Dear Governor Herbert,

I read your State of the Union address and thought it was well done. Utah is truly a great place to live and do business, and also for golf, a sport we both enjoy. With the USGA Public Links Championship at Soldier Hollow this year perhaps we can find some time to golf together as part of the occasion.

Your speech was almost entirely positive and I was in agreement almost one hundred percent — except in one glaring way—your expressed antagonism to the federal government. I suppose that was red meat for the GOP, a part of a ritual of being elected in Utah.  It’s the safe, almost required thing to do. It assures an applause line.

However, it is my contention that it is unhealthy for us to continually demean our national government and promote disrespect for it and not give credit where credit is due.

You say government doesn’t create jobs, and that all the credit for a good economy in Utah rests snugly in the trophy case of free enterprise, but that is so obviously and patently untrue that it surprises me that Republican politicians continue to repeat that nonsense without fear of contradiction. I would think that just for the sake of a clear conscience that an occasional Republican would have the personal integrity to refrain from making that absurd statement. Is it part of some secret anti-government Republican oath that requires repeating?

As CEO of the Great State of Utah how many jobs are you supervising? Are these not jobs? Do these people not pay taxes? Are they not providing goods and services? Is there any other CEO in the state supervising more jobs than you? The jobs in Utah’s Higher Education System are some of the most important and esteemed jobs in the state, and surely those government jobs lead to the creation of thousands of free enterprise jobs. Our public school teachers all across this state are preparing our children for college and future employment, not to mention thousands of other state and local employees keeping our important government agencies operating smoothly, services that are absolutely necessary in order for free enterprise to thrive and grow. How are all these government jobs not contributing to a vibrant economy? How would free enterprise survive without them?

How many free enterprise jobs did government create this year with the expansion of I-15 in Utah County? How much did that government project contribute to our economic prosperity?

I drive by Camp Williams quite often and I have been amazed at the number of employee cars parked at the site. One would think there was a BYU or Utah football game being played there. Outside of the LDS City Creek Project the federal government’s National Security Agency project at Camp Williams is probably the originating source of more private enterprise jobs than any other single source this past year. The future high paid government employment figures at NSA will remain high for years to come and will surely enable future governors to take credit for job creation while demeaning the feds for being in the way.

I wonder how our new job report would look without all the jobs made possible this past year by the feds—jobs that were 100% opposed by our Utah congressional delegation. Yes, even our token Democrat has to vote like a Republican to stay in office.

Perhaps a tip of the hat to the feds for all those jobs would have been appropriate instead of a snarly stay out of the way attitude.

Then there was the help the feds sent us so that we could keep our balance sheet in A1 shape and still provide funds for teachers and other state employees who otherwise would have been given pink slips. Perhaps a tip of the hat to the feds would have been appropriate.

Then there was your zeal for clean air, and I personally appreciate your expressed commitment to that goal, but again a tip of the hat to the feds would have been nice. Without them we would be in a dark cloud every day, and our stiff-necked opposition to their regulations ought to be an embarrassment, and our brazen corporate polluters remain criticism free in your remarks.

What single issue unifies Utahns more than any other? When jobs at Hill Air Force Base are at risk! Suddenly everyone comes together! And why?  Because government jobs are our bread and butter. The feds are damned if they cut the budget and damned if they don’t.

And, yes, your congratulatory remarks about our armed forces were appropriate, and that was another place where you could have given a tip of the hat to the feds, and you could have even gone the extra mile and thanked the feds for taking out Osama bin Laden for helping to clear the way for our young men to come home.

Oh, yes, it would be nice if we could truly put aside politics and be forever honest with one another and appreciative of one another, for we are all in this together. Remember, we are part of the United States of America, that great country that some refer to disrespectfully when it suits their purpose, as ‘The Feds,’ as if the feds are not part of the United States of America.

And yes, I am grateful that we have not yet declared our intent to secede.

Best wishes for continued success. I admire your lifetime of unselfish public service and think you are doing a good job, and I realize, sadly, that the party base must have some red meat from time to time and there are certain rituals to which a politician must pay homage. I don’t hold that against you.

Respectfully,

Joe Watts

A Strong Economy Fosters Healthy Communities and Prosperous Families

Lt. Governor and Mrs. Bell; President Waddoups; Speaker Lockhart; members of the Utah Legislature; members of my Cabinet; Justices of the Utah Supreme Court; Utah’s First Lady, my beautiful wife, Jeanette; and my fellow Utahns:

It is an honor and a privilege to address you this evening. As we assemble in this beautiful and historic chamber, let us take time to acknowledge those who protect our freedoms and keep our homeland safe. This past August, I traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan to meet with some of our deployed Utah servicemen and women. It was a humbling experience. Our liberty – the free exercise of our God-given rights – is preserved by the men and women of our Armed Forces who willingly put themselves in harm’s way for God, family and country. This past year, in the span of just over a month, we lost six Utah soldiers, sailors and marines in Afghanistan. These brave servicemen made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of this nation and the ideals which make it great. We also acknowledge the loss of Agent Jared Francom, tragically killed in the Ogden shooting incident just a few short weeks ago.

Tonight, we have as honored guests in the gallery, family members of those we have lost at home and abroad. As they stand, please join with me to acknowledge them, and thank them for their loved one’s service and sacrifice.

As Governor of the great State of Utah, I am pleased to report that the state of our State is strong – and growing stronger. I want you to know I am very optimistic about Utah’s future. While our national economy continues to struggle, the economy in Utah surges ahead. Our unemployment rate continues to steadily fall. We currently have the second-fastest rate of job creation in the nation. Every sector in our economy is growing again, except one. And I’m proud to say the sector that is not growing is state government.

Utah’s success is not only consistently recognized, it is increasingly praised by those outside our borders. Now, some people have said I talk about our rankings a little too much – and it may be a fair observation. But I hope you are as proud of Utah as I am. We have a great state, we have a great message and we are making great progress. I believe Utah’s Governor should be the State’s chief advocate and champion, and I am simply not going to stop touting Utah’s accomplishments.

I should point out that our accolades have less to do with “me” and everything to do with “we.” Indeed, they reflect the efforts of individuals here in this room and many others across the state. Some of our recent recognitions include being named the state with the best economic outlook and the most dynamic economy. And, for the second consecutive year, Utah has been named the best state for business by Forbes Magazine. These rankings speak to Utah’s economic strength. But this is not just about rankings; it is about economic recovery for the people of Utah. My focus is on growing the economy because I know a strong economy fosters healthy communities and prosperous families.

While recognition is nice, the underlying reasons for that recognition are what are most important. Forbes wrote: “No state can match the consistent performance of Utah. It is the only state that ranks among the top 15 states in each of the six main categories [on which] we rate the states.” Those six categories are economic climate, growth prospects, labor supply, business costs, regulatory environment and quality of life. Tonight, I will use the criteria of those economic experts to highlight Utah’s progress and our prospects. Let’s start with our current economic climate. In 2011, we added more than 36,000 jobs to our economy. Our unemployment rate has dropped from 7.5% to 6.0% today – a full 2.5% lower than the national average. Gross domestic product, personal income and business income continue to steadily rise. Utah still leads the nation in export growth. You might remember in last year’s State of the State, I challenged our business community to further increase our export growth – and they have responded with vigor. In 2011, we saw a 41% increase in exports, breaking records we set in 2009 and 2010.

Utah’s economic climate is healthy, but we must not relent in our efforts to improve. I recognize there are many people who are still hurting financially. I have met with many of you throughout the state. I want you to know, I am committed to working for all of you. There are, in fact, approximately 80,000 Utahns who are looking for work, and I will not rest – and I know that you in the Legislature will not rest – until every Utahn who wants a job can find a job.

My goal is to accelerate private sector job creation of 100,000 jobs in 1,000 days (www.utahjobsplan.com). I emphasize private sector, because it is the private sector – not government – that creates wealth, creates jobs and creates opportunities for Utah’s citizens. Government must create an environment where free enterprise can succeed and then get out of the way.

Let me give just one of many examples where business is thriving in Utah’s fertile field. Started 25 years ago in a garage, Lifetime Products now employs more than 1,300 people in Utah and was recently courted by many other domestic and international locations for a planned expansion. Ultimately, Lifetime determined that its home state of Utah was the best place to invest. This story is repeating itself hundreds of times across our state.

Utah’s steady job growth reaches far beyond the Wasatch Front. Last year, I visited 28 of Utah’s 29 counties – and don’t worry, Daggett County, I am headed your way soon! In my travels, I have been amazed at the creativity and ingenuity of our rural employers. For example, in the tiny town of Grouse Creek, I met Heather Warr, who is here with her family tonight. To supplement her family’s ranching income, Heather started an e-commerce business, selling western apparel and footwear online. Her company, standupranchers.com, now employs seven people – making Heather a major employer in a community of 100 residents. From fiber optic communications providers, to hay exporters, to composite manufacturers, to online retailers – people are finding unique opportunities and advantages in rural Utah. And Heather Warr exemplifies the innovation and initiative inherent in Utah’s people.

The second criterion is growth prospects. Utah is a fertile field in which to grow a new company, or to relocate or expand an existing company. This past September, I went to New York to meet with executives from L-3 Communications – a $16 billion high-technology company with locations in 30 states and 20 countries. The purpose of my visit was to convince them to expand their Utah operations. And, I’ve got to admit, it wasn’t much of a “hard sell.” L-3 told me they love doing business in Utah. In fact, their Salt Lake City unit is one of their most successful and fastest-growing divisions. Not by coincidence, last month, L-3 announced it would be concentrating its growth here in Utah, building new office space and hiring hundreds of new employees. In the past year, expansions and new jobs have been announced not only by L-3, but by other international companies like eBay, Boeing, Morgan Stanley, IM Flash, and Pepperidge Farms, just to name a few.

I’m delighted to say something that not many Governors can say: Our state is growing now, and as we look to the horizon, Utah’s growth prospects are truly bright. Anyone who understands the free market knows that there are few things that hinder growth more than onerous taxation. As I did last year, and the year before that, in order to sustain our successful economic recovery, I say to you today and to the people of Utah – no new taxes!

And, in fact, I want to go one step further. Due to our wise trust fund management – and our nation-leading record of helping people move from unemployment back into the workforce – Utah is in a position to reduce our unemployment insurance tax rates. I call upon you, the Legislature, to support Senate Bill 129, sponsored by Senator Curt Bramble and Representative Jeremy Peterson, to provide this timely tax cut to all of Utah’s 85,000 employers, and allow them to create more jobs and hire more people.

The third criterion is labor supply, or, more aptly put, a skilled and educated workforce. I have said before – Utah is the best state for business because we have the best people for business. Utah has natural advantages with our young, fast-growing, tech-savvy, highly-educated, bilingual and industrious workforce. Utah is also a proud right-to-work state, and we are going to keep it that way. In today’s global marketplace, educating and graduating job-ready students is an economic imperative.

With the help of Representative Mel Brown and Senator Lyle Hillyard, we have expanded early intervention programs for our at-risk students, programs empirically proven to help reach our critical goal of reading proficiency by the end of the third grade. We will soon introduce additional online college courses, providing another avenue for high school students to earn college credit before graduation. We are also expanding utahfutures.org, which provides students with online career counseling to ensure the education they receive today will get them a job tomorrow. My message to students is simple: “If you want a good job, get a good education.” Now, it is up to us – assembled here – to make sure they can!

My top legislative priority is to fund the growth and continued innovation in our education system. My budget calls for maintaining base funding and for $111 million in NEW money for our public schools, including a modest, but well-deserved, pay increase for our teachers. Post-secondary education is also increasingly becoming a necessity in today’s global marketplace, so I have set a goal that 66% of Utah adults will have a degree or professional certification by the year 2020. This is an ambitious goal, but an essential one – remember 66 by 2020! And working together, we will reach it!

The fourth criterion the economic experts considered is the cost of doing business, particularly the cost of energy. Because Utah’s electricity costs are an impressive 31 percent below the national average, we have a major competitive advantage over other states. In order to protect that advantage for the future, we must secure Utah’s supply of stable, low-cost energy, and we must do it now.

With Utah’s first 10-Year Strategic Energy Plan that I put in place last year, we are creating the framework to secure our energy independence. My administration is aggressively promoting responsible energy development in Utah. We have demonstrated, in the Uintah Basin and elsewhere, that developing our energy resources and being good stewrds of the environment are not mutually exclusive propositions. One of the major challenges for energy development is that many of Utah’s natural resources must be extracted from federally-managed public lands. While we have made progress in persuading the federal government to site and permit oil and gas wells, there remain great challenges ahead. We cannot – and we will not – let the federal government halt responsible energy development in Utah.

And because we owe it to our children and their children, we must also innovate safer and cleaner ways to extract natural resources and utilize energy. As Governor, I am calling on the private sector and our major universities to lead out! Our goal is to create an “energy research triangle” that launches Utah into a new era of energy technology innovation! I firmly believe that all solutions and all opportunities must be based upon principles of free markets and free enterprise.

Therefore, we will partner with industry and caring citizens to tackle one of the greatest challenges we have with energy development in our state – the issue of air quality. We cannot control the weather, but neither can we ignore the human and economic consequences of poor air quality. I am taking the lead on this issue by building partnerships with Utah industries and households to set achievable and vital air quality goals. I will be announcing the details of my plan in the coming weeks. I can promise you this: The solutions to our unique Utah challenges with air quality will come from Utah. Together, we can all do something to improve Utah’s air.

The fifth category is state regulatory environment. Before they invest precious capital, entrepreneurs want a stable and predictable environment, and a responsible government. Utah boasts a long history of fiscally prudent governance. In contrast to the federal government, Utah has made the tough decisions to keep our fiscal house in order. We balance our budget and we save taxpayers millions every year by protecting our AAA credit rating. In addition, my budget proposal eliminates our remaining structural imbalance and calls for no additional borrowing. Those decisions provide the stable and steady environment the marketplace seeks and needs in order to thrive.

In my travels around the state, one of the most common concerns business owners share with me is the cost, complexity and uncertainty created by excessive government regulation. In last year’s State of the State address, you will remember I ordered a review of all of Utah’s business rules and regulations. It resulted in 368 proposed rule changes to improve Utah’s already laudable regulatory environment – and we will work with you, the Legislature, to modify or repeal those rules that no longer serve a compelling public interest. Now, frankly, the vast majority of regulations causing the most harm to Utah business come from Washington, D.C. – part of the regulatory colossus created by an overreaching, out-of-control, and out-of-touch federal government. I am firmly resolved to work with our Congressional delegation and my fellow Governors to tell the Washington bureaucrats to get out of the way of Utah’s economic recovery, and stop the senseless flow of onerous and misguided regulation from our nation’s capitol.

