O:9:"magpierss":24:{s:6:"parser";i:0;s:12:"current_item";a:0:{}s:5:"items";a:25:{i:0;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192866.post-3818780078115449789";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-08-28T00:43:00.002-06:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-08-28T00:47:35.210-06:00";s:5:"title";s:22:"Will Utah Raise Taxes?";s:12:"atom_content";s:4047:"People seem to be the most concerned about reports that Utah will extend the sales tax to items and services that currently are not taxed.  That idea is a recurring favorite of the <a href="http://www.le.state.ut.us/asp/interim/Commit.asp?Year=2009&amp;Com=SPETAX"><span style="color:#ff0000;">Utah Tax Review Commission</span></a>.  It simply is not going to happen.  So, I’ll move on to other taxes.<br /><br />As for increasing existing taxes, the primary targets popping up are tobacco, alcohol, and food. <br /><br />Tobacco and alcohol tax increases could happen.  The thinking is that these products do correlate with significant costs to the State (e.g., Medicaid costs to treat cancer and people who have been injured by drunk drivers). <br /><br />The food tax debate will be interesting.  The Utah Legislature largely believes that our taxes are too high, and that Utah and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Utahns</span> would be better off with lower taxes.  When we cut taxes a few years back, though, the Senate did not favor reducing the sales tax on food (instead wanting to reduce elsewhere).   We cut income tax and the food tax.  It was a compromise, I kindly remind my new – and highly esteemed – Senate colleagues.  To say the issue involved a big wrestling match between the House and Senate is to seriously understate matters.  It’s a great story, worth telling at some point.  For now, though, (if the determination is made that we need increased revenues), I think the tax on unprepared food could go back up, unless Gov. Herbert and the House fight hard to keep it off.  (It is interesting to note, though, that the legislative father of reducing the food tax was President <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Waddoups</span> – though he and I are seriously outnumbered on this one in the Senate).<br /><br />An alternative strategy – and, in my opinion, a better one – is to work to not raise taxes at all (though I have to exclude the tobacco tax, where I think it is a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">fait</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">accompli</span>).  I am proud that Governor Herbert seems to be adopting this approach.  I’m very proud.  I’d be damn proud, if this <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">weren</span>’t a family-friendly blog.  We don’t need to raise taxes.  The task is to match revenues and expenditures.  It’s too easy for Government to look to the revenue side of the ledger, without seriously addressing the expenditure side.  If Gov. Herbert is saying that he is against raising taxes – and, more importantly, if his proposed budget then matches that statement – that means that he is willing to take a hard look at state expenditures.  That would be tremendously healthy for Utah.<br /><br />A reality of government – sad but very true – is that expenditures <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">aren</span>’t watched closely enough during “up” years.  (Utah does better than most states, but we still have room to improve).  If expenditures then <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">aren</span>’t reined in during “down” years, the government-as-servant/citizen-as-master relationship is turned on its head.  The “needs” of government become a significant burden on the people (e.g., California and the federal government).  <br /><br />Most of my constituents are tightening their belts.  They should expect their government to do the same.  If Gov. Herbert is with us, meaning we only need 38 House votes and 15 Senate votes, instead of veto-override numbers of 50 and 20 respectively, we can bring expenditures in line with revenues.  If we do that, Utah will be well-positioned for an excellent recovery.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/8192866-3818780078115449789?l=steveu.com%2Fblog%2Findex.html'/></div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:148:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/3818780078115449789/comments/defaulthttps://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8192866&postID=3818780078115449789";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/3818780078115449789";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/3818780078115449789";s:4:"link";s:57:"http://steveu.com/blog/2009/08/will-utah-raise-taxes.html";s:11:"author_name";s:8:"steve u.";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/07878364264013490969";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:2:"12";}}i:1;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192866.post-8393595049238068676";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-08-14T14:10:00.000-06:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-08-14T14:12:01.513-06:00";s:5:"title";s:45:"New Century Scholars – Problem and Solution";s:12:"atom_content";s:5367:"Utah has breached a promise to 2,000 of our brightest stars.  After 2,000 high school students satisfied their part of a supposed bargain, Utah reneged on its part of the deal.  The State previously held out significant scholarship offers to high school students who earned an Associate’s Degree during high school (New Century Scholarship) and students who took rigorous core courses and met specified standards for grades and ACT scores (Regents’ Scholarship).  Students who met those requirements are now learning some tough lessons about the value of a government’s commitments.<br /><br />The system of higher education had a budget cut of 8% – with much discretion given to the Board of Regents to figure out how to apportion those cuts.  (To accurately describe the scenario, it should be noted that in this time of budget deficits, growth in higher education and in these 2 scholarship programs is steep – thereby adding to the budgetary strain.  Though the Legislature cut $172,000 from these programs, the shortfall – factoring in growth – is $1.7 million.).  The cut to the Regents’ Scholarship largely reflects the cuts made to higher education (e.g., the base awards of $1,000 and the supplement awards of $400 to College Savings Accounts are not cut at all; in fact, an $80 bonus was added to the base award for timely applications; beyond that, the exemplary award (tuition) is cut from 75% to 55%).  Much to the contrary, the heavy cut to the New Century Scholarship seems to reflect a program in disfavor with the Regents.<br /><br />Despite amazing efforts having been made by dedicated students to qualify for the New Century Scholarship (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">NCS</span>), the amount of tuition assistance (which, unlike the tripartite awards of the Regents’ Scholarship, is the only aspect of the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">NCS</span>) was slashed from 75% to 40%.  I think this misses the mark significantly.  The cut to the New Century Scholarship program was too deep, and should have been moderated by cuts elsewhere in the higher education program.  (The Legislature gave higher education the authority to go between line items, to do the best it could with its budget).<br /><br />Representative of the injustice caused by this cut, here is an email I received from a constituent:<br /><br /><em>My name is ** and I am a new graduate of Dixie High School. While I was in high school I took advantage of the Concurrent Enrollment program and completed many college courses. I'm sure you are aware of the New Century Scholarship that is available to students who complete their Associate degree by September 1st of the year they graduate high school. When I heard of this program I enrolled in twice as many college classes because I needed this scholarship. I sacrificed so much more than I could ever write in an e-mail but knew that in the end it would be worth it to have 75% of my tuition paid for. I just barley finished the last requirement for my Associate of Science degree a couple of weeks ago on the summer block semester.<br /><br />It came to my attention this morning that the 2009 budget cuts have reduced scholarship funds, and consequently my 75% has been lowered to 40% and in the next year will be reduced to 20%. I understand that we are in a tough spot right now and the budget needs to be cut. My father is in construction and we are feeling the effects of the economy as much as anyone. I understand this needed to happen; however, I don't feel like it is right to cut scholarship money from the hardest working students. There are many other places the budget should be cut before money that has been rightfully earned and promised is taken from some of the top students in the state.<br /><br />I'm not sure who exactly I need to talk to about this but I am frustrated and was wondering if you could point me in the right direction as far as who I need to talk to in order to express my concerns and frustrations. I appreciate your time, I'm sure you are busy. I hope to hear from you soon and thank you again for listening.<br /></em><br />I agree; it’s not right to cut scholarship money from the hardest working students.  Here’s my idea.  The Governor’s office still has unallocated “economic stabilization” money (about $18.5 million, I believe).  Governor Herbert should put $1.7 million of that money toward these scholarship funds – which would keep them level for one year.  Then, the Legislature should decide how to handle this situation for next year.  (Short of that, let’s consider a special session, so that Legislature can move around funds now.).  We need to sit in a committee room with these students and their parents, as well as the many other worthy interests competing for the State’s limited resources, and hammer out the policy in the open – now, if Governor Herbert won’t apply the bandage, or in January, if he will.<br /><br />These students have gone above and beyond.  Education is a key economic engine, and these students are supercharged.  We need to keep our word, and we need to encourage achievement.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/8192866-8393595049238068676?l=steveu.com%2Fblog%2Findex.html'/></div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:148:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/8393595049238068676/comments/defaulthttps://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8192866&postID=8393595049238068676";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/8393595049238068676";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/8393595049238068676";s:4:"link";s:68:"http://steveu.com/blog/2009/08/new-century-scholars-problem-and.html";s:11:"author_name";s:8:"steve u.";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/07878364264013490969";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:2:"12";}}i:2;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192866.post-1406332356231529835";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-07-28T09:32:00.002-06:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-07-28T09:34:58.054-06:00";s:5:"title";s:33:"Global Warming and Solar Activity";s:12:"atom_content";s:3715:"I post on global warming, because of the significant policy implications the issue carries.  One of the best things Government can do for citizens is to promote policies that encourage productive economic activities.  Many policy discussions regarding global warming head in the other direction, and would seem to present a significant burden on the economy and, therefore, detriment to citizens. <br /><br />If we need to take action, then, of course, let’s take responsible action.  However, it seems we are in the process of bidding against ourselves in ratcheting up possible actions, without first determining whether actions are needed and which actions can best address the issue.<br /><br />Before we take economically debilitating action, though, it seems the global warming dialogue might be maturing a bit.  Take, for example, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/27/world-warming-faster-study"><span style="color:#ff0000;">this article</span></a>.  If it correctly describes the underlying reasoning in the about-to-be-published Geophysical Research Letters Report, the Report would be significant.  The Report apparently attributes recent cooling trends on Earth to decreased solar activity (i.e., fewer sunspots).  The article states, “The analysis shows the relative stability in global temperatures in the last seven years is explained primarily by the decline in incoming sunlight associated with the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle, together with a lack of strong El <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Niño</span> events. These trends have masked the warming caused by CO2 and other greenhouse gases.”  (Instead of “the decline in incoming sunlight,” I’m guessing the Report refers to a decline in incoming solar winds.).<br /><br />It would be highly significant, if the Academy were to allow acknowledgement of the dynamic link between solar activity and Earth’s climate.  Despite close historic correlation, the link between solar activity and Earth’s climate had been considered a debunked myth in the “settled science” of global warming.  Though the authors of the Report, Judith Lean and David Rind, hypothesize that global warming will resume apace in the next few years, it will be interesting to see if they address whether the solar activity/Earth’s climate coin is one- or two-sided.  The ramp up in temperatures since the 1950s correlates with a string of the most <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot-bfly.gif"><span style="color:#ff0000;">active solar cycles</span></a> in recorded history.  Is that correlation relevant? <br /><br />My guess is that, for now, the coin is one-sided: solar activity can only be used to explain away holes in the prevailing theory, not to flesh out the theory.  But, if decreased solar activity can explain cooling, it would seem that increased solar activity might soon be worthy of study as a cause for warming.  If so, global warming over the last century would seem to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Activity_Proxies.png"><span style="color:#ff0000;">correlate with increased solar activity</span></a> over that same time period (a doubling of sunspots since 1900). <br /><br />Interestingly, the dramatic ramp up in solar activity since the Maunder Minimum of 1715 seemingly has caused only slight increases in the Earth’s temperature.  While the Earth is able to moderate itself on this topic, time will tell whether the same is true of Earth’s inhabitants.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/8192866-1406332356231529835?l=steveu.com%2Fblog%2Findex.html'/></div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:148:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/1406332356231529835/comments/defaulthttps://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8192866&postID=1406332356231529835";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/1406332356231529835";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/1406332356231529835";s:4:"link";s:69:"http://steveu.com/blog/2009/07/global-warming-and-solar-activity.html";s:11:"author_name";s:8:"steve u.";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/07878364264013490969";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:2:"17";}}i:3;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192866.post-5512691802646504078";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-07-15T17:06:00.002-06:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-07-15T17:14:40.900-06:00";s:5:"title";s:47:"Illegal Immigration, SB 81, and Civil Discourse";s:12:"atom_content";s:33370:"When I entered the Legislature 9 years ago, I was delighted – and surprised – to discover how hard the institution digs for facts.  We always can do better, but I think we do a good job of attempting to base our decisions on actual facts.  Sometimes on politically-charged issues (like education vouchers), we break down, and never reach common facts.  But, for the most part, House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats, work to discover the facts that form the basis for our actions.  And, we continue to dig and discuss after we act, to see whether we got it right or whether we need to change something.<br /><br />To illustrate the kinds of discussions we have, I want to share some emails I’ve received this past week on the controversial issue of illegal immigration and, specifically, Sen. Hickman’s <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2008/bills/sbillenr/sb0081.htm"><span style="color:#ff0000;">SB 81, Illegal Immigration (2008)</span></a>.  