From the Office of Rep. Bill Sali

The comprehensive “Americans for American Energy Act” (AAEA) was introduced today by U.S. Rep. Bill Sali and the other members of the House Western Caucus. The measure would open ANWR and the OCS to increase production of American crude oil and give the right incentives to boost conservation, improved efficiency and bring alternative energy online sooner.

“This measure offers real, practical, doable solutions, things that will translate into lower fuel prices and a higher standard of living for Idahoans,” Sali said. “Regrettably, the Democrats’ solution is to distract everyone with bills that just reiterate current law. Specifically, their bill to reign in speculators just gives powers to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that the Federal Trade Commission already has. Also, the Democrat’s fixation on ‘use it or lose it’ is merely rhetoric as this is already the law. Neither of the two bills considered on the floor today will increase the supply of American crude oil.

“This is standard Washington, D.C. operating procedure: Debate an existing policy, pound the podium indignantly, make accusations and then do nothing. Idahoans and all Americans deserve more, which is what the Americans for American Energy Act is all about,” said Sali.

Under the AAEA, revenue generated by increased domestic production will be used to fund the innovation and development of our next generation of energy technologies and sources. It would require that the federal revenues derived from new production of oil and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf, in ANWR and oil shale would fund efforts to boost conservation and efficiency. The monies would also be used to fund and incentivize the research and development of the clean, renewable energy technologies needed to address America’s current and future energy needs.

Sali also signed the Declaration of Energy Independence, which petitions Congress to declare our nation one that renounces allegiance to foreign oil and makes this commitment good through effective energy policies.

Additionally, during debate in the House of Representatives today, Sali related the story of one of his constituents as she works to pay for fuel.

“Mr. Speaker, this young lady who is a CNA last week took her husband’s bicycle and a few other items to a pawn shop to get $37 so she could put gas in her car to go to work at (a) nursing home to take care of my mother and my sister. This is having a horrendous impact on real live people. Mr. Speaker, it’s time for partisanship to be put aside and it’s time for Congress to get to the real answer which is increasing American production,” said Sali.

“The Majority announced today that we (will) head back to our districts for July 4th recess a day early. It is irresponsible that the Democrats are telling us to go home without offering our constituents real solutions to loosen the stranglehold gas prices have on their wallets,” the Congressman concluded.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Richard Larsen

Mark Twain provided many invaluable insights into American life. Time has only validated the veracity of many of his truisms. In his inimitable way, Twain once declared, “Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress…But then I repeat myself.”

Many statements coming from the Democratic leadership in Congress this past week proved once again how correct Twain was. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barak Obama all parroted this week, “We can’t drill ourselves out of this problem,” referring to $135 per barrel oil prices. This was in response to President Bush and John McCain calling for expanded drilling on the outer continental shelf. Since when has increased supply not eased demand and pricing issues? We absolutely can drill ourselves out of this mess! Increased supply and reduced consumption are always solutions to market scarcities.

Crude oil production in the United States has declined 40 percent over the past 25 years even though demand has soared. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 75 billion barrels of oil have been precluded from drilling due to Congressional action over that period. That oil would be enough to replace all of our imported oil, excluding Canada and Mexico, for over 22 years. World oil demand is projected to increase by 40% over the next 22 years, and U.S. demand projected to increase by 28%, and yet Congress’ solution is to claim “we can’t drill our way out” and tax the oil companies more!

I find it unbelievable that Venezuela and China can drill 60 miles off the Florida coast but the U.S. cannot because of the power of the environmental lobby. Why is it that the Democratic Congress will not allow U.S. oil companies, empirically the most environmentally sensitive oil companies in the world, access to these areas but will allow Venezuela and China access, when they have the most abysmal records of environmental sensitivity? The argument against expanded drilling is obviously not based on environmental concerns.

Further evidence of the imbecility of Congressional Democrats on the oil issue was provided courtesy of Sen. Charles Schumer a few weeks ago. He said that even if we drilled in ANWAR it would only affect the pump price of gas by a penny. Yet when the President went to visit Saudi Arabia Schumer said if the President could convince them to increase output of 1 million barrels a day it should drop the price of gas by $.50. That is the same output potential from ANWAR, and yet he, and other obstructionists on Capital Hill continue to get away with such duplicity and idiocy. If we had started drilling there in the ‘90s when it first passed Congress, we would now have more control over our own oil production while working on viable alternative sources of energy.

