Back Home - Fall Chores And Other IRS Therapy

We're back home and the weather has held off - as it has in recent years - so I still had time to rake the leaves and mulch the flower beds. 

Leaves had abandoned the trees and were snoozing on the ground.  But I had some calls to make first.  The first was easy.  The second was the IRS.  I'm still trying to remain patient.  But I still don't understand how a major national payroll company and my mom's accountant can believe they can file one way and the IRS says they can't.  Basically it's about the payroll deductions for my mom's caregiver.  ADP sent them to the business side of the IRS and the accountant mentioned them on the personal account.  So, the business side has the money and sends notices saying they have the money, but no filing and the personal account says they have the filing but no money.  I started attempting to work this out last January and got a very understanding and helpful agent who made sure I got power of attorney for my mom's taxes for 2014 and 2015.   But then I kept getting notices and I kept calling the numbers. You have to wait two hours to talk to anyone, so make sure the phone battery is fully charged and you have something you can do while the phone is on speaker.  Each notice got copied to the accountant and I called the IRS. 

Finally in August or September a guy on the business side said, no, you can't do it that way.  You need to amend the personal tax form and get rid of the payroll taxes and file 940s with the business side for the quarterly deductions.  So that was done in September.  

When we got home, I had a notice to my mom, c/o me, in Anchorage, saying they were going to seize my property to cover the amount due.  The agent I got this morning - less than a minute pushing buttons and waiting - understood what was happening and said he needed to put the collection notice on hold for 60 to 90 days until the amended return got into the computer system.  But that part of the computer system was down so he couldn't do it then.  I should call back in a few hours and have it done. 

That's when I went outside to rake the leaves. 

The birch had been the first to start falling, then the cottonwoods, then the mountain ash, and last the Japanese maple.  I also cleaned out the rain gutters - there were plants growing in the one in front, in great compost.  And I mulched the flower beds with the leaves. 

And I ate a few rosehips.  I love them, even with the seeds.  And they have huge amounts of vitamin C.   From the Fairbanks News Miner:

". . . rose hips have 20 to 40 percent more vitamin C than oranges. Plus, 25 percent more iron, 28 percent more calcium and 25 times more vitamin A. They provide vitamins E and B, as well as selenium, phosphorus and a host of antioxidants. Finally, they have a lot of pectin, which is one of the water soluble fibers that lowers cholesterol."

And then when I got cleaned up and went back inside, I called the IRS back.  This time a woman answered, again quickly.  I guess the seizure notices get a better phone number.  She started to question my right to talk to her.  But I have power of attorney.  Yes, but once the tax payer dies, the power of attorney isn't good any more.  But I talked to Mr. V this morning and we did this and that and . . . I'm going to cut you off because I can't talk to you.  You have to file Form 56.  Can I turn it in at my local IRS office?  No, they'll just mail it.  But she did extend the time a bit to get the Form 56 in.  When you do that, you'll get a notice to your mom c/o you at your address.  That's exactly what the notice says that I'm calling about.  She was abrupt, cold, never said sorry about your mom (as the others did) and even though she could corroborate on the computer everything I said and that Mr. V had said to call back to extend the time for the amended form to get into the system, she just kept saying, it won't do any good to talk any more.  She couldn't do anything about it.  Grrrrrrr. 

I hung up.  Waited ten minutes.  Everyone else I've talked to since January has been much more understanding and helpful.  I called back and got Mr. VH who did say he extended things for 90 days.  He also suggested I take it to my local IRS office.  I mentioned Ms. A had said not to.  

But I was on the phone in the morning for about 40 minutes with Mr. V, then about 30 minutes with Ms. A, and another 45 minutes with Mr. VH.  The IRS had all the money since January - before the April filing date.  Actually, they've gotten it each quarter in 2014.  It's just that the business side and the personal side aren't talking to each other - even though the business side can see the personal side computer info.  Earlier people I talked to said they'd make sure no penalties were levied, though there is now additional interest and a penalty on the bill.  I'm assuming that will be removed. 