This is long and wonky, but some might appreciate the insider’s view.<br /><br />First, the Sutherland Institute put out <a href="http://www.sutherlandinstitute.org/uploads/immigrationJustTheFacts.pdf"><span style="color:#ff0000;">this report</span></a> – arguing that illegal immigrants do not commit significant criminal activities in Utah. <br /><br />Rep. Chris Herrod responded to the article as follows:<br /><br /><em>Dear Representatives and Senators,</em><br /><br /><em>Over the past few months, a tremendous amount of misinformation about illegal immigration in Utah and SB 81 has been given.  Salt Lake City’s Police Chief and others have propagated faulty information to the public.  SLCPD gave me misleading and false information when I requested information to back up the Police Chief’s comments made on KSL radio.  The most recent misinformation is the Sutherland Institute’s “Just the Facts” and a Deseret News’ Editorial which recited Sutherland’s “facts”. In order to save embarrassment for anyone who may be referencing  Sutherland’s essay or the Deseret News Editorial, let me state that the Sutherland Institute clearly does not understand Utah’s correctional system especially “State Contract” inmates.  </em><br /><br /><em>Sutherland claims to have obtained “county jail population.”  According to their table, they claim that Beaver County has 370 county inmates (considering Beaver County has a population of only 6200 people, I would worry for Representative Noel’s and Senator Stowell’s safety when visiting Beaver County if something was not obviously wrong with statistics.)  Sutherland does not understand that 361 of the 370 inmates are actually “State Contract” inmates and belong to the state.  These inmates cannot be used as a sampling for county inmates and crime.  Sutherland lists 80 inmates for Daggett County yet 68 of these are state inmates.  Box Elder is listed as 125 but 36 are state inmates.  Kane County is listed as 26 yet 10 are state inmates.  Carbon is listed as 72 yet 6 are state inmates.  All of these counties had “zero” immigration holds according to Sutherland’s data so removing them changes the percentage.  </em><br /><br /><em>For Salt Lake County Jail, Sutherland lists only 29 inmates on federal hold.  Yet, monthly reports by the Salt Lake County Jail from January to May of 2009 show no month with less than 85 inmates detained for an immigration hold.  The average is 106.2 inmates.  The average bookings per month were higher than Sutherland listed with an average of 3,086.4 inmates per months.  This equates to an average of 3.44% of inmates on federal hold.  This is significantly higher than the 1% Sutherland reported.</em><br /><br /><em>Correct for just the errors in Beaver, Box Elder, Carbon, Daggett, and Kane Counties as well as using an average of 3.44 % of inmates on federal hold for Salt Lake County, and the “undocumented” portion in county jails jumps to 5.2%. But there are still other factors which lead to an underrepresentation in county jails.  Sutherland assumes that everyone who is illegal has been identified.  If the county jail does not have a cross-deputized officer, many illegal aliens are never identified. This is precisely what part of SB 81 is trying to address.   ICE has limited resources and cannot always make it to a county jail.Sutherland did not account for recidivism rates.  Obviously, if illegal aliens are deported even after their entire sentence is served, they will be less likely to be around for the cumulative effect of repeat offenders.  Higher rates of outstanding warrants are also not factored by Sutherland.  For example, of the 40 murders in the state of Utah in 2008, five cases have no suspects.  Three have suspects/person of interests who have not been apprehended.  All three are suspected illegal immigrants.  </em><br /><br /><em>Sutherland fails to understand that illegal aliens can be deported by the courts rather than serve a full sentence.  For example, Michele Ramirez was “sentenced to 78 days in county jail and deportation for her role in the shooting” of Diego Mendoza (see </em><a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/print/705309408/Police-briefs.html" target="browserView"><em>http://www.deseretnews.com/article/print/705309408/Police-briefs.html</em></a><em>).  Was 78 days a full sentence for a role in murder had deportation not been an option?  If not, then she is underreported in the county jail system.  If the sentence would have been more than year, Michele Ramirez is completely unaccounted for in the state system as an illegal alien. These numerous flaws call into question Sutherland’s entire methodology.    </em><br /><br /><em>Sutherland takes a snapshot rather than data for the year.  They report Utah County as having only 10.1% Hispanics when bookings for all of 2008 show 23.33% Hispanic with 15.3% of all prisoners have some sort of immigration hold. Moreover, it is uncertain how Sutherland ever got 10.1%.  A snapshot from January 1, 2009 has the jail at 21.1% Hispanic and another snapshot on July 1, 2009 has the rate at 22.2%.    </em><br /><br /><em>Unfortunately, until better data is available, ethnicity must be used since race and ethnicity are often the only information available.  According to the PEW Hispanic Center, 76% of illegal aliens are Hispanic (in the Utah prison system it is 85.5%)  According to the PEW Hispanic Center, between38%-48% of Hispanics in Utah are illegal aliens.  Until all police departments cross-deputize at least one officer, we will have to extrapolate illegal aliens from the Hispanic statistics.  The only options are that illegal Hispanics are causing crime at a greater rate than the general population, legal Hispanics are committing more crime, or both categories are equally committing crime at a higher rate.  It must be one of these three.  I believe it is the first.<br /><br />Ironically, Sutherland’s own data shows that Hispanics commit crime at roughly 50% higher than the general population.  If Sutherland’s research is correct and illegal aliens do not commit crimes at a higher rate than the general population, then Sutherland is asserting that Legal Hispanics have a higher crime rate than illegal Hispanics.  Does Sutherland really believe this? I certainly do not.  This is precisely why so many legal Hispanics are against illegal immigration. Legal immigrants have gone through a screening process. Foreign students have as well.  It only makes sense that legal immigrants have lower crime rate otherwise the U.S. is wasting a lot of money at embassies throughout the world.</em><br /><br /><em>Unfortunately this questionable methodology is a continuation of Sutherland’s faulty research last year of trying to use illegal alien population state prison population as proof that illegal aliens do not commit crime at a higher rate than the general population.  Sutherland did not take into account lagging statistics (someone does not commit crime or get caught immediately - before an illegal alien gets sent to state prison, one may receive a lighter sentence for the first few offenses or deported during the criminal justice process).  Federal prisons have now reached 40% Hispanic but this is only after years of increase in the Hispanic population in general (</em><a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705293233,00.html" target="browserView"><em>http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705293233,00.html</em></a><em>).    Although Sutherland has been told about these errors they refuse to change their claims.  A much better indicator of crime would be arrest rates which show a dramatically higher rate of crime for Hispanics.  Admittedly, these statistics may be uncomfortable for some, but it is our responsibility to deal with the “facts” and have an honest conservation about the problems this state faces.  Political correctness is destroying this nation.  I have attached information received from BCI about the arrest rates for Utah as a whole, Salt Lake City, West Valley City and Provo City.   <br /></em><br /><em>The Deseret News Editorial<br /></em><br /><em>The recent Deseret New Editorial shows the lack of willingness on the part of the media to properly research and is in danger of losing all credibility as an unbiased informational source.  They mentioned litigation of the Oklahoma bill, but failed to mention that only a small portion of the bill is being litigated.  The Ninth Circuit, arguably the most liberal court in the nation, has already upheld as constitutional the entire Arizona Law which included the provisions challenged in Oklahoma. The Eighth Circuit has upheld a Missouri Law with similar provisions.  The Deseret News has failed to headline that Utah now has the fastest growing illegal immigrant population in the United States according to the Pew Hispanic Center.  What they do not print shows just as much bias as what they do. According to Utah Department of Corrections, in 2008, 9.1% of those processed for murder in the state correctional system were illegal aliens.  Illegal immigrants have nearly twice the number of children than the general population.  How are we going to pay for this?  With a $700 million state deficit looming for 2011, which programs are we going to cut or which taxes are we going to raise?<br /></em><br /><em>The Salt Lake Police Department – False and Misleading Information<br /></em><br /><em>Of greatest concern, however, is my recent experience of my GRAMA request with the Salt Lake City Police Department.  I was given false and misleading information which should concern everyone.  We may disagree on solutions for illegal immigration but we should at least agree that we as legislators should be given correct information and that police departments should not be misleading the public.  Public perception about the integrity of all of Utah law enforcement departments depends on this.  On April 21st, I requested information to substantiate Chief Burbank’s comments on KSL radio where he was asked by Doug Wright about whether or not most of the crime was committed by “these folks.” Chief Burbank responded,That is absolutely not based in fact.  We arrest by far, more Caucasian males than any other population.  In fact, one of the things we have done since the early 90’s is document our racial profiling concerns and so every single traffic stop, every single arrest, every report, every interaction our police officers have, we document.  We are not dealing with, especially the undocumented but Hispanic individuals, at a higher rate than anyone else and the population in general.  And we have proven that time and time again.Doug Wright.So we are talking per capita here. Chief BurbankYes, per capita.  Yes.  This is not the case.<br /></em><br /><em>Since Chief Burbank was actively campaigning against SB 81, I asked that pursuant to Utah Code 63G-2-204(3)(a) SLCPD respond to my GRAMA request within five business days.  After seven days, I called to express concern and was told that the city attorney would be in the next day and that I would have to talk to her.  I was surprised about the seemingly little concern about breaking the law.  I asked legal council to call who was given a similar run-a-around, but after expressing concern about violations of the law, was told that the information would be forthcoming the next day.  The next day, I received nothing.  On May 1st, I received a response which included the statement that “Chief Burbank’s statements were given as his opinion or belief and were not a recitation of statistical records.”  (see attached GRAMA documents) Additionally, I received a document that stated that in 2008 Adult Arrests by SLCPD were 24.53% Hispanic and 75.47% Non-Hispanic.<br /></em><br /><em>Not satisfied with the answer, I requested all information used to produce the statistics and the percentage separated by category of crime.  On June 2nd, the Salt Police Department also finally admitted that “The SLCPD does not keep race or ethnicity data on general police contacts that do not result in arrest” despite what Chief Burbank had said on the radio. <br /></em><br /><em>What was most troubling, however, is what the new data showed.  It showed that SLCPD had included “Unknown” in the “Non-Hispanic” column the month before thus greatly skewing the data.  “Unknown” are not “Non-Hispanic.” While 24.53% Hispanic is higher than the general population (despite the Chief’s claim) it is not so dramatic.  But divide ”Hispanic” by “Hispanic” plus “Non-Hispanic” as any reasonable person would and the results become startling.  The SLCPD’s own data shows that in 2008 44.25% of the crime in Salt Lake City was committed by Hispanics.  To verify this, I contacted BCI which had the total crime in Salt Lake City as 46.78% with 81.82% of the murders and 75% of rapes being committed by Hispanics (see attached spreadsheet).       <br /></em><br /><em>In other words, the information I received on May 2 was a lie (Webster’s Dictionary defines a lie as “anything that gives or is meant to give a false impression.”) This misinformation was given to an elected official trying to counter the arguments made by the police chief affecting legislation that the Utah Legislature deemed in the best interest of Utah and most Utahns agreed with (77% according to a Salt Lake Tribune poll).  Giving misinformation is corruption which should concern everyone and unfortunately casts a shadow on all law enforcement agencies. <br /></em><br /><em>Had “white males” been any other group and such false information given about them, there would have been outrage. It is frightening when the rule of law does not seem to matter with those responsible for enforcing the law.  I believe that such actions are against P.O.S.T. Code of Conduct in Utah which requires officers to keep “public faith.”  Giving misinformation does not keep public trust.  No police chief should see themselves above the law.  The police chief’s job is to follow the law and maintain a civil society.<br /></em><br /><em>Chief Burbank also called SB 81 inhumane which shows complete ignorance of the world in which we live. Inhumane, is being forced to squat, having a stick stuck between your arms and legs, hung upside down, having your feet beaten to a bloody pulp and then being forced to walk a mile on a gravel road.  It is watching your brother shot in front of you, having to chant “red terror” while watching teenagers shot to create fear, or having to adopt your niece and nephew because your brother and sister-in-law were assassinated on their front door step.  Inhumane is having your cousin die in Kenya a year ago as a refugee while waiting five years to come this country legally because the United States currently has so many illegal aliens.  These experiences all happened to my business partner.  With all due respect, SB 81 does not compare.<br /></em><br /><em>Many refugees are also members of our community.  These and other legal immigrants will be hampered in their efforts to bring their families and relatives by the continuing tolerance of illegal immigration.  These groups should fear the police chief’s lack of actions.  The chief’s actions will lead to more racial division rather than less, but instead, Chief Burbank continues to propagate that those in favor of SB 81 are against immigration. This is simply not true.<br />Chief Burbank fails to understand what it takes to keep a civil society. Respect for the rule of law is tantamount to this.  Individuals obey laws that they may not like because they know that others will obey laws that others may not like.  Otherwise, anarchy occurs where as one former Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice said, “everyone has a thousand oppressors.”   Chief Burbank and others have failed to paint the full picture about the extent of crime and now we have a major problem on our hands.  Had he and the media not seen illegal immigration as victimless crime earlier, we would not be in the position that we are today. <br /></em><br /><em>Chief Burbank recently compared enforcement of SB 81 to Nazi Germany (Salt Lake Tribune – July 3, 2009).  This is hyperbole at its greatest, but if comparisons to Nazi Germany must be made then it is important to remember that Nazism began as a police state. A police state begins when the police decide what is right or wrong rather than the duly elected leaders because an ideology or power becomes more important than the truth.  This is exactly what Chief Burbank is doing.  My wife, a legal immigrant said “he is putting his philosophy over the facts.” </em><br /><em><br />We may not agree on everything or on how to solve the problem and prevent the problem from growing, but we should be able to agree that a police chief should provide accurate information and not let personal agendas get in way of the truth.  The only way we can solve the situation is by having an honest, open conversation about the consequences of illegal immigration.  