Instead, what is their solution? Impose a “windfall profit tax” on the oil companies. What is that likely to do? Is that going to decrease oil and gas prices? Of course not! If they’re going to be taxed at a higher level, they have to pass on the cost of those increased taxes to their customers. Do none of these people understand economics?

And while we’re at it, let’s define what a “windfall profit” is. According to any legitimate financial dictionary, a windfall profit is “a sudden unexpected profit uncontrolled by the profiting party.” Oil companies, although they do not control the price of crude oil anymore than ethanol companies control the price of corn, they do have an impact on the pricing at the consumer level. Not only are the oil companies not engaged in “windfall profits,” but their profit margins lag behind most other industries represented by the S&P 500. And with the steady increase in oil demand and the finite availability of crude, current profit margins can hardly be classified as “sudden.”

In a free market system, supply and demand determine prices. However, in a commodity based industry like oil, commodity prices determine costs to the consumer. They are not “fixed” by oil companies, nor are they governed by OPEC. Gas prices we pay are driven by commodities traders who buy and sell contracts on crude oil based at least in part on perceived global supply and demand. These commodity prices determine the oil companies’ replacement cost for the gas currently being distributed.

If Congress authorized increased domestic drilling, even the short-term price of gasoline would likely improve because the futures prices are affected in large part by perceptions of supply and demand. With the anticipated increased domestic production, prices would start to drop.

It would appear that the Democrats in Congress are in a full-court press to make the country as miserable as possible to ensure a victory in November. And even if they win they will not change their position on domestic oil production since they’re so firmly in the back pocket of the environmental lobby. The no drill, no refining, no nuclear energy Democrats obviously want us to pay more for energy, more for government, more in taxes of all types. If they take control, our modest .6% growth rate for the first quarter of 08 will look like a roaring economy!

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Richard Larsen

One of the side affects of a horrendously out-of-control county budget is the fact that the Assessor’s office has to generate the tax revenue to pay for it. With apparent questionable operations and the lack of ethical guidelines and competence previously characteristic of the Assessor’s office, the County has been able to generate the necessary property valuations to meet the budgetary demands of a 30% increase in the County budget this year.

This past week I’ve visited with dozens of individuals who have had dealings with the Assessor’s office, and the emerging picture is downright ugly. Having been run with competence and fairness for years under the leadership of Diane Bilyeu, it is now a veritable cess pool of cronyism, incompetent leadership, retribution against taxpayers, and unethical operations.

Since Jo Lynn Anderson took the helm at the Assessor’s office, the department has steadily declined in professionalism and competence. According to the State Tax Commission, the office is out of compliance with state guidelines, and it appears it will be so again this year. After two years of being out of compliance, the state can intervene to remedy the situation and the County can lose State revenue. That appears likely to occur.

Our current Assessor and her assistants, “the management,” have refused repeated offers to receive management training to improve operations. She came into the office with no management or assessment experience other than drawing maps for 35 years for the department. Consequently, the de facto managers of the office are her assistants. Jo Lynn also no longer attends Idaho Association of County Assessor’s meetings since they sometimes go into Executive Session where only Assessors can attend, and since Jo Lynn has no functioning knowledge of the appraisal business, she won’t attend those without her assistants.

Much of the problem seems to be the hostile work environment that the management has created. The professional appraisers who are or have been there have been coerced to perform unethical adjustments to assessments contrary to standards of the industry. The appraisers’ reluctance to make such adjustments created significant tension between them and management, and has resulted in the loss of all but two certified real property appraisers and one manufactured home appraiser, where there should be at least seven altogether. The Assessor has hired unqualified friends and political supporters who draw pay at the high end of their scale. The Assessor brags that the reason they receive such high compensation is because she brought in so much revenue for the County last year.

The Assessor’s office is required to abide by the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) developed by the Appraisal Standards Board (ASB). These standards mandate equitable and ethical appraisal of property values. Yet my research consistently turned up examples of excessive valuations next to properties virtually unaffected by reassessment, in spite of more improvements made to the neighboring properties. Also contrary to USPAP standards, if the Assessor’s office can’t gain access to a residential property, management has instructed department appraisers to value the property with a half-finished basement. When the reluctant appraisers were told to engage in these unethical practices, the issue was forced by telling them they have to do it “because I’m management.”