The last category by which Forbes judged Utah the best state for business is our quality of life. We are truly blessed to live in the Beehive State. Not only are we surrounded by unsurpassed natural beauty, we also enjoy the beauty of strong communities, strong families, and a culture of caring and service. Two months ago, a devastating wind storm tore through Davis and Weber counties leaving tons of debris and millions of dollars of damage in its wake. With a second storm threatening, local leaders were concerned debris could become airborne and cause even further damage. Tens of thousands of citizens sprang into action and fanned out across neighborhoods to assist in clean-up efforts. Volunteer crews accomplished in days what would have taken city and county crews months to do. It was a stunning and moving example of the spirit of volunteerism and love of neighbor which permeates Utah, and which contributes so greatly to Utah’s outstanding quality of life.

It is also an impressive example of another Utah trait – our self-sufficiency. In Utah, we do not expect others to solve our problems. As a sovereign state, we not only have an obligation to find Utah solutions to Utah problems, we have a right to do so. We will not capitulate to a federal government that refuses to be constrained by its proper and Constitutionally-limited role.

Whether fighting the federal government on ownership and control of our RS 2477 roads, restoring our mule deer population, defending multiple use of our public lands, ending the budget-busting drain of Medicaid, or challenging the constitutionality of mandatory nationalized healthcare in the Supreme Court, be assured that this Governor is firmly resolved to fortify our state as a bulwark against federal overreach. Last October, in a one-room schoolhouse in Grouse Creek, Utah, I met a young boy named Heston. He told me that he had been taking piano lessons for one year and two months, and that he was going to play something for me after we had lunch.

I asked Heston if he was named after Charlton Heston, the actor.

One of his classmates helpfully piped up and said, “No, he was named after the tractor.”

After lunch, Heston made his way to the piano. Frankly, I was expecting a simple diddy like “Chopsticks.” Instead, I got Beethoven-dynamic and intricate music emanating from an old upright piano in a town two hours from the nearest stop light.

After young Heston finished his piece, I asked one of his classmates, “Are you sure he’s only been playing for one year and two months?”

She assured me that was the case, adding, “He’s what they call a prodigy.”

And, by the way, this young prodigy will be playing for us in the Rotunda after my address.

Utah is a state full of gems like Heston. Gems that, when polished and made to sparkle through hard work and the desire to succeed, add brilliance to our landscape. In every corner of our state, Utah’s source of richness and strength is its people. I am optimistic about Utah’s future because I believe in Utah’s people. Utah’s best days still lie ahead because Utahns are willing to work hard to be the architects of our own destiny. Utah is leading the way and setting the example for the rest of the nation to follow. In the darkest days of the economic crisis, Utah stood true to the founding principles of our great nation, and we now see the fruits of our determination.

I have spoken tonight of some of my goals and plans for the state. Having these goals and plans is important, but frankly writing things down on paper is the easy part. Making it work – the implementation and the execution – is what counts. Hard work demands dedication, determination, and discipline. Everything I do as Governor is examined through the lens of whether it helps grow the economy and create opportunity for Utah’s citizens.

That continues to be my commitment to you. I will keep my eye on the ball, and I will fight for sound and correct principles of fiscal prudence, limited government, and individual liberty, coupled with personal responsibility. Whether preparing a household budget or a state budget, whether you are the Governor or a small business owner – and I have been both – the principles are the same. By adhering to sound principles now, we will build a bright future for tomorrow. Not only will Utah be the best state for business, we will continue to be a place where communities and families will thrive and prosper.

The State of our State is strong. I am committed to making it stronger. I am honored to serve as your Governor.

May God continue to bless you, our great nation, and the Great State of Utah.

As Prepared for Delivery –

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

Last month, I went to Andrews Air Force Base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in Iraq. Together, we offered a final, proud salute to the colors under which more than a million of our fellow citizens fought — and several thousand gave their lives.

We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world. For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq. For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country. Most of al Qaeda’s top lieutenants have been defeated. The Taliban’s momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.

These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness, and teamwork of America’s Armed Forces. At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They’re not consumed with personal ambition. They don’t obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together.

Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example. Think about the America within our reach: A country that leads the world in educating its people. An America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs. A future where we’re in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren’t so tied to unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.

We can do this. I know we can, because we’ve done it before. At the end of World War II, when another generation of heroes returned home from combat, they built the strongest economy and middle class the world has ever known. My grandfather, a veteran of Patton’s Army, got the chance to go to college on the GI Bill. My grandmother, who worked on a bomber assembly line, was part of a workforce that turned out the best products on Earth.

The two of them shared the optimism of a Nation that had triumphed over a depression and fascism. They understood they were part of something larger; that they were contributing to a story of success that every American had a chance to share — the basic American promise that if you worked hard, you could do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and put a little away for retirement.

The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. What’s at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. We have to reclaim them.

Let’s remember how we got here. Long before the recession, jobs and manufacturing began leaving our shores. Technology made businesses more efficient, but also made some jobs obsolete. Folks at the top saw their incomes rise like never before, but most hardworking Americans struggled with costs that were growing, paychecks that weren’t, and personal debt that kept piling up.

In 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn’t afford or understand them. Banks had made huge bets and bonuses with other people’s money. Regulators had looked the other way, or didn’t have the authority to stop the bad behavior.

It was wrong. It was irresponsible. And it plunged our economy into a crisis that put millions out of work, saddled us with more debt, and left innocent, hard-working Americans holding the bag. In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly four million jobs. And we lost another four million before our policies were in full effect.

Those are the facts. But so are these. In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005. American manufacturers are hiring again, creating jobs for the first time since the late 1990s. Together, we’ve agreed to cut the deficit by more than $2 trillion. And we’ve put in place new rules to hold Wall Street accountable, so a crisis like that never happens again.

The state of our Union is getting stronger. And we’ve come too far to turn back now. As long as I’m President, I will work with anyone in this chamber to build on this momentum. But I intend to fight obstruction with action, and I will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place.

No, we will not go back to an economy weakened by outsourcing, bad debt, and phony financial profits. Tonight, I want to speak about how we move forward, and lay out a blueprint for an economy that’s built to last – an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers, and a renewal of American values.

This blueprint begins with American manufacturing.

On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen. In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. Today, General Motors is back on top as the world’s number one automaker. Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs.

We bet on American workers. We bet on American ingenuity. And tonight, the American auto industry is back.

What’s happening in Detroit can happen in other industries. It can happen in Cleveland and Pittsburgh and Raleigh. We can’t bring back every job that’s left our shores. But right now, it’s getting more expensive to do business in places like China. Meanwhile, America is more productive. A few weeks ago, the CEO of Master Lock told me that it now makes business sense for him to bring jobs back home. Today, for the first time in fifteen years, Master Lock’s unionized plant in Milwaukee is running at full capacity.

So we have a huge opportunity, at this moment, to bring manufacturing back. But we have to seize it. Tonight, my message to business leaders is simple: Ask yourselves what you can do to bring jobs back to your country, and your country will do everything we can to help you succeed.

We should start with our tax code. Right now, companies get tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas. Meanwhile, companies that choose to stay in America get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and everyone knows it.

So let’s change it. First, if you’re a business that wants to outsource jobs, you shouldn’t get a tax deduction for doing it. That money should be used to cover moving expenses for companies like Master Lock that decide to bring jobs home.

Second, no American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas. From now on, every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax. And every penny should go towards lowering taxes for companies that choose to stay here and hire here.

Third, if you’re an American manufacturer, you should get a bigger tax cut. If you’re a high-tech manufacturer, we should double the tax deduction you get for making products here. And if you want to relocate in a community that was hit hard when a factory left town, you should get help financing a new plant, equipment, or training for new workers.

My message is simple. It’s time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas, and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in America. Send me these tax reforms, and I’ll sign them right away.

We’re also making it easier for American businesses to sell products all over the world. Two years ago, I set a goal of doubling U.S. exports over five years. With the bipartisan trade agreements I signed into law, we are on track to meet that goal — ahead of schedule. Soon, there will be millions of new customers for American goods in Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. Soon, there will be new cars on the streets of Seoul imported from Detroit, and Toledo, and Chicago.

I will go anywhere in the world to open new markets for American products. And I will not stand by when our competitors don’t play by the rules. We’ve brought trade cases against China at nearly twice the rate as the last administration — and it’s made a difference. Over a thousand Americans are working today because we stopped a surge in Chinese tires. But we need to do more. It’s not right when another country lets our movies, music, and software be pirated. It’s not fair when foreign manufacturers have a leg up on ours only because they’re heavily subsidized.

Tonight, I’m announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trade practices in countries like China. There will be more inspections to prevent counterfeit or unsafe goods from crossing our borders. And this Congress should make sure that no foreign company has an advantage over American manufacturing when it comes to accessing finance or new markets like Russia. Our workers are the most productive on Earth, and if the playing field is level, I promise you — America will always win.

I also hear from many business leaders who want to hire in the United States but can’t find workers with the right skills. Growing industries in science and technology have twice as many openings as we have workers who can do the job. Think about that — openings at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work.

That’s inexcusable. And we know how to fix it.

Jackie Bray is a single mom from North Carolina who was laid off from her job as a mechanic. Then Siemens opened a gas turbine factory in Charlotte, and formed a partnership with Central Piedmont Community College. The company helped the college design courses in laser and robotics training. It paid Jackie’s tuition, then hired her to help operate their plant.

I want every American looking for work to have the same opportunity as Jackie did. Join me in a national commitment to train two million Americans with skills that will lead directly to a job. My Administration has already lined up more companies that want to help. Model partnerships between businesses like Siemens and community colleges in places like Charlotte, Orlando, and Louisville are up and running. Now you need to give more community colleges the resources they need to become community career centers — places that teach people skills that local businesses are looking for right now, from data management to high-tech manufacturing.

And I want to cut through the maze of confusing training programs, so that from now on, people like Jackie have one program, one website, and one place to go for all the information and help they need. It’s time to turn our unemployment system into a reemployment system that puts people to work.

These reforms will help people get jobs that are open today. But to prepare for the jobs of tomorrow, our commitment to skills and education has to start earlier.

For less than one percent of what our Nation spends on education each year, we’ve convinced nearly every State in the country to raise their standards for teaching and learning — the first time that’s happened in a generation.

But challenges remain. And we know how to solve them.

At a time when other countries are doubling down on education, tight budgets have forced States to lay off thousands of teachers. We know a good teacher can increase the lifetime income of a classroom by over $250,000. A great teacher can offer an escape from poverty to the child who dreams beyond his circumstance. Every person in this chamber can point to a teacher who changed the trajectory of their lives. Most teachers work tirelessly, with modest pay, sometimes digging into their own pocket for school supplies — just to make a difference.

Teachers matter. So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let’s offer schools a deal. Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones. In return, grant schools flexibility: To teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren’t helping kids learn.

We also know that when students aren’t allowed to walk away from their education, more of them walk the stage to get their diploma. So tonight, I call on every State to require that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn eighteen.

When kids do graduate, the most daunting challenge can be the cost of college. At a time when Americans owe more in tuition debt than credit card debt, this Congress needs to stop the interest rates on student loans from doubling in July. Extend the tuition tax credit we started that saves middle-class families thousands of dollars. And give more young people the chance to earn their way through college by doubling the number of work-study jobs in the next five years.

Of course, it’s not enough for us to increase student aid. We can’t just keep subsidizing skyrocketing tuition; we’ll run out of money. States also need to do their part, by making higher education a higher priority in their budgets. And colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down. Recently, I spoke with a group of college presidents who’ve done just that. Some schools re-design courses to help students finish more quickly. Some use better technology. The point is, it’s possible. So let me put colleges and universities on notice: If you can’t stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down. Higher education can’t be a luxury — it’s an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford.

Let’s also remember that hundreds of thousands of talented, hardworking students in this country face another challenge: The fact that they aren’t yet American citizens. Many were brought here as small children, are American through and through, yet they live every day with the threat of deportation. Others came more recently, to study business and science and engineering, but as soon as they get their degree, we send them home to invent new products and create new jobs somewhere else.

That doesn’t make sense.

I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration. That’s why my Administration has put more boots on the border than ever before. That’s why there are fewer illegal crossings than when I took office.

The opponents of action are out of excuses. We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform right now. But if election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let’s at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, and defend this country. Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship. I will sign it right away.

You see, an economy built to last is one where we encourage the talent and ingenuity of every person in this country. That means women should earn equal pay for equal work. It means we should support everyone who’s willing to work; and every risk-taker and entrepreneur who aspires to become the next Steve Jobs.

After all, innovation is what America has always been about. Most new jobs are created in start-ups and small businesses. So let’s pass an agenda that helps them succeed. Tear down regulations that prevent aspiring entrepreneurs from getting the financing to grow. Expand tax relief to small businesses that are raising wages and creating good jobs. Both parties agree on these ideas. So put them in a bill, and get it on my desk this year.

Innovation also demands basic research. Today, the discoveries taking place in our federally-financed labs and universities could lead to new treatments that kill cancer cells but leave healthy ones untouched. New lightweight vests for cops and soldiers that can stop any bullet. Don’t gut these investments in our budget. Don’t let other countries win the race for the future. Support the same kind of research and innovation that led to the computer chip and the Internet; to new American jobs and new American industries.

Nowhere is the promise of innovation greater than in American-made energy. Over the last three years, we’ve opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I’m directing my Administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources. Right now, American oil production is the highest that it’s been in eight years. That’s right — eight years. Not only that — last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past sixteen years.

But with only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves, oil isn’t enough. This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy — a strategy that’s cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs.

We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly one hundred years, and my Administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. And I’m requiring all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use. America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.

The development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don’t have to choose between our environment and our economy. And by the way, it was public research dollars, over the course of thirty years, that helped develop the technologies to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock — reminding us that Government support is critical in helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground.

What’s true for natural gas is true for clean energy. In three years, our partnership with the private sector has already positioned America to be the world’s leading manufacturer of high-tech batteries. Because of federal investments, renewable energy use has nearly doubled. And thousands of Americans have jobs because of it.

When Bryan Ritterby was laid off from his job making furniture, he said he worried that at 55, no one would give him a second chance. But he found work at Energetx, a wind turbine manufacturer in Michigan. Before the recession, the factory only made luxury yachts. Today, it’s hiring workers like Bryan, who said, “I’m proud to be working in the industry of the future.”