We should acknowledge that increased crime is one of them. <br /><br /></em><em></em><em>One might ask why a part time legislator with no personal staff should have to check out the facts and GRAMA SLCPD rather than the press, but that is a question for another day. <br />As most of you know by now, increased crime is not my main reason for opposing illegal immigration (although it is a core constitutional responsibility of ours).  Tolerating illegal immigration is wrong because it harms many legal immigrants and punishes those desperately trying to come here legally.  In 2002, 13 million people applied for the 55,000 U.S. Green Card lottery slots.  Where is the “compassion” for the 99.6% that did not receive a green card?  Last year, 6.5 million potential immigrants applied. This is the greatest country in the world.  We should not decide citizenship based on the willingness to rob others or break the law.  This cheapens citizenship.     <br /></em><br /><em>The media and other elites are in danger of losing all credibility with the public.  According to poll in the Salt Lake Tribune, 78% of the citizens in Utah want SB 81 enforced.   When will the elites realize that most Utahns are tired of being called racist, uncompassionate, or unchristian simply because they want the law enforced and believe that it is wrong to discriminate against the millions of people trying to come to this country legally?<br /></em><br /><em>I have attached the information I received from SLCPD as well as the statistics I received from BCI.  The information should concern everyone. (I added the column on % of Hispanics using Hispanics and Non-Hispanics as the denominator – not including “Unknown Ethnicity”).  I have also included information which shows how dramatically different U.S. immigration trends are today.  This greatly concerns many legal immigrants as well as many potential legal immigrants.</em> <br /><br />The Sutherland Institute responded to Rep. Herrod as follows:<br /><br /><em>Having read State Representative Chris Herrod’s email accusing Sutherland Institute of spreading “misinformation” through our recent report titled </em><a href="http://www.sutherlandinstitute.org/uploads/immigrationJustTheFacts.pdf"><em>Just the Facts</em></a><em>, we feel a reasoned response is in order.  We appreciate Representative Herrod’s diligence and passionate arguments.  We also appreciate the general spirit of open dialogue that exists among state legislators.  Our intent is not to be contentious but to clarify.<br /><br />As background, our Just the Facts report was a follow-up to a study we presented to the Immigration Interim Committee in 2008 citing, among other things, current state prison-inmate data.  At that time, some supporters of SB 81 countered our findings by arguing that better data on illegal-immigrant inmates would be found in the county jail system.  Sutherland took them at their word and investigated the claim.<br /><br />What we discovered was reported in Just the Facts.  Not to their liking, opponents then argued, as Representative Herrod has in his memo, that the better data is actually “arrest data” (i.e., the idea that the court system keeps many undocumented immigrants out of state prison).  The Sutherland staff is not new to this game.  We have no doubt about the insistence of some  proponents of SB 81 that endless and distant data sources would one day “prove” that, indeed, Utah is awash in a sea of brown criminals intent on subverting everything godly and virtuous.  Even so, this game only proves boring.<br /><br />Representative Herrod’s criticism fails to grasp the point of Just the Facts.  For this study, Sutherland asked a simple question: does broad data from county jails justify the claim that many, if not most, undocumented immigrants are criminals?  Based on the study, the answer is a quantifiable no.  Only 3.9% of inmates in Utah’s county jails are known to be undocumented.  In other words, Representative Herrod’s point about a jail’s “state contract status” is irrelevant.  The simple fact is that only a small portion of criminals sitting in county jails are known to be undocumented.<br /><br />Hypothetical arguments about unknown numbers of undocumented immigrants in Utah’s county jails are similarly irrelevant and have little informative value in a fact-based dialogue.  Representative Herrod’s defense of data on ethnicity and arrests are cases in point.<br /><br />Ethnicity data cannot reasonably be used to say anything useful about the crimes of undocumented immigrants for one simple fact: the vast majority of Hispanics living in Utah are not undocumented.  Using data on Hispanic ethnicity to comment on the crime rate of undocumented immigrants is like using a data-marker of “Caucasian” to represent crimes committed by freckled red-heads.  Further, in its most noxious form, it assumes that all Hispanics are undocumented, which is contrary to both fact and common sense.<br /><br />This approach also undermines the usefulness of arrest data, which only identifies ethnicity.  Put simply, we cannot in good conscience use arrest data to make claims about the crime rate among undocumented immigrants unless we first divorce ourselves from the facts.  For these reasons, county-jail and state-prison data are the best available measures we have of undocumented-immigrant crime.<br /><br />Representative Herrod questions our methodology.  So how did we obtain data for several county jails, particularly Salt Lake and Utah Counties?  Simple: we asked them.  We contacted the county jails and they responded with the figures we reported.  Several counties, such as Salt Lake, provided documentation by fax or email.  Others, such as Utah County, reported them over the phone.  In other words, we did not “arrive” at our figures, we simply reported them.<br /><br />It is interesting that county jails are putting out monthly reports that supposedly contradict the figures in Just the Facts.  However, since Representative Herrod failed to say what reports these are or how to obtain them, we can do little to respond to his sources.  In any case, this particular criticism would be more constructively directed at county jails for supposedly producing contradictory information rather than at Sutherland for simply reporting what we were told officially.<br /><br />Lastly, on a more sensitive point, Representative Herrod writes, “When will the elites realize that most Utahns are tired of being called racist, uncompassionate, or unchristian simply because they want the law enforced…?”  All we can say is what we’ve already said.  The easiest and most effective way to neutralize such attacks is to quit objectifying undocumented immigrants as “criminals” and start seeing them as you would see yourself.  Quit generalizing and stereotyping them.  Quit turning the equivalent of a traffic ticket into a felony.  And, relevant to Representative Herrod’s memo, quit wresting facts and figures – exposing anyone who will listen to a sea of minutia and quasi-conspiracy theories – to fit a myopic and cynical view of the problem at hand.<br /><br />After Sutherland released Just the Facts, the head of the Utah Minutemen called Sutherland a “liberal-biased” organization and went on to construct the conspiracy that we’ve taken our stand to serve the interests of big business and that all we want is a steady source of “cheap labor.”  Seriously?<br /><br />While we certainly respect Representative Herrod’s right to his own viewpoint, his criticisms of our work are without basis and merit.  In Sutherland’s view, perpetuating such unreasonable arguments only encourages Utahns to turn to the emotion-driven, knee-jerk arguments which have negatively influenced public dialogue surrounding SB 81.  We do not question Representative Herrod’s motives and believe, firmly, that one day he will see undocumented immigrants as he sees himself.  On that day, especially because of Representative Herrod’s solid sense of integrity, Utah will begin to find real solutions – to make the best of a bad situation foist upon us by an inept federal government.<br /><br />-- Sutherland Institute<br /></em><br />Senator Greiner, then, offered this:<br /><br /><em>I have watched with some interest the debate through our E-Mail accounts, the issue of SB-81, and who has the correct numbers for whatever position on this issue our personal or constituent position leads us.  I see the points of view of Representative Herrod and those of the Sutherland Institute, both of which reach their conclusions in an acceptable manner but may not have the complete picture, although they both have tried, and offer this thought process for all representatives since this is a public issue with high emotion on both sides.  Naturally I expect each of you, including the Sutherland Institute, to treat my thoughts the same way.<br /></em><br /><em>In 2008, I had asked that the Department of Corrections bring to the Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee what information they may have on the issue of illegal residents in Utah and their numbers in the criminal system.  A presentation was made by their analyst, Mr. Cliff Buttars, on June 18, 2008.  Unfortunately the numbers, in my opinion, didn’t answer all the questions, they only created more! The reason for much of this is that nobody has an accurate measurement tool.  Why?  The reason is nobody has until SB-81 been required to determine citizenship at some point in the criminal justice process.    SB-81 now requires a county sheriff to make a reasonable effort to determine citizenship of someone confined in their facility, this will help with the over 18 age group.  Also, a person begins their confinement history in a county jail so those in the prison system should already be identified as citizen or non-citizen; something the Corrections system didn’t have 100% confidence in for their numbers.<br /></em><br /><em>As one who gets asked about crime numbers on a regular basis and one who has thirty five years of experience in this area let me lay a foundation for each of you to draw your own conclusions from.<br /></em><br /><em>Utah’s population is roughly  89% Caucasian according to the 2000 census.  The other 11% is all the other diversity our state has to offer, many of which are of Hispanic descent.  The Hispanic race is the second largest, around 7%, of Utah’s population according to the same census data.  Naturally there are combinations of races and so these numbers are merely rough estimates that have changed since 2000.  Each Utah community is going to have higher or lower numbers of these basic demographics.<br /></em><br /><em>Utah’s crime rate, that which we measure with what we call the Uniform Crime Rate, UCR, is roughly 4-5% state wide for violent crime and 95% for property crime. I send, as an administrator of arrest data, for crimes, to the State of Utah monthly a breakdown of statistics.  These statistics include type of crime for arrest, age of the person arrested, gender of the person arrested,  race of the person arrested and a number of other statistical data sets. The point is here that there is a lot of statistics gathered each month that could already be used if those interested wanted to agree on a measurement of them over time.<br /></em><br /><em>Nobody knows for sure how many illegal residents we have in Utah but let me give basic numbers as they relate to arrests  for my community and discuss Mr. Buttar’s numbers from the committee meeting, a portion of which the Sutherland Institute used in their “Just the Facts” piece.<br /></em><br /><em>Our community has a diversity index higher than most communities in Utah.  Our community i</em><em>s represented by a roughly 25% Hispanic population, again some of this number are going to be a combination race and some are going to be here illegally.  In terms of monthly arrests  our community, over the age of 18 group, has about a 35% rate represented by members in the Hispanic population.  In the under 18 age group the arrest rate is about 48% for the Hispanic population.  These numbers have been going up, marginally for the over 18 group, for years for all types of crimes. However the under 18 group is another story and they represent over 25% of the  reported crime and won’t generally show up in a county jail or prison count because they don’t get to that system. Their numbers, the under 18 group, including violent crime, have been going up. This of course causes a natural question about how much of this crime may be caused by an external factor, a factor of say citizenship and/or gang affiliation or something else.<br /></em><br /><em>Mr. Buttars represented to the committee that about 30% of the inmates in the corrections system of 6,000 were there for violent crimes, because of longer sentences.  He also represented that 308 of the violent group offenders were illegal, on a specific date, as compared to the same specific  date in an earlier year of which there were about 280 and that about 70% of the illegal group came from a Latin American country. What this means is that the violent incarcerated illegal offender numbers increased by 10% over a 4 year period.  These are the same numbers the “Just the Facts” piece use with their estimate of a thirty-six percent  increase in the illegal population from 70,000 to 110,000 between 2004 to 2008.  However there is no way to really measure this population increase as opposed to the hard number of a 10% increase in violent illegal offenders, the population number is an estimate.  County jail data, as used by the Sutherland study, has inherent problems since the usual offense in a county jail is a property crime offense and due to a lack of total bed space in the whole system the illegal offender is just as likely to be deported, if possible, rather than incarcerated for a property crime conviction.  That coupled with the fact that in Mr. Butter’s testimony there may be as many as 10% of the prison Hispanic population that the prison still doesn’t know the citizenship of!<br /></em><br /><em>My point is this; the violent illegal offender prison numbers are going up and I personally can’t rationalize that with the fact that someone estimates the number of illegal residents, regardless of race, in our state is going up even more. The citizens of my community are very sensitive to crimes like Murder, Rape and Robbery, whatever those numbers are when they go up or a legal citizen is a victim. Since 95% of our annual property crime hasn’t really been attributed, where it may partially belong to the illegal group, the crime numbers attributable  may be more egregious , but at least with SB-81 we may start getting some accurate numbers to the question of impact by illegal citizens in our criminal justice system.<br /></em><br /><em>Let the debate continue!!</em><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/8192866-5512691802646504078?l=steveu.com%2Fblog%2Findex.html'/></div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:148:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/5512691802646504078/comments/defaulthttps://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8192866&postID=5512691802646504078";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/5512691802646504078";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/5512691802646504078";s:4:"link";s:71:"http://steveu.com/blog/2009/07/illegal-immigration-sb-81-and-civil.html";s:11:"author_name";s:8:"steve u.";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/07878364264013490969";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:2:"17";}}i:4;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192866.post-2413103101483535730";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-07-10T13:37:00.003-06:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-07-10T15:09:50.647-06:00";s:5:"title";s:20:"20 Boxes of Evidence";s:12:"atom_content";s:3946:"The Department of Commerce claims that it gave the Utah Attorney <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">General's</span> Office sufficient evidence to prosecute alleged <a style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);" href="http://steveu.com/blog/2009/06/division-of-securities-audit.html"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Ponziist</span> Rick <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Koerber</span></a>.  To the contrary, the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">AG's</span> Office said that it did not receive evidence to support a prosecution.  Commerce took its evidence to federal prosecutors, who moved forward and indicted <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Koerber</span>.  So, how much evidence did Commerce collect?<br /><br />Over 20 boxes.<br /><br />That big number, of course, is silent as to the contents and quality of the evidence.  Maybe it was great stuff.  Maybe it was pages from the phone book.  The amount of evidence doesn't tell us anything.  