Commercial assessments are now being done by an appraiser not trained or experienced in commercial appraisal. This has created profound inequity in assessments in similar properties throughout the county, significantly higher than similar properties in neighboring cities.

When the rare successful appeal of an assessment rescinds the Assessor’s valuation, an attitude of retribution is assumed. Within earshot of many witnesses, a member of the management team told one taxpayer who was successful in his appeal, “We’ll get you next time you son-of-a-b****.” And to another, “You got me this time, but we’ll get even.” One of them, after a successful appeal by a residential taxpayer, inquired “How quickly can I go after (taxpayers’ name) again?” Management demanded a $20,000 higher assessment on a residential property declaring, “He’s a tax crybaby and he needs to learn a lesson.”

We all saw the headlines earlier this week of how the Assessor’s office is attempting to “tax-rape” ON Semiconductor. This is unacceptable, and all too characteristic of how the Assessor’s office now operates. If something isn’t done immediately to remedy the situation, Bannock County will be decimated. Retirees will be forced out of their homes, residents forced to relocate outside of the county, and businesses forced to close their doors because of the exorbitant tax rates. It would be disastrous if ON closed shop here because of property taxes. And we’re dreaming if we think new businesses will be willing to locate here when they get a whiff of what’s happening with property taxes.

I don’t think we can wait for two more years when the Assessor’s term ends. It’s time for a recall and time to clean up the Assessor’s Office!

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From the Office of Rep. Bill Sali

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congressman Bill Sali today introduced legislation addressing constituents concerns with the practices of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

“The Second Amendment is clear: ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’ Unfortunately, the ATF chose to use the troubling phrase ‘Always Think Forfeiture.’ This slogan creates the perception that the agency will not give our Constitutional rights the priority they deserve,” said Sali.

The ATF has had a program in which agents are given engraved Leatherman tool kits reminding them to focus on the seizure of private property.

H.R. 6253, The Always Think Freedom Act of 2008 will prevent the ATF from purchasing, using or distributing any hand tool or tool kits on which any reminder about “forfeiture” appears.

“Many Idahoans have told me they do not appreciate what they see as an anti-gun, anti-private property message from a federal agency. The ATF should always think freedom rather than forfeiture,” said Sali.

Original cosponsors of H.R. 6253 include: Rep. King(R-IA), Rep. Goode(R-VA), Rep. Davis(R-TN), Rep. Brown-Waite(R-FL), Rep. Walberg(R-MI).

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Richard Larsen

Here we are on the verge of a possible recession (we haven’t had two quarters or even one quarter of negative GDP growth), and in the midst of an energy crisis with $135 oil, and what was Congress debating this week? A tax that will hit the economy from $1.7 to $4.8 trillion, and cost the average American family up to $3,726 per year! Such legislation will, if eventually passed, virtually ensure an ongoing recession by adversely affecting national GDP by 2 to 3% per year according to Time magazine, which inexplicably thinks it’s a good idea.

The Warner-Lieberman bill, the so-called cap and trade bill would have done that, and probably more. After all, when was the last time a government program cost projection was accurate? This bill, defeated by the Senate, was heralded by mainstream media, and certain politicians, as “bold national policy” designed to reduce carbon emissions and “contain climate change.” Yet even in the best-case scenario, the potential climatic impact would be a change in global average temperatures by about 1/100 of a degree between now and 2030. Who in their right mind would think that’s a cost-effective use of tax-payer money? Apparently a bunch of Federal legislators and many in the mainstream media fall into that inane category. It really makes me wonder what has happened to common sense in politics. It obviously is a rare commodity on Capital Hill and is declining as precipitously as Congressional approval numbers.

Cap and trade legislation forcibly lowers carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by placing limits, or caps, on companies that emit CO2, and affords a mechanism for them to trade or buy credits from companies that are under those limits. By creating such a mechanism, utilities and companies emitting less than the limit could sell credits to companies over the limit, which would have to buy the right to emit more CO2. The net affect on the environment is negligible, but the potential to drive energy related costs higher and higher is significant, according to the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM).

MIT published a study earlier this year that estimated the cost of implementing such a system would cost $3,500 to the average American family of four by creating a massive tax on energy that is then passed on to consumers including a 44% increase in the cost of electricity. The NAM estimates the impact on the cost of gasoline would be as much as an additional $5.00 per gallon by 2030. That means if this bill was in effect now, gas would cost $9.00 per gallon.