Our experience with shale gas shows us that the payoffs on these public investments don’t always come right away. Some technologies don’t pan out; some companies fail. But I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy. I will not walk away from workers like Bryan. I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here. We have subsidized oil companies for a century. That’s long enough. It’s time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s rarely been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that’s never been more promising. Pass clean energy tax credits and create these jobs.

We can also spur energy innovation with new incentives. The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change. But there’s no reason why Congress shouldn’t at least set a clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation. So far, you haven’t acted. Well tonight, I will. I’m directing my Administration to allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power three million homes. And I’m proud to announce that the Department of Defense, the world’s largest consumer of energy, will make one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history — with the Navy purchasing enough capacity to power a quarter of a million homes a year.

Of course, the easiest way to save money is to waste less energy. So here’s another proposal: Help manufacturers eliminate energy waste in their factories and give businesses incentives to upgrade their buildings. Their energy bills will be $100 billion lower over the next decade, and America will have less pollution, more manufacturing, and more jobs for construction workers who need them. Send me a bill that creates these jobs.

Building this new energy future should be just one part of a broader agenda to repair America’s infrastructure. So much of America needs to be rebuilt. We’ve got crumbling roads and bridges. A power grid that wastes too much energy. An incomplete high-speed broadband network that prevents a small business owner in rural America from selling her products all over the world.

During the Great Depression, America built the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge. After World War II, we connected our States with a system of highways. Democratic and Republican administrations invested in great projects that benefited everybody, from the workers who built them to the businesses that still use them today.

In the next few weeks, I will sign an Executive Order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects. But you need to fund these projects. Take the money we’re no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home.

There’s never been a better time to build, especially since the construction industry was one of the hardest-hit when the housing bubble burst. Of course, construction workers weren’t the only ones hurt. So were millions of innocent Americans who’ve seen their home values decline. And while Government can’t fix the problem on its own, responsible homeowners shouldn’t have to sit and wait for the housing market to hit bottom to get some relief.

That’s why I’m sending this Congress a plan that gives every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage, by refinancing at historically low interest rates. No more red tape. No more runaround from the banks. A small fee on the largest financial institutions will ensure that it won’t add to the deficit, and will give banks that were rescued by taxpayers a chance to repay a deficit of trust.

Let’s never forget: Millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a Government and a financial system that do the same. It’s time to apply the same rules from top to bottom: No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts. An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody.

We’ve all paid the price for lenders who sold mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them, and buyers who knew they couldn’t afford them. That’s why we need smart regulations to prevent irresponsible behavior. Rules to prevent financial fraud, or toxic dumping, or faulty medical devices, don’t destroy the free market. They make the free market work better.

There is no question that some regulations are outdated, unnecessary, or too costly. In fact, I’ve approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his. I’ve ordered every federal agency to eliminate rules that don’t make sense. We’ve already announced over 500 reforms, and just a fraction of them will save business and citizens more than $10 billion over the next five years. We got rid of one rule from 40 years ago that could have forced some dairy farmers to spend $10,000 a year proving that they could contain a spill — because milk was somehow classified as an oil. With a rule like that, I guess it was worth crying over spilled milk.

I’m confident a farmer can contain a milk spill without a federal agency looking over his shoulder. But I will not back down from making sure an oil company can contain the kind of oil spill we saw in the Gulf two years ago. I will not back down from protecting our kids from mercury pollution, or making sure that our food is safe and our water is clean. I will not go back to the days when health insurance companies had unchecked power to cancel your policy, deny you coverage, or charge women differently from men.

And I will not go back to the days when Wall Street was allowed to play by its own set of rules. The new rules we passed restore what should be any financial system’s core purpose: Getting funding to entrepreneurs with the best ideas, and getting loans to responsible families who want to buy a home, start a business, or send a kid to college.

So if you’re a big bank or financial institution, you are no longer allowed to make risky bets with your customers’ deposits. You’re required to write out a “living will” that details exactly how you’ll pay the bills if you fail — because the rest of us aren’t bailing you out ever again. And if you’re a mortgage lender or a payday lender or a credit card company, the days of signing people up for products they can’t afford with confusing forms and deceptive practices are over. Today, American consumers finally have a watchdog in Richard Cordray with one job: To look out for them.

We will also establish a Financial Crimes Unit of highly trained investigators to crack down on large-scale fraud and protect people’s investments. Some financial firms violate major anti-fraud laws because there’s no real penalty for being a repeat offender. That’s bad for consumers, and it’s bad for the vast majority of bankers and financial service professionals who do the right thing. So pass legislation that makes the penalties for fraud count.

And tonight, I am asking my Attorney General to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorneys general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis. This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans.
A return to the American values of fair play and shared responsibility will help us protect our people and our economy. But it should also guide us as we look to pay down our debt and invest in our future.

Right now, our most immediate priority is stopping a tax hike on 160 million working Americans while the recovery is still fragile. People cannot afford losing $40 out of each paycheck this year. There are plenty of ways to get this done. So let’s agree right here, right now: No side issues. No drama. Pass the payroll tax cut without delay.

When it comes to the deficit, we’ve already agreed to more than $2 trillion in cuts and savings. But we need to do more, and that means making choices. Right now, we’re poised to spend nearly $1 trillion more on what was supposed to be a temporary tax break for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households. Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else – like education and medical research; a strong military and care for our veterans? Because if we’re serious about paying down our debt, we can’t do both.

The American people know what the right choice is. So do I. As I told the Speaker this summer, I’m prepared to make more reforms that rein in the long term costs of Medicare and Medicaid, and strengthen Social Security, so long as those programs remain a guarantee of security for seniors.

But in return, we need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of Members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes. Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes. And my Republican friend Tom Coburn is right: Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires. In fact, if you’re earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn’t get special tax subsidies or deductions. On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year, like 98 percent of American families, your taxes shouldn’t go up. You’re the ones struggling with rising costs and stagnant wages. You’re the ones who need relief.

Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.

We don’t begrudge financial success in this country. We admire it. When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it’s not because they envy the rich. It’s because they understand that when I get tax breaks I don’t need and the country can’t afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference — like a senior on a fixed income; or a student trying to get through school; or a family trying to make ends meet. That’s not right. Americans know it’s not right. They know that this generation’s success is only possible because past generations felt a responsibility to each other, and to their country’s future, and they know our way of life will only endure if we feel that same sense of shared responsibility. That’s how we’ll reduce our deficit. That’s an America built to last.

I recognize that people watching tonight have differing views about taxes and debt; energy and health care. But no matter what party they belong to, I bet most Americans are thinking the same thing right now: Nothing will get done this year, or next year, or maybe even the year after that, because Washington is broken.

Can you blame them for feeling a little cynical?

The greatest blow to confidence in our economy last year didn’t come from events beyond our control. It came from a debate in Washington over whether the United States would pay its bills or not. Who benefited from that fiasco?

I’ve talked tonight about the deficit of trust between Main Street and Wall Street. But the divide between this city and the rest of the country is at least as bad — and it seems to get worse every year.

Some of this has to do with the corrosive influence of money in politics. So together, let’s take some steps to fix that. Send me a bill that bans insider trading by Members of Congress, and I will sign it tomorrow. Let’s limit any elected official from owning stocks in industries they impact. Let’s make sure people who bundle campaign contributions for Congress can’t lobby Congress, and vice versa — an idea that has bipartisan support, at least outside of Washington.

Some of what’s broken has to do with the way Congress does its business these days. A simple majority is no longer enough to get anything — even routine business — passed through the Senate. Neither party has been blameless in these tactics. Now both parties should put an end to it. For starters, I ask the Senate to pass a rule that all judicial and public service nominations receive a simple up or down vote within 90 days.

The executive branch also needs to change. Too often, it’s inefficient, outdated and remote. That’s why I’ve asked this Congress to grant me the authority to consolidate the federal bureaucracy so that our Government is leaner, quicker, and more responsive to the needs of the American people.

Finally, none of these reforms can happen unless we also lower the temperature in this town. We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign of mutual destruction; that politics is about clinging to rigid ideologies instead of building consensus around common sense ideas.

I’m a Democrat. But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That Government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more. That’s why my education reform offers more competition, and more control for schools and States. That’s why we’re getting rid of regulations that don’t work. That’s why our health care law relies on a reformed private market, not a Government program.

On the other hand, even my Republican friends who complain the most about Government spending have supported federally-financed roads, and clean energy projects, and federal offices for the folks back home.

The point is, we should all want a smarter, more effective Government. And while we may not be able to bridge our biggest philosophical differences this year, we can make real progress. With or without this Congress, I will keep taking actions that help the economy grow. But I can do a whole lot more with your help. Because when we act together, there is nothing the United States of America can’t achieve.

That is the lesson we’ve learned from our actions abroad over the last few years.

Ending the Iraq war has allowed us to strike decisive blows against our enemies. From Pakistan to Yemen, the al Qaeda operatives who remain are scrambling, knowing that they can’t escape the reach of the United States of America.

From this position of strength, we’ve begun to wind down the war in Afghanistan. Ten thousand of our troops have come home. Twenty-three thousand more will leave by the end of this summer. This transition to Afghan lead will continue, and we will build an enduring partnership with Afghanistan, so that it is never again a source of attacks against America.

As the tide of war recedes, a wave of change has washed across the Middle East and North Africa, from Tunis to Cairo; from Sana’a to Tripoli. A year ago, Qadhafi was one of the world’s longest-serving dictators — a murderer with American blood on his hands. Today, he is gone. And in Syria, I have no doubt that the Assad regime will soon discover that the forces of change can’t be reversed, and that human dignity can’t be denied.

How this incredible transformation will end remains uncertain. But we have a huge stake in the outcome. And while it is ultimately up to the people of the region to decide their fate, we will advocate for those values that have served our own country so well. We will stand against violence and intimidation. We will stand for the rights and dignity of all human beings – men and women; Christians, Muslims, and Jews. We will support policies that lead to strong and stable democracies and open markets, because tyranny is no match for liberty.

And we will safeguard America’s own security against those who threaten our citizens, our friends, and our interests. Look at Iran. Through the power of our diplomacy, a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program now stands as one. The regime is more isolated than ever before; its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions, and as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent. Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal. But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations.

The renewal of American leadership can be felt across the globe. Our oldest alliances in Europe and Asia are stronger than ever. Our ties to the Americas are deeper. Our iron-clad commitment to Israel’s security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history. We’ve made it clear that America is a Pacific power, and a new beginning in Burma has lit a new hope. From the coalitions we’ve built to secure nuclear materials, to the missions we’ve led against hunger and disease; from the blows we’ve dealt to our enemies; to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back.

Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about. That’s not the message we get from leaders around the world, all of whom are eager to work with us. That’s not how people feel from Tokyo to Berlin; from Cape Town to Rio; where opinions of America are higher than they’ve been in years. Yes, the world is changing; no, we can’t control every event. But America remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs — and as long as I’m President, I intend to keep it that way.

That’s why, working with our military leaders, I have proposed a new defense strategy that ensures we maintain the finest military in the world, while saving nearly half a trillion dollars in our budget. To stay one step ahead of our adversaries, I have already sent this Congress legislation that will secure our country from the growing danger of cyber-threats.

Above all, our freedom endures because of the men and women in uniform who defend it. As they come home, we must serve them as well as they served us. That includes giving them the care and benefits they have earned — which is why we’ve increased annual VA spending every year I’ve been President. And it means enlisting our veterans in the work of rebuilding our Nation.

With the bipartisan support of this Congress, we are providing new tax credits to companies that hire vets. Michelle and Jill Biden have worked with American businesses to secure a pledge of 135,000 jobs for veterans and their families. And tonight, I’m proposing a Veterans Job Corps that will help our communities hire veterans as cops and firefighters, so that America is as strong as those who defend her.

Which brings me back to where I began. Those of us who’ve been sent here to serve can learn from the service of our troops. When you put on that uniform, it doesn’t matter if you’re black or white; Asian or Latino; conservative or liberal; rich or poor; gay or straight. When you’re marching into battle, you look out for the person next to you, or the mission fails. When you’re in the thick of the fight, you rise or fall as one unit, serving one Nation, leaving no one behind.

One of my proudest possessions is the flag that the SEAL Team took with them on the mission to get bin Laden. On it are each of their names. Some may be Democrats. Some may be Republicans. But that doesn’t matter. Just like it didn’t matter that day in the Situation Room, when I sat next to Bob Gates – a man who was George Bush’s defense secretary; and Hillary Clinton, a woman who ran against me for president.

All that mattered that day was the mission. No one thought about politics. No one thought about themselves. One of the young men involved in the raid later told me that he didn’t deserve credit for the mission. It only succeeded, he said, because every single member of that unit did their job — the pilot who landed the helicopter that spun out of control; the translator who kept others from entering the compound; the troops who separated the women and children from the fight; the SEALs who charged up the stairs. More than that, the mission only succeeded because every member of that unit trusted each other – because you can’t charge up those stairs, into darkness and danger, unless you know that there’s someone behind you, watching your back.

So it is with America. Each time I look at that flag, I’m reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those fifty stars and those thirteen stripes. No one built this country on their own. This Nation is great because we built it together. This Nation is great because we worked as a team. This Nation is great because we get each other’s backs. And if we hold fast to that truth, in this moment of trial, there is no challenge too great; no mission too hard. As long as we’re joined in common purpose, as long as we maintain our common resolve, our journey moves forward, our future is hopeful, and the state of our Union will always be strong.

Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

This was his acceptance speech at the nominating convention:

Ross C. “Rocky” Anderson Accepting Justice Party Nomination for Candidacy for President of the United States (website)

I am proud to accept the nomination of the Justice Party to run as its candidate for President of the United States.

This is not my campaign.  This is a campaign of, for, and by the people.  We join together in this endeavor for the sake of justice – social justice, environmental justice, and economic justice.   We pledge to organize and act, tenaciously and over the long haul, for the sake of the public interest, to enhance and protect freedom for all, and to vindicate the sacred promise of justice for all.

Those who understand that our great nation and its people have been harmed severely, and are at tremendous risk for even greater damage in the future, can be powerful agents of positive change.  We need not settle for governance by the Republican and Democratic parties, which thrive on the corrupt money machine, nor do we have to confine ourselves to voting for the lesser of two evils, if indeed there is a lesser evil among the common choices.