I believe in paying taxes, and while there are things I'd rather taxes weren't spent on - like the Iraq war and contracts with Haliburton - I understand that the many programs I do support need tax money.  But I can understand why people get enraged at the IRS.  And I also understand that part of the problem - like the long phone waiting - is because Congress doesn't adequately fund the IRS.  I think in part the plan of conservatives is to starve government agencies so they can't do their jobs well and this causes people to hate government.  But also, if the government is not funded adequately, they can't enforce the law and so tax dodgers and polluters and embezzlers and all the other types of cheats are less likely to get caught.  But I have to admit that if they can't figure out something as simple as my issue, then I'm sure they totally screw up more complicated filings. 

I was randomly selected to answer a phone survey.  It was relatively well done.  There were questions I could answer with appropriate options.  But the part I liked best was there were parts where I could actually talk and explain.  This was all automated.  And, they gave me the phone number of the IRS citizen advocate and I will definitely contact that office. 

The other good thing I did when we got back last night was take the sourdough starter out of the refrigerator and refreshed it with more flour and water.  I realize I haven't posted about trying out my new bread book I got this summer, but it was touch and go in the beginning when I did follow the instructions carefully, but the starter just wasn't wet enough. I've been making bread for years, but never with sourdough starter.   But I watched some online videos and added more water and eventually baked several credible loaves.  But then I had to put the starter in the fridge when we left town.  This morning it had expanded and was clearly the living thing bakers talk about.  And tonight I started another loaf.  I let it rise once and now it is in the fridge and I'll finish the steps tomorrow. 

Raking and other yard work and kneading bread are all good IRS therapy.

Cliché Alert: "The Culture of . . ."

I read this headline the other day and was trying to figure out why it bothered me.

A culture of nagging helps California save water 

It seems to me that this phrase, "The culture of . . ." has been applied to so many things now that it's losing any serious meaning. 
Here are some examples I found googling "the culture of":


The Culture of Victimhood.

The Culture of Humiliation

The Culture of Drinking

The Culture of Fear

The Culture of Big Data

The Culture of Command.

The Culture of Criticism

This use of the term doesn't seem to fit the normal ways culture is defined.  The closest I could find was this Dictionary.com definition:

the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group:

the youth culture; the drug culture.

In some cases, it's a way of attacking an idea.  The culture of victimhood is used to attack the idea of micro aggression.   In other cases it may be closer to describing something like a subculture - a group of people with a similar set of general characteristics - like the culture of drinking.

At this point I'm not sure why this bothers me.  There's nothing wrong with coming up with new words and phrases to capture ideas that don't already have a word.  But this trend seems more like a lazy man's way of sounding deeper than he really is.  Just add "the culture of" to any phrase and it sounds almost like a serious scholarly study.  But some of these uses have no depth at all. 

Really.   Has California culture changed to where nagging is now a major characteristic of people living in the sunshine state?  Or does the author simply mean - 'nagging water wasters is becoming more prevalent?" 

Nine Percent of the US House Think Everyone Should Obey Them

According to the Clerk of the US House of Representatives, there are 247 Republicans, 188 Democrats, and 0 Independents, for a total of 435 Members of the House.  

Of these, "35-40" have been dubbed 'hard-liners' of the Freedom Caucus.  That makes them about 16% of the Republican members and about 9% of the Congress as a whole.  

Sixteen percent of Republicans and only 9% of the whole House think the other 84% of Republicans, the other 91% of the House, should drop what they believe and cater to this small minority's demands.  

In some ways it's reassuring that a small percent of a group can get people's attention if they feel really strongly about something and if they are willing to simply refuse to cooperate.  It's why dictatorships can be overthrown despite their power.  But that assumes the dictator is not as ruthlessly stubborn as the rebels are recalcitrant.  And that the rebels have something better to offer. 

Since I'm currently visiting my granddaughter, I can't help thinking about how familiar this behavior seems.  Here's a description of 2-3 year old social skills from Child Development Information:

Talks, uses “I” “me” “you.”  Copies parents’ actions.  Dependent, clinging, possessive about toys, enjoys playing alongside another child.  Negativism (2 ½ yrs).  Resists parental demands.  Gives orders.  Rigid insistence on sameness of routine.  Inability to make decisions.