Even if the CO2 emissions are reduced as predicted, based on the “science” of the proponents, the impact on the global environment is a decrease of 0.013 degrees of “prevented warming,” according to the National Center for Public Policy Research. Look at it this way, if you were buying a car, and the salesman said it may or may not run, and even if it did, it may not function the way it was designed to, would you dish out $3,500 for that car?

What makes much more sense is to do the same thing we did last year. Global temperatures dropped by 0.7 degree Celsius last year. That decline actually eradicates the increase of the past 100 years, according to all three monitoring agencies. So what did we do to achieve such a drop in global temperatures? Aside from individual conservation, we did nothing. Could it be that climate temperatures actually fluctuate regardless of mankind’s CO2 emissions?

The fundamental premise of this kind of legislation must be rejected. That premise seems to be that we can “save the planet” by reducing our carbon footprint. There is no underlying science that proves we can do so. Secondly, we must learn from the mistakes of Europe which has implemented cap and trade policies. The three years of Europe’s experiment has been a disaster both from an environmental perspective and economically, according to the UK Times.

Let’s consider a few facts. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas in the atmosphere that is measured in parts per million, or ppm. The vast majority of CO2 emissions, about 97 percent, comes from Mother Nature, including what we humans exhale.

CO2 is nowhere near the most important greenhouse gas; water vapor holds that distinction. An astounding 99.9 percent of Earth’s greenhouse gas effect has nothing to do with man-made CO2 emissions. If measured on a football field, man-made CO2 would amount to less than a centimeter.

The Warner-Lieberman bill has been defeated but it was a dress rehearsal for another version next year, especially if Congress moves more to the left in the November elections. These efforts amount to draconian command-and-control attacks against our quality of life under the auspices of environmentalism. The underlying premises are flawed, and the recommended measures can virtually destroy the American economy. Unilateral disarmament was wrong militarily; and cap-and-trade legislation amounts to unilateral economic disarmament.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From the Office of Rep. Bill Sali

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congressman Bill Sali today voted against a budget blueprint that calls for the largest tax increase in American history in order to subsidize even more runaway federal spending.

The measure passed 214-210 but had opposition from many democrats who couldn’t come to terms with this egregious tax hike. It had already passed the Senate and does not need to be signed by the president to take effect. The measure sets the total limit of spending for the 12 Appropriations bills to be considered by Congress. The 2009 House-Senate budget resolution is expected to cost average Idahoans an extra $2,600 this year – on top of rising gas and food prices.

“The words have been used so often that they have sort of a numbing effect – ‘the largest tax increase in American history.’ But at a time when our nation is already wrestling with the highest gas prices we’ve ever seen along with a weak economy that threatens growth, a warning of such a gigantic tax hike shouldn’t fall on deaf ears – it will fall on everyone’s well-being, and should foster outrage from every Idahoan,” Sali said.

“This budget will lead to additional hardships for Idahoans. Now, Democrats in Congress have decided to throw salt in a gaping economic wound, and I can’t begin to say how reckless and thoughtless this plan is. What Idahoans need more than anything is lower taxes and lower energy prices, and this Congress is coming up with every way possible to give us the exact opposite. This budget will prove disastrous not only for the U.S. economy but for so many Americans who are already struggling to make ends meet,” said the Congressman.

The budget resolution does nothing to cut or eliminate wasteful spending, end the abuse of earmarks, reduce bloated entitlement spending or provide tax relief to Americans. Additional pitfalls of the budget resolution include: the return of the marriage penalty so that some married couples pay more taxes than if they had filed separately as singles; cutting the child tax credit in half; and a dramatic reduction of tax incentives for small businesses.

“This Democrat-controlled Congress continues to break records: Record high gas prices, soaring food prices and now a record high tax increase in the budget blueprint. This is shocking,” said Sali.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

The task of sorting through all the candidates with their accompanying political baggage is daunting at best, and impossible at worst. Because I receive numerous inquiries for voting information each election cycle, this post will detail my personal voting preferences.

I do not claim to have any preternatural knowledge of issues or candidates. However, because of my personal experiences and connections, combined with my addiction to political news, I usually have sufficient information to form an opinion. Over the years, these opinions have overwhelmingly been proven correct.