If we have the vision, the courage, and the will, we can, together, forge a very different way – a way that will lead to a future of fiscal responsibility and respectful regard for the economic burdens we leave for later generations; secure jobs and fair compensation; decency and rationality in our cruel, self-destructive criminal justice system that is largely based on an irrational rage to punish; an investment in our nation’s infrastructure, education, and innovation that is as substantial as our need to re-gain our global competitive edge; compassionate and rational immigration reform; respect for fundamental human and civil rights; victory over the stranglehold of the military-industrial-congressional complex; protection of our air, water, and wild lands; essential health care for all, as in every other nation in the industrialized world; protection against and condemnation of illegal wars of aggression, pursuant to the United Nations Charter and the Kellogg-Briand Pact; international leadership on the urgent challenge of climate change; and restoration of the rule of law, including full accountability for crimes, regardless of the wealth or status of the perpetrators.

Men, women, and children across the United States, and throughout the world, are suffering horrendously because of the corruption of our government, the timidity of much of the public, and criminality that is rewarded rather than rectified.  Lives have been taken, lifetime injuries inflicted, life savings decimated, essential health care rendered more elusive for millions of people, jobs lost, and the damage inflicted by our nation’s debt increased exponentially — all because of crimes committed with impunity, public policy guided by bribery, and a crooked two-tiered economic and justice system that rewards a narrow class of rich and powerful people while devastating the rest.

The root of this disaster is systemic corruption fed by money from the few who have benefited.  The public’s interest in catching up with the rest of the industrialized world and providing essential health care to every man, woman, and child has been undermined by the corrupting influence of money flowing from the medical and insurance industries.

The public’s interest in reducing the outrageous cost of prescription drugs has been frustrated by the corrupting influence of money flowing from the pharmaceutical industry.

The public’s interest in reducing our deficits and the crushing burden of our accumulated debt, as well as reprioritizing the ways in which our government spends our money, has been frustrated by the corrupting influence of money flowing from military contractors, the beneficiaries of the military-industrial complex about which President Eisenhower warned our nation in his last presidential address.

Perhaps most outrageous and tragic over the long-term, the public’s interest in energy independence and the avoidance of the most catastrophic impacts of climate disruption has been frustrated by the corrupting influence of money flowing from the fossil fuel industry – the coal, oil, and gas companies.

Whether these calamities continue is our choice. Bringing integrity and competence to our government is within our power. That’s why people across the nation are supporting our campaign, which limits contributions to $100 per person and engages in grassroots strategies rather than billion dollar television campaigns financed by the wealthy.

The American people can ensure that the public interest, not simply the interests of politicians and campaign contributors, is protected. We the people are powerful enough to end the perverse government-to-the-highest-bidder system sustaining, and sustained by, the two dominant parties.

With the complicity of Republicans and Democrats in Congress, the Bush administration marched our nation off a cliff — morally, legally, and economically — by perpetrating a disastrous war of aggression against Iraq.  President Obama, for his political advantage, simply shrugged off war crimes committed in conjunction with that war, with the excuse that we “need to look forward not backward.”  It is a trademark reminder — in the spirit of President Ford’s ignominious pardon of Richard M. Nixon — that, in our two-tiered system of injustice, the rich and powerful are above the law, which is applied, often with a crushing vengeance, against the rest of us.

Wall Street criminals have raked in billions of dollars while eviscerating the U.S economy through their fraudulent schemes.  Goldman Sachs sold clients on perverse investments while secretly betting billions of dollars against them.  Several Wall Street firms bundled toxic mortgages and fraudulently sold them as top-rated investments, ultimately devastating the U.S. economy, including the housing market and the retirement plans of millions of men and women throughout the U.S. This was all aided and abetted by occupants of the White House and by a de-regulating Congress that have acted as if they are on retainer by Wall Street banks. Just recently, President Obama appointed a new Chief of Staff who was COO at CitiGroup and who oversaw investments in a hedge fund that bet on the housing market collapse.  We need a president who will surround himself not by the Goldman Sachs crowd, but by those who have a record of caring about, and acting to protect, the public interest.

Remarkably, some pundits are still puzzled about what the nation’s Occupiers – and now the international Occupiers – are angry about. The appropriate inquiry is “Why have we put up with this for so long?”

Most Americans are far less financially secure – some are wiped out and many have lost their homes – because of these crimes.  The plutocracy is now fully exposed.  While drug offenders are being incarcerated for decades under contemptible minimum-mandatory sentences, not one day has been served in prison by the perpetrators, who, along with their Wall Street colleagues, gave unprecedented contributions to President Obama’s last campaign. Goldman Sachs’s political action committee and individual contributors employed by Goldman Sachs donated over $1 million to Obama’s last election. They’ve enjoyed an enormous return on their investment, to the enormous detriment of the rest of us.

Please thoughtfully consider this fact, then be appropriately outraged:  22% of children are now living in poverty in the United States. The skids toward the economic disaster, including the resulting loss of jobs and skyrocketing poverty, were greased by the unconscionable deregulation of the financial industry, made possible through the collusion of Republicans and Democrats.  Again, that deregulation came about not because of the promotion of the public interest, but because of the corrupting influence of multi-national corporations that took us to the cleaners, then received bail-outs because they were considered by our economic policy-makers – themselves part of the corrupt financial class – as “too big to fail.”  The Republican Party pursues deregulation as a priority in its increasingly bizarre ideology, even when it puts most Americans at tremendous risk, while President Obama and most of Congress gorge themselves at the trough of special interest money, then act accordingly.

We will fight to make certain that, in the future, no banks will be “too large to fail” and that the only thing we will consider to be “too large to fail” is the interests of the American people.

We must set aside our fear-based notion that a candidate other than a Republican or Democrat can be a “spoiler” for the lesser of two evils and, instead, help make real change happen, for our good, for the good of our country, and for the good of our children and later generations.  We can be responsible, ethical stewards for the future by drawing the line now and committing to “no more” of what the two dominant parties have done to our nation.

Win or lose, we can, through this campaign, make a tremendous positive difference in our nation and our world.

Thomas Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum, in their remarkable book That Used to Be Us, make the argument about the vast difference a third party or independent candidacy can make for our nation.  Here is what they say:

Now [the Democrats] have become the most conservative force in American politics. . . .Now the [Republicans] are the party of fiscal radicalism and recklessness, cutting taxes without reducing spending and thereby pushing the United States ever deeper into debt.  The two parties are, however, united on two things – unfortunately.  Neither has the courage to take the necessary serious steps to address the dangerously high budget deficit . . . : And neither has the courage to reduce America’s, and therefore the world’s, ruinous dependence on oil by raising the price of gasoline. . . .

Business as usual in American politics is a recipe for national decline. . .

The American political system does not need blowing up, but it does need shaking up. . . . It needs political shock therapy. . . .

We hope that [such a shock] will come from within – from a combination of grassroots and high politics.  We mean by this a serious independent presidential candidate. . . .

The only way around all these ideological and structural obstacles is a third-party or independent candidate, who can not only articulate a hybrid politics that addresses our major challenges and restores our formula for success but . . . does this in a way that enough Americans find so compelling that they are willing to leave their respective Democratic and Republican camps . . . Only that could change a political system that rewards our politicians for postponing hard decisions and blaming the other party rather than making those decisions.

Because third parties do not win elections, voters expect them not to win and thus do not vote for them so as not to waste their votes.  This calculation, a major reason for the weakness of third parties (and thus the strength of the Republicans and Democrats), can, however, be seriously mistaken.  A vote for a third-party presidential candidate can be an effective way to change the direction of American national policy – and that is the strategy we are advocating.[1]

Friedman and Mandelbaum then describe recent polls, reflecting that people in the United States will support a third-party candidate:  A Pew poll finding that more voters identify themselves as independents than as Democrats or Republicans; another Pew survey finding that 72 percent of respondents are dissatisfied with the condition of our country; a Washington Post-ABC News poll reporting in 2010 that only 34 percent of the respondents believed that Democratic candidates deserved reelection, and only 31 percent believed that Republicans deserved reelection; and an Ipsos Public Affairs 2010 poll in which 71 percent of respondents said they would like to see more than just the Democratic and Republican Parties on the presidential ballot.[2]

Friedman and Mandelbaum continue as follows:

An independent presidential candidate who did all these things – describing, more vividly and accurately than the two major parties have yet done, the world in which its citizens are living and are destined to live in this century; prescribing the policies that will make it possible for Americans to thrive in that world and for America to exercise global influence in this century, as they did in the last one; and galvanizing the country to adopt these policies – could provide the shock therapy we need.

[I]t’s the best shot we have.  Sticking with the status quo, by contrast, is a sure thing – a sure pathway to decline.[3]

As Friedman and Mandelbaum conclude, win or lose, “an independent presidential candidacy can change America – and therefore the world – for the better. . . [O]ver the long term it would probably have a greater impact on the course of American history than the person who [won the election].”[4]

Let us embrace this historic opportunity.  For an end to the corruption and impunity for the privileged elite, and a fair shake for all Americans, we can reject the Republican/Democratic duopoly that has brought our nation to its current sad state.  We now have the choice to support a party and a candidate offering genuine hope for a safer, healthier, more just world.

[1] Friedman and Mandelbaum, That Used to Be Us, pp. 329, 330, 331, 334, 335.

[2] Id. at 340.

[3] Id. at 346.

[4] Id. at 347.

Please Donate (maximum contribution $100)

The following letter written by Dave Coupal of Cottonwood Heights was published in The Salt Lake Tribune Public Forum Section, March 2, 2011.

by Dave Coupal, Cottonwood Heights

Those who engage in civil disobedience must be willing to pay the price and serve their time in jail (“Jury is set for DeChristopher trial,” Tribune, Feb 28). If convicted, perhaps Tim DeChristopher can share a cell with that other Utah agitator who disobeyed a law: state Rep. Mike Noel, R-Kanab. They both would surely benefit from a little time hearing from someone on the opposite side of the environmental issue.

I assume Noel will have a longer stay, since his illegal protest stunt of driving his all-terrain-vehicle up the restricted Wilderness Study Area of the Paria River did permanent damage to our publicly owned lands; whereas, DeChristopher just annoyed some energy producers.

By the way, when will the jury be set for the Noel trial?

Dave Coupal

Opinion Piece in Salt Lake Tribune

Published: January 8, 2011 01:01AM

In December 1952, an episode of London smog killed more than 12,000 people in less than a month, most within the first four days. It changed forever how the world regarded air pollution. As thick winter smog once again smothers the Wasatch Front, a review of research published in 2010 should be the next milestone in how Utahns regard air pollution.

In May, the American Heart Association published the AHA’s Updated Scientific Statement on Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease. Based on hundreds of research papers, it suggested a formula for calculating the number of premature deaths in a community based on the concentrations of PM2.5 (particles smaller than 2.5 microns).

This formula produces the same conclusions that the Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment have been stating since 2007. Between 1,000 and 2,000 people in Utah die prematurely every year because of our air pollution.

In 2010, numerous studies added Alzheimer’s, autism, diabetes and breast cancer to an already long list of health consequences that showed significant increases with air pollution. The exclamation point to all this research came with a remarkable study published in December.

Researchers examined the diameter of blood vessels in the back of the eye (the only part of the body where tiny blood vessels called arterioles are directly visible) in 4,607 people. Arterioles narrow with age and disease processes like high blood pressure. The investigators correlated narrowing of these arterioles with the amount of PM2.5 air pollution the patients were exposed to and discovered this: Chronic exposure to 3 micrograins per cubic meter of PM2.5 was associated with the amount of arteriole narrowing as would be found from seven years of aging, or a 3 mmHg increase in blood pressure.

It just so happens that 3 micrograins per cubic meter of PM2.5 is about how much pollution Rio Tinto admits to being responsible for in Salt Lake and Utah counties. This becomes a sobering confirmation of the health price tag we all pay for Rio Tinto.

In August, the Annals of Internal Medicine published a study demonstrating lung and chromosomal damage among oil spill cleanup workers whose exposure was comparable to that of Salt Lake City/Red Butte Creek residents during the Chevron oil spill: “Our findings indicate that exposure to oil sediments, even for short periods, may have detrimental health effects.” This type of chromosomal damage has been associated with increased cancer risk.

Last April, an Associated Press nationwide investigation discovered that pollution from oil refineries is at least 10 times greater than what is publicly reported to the government. With five refineries near Woods Cross, what is most depressing is the ongoing silence on the part of any Utah officials in response.

As the 2011 Legislature prepares its agenda, it would certainly be a breath of fresh air if mounting evidence on the ravages of air pollution began shaping public policy. But don’t count on it unless citizens consider this something worth fighting for. Start by contacting your legislators and demanding some New Year’s “pollution” resolutions. My list:

Be it resolved that we finally give mass transit funding priority over freeways; that we say no to Rio Tinto’s expansion as they are already our biggest polluter; that we demand real, not imaginary, or dishonest data about how much pollution our refineries emit; that Chevron pay for a health study of exposed Red Butte residents and move the pipeline away from Red Butte Creek; that those legislators scheming to weaken the Utah Department of Environmental Quality and the Division of Air Quality be exposed for violating the public trust; and those state agencies be liberated from the pressure to act as handmaidens of industry and function in their proper role as guardians of public health. Keeping these resolutions would bring a truly Happy New Year.

Brian Moench is president of the Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and teaches health and the environment at the University of Utah Osher Lifelong Learning Institute.

Why God Did Not Create the Universe

There is a sound scientific explanation for the making of our world—no gods required

By STEPHEN HAWKING And LEONARD MLODINOW

According to Viking mythology, eclipses occur when two wolves, Skoll and Hati, catch the sun or moon. At the onset of an eclipse people would make lots of noise, hoping to scare the wolves away. After some time, people must have noticed that the eclipses ended regardless of whether they ran around banging on pots.

This article in the Wall Street Journal was the subject of an article in The Deseret News that is also posted on Watts Cookin’. Our comments are attached within the Deseret News commentary posted under the headline “Hawking’s New Book Dismisses God”. Hawking is widely regarded as one of the smartest men in the world, if not number one, and it is worth our time to listen and learn.

Ignorance of nature’s ways led people in ancient times to postulate many myths in an effort to make sense of their world. But eventually, people turned to philosophy, that is, to the use of reason—with a good dose of intuition—to decipher their universe. Today we use reason, mathematics and experimental test—in other words, modern science.

Albert Einstein said, “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.” He meant that, unlike our homes on a bad day, the universe is not just a conglomeration of objects each going its own way. Everything in the universe follows laws, without exception.

Newton believed that our strangely habitable solar system did not “arise out of chaos by the mere laws of nature.” Instead, he maintained that the order in the universe was “created by God at first and conserved by him to this Day in the same state and condition.” The discovery recently of the extreme fine-tuning of so many laws of nature could lead some back to the idea that this grand design is the work of some grand Designer. Yet the latest advances in cosmology explain why the laws of the universe seem tailor-made for humans, without the need for a benevolent creator.

