Friday, October 27, 2006

Set the record straight - Sandstrom

I guess I really got under Mr. Sandstrom's skin, so here is a chance for him to respond, an open letter:

Dear Mr. Sandstrom,

A few days ago I endorsed your opponent in the following post:
District 58: Ed McGarr (Cons), Stephen Sandstrom disappoints me by not paying taxes on time and not allowing Orem residents the choice in creating a greater, smaller school district.

You responded by stating:
I am disappointed that Utah Conservative listens to rhetoric and wouldn't endorse a conservative Republican for Dist. 58 The entire tax issue has been resolved. This all happened without my knowledge and once I was aware of the situation I handled it. Of course, it took time to deal with the IRS. I wish I could have resolved it quicker. To date, Approx. 75% of the back taxes has been paid and I have an agreement in place with the IRS for the remaining balance. (I can show you proof if you like.) Although this entire situation was caused by a bookeeper without my knowledge, I am proud of the fact that I have stepped up to the plate and resolved it honestly. Believe me, I have learned a hard lesson that will not happen again.
As far as the district split goes, the reason I voted NO was because the Cox legislation was a poor piece of legislation. It would have been a legal and financial nightmare without some changes to the law. I am 100% committed to working on legislation to resolve the many problems with the current law, so that district splits can be handled properly and without legal issues. I will be working with Rep. Brad Daw on this legislation.
Last but not least, I am certain that you will find me to be one of the MOST conservative legislators on the hill. Just watch me and the legislation that I sponsor and support. I gurantee that you will be heaping accolades abundantly for me.
Sincerely,Stephen SandstromRepublican Candidate - District 58

Well Mr. Sandstrom, you admit that you are delinquent in your patment of taxes. We all wish you would have paid it back sooner, but you chose not to. You have not resolved this issue until you have paid back everything, so you are still on deck: not stepping up.

I do want to give you an opportunity to come clean about the Alpine School District vote. I have learned that this upcoming bond and leeway vote is very important to you because you are the potential architect for the building of one of the new schools. How do you say "conflict of interest"? I think this is a clear example of a conflict of interest. You will profit by this and used YOUR VOTE in ensuring this. I wish I could serve in a legislative body and profit off of it, but that would be unethical.

Come clean Sandstrom, if this is true I urge you to drop out of the race for the best interest of the State and resigning your seat on the Orem Council for not declaring this conflict of interest. The citizens of Orem deserve better.

Utah Conservative and other concerned Utah Citizens.


Anonymous said...

I love the humility in his voice. It's one thing to be optimistic, but this is just bad.

As far as you being the most conservative... I'm not holding my breath on that one.

I would think a real conservative person would be more principle oriented, and would allow the people to decide on the Orem school district by putting it on the ballot.

To be honest I hope Sandstrom lives up to my expectations so that maybe it will wake everyone up and we can vote him out next election.

ghostofcommonsense said...

I guess Ferrin never had any conflict of interest with the legislation he sponsored.

Anonymous said...

Ferrin had just as much a conflict of interest as every other member of the legislature has. Every member of the legislature has a profesion, and those professions always relate to legislation in some way or another.

shayneknight said...

Still, coming off the blatant conflicts of interest in the same vein that Ferrin had, this is almost laughable.

shayneknight said...

Still, coming off the blatant conflicts of interest in the same vein that Ferrin had, this is almost laughable.

Anonymous said...

Sec. 6672 tax liens are imposed only after multiple attempts by the IRS to resolve the issue with the business owner. The "I didn't know what was happening excuse" does not wash with the facts. Indeed, as a tax practitioner I thnk some other relevant questions include: How much of the $129,000 trust fund taxes were your OWN withholdings? Did you then claim a refund on your OWN return after claiming credit for the withheld, but unpaid taxes? Another relevant issue is that the IRS liens are NOT the only liens. They come as part of a history of other unpaid bills and loans, including Utah State tax liens for unpaid income taxes.

blogman 2 said...

One thing you can REALLY count on from Steven Sandstrom is that he will say what he thinks you want to hear. Of course he tells this blog that he will be the "MOST" conservative legislator and he "guarantees" that this site will heap "accolades" on him. Don't forget, he told the UEA that education is a "public good" (code words for "of the government, by the government") and that he could only support school choice (tax credits, vouchers, and charters) after we have "adequately" funded public ed. Mike Leavitt was fond of saying the same thing. Of course, public ed will never be "adequately" funded. So, he never has to support school choice, which is a fairly important "conservative" issue for the "MOST" conservative rep to go south on.

Ferrin had a conflict so now he's gone. That's good. But now the real choice is between Sandstrom and McGarr. Sandstrom may be the Republican but McGarr is the conservative.

ChrisMcDougal said...

Sandstrom is conservative for not supporting the voucher liberals.
I hope he can work to make all schools good choice schools. Maybe we can have less state government instrusion into our schools and someday NO federal government with REAL local control and choice.

I haven't had the choice of being able to raise a child. Maybe I should ask for some money for that from the voucher activitists. Since they want me to pay for their supposed "lack" of "choice," maybe I could ask for some of their tax deductions they get for my own "lack" of "choice."

Anonymous said...

Chris McDougal conveniently misses the point about vouchers and so-called "voucher liberals".

The issue isn't whether or not you have kids and don't get a voucher. The bottom line is as follows:

1. Taxpayers spend more than $6,000 per year per K-12 student.

2. A private school voucher for $3,000 for a low income kid is a benefit for all taxpayers, including those without children.

As a taxpayer, you will pay $6,000 per student in public schools even if you don't have any children.

Vouchers are about improving education through choice and competition while saving tax dollars.

Anonymous said...

Once again District 58 voters choose a Republican simply because they see an (R) next to the name. I could understand worrying about voting for someone from the Constitution party had it been for an office in the U.S. House or U.S. Senate, but this was a local election where Mr. McGarr obviously was the better choice to represent conservative ideals. What a disappointment for the District 58 electorate, who failed to understand both candidates platforms and character.