But, coupling the volume of evidence with the fact that it was sufficient for the feds to secure an indictment does suggest that the discrepancy of the 2 agencies' stories needs to be addressed.<br /><br />To more rapidly get to the bottom of whatever is going on between Commerce and the AG's Office, I think that Commerce (which would mean the Governor's Office on something like this) should waive the attorney-client privilege on as many of the Koerber and (the separate) <a style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);" href="http://www.sltrib.com/utahpolitics/ci_12805256">Mentoring of America</a> documents as possible.  Privilege will need to be retained for some documents, since free-flowing dialogue between client and counsel needs to happen, such as sensitive information regarding case strategy.  But, since these are two agencies that operate for the good of the public, privilege should not be retained, I would think, for many of the documents (e.g., emails) that simply lay out why one agency wanted to move forward with prosecution and the other agency refused.<br /><br />It seems that the attorney and client were not on the same page.  The client wanted the cases to move forward criminally.  The attorney refused.  Because the attorney effectively worked against the client's desires, by closing the path to state criminal prosecution, this seems to be a case where the attorney and client were at cross purposes.  Therefore, claim of privilege seems to be in the interest of the attorney, not the client.  And, of course, the privilege belongs to the client, not the attorney.  Where the client is saying it produced evidence and the attorney is saying the client did not, the only way for the client to prove its veracity is to show the evidence, emails, etc.; exercise of the privilege prevents such a showing.  Thus, claim of privilege works against the client, and that's not what evidentiary privileges are about.<br /><br />I don't mean to suggest that this is simple.  Waiving the privilege in this case could have broader implications to the relationship between state agencies and the Attorney General's Office.  That needs to be considered.  But, I don't see it.  As an attorney, I realize that I can never divulge what a client and I discuss but that the client can divulge everything.  That's how the privilege works.  It's one way.  It protects the client, not the attorney.<br /><br />If Utah has a problem getting after bad actors and fraud because of something going on between 2 agencies or something going on in one of those agencies, that needs to be addressed.  The Executive needs to take steps to ferret out the problem.  If it refuses, the Legislative branch should look into the matter.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/8192866-2413103101483535730?l=steveu.com%2Fblog%2Findex.html'/></div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:148:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/2413103101483535730/comments/defaulthttps://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8192866&postID=2413103101483535730";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/2413103101483535730";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/2413103101483535730";s:4:"link";s:56:"http://steveu.com/blog/2009/07/20-boxes-of-evidence.html";s:11:"author_name";s:8:"steve u.";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/07878364264013490969";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:2:"27";}}i:5;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192866.post-2027576734697635746";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-06-30T14:06:00.002-06:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-06-30T14:49:53.130-06:00";s:5:"title";s:28:"Division of Securities Audit";s:12:"atom_content";s:4659:"Utah has a fraud problem, as illustrated by the recent <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Ponzi</span>-scheme conviction of <a href="http://www.stockfraudnewswire.com/articles/utah-ponzi-scheme.html"><span style="color:#ff0000;">Val <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Southwick</span></span></a> and the indictment of <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705311623/Man-pleads-not-guilty-in-Ponzi-case.html"><span style="color:#ff0000;">Rick <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Koerber</span></span></a>, alleged <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Ponziist</span>.  <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Koerber</span> stories often mention that criticism or pressure has been aimed at the Utah Division of Securities by 2 members of the Utah House of Representatives and by the AG’s office.   More accurately, that criticism/pressure often is aimed at the Director of the Department of Commerce, Francine <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">Giani</span>.  Some of the criticism is pretty heated, including a recent claim by one of the Representatives that the Division is “corrupt.”  The criticism is vaguely shored up by passing reference to a legislative audit of the Division.  Yet, at least as far as I’<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">ve</span> noticed, none of the stories actually link to the audit report.  (And that’s a shame, when it is so easy to empower people with a link to source material).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.le.state.ut.us/audit/ad_2008dl.htm"><span style="color:#ff0000;">Here is the audit report</span></a>.  (It is item #7 in the link; I linked to the main page for all 2008 audits, to give a flavor for the type of work performed by the Utah Legislative Auditor General’s office (“LAG”)).   I am proud of the <a href="http://www.le.state.ut.us/audit/staff.pdf"><span style="color:#ff0000;">LAG</span></a>.  Our legislative auditors play a key role in making Utah a well-managed state.  They are thorough, professional, and fair.  Much good legislation and/or agency reform flows from the LAG’s findings and suggestions.<br /><br />The <a href="http://www.le.state.ut.us/audit/08_07rpt.pdf"><span style="color:#ff0000;">Performance Audit of the Division of Securities</span></a> should (and did) give pause and direction to the Division, the Department of Commerce, and the Legislature.  However, the audit itself does not paint the nightmare scenario that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Koerber</span> and others attempt to paint by referencing “the audit.”  Like most audits, problems were identified and course-corrections were suggested.  Basically, the audit found that the Division did not have adequate policies and procedures; as a result, the Division suffered personnel problems, a confusion of roles, and it overreached in some instances.  The problems identified have been corrected.  And, concerning the present discussion, I fail to see how the audit could support in any way a claim that the Division acted inappropriately in investigating <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Koerber</span> and in working with the United States Attorney to secure an indictment.<br /><br />Successful <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Ponziists</span> are charismatic, believable, and rich.  Charismatic, believable, rich people are tough to investigate.  Hence, investigators have to be tough.  Francine <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Giani</span> is tough.   And she is professional, and she is fair.  She has faced inappropriate obstacles in investigating and securing an indictment against <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Koerber</span>.  She continues to face inappropriate criticism for “the audit” (that no one seems to actually read when bumping forward <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">broadbrush</span> criticisms that have nothing to do with anything actually in the audit).  It's not fair to her, but again it's a tough business, and fortunately Francine is not faint-hearted.  Utah needs vigorous enforcement of laws against <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Ponziists</span> and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">scammers</span>.  I am proud that Francine is on the job.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/8192866-2027576734697635746?l=steveu.com%2Fblog%2Findex.html'/></div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:148:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/2027576734697635746/comments/defaulthttps://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8192866&postID=2027576734697635746";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/2027576734697635746";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/2027576734697635746";s:4:"link";s:64:"http://steveu.com/blog/2009/06/division-of-securities-audit.html";s:11:"author_name";s:8:"steve u.";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/07878364264013490969";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:2:"30";}}i:6;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192866.post-5203568154872679085";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-06-04T15:51:00.003-06:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-06-04T16:16:38.501-06:00";s:5:"title";s:29:"International Competitiveness";s:12:"atom_content";s:2436:"Capital goes where it is treated well. As much as planners would like to think otherwise, capital can't be forced to stay where it is not welcome.<br /><br />Capital seeks 2 things: nice returns and a predictable legal environment. Many second- and third-world nations have tremendous natural resources and human capital. But, those countries effectively have forced their citizens to take a vow of poverty, by chasing away capital. They don't attract capital, because they unduly restrict profits (typically through high taxes) and/or they lack stability.<br /><br />By contrast, the United States has maintained a good balance of allowing nice returns and creating a legally predictable environment. (The more predictable the legal environment, the lower the returns have to be attract capital). As a result, the United States has enjoyed an amazing inflow of financial and human capital.<br /><br />The Administration has chased capital away from the automotive industry. "Non-governmental capital" I should say. And, not just away from GM and Chrysler; I can't see investors plowing lots of money into companies that will compete against the federal purse and against the people who regulate the entire industry.<br /><br />If it does not take a wiser approach toward the flow of capital, the Administration could chase capital away from the entire nation. It cannot be overstated how important it is to our national prosperity (education, roads, law enforcement, national defense, welfare programs, individual opportunity, etc. etc.) that the rest of the world continue to push its money our way. Remember: half of every dollar Government currently spends was loaned to it.<br /><br />Before we even get to "the rest of the world," <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&amp;sid=aAKluP7yIwJY"><span style="color:#ff0000;">this article</span></a> describes how American-based companies (whose management and employees vote 90% Democrat, I would guess) are threatening to move resources out of the United States, if current tax proposals move forward. A quick response might be that the Government won't allow it. But, remember, as much as planners would like to think otherwise, capital can't be forced to stay where it is not welcome.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/8192866-5203568154872679085?l=steveu.com%2Fblog%2Findex.html'/></div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:148:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/5203568154872679085/comments/defaulthttps://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8192866&postID=5203568154872679085";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/5203568154872679085";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/5203568154872679085";s:4:"link";s:65:"http://steveu.com/blog/2009/06/international-competitiveness.html";s:11:"author_name";s:8:"steve u.";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/07878364264013490969";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:2:"17";}}i:7;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192866.post-6891106651855388402";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-06-01T14:33:00.001-06:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-06-01T14:26:33.808-06:00";s:5:"title";s:14:"Climate Change";s:12:"atom_content";s:3633:"<div>If we give science a chance, it will humble us by showing us how little we do know, and it will inspire us by hinting how much there is to know.  I think I’<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">ve</span> been pretty careful and clear to describe my frustration with the militant, close-minded attitude that has operated to smack down meaningful scientific inquiry into climate change.<br /><br />One intriguing theory emerged – that human activity was causing global warming.  That theory (1) manifestly fails to coordinate with centuries of observed data concerning solar activity and the Earth’s temperature and (2) stands on untested theoretical underpinnings.  That theory, however, became the political flavor of the day.  Walls were erected and moats were dug, to protect the theory from challenge.<br /><br />And that’s when – just like many other <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">antiscience</span> episodes in human history – science was raped by politics.  Science is combative.  It is about challenging and disproving dogma.  Science needs dissent.  But, science-as-political-weapon requires the silencing of dissent.  Science-as-political-weapon is about wielding “consensus” to bludgeon dissent, in order to achieve political goals.<br /><br />As I have always been clear to say, global warming might or might not be human caused.  It is an intriguing, ingenious. and troubling theory that should be studied. Now, thank heavens and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">helios</span>, I see a significant sign that the antagonism toward scientific inquiry might be dissipating.  <a href="http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/29may_noaaprediction.htm"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">NASA states</span></a>:<br /><br /><em>According to the forecast, the sun should remain generally calm for at least another year. From a research point of view, that's good news because solar minimum has proven to be more interesting than anyone imagined. Low solar activity has a profound effect on Earth’s atmosphere, allowing it to cool and contract. Space junk accumulates in Earth orbit because there is less aerodynamic drag. The becalmed solar wind whips up fewer magnetic storms around Earth's poles. Cosmic rays that are normally pushed back by solar wind instead intrude on the near-Earth environment. There are other side-effects, too, that can be studied only so long as the sun remains quiet.</em><br /><br />As silly as it seems, acknowledgement that "solar activity has a profound effect on Earth's atmosphere" is a significant step forward.  The plain reality is that we haven't scratched the surface to know what that effect is.  This solar minimum “has proven to be more interesting than anyone imagined,” because it is posing some challenges to the as-yet-untested theory of anthropogenic global warming.  Maybe those challenges will be addressed, and the theory will hold.  Maybe they won’t be addressed, and the theory won’t hold.  As mostly happens in science, the theory -- if science is allowed to work -- likely will be modified, tweaked, revisited,  <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">remodified</span>, etc., etc.<br /><br />It’s a wonderful mystery and a challenge! Along with human causes, let’s please allow all the room necessary to study the effect of solar weather on the Earth’s climate.<br /></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/8192866-6891106651855388402?l=steveu.com%2Fblog%2Findex.html'/></div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:148:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/6891106651855388402/comments/defaulthttps://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8192866&postID=6891106651855388402";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/6891106651855388402";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/6891106651855388402";s:4:"link";s:50:"http://steveu.com/blog/2009/05/climate-change.html";s:11:"author_name";s:8:"steve u.";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/07878364264013490969";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:2:"15";}}i:8;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:57:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192866.post-924853073219520082";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-05-29T15:16:00.004-06:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-06-01T11:53:50.000-06:00";s:5:"title";s:33:"GM Deal: Our Socialist Experiment";s:12:"atom_content";s:4950:"Here’s the box score for <a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/news/UAW-members-likely-to-approve-apf-15381534.html?sec=topStories&amp;pos=4&amp;asset=&amp;ccode="><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">the GM deal</span></a>:<br /><br />US Govt invested $19.4 billion in GM, and will get 72.5% of the company. (19.4B = 72.5)<br />UAW’s trust is owed $20 billion by GM, and will get 17.5% of the company. (20B = 17.5)<br />Bondholders invested $27 billion in GM, and will get 10% of the company. (27B = 10)<br />Stockholders who invested billions will get hosed. (Billions = 0).