for the thermal mass of my equipment. Thanks!

I just happened to be trying to calculate that by experimentation tonight. Heated water to 160F, Dumped in my room temp (80F) 48qt rubbermaid rectangular cooler. at 5min, cracked the lid and stuck in a thermometer. 140F at 20 min, 145F (WTF? temp is RISING?) at 40 min, 152F (no, I don’t have a fire under my cooler) at 60min, 150F. How am I supposed to come up with a strike temp with numbers like this? I think I’ll stick to kettle mashing!

Response:

and stuck in a thermometer. 140F at 20 min, 145F (WTF? temp is RISING?) at 40 min, 152F (no, I don’t have a fire under my cooler) at 60min, 150F. How am I supposed to come up with a strike temp with numbers like this? I think I’ll stick to kettle mashing!

Try 170 degrees and lay off the worrying.  You will be pleasantly surprised at the results and no stirring! — Dan Listermann Check out our E-tail site at www.listermann.com – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What is the formula for finding the thermal mass of a Mash Tun? I’m thinking this is where I’m having a slight error in determining my initial strike temperature for single infusion mashing – no accounting for the thermal mass of my equipment. Thanks! I just happened to be trying to calculate that by experimentation tonight. Heated water to 160F, Dumped in my room temp (80F) 48qt rubbermaid rectangular cooler.

Response:

What is the formula for finding the thermal mass of a Mash Tun? I’m thinking this is where I’m having a slight error in determining my initial strike temperature for single infusion mashing – no accounting for the thermal mass of my equipment. Thanks!

Response:

Question:

If you are one, can you post a message about yourself?  What kind of tools (language, editor, database, etc) do you use most often for your ork?  –and please explain the reason for your preference and tell us the types of problems you solve.  No need to go into much detail, as it would go over my head. –Peng

Response:

If you are one, can you post a message about yourself?  What kind of tools (language, editor, database, etc) do you use most often for your ork?  –and please explain the reason for your preference and tell us the types of problems you solve.  No need to go into much detail, as it would go over my head. –Peng

I try never to ork – that’s why I have cow-orkers:) Now, for a serious answer. The tools that I use depend upon what I am trying to produce and what I have available. I write software for businesses which find off-the-shelf packages lacking. There are more of these than you might think, and even more who struggle along, trying to make generic Quickbooks or Peachtree fit their business model. Since the available tools as well as needs and expectations change fairly rapidly in the computer world, the most useful skill you can have is to be a fast learner. I can name half a dozen languages, database systems, and platforms with which I have produced one or more useful software products. Most of these tools are now outdated and would be a poor choice for my next project. Anyway, questions like "what language did you use?" never come up if your software produces the results required in a reasonable amount of time. If you’re looking for a general trend, perhaps to guide your studies, I believe the greatest need in the near future will be in the area of data security. Businesses are not going to give up the conveniences of the internet, but spammers, virus writers, and crackers are making the net less useful and more dangerous every day. Regards, Irv

Response:

I’m a foxpro programmer.  The other tool that I like to use is ACCPAC source.   If you are interested in the field you want to find an accounting package like ACCPAC learn it and how to modify it.  UA Corporate is an Access based competitor. Bill Couture

Response:

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -THE STOCK SCANDAL YOU HAVEN’T HEARD ABOUT YET By Porter Stansberry Yesterday Coca-Cola, one of the most respected companies in the world, announced that it would begin expensing options. Any company that wants to keep its good name will soon follow. In the long run, that’s a good thing for investors. But, in the short run – as companies are forced to come clean with options expenses – investors will be shocked to realize that most of the fastest growing companies in the market were actually not growing at all. What today are the most expensive stocks in the market, will suffer enormous devaluations as investors come to understand the shell game that was being played with options and share buybacks. If you haven’t already, check your portfolio for "options printing" companies and make sure that the companies you own have really been making money. You can begin with what I suspect will easily become the "poster child" of such shareholder abuses. Once the most highly respected – and the most profitable – company in Silicon Valley, this company will soon find itself in the middle of the next national scandal…and the focus of media, investor and political scorn. Its CEO, once regarded as the best CEO in America, will see his reputation…well, return to the mean. And investors in a company that once posted a 9,000% return to shareholders will see their investment wiped out. But first, if you’d like to understand the next big scandal to sweep Wall Street – a scandal that will make the others pale by comparison – you have to understand in some detail how the cost of granting stock options is represented to shareholders. Options accounting is considered arcane and a minor financial detail today. In fact, the SEC only requires companies to report their options expenses as a footnote. But you’ll soon see a lot more focus on these numbers… A stock option granted by an employer is the right for an employee to buy a share of the company’s stock at today’s price. Normally this right extends out into the future – ten years, for example. In theory, options align the employees’ interests with the shareholders. But experience is proving quite the opposite. Employees, including CEOs and other executives, don’t have any downside. If the stock crashes, he doesn’t lose a penny. If the stock soars, he’s a millionaire. The prevalence of these kinds of plans, not to mention the size of the grants given to senior managers, explain why companies during the bubble were being run in such a risky fashion – the managers had nothing to lose. But here’s the real scandal. And what management likes about this kind of compensation…it’s free. The cost of granting options doesn’t appear on the income statement. Trouble is, as Warren Buffett said recently, if options aren’t compensation, what are they? And if compensation isn’t put on the income statement, where do you put it? Consider: if options grants don’t show up as compensation expense, they never appear on the income statement. And if a company uses free cash flow to buy back all of the shares granted via options, there’s never any record of the extra costs. Options allow executives to hide the effect of their enormous compensation packages from the bottomline. For example, the CEO of the company I’m going to warn you about today – where options have gotten out of control – realized over $57 million in compensation from exercising options in 2001. That was more than 25% of his company’s net profits for the year. Meanwhile, on the income statement, only his $300,000 salary counts against earnings. On average, over the last six years, this CEO made $32 million per year. Almost none of that expense showed up on the income statement. Companies would never dream of paying executives so much money, except for the fact that investors don’t see the effects of this compensation on earnings. According to current GAAP accounting standards, this company produced outstanding EPS growth – 168% over five years. Even in 2000, when the market tanked, this company still grew earnings by 21%. Because of this growth and its status as a leading big cap stock, you can understand perhaps why the stock still trades at outlandish prices: 78 times earnings and over 10 times sales. But, if you deduct the expense of options grants using the Black-Scholes method to determine the value at the time of issue, you see an entirely different picture. After you expense the value of the options granted, instead of 168% growth over five years, earnings only grew 39% over five years. Hardly remarkable, especially for a high tech company with great position in the market. After all, there was a high tech boom, remember? Accurate accounting also shows that, like most companies in the sector, this firm had a sizeable decrease in earnings in 2001. As should be reported to shareholders, earnings after stock compensation fell by 29% in 2001. You have to wonder how the market would price this "growth stock" if shareholders knew that really, counting all costs to shareholders, the earnings per share didn’t grow by 21%, they fell by 29%! My guess is that, if the market realized that this company’s earnings were actually decreasing, the shares might not trade at 78 times earnings. Maybe 7 times. Or maybe 8 times. But not 78 times. Here’s what else the market apparently doesn’t recognize about this company: options expenses are rising. Employees’ options that will vest in the next ten years now equal more than 25% of the entire capital stock of the company. If employees choose to exercise their options, there will be a 25% tax on earnings growth as the number of shares grows. To keep this outlandish executive compensation off the minds of investors, the company has to prevent dilution – new shares – at all costs. Who controls dilution? Why…the same executives who make millions on options. In fact, executives now use even more cash than provided by operations to buy back shares of stock – no matter how expensive the stock is! – just to prevent the real cost of options compensation from ever being reported to shareholders. For example, this company made $223.8 million from operations in the last six months of 2001, according to its most recent filing with the SEC. But, during the same period, it repurchased $354.4 million of its own stock…which was trading at prices that today look, well, slightly expensive: 20+ times book value, 100+ times sales and 140+ times earnings. Did management truly perceive that its shares were undervalued and the best place to spend $350 million? Or…were the executives engaged in a conspiracy to prevent shareholders from seeing an accurate accounting of its expenses – particularly executive compensation? The answer, at least to me, is obvious. But there’s more. If management thought its shares were attractive enough for the company’s money…why are the same shares not attractive enough for management to even hold? In the last six months, management has sold nearly 1 million shares of stock. And, despite 20 years of large- scale option grants, insiders own less than 1% of the total shares outstanding. Incredibly, the founder and CEO of the company in question currently don’t own a single share of stock. Nor, according to SEC filings, do five of the company’s Vice Presidents. If stock options were truly meant to align the interests of management and shareholders, the management would at least hold some of the shares they’re granted. But, these managers don’t. Instead they cash out of every single share. What’s more, the company I’ve been describing to you is in the highly competitive analog semiconductor field. It’s been the dominant company in this sector for a long time. Rapidly changing technology requires huge capital investment for research and investment. Yet, while the company spent $350 million on its own stock in the last six months of 2001, it only parted with $250 million on research and development – for all of 2001. If you were looking for stocks to sell short in this market, you’d start by looking for large growth companies – heavily bought by index funds – that aren’t growing anymore and are still hugely overvalued. It’s always hard for big companies to maintain large percentage growth gains to profits, simply because their markets become saturated and the numbers get so big. That’s why companies over $10 billion typically trade at lower valuations than stocks below $1 billion. Not always though… In the U.S. public equity markets there are only eight companies over $10 billion in market capitalization whose shares still trade in the stratosphere of valuation. By any measure these stocks are incredibly expensive – more than 10 times sales, 50 times earnings and five times book value. The eight stocks are: Ebay, Taiwan Semiconductor (TSM), Serono SA, Paychex, Microsoft, Maxim Integrated Products and Immunex. Out of these, four have net profit margins less than 20%: TSM, Immunex, Ebay and Maxim. And, out of all of these dominant growth companies only two have negative short-term growth expectations: Immunex and Maxim. But only one – Maxim Integrated Products – is not yet already a part of my victim’s portfolio of recommended short sales. In a happy coincidence, the company I’ve been describing to you today, the poster child for excessive options compensation, is Maxim Integrated Products. The stock, in time, will become the prime example of the excesses of the 1990s in Silicon Valley. The executives got rich and today’s shareholders are holding the bag. They just don’t know it yet. Good Investing, Porter Stansberry for The Daily Reckoning

… read more »

Response:

THE STOCK SCANDAL YOU HAVEN’T HEARD ABOUT YET By Porter Stansberry Yesterday Coca-Cola, one of the most respected companies in the world, announced that it would begin expensing options. Any company that wants to keep its good name will soon follow. In the long run, that’s a good thing for investors. But, in the short run – as companies are forced to come clean with options expenses – investors will be shocked to realize that most of the fastest growing companies in the market were actually not growing at all. What today are the most expensive stocks in the market, will suffer enormous devaluations as investors come to understand the shell game that was being played with options and share buybacks. If you haven’t already, check your portfolio for "options printing" companies and make sure that the companies you own have really been making money. You can begin with what I suspect will easily become the "poster child" of such shareholder abuses. Once the most highly respected – and the most profitable – company in Silicon Valley, this company will soon find itself in the middle of the next national scandal…and the focus of media, investor and political scorn. Its CEO, once regarded as the best CEO in America, will see his reputation…well, return to the mean. And investors in a company that once posted a 9,000% return to shareholders will see their investment wiped out. But first, if you’d like to understand the next big scandal to sweep Wall Street – a scandal that will make the others pale by comparison – you have to understand in some detail how the cost of granting stock options is represented to shareholders. Options accounting is considered arcane and a minor financial detail today. In fact, the SEC only requires companies to report their options expenses as a footnote. But you’ll soon see a lot more focus on these numbers… A stock option granted by an employer is the right for an employee to buy a share of the company’s stock at today’s price. Normally this right extends out into the future – ten years, for example. In theory, options align the employees’ interests with the shareholders. But experience is proving quite the opposite. Employees, including CEOs and other executives, don’t have any downside. If the stock crashes, he doesn’t lose a penny. If the stock soars, he’s a millionaire. The prevalence of these kinds of plans, not to mention the size of the grants given to senior managers, explain why companies during the bubble were being run in such a risky fashion – the managers had nothing to lose. But here’s the real scandal. And what management likes about this kind of compensation…it’s free. The cost of granting options doesn’t appear on the income statement. Trouble is, as Warren Buffett said recently, if options aren’t compensation, what are they? And if compensation isn’t put on the income statement, where do you put it? Consider: if options grants don’t show up as compensation expense, they never appear on the income statement. And if a company uses free cash flow to buy back all of the shares granted via options, there’s never any record of the extra costs. Options allow executives to hide the effect of their enormous compensation packages from the bottomline. For example, the CEO of the company I’m going to warn you about today – where options have gotten out of control – realized over $57 million in compensation from exercising options in 2001. That was more than 25% of his company’s net profits for the year. Meanwhile, on the income statement, only his $300,000 salary counts against earnings. On average, over the last six years, this CEO made $32 million per year. Almost none of that expense showed up on the income statement. Companies would never dream of paying executives so much money, except for the fact that investors don’t see the effects of this compensation on earnings. According to current GAAP accounting standards, this company produced outstanding EPS growth – 168% over five years. Even in 2000, when the market tanked, this company still grew earnings by 21%. Because of this growth and its status as a leading big cap stock, you can understand perhaps why the stock still trades at outlandish prices: 78 times earnings and over 10 times sales. But, if you deduct the expense of options grants using the Black-Scholes method to determine the value at the time of issue, you see an entirely different picture. After you expense the value of the options granted, instead of 168% growth over five years, earnings only grew 39% over five years. Hardly remarkable, especially for a high tech company with great position in the market. After all, there was a high tech boom, remember? Accurate accounting also shows that, like most companies in the sector, this firm had a sizeable decrease in earnings in 2001. As should be reported to shareholders, earnings after stock compensation fell by 29% in 2001. You have to wonder how the market would price this "growth stock" if shareholders knew that really, counting all costs to shareholders, the earnings per share didn’t grow by 21%, they fell by 29%! My guess is that, if the market realized that this company’s earnings were actually decreasing, the shares might not trade at 78 times earnings. Maybe 7 times. Or maybe 8 times. But not 78 times. Here’s what else the market apparently doesn’t recognize about this company: options expenses are rising. Employees’ options that will vest in the next ten years now equal more than 25% of the entire capital stock of the company. If employees choose to exercise their options, there will be a 25% tax on earnings growth as the number of shares grows. To keep this outlandish executive compensation off the minds of investors, the company has to prevent dilution – new shares – at all costs. Who controls dilution? Why…the same executives who make millions on options. In fact, executives now use even more cash than provided by operations to buy back shares of stock – no matter how expensive the stock is! – just to prevent the real cost of options compensation from ever being reported to shareholders. For example, this company made $223.8 million from operations in the last six months of 2001, according to its most recent filing with the SEC. But, during the same period, it repurchased $354.4 million of its own stock…which was trading at prices that today look, well, slightly expensive: 20+ times book value, 100+ times sales and 140+ times earnings. Did management truly perceive that its shares were undervalued and the best place to spend $350 million? Or…were the executives engaged in a conspiracy to prevent shareholders from seeing an accurate accounting of its expenses – particularly executive compensation? The answer, at least to me, is obvious. But there’s more. If management thought its shares were attractive enough for the company’s money…why are the same shares not attractive enough for management to even hold? In the last six months, management has sold nearly 1 million shares of stock. And, despite 20 years of large- scale option grants, insiders own less than 1% of the total shares outstanding. Incredibly, the founder and CEO of the company in question currently don’t own a single share of stock. Nor, according to SEC filings, do five of the company’s Vice Presidents. If stock options were truly meant to align the interests of management and shareholders, the management would at least hold some of the shares they’re granted. But, these managers don’t. Instead they cash out of every single share. What’s more, the company I’ve been describing to you is in the highly competitive analog semiconductor field. It’s been the dominant company in this sector for a long time. Rapidly changing technology requires huge capital investment for research and investment. Yet, while the company spent $350 million on its own stock in the last six months of 2001, it only parted with $250 million on research and development – for all of 2001. If you were looking for stocks to sell short in this market, you’d start by looking for large growth companies – heavily bought by index funds – that aren’t growing anymore and are still hugely overvalued. It’s always hard for big companies to maintain large percentage growth gains to profits, simply because their markets become saturated and the numbers get so big. That’s why companies over $10 billion typically trade at lower valuations than stocks below $1 billion. Not always though… In the U.S. public equity markets there are only eight companies over $10 billion in market capitalization whose shares still trade in the stratosphere of valuation. By any measure these stocks are incredibly expensive – more than 10 times sales, 50 times earnings and five times book value. The eight stocks are: Ebay, Taiwan Semiconductor (TSM), Serono SA, Paychex, Microsoft, Maxim Integrated Products and Immunex. Out of these, four have net profit margins less than 20%: TSM, Immunex, Ebay and Maxim. And, out of all of these dominant growth companies only two have negative short-term growth expectations: Immunex and Maxim. But only one – Maxim Integrated Products – is not yet already a part of my victim’s portfolio of recommended short sales. In a happy coincidence, the company I’ve been describing to you today, the poster child for excessive options compensation, is Maxim Integrated Products. The stock, in time, will become the prime example of the excesses of the 1990s in Silicon Valley. The executives got rich and today’s shareholders are holding the bag. They just don’t know it yet. Good Investing, Porter Stansberry for The Daily Reckoning P.S. When the truth about options compensation and share buyback programs finally comes to light, the resulting carnage on Wall Street will be bigger than anything we’ve seen to date. Bigger than WorldCom, bigger than Tyco and bigger than Enron. It will hit the most expensive stocks in the market – the firms … read more »

Response:

Question:

Hope you are programming games or some such and not Financial Apps. Peter

Response:

Of course.  And I hope you’re not programming and you stick with accounting. John – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hope you are programming games or some such and not Financial Apps. Peter

Response:

If he was, he likely would not waste his time making snide comments on an accounting newsgroup. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What makes you think he’s not a great programmer? Of course.  And I hope you’re not programming and you stick with accounting. –         ____       _      | ____o____/_|      |  o’

Response:

Hi, William: Thanks for your reply.  I’m a little confused, though. Say I have two credit cards with the following details: Balance         Interest Rate   Interest Amount $5000.00        10.00%          $41.66 $1000.00        28.80%          $24.00 Wouldn’t it make sense to pay the card with the highest interest _amount_, rather than the one with the highest interest _rate_? Thanks, John – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m trying to write a computer program that will take as input a list of credit cards and, given the person’s budget, calculate the best amounts to pay on each debt. Right now I’m just doing something like this: loop through credit cards while we have money   calculate the card with the highest interest amount using (interest rate / 12 * balance)   add $1 to the amount to pay to this card and decrease the balance by $1 go back to the start of the loop There’s got to be a formula for this, no?  I’m not looking for complete accuracy, only to provide a guide to the best way to spend the person’s bills budget.  I wonder how much money I’ve wasted paying credit cards which had the highest interest rate and a lower balance than another card which had lower interest and a much higher balance…  so I’d save $10 on interest on the 1st card while I’d rack up $20 on the other. Can anyone help me on this?  I’d really appreciate it. Thanks, John Compare i for all debts; If i=max, pay p where i = interest rate net of any tax deduction and p=principal In other words, pay off the one charging the highest after tax interest rate first. Regards, Bill

Response:

Thanks for everyone’s help.  I know it’s not rocket science, but thinking about accounting generally makes my head hurt.  I’ll stick to the computer programming… hehe John – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Say I have two credit cards with the following details: Balance         Interest Rate   Interest Amount $5000.00        10.00%          $41.66 $1000.00        28.80%          $24.00 Wouldn’t it make sense to pay the card with the highest interest _amount_, rather than the one with the highest interest _rate_? For crying out loud. If you have $5,000 available to pay down your credit cards, pay off 100% of the $1,000 balance and 80% of the $5,000 balance. That will save you the most interest. Pay off the high interest debt first. This is not rocket science and it does not take a computer program. easy2000

Response:

Say I have two credit cards with the following details: Balance         Interest Rate   Interest Amount $5000.00        10.00%          $41.66 $1000.00        28.80%          $24.00 Wouldn’t it make sense to pay the card with the highest interest _amount_, rather than the one with the highest interest _rate_?

For crying out loud. If you have $5,000 available to pay down your credit cards, pay off 100% of the $1,000 balance and 80% of the $5,000 balance. That will save you the most interest. Pay off the high interest debt first. This is not rocket science and it does not take a computer program. easy2000

Response:

No. 28.80% of 100.00 = 28.80 10.00% of 288.00 = 28.80 In other words you can buy 288$$ or 100$$ for 28.80 a month. Which do you want?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi, William: Thanks for your reply.  I’m a little confused, though. Say I have two credit cards with the following details: Balance Interest Rate Interest Amount $5000.00 10.00% $41.66 $1000.00 28.80% $24.00 Wouldn’t it make sense to pay the card with the highest interest _amount_, rather than the one with the highest interest _rate_? Thanks, John I’m trying to write a computer program that will take as input a list of credit cards and, given the person’s budget, calculate the best amounts to pay on each debt. Right now I’m just doing something like this: loop through credit cards while we have money   calculate the card with the highest interest amount using (interest rate / 12 * balance)   add $1 to the amount to pay to this card and decrease the balance by $1 go back to the start of the loop There’s got to be a formula for this, no?  I’m not looking for complete accuracy, only to provide a guide to the best way to spend the person’s bills budget.  I wonder how much money I’ve wasted paying credit cards which had the highest interest rate and a lower balance than another card which had lower interest and a much higher balance…  so I’d save $10 on interest on the 1st card while I’d rack up $20 on the other. Can anyone help me on this?  I’d really appreciate it. Thanks, John Compare i for all debts; If i=max, pay p where i = interest rate net of any tax deduction and p=principal In other words, pay off the one charging the highest after tax interest rate first. Regards, Bill

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’m trying to write a computer program that will take as input a list of credit cards and, given the person’s budget, calculate the best amounts to pay on each debt. Right now I’m just doing something like this: loop through credit cards while we have money   calculate the card with the highest interest amount using (interest rate / 12 * balance)   add $1 to the amount to pay to this card and decrease the balance by $1 go back to the start of the loop There’s got to be a formula for this, no?  I’m not looking for complete accuracy, only to provide a guide to the best way to spend the person’s bills budget.  I wonder how much money I’ve wasted paying credit cards which had the highest interest rate and a lower balance than another card which had lower interest and a much higher balance…  so I’d save $10 on interest on the 1st card while I’d rack up $20 on the other. Can anyone help me on this?  I’d really appreciate it. Thanks, John

Compare i for all debts; If i=max, pay p where i = interest rate net of any tax deduction and p=principal In other words, pay off the one charging the highest after tax interest rate first. Regards, Bill

Response:

I’m trying to write a computer program that will take as input a list of credit cards and, given the person’s budget, calculate the best amounts to pay on each debt. Right now I’m just doing something like this: loop through credit cards while we have money   calculate the card with the highest interest amount using (interest rate / 12 * balance)   add $1 to the amount to pay to this card and decrease the balance by $1 go back to the start of the loop There’s got to be a formula for this, no?  I’m not looking for complete accuracy, only to provide a guide to the best way to spend the person’s bills budget.  I wonder how much money I’ve wasted paying credit cards which had the highest interest rate and a lower balance than another card which had lower interest and a much higher balance…  so I’d save $10 on interest on the 1st card while I’d rack up $20 on the other. Can anyone help me on this?  I’d really appreciate it. Thanks, John

Response:

Question:

What is the best intermediate accounting book? I would like to pick up an additional one. I am currently using "Intermediate Accounting 1st edition’ by Beechy, and Conrod (Canadian book). I need some additional help! Thanks

Response:

Kieso seems to be the standard. It is used in many classrooms and I have seen it used as a desk reference in various accounting offices. Check it out….http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0471363049//ref=sr_1_75_1/104-… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – What is the best intermediate accounting book? I would like to pick up an additional one. I am currently using "Intermediate Accounting 1st edition’ by Beechy, and Conrod (Canadian book). I need some additional help! Thanks

Response:

Question:

Anybody know what all these "REPOST:" headers are all about? What causes that? —–=  Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News  =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!  Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits! —–==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers!  ==—–

Response:

Anybody know what all these "REPOST:" headers are all about? What causes that?

I was wondering the same thing.    I subscribe to several newsgroups and this is the only one that did it. "It’s God’s job to sort out what to do with terrorists.    It’s our job to deliver them to God. " I’m allergic to spam. Remove "No Spam" from my e-mail address to respond. —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

Anybody know what all these "REPOST:" headers are all about? What causes that? I was wondering the same thing.    I subscribe to several newsgroups and this is the only one that did it.