Their sense of entitlement (a phrase they like to throw around) is staggering.   As the world changes, they are clinging and possessive about their toys.  And they're resisting parental (Speaker of the House?) demands they share a bit.  Instead they are giving orders.  And they rigidly insist on no taxes, cutting the budget, and getting rid of immigrants.

Which toys do they miss the most?   From Bloomberg News: 

“'We have emasculated ourselves because we have pretty much conceded that we don’t have the power of the purse,' said Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, a founding member of the Freedom Caucus, which continues to support Rep. Daniel Webster, R-Fla., for speaker." (emphasis added)

They no longer have the power they used to have.  As laws change to take down the barriers that blocked women and other ethnicities from power, white males are having to compete with less advantage than they used to have.  As women gain access to better jobs and control over when they give birth, they are less dependent on men.  Men are losing the power to control their wives.  Is it surprising that this group makes abortion a key issue?

OK, after making that generalization I realized I'd better check who is in this Freedom Caucus.  Wikipedia lists 36 members.  All but one are white males. (Mo and Jody look like men to me.)  The one female is Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming. I wonder if she feels emasculated. Here's the list from Wikipedia:

Known members

• Jim Jordan of Ohio, Chair^[14]
• Justin Amash of Michigan^[14]
• Brian Babin of Texas^[15]
• Rod Blum of Iowa^[15]
• Dave Brat of Virginia^[16]
• Jim Bridenstine of Oklahoma^[17]
• Mo Brooks of Alabama^[18][19]
• Ken Buck of Colorado^[20]
• Curt Clawson of Florida^[21]
• Ron DeSantis of Florida^[14]
• Scott Desjarlais of Tennessee^[22]
• Jeff Duncan of South Carolina^[23]
• John Fleming of Louisiana^[14]
• Trent Franks of Arizona^[20]
• Scott Garrett of New Jersey^[14]
• Paul Gosar of Arizona^[24]
• Morgan Griffith of Virginia^[2]
• Andy Harris of Maryland^[15]
• Jody Hice of Georgia^[25]
• Tim Huelskamp of Kansas^[26]
• Raúl Labrador of Idaho^[14]
• Barry Loudermilk of Georgia^[25]
• Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming^[20]
• Mark Meadows of North Carolina^[14]
• Alex Mooney of West Virginia^[15]
• Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina^[14]
• Gary Palmer of Alabama^[17]
• Steve Pearce of New Mexico^[20]
• Scott Perry of Pennsylvania^[15]
• Ted Poe of Texas^[15]
• Bill Posey of Florida^[15]
• Keith Rothfus of Pennsylvania^[15]
• Matt Salmon of Arizona^[14]
• Mark Sanford of South Carolina^[15]
• David Schweikert of Arizona^[20]
• Marlin Stutzman of Indiana^[15]

Microagression - Response to the Backlash

I've been thinking about the idea of fairness lately and want to write some on that topic.  Here's a related issue that I'll note for now.  

Little, isolated irritations can be brushed off by most of us, but when one becomes the victim of an onslaught of irritations, it can lead to more serious emotional problems.

That's the basic idea behind microagression.

The term has been specifically used to talk about how getting a daily flow of comments about one's race, religion, weight, or sexual orientation,  can take a heavy toll on people. 

Board members of Healing Racism in Anchorage talk about how the meetings are a place of refuge, a place where people understood their issues, where they didn't have to explain themselves.  That idea of needing a refuge, lends validity for me, of the idea of microagression. 

But there has recently been some pushback on that notion of microagression.  And here's a thoughtful response in the LA Times to that pushbook.