<br /><br />Government and the Union will come out good on this deal.  Individuals and organizations that invested in GM or loaned the company money were made to be <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">schlubs</span>.  They simply pitched into the pot for the benefit of Government and the Union.  People with money to invest or loan typically try to avoid being <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">schlubs</span>.  Thus, it can be expected that they won’t make that mistake again.  Speaking of which, investors greeted the unveiling of Government Motors by returning its stock values to where they were in the 1930s.<br /><br />Having chased away non-governmental investors and creditors, the only way that Government Motors can work is by hobbling competitors with regulations and restrictions and/or by continuing to utilize additional taxpayer money.<br /><br />We’<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">ve</span> seen socialism attempted time and time again.  Other than for the people privileged to be in positions of power, it <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">doesn</span>’t work.  Socialism robs people of liberty, and it kills the economy (further robbing people -- especially vulnerable people -- of liberty).  And, for folks who get exercised about use of the word “<a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">socialism</span></a>,” 72.5% ownership of General Motors qualifies.<br /><br />UPDATE:  Okay, I'm not falling for this.  Though the URL says <a style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/business/01deese.html?_r=1">NY Times</a>, this story about a critical player in the GM/socialism experiment having no relevant experience surely is something from The Onion:<br /><p style="font-style: italic;">WASHINGTON — It is not every 31-year-old who, in a first government job, finds himself dismantling <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/general_motors_corporation/index.html?inline=nyt-org" title="More information about General Motors Corp">General Motors</a> and rewriting the rules of American capitalism.</p> <p style="font-style: italic;">But that, in short, is the job description for Brian Deese, a not-quite graduate of Yale Law School who had never set foot in an automotive assembly plant until he took on his nearly unseen role in remaking the American automotive industry. </p> <p style="font-style: italic;">Nor, for that matter, had he given much thought to what ailed an industry that had been in decline ever since he was born. A bit laconic and looking every bit the just-out-of-graduate-school student adjusting to life in the West Wing — “he’s got this beard that appears and disappears,” says <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/steven_rattner/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about Steven Rattner.">Steven Rattner</a>, one of the leaders of <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about Barack Obama.">President Obama</a>’s automotive task force — Mr. Deese  was thrown into the auto industry’s maelstrom as soon the election-night parties ended. </p> <p style="font-style: italic;">“There was a time between Nov. 4 and mid-February when I was the only full-time member of the auto task force,” Mr. Deese, a special assistant to the president for economic policy, acknowledged recently as he hurried between his desk at the White House and the <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/t/treasury_department/index.html?inline=nyt-org" title="More articles about the U.S. Treasury Department.">Treasury</a> building next door. “It was a little scary.”</p> <span style="font-style: italic;">But now, according to those who joined him in the middle of his crash course about the automakers’ downward spiral, he has emerged as one of the most influential voices in what may become President Obama’s biggest experiment yet in federal economic intervention. </span><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/8192866-924853073219520082?l=steveu.com%2Fblog%2Findex.html'/></div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:146:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/924853073219520082/comments/defaulthttps://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8192866&postID=924853073219520082";s:9:"link_edit";s:69:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/924853073219520082";s:9:"link_self";s:69:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/924853073219520082";s:4:"link";s:68:"http://steveu.com/blog/2009/05/gm-deal-our-socialist-experiment.html";s:11:"author_name";s:8:"steve u.";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/07878364264013490969";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"6";}}i:9;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192866.post-4657968371183117268";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-05-29T09:26:00.003-06:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-05-29T09:29:26.002-06:00";s:5:"title";s:24:"Lt. Governor David Clark";s:12:"atom_content";s:2683:"That does have a nice ring to it.  The speculation continues regarding the next Lt. Governor.  <a href="http://kcpw.org/article/7898"><span style="color:#ff0000;">Here</span></a> is a snippet on House Speaker David Clark.<br /><br />Speaker Clark would be an outstanding choice (as would be President <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Waddoups</span>, Sen. Bell and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">SL</span> County Council Member Michael Jensen, who also were mentioned in the article).  The key is to get someone who is proven.  Rather than base the decision on superficial concerns about the 2010 election, I am rooting for (soon-to-be) Gov. Gary Herbert to pick someone who has proven himself/herself to be superlative at governing or something that immediately translates to governing.  The economy and issues we face in the next 18 months are far more important than political positioning for a 2010 campaign.  Let’s get a proven hand.<br /><br />Speaking of 2010 concerns, though, (sorry, I am a politician) an added value of having Dave Clark on the ticket is that Dave stands at the head of the pack of likely 2010 challengers.  Anyone paying attention to State government is taking note of Speaker Clark’s rare combination of intelligence, toughness, savvy, and steadiness.  No doubt, (soon-to-be) Gov. Herbert and his <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">people</span> have taken note.<br /><br />And, by the way, thank you, voters, for giving us <a href="http://steveu.com/blog/2006/07/gubernatorial-succession.html"><span style="color:#ff0000;">the opportunity to vote on our Governor at the next opportunity</span></a>.  2010 will be Gary’s to lose, but it is only appropriate that voters have the opportunity to decide. <br /><br />An interesting historical note: I originally was going to draft the Gubernatorial Succession amendment to the Utah Constitution so that the victor of the (2010) mid-term election would then serve 4 years.  (Soon-to-be) Governor Herbert was extremely supportive of the amendment to let voters decide, and it was Gary who wanted the term to only be 2 years, so that we’d stay on the 4-year cycle we’re currently on (e.g., 2000, 2004, 2008, (2010), 2012, 2016).  I asked him if he understood that he potentially was the person most disadvantaged by that decision.  He laughed, acknowledged that the thought had occurred to him, but said that staying on cycle was best for the State.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/8192866-4657968371183117268?l=steveu.com%2Fblog%2Findex.html'/></div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:148:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/4657968371183117268/comments/defaulthttps://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8192866&postID=4657968371183117268";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/4657968371183117268";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/4657968371183117268";s:4:"link";s:59:"http://steveu.com/blog/2009/05/lt-governor-david-clark.html";s:11:"author_name";s:8:"steve u.";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/07878364264013490969";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"9";}}i:10;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192866.post-8088992201859505409";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-05-27T08:46:00.002-06:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-05-27T09:16:05.187-06:00";s:5:"title";s:38:"California, Initiatives, and Referenda";s:12:"atom_content";s:2334:"Responding to my post about <a style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);" href="http://steveu.com/blog/2009/05/california-state-bailouts-and-term.html">California, State Bailouts and Term Limits</a>, "just me" opines that California's woes relate to the State's initiative and referendum system.  He writes:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">I don't think it's the specific issue of term limits so much as the general abuse of the initiative system that has made the legislature ineffective. California voters over the last 30 years have passed referenda that basically locked in a governing plan based on limited taxes, unlimited spending, and a balanced budget. At this point, I don't think it even matters who is in the legislature or the governor's chair, which party they belong to, or how much experience they have. These three things the voters want are not possible simultaneously. It's possible to be low tax/low spend/balanced budget (Utah) or high tax/high spend/balanced budget. (Massachusetts) It's also possible to do what DC does and cut taxes on 95% of the population, increase spending to obsene levels and not care about the budget being in balance. But you can't have all 3 things.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Now it may be that the voters of the other 49 states would also prove themselves to be idiots if given the chance. But most of the other states have some constraints on the initiative process to make it somewhat idiot proof--constraints that don't exist in California.</span><br /><br /><a style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);" href="http://steveu.com/blog/2007/11/referenda-what-are-they-good-for.html">Here</a> are some of my thoughts on Utah's referendum process.  In short, initiatives and referenda on policy questions are good and necessary tools in our democracy toolbox.  Believing in our representative form of government, however, I think the initiative and referenda process needs more rigor than California has.  And I think that initiatives and referenda on budgetary issues probably are a bad idea, since budgets are a composite; in isolation, just about every funding choice looks like a winner.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/8192866-8088992201859505409?l=steveu.com%2Fblog%2Findex.html'/></div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:148:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/8088992201859505409/comments/defaulthttps://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8192866&postID=8088992201859505409";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/8088992201859505409";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/8088992201859505409";s:4:"link";s:72:"http://steveu.com/blog/2009/05/california-initiatives-and-referenda.html";s:11:"author_name";s:8:"steve u.";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/07878364264013490969";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:1:"9";}}i:11;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192866.post-7180802050176268481";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-05-25T23:20:00.002-06:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-05-25T23:29:03.390-06:00";s:5:"title";s:43:"California, State Bailouts, and Term Limits";s:12:"atom_content";s:5521:"The federal government should not bail out California.  In the long-run, a bailout would be very harmful.  <br /><br />States have always balanced their budgets.  When they have dug holes for themselves, they have been forced to pull themselves out.  If California now is bailed out of a bad situation, that practice will end.  Because states legally are on an equal footing with each other, a bailout for California would have to mean a bailout for each state when it foolishly overspends and lacks the will/talent to cut.  <br /><br />The time for sound fiscal planning in case of downturns is before the downturn hits.  States get themselves in trouble during the good times, by funding everything, as if economic downturns have been outlawed.  Foolishness should not be rewarded.  (But, past being prologue, I’m not about to bet it won’t be; lots of electoral votes at stake). <br /><br />Each state is a laboratory, largely free to pass laws and budgets as it sees fit.  By analyzing the results of each experiment, other States and the federal government can determine what works best.  California ran a big-government experiment, with lots of entitlement programs and with high taxes and debt loads to pay for those programs.   (That, by the way, is the model the federal government is utilizing; that course clearly predates the Obama Administration, but the pedal is now to the floor).  The fiscal effectiveness of that plan is illustrated by California’s current situation.<br /><br />During the good times, California extravagantly funded everything and over-utilized debt, while it neglected basic (unsexy) maintenance programs.  It was the M.C. Hammer of states.  A simple drive along its deteriorating, once-great highways quickly showed that California was poorly positioned to face the next downturn.  California made its bed; now it should sleep in it.  It’s their experiment.  It’s their problem.<br /><br />California can dig out, (1) if it chooses and (2) if it knows how.  Issue one – willpower – is not unique to California.  Issue two – lack of political ability – is unique, or at least new, to California.  Bluntly, California’s elected officials lack the experience and skill necessary to avoid/address an economic crisis. <br /><br />Gov. Schwarzenegger brought to office a wealth of experience in body building and film making.  And the legislative branch is even worse off.  Since 1990, Assembly members have been term-limited after 6 years; Senate members after 8 years. <br /><br />Those short limits mean that members of Assembly leadership are elected with only 0- to 4-years experience.  Senate leadership members would have 0- to 6-years experience (and, likely, some years in the Assembly).  That’s not enough time to gain the knowledge and experience necessary to run the show.  (See Malcolm Gladwell’s <em>Outliers</em>, positing that people who are great at something aren’t freaks of nature but, instead, have put in 10,000 hours doing that thing).  As a result, the elected officials don’t run the show in California.  Rather, the knowledge and experience necessary to govern are held by staff and special interests. <br /><br />Legislative bodies are tremendous problem-solving groups.  By design, we toss society’s most complex issues into legislative bodies, and, usually, workable solutions emerge.  However, that process is being frustrated in California, since the requisite knowledge base and the decision makers aren’t actually in the Legislature but, rather, are behind the veil. <br /><br />Even without term limits, Utah’s legislators have short legislative life spans (averaging just over 4 years for House members and 6 years for Senate members).  Thank heavens, though, we have members of leadership who have been around long enough to gain valuable experience and weather an economic cycle or two.  All 7 members of House majority leadership have been serving for more than 6 years.  Senate majority leadership averages well-over a decade of legislative experience.  (Sen. Dayton has 2 years in the Senate and a prior decade in the House; Sen. Killpack and Sen. Bell each have 6-years of Senate experience; Sen. Jenkins has 8-years in the Senate; Sen. Knudson and President Waddoups blister my fingers, as I work the abacus to figure out how long they’ve been serving; and Sen. Hillyard, I believe, was first appointed by Brigham Young).