A culprit boasted here and on some other groups that he had cancelled nearly 60,000 usenet messages. Who was the nice person who reposted here? Timo, perhaps? A. Lucien Meyers, CIA, CMA — If you receive this by error, please delete it and inform the sender. http://www.consult-meyers.com recommends e-mail encryption using pgp. To Big Brother Echelon from "spook": Saddam Hussein security SDI plutonium Kennedy Soviet Marxist CIA

Response:

Anybody know what all these "REPOST:" headers are all about?

They are about countering rogue cancels. I was wondering the same thing.    I subscribe to several newsgroups and this is the only one that did it.

Not so. This is not the only newsgroup affected. It obviously is just the only one of the ones you subscribe to. For additional information about rogue cancels and the resurrection    All the best, Timo — Prof. Timo Salmi ftp & http://garbo.uwasa.fi/ archives 193.166.120.5 Department of Accounting and Business Finance  ; University of Vaasa Acc. Journals Links  http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/opas/jott/jottjour.html

Response:

A culprit boasted here and on some other groups that he had cancelled nearly 60,000 usenet messages. Who was the nice person who reposted here? Timo, perhaps?

Thank you for the kind words. But, no, I do not have such facilities. Set you newsreader to show all the message headers. There is some more information on the cancellation and the resurrection in the full headers of the REPOST messages.    All the best, Timo — Prof. Timo Salmi ftp & http://garbo.uwasa.fi/ archives 193.166.120.5 Department of Accounting and Business Finance  ; University of Vaasa Acc. Journals Links  http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/opas/jott/jottjour.html

Response:

Thank you for the kind words. But, no, I do not have such facilities. Set you newsreader to show all the message headers. There is some more information on the cancellation and the resurrection in the full headers of the REPOST messages.

I set the headers to full in Netscape 4.7, got no relevant information. "It’s God’s job to sort out what to do with terrorists.    It’s our job to deliver them to God. " I’m allergic to spam. Remove "No Spam" from my e-mail address to respond. —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

There is some more information on the cancellation and the resurrection in the full headers of the REPOST messages. I set the headers to full in Netscape 4.7, got no relevant information.

An example:  Article: 12557 of alt.accounting  Path: news.uwasa.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!newsfeed1.funet.fi!skynet.be!skynet.be!new sfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!peer.news.opaltelec om.net!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!in.nntp.be!news-in-sanjose!cyclone.bc .net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!news.noc.cabal.int!resurrector!guidorepost! not-for-mail  Newsgroups: alt.accounting  X-Original-Path: news.sol.net!spool1-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!newsengine. sol.net!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!cyclone.bc.net!peer1-sj c1.usenetserver.com!fs01-sjc1.usenetserver.com!usenetserver.com!news.webuse net.com.POSTED!104878dd!not-for-mail  X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers  X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.  Organization: WebUseNet Corp.  http://corp.webusenet.com – ReInventing the UseNet  X-Comments: GtR Repost: The following Usenet article was cancelled, more  X-Comments: than likely by someone other than the original poster.  Please  X-Comments: see the end of this posting for a copy of the cancel.  X-Comments: Guido the Resurrector can be contacted at  Lines: 25  Xref: news.uwasa.fi alt.accounting:12557  Path: news.sol.net!spool1-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-out.vi si.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.ne t!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r  Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,alt.accounting  Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers  Lines: 2  NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34  X-No-Archive: yes  Comment: Anarchy! Fuck You!  X-Commentary: I love NewsAgent 1.10, Sandblaster Build 74 (19 March 1999) and the Polaris Cancel Engine V. 6.1  X-Unacanc3l: yes  This message was cancelled from within Mozilla…not

Response:

 NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34

According to Spamcop that might be alltel.net    All the best, Timo — Prof. Timo Salmi ftp & http://garbo.uwasa.fi/ archives 193.166.120.5 Department of Accounting and Business Finance  ; University of Vaasa Acc. Journals Links  http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/opas/jott/jottjour.html

Response:

Why would someone cancel the article and then repost it? I don’t understand the motive.  NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34 According to Spamcop that might be alltel.net    All the best, Timo — Prof. Timo Salmi ftp & http://garbo.uwasa.fi/ archives 193.166.120.5 Department of Accounting and Business Finance  ; University of Vaasa Acc. Journals Links  http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/opas/jott/jottjour.html

—–=  Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News  =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!  Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits! —–==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers!  ==—–

Response:

Why would someone cancel the article and then repost it?

I venture from your question that you may have got the situation crucially wrong. The rogue canceling and the reposting (resurrection) are not made by the same party. I don’t understand the motive.

Usenet has its fair share of all kinds of abusers and crackpots. For some more take a look at (some) of the material indicated on the last line of my signature.    All the best, Timo — Prof. Timo Salmi ftp & http://garbo.uwasa.fi/ archives 193.166.120.5 Department of Accounting and Business Finance  ; University of Vaasa Timo’s  FAQ  materials  at   http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html

Response:

Question:

The company I do the books for has traded advertising for some installation labour on their computer. Do I set the advertising up as a payable and the Service done as a receivable and then use another G/L account to zero these two? Or not enter either into the books?

Response:

How about recording the service as income and the advertising as an expense? Like amounts would off-set each other.

Response:

This is simply a barter arrangement.  You would record the installation labor as normal service revenue, and debit a barter exchange account.  The advertising would be recorded to the axpense account and credited to the barter exchange.  In essence, when all barter transactions are complete the exchange account should equal zero.  For example, you exchange $100 of labor for $100 of advertising. Barter Exchange                    100            Service Revenue                        100 Advertising Expense                100             Barter Exchange                        100 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The company I do the books for has traded advertising for some installation labour on their computer. Do I set the advertising up as a payable and the Service done as a receivable and then use another G/L account to zero these two? Or not enter either into the books?

Response:

I handle barter in the following way. 1.  Set up a new bank account named barter. 2.  Enter the payable and recievable the way you regularly do. 3.  Use the account named Barter to to enter a deposit for the payment of the recievable and the payment of the payable.  At the end of the transaction, the barter account should be at $0.00. You can also handle it through debit and credit memos and slide them through a neutral account such as bank transfers which always requires you to have a $0.00 balance. I prefer the use of the Barter account simply because I can find both sides of the transaction in one account. KG – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The company I do the books for has traded advertising for some installation labour on their computer. Do I set the advertising up as a payable and the Service done as a receivable and then use another G/L account to zero these two? Or not enter either into the books?