"Microaggressions hurt

By Regina Rini

   IF YOU live near a college campus or read anxious think pieces, you’ve probably heard about “microaggression.” A microaggression is a relatively minor insult to a member of a marginalized group, perceived as damaging to that person’s standing as a social equal. Examples listed on a blog called Oberlin Microaggressions include shopkeepers acting suspicious toward people of color, or someone saying to a Jewish student, “Since Hitler is dead, you don’t have to worry about being killed by him anymore.” A microaggression is not necessarily a deliberate insult, and any one instance might be an honest mistake. But over time a pattern of microaggression can cause macro harm by continuously reminding members of marginalized groups of their precarious position.    A recent paper by sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning claims that talk of microaggression signals the appearance of a new moral culture, a “culture of victimhood.” In the paper, Campbell and Manning present a history of Western morality.    First there was a “culture of honor,” which prized physical bravery. Insults demanded an aggressive reply. Picture two medieval knights glowering at each other, swords drawn.    Then the culture of honor was displaced by a “culture of dignity,” in which individuals let minor insults slide and reported more serious offenses to impartial authorities. Picture a 1950s businessman telling the constable about a neighbor peeking in windows.    Finally, there is an emerging “culture of victimhood,” in which individuals publicly call attention to insults in the hope of rallying support from others and inducing the authorities to act. Picture a Latina student tweeting about her professor’s racist comments.    There is a serious problem with Campbell and Manning’s moral history, and exposing it helps us see that the culture of victimhood label is misleading. .  .  ."

I've given the first few paragraphs,   You can read the whole article here.  

And if you think about how quickly white males of the Tea Party persuasion or some fundamentalist Christians feel attacked when other folks simply ask for fair treatment, you can see that the issue of sensitivity isn't limited to the marginalized of society. 

It's Not Repetitious If It Keeps Changing - LA To Seattle

Sometimes I think, enough already.  You have already posted pictures from airplanes.  But these pictures don't look anything like the ones I've done before.  Here are LA, Yosemite, and Seattle.

The black bar chart in the lower middle left is down town LA.

Half dome looms over Yosemite Valley.

Downtown Seattle has only one black monolith poking through the clouds.

Bullets For Better Brains Law - Feedburner Not Pinging Post

Not sure what to do here.  Feedburner sends blog posts off to blog rolls that list other blogs.  Usually it works, but sometimes it doesn't.  I put up "Bullets For Better Brains Law" yesterday, but it hasn't reached blog rolls that list this blog.  I've tried reposting it.  I've gone through the HTML to see if some screwy script was the problem.  I've tried posting via Safari instead of Firefox.  Nothing seems to matter.

So I'm doing this post to see if it will make it to blog rolls and then people can go to the link to see the other post.  So, here's the link again.

Looking for a link to put in for Feedburner, I got to the page that lists this blog.  It said I could subscribe to find out if there was trouble with my blog's feedburner.   I did.  it said everything is fine.

Good to know, but why isn't it pinging to blogrolls?

[update 9:40am  - this one worked.  Why didn't the other?  Mysteries of the web.]

Bullets For Better Brains Law [Reposted Slightly Amended]

In a piece in The Hill, Anhvinh Doanvo questions the Republican response that mental illness kills, not guns.

    "the record and policy proposals of most leading Republicans indicate  their interest in mental health is more of an excuse to not talk about gun control than a genuine effort to develop nuanced systems that reduce the federal budget and protect the safety of the public." 

The Republicans are strong on cutting the budget and strong on preventing any form of gun control.  Actually, I don't think that many of them care that much about stopping gun control, but their funders do.  So, here's my modest proposal to tie mental health funding to gun deaths:

Bullets For Better Brains Law

This federal law would commit $1 million dollars to mental health research, education, and treatment for every person killed in the United States by a gun.  The amount per death would increase by the number of people killed in a specific incident.  Thus, if two people were killed, it would require $2 million per death,  three people would be $3 million per death, four people would be $4 per death, etc.  So the recent Oregon shooting where ten people were killed would cost $10 million per death or $100 million.

A commission of educators, mental health experts, police, judges, social workers, family of gun victims, mental health patients, and suicide survivors would determine how the money is spent.