<br /><br />Newer members can add to leadership teams.  I think of now-Speaker Clark serving as House appropriations vice-chair, and now-Senate Majority Leader Killpack serving as Senate Assistant Whip, both after only 4 years.  Those roles, however, were supporting positions on experienced leadership teams.  By their participation, younger classes were more directly involved.  But, as I’m sure Dave and Sheldon would quickly agree, they likely weren’t ready to run the show after such a short time.<br /><br />It will be interesting to watch the ultimate fate of term limits.  I doubt that enough people will see the inside-politics of legislatures, to understand the danger of term limits that are too short.  And, given the obvious failings of California’s legislature, it is extremely counterintuitive that the people would rise up and say, “These guys simply need more time to work their magic.”<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/8192866-7180802050176268481?l=steveu.com%2Fblog%2Findex.html'/></div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:148:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/7180802050176268481/comments/defaulthttps://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8192866&postID=7180802050176268481";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/7180802050176268481";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/7180802050176268481";s:4:"link";s:70:"http://steveu.com/blog/2009/05/california-state-bailouts-and-term.html";s:11:"author_name";s:8:"steve u.";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/07878364264013490969";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:2:"22";}}i:12;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192866.post-4372336901326623233";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-05-22T15:44:00.002-06:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-05-22T16:00:16.975-06:00";s:5:"title";s:33:"We Have Met the Speculators . . .";s:12:"atom_content";s:1520:". . . and they are us.  As <a style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);" href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124286497706641485.html">this article describes</a>, when the Administration ignored the rule of law in the Chrysler takeover, to show favoritism to the United Auto Workers over secured creditors -- who were derided as "speculators" -- the people who got the shaft are normal people.  Police and teacher pension funds paid a premium to be secured creditors, with superior payment rights in bankruptcy proceedings, only to be pushed to the back of the bus by the Administration.<br /><br />Regarding the Indiana Treasurer, the article says: <span style="font-style: italic;">We've worried that the Chrysler sandbagging would discourage bond investment. And, sure enough, Mr. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Mourdock</span> says that from now on no funds under his control will invest in the secured debt of "General Motors, other manufacturing companies, or those insurance companies who have or will be receiving bailout funds." Given the recent actions by the feds, he adds, "the risk is too great for any prudent investor to accept."</span><br /><br />No matter the personal popularity or charisma of the person doing it or the urgency that is (always) cited as the cause, we ignore the rule of law at our own peril.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/8192866-4372336901326623233?l=steveu.com%2Fblog%2Findex.html'/></div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:148:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/4372336901326623233/comments/defaulthttps://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8192866&postID=4372336901326623233";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/4372336901326623233";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/4372336901326623233";s:4:"link";s:59:"http://steveu.com/blog/2009/05/we-have-met-speculators.html";s:11:"author_name";s:8:"steve u.";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/07878364264013490969";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:2:"15";}}i:13;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192866.post-2774464865244581696";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-05-04T23:10:00.005-06:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-05-05T10:48:52.306-06:00";s:5:"title";s:23:"Rule of Law: Good Thing";s:12:"atom_content";s:3917:"In <a href="http://steveu.com/blog/2009/05/it-looks-like-president-obama-is.html"><span style="color:#ff0000;">my last post</span></a>, I mentioned good things about America that shouldn't be destroyed. I'll add the Rule of Law to that list (meaning that we are governed by laws -- not trends, opinions, dictates, etc.).<br /><br />Here is a <a href="http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/05/obama_to_secured_creditors_dro.html"><span style="color:#ff0000;">very well-written article</span></a> that fleshes out my point number 3 (capitalism) from that previous post. The article highlights the beating that the rule of law is taking in the auto bailouts.<br /><br />Bill <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Frezza</span> asks, "Has it dawned on you what the consequences will be if the President gets his way and consideration is given to creditors not according to contracts, rules, and established legal precedents but according to which group is most politically favored?" According to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Frezza</span>, the consequences are:<br /><br />troubled companies will be unable to raise capital;<br />everyone will pay higher interest rates;<br />heavily-unionized companies might not attract outside capital;<br />TARP-backed companies might not attract outside capital;<br />Foreign capital could dry up; and<br />Private credit markets will go sideways.<br /><br />The federal government, of course, can do many things to promote its automakers and hobble competitors -- in America. But, those protectionist measures likely would make the government automakers less competitive abroad.<br /><br />America always is a running experiment. I think the thing being experimented now is capitalism v. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">governmentalism</span>. The future of the automakers will be a good test to see how <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">governmentalism</span> works.<br /><br />Every American has <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">benefited</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">tremendously</span> from the rest of the world investing ("speculating") in our companies. If we upset the legal certainty that has accompanied those investments, and the world invests elsewhere, we will be hurt. It's good political sport to beat up on faceless investors, but it's not very wise to send the signal that once-stable rules now will be replaced by . . . whatever sounds bold, populist and decisive in the moment.<br /><br />Fortunately, a few secured creditors had the mettle to force the Chrysler issue into a court of law -- where it should have gone in the first place. (I'm reading a fine biography of John Marshall (by Jean Edward Smith), who cemented the independence of the judiciary. Go, Third Branch! Preserve the rule of law.).<br /><br />UPDATE: <a href="http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/05/should_i_worry_about_chrysler.php"><span style="color:#ff0000;">Megan McArdle</span></a> weighs in: "The administration is beating up the creditors because a) it wants to give the UAW a much better deal than they'd get in liquidation and b) they'd like someone else to pay for it.  I recognize that the law is always kind of messy, but as far as I know, this kind of blatant political intervention between debt claims is unprecedented, and worse, it's a dress rehearsal for doing the same thing at GM.  I don't think this is good for the rule of law, I'm pretty sure it will be bad for capital markets, and I'm nearly positive it's going to make it hard for any heavily unionized company to get substantial capital for the next decade."<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/8192866-2774464865244581696?l=steveu.com%2Fblog%2Findex.html'/></div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:148:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/2774464865244581696/comments/defaulthttps://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8192866&postID=2774464865244581696";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/2774464865244581696";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/2774464865244581696";s:4:"link";s:58:"http://steveu.com/blog/2009/05/rule-of-law-good-thing.html";s:11:"author_name";s:8:"steve u.";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/07878364264013490969";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:2:"17";}}i:14;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192866.post-2450535996915011447";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-05-02T15:26:00.003-06:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-05-02T15:30:18.310-06:00";s:5:"title";s:20:"Governing Ain't Easy";s:12:"atom_content";s:4203:"It looks like President Obama is considering <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02gitmo.html?_r=3&amp;partner=rss&amp;emc=rss"><span style="color:#ff0000;">reversing course on Guantanamo</span></a>. Representative Don Ipson and I were together when we heard President Obama announce that he was closing Gitmo. We wondered whether he had an alternative. The answer seems to be “no.”<br /><br />I actually am greatly encouraged by the fact that President Obama is willing to take a deeper look at the issues, and, if necessary, change course. He has little governing experience, and, no doubt, he will discover that many things are more complex than originally thought. Republicans will skewer him for any change – because that’s what happens in the tribal warfare we call politics; but I hope Democrats will give him some room to learn and adapt.<br /><br />I have no idea what the answer is to Gitmo, but I agree with the President that it is complex.<br /><br />I’ve mentioned before some of the instruction I received 9 years ago at <a href="http://steveu.com/blog/2009/01/legislative-orientation.html"><span style="color:#ff0000;">legislative orientation</span></a>. Representative Kevin Garn also said in that orientation, “The easy stuff already has been figured out.” He meant that the act of governing is complex – knowing that each of us came loaded with silver bullets that we thought would solve everything.<br /><br />Americans have a tremendous zeal to change things. We are hungry. That plays a big part in making us innovative and productive. I can’t help but think back, though, to my first big landscaping project.<br /><br />Fifteen years ago, Sara and I bought a new house, and, wanting a different look, I ripped up EVERYTHING in the yard. After a few weeks, I was bogged down. My neighbor, Leon Johnson, an experienced farmer/school administrator/former mayor of Mantua, had been watching the ordeal with some amusement. Finally, I asked, “Leon, where did I go wrong?” He said, “You tore up everything – the good and the bad. You first have to identify what’s good, and then build around that.”<br /><br />America is a great nation. As polls indicated, though, most people wanted to move away from President Bush for one reason or another. So, let’s move. But, let’s first identify the things we don’t want to change. I’ll share my quick list of 4 good things we should build around.<br /><br />1. Free speech. Though it’s pop culture, I find the Perez Hilton / Miss California kerfuffle broadly revealing. (Disagreement now equals “dumb bitch” or some other pejorative). We do not tolerate competing ideas well. This dumbed-down dialogue has allowed our political class to run free.<br /><br />2. Capitalism. I spend time contemplating why America is so great. I’ve come to the boring conclusion that much of it is simply access to capital. We’re rapidly learning that people everywhere have great ideas. Americans have had an advantage attracting capital to make ideas come to life. This has to do with markets that are made stable by reasoned regulation and legal predictability – which is why it is so troubling that secured creditors are being hectored for not jumping on board the auto-maker train wrecks in the making. Treat capital poorly, and it will go elsewhere. It has many options. By bullying the choir (the ones who actually had ponied up money for the automakers) the administration has chased away future investors and guaranteed the ultimate demise or total socialization of the automakers.<br /><br />3. Small government. Government gets its power from the people. Beyond a certain point, big government means small people.<br /><br />4. American greatness is important. There always have been and always will be forces that abhor liberty. While the scope of our involvement always should be debatable, our willingness and ability to stand against such forces should be certain. This requires production and wealth.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/8192866-2450535996915011447?l=steveu.com%2Fblog%2Findex.html'/></div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:148:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/2450535996915011447/comments/defaulthttps://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8192866&postID=2450535996915011447";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/2450535996915011447";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/2450535996915011447";s:4:"link";s:68:"http://steveu.com/blog/2009/05/it-looks-like-president-obama-is.html";s:11:"author_name";s:8:"steve u.";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/07878364264013490969";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:2:"21";}}i:15;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:57:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192866.post-288992704415411924";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-03-09T18:46:00.002-06:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-03-09T18:50:56.324-06:00";s:5:"title";s:20:"Online Legal Notices";s:12:"atom_content";s:2947:"Regarding <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2009/htmdoc/sbillhtm/sb0208s02.htm"><span style="color:#ff0000;">SB 208</span></a> (legal notices), I received the following letter today from Jim Wall – Publisher <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Deseret</span> News, Randy Wright – Editor Provo Daily Herald, Brent Low – President <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">MediaOne</span> Utah (Newspaper Agency Corporation):<br /><br /><em>On the issue of publishing legal notices, newspapers have been remiss in not communicating sufficiently with the Legislature on prospective solutions that would provide notice to a wider range of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Utahns</span> in light of new and emerging technologies for the dissemination of information.<br /><br />After conversations with Sen. Urquhart, Rep. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Dougall</span>, and Lincoln <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Shurtz</span> from the Utah League of Cities and Towns, we believe that the most effective solution that works in the best interest of the public would be dual publication encompassing both print and online until the time set by the Legislature for the sunset of print requirements in counties of the first and second class.  Publication of legal notices would remain in the private sector, and allow links from government Web sites.<br /><br />We are requesting amendments to SB208 that recognize the following commitments – to be implemented at our cost – with respect to Utah newspapers in counties of the first and second class:<br /><br />1.  Provide a fully functional Web site (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">UtahLegals</span>.com) that includes but is not limited to input, archiving, site maintenance, links from newspaper Web sites and others, and allowing links from government Web sites.<br /><br />2.  Provide for dual publication of legal notices in both printed newspapers and on the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">UtahLegals</span>.com Web site beginning January 1, 2010.<br /><br />3.  Provide an option for legal notices to be published in print or solely on the newspapers’ <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">UtahLegals</span>.com web site beginning January 1, 2012.<br /><br />Thank you for your consideration.  Going forward, we are committed to ongoing communication on technology solutions that will improve public notification and help to reduce costs to customers.