Many improbable occurrences conspired to create Earth’s human-friendly design, and they would indeed be puzzling if ours were the only solar system in the universe. But today we know of hundreds of other solar systems, and few doubt that there exist countless more among the billions of stars in our galaxy. Planets of all sorts exist, and obviously, when the beings on a planet that supports life examine the world around them, they are bound to find that their environment satisfies the conditions they require to exist.

The Hubble Space Telescope snaps new images of the oldest galaxies ever seen. A senior scientist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, explains to WSJ’s Robert Lee Hotz and Simon Constable how he did it-and what it means.

It is possible to turn that last statement into a scientific principle: The fact of our being restricts the characteristics of the kind of environment in which we find ourselves. For example, if we did not know the distance from the Earth to the sun, the fact that beings like us exist would allow us to put bounds on how small or great the Earth-sun separation could be. We need liquid water to exist, and if the Earth were too close, it would all boil off; if it were too far, it would freeze. That principle is called the “weak” anthropic principle.

The weak anthropic principle is not very controversial. But there is a stronger form that is regarded with disdain among some physicists. The strong anthropic principle suggests that the fact that we exist imposes constraints, not just on our environment, but on the possible form and content of the laws of nature themselves.

The idea arose because it is not only the peculiar characteristics of our solar system that seem oddly conducive to the development of human life, but also the characteristics of our entire universe—and its laws. They appear to have a design that is both tailor-made to support us and, if we are to exist, leaves little room for alteration. That is much more difficult to explain.

Stephen Youll

The tale of how the primordial universe of hydrogen, helium and a bit of lithium evolved to a universe harboring at least one world with intelligent life like us is a tale of many chapters. The forces of nature had to be such that heavier elements—especially carbon—could be produced from the primordial elements, and remain stable for at least billions of years. Those heavy elements were formed in the furnaces we call stars, so the forces first had to allow stars and galaxies to form. Those in turn grew from the seeds of tiny inhomogeneities in the early universe.

Even all that is not enough: The dynamics of the stars had to be such that some would eventually explode, precisely in a way that could disperse the heavier elements through space. In addition, the laws of nature had to dictate that those remnants could recondense into a new generation of stars, these surrounded by planets incorporating the newly formed heavy elements.

By examining the model universes we generate when the theories of physics are altered in certain ways, one can study the effect of changes to physical law in a methodical manner. Such calculations show that a change of as little as 0.5% in the strength of the strong nuclear force, or 4% in the electric force, would destroy either nearly all carbon or all oxygen in every star, and hence the possibility of life as we know it. Also, most of the fundamental constants appearing in our theories appear fine-tuned in the sense that if they were altered by only modest amounts, the universe would be qualitatively different, and in many cases unsuitable for the development of life. For example, if protons were 0.2% heavier, they would decay into neutrons, destabilizing atoms.

If one assumes that a few hundred million years in stable orbit is necessary for planetary life to evolve, the number of space dimensions is also fixed by our existence. That is because, according to the laws of gravity, it is only in three dimensions that stable elliptical orbits are possible. In any but three dimensions even a small disturbance, such as that produced by the pull of the other planets, would send a planet off its circular orbit, and cause it to spiral either into or away from the sun.

The emergence of the complex structures capable of supporting intelligent observers seems to be very fragile. The laws of nature form a system that is extremely fine-tuned. What can we make of these coincidences? Luck in the precise form and nature of fundamental physical law is a different kind of luck from the luck we find in environmental factors. It raises the natural question of why it is that way.

Many people would like us to use these coincidences as evidence of the work of God. The idea that the universe was designed to accommodate mankind appears in theologies and mythologies dating from thousands of years ago. In Western culture the Old Testament contains the idea of providential design, but the traditional Christian viewpoint was also greatly influenced by Aristotle, who believed “in an intelligent natural world that functions according to some deliberate design.”

That is not the answer of modern science. As recent advances in cosmology suggest, the laws of gravity and quantum theory allow universes to appear spontaneously from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.

Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws. That multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine tuning. It is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology. If it is true it reduces the strong anthropic principle to the weak one, putting the fine tunings of physical law on the same footing as the environmental factors, for it means that our cosmic habitat—now the entire observable universe—is just one of many.

Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation.

—Stephen Hawking is a professor at the University of Cambridge. Leonard Mlodinow is a physicist who teaches at Caltech. Adapted from “The Grand Design” by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, to be published by Bantam Books on Sept. 7. Copyright © by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow. Printed by arrangement with the Random House Publishing Group.

The following letter was sent by Common Cause to Attorney General Eric Holder regarding ethical issues surrounding two United States Supreme Court Justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

This is a very important letter and doesn’t even mention two other very significant issues, (1) that Justice Thomas did not properly disclose his wife’s income on the required disclosure filing forms, and (2) that Justice Scalia attended a closed meeting of a select group of Congressmen to discuss constitutional issues that well may come before the court.

The conduct of these Supreme Court justices, as clearly explained in the letter, is appallingly partisan and puts a serious stain on the credibility of the court.

The Tea Party, the supposed lovers of the constitution, seem to be hell bent on destroying it in order to save it in the form in their own version of it.

Congratulations to Common Cause for trying to force this issue with the Attorney General. Good luck! This attorney general seems to have no interestin tackling anything that might be the least bit divisive, ala the clear cut case of Bush, Cheney and torture.

The Tea Party may well be right—-both parties are complicit in disregarding the constitution and the Rule of Law, but if Holder takes the responsible and required action in either the conduct of the justices or the torture policy of Bush-Cheney the Tea Party would come unglued.

January 19, 2011

The Honorable Eric Holder, Jr.

Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Dear Attorney General Holder,

The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010), has had a dramatic impact, overturning prior Court precedent, ending restrictions on corporate and union political spending that had been in place since 1947, and fueling a surge in secret and independent spending in the 2010 elections.  Outside groups spent more than $296 million on the 2010 Congressional midterms – a 330 percent increase over 2006 – with more than $135 million of that coming from undisclosed donors¸ according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Since that decision, information has come to light that raises serious questions about the impartiality of Justices Thomas and Scalia in the Citizens United case.  It appears both justices have participated in political strategy sessions, perhaps while the case was pending, with corporate leaders whose political aims were advanced by the decision.  With respect to Justice Thomas, there may also be an undisclosed financial conflict of interest due to his wife’s role as CEO of Liberty Central, a 501(c)(4) organization that stood to benefit from the decision and played an active role in the 2010 elections.

Until these questions are resolved, public debate over allegations of bias and conflicts of interest will serve to undermine the legitimacy of the Citizens United decision and erode public confidence in the integrity of our nation’s highest court. As Attorney General, you are ideally situated to address this matter, both in the interest of justice and in the interest of your client, the Federal Election Commission.  The Commission was the losing party in  Citizens United, but may now have legitimate grounds to seek reconsideration.

Therefore, Common Cause hereby formally requests that the Justice Department promptly investigate whether Justices Thomas and Scalia should have recused themselves from the Citizens United case under 28 U.S.C. § 455. If the Department finds sufficient grounds for disqualification of either Justice, we request that the Solicitor General file a Rule 60(b) motion with the full Supreme Court seeking to vacate the judgment.

The American public deserves answers to a number of questions bearing on whether Justices Thomas or Scalia should be disqualified from the Citizens United case:

1. Would a reasonable person question the impartiality of Justices Thomas and Scalia based on their attendance at secretive Koch Industries retreats?

Federal law requires any United States judge – including a Supreme Court justice – to “disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). “The very purpose of § 455(a) is to promote confidence in the judiciary by avoiding even the appearance of impropriety whenever possible.” Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 865, citing S. Rep. No. 93-419 at 5; H. R. Rep. No. 93-1453 at 5. “Under § 455(a), disqualification is required if a reasonable person who knew the circumstances would question the judge’s impartiality, even though no actual bias or prejudice has been shown.” U.S. v. Tucker, 78 F.3d 1313, 1324 (8^th Cir. 1996)(internal quotes omitted).

In October 2010, news reports revealed that Justices Scalia and Thomas have attended one or more invitation-only retreats sponsored by Koch Industries, the second-largest privately held corporation in the United States and a major political player that directly benefited from the Citizens United decision.[1]

That revelation comes from a letter and information packet, dated September 24, sent by Koch Industries CEO Charles Koch to potential attendees of the next Koch retreat, planned for January 30-31, 2011 in Palm Springs, California. Common Cause has obtained those materials, attached, courtesy of Think Progress, which broke the story.

The description of the Palm Springs program, entitled “Understanding and Addressing Threats to American Free Enterprise and Prosperity,” states that:

This action-oriented program brings together top experts and leaders to discuss –and offer solutions to counter – the most critical threats to our free society. …Past meetings have featured such notable leaders as Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas; Governors Bobby Jindal and Haley Barbour; commentators John Stossel, Charles Krauthammer, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh; Senators Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn; and Representatives Paul Ryan, Mike Pence, and Tom Price.

The Koch Industries retreats are highly political, and attended by an elite group of Republican donors and officials, conservative leaders, and captains of finance and industry. According to Charles Koch’s invitation letter:

At our most recent meeting in Aspen [June 27-28, 2010], our group heard plans to activate citizens against the threat of government over-spending and to change the balance of power in Congress this November. In response, participants committed to an unprecedented level of support. The important work being done with these initiatives continues. (emphasis added)

That “unprecedented support” was made possible by the Supreme Court’s dramatic decision in Citizens United. Koch Industries and its corporate allies derived a direct benefit from the Citizens United decision in the 2010 elections, and the Kochs have founded and provided financial support for other groups that benefited from the decision. The Koch Industries PAC spent $2.6 million in the 2010 election cycle, and individuals associated with Koch Industries and its affiliates contributed another $1.8 million. More than 90 percent of those funds were contributed to Republican candidates.[2] In addition, Americans for Prosperity – founded and funded by the Kochs – stated its intention last summer to spend $45 million to influence the 2010 elections.[3]

The Kochs’ support for deregulation of campaign spending is well documented. A number of the highly influential groups that filed amicus briefs in support of the appellant were founded or funded by the Kochs, including the Cato Institute,[4] Institute for Justice,[5] Pacific Legal Foundation,[6] and the Barry Goldwater Institute for Public Research.[7] Representatives from other amici, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Wyoming Liberty Group, also attended last year’s Koch retreat in Aspen and benefitted from the Citizens United decision.[8] The U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent nearly $33 million to influence the 2010 congressional midterms, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Citizens United case was active before the Supreme Court between January 2008 and January 2010. If Justices Thomas and Scalia attended or spoke at a Koch Industries meeting during that time frame, it would certainly raise serious issues of the appearance of impropriety and bias.

However, no mention of such an event is listed on the Justices’ disclosure forms for 2008 and 2009, and the Koch Industries gatherings themselves are highly secretive. The program for the 2010 Aspen retreat contains a “Confidentiality and Security” section, which states:

In order to understand and develop strategies more effectively, the proceedings of this meeting are confidential. The meetings are closed to the public, including media. Please be mindful of the security and confidentiality of your meeting notes and materials, and do not post updates or information about the meeting on blogs, social media such as Facebook and Twitter, or in traditional media articles. These meetings are invitation-only and nametags should be worn for all meeting functions.

2. Does attendance of a closed-door Koch Industries retreat constitute political activity?

Regardless of the timeframe, we believe it is inappropriate for a Supreme Court judge to be “featured” at or attend closed-door strategy meetings with political donors, corporate CEOs, candidates and political officials, and thereby lend the prestige of their position to the political goals of that event. Canon 5 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges states that:

A judge should not…make speeches for a political organization…or attend or purchase a ticket for a dinner or other event sponsored by a political organization or candidate. …A judge should not engage in any other political activity.

The Code goes on to explain that:

The term “political organization” refers to a political party, a group affiliated with a political party or candidate for public office, or an entity whose principal purpose is to advocate for or against political candidates or parties in connection with elections for public office.

Although the Code of Conduct is not binding on Supreme Court justices, § 455 was modeled upon it, and the Code’s standards are highly instructive with respect to what constitutes a reasonable basis for an appearance of bias. In the context of § 455, the political nature of an event and level of political activity of an organization is more relevant than the formal corporate form of the sponsor. A reasonable person would question the impartiality of Justices Thomas and Scalia in the Citizens United case based on their attendance at political strategy meetings sponsored by a corporation that raises and spends millions to defeat Democrats and elect Republicans.  That appearance is heightened by the highly secretive nature of those meetings, which were closed to the public and the media. Neither Justice Thomas nor Justice Scalia listed their attendance on their disclosure forms, and the public has no way of knowing when the meetings took place in relation to the pendency of the Citizens United case, what issues were discussed or the extent of the Justices’ involvement.

3. Did Justice Thomas have a conflict of interest based on his wife’s interest in the subject matter of the Citizens United case?

In addition to questions concerning the appearance of partiality, the Justice Department should investigate whether Justice Thomas should have recused himself from the Citizens United case based on financial conflicts of interest covered under § 455(b).

In 2009, Justice Thomas’ wife, Virginia “Ginny” Thomas, left her employment at the Heritage Foundation to found a new 501(c)(4) organization, Liberty Central. The organization received initial funding from donations of $500,000 and $50,000, but has not disclosed the donors. Ms. Thomas served as the group’s CEO from November 2009 until December 2010 for an undisclosed salary.

According to the New York Times, Liberty Central is “dedicated to opposing what [Ms. Thomas] characterizes as the leftist ‘tyranny’ of President Obama and Democrats in Congress and to ‘protecting the core founding principles’ of the nation.”[9] After its founding, the group quickly launched an electoral project called “Impact 2010,” stating on its website that:

The election this November will be a historic one. And the left is working hard to maintain its lock on power in Washington, with the help of union allies, and groups like Organizing for America, MoveOn.org, and others. Liberty Central is working to retire those in Congress who support this big government agenda, while simultaneously helping return our country to a more pro-liberty Congress.