The intent of the law is to:

1.  Reduce mental illness in the US

2.  Increase understanding of mental illness

3.  Give budget cutting legislators more incentive to reduce gun deaths in the US

If the Republican theory is right, the more money spent well on mental health, the fewer gun deaths there would be.  As gun deaths drop, so would the budget.  For Republicans, it's win/win.  Gun deaths go down and the budget goes down with them.  (Not to mention the dropping of all the police, court, hospital, and emotional costs that are associated with each gun death.)  If the initial costs are a problem for Republican legislators, the money can be raised by taxing gun manufacturers to collectively cover the costs.  It would simply cover the externalities of their business which now are passed on to the public and not recaptured in the cost of guns.  That simply covers a basic market failure identified by Milton Friedman and other market economists.

However if their theory doesn't hold up and gun deaths don't go down, then mental health will prove not to be the critical issue, and the Republicans will have to face the possibilities that guns are the real problem.

Fiscal Note:  According to USConservatives (and supported elsewhere) there are about 32,000 gun deaths per year.   Thus, this bill would, to start, require an expenditure $32,000,000,000, though that number doesn't include the extra costs for multiple death shootings.  With every thousand deaths reduced, there would be a $1 billion cut to the budget. 

[Repost yet again cause Feedburner isn't feeding. For those of you who have already gotten here, I apologize. I've tried reposting it and pinging Feedburner manually.  This last attempt I've recopied it to word processing to get rid of any code and created a new post from there.  Let's see if it finally works.  All this assumes the problem is in the post, not with Feedburner.  Also, I'm doing it on Safari this time instead of Firefox.] 

Japanese Garden, Lilies, Birds, And Water

We visited with an old friend we hadn't seen in years.  She recommended the Japanese Garden in Van Nuys as the meeting place. 


Wow, we didn't even know it existed.  It was a great place to walk and talk. 

We know the Japanese Garden in Portland fairly well, having lived close to it when we were in that city for six months.   This one is totally different and interesting in its own way.

Lots of birds.  Like this osprey. 

And lots of lilies in a long flat rectangular lily and lotus pond.





And a wonderful way to catch up on lives. 







Not much time now.  Headed for the airport and Seattle before we get home.  If all goes well, we'll meet our granddaughter's plane in Seattle, which is why we're on such an early flight.  (Well, an 8 o'clock flight doesn't sound so early, it's getting to the airport on time that's the killer.)

So here are some of the pictures.

Lotus

Snowy Egret

There's an American Bittern sitting on the rock

There's also a very big modern building on the grounds that seemed too big and the style too space-agey for a Japanese Garden.  It turns out the garden is really part of a large water reclamation plant which sits directly next door and the building is for that rather than the garden. 


I didn't take any pictures of the building except of the garden through the walkway around the building.


The AAA explains this relationship:

"The Japanese Garden at the Tillman Water Reclamation Plant, 6100 Woodley Ave., is a water-treatment facility highlighted by a 6.5-acre Japanese garden."

It's a stark contrast between the garden and the plant which abut each other. 

And, apparently, I'm not the only one who thinks the building (not the plant, but the building which I didn't take pictures of) is space agey. From a Memory Wikia:

"The location can also be seen in episodes of Knight Rider (1986), Murder, She Wrote (1993), Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers (1995), L.A. Heat (1997), Charmed (1999), and Numb3rs (2009) and was featured in the action comedy Dead Heat (1988, starring Joe Piscopo), the crime drama Rising Sun (1993), the science fiction film CyberTracker (1994), the action film Red Sun Rising (1994), the comedy Bio-Dome (1996), the comedy Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (1997), the thriller Most Wanted (1997), the science fiction thriller Terminal Error (2002, with Marina Sirtis and Michael Nouri), and the science fiction film Sci-Fighter (2004). [1]"

Chuitna Citizens Coalition Gets Rights on Lower Reach of Middle Creek/Stream 2003 But Not Main And Middle Reaches

 The decision is just out.  Here's the DNR press release with links to the decision.  Haven't had time to figure out what it means.  At first glance this looks like a cutting the baby in thirds decision that will leave everyone dissatisfied, but then the parts of the Creek where rights weren't granted, it seems, weren't denied, but deferred because "they were not ready for decision."  

[Note at 11:17am same day after a little more careful reading:  It also says at the end:  "We will not approve significant impacts to the Chuitna River."  The mine plans to excavate thousands of acres 300 feet deep, including parts of the river.  They then say they will restore it after the coal mining.  But shutting down of the river - even if they actually can restore it later - has to qualify as "significant impacts" and so this seems to be a significant win for the Chuitna Citizens Coalition.]