<br /></em><br />This is a good-faith proposition that could lead to something wonderful for Utah citizens, providing far broader reach to legal notices at a fraction of the current cost.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/8192866-288992704415411924?l=steveu.com%2Fblog%2Findex.html'/></div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:146:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/288992704415411924/comments/defaulthttps://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8192866&postID=288992704415411924";s:9:"link_edit";s:69:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/288992704415411924";s:9:"link_self";s:69:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/288992704415411924";s:4:"link";s:56:"http://steveu.com/blog/2009/03/online-legal-notices.html";s:11:"author_name";s:8:"steve u.";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/07878364264013490969";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:2:"39";}}i:16;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192866.post-5886945578388769069";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-02-27T12:47:00.003-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-02-27T13:05:47.642-07:00";s:5:"title";s:20:"Liquor Law Revisions";s:12:"atom_content";s:2718:"The Utah <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2009/bills/hbillamd/hb0347.htm"><span style="color:#ff0000;">House</span></a> and <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2009/bills/sbillint/sb0187.htm"><span style="color:#ff0000;">Senate</span></a> have liquor law bills set on a collision course.   The way things currently stand, my guess is that private club laws will not be changed, unless – as a trade off – restaurants such as Iggy’s and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Applebee</span>’s reconfigure their restaurants to move mixing to a back room.  In my opinion, that’s not a trade worth making.  (<a href="http://steveu.com/blog/2008/12/liquor-laws.html"><span style="color:#ff0000;">Here</span></a> are some of my earlier thoughts on alcohol policy).<br /><br />I propose a third way.  Utah should institute a 10-day travelling pass.  Residents and non-residents could get the pass, by paying a fee at a participating club and, thereafter, use it at any participating club.  Clubs would be free to opt in.  In addition, or alternatively, clubs can sell annual memberships under the current regulatory framework.<br /><br />This is how I foresee it working.  A tourist would buy a 10-day pass and use it at participating clubs.  That is a pretty simple concept to explain.  I imagine that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Utahns</span> might have a few annual memberships at places they like to frequent and, occasionally, a 10-day pass.  For example, a Salt Lake City resident might have memberships at a few places in the valley, and, when staying in Park City for a week, also would pick up a 10-day pass.<br /><br />As is currently the practice, clubs would keep revenues from annual memberships.  Other than a handling fee that the club would keep, I envision that revenue from the travelling pass would go back to the State for enforcement purposes.<br /><br />One additional thought.  On these issues, I believe the diversity of interests involved are not always appreciated.  While it often is portrayed as Mormons vs. Gentiles, many stakeholders have interests they fight to protect.  For example, several clubs make a lot of money selling memberships.  Quietly, they might fight to keep laws exactly as they are.  Also, if clubs and restaurants are pitted against each other, as currently seems to be the alignment, I worry that policy might be based on the respective political strength of each group, instead of the overall good of the State.<br /><br />Your thoughts on this idea?<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/8192866-5886945578388769069?l=steveu.com%2Fblog%2Findex.html'/></div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:148:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/5886945578388769069/comments/defaulthttps://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8192866&postID=5886945578388769069";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/5886945578388769069";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/5886945578388769069";s:4:"link";s:56:"http://steveu.com/blog/2009/02/liquor-law-revisions.html";s:11:"author_name";s:8:"steve u.";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/07878364264013490969";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:2:"55";}}i:17;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192866.post-8982637067646637831";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-02-18T11:08:00.002-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-02-18T11:29:21.746-07:00";s:5:"title";s:44:"Food Tax – Government Needs You to Do More";s:12:"atom_content";s:1136:"Rep. Kay <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">McIff</span> seeks to double the taxes that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Utahns</span> pay for the food they eat. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_11723959"><span style="color:#ff0000;">He explains</span></a> that Utah should raise its most regressive tax (meaning that the food tax disproportionately impacts poor people), in order to . . . wait for it . . . help poor people.<br /><br />Government gets its money by taking it from people.  Government now has less money, because people have less money.  As Rep. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">McIff</span> points out, sales tax revenue from food sales has not dropped off significantly.  Why not?  Because citizens still eat.  When our citizens are struggling, the correct response is not to take more of their money by going after something they cannot live without.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/8192866-8982637067646637831?l=steveu.com%2Fblog%2Findex.html'/></div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:148:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/8982637067646637831/comments/defaulthttps://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8192866&postID=8982637067646637831";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/8982637067646637831";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/8982637067646637831";s:4:"link";s:71:"http://steveu.com/blog/2009/02/food-tax-government-needs-you-to-do.html";s:11:"author_name";s:8:"steve u.";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/07878364264013490969";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:3:"155";}}i:18;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192866.post-2582710655492964405";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-02-17T09:32:00.000-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-02-17T09:33:37.148-07:00";s:5:"title";s:32:"A Civics Lesson – Clay’s Law";s:12:"atom_content";s:1187:"No one has more at stake this session than the advocates of <a href="http://www.le.state.ut.us/jsp/BillView/BillPage.jsp?BillNo=SB0043"><span style="color:#ff0000;">Clay’s Law</span></a> (parents of autistic children, arguing that autism therapies should be covered by insurance).  I candidly explained my opposition to insurance mandates in <a href="http://steveu.com/blog/2009/02/autism-insurance-coverage.html#comments"><span style="color:#ff0000;">this post</span></a>.  If you want some proof that civility is alive and well, check out the comments to that post.  Parents who likely are stretched to the breaking point in many ways explain their position in a tremendous example of firmness and civility.<br /><br />For the reasons I expressed in the original post, I can’t go all the way to mandatory coverage, but I have been moved to support a mandatory rider.  As I expressed in my latest comment, I suspect the bill will pass as drafted, in part because of the civil advocacy of the proponents.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/8192866-2582710655492964405?l=steveu.com%2Fblog%2Findex.html'/></div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:148:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/2582710655492964405/comments/defaulthttps://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8192866&postID=2582710655492964405";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/2582710655492964405";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/2582710655492964405";s:4:"link";s:59:"http://steveu.com/blog/2009/02/civics-lesson-clays-law.html";s:11:"author_name";s:8:"steve u.";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/07878364264013490969";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:3:"133";}}i:19;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192866.post-2310762828319080765";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-02-10T12:01:00.002-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-02-10T12:19:04.813-07:00";s:5:"title";s:24:"Blogger Conference Today";s:12:"atom_content";s:1945:"Today at 4:00, I will hold a blogger conference on my SB 208 (Utah Public Notice Website Amendments).<br /><br />Ric Cantrell provides details <a href="http://senatesite.com/blog/2009/02/bloggerpresser-tuesday-at-400.html"><span style="color:#ff0000;">here</span></a>.<br /><br />I have to take exception to Ric's comment that I am "the oldest living politician who blogs."  I'm increasingly feeling that way.  But, I think it might be more accurate to say that I have been blogging longer than any elected officeholder in the US.<br /><br />You can tune in here.<br /><br /><object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://content.nowlive.com/vidget/vidget_v3.swf?channelid=64377&amp;netid=64377" width="300" align="middle" height="250"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="movie" value="http://content.nowlive.com/vidget/vidget_v3.swf?channelid=64377&amp;netid=64377"><embed src="http://content.nowlive.com/vidget/vidget_v3.swf?channelid=64377&amp;netid=64377" name="vidget" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" flashvars="gig_lt=1222295742287&amp;gig_pt=1222295743287&amp;gig_g=2&amp;gig_s=nowlive%2Ecom" width="300" align="middle" height="250"></embed><param name="FlashVars" value="gig_lt=1222295742287&amp;gig_pt=1222295743287&amp;gig_g=2&amp;gig_s=nowlive%2Ecom"></object><input src="http://hosted.nowlive.com/tracker/track.aspx?s=64377&amp;i=16" type="image"><img style="visibility: hidden; width: 0px; height: 0px;" src="http://counters.gigya.com/wildfire/IMP/CXNID=2000002.0NXC/bT*xJmx*PTEyMjIyOTU3NDIyODcmcHQ9MTIyMjI5NTc*MzI4NyZwPTE2NjYxJmQ9NjQzNzcmbj*mZz*yJnQ9Jm89YzIxNzI4YzNhMTk4NGQ5OGI2NzUyZTQwOTg1YTlmZmUmcz1ub3dsaXZlLmNvbQ==.gif" width="0" border="0" height="0" /><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/8192866-2310762828319080765?l=steveu.com%2Fblog%2Findex.html'/></div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:148:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/2310762828319080765/comments/defaulthttps://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8192866&postID=2310762828319080765";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/2310762828319080765";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/2310762828319080765";s:4:"link";s:60:"http://steveu.com/blog/2009/02/blogger-conference-today.html";s:11:"author_name";s:8:"steve u.";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/07878364264013490969";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:2:"30";}}i:20;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192866.post-3981175819274480350";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-02-06T10:00:00.002-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-02-06T11:19:25.929-07:00";s:5:"title";s:25:"Autism Insurance Coverage";s:12:"atom_content";s:7281:"<div>In America, complex and important issues find their way to Congress and state legislatures.  On the list of complex and important issues, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">healthcare</span> vies for top billing.<br /><br />Every year, the Legislature addresses insurance mandate bills.  Mandate bills seek to force private health insurers to cover some illness or segment of the population or alternative provider.  Groups with that illness and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">healthcare</span> providers who treat that illness put forward compelling human-interest stories: in many instances, truly heart-rending stories.  Faced with those heart-rending stories, politicians routinely force insurers to cover those illnesses.  I believe the number of government-mandated coverage items in the US insurance market now approaches 2,000.<br /><br />Government should do whatever it can to help promote better <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">healthcare</span>.  So, government must constantly answer the question: does this mandate promote better <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">healthcare</span>?<br /><br />We all want a health insurance policy that covers everything.  We can’t pay for it, we don’t want to pay for it, and we don’t really expect to pay for it.  But the reality, of course, is that someone has to pay for it.  If government determines that some treatment must be provided regardless of cost, the better policy is for government to then pay for that treatment – spreading the cost over the entire tax base. By contrast, pushing the cost onto the insurance market makes insurance less available – thereby decreasing the availability of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">healthcare</span> to our citizens.<br /><br />It is easy for a politician to declare that citizens should have a few more bells and whistles on their insurance policies.  Politicians live to declare that every citizen should have a Cadillac-like insurance policy.  But, the reality, is that those declarations mean that more people end up walking.<br /><br />Some people would be happy to have (and be able to afford) a Honda-like policy.  And, given the huge potential market that exists for basic coverage, many insurers would love to offer Honda-like health insurance policies.  But, Governmental mandates preclude such marketplace responsiveness.  Remember, Government has declared that all policies must be Cadillac-like; no citizen should have anything less.  As a result no citizen can get anything less, even if they don’t have a prayer of getting the Cadillac plan.<br /><br />This year’s big mandate is <a style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);" href="http://www.le.state.ut.us/jsp/BillView/BillPage.jsp?BillNo=SB0043">SB 43 – Insurance Coverage for Autism Spectrum Disorders, Clay’s Law</a>.  Autism clearly pegs the meter when it comes to heart-rending stories.  At this point, we all know a family (or several) with autistic children.  The difficulties they face likely cannot be appreciated by people without autistic children.  Fortunately, as this bill notes, wonderful advances in autism treatment have been made.  So, how do we best ensure that Utah families benefit from those advances?<br /><br />The legislature will address whether an insurance mandate is the way to go to help our citizens obtain better <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">healthcare</span>.  As I explained above, mandates actually decrease the availability of health insurance.  Mandates work great for the people whose employers provide health insurance (unless the increased cost of the mandates forces the employer to drop coverage).  But, they’re lousy for everyone else who struggles to find affordable insurance (including uninsured people who have the very illnesses addressed by the mandates).  Thus, overall, mandates do more collective harm than good.<br /><br />If Government believes that citizens absolutely must have something, Government should fund it, instead of conveniently (and quietly) passing the costs off to the market.   (And, remember, in the case of mandates to cover certain illnesses, Government is only telling the private sector to provide coverage for the select portion of the population that has health insurance; everyone else with the illness is left out in an even-colder cold, as treatment costs rise and insurance availability decreases.).  If politicians determine that people must have X, politicians need to step up to the plate and make sure that ALL citizens get X, and politicians need to be willing to pay the cost to make sure that happens.<br /><br />As things currently stand with mandates, politicians decree that SOME privileged people get X (while the politicians quietly push the costs elsewhere).  At the same time, when citizens tell politicians that they can’t afford health insurance, politicians – with no sense of hypocrisy – beat up on insurers for rising costs.  It’s bad government, bad economics, and ultimately bad <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">healthcare</span>.  It is politicized “<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">stealthcare</span>.”