The group used a scorecard to help determine its “battleground target races” in order to “ensure that certain elected officials get an early retirement.”[10] It published a list of “pro-liberty candidates” and graded incumbents in targeted districts on an A-F scale, and then used that information to advocate for the election or defeat of congressional candidates.  The New York Times reported that Ms. Thomas told Fox News at a Tea Party rally in Atlanta that, “Liberty Central will be bigger than the Tea Party movement.”[11]

The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, issued on January 21, 2010, provided a substantial benefit to Liberty Central while Ms. Thomas was its CEO by enabling it to raise and spend corporate funds directly advocating the defeat or election of political candidates for the first time in more than 60 years. According to a story in the Los Angeles Times, Ms. Thomas stated that Liberty Central “would accept donations from various sources – including corporations – as allowed under campaign finance rules recently loosened by the Supreme Court.”[12]

Federal law requires a justice to recuse himself when:

He knows that…his spouse…has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy…or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4). As CEO of Liberty Central, Ms. Thomas clearly had an interest that was substantially affected by the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United. Although the law requires knowledge on the part of the judge, it also states that “[a] judge should…make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse.” § 455(c). Given the high public profile of Ms. Thomas and Liberty Central, it would strain credulity for Justice Thomas to claim that he was not aware of this interest.

4. Do Koch Industries ties to his wife’s group, Liberty Central, create an additional appearance of bias for Justice Thomas?

These financial conflicts of interest for Justice Thomas come full circle to the § 455(a) appearance of partiality issue in light of Liberty Central’s ties to Koch Industries. At the time of the Citizens United decision, one of Liberty Central’s five board members was Matt Schlapp. Mr. Schlapp is a registered lobbyist for Koch Industries Inc. and two of its affiliated corporations, and was the former Vice President of Federal Affairs at Koch Companies Public Sector, LLC. He also runs a public affairs firm, Cove Strategies, that has close ties to the Republican Party and the Kochs.[13] Additionally, Mr. Schlapp was assistant treasurer and chair of the candidate selection committee of Koch Industries Inc Political Action Committee (KOCHPAC) in 2008, and still listed himself as a director of KOCHPAC as of February 2010.[14]

When Ms. Thomas left Liberty Central in November 2010, , she was replaced by Sarah Field, a former employee of the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.[15]

The complete lack of transparency of Liberty Central’s finances makes it difficult to assess the full scope of the ethics issues raised by Ms. Thomas’s role in founding and leading the group. Neither Common Cause nor the public at large is able to ascertain the interests of Liberty Central’s principal donor, who contributed $500,000 of the group’s $550,000 income in 2009, while the Citizens United case was pending before the Supreme Court. Liberty Central has declined to identify its funders or disclose its election-related spending, its website does not provide a phone number or physical address, and the address listed on its Form 990 is a UPS store in Burke, Virginia.

Summary and Request for Formal Action

For all of the above stated reasons, we believe that the public interest requires a full investigation by the Justice Department into, and public reporting of, potential grounds for disqualifying Justices Thomas and Scalia from the Citizens United case.

If the Department finds that “a reasonable person who knew the circumstances would question” either justice’s impartiality, § 455(a) requires disqualification. Tucker, 78 F.3d at 1324 (disqualifying a judge based on his relationship with President and Hillary Clinton, who had expressed public support for the defendant). Similarly, a finding that Ginny Thomas had an “interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome” of Citizens United requires disqualification of Justice Thomas under § 455(b). Given that the facts supporting an appearance of bias were not publicly known at the time of the decision, the appropriate remedy for either violation is for the Department to file a motion with the Court to vacate the judgment. Liljeberg, 486 U.S. at 867.

Justice Stevens, writing for the Court in Liljeberg, had the wisdom to predict that the courts’ “willingness to enforce § 455 may prevent a substantial injustice in some future case by encouraging a judge or litigant to more carefully examine possible grounds for disqualification and to promptly disclose them when discovered.” Id. at 868. “The guiding consideration is that the administration of justice should reasonably appear to be disinterested as well as be so in fact.” Id. at 869-70 (quoting Public Utilities Comm’n of D.C. v. Pollak, 343 U.S. 451, 466-67 (1952).

Avoiding bias in a case that affects every voter in our democracy is critical, both to prevent injustice and to avoid further damaging the public’s confidence in our judicial system and the rule of law. We respectfully request a meeting with you at your earliest convenience to discuss these concerns, and urge you to take prompt action to address this important matter.

Sincerely,

Bob Edgar

President and CEO

Arn H. Pearson, Esq.

Vice President for Programs

[2] See http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?cycle=2010&strID=C00236489.

[3] See, e.g., Kate Zernike, Shaping Tea Party Passion Into Campaign Force, New York Times (Aug. 25, 2010), http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/26/us/politics/26freedom.html; Jane Mayer, Covert Operations, The New Yorker (Aug. 30, 2010), http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer.

[4] CATO Institute, CATO Celebrates Its 25^th Anniversary, (May 2002), http://www.cato.org/25th/.

[5] Institute for Justice, IJ Thanks Its Cornerstone Supporters: Charles & David Koch, (November 2001), http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1750&Itemid=245.

[6] SourceWatch, Koch Family Foundations, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Koch_Family_Foundations (last visited Jan. 19, 2011).

[7] Zachary Roth, Group That May Bring Health-Care Lawsuit Is Backed By Big-Name Conservative Funders, TPMMuckracker, (April 7, 2010), http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/group_that_may_bring_health-care_lawsuit_is_backed.php; Media Matters, Conservative Transparency: Goldwater Institute, http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Goldwater_Institute/funders (last visited Jan. 19, 2011).

[8] Fang, supra note 1.

[9] Jackie Calmes, Activism of Thomas’s Wife Could Raise Judicial Issues, New York Times (Oct. 8, 2010), http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/09/us/politics/09thomas.html.

[10] See http://www.libertycentral.org/liberty-centrals-top-races-2010-10.

[11] Calmes, supra note 4.

[12] Kathleen Hennessey, Justice’s wife launches ‘tea party’ group, Los Angeles Times (Mar. 14, 2010), http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/14/nation/la-na-thomas14-2010mar14.

[13] See http://www.covestrategies.com/team.html.

[14] Clerk of the House of Representatives, Matt Schlapp: Lobby Contribution Report, ( July, 25, 2008), http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=13f00549-5473-4073-8cd1-d11ad0d7d286; Federal Election Commission, Campaign Finance Reports and Data, http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?10930593442 (last visited Jan. 18, 2011).

[15] See http://www.libertycentral.org/about. 

For all information referenced in this letter, see this documentation PDF.

by The Economics of Happiness – the Movie The Economics of Happiness

Economic globalization has led to a massive expansion in the scale and power of big business and banking. It has also worsened nearly every problem we face: fundamentalism and ethnic conflict; climate chaos and species extinction; financial instability and unemployment. There are personal costs too. For the majority of people on the planet life is becoming increasingly stressful. We have less time for friends and family and we face mounting pressures at work.

See the trailer to the movie at this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZL0dp-xzhw

The Economics of Happiness describes a world moving simultaneously in two opposing directions. On the one hand, government and big business continue to promote globalization and the consolidation of corporate power. At the same time, all around the world people are resisting those policies, demanding a re-regulation of trade and finance—and, far from the old institutions of power, they’re starting to forge a very different future. Communities are coming together to re-build more human scale, ecological economies based on a new paradigm — an economics of localization.

We hear from a chorus of voices from six continents including Vandana Shiva, Bill McKibben, David Korten, Michael Shuman, Juliet Schor, Zac Goldsmith and Samdhong Rinpoche – the Prime Minister of Tibet’s government in exile. They tell us that climate change and peak oil give us little choice: we need to localize, to bring the economy home. The good news is that as we move in this direction we will begin not only to heal the earth but also to restore our own sense of well-being. The Economics of Happiness restores our faith in humanity and challenges us to believe that it is possible to build a better world.

A recent University of Maryland study confirms that those who watch Fox News daily are significantly more likely than those who never watch it to believe that:

• Most economists estimate the stimulus caused job losses. (It has created millions of jobs.)

• Most economists estimate that the health care bill will worsen the deficit. (Most estimate it will reduce the deficit.)

• The economy is getting worse. (It is improving.)

• Most scientists do not agree that climate change is occurring. (Scientists are at near consensus that it is.)

• The stimulus did not include tax cuts. (Forty percent of it was in tax cuts to the middle class and small businesses.)

• Their own income taxes have gone up. (They have gone down.)

• The auto bailout only occurred under President Barack Obama. (The program was initiated by President George W. Bush.)

• Most Republican congressmen opposed TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program. (Republicans overwhelmingly voted for it.)

• It is not clear that Obama was born in the United States. (His birth certificate has been authenticated by experts.)

Fox News intentionally misinforms. It can better advance its far-right agenda when its viewers are ignorant.

Jim Sargent

Salt Lake City

Newsweek

Thousands of years ago, trade caravans packed with spices and silk crisscrossed the Eurasian land mass along routes collectively known as the Silk Road. These caravans connected Constantinople to China’s then-capital, Changan, and even today the city (now Xian) has an ancient Muslim quarter and a self-assuredness evoking that bygone era. In those days, all roads led to China, which lived up to its name as the Middle Kingdom. (In Chinese the country is called Zhongguo, literally Middle Country.) Now with an audacious scheme to link 17 countries with more than 8,000 kilometers of high-speed railway—ultimately capable of transporting cargo as well as passengers all the way to London—China hopes to revive its role at the center of the universe.

This is a marvelous achievement and puts China in an enviable position for the next century. What is America doing? Nothing! Our gross national product is exchanging money back and forth and most of it going into the pockets of Wall Street bankers—and they produce nothing. Banks are supposed to be the grease of our economy, but all they do is grease their own pockets.

Our political system is in regression with the Republicans preferring the 19th century to the 21st.

“Give us the good old days,” is their cry, as they say “no, no, no” to any move into the 21st century.

America is dying and the free enterprise system will eventually be regarded by historians as a ‘flash in the pan.’

The best form of government is a combination of an active and progressive government in consort with a fair and equitable and carefully supervised free enterprise system. Currently America has neither component.

The government has focused on fruitless foreign wars instead of productive infra-structure ventures. Our leaders have falsely figured that it is easier to steal oil from others through force of arms than it is to build a new green energy industry through productive work. Ironically, we will probably end up with neither foreign oil or home built green energy.

Even by larger-than-life Chinese standards, the plans seem mind-boggling. The first long-distance line inside China, linking inland Wuhan to coastal Guangzhou, opened in December, hit-ting top speeds of 350kph, faster than the speediest trains of Europe or Japan. Beijing hopes to have 800 bullet trains running across China by 2013 and, soon after that, across the border. Two networks will connect China to Europe—with terminuses in London and Berlin—and a third will link to Vietnam, Thailand, Burma, Malaysia, and Singapore. Chinese engineers have begun work in Burma, and Beijing says Central and Eastern European countries are keen for the building to start. The planned rail deals will vastly improve China’s ability to transport crucial energy resources from suppliers in developing countries. “If the system is completed, it’ll be more convenient for us to tap into natural resources, especially oil and gas, in Myanmar, Iran, and Russia,” says Wang Mengshu, a Jiaotong University professor and consultant to China’s high-speed-rail projects.

China’s rail network is a 21st-century, high-tech marvel married to a 19th-century view of the world as a hostile place, in which nations are well advised to secure their trade routes with exclusive deals—and arms where necessary. Its forerunners go back to the 18th century, when the British cemented their imperial power with railways in India. Russia followed suit as its own empire grew, completing the Trans-Caspian railway from Turkmenistan to the Caspian port Krasnovodsk in 1889, and the Trans-Aral Railway from Central Asia through Kazakhstan to the Russian heartland. Indeed, China’s network is the first transcontinental project in Asia since Russia finished the Trans-Siberian Railway, from European Russia to Vladivostok, in 1916. The difference in the China project is that it is more extensive than all those projects put together.

China’s vision is at odds with the hopes that opened this century for a world of free markets and open borders, and it animates many of China’s latest mega-projects. A new gas pipeline from Turkmenistan to China’s remote Xinjiang province has already siphoned off 50 billion of the country’s 80 billion cubic meters of gas. China is helping secure its access to strategic ports in Pakistan, Burma, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. The Chinese leadership is intensely focused on securing and expanding its shipping routes. These new Silk Roads are a sign of how China sees the world of the future—less predictable and more dangerous. Threats, including a potential trade war with the West, and conflicts over energy security abound. Witness China’s unease over U.S. threats of sanctions against one of its main oil suppliers, Iran. In this world, Beijing believes it will be better to have constructed strategic facilities—railways, ports, pipelines—especially in less developed countries that lack experience or financing for such projects. In return, China is eyeing important long-term transport or supply contracts for natural resources. In one such technology-for-resources deal, Beijing is building a rail system for Burma in exchange for Burmese lithium.

Still, Beijing can’t control everything that comes and goes on a network this big. If the ancient Silk Road was one of the first grand avenues of globalization, fueling trade from the Celestial Kingdom to medieval Europe, the new railroad will be the latest. All of its lines will carry both passengers and cargo, and are designed to keep China’s economic miracle on track, as trade with Europe and the emerging markets grows. Thanks to China’s energy hunger, its involvement with Mideast nations is also growing fast, as the Chinese exploit Iranian natural gas, Iraqi oilfields, and Afghanistan’s Aynak copper mine. Ben Simpfendorfer, chief China economist for the Royal Bank of Scotland and author of The New Silk Road: How a Rising Arab World Is Turning Away From the West and Rediscovering China, says mainland merchants are fine-tuning products to appeal to these new consumers. Chinese-porcelain sellers are hawking less blue porcelain, popular among European buyers, and more red porcelain, popular among Arab buyers. China’s new Silk Road strategy is meant to fill the vacuum of “strategic emptiness” that emerged in Central Asia after the fall of the Soviet Union, and could lead to bilateral tensions. Over the last decade Chinese economic influence has been slowly but surely eroding Russian power in what Moscow regards as its Central Asian backyard. Although Beijing has been careful to avoid public confrontation, its inroads in the region have riled Russians. “By building their new Silk Road [railway], China is interfering in Russia’s sphere of influence in Central Asia,” says pro-Kremlin Russian lawmaker Konstantin Zatulin, the head of the Commonwealth of Independent States committee in the Duma, Russia’s parliament.

The key to the new Chinese empire is not occupying turf but seeking reliable transport networks that aren’t easily disrupted by powerful potential rivals, such as the U.S., Russia, or even India. Beijing’s heavy involvement in developing infrastructure at Pakistan’s port of Gwadar, for example, is linked to the fact that Gwadar is the downstream hub for pipelines linking Central Asia to China. In short, the new Silk Road is aimed at building a whole new world of infrastructure links that diminish Chinese reliance on traditional trade routes through the Strait of Hormuz (turf of the U.S. Fifth Fleet) and the Strait of Malacca (stamping ground of the U.S. Seventh Fleet). “If [those waterways] were to become blockaded, it would be a big problem for Chinese sea transport,” says foreign-policy analyst Gao Heng of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, who believes authorities are very concerned about bottlenecks to energy imports. High-speed rail is part one of a backup plan to ensure energy security.