I will use for my reference the Bonneville County sample ballot, which once again shows us that Democrats have very few - if any - primary races. Their presidential selections have already been made in CLOSED caucus back in February, so I don’t know why their candidates appear on the ballot. We can count on many if not all of them to vote in the OPEN Republican primary in order to sway voting towards the most liberal Republicans, who, in many cases, were originally Democrats. (Remember former Speaker of the Idaho House, Bruce Newcomb? He was originally his county Democrat chairman, but could not get elected until he put the all-important “R” behind his name on the ballot. For actual documents proving Democrats purposefully vote Republican, see GrassRootsIdaho.)

I strongly urge all voters to check out the responses given on the Idaho Values Alliance Voters Guide.

So, let’s skip to the Republican side of the ballot.

For United States Senator, my choice is Fred Adams, of Idaho Falls. Jim Risch simply has too much baggage. I cannot vote for him under any circumstances. In the general election, I will be voting for independent candidate Rex Rammell.

For US House of Representatives for Idaho’s Second District, my choice is Gregory Nemitz. This is a man who is founded on constitutional principles, a claim incumbent Mike Simpson simply cannot make.

In District 31, the gerrymandered district stretching some 200 miles from the Teton Valley to the Utah border, otherwise known as the “east coast of Idaho”, I endorse Tom Loertscher for Representative Seat B. I have no preference for Seat A.

In District 32, I endorse Erik Simpson for Representative Seat A. He is young, energetic, and conservative. Ann Rydalch is tired, stuck in the past, and has a record of raising taxes.

In District 33, I recommend giving Kenneth Walton, the perennial opponent of Bart Davis, an opportunity to serve in the legislature. Bart Davis has risen to leadership in the Idaho Senate, but fails on so many fronts to deliver on conservative issues. I also consider a number of his positions and actions to have been unethical.

For Bonneville County Commissioner, I endorse Dave Radford, a man who has proven pro-life credentials, and a love of the constitution. His challenger, Harold Jones, is also a good man, but a bit of an unknown quantity and too inexperienced.

For Bonneville County Sheriff I endorse Paul Wilde, not because I know him well, but because he is highly recommended by recently-retired Sheriff Byron Stommell, a man I respect.

For Supreme Court Justice, I recommend the incumbent, Joel Horton. I vigorously object to the manner in which he became the incumbent. Justice Linda Copple Trout purposely retired mid-term to allow her replacement to be appointed by the Judicial Council rather than allow her position to be filled as an open seat, completely at the whim of the supposedly uninformed voters of Idaho. However, in this case Judge Horton has revealed himself to be a strong supporter of the Idaho Constitution, rather than a fan of judicial activism, as reported in the Idaho Values Alliance Voter Guide.

Though I do not have the opportunity to vote in Idaho’s First Congressional District race, I wholeheartedly endorse Rep. Bill Sali. This is a man who has been a champion of the unborn, lower taxes, smaller government, and the US Constitution since his days in the Idaho House.

And that completes my list of endorsements. I look forward to receiving your comments in response.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

Federal Judge Lynn Winmill has a well-deserved reputation as an activist judge. Not too long ago, he trampled on the Boise Rescue Mission’s First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion by telling staff how to run their ministry even though the Mission does not receive so much as a nickel in taxpayer monies. Further, Winmill has struck down pro-life legislation seemingly out of force of habit. Yesterday, however, this federal judge blinked in a showdown with the Idaho Supreme Court.

Winmill rejected a lawsuit brought by some Idaho public schools against the Idaho Supreme Court, who wanted Winmill to order the Idaho Court to dictate a remedy in a school funding dispute. Winmill wrote what is for him an amazingly restrained opinion, saying, “Federal courts have no authority to direct state courts or their judicial officers in the performance of their duties.”

The back-story here, I believe, is that the Idaho Supreme Court fully intended to ignore any ruling that Winmill handed down that would have directed it to do anything. Additionally, only two of the five justices who made the original ruling are still on the Court, so the reality is that the Court doesn’t have the quorum of three necessary to follow his dictates even if they were inclined to do so.

Further, the Idaho Supreme Court had dismissed the suit, meaning that from a legal standpoint there is no existing case for Winmill to rule on, which gave the Idaho Court another reason to simply ignore an order from him.