<br /><br />If the Legislature determines that the treatments covered by SB 43 must be provided, then Utah should fund the treatments.  Likely, the State’s answer here, and with other mandates, will be that it can’t afford to cover the mandate.  That’s not true.  The State can cover any mandate.  It simply would have to take money from less important items in the budget or, if it <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">couldn</span>’t do that, take more money from citizens.  We know how to balance a budget, and we know how to impose taxes.  Rather than transparently face that music, though, it’s much too easy for politicians to quietly force those costs into the market (and then wring their hands over the increasing cost of insurance).  Instead of the State’s broad tax base paying for the services that have been declared necessary, the costs are spread among a decreasing percentage of the population that has health insurance.  And why is that insured population decreasing?  See discussion above regarding mandates and costs.<br /><br />By raising economic issues and governmental process concerns, I mean no disrespect or lack of concern for families facing autism or any other illness the Legislature has considered or will consider.  Your situations are very real and very concerning.  I am trying to do what is best overall in the complex and important arena of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">healthcare</span>.  The challenges are vexing.  I acknowledge that everyone involved in these discussions is trying their best.  I lay out my thinking on this blog, so that it can be challenged and, where appropriate, changed.  To the advocates of SB 43: I believe that your involvement (and passionate advocacy) will help us do what is best.</div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/8192866-3981175819274480350?l=steveu.com%2Fblog%2Findex.html'/></div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:148:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/3981175819274480350/comments/defaulthttps://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8192866&postID=3981175819274480350";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/3981175819274480350";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/3981175819274480350";s:4:"link";s:61:"http://steveu.com/blog/2009/02/autism-insurance-coverage.html";s:11:"author_name";s:8:"steve u.";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/07878364264013490969";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:3:"105";}}i:21;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:57:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192866.post-702191396799849838";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-02-04T23:27:00.004-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-02-05T00:57:39.303-07:00";s:5:"title";s:32:"Federal Pork – An Intervention";s:12:"atom_content";s:4003:"The number of earmarks in federal transportation bills:<br /><br />1982 – 10<br />1987 – 152 (earning a veto)<br />1991 – 538<br />1998 – 1,800<br />2005 – (drum roll, please) . . . 6,371<br /><br />It’s not an appropriations process.  It’s a cry for help.<br /><br />In pork-barrel politics, little compares with the opportunity that highway bills present Congressmen and Senators.  Gas-tax money is apportioned to states based on formula.  But, forwarding the money without some flare does little to help to the political fortunes of Congress-types.  So, instead of the money being spent on the priorities of transportation departments and commissions, Congress-types specify that portions of the money go to patronage-based projects (e.g., the “Bridge to Nowhere”).  Press releases, ribbon cuttings, and robust chest pounding accompany the earmarks.<br /><br />Early in his tenure, President Bush declared, “"Across the spectrum of transportation programs, congressional earmarks undercut the [Transportation] Department's ability to fund projects that have successfully proved their merits."  Later, he added, “However, undercutting meritorious projects is not necessarily a bad thing.”  Okay.  He <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">didn</span>’t add that last part.  He merely signed a transportation bill with 6,371 earmarks.<br /><br />Nothing indicates that Congress will end the bender.  So, I propose an intervention.<br /><br /><a href="http://le.utah.gov/%7E2009/bills/sbillint/sb0134.htm"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">SB 134</span></a> (Transportation Funding Amendments) makes it illegal for Utah to spend money that has been <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">porked</span> out of formula-based money.  In other words, when a member of Congress specifies that X has to be funded with Utah’s share, the money disappears.  So, Utah’s delegation simply should avoid the pork.<br /><br />As I <a href="http://steveu.com/blog/2009/01/please-dont-pass-pork.html"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">described previously</span></a>, Congress-types and the local jurisdictions that are good at the game don’t like the bill (and might muster the collective <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">mojo</span> to defeat it).  However, my Mayor, Dan <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">McArthur, ca</span>me up with a good compromise that the cities back.  The compromise is that the feds can specify projects, so long as those projects are included on Utah’s list of priorities (the State Transportation Implementation Plan (the “<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">STIP</span>”)).<br /><br />Our Congress-types still could specify a project that is not on the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">STIP</span>.  By doing that, they would, in effect, be daring Utah to not add it to the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">STIP</span> and, thereby, kiss the money goodbye.  I'm okay with that.  That situation would draw light to the earmark.  People from the area that would receive the money could be invited to testify – as could people from the areas that have had their higher-priority projects delayed by the earmark.  Because pork is supposed to only have beneficiaries, not victims, this just might work to slow down Congressional binging.<br /><br />With my agreement to amend the bill (to add the STIP provision) and with the cities' resulting support, the bill passed committee today unanimously (<a href="http://le.utah.gov/%7E2009/htmdoc/sbillhtm/sb0134.htm"><span style="color: rgb(255, 0, 0);">link to the audio</span></a>).  I discuss the bill with the association of counties Thursday morning, to enlist their support.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/8192866-702191396799849838?l=steveu.com%2Fblog%2Findex.html'/></div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:146:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/702191396799849838/comments/defaulthttps://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8192866&postID=702191396799849838";s:9:"link_edit";s:69:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/702191396799849838";s:9:"link_self";s:69:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/702191396799849838";s:4:"link";s:61:"http://steveu.com/blog/2009/02/federal-pork-intervention.html";s:11:"author_name";s:8:"steve u.";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/07878364264013490969";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:2:"48";}}i:22;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192866.post-5744911746938194788";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-01-31T16:59:00.005-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-01-31T17:34:13.964-07:00";s:5:"title";s:16:"The Old Ba' Game";s:12:"atom_content";s:2370:"Every year I get Glenn Stout’s <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Best-American-Sports-Writing-2008/dp/0618751181"><span style="color:#ff0000;">The Best American Sports Writing</span></a>. One of its pieces, Eli <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Saslow</span>’s article on <a href="http://blog.washingtonpost.com/why-we-compete/2007/12/tradition.html"><span style="color:#ff0000;">the old <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">ba</span>’ game in <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Kirkwall</span>, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Scotland</span></span></a> (originally published in the Washington Post), is a must read. It reminded me of 3 of my favorite activities.<br /><br />One, Hall Ball. Like <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">ba</span>’, my brother and I each tried to get the ball to respective ends of the playing field (the central hallway of our house). Also like <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">ba</span>’, there were no rules and tremendous amounts of pain. Had we known about <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Kirkwall</span>’s tradition, we could have answered our Mother’s repeated inquiries of “why on earth do you do this?” by claiming to honor our Scottish heritage. We played because we could.<br /><br />Two, Killer. Four players in my college dorm (Williams E) each claimed a doorway in a 6’x6’ entry. The goal was to defend your doorway and get a soccer ball in any of the other 3 doorways (mostly by kicking, though bodies and body parts, otherwise, could be used in any way). Alliances were more slippery in Killer than in politics.<br /><br />Three, the Legislature. Like <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">ba</span>’, groups push on each other to reach a goal, playing hard, but, for the most part, obeying basic rules of civility. When played well, winners and losers celebrate the opportunity to participate more than the specific outcome – realizing that the outcome is temporary and that the important thing is that the game be honored and that it be played again.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/8192866-5744911746938194788?l=steveu.com%2Fblog%2Findex.html'/></div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:148:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/5744911746938194788/comments/defaulthttps://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8192866&postID=5744911746938194788";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/5744911746938194788";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/5744911746938194788";s:4:"link";s:47:"http://steveu.com/blog/2009/01/old-ba-game.html";s:11:"author_name";s:8:"steve u.";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/07878364264013490969";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:2:"56";}}i:23;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192866.post-4196971899127152605";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-01-30T11:47:00.001-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-01-30T11:48:42.007-07:00";s:5:"title";s:19:"Attorney Fee Awards";s:12:"atom_content";s:2017:"I have fielded a few nervous calls about my <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~2009/bills/sbillint/sb0053.htm"><span style="color:#ff0000;">SB 53 Awarding of Attorneys Fees</span></a>.  I’ll explain the bill.<br /><br />Typically, jurisdictions in the US, including Utah, require that each side to litigation pay its own attorney fees (a.k.a. the “American Rule”).  (This contrasts with the “English Rule” – where the loser typically pays).  The big exceptions to that rule are (1) when some agreement of the parties (e.g., a contract) specifies that the loser should pay the other side’s legal fees in the event of a lawsuit, (2) when one of the parties acts in bad faith (brings a ridiculous lawsuit or acts irresponsibly in prosecuting a lawsuit), and (3) when a statute specifies that attorney fees can be awarded (e.g., <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE30/htm/30_03_000300.htm"><span style="color:#ff0000;">this one</span></a>).<br /><br />Sometimes – without contract, bad faith, or statutory authorization – courts determine that a loser should pay, because, in the court’s opinion, the lawsuit was brought in the public interest (a common-law private attorney general theory). <br /><br />The bill clarifies that the English Rule will only apply where specified by statute.  Some are concerned that this would do away attorney fee awards pursuant to contract and bad faith.  It would not.  Contractual and bad faith attorney fees would be alive and well under this bill.  Currently, statutes allow attorney fee awards for <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE78B/htm/78B05_082500.htm"><span style="color:#ff0000;">bad faith</span></a> and <a href="http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE78B/htm/78B05_082600.htm"><span style="color:#ff0000;">where specified by agreement</span></a>; those provisions would not change.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/8192866-4196971899127152605?l=steveu.com%2Fblog%2Findex.html'/></div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:148:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/4196971899127152605/comments/defaulthttps://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8192866&postID=4196971899127152605";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/4196971899127152605";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/4196971899127152605";s:4:"link";s:55:"http://steveu.com/blog/2009/01/attorney-fee-awards.html";s:11:"author_name";s:8:"steve u.";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/07878364264013490969";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:2:"64";}}i:24;a:13:{s:2:"id";s:58:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192866.post-6568740602052946798";s:9:"published";s:29:"2009-01-30T09:59:00.002-07:00";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-01-30T10:08:28.393-07:00";s:5:"title";s:25:"The Amazing Scotty Riding";s:12:"atom_content";s:707:"<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Scotty</span> Riding makes is <a href="http://www.scottriding.com/utahlegislators/index.htm"><span style="color:#ff0000;">easy to know who your Senator/Representative is</span></a>.<br /><br />This is a direct reflection on the training he received as my intern, and has NOTHING to do with any parenting (sorry, Ann), teaching, past experiences, etc. that he might have received.<br /><br />Way to go, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Scotty</span>!<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/8192866-6568740602052946798?l=steveu.com%2Fblog%2Findex.html'/></div>";s:12:"link_replies";s:148:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/6568740602052946798/comments/defaulthttps://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8192866&postID=6568740602052946798";s:9:"link_edit";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/6568740602052946798";s:9:"link_self";s:70:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default/6568740602052946798";s:4:"link";s:57:"http://steveu.com/blog/2009/01/amazing-scotty-riding.html";s:11:"author_name";s:8:"steve u.";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/07878364264013490969";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:3:"thr";a:1:{s:5:"total";s:2:"50";}}}s:7:"channel";a:14:{s:2:"id";s:33:"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8192866";s:7:"updated";s:29:"2009-08-31T15:55:21.769-06:00";s:5:"title";s:14:"Steve Urquhart";s:8:"subtitle";s:11:"Utah Senate";s:9:"link_self";s:50:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default";s:4:"link";s:23:"http://steveu.com/blog/";s:8:"link_hub";s:32:"http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/";s:9:"link_next";s:80:"http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8192866/posts/default?start-index=26&max-results=25";s:42:"link_http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed";s:36:"http://www.steveu.com/blog/index.xml";s:11:"author_name";s:8:"steve u.";s:10:"author_uri";s:51:"http://www.blogger.com/profile/07878364264013490969";s:12:"author_email";s:19:"noreply@blogger.com";s:9:"generator";s:7:"Blogger";s:10:"opensearch";a:3:{s:12:"totalresults";s:3:"525";s:10:"startindex";s:1:"1";s:12:"itemsperpage";s:2:"25";}}s:9:"textinput";a:0:{}s:5:"image";a:0:{}s:9:"feed_type";s:4:"Atom";s:12:"feed_version";N;s:8:"encoding";s:5:"UTF-8";s:16:"_source_encoding";s:0:"";s:5:"ERROR";s:0:"";s:7:"WARNING";s:0:"";s:19:"_CONTENT_CONSTRUCTS";a:6:{i:0;s:7:"content";i:1;s:7:"summary";i:2;s:4:"info";i:3;s:5:"title";i:4;s:7:"tagline";i:5;s:9:"copyright";}s:16:"_KNOWN_ENCODINGS";a:3:{i:0;s:5:"UTF-8";i:1;s:8:"US-ASCII";i:2;s:10:"ISO-8859-1";}s:5:"stack";a:0:{}s:9:"inchannel";b:0;s:6:"initem";b:0;s:9:"incontent";b:0;s:11:"intextinput";b:0;s:7:"inimage";b:0;s:17:"current_namespace";b:0;s:15:"source_encoding";s:5:"UTF-8";s:13:"last_modified";s:31:"Mon, 31 Aug 2009 21:55:33 GMT
";s:4:"etag";s:28:""7306-25156-4727717cf9f40"
";}