Because China is not intent on colonization, its domination can be much more subtle, achieved even through apparently minor technical tweaks. In the case of the railways, gauge is the key. A traveler who rides the rails from Beijing to Europe today must spend days on the Trans-Siberian Railway, built by Moscow a century ago. Russian railways—which still dominate in Central Asia as well—run on wider gauge than Europe’s and China’s, and that results in time-consuming delays at national borders to accommodate for the switch.

All high-speed trains run on the European gauge, meaning that Central Asian nations will have to change over if Beijing lures them away from the old Russian models. The geopolitical fallout could be intense. “Chinese projects in Central Asia sound threatening to Russia’s economy, especially if China actually does build the railroad through Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan,” says Azhdar Kurtov, a senior researcher at the Russian Institute of Strategic Research. “Russia has lost Central Asia,” says Yuri Krupnov of Moscow’s Institute of Demography and Regional Development. While Russia was “asleep” or distracted by conflicts with Ukraine and Georgia, China moved in—under the cover of the global economic crisis—to seal energy deals in Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, and now the same will happen with rail projects in Central Asia, he predicts.

Critics of Beijing’s rail ambitions point to the high cost and question whether the scheme is simply a fast track toward centrally planned vanity and extravagance. While negotiating with many potential partners in Europe, for example, Beijing must convince powerful vested interests that its lower costs, and an impressive domestic record in promoting high-speed rail, can overcome technical challenges and potential grassroots opposition. Beijing says it’s already conducted some surveys in Europe—but the only one of the three major rail lines on which its workers have actually broken ground is in Burma. (Indeed, Russian Railways spokesman Dmitry Pertsev says his firm isn’t losing sleep over Beijing’s planned “mega-railroads” because “they sound like dream-fantasy plans.”) But high-speed train travel is green; its emissions are about one fourth those created by flying or driving. And the Chinese regime considers massive infrastructure projects a traditional source of job creation when economic times are tough. After the global recession bit into China’s export sector, the government unveiled a massive financial stimulus package with domestic rail building as a key component. The Beijing-Shanghai high-speed rail project employs some 110,000 workers.

The question is whether the outside world will see China’s high-speed rail dreams as a win-win deal for the international community—serving to transcend national borders, promote free trade, and shrink the world. Or will it instead see Beijing’s mercantilist pursuit of its own interests, in the form of proprietary involvement in key transport routes? The devil will be in the details of the many international deals that Beijing’s rail planners, for the most part, have yet to pin down. If completed, the new Silk Road would accelerate China’s trade with partners in Central Asia and Europe, possibly giving it an advantage over rivals such as Russia. Yet it could also help provide affordable low-emissions transport to countries that otherwise would face daunting financial or technological obstacles. Beijing is already building high-speed rail routes in Turkey, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia. It’s also signed preliminary agreements with the state of California and General Electric, reflecting China’s hopes to provide technology, hardware, engineers, and some financing to build high-speed rail lines on the West Coast of the U.S., which now lags behind China in the field. Officially at least, Beijing authorities tout the mutual good that its global rail schemes will bring—as well as the advertisements such deals will represent for the “Made in China” brand.

The very process of negotiating its transcontinental rail deals could have a transformative effect on the Chinese regime. One reason why high-speed rail is so attractive domestically is that authorities can still largely push through massive infrastructure projects by decree, relocating entire communities and quashing labor unrest. By contrast, one of Beijing’s target markets is India, where China’s ruling mandarins will have to deal with a democratic process around infrastructure decisions, along with a feisty labor force. If Chinese authorities can’t navigate such obstacles, their grandiose dream may be derailed. Whatever happens, Beijing’s efforts to build a new Silk Road of iron offers a revealing peek at what the Pax Sinica may bring in years to come.

The Salt Lake Tribune

Published: January 3, 2011 03:45PM

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced Monday that Gasco Energy, Inc., will pay a $350,000 penalty and institute new air-pollution controls at its Uinta Basin facilities for multiple violations of the Clean Air Act.

Gasco, the former operator of the Riverbend Compressor Station on the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation near Vernal, will cut air pollution at its Uinta Basin operations by more than 550 tons per year, the EPA said.

The Denver-based company did not respond to calls seeking comment.

Meanwhile, EPA applauded the consent decree lodged by the U.S. Justice Department in Salt Lake City last week.

“Under this agreement, Gasco and its successors will make significant investments to reduce emissions from facilities throughout the Uinta Basin,” said Jim Martin, EPA’s regional administrator in Denver. “EPA will continue to work with partners, including oil and gas operators, to protect air quality resources for the benefit of those who live in the basin.”

Hooray! It looks like the EPA is back in business. It would be interesting to know how many fines and the amounts were imposed during the eight years of the anti-regulation Bush Administration as compared to the Obama Administration.

Another point of interest that is seldom followed up on in the news—-how many companies actually pay the fines and how many fines are significantly reduced and what was the relationship between fines and political contributions.

Gasco allegedly violated the Clean Air Act at the Riverbend facility in a number of ways, according to a complaint filed with the consent decree. The allegations stem from violations the company disclosed voluntarily on hazardous air pollutant emission standards, federal permitting, emissions monitoring and reporting requirements.

The added controls will mean a reduction of about 427 tons of volatile organic compounds and hazardous air pollutants per year, the EPA said. The pollutants are key factors in the creation of ozone, which has emerged as a problem so serious in the Uinta Basin that monitoring last year showed the area was one of the nation’s worst for ozone pollution.

The pollutants worsen respiratory problems, including asthma, and they reduce lung capacity even in healthy individuals. They also can harm the heart, the brain and the nervous system, in addition to damaging ecosystems and reducing visibility.

As part of the agreement, the company will install emission controls on dehydrators, compressor engines and storage tanks. In addition, Gasco and its successors will install no-bleed or low-bleed pneumatic controls on gas compressors and well heads at all operating facilities in the Uinta Basin. A pneumatic is a controller that uses pressurized pipeline gas to open or close valves. The use of low-bleed units reduces emissions of air pollutants and conserves gas.

The consent decree, lodged in U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, is subject to a 30-day comment period and the court’s final approval.

The Associated Press

Published: January 1, 2011 09:15PM

Tokyo • Japan has been overtaken by China as the world’s No. 2 economy. Its flagship company, Toyota, recalled more than 10 million vehicles in an embarrassing safety crisis. Its fourth prime minister resigned in three years, and the government remains unable to jolt an economy entering its third decade of stagnation.

For once-confident Japan, 2010 may well mark a symbolic milestone in its slide from economic giant to what experts see as its likely destiny: a second-tier power with some standout companies but limited global influence.

As Japanese drink up at year-end parties known as “bonen-kai,” or “forget-the-year gatherings,” this is one many will be happy to forget.

Problem is, there’s little to look forward to. With a rapidly aging population, bulging national debt, political gridlock and a risk-averse culture slow to embrace change, Japan’s prospects aren’t promising. And a tense, high-seas spat with China has intensified fears of its neighbor as a military as well as economic threat.

A few optimists hope Japan can harness its strength in technology and its “Cool Japan” cultural appeal — from fashion and art to “anime” cartoons. The country needs to shed its reliance on manufacturing, they argue, and find new growth areas such as green energy, software engineering and health care for its elderly.

But talk to university students, and their outlook is bleak.

Many worry about finding steady jobs and whether they can support families — concerns that have contributed to Japan’s low fertility rate of 1.3 children per woman. Average household income has fallen 9 percent since 1993.

Makoto Miyazaki, a 22-year-old student at prestigious Keio University in Tokyo, senses forces outside his control — and Japan’s — are going to dictate his future.

“Internationally, Japan is between big countries like China and the U.S. And Korea is becoming a major competitor — that’s a big threat to Japan,” he said. “I feel like we have fewer choices.”

It’s a startling contrast with the 1980s, when Japan was flush with cash and some experts believed its economy was poised to dominate the world.

Millions have given up the goal of lifetime employment at a major corporation and become “freeters,” flitting among temporary jobs with few if any benefits. As companies cut costs, temporary workers have grown to a third of the work force, up from 16 percent in the mid-1980s.

Further, the population is projected to fall from 127 million to 90 million by 2055 — 40 percent of them over the age of 65. That’s going to place a heavy tax burden on workers.

Prime Minister Naoto Kan has acknowledged Japan’s declining status.

His prescription: “Open up the country.” He advocates reducing trade barriers, loosening regulations and making the country a more attractive place to invest.

His Cabinet recently approved cutting the corporate tax rate by 5 percentage points to 35 percent and is weighing whether Japan should join a U.S.-led free trade zone, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that would slash tariffs on everything from electronics to food.

Business leaders say doing so is vital, but farmers fear a flood of cheaper imports would ruin them. Analysts say it could be a vehicle for economic revival but also lead to job losses and social dislocation, especially in rural areas.

Some say sweeping changes are needed in both policy and mindset, from expanding the social safety net to overcoming a deep fear of failure that has constrained entrepreneurship and risk-taking — and Japan’s economic potential.

Japan can be innovative: It is the world leader in hybrid vehicles and industrial robots. Nintendo’s “Wii” gaming console is a hit in living rooms around the world. Entrepreneur Tadashi Yanai, Japan’s richest person, built Fast Retailing Co. and its low-cost Uniqlo brand into one of Asia’s biggest clothing retailers.

But Japan sometimes undermines itself by being insular.

One optimist is Michael Alfant, an American who has worked in Japan for 20 years. He sees the country becoming more entrepreneurial and focusing on opportunities in service industries.

“Japan is reinventing itself,” said Alfant, CEO of Fusion Systems, a startup software company, and the incoming president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Japan. “I’m very confident Japan will get there.”

December 16, 2010|By Shari Roan, Los Angeles Times

Children born to mothers who live close to freeways have twice the risk of autism, researchers reported Thursday. The study, its authors say, adds to evidence suggesting that certain environmental exposures could play a role in causing the disorder in some children.

“This study isn’t saying exposure to air pollution or exposure to traffic causes autism,” said Heather Volk, lead author of the paper and a researcher at the Saban Research Institute of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles. “But it could be one of the factors that are contributing to its increase.”

Reported cases of autism cases increased by 57% between 2002 and 2006, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, although professionals still debate whether rates have actually risen or a greater proportion of autistic children is being diagnosed. An estimated 1 in 110 children is diagnosed with autism today. There is no cure, although research has shown that various therapies can mitigate some symptoms, especially if begun early in life.

In the current study, published online in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, researchers looked at 304 children with autism and, for comparison, 259 children who were developing normally. The children, between the ages of 24 months and 60 months at the start of the study, lived in communities around Los Angeles, San Francisco and Sacramento.

Each family was evaluated in person, and all of the children received developmental assessments. Researchers collected data on where each child’s mother lived during pregnancy and at the time of birth, and the proximity of the homes to a major road or freeway.

Children living about 1,000 feet from a freeway at birth — about 10% of the sample — had a two-fold increase in autism risk. The link held up even after researchers controlled for other factors that may influence development, such as ethnicity, parental education, maternal age and exposure to tobacco smoke.

The study did not find a link between autism development and proximity to a major road, as opposed to a freeway. That may be due to the type and quantity of chemicals dispersed on freeways compared with major roads, Volk said. In Los Angeles, some freeways carry more than 300,000 vehicles daily.

Gayle Windham, chief of the epidemiology surveillance unit with the California Department of Health Services Environmental Investigations Branch, said the study did not directly implicate air pollution as a risk factor for autism because it did not have a way of measuring how much pollution the mothers were exposed to during pregnancy.

“They are using a proxy measure for air pollution, which is distance to a freeway,” she said. “But you still don’t know how much time the women spent at home or working or commuting.” Windham was not involved in the study.

Windham was the lead author of a 2006 study, also published in Environmental Health Perspectives, that found that children with autism were about 50% more likely to have a birth residence in an area with hazardous air pollutants. The study was based on air pollution data from the Environmental Protection Agency that was matched to birth records in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Research like this suggests environmental factors need more attention, said Clara Lajonchere, vice president of clinical programs for the advocacy group Autism Speaks. Lajonchere was not involved in the study.

“The implication could be very far reaching in terms of prevention and public health concerns,” Lajonchere said. “I think it’s pretty well established that genes play a huge role in autism. But there is something going on beyond genetics.”

Chronic exposure to air pollution during pregnancy is thought to have physical effects on the fetus. High levels of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter have been linked to a higher risk of preterm birth and low birth weight. Chemicals such as ozone, sulfur dioxide and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or PAHs, have also been identified as harmful to a developing fetus.

“We know there are some chemicals in air pollution coming from diesel exhaust that might be a good forerunner to look at,” Volk said. “But right now we really don’t know what it is about air pollution that is associated with autism.”

Families residing close to freeways may have to wait for more research before scientists can issue advice or recommendations on what to do about this potential risk, Volk said. For one thing, this study requires replication, she said. In addition, future studies will attempt to identify the level of exposure to particular pollutants.

shari.roan@latimes.com

Published: December 18, 2010 01:01AM
(Ed Firmage Jr. is a fine-art photographer in Salt Lake City.)

From the beginning, America has been a land of opportunity. And because of this, Americans dreamed big.

Our optimism comes from the unique experience of starting our national adventure with a continent of pristine land at our feet. America before Europeans was of course not uninhabited or untouched by people. But the native inhabitants practiced a mode of living that left the land intact. They, therefore, as much as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, are our founding fathers and mothers.

And so, unlike any people since the Stone Age, settlers in America enjoyed the benefit of a continent of unspoiled resources. For as long as the frontier remained, Americans could look West and see a future that was theirs to make and enjoy. As historian Frederick Jackson Turner observed, our character stems from our relationship with a frontier that seemed to be never-ending.

In the years following the “closing” of the frontier in 1890, Americans found themselves enmeshed in global problems that were not of our making: the suicide of Europe’s empires in World War I and the ensuing collapse of the idiotic peace that followed. The “war to end all wars,” in fact, set the stage for a century of war that included not only World War II but also the Cold War.

Together, these three big wars and the countless little wars they spawned defined America in ways that we ourselves might not have chosen as pioneers on the frontier or as participants in the great constitutional debate that marked our debut as a nation. Modern America is certainly not the world that my ancestors, who came West to build the Kingdom of God, would have chosen.

The 20th century and the beginning of the 21st are in fact a detour from our appointed course. Our Founding Fathers, who created the world’s first democracy since ancient Greece, dreamed of a society that would work differently from that of Europe.

Thus, for example, the founders set in place a legal framework that made it difficult for the president to wage war. Subsequent American history has been the story of the undoing of this intent of the framers.

And so, in ways and to a degree that would shock Thomas Jefferson or George Washington, America finds itself today playing warlord in Afghanistan.

The tragedy of America is that, in spite of being “on top,” we’ve lost our sense of purpose, the true defining of which was interrupted by the century of Europe’s wars and their disastrous impact on the American soul. The tragedy is our present false sense of self as a superpower. It’s a tragedy because being a superpower is a fantasy, a dark fantasy, not a life’s purpose for ordinary people. Superpower is the dream of tyrants, not democrats.

What, then, is our course in the next century to be? Is it continuing the long detour of militarism and corporate empire building (Eisenhower’s “military-industrial complex)?

Speaking for myself, I’d like to think that we have greater collective wisdom than that. I believe that our mission lies in the job, interrupted in the early 20th century, of creating a radically better kind of society.

The key now, as then, is having a frontier to challenge us. Free land is gone. But free power is everywhere, in sun and wind. Clean power, if we will embrace it, is the answer not only to our need for energy but our even deeper need, manifested by our present neurotic behavior, for high purpose in what we do.

And what purpose could be more inspiring than creating a way of life that will last!

Ed Firmage Jr. is a fine-art photographer in Salt Lake City.

The New York Times

Published: December 2, 2010 01:01AM

While secrets from WikiLeaks were splashed all over the American newspapers, I couldn’t help but wonder: What if China had a WikiLeaker and we could see what its embassy in Washington was reporting about America? I suspect the cable would read like this:

Washington Embassy, People’s Republic of China, to Ministry of Foreign Affairs Beijing, TOP SECRET/Subject: America today.

Things are going well here for China. America remains a deeply politically polarized country, which is certainly helpful for our goal of overtaking the U.S. as the world’s most powerful economy and nation. But we’re particularly optimistic because the Americans are polarized over all the wrong things.

This is a clever twist on the WikiLeaks controversy. It pretty much describes the current state of affairs in America.

There is a willful self-destructiveness in the air here as if America has all the time and money in the world for petty politics. They fight over things like — we are not making this up — how and where an airport security officer can touch them. They are fighting — we are happy to report — over the latest nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia.

It seems as if the Republicans are so interested in weakening President Barack Obama that they are going to scuttle a treaty that would have fostered closer U.S.-Russian cooperation on issues like Iran. And since anything that brings Russia and America closer could end up isolating us, we are grateful to Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona for putting our interests ahead of America’s and blocking Senate ratification of the treaty. The ambassador has invited Kyl and his wife for dinner at Mr. Kao’s Chinese restaurant to praise him for his steadfastness in protecting America’s (read: our) interests.

Americans just had what they call an “election.” Best we could tell it involved one congressman trying to raise more money than the other (all from businesses they are supposed to be regulating) so he could tell bigger lies on TV more often about the other guy before the other guy could do it to him. This leaves us relieved. It means America will do nothing serious to fix its structural problems: a ballooning deficit, declining educational performance, crumbling infrastructure and diminished immigration of new talent.

The ambassador recently took what the Americans call a fast train — the Acela — from Washington to New York City. Our bullet train from Beijing to Tianjin would have made the trip in 90 minutes. His took three hours — and it was on time! Along the way the ambassador used his cell phone to call his embassy office, and in one hour he experienced 12 dropped calls — again, we are not making this up.

We have a joke in the embassy: “When someone calls you from China today it sounds like they are next door. And when someone calls you from next door in America, it sounds like they are calling from China!” Those of us who worked in China’s embassy in Zambia often note that Africa’s cell phone service was better than America’s.

But the Americans are oblivious. They travel abroad so rarely that they don’t see how far they are falling behind. Which is why we at the embassy find it funny that Americans are now fighting over how “exceptional” they are. Once again, we are not making this up.

On the front page of The Washington Post on Monday there was an article noting that Republicans Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee are denouncing Obama for denying “American exceptionalism.” The Americans have replaced working to be exceptional with talking about how exceptional they still are. They don’t seem to understand that you can’t declare yourself “exceptional,” only others can bestow that adjective upon you.

In foreign policy, we see no chance of Obama extricating U.S. forces from Afghanistan. He knows the Republicans will call him a wimp if he does, so America will keep hemorrhaging $190 million a day there.

Therefore, America will lack the military means to challenge us anywhere else, particularly on North Korea, where our lunatic friends continue to yank America’s chain every six months so that the Americans have to come and beg us to calm things down.

By the time the Americans do get out of Afghanistan, the Afghans will surely hate them so much that China’s mining companies already operating there should be able to buy up the rest of Afghanistan’s rare minerals.

Most of the Republicans just elected to Congress do not believe what their scientists tell them about man-made climate change. America’s politicians are mostly lawyers — not engineers or scientists like ours — so they’ll just say crazy things about science and nobody calls them on it. It’s good. It means they will not support any bill to spur clean energy innovation, which is central to our next five-year plan.

And this ensures that our efforts to dominate the wind, solar, nuclear and electric car industries will not be challenged by America.

Finally, record numbers of U.S. high school students are now studying Chinese, which should guarantee us a steady supply of cheap labor that speaks our language here, as we use our $2.3 trillion in reserves to quietly buy up U.S. factories. In sum, things are going well for China in America.

Thank goodness the Americans can’t read our diplomatic cables.

Embassy Washington.

Published: November 29, 2010 05:45AM

The fight over public access to Utah streams that flow over private property is far from over. A group of fly fishermen and river runners has filed suit to overturn the law the Legislature passed this year that tipped the balance in favor of private property owners.

In the meantime, the Legislature’s Waterways Task Force is preparing to launch an enhanced program that would use federal and state funds to pay for walk-in access for the public to private lands that abut and underlie public waters.

We seldom disagree with a Tribune editorial, but we take strong exception to this one.

The Trib has it wrong. Streams do not flow over private property. Streams, lakes, and reservoirs and reasonable access are public property as ruled by the Utah Supreme Court. We should never give in on that point. Adjacent private property owners should have no right to prohibit the public from reasonable access to the public waterways. That should be understood whenever anyone buys property adjacent to public waters.

The idea that an individual or group can buy property around our rivers and streams and bar the public from access is repugnant. In essence they are simply co-opting public property for their own private use. Theoretically, if one person can do it, multitudes can do it, and it would only take a handful of people to buy up miles of contiguous streams for their own private use, including some of the best fishing areas in the state and some of the most beautiful, awe inspiring places in the state.

It is not so different than selling off portions of our state and national parks to wealthy individuals. Most of our rivers, streams, lakes, and reservoirs are public property and shouldn’t be sold off piece by piece for private use. Those rivers and streams are ‘ours’ now and they should remain so, and having to pay the encroaching land owners a fee to use our own property is simply extortion.

The Tribune sub-headline reads: “Paying property owners makes sense.” The Trib has it wrong. It makes nonsense!!

Until the court makes a final ruling it should impose an injunction against enforcement of the law.

“Happy fishing to one and all!”

It is impossible to predict how the court challenge to the new law, the Public Waters Access Act, will turn out or how long it might take. Meanwhile, paying willing property owners for public acceess would be an excellent way to proceed.

The Division of Wildlife Resources has obtained $2 million in federal grants over the next two years to buy public walk-in access across private property, and the Legislature’s Executive Appropriations Committee has given initial approval for the division to use $300,000 in restricted fees from state fishing licenses for the same purpose. Paying private property owners for public access to wade on private stream beds or walk across private lands to reach public streams is the fairest way to solve this knotty problem.

Some fishers disagree. They believe that a 2008 Utah Supreme Court decision gave them an easement to play in the water and wade on stream beds, even if they are privately owned. But the Legislature changed that with the new law this year, and until the courts rule on the lawsuit that challenges that law, private property owners have a right to restrict wading access to their property, which is as it should be.

Finally, there is a third developing story in this debate. The Public Waters Access Act provides that public recreational access to a private property is established if the public has used it continuously and openly for 10 consecutive years after Sept. 22, 1982. The law also provides that a person or the DWR can file a quiet title action to have a court declare a right to public recreational access in such circumstances.

A committee currently is reviewing which streams in Utah that flow over private property are the best candidates for this designation.

Under the same law, the public is free to float over private stream beds and fish while floating, so long as people don’t stop and they only touch the bed to promote safe passage, to keep moving or to portage around an obstacle.

If all this sounds a bit confusing, it is. But as officials work to obtain public access to private sections of streams, things should get clearer.

The Salt Lake Tribune

Published: November 24, 2010 09:47AM

Federal environmental regulators are cracking down on the Utah air-quality rules that cover times when companies release unplanned pollution.

If the state Division of Air Quality cannot fix its regulation in a year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency can restrict new building in high-pollution areas and even block federal highway funds statewide. But Utah officials and the EPA say they are trying to find a workable solution before it comes to that.

“It’s our expectation, we’ll have this resolved before those sanctions would be triggered,” said Carl Daly of EPA’s air office in Denver.

Jeremy Nichols, who works with the environmental group WildEarth Guardians, is applauding the crackdown. The group sued the EPA to force it to close what it calls a state loophole that gives Utah’s 1,200 air-pollution permit holders a “blanket exemption to clean-air limits” when their plants have “unintentional breakdowns.”

Utahns would rather have bad air and poor health than comply with federal agents telling them how to live. The problem with Utahns is they think that it’s Utah air and not federal air. Utahns don’t mind living in thick, unhealthy air as long as they are making a buck, and even if they aren’t making a buck they hate the feds telling them anything.

That’s why this matter is in court. The EPA has a national obligation to see that the air moving in and out of Utah meets federal health standards, and of course, under the Republicans all federal regulatory agencies are put in mothballs until they are forced into court.

“It puts the state in a position where it’s difficult to enforce” the Clean Air Act, Nichols said.

“This is people’s clean air at stake.”

Utah air regulators have been talking with the EPA and companies with air permits for more than five years about how best to bring the state regulation in line with the Clean Air Act. The court has given the EPA until February to force the state to bring its law in line.

The main area of disagreement is over whether a violation is automatic when a power plant, refinery, cement maker or other source of regulated emissions releases excessive pollution during a breakdown.

Businesses like Utah’s approach because it gives them an opportunity to explain their reasons before being accused of a violation. But the EPA and environmentalists say Utah’s rules make it hard for the public and regulators to keep tabs on those excess-pollution emissions and enforce the federal clean air law.

The breakdowns case is not the only one in which environmental groups have successfully forced the EPA to bring Utah’s air laws in line with federal ones. Similar court-ordered deadlines have been imposed on problems with particulate matter, smoke-management and other state regulations that are out of sync with federal law.

Since the state Division of Air Quality has agreed to carry out the federal Clean Air Act, the EPA has to make sure that the state’s efforts are on par with federal requirements.

Cheryl Heying, director of Utah air programs, noted the deadlines are tight for meeting the EPA’s requirements. The state has a year to come up with an acceptable regulation once the EPA fields public comment and makes a final decision about how to proceed.

In the event that the EPA can’t legally accept Utah’s proposed fix, sanctions would be phased in, with pollution-reduction constraints on new construction of buildings that add significant pollution. And, if the disagreement isn’t settled within six months, federal highway funding worth — roughly $200 million to $215 million a year, according to the Utah Department of Transportation — could also be restricted.

“We’ve got to go through the process and gather input,” Heying said, noting that transportation, industry and government representatives will all be at the table.

State regulators have estimated in the past that there are between 20 and 40 times a year when companies report pollution from breakdowns.

Daly said the Clean Air Act requires the state to stay within a “budget” to limit air pollution, on a day-to-day basis as well as during unusual situations when a pipe breaks or pollution equipment fails. States like Wyoming and Colorado that had breakdown regulations like Utah’s have revised theirs and now comply with EPA standards.

Salt Lake City-based environmental attorney Joro Walker called the EPA’s action “a significant issue.” She expects to voice her support for the EPA’s crackdown during a formal public input period that continues through Dec. 20.

“I’m glad the EPA is taking this step,” she said. “But it is unfortunate it took so long. They had to be sued to be forced to take this action.”

Tom Bingham, president of the Utah Manufacturers Association, said his group would also submit comments on the EPA’s plans and take part in the state’s effort to comply with the EPA’s requirements. The state’s breakdown rule, which his group helped craft years ago, gives Utah the enforcement tools Bingham says it needs to deal with bad actors.

“I guess the [EPA’s] assumption is that [all breakdowns] are avoidable,” he said, “and that’s just not the case.”

Sometimes equipment fails even if it is properly operated and maintained, Bingham said. In those cases, a company should not automatically be found in violation and subject to big fines that could put them out of business.

fahys@sltrib.com

—

Weigh in on clean air

The EPA is taking comments soon on its plans to force Utah to update its “unavoidable breakdown” rule. It has published its rationale in the Federal Register and will accept comments through Dec. 20. Details about how to submit comments are in the Federal Register notice. You can see the notice here › http://tinyurl.com/33xbrad.

and Peter S. Lozancich

The Salt Lake Tribune

Published: November 15, 2010 09:34AM

Eight months after the governor gave life to a law that restricts the public’s access to Utah’s rivers and streams, a group has made a push to get back to the water’s edge.

The Utah Stream Access Coalition, a nonprofit group created to preserve public access to the state’s waterways, filed a lawsuit Friday challenging the constitutionality of Public Waters Access Act, which was passed by the Legislature in 2010.

It’s nice to see that fisherman have got as much fight as fish.

Everyone should have access to our rivers, streams, lakes, and reservoirs just as readily as we do our public sidewalks and roads.  It seems obvious on its face and those who buy property adjacent to rivers and streams should understand that up front. It’s a simple matter of common sense.

The owner of land should have access to his property, and that means that the public should have access to public property, and private owners should have access to their private property. You would think that advocates of property rights would be respectful of property rights, including both public and private property instead of just their own selfish and narrow interest.

The legislators who voted for and the Governor who signed this law against the wishes of thousands of outspoken fishermen and hunters are now upset that the public interest group didn’t try to work out an agreement before filing the suit. What hogwash! The opponents had declared prior to the vote that a law suit would be forthcoming. The Governor’s Task Force should have worked out the compromise before the legislation. There’s nothing like a good law suit to the back of the head to cure deafness.

If the Utah Supreme Court rules that the public can’t have access to our rivers and streams then it’s time for a real Tea Party.

Go Utah Stream Access Coalition! A donation is on the way, and this from a guy who has never caught a fish or shot a gun. The unfairness of the law is  just so obvious that it is downright frustrating.

The act countered a 2008 Utah Supreme Court ruling that waterways in the state are