Here's the press release: (with links to the whole decision)

"Decision reached on water reservation applications in Chuitna River watershed

The Division of Mining, Land & Water has issued a decision on the Chuitna Citizens Coalition Inc.'s three applications for instream flow reservations for Middle Creek/Stream 2003, a tributary of the Chuitna River. Two of the applications are for segments of the stream located within the footprint of the proposed Chuitna Coal project.
After review of the facts in the administrative record, public comments and hearing, the decision grants the Chuitna Citizen Coalition's application for the lower reach of Middle Creek/Stream 2003 but does not grant its applications for the creek's main and middle reaches. This decision does not award any permits or water rights to the proposed coal project.
This decision is a reasoned approach that reached conclusion on the lower reach of Middle Creek/Stream 2003 while denying the applications for reservations on the main and middle reaches because they are not ready for decision. The division cannot not yet determine, on this incomplete record, which of the competing applications for the same water would be subject to a preference as the most beneficial use. The division will adjudicate any remaining requests for water rights or instream flow applications in the Chuitna River watershed after the Clean Water Act 404, Surface Mining Coal Regulatory Act (SMCRA) and Title 16 fish habitat permits are done so that we can consider impacts to the watershed by an approved mine plan. We will not approve significant impacts to the Chuitna River. [emphasis added]

Please review the following documents to better understand the decision.

• October 6, 2015 Decision on water reservation applications for the Chuitna River watershed (PDF)
• Map of Middle Creek/Stream 2003 with reservation application reaches identified (PDF)

• October 7, 2015 Press Release (316 KB)"

OK, that's it for now.  The mine company, PacRim, and the various other opponents flat out said the reservation should be rejected, so in that sense it's a loss for them and a win for the Chuitna Citizens Coalition, but I hate to talk in terms of wins and losses.

This is not over and the decision is likely to be challenged in court. 

Dave Schade To Sign Chuitna Decision After Hours Tonight - To Be Posted Tomorrow Morning - Memos and Maps

As a blogger who works from home or wherever I happen to be, but basically without colleagues, I sometimes feel like maybe something happened but I didn't know about it.  I did google around to see if the Chuitna Citizens' Coalition application for an Instream Flow Reservation had been decided on before posting last night that the decision was due today.

This morning I checked the DNR webpages and also the Coalition's Facebook page, but there were no announcements.  I called the Chief of the Water Resources Management Unit, Dave Schade, who is the person who has to sign the decision.  His phone said he's out of the office for a week or so.  So I tracked down someone else and left a voice mail.

Elizabeth Bluemink called me back a bit ago to say that Schade will sign the document around 8pm tonight and that it would be posted tomorrow morning.  In the meantime, she's sending out copies of documents that are related but don't talk directly about the decision.

So I've posted them on Scrbd and embedded them below so you can look for clues to what the decision will be.

1.  A memo to the Commissioner of DNR called a primer on Types of Water Use.  This is sort of a Water Use for Dummies version that's pretty straightforward.  As I read it - having been to the objections hearing, but without any specific expertise here - it sounds like the opposition's arguments that the application should be simply denied was a lot of smoke.  But I'm sure there are subtleties here I'm missing.  Judge for yourself. 

2.  A list of water reservations certificates in Alaska.  There are 75 bodies of water listed (mostly rivers, then creeks, then lakes) and 131 certificates.

3. A map of the Chuitna Coal Mine project - which I can't totally make sense of.  I think my problem is that this is about the mine and doesn't identify the area where the Chuitna Citizens' Coalition is applying for the IFR.  But maybe I'm just missing it.

4.  The memo sent out to notify potential objectors to the reservation that the hearing would be held.  I don't have that up in this post, but I did post it before the hearing and have it at Srbd already.

Alaska DNR Types of Water Use Memo 9-30-15

Alaska Water Reservation Certification Status 09-29-2015

Chuitna Coal Mine Project Map - Alaska