It looks as though Winmill was prescient enough to recognize that he wasn’t going to be able to order the Idaho Supremes around, and backed out of the case in a face-saving move. The reality is that, if the Idaho Supreme Court ignored his ruling, there’s not a thing he could have done about it. The separation of powers doctrine denies any enforcement power to the judiciary, so he had no one he could compel to enforce his ruling.

Kudos to the Idaho Supreme Court for refusing to be coerced or intimidated by the prospect of a federal judge unconstitutionally throwing his weight around. The reality is that, if federal judges intrude where they have no constitutional authority to be, there is nothing except the frayed good will of the states that prompts them to comply with such unauthorized rulings.

The Idaho Supreme Court has struck a blow for the 10th Amendment, state sovereignty and liberty all in one fell swoop, and perhaps shown the rest of the states in the Union the way forward to reclaim rights that are properly theirs under the federal Constitution. If more branches of Idaho state government start showing the moxie of the Idaho Supreme Court, happier and freer days may be ahead for all Idahoans.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

The Club for Growth each year conducts a comprehensive examination of every lawmaker’s voting record on economic matters and pro-growth policies.

In Idaho’s congressional delegation, Rep. Bill Sali received the “Defender of Economic Freedom” award from CFG for a voting record of 98 out of 100, and ranked 9th in the House of Representatives overall.

Said Club for Growth president Pat Toomey, of the six Senators and 49 Representatives who received the award for a score of 90 or more, “These top-scoring members of Congress are staunch defenders of American taxpayers. Their votes are critical to lowering taxes, cutting wasteful spending, and promoting economic growth for all Americans.

Sen. Larry Craig and Sen. Mike Crapo graded out in the 70s, with Craig’s 76 ranking him 22nd among all senators and Crapo’s score of 70 putting him in 26th place.

Rep. Mike Simpson brought up the rear, with a grade of just 47, placing him in 162nd place among members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

The ratings are based on congressional votes on key economic issues, such as making the Bush tax cuts permanent, repealing the death tax, cutting government spending, entitlement reform, free trade, tort reform, replacing the current tax code, school choice and reforming government regulation.

The Club For Growth - Congressional Scorecard

The Club For Growth - Senate Scorecard

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Bill Sali’s bipartisan proposal to make tax forms and instructions available in plain, straightforward language passed the U.S. House of Representatives today. The action comes just one day ahead of the April 15 deadline for most Americans to file federal income tax returns.

“Anyone still working today to wade through a jumble of tax forms and nonsensical instructions can appreciate the need to fix this broken system. Hopefully, by this time next year, the action we have taken today will result in some needed relief from the stress of tax filing season,” said Sali. “This is only the beginning of a broader effort to reform how the federal government – from Congress to agencies like the IRS – interacts with everyday Americans. Congress needs to be reformed. The tax code must be reformed. And the work that the federal government does shouldn’t be mysterious and unsolvable to citizens merely filing tax returns.”

Sali worked with Congressman Bruce Braley, an Iowa Democrat, to add an amendment to the Plain Language in Government Communications Act of 2007, HR 3548.

“The Plain Language Act requires a simple change to business-as-usual that’ll make a big difference for anyone who’s ever filled out a tax return,” Rep Bruce Braley (D-Iowa) said. “It’s been a pleasure working with my friend and colleague Bill Sali on this important effort. This legislation shows what bipartisanship can accomplish when we put aside our differences and work together for the common good.”

Sali concurred saying, “No one enjoys paying taxes but at the very least, the forms should be readable and understandable to the average American. Americans should be able to tell quickly and easily, whether they’re paying too much or too little in taxes. It should not take an attorney to figure it out.

“It is imperative that Americans know just what is being asked of them, and that is why plain language in tax forms and instructions is so important,” Sali said on the House floor. “The Plain Language in Government Communications Act would enhance citizen access to government information and services by promoting the use of ‘plain language’ in government documents issued to the public.”

In addition, this bill states that the English language should be used when appropriate.

H.R. 3548 passed the House by a vote of 376 – 1. It will now be sent to the Senate for further action.

Sali is gaining recognition as a key leader of the movement to reform the way Congress does business. He spent 16 years in the Idaho Legislature, where the state Constitution requires laws be plainly worded and that technical terms are to be avoided.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.