Response:

I would record them just as you have noted.  Debit expense for the advertising you receive with a credit in the A/R account of the customer and then credit your revenue for the labor with a debit to the same customer account to bring it to zero.  It would be my position that the transactions must be recorded on the financials to maintain a record of the transactions.  You can think of it this way, all transactions are in a sense bartered transactions with the currency as the intermediary.  I believe the IRS would want to see the transaction recorded as well. Hope this helps. Don   The company I do the books for has traded advertising for some installation   labour on their computer.   Do I set the advertising up as a payable and the Service done as a   receivable and then use another G/L account to zero these two?   Or not enter either into the books?

Response:

Determine the costs of your labour for the installation on their computer and charge it to advertising expense. Your credit will be your labour expense. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The company I do the books for has traded advertising for some installation labour on their computer. Do I set the advertising up as a payable and the Service done as a receivable and then use another G/L account to zero these two? Or not enter either into the books?

Response:

Andrew, Consult Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 29, "Accounting for Nonmonetary Transactions" (APB 29) for your answer.  Mr. Roberts is on point but APB 29 will spell it out for you if there are additional details to your transaction then you previously wrote.  Hope this helps.     I think you add both at fair market value and recognize a gain/loss on the difference.  I didn’t look it up, but this is the best I can recall.         The company I do the books for has traded advertising for some installation         labour on their computer.         Do I set the advertising up as a payable and the Service done as a         receivable and then use another G/L account to zero these two?         Or not enter either into the books?

Response:

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Washington Times Published in Washington, D.C. January 17 – 19, 1997 IRS audits target conservative groups By Rowan Scarborough THE WASHINGTON TIMES The Internal Revenue Service is conducting intrusive audits of high-profile conservative think tanks and advocacy groups, some of which are named as "enemies" in internal Clinton administration documents. A spot survey of right-of-center nonprofit groups shows at least seven being scrutinized by the IRS, which can revoke an organization’s tax-exempt status and essentially put it out of business. A comparable check of prominent liberal groups found no such scrutiny. [-] All the [conservative] organizations have one thing in common: They actively oppose Clinton policies.

Prominent liberal groups oppose Clinton’s policies more vociferously than these conservative groups. How do you explain that?

the liberal groups will give clinton money, thats why… ;’) Truth hurts !

Response:

The Washington Times Published in Washington, D.C. January 17 – 19, 1997 IRS audits target conservative groups By Rowan Scarborough THE WASHINGTON TIMES The Internal Revenue Service is conducting intrusive audits of high-profile conservative think tanks and advocacy groups, some of which are named as "enemies" in internal Clinton administration documents. A spot survey of right-of-center nonprofit groups shows at least seven being scrutinized by the IRS, which can revoke an organization’s tax-exempt status and essentially put it out of business. A comparable check of prominent liberal groups found no such scrutiny.

[-] All the [conservative] organizations have one thing in common: They actively oppose Clinton policies.

Prominent liberal groups oppose Clinton’s policies more vociferously than these conservative groups. How do you explain that?  :-} <snip Best,   Terry "Lawyer – One skilled in circumvention of the law"                                     – The Devil’s Dictionary

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Washington Times Published in Washington, D.C. January 17 – 19, 1997 IRS audits target conservative groups By Rowan Scarborough THE WASHINGTON TIMES The Internal Revenue Service is conducting intrusive audits of high-profile conservative think tanks and advocacy groups, some of which are named as "enemies" in internal Clinton administration documents. A spot survey of right-of-center nonprofit groups shows at least seven being scrutinized by the IRS, which can revoke an organization’s tax-exempt status and essentially put it out of business. A comparable check of prominent liberal groups found no such scrutiny. [-] All the [conservative] organizations have one thing in common: They actively oppose Clinton policies. Prominent liberal groups oppose Clinton’s policies more vociferously than these conservative groups. How do you explain that?

        Dahh, could it be George, that it’s cause the liberals will vote for him anyway?…Dahhh?? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – :-} <snip Best,   Terry "Lawyer – One skilled in circumvention of the law"                                    - The Devil’s Dictionary

Response:

Prominent liberal groups oppose Clinton’s policies more vociferously than these conservative groups. How do you explain that? Which prominent liberal groups have attempted to uncover information that might make the White House look unethical or get the President impeached? None. Which prominent convervative groups that are currently being targeted by the IRS have attempted to uncover information that might make the White House look unethical or get the President impeached? I believe all of them. How do you explain that?

Since they closed all those mental institutions there are a lot of nuts out wandering the streets. Best,   Terry "Lawyer – One skilled in circumvention of the law"                                     – The Devil’s Dictionary

Response:

But by golly I would love to see the IRS auditing the ACLU.  That would beat the hell out of any fight I have seen. Best,   Terry

Except that the ACLU is not a tax-exempt group, unlike the "non-partisan" Christian Coalition. —

Response:

…the ACLU is not a tax-exempt group,

Yes it is.  And donations to it are fully deductible – or I am in trouble. :-{ unlike the "non-partisan" Christian Coalition.

I suspect you are confused, Norman. The ACLU has a a lobbying arm that accepts fully taxable donations. The Christian Coalition lobbies and campaigns without such niceties. God’s law apparently takes precedence over the Constitution.

Best,   Terry "Lawyer – One skilled in circumvention of the law"                                     – The Devil’s Dictionary

Response:

Except that the ACLU is not a tax-exempt group, unlike the "non-partisan" Christian Coalition.

As best I recall (and I have not checked in quite a long time) both the ACLU and the Christian Coalition are 501(c)(4) organizations.  If so, contributions to them are not tax-deductible, but the organization’s own income is not taxed.  As a result, they have considerably more freedom to involve themselves in issue advocacy than do the 501(c)(3)’s. Eleanor Rotthoff

Response:

If you want to a IRS horror story follow the one with the Western Journalism Center in Fair Oaks California.  The Exec director, one Joseph Farah invites all takers, even post a 800 number WJC 5595 to tell the story.  In his article he quotes Dick Polman of the Philadelphia Inquirer as well as IRS auditor sepecifically referencing the White House. that which we hold most dear, may be most corrupt.

Response:

Clinton gets most of his money from the normal conservative sources that always buy politicians.  You might have noticed those overseas donations were corporate donations unlike any [made for] any liberal cause. Best,   Terry

Not to mention that Reagan ws the force behind a law making donations to most lobbying groups non-tax-deductible, in an attempt to kill most grass-roots orgs like Greenpeace, the PIRGs, etc… Fetus

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Washington Times Published in Washington, D.C. January 17 – 19, 1997 IRS audits target conservative groups By Rowan Scarborough THE WASHINGTON TIMES The Internal Revenue Service is conducting intrusive audits of high-profile conservative think tanks and advocacy groups, some of which are named as "enemies" in internal Clinton administration documents. A spot survey of right-of-center nonprofit groups shows at least seven being scrutinized by the IRS, which can revoke an organization’s tax-exempt status and essentially put it out of business. A comparable check of prominent liberal groups found no such scrutiny. [-] All the [conservative] organizations have one thing in common: They actively oppose Clinton policies. Prominent liberal groups oppose Clinton’s policies more vociferously than these conservative groups. How do you explain that?  :-} <snip Best,   Terry "Lawyer – One skilled in circumvention of the law"                                     – The Devil’s Dictionary

Because the Libs will vote for him anyways……

Response:

The Washington Times Published in Washington, D.C. January 17 – 19, 1997 IRS audits target conservative groups By Rowan Scarborough THE WASHINGTON TIMES The Internal Revenue Service is conducting intrusive audits of high-profile conservative think tanks and advocacy groups, some of which are named as "enemies" in internal Clinton administration documents. A spot survey of right-of-center nonprofit groups shows at least seven being scrutinized by the IRS, which can revoke an organization’s tax-exempt status and essentially put it out of business. A comparable check of prominent liberal groups found no such scrutiny. A government source said congressional aides have made preliminary inquiries with the IRS. Based on a review of files, the aides have left open the possibility that groups are being targeted based on their ideology. Among those under investigation are the Heritage Foundation, Citizens Against Government Waste, the National Rifle Association and a group headed by one of the Republican Party’s most outspoken figures. That group has declined to go public about the audits, which began shortly after President Clinton took office in January 1993 and continue today. All the organizations have one thing in common: They actively oppose Clinton policies. The IRS is headed by Margaret Milner Richardson, a former corporate tax lawyer and a close friend of first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton’s. Mrs. Richardson worked on the 1992 Clinton campaign and plans to leave the IRS when a new commissioner is named. "There should be a full-scale congressional investigation and hearings to determine whether the Clinton administration has politicized the IRS audit process," said Mark Levin, the president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, a conservative watchdog group. "I think it’s significant two of the organizations mentioned in the White House counsel’s 331-page ‘enemies’ document are being audited today," he said. "This administration has demonstrated in the past that it is more than willing to use the law enforcement apparatus to punish perceived enemies." Dom LaPonzina, an IRS spokesman for the Washington area, said politics play no role in the agency’s audit decisions. "I would assume your readers understand part of the job of the IRS is not only to audit profit-making corporations, but also nonprofit organizations who enjoy the privilege of not paying taxes," he said. "The law requires that those organizations be audited periodically to determine if they merit that kind of treatment." In a 1995 internal White House report, the counsel’s office singled out two of these groups as being hostile to Mr. Clinton and responsible for unflattering reports about him and Mrs. Clinton. The Western Journalism Center was prominently named. The center has promoted reports skeptical that White House Deputy Counsel Vincent W. Foster Jr. died of a self-inflicted gunshot. Western Journalism’s director, Joseph Farah, said IRS agents began auditing his books last summer. He said they asked questions seemingly unrelated to tax issues, such as the center’s relationship with reporter Christopher Ruddy, who has written a number of reports criticizing the police probe into Mr. Foster’s death. Mr. Farah quoted one agent as telling the center’s accountant, "Look, this is a political case, and the decision about your tax-exempt status will be made at the national level." In a meeting with IRS officials this month, Mr. Farah said, a supervisor said the agent only meant the Washington headquarters would have to answer "technical questions." On Oct. 22, Mr. Farah went public about the audit with an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal. "They were coming after me, and I didn’t want to go down quietly," he said. Mr. Farah said that after his column was published, the IRS eased up and stopped demanding so many documents. On Mr. Clinton’s appointment of a campaign worker to run the IRS, Mr. Farah said, "If you wanted to politicize the Internal Revenue Service, she [Mrs. Richardson] was a great choice." Phil Truluck, the Heritage Foundation’s executive vice president, said IRS agents began an audit in the fall after Democrats complained that GOP presidential candidate Bob Dole signed a Heritage fund-raising letter. Like the Western Journalism Center, Heritage is mentioned in the White House’s conspiracy report. The report said the think tank has ties to millionaire Richard Scaife, whom the report portrays as a behind-the-scenes GOP power broker. Groups such as Heritage and Western Journalism, designated as 501(c)3 nonprofit groups by the IRS, are prohibited from participating in partisan politics. Mr. Truluck said the Dole letter represented a long-standing practice: A celebrity signs a letter and gets the mailing list of everyone who responds. "No one has ever alleged anything wrong with this," he said. "It’s been standard business operation. And there is nothing wrong with it." The IRS agents mentioned seeing a wire service report on the Democratic complaints, Mr. Truluck said. "They tell us they sit back and read these things in the paper, and if they think they ought to look into it, they look into it." About the IRS motives, he said: "I’m not going to get into it. I’m not going to get into any speculation one way or the other. It’s not prudent to do that." A spokesman for a nonprofit group run by a nationally known Republican declined to discuss its audit for fear of antagonizing the IRS. The spokesman said the probe began two months after Mr. Clinton took office and has cost the group more than $200,000 in legal fees. "All of a sudden, the issues you take on, you have to be more careful about," the spokesman said. "I would say the IRS probably knows even if they don’t win their case, they can probably shut you down for two years because there is no timetable for them to finish." Bill Powers, a spokesman for the National Rifle Association, said the IRS began auditing the politically powerful group in February 1995. The NRA is a frequent target of liberal Democrats, who partly blame the gun-rights group for the Republican takeover of Congress in the 1994 elections. Rick Hendershot, a certified public accountant in Manassas, Va. whose clients include conservative and liberal advocacy groups, said two of his conservative groups are being audited and one is about to be. He said none of his centrist or liberal organizations is the subject of an IRS audit. As in the Heritage probe, Mr. Hendershot said, tax agents are looking at the conservative groups’ practice of using politicians to sign fund-raising letters. He declined to identify the groups. "My clients are thinking, ‘Why was it OK in a previous audit and it’s not OK now?’" he said. "There hasn’t been any legislative action by Congress to change the laws. … When it comes to (c)3s dealing with public policy, I have my question on what is motivating these things, no matter who is president." Washington lawyer Alan Dye represents two conservative nonprofit groups under audit. He declined to identify them. "I’ve been sort of reluctant to say the IRS national office would involve itself in politically motivated audits," he said. "I’m not sure." Mr. Dye said the IRS has a newspaper clipping service and could be reacting to articles in which Democrats complain about the activities of right-of-center groups. "You’ve got people out there trying to use the IRS as a political tool to damage their political opponents, to distract them from their mission and to cause them expense," he said. "Another part of the answer might be, obviously, the IRS is manned by people, some of whom have political biases. It would not be the first time a political bias did not come out in an audit." +–+–+ America’s soap opera: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater Iconoclast Greg Swann Writes: http://www.primenet.com/~gswann/ Waco Holocaust Museum: http://www.mnsinc.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum/ National Organization for Non-Enumeration: http://www.ime.net/none/ W. Beck’s Anthology: http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html Yahoo! Maps: http://maps.yahoo.com/yt.hm?FAM=yahoo&CMD=GEO&SEC=geo Welcome to Rancho Runnamukka: http://www.accessone.com/~rivero/ Internet Infidels "The Secular Web": http://www.infidels.org/ Download’n Fool: http://www.shareware.com/SW/Search/Index/ Could anyone be so stupid without benefit of a federal paycheck?     —  Carol Valentine

Response:

Prominent liberal groups oppose Clinton’s policies more vociferously than these conservative groups. How do you explain that? What I can’t explain is why you think Liberals oppose Clinton "more vociferously" than conservatives.

Because Clinton is a conservative.  You conservatives are truly slow. From civil rights through military spending Clinton is always clearly on the conservative side.  In an odd juxtaposition the ultimate conservative philosophy of environmentalism has been claimed by liberals and Clinton joins with conservatives in an anti-environmental position.   In the one case where Clinton attempted to appease strong supporters, he managed to get discriminatory and obviously unconstitutional code written for the first time banning declared gays from the military. Previous activities were done without bothering with lawfulness. A liberal president would simply have banned all discrimination and let Congress try to force a change in policy. IAC you won’t get Clinton messing around with any liberal causes anymore. In two particular areas Clinton has clearly shown himself to be squarely on the right:  civil rights and welfare "reform." As usual the conservative position is for more government and more spending to try to control people. You probably thought Lyndon Johnson was a liberal.  What a joke. That’s utter nonsense. Best,   Terry "Lawyer – One skilled in circumvention of the law"                                     – The Devil’s Dictionary

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – By Rowan Scarborough THE WASHINGTON TIMES The Internal Revenue Service is conducting intrusive audits of high-profile conservative think tanks and advocacy groups, some of which are named as "enemies" in internal Clinton administration documents. A spot survey of right-of-center nonprofit groups shows at least seven being scrutinized by the IRS, which can revoke an organization’s tax-exempt status and essentially put it out of business. A comparable check of prominent liberal groups found no such scrutiny. [-] All the [conservative] organizations have one thing in common: They actively oppose Clinton policies. Prominent liberal groups oppose Clinton’s policies more vociferously than these conservative groups. How do you explain that? I doubt if the ‘prominent liberal groups’ are being audited by the IRS because of complaints from billy the kid and the first liar. Frank R. Hipp

Uh, Frank, the IRS’s job is to soak taxpayers for as much loot as possible – not just to terrorize enemies.  It does come in quite handy though for the last task.  Al Capone learned the hard way that he was dealing with a tougher mob than he had ever known in the IRS. The IRS doesn’t bother liberal pressure groups much because they don’t have much money. But by golly I would love to see the IRS auditing the ACLU.  That would beat the hell out of any fight I have seen. Best,   Terry "Lawyer – One skilled in circumvention of the law"                                     – The Devil’s Dictionary

Response:

Prominent liberal groups oppose Clinton’s policies more vociferously than these conservative groups. How do you explain that?

What I can’t explain is why you think Liberals oppose Clinton "more vociferously" than conservatives.  That’s utter nonsense.

Response:

Prominent liberal groups oppose Clinton’s policies more vociferously than these conservative groups. How do you explain that?

Which prominent liberal groups have attempted to uncover information that might make the White House look unethical or get the President impeached? None. Which prominent convervative groups that are currently being targeted by the IRS have attempted to uncover information that might make the White House look unethical or get the President impeached? I believe all of them. How do you explain that?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The Washington Times Published in Washington, D.C. January 17 – 19, 1997 IRS audits target conservative groups By Rowan Scarborough THE WASHINGTON TIMES The Internal Revenue Service is conducting intrusive audits of high-profile conservative think tanks and advocacy groups, some of which are named as "enemies" in internal Clinton administration documents. A spot survey of right-of-center nonprofit groups shows at least seven being scrutinized by the IRS, which can revoke an organization’s tax-exempt status and essentially put it out of business. A comparable check of prominent liberal groups found no such scrutiny. [-] All the [conservative] organizations have one thing in common: They actively oppose Clinton policies. Prominent liberal groups oppose Clinton’s policies more vociferously than these conservative groups. How do you explain that? the liberal groups will give clinton money, thats why… ;’) Truth hurts !

How much would you guess the ACLU gave Clinton?  :-} Clinton raises money from corporations and Wall Street Lawyers much like the Republicans.  The trial lawyers is one significant source of funds not open to Republicans.  Since the Air Traffic Controller’s Union supported Reagan unions have probably lost any inclination to support Republicans.  In fact the unions have never been exactly wildly supportive of Clinton but give money to Democrats as a reflex. Overall Clinton gets most of his money from the normal conservative sources that always buy politicians.  You might have noticed those odd overseas donations were corporate donations unlike any liberals interested in things like civil rights, environmental protection, reform of drug laws, cuts in military spending, the welfare of workers or most any liberal cause. Best,   Terry "Lawyer – One skilled in circumvention of the law"                                     – The Devil’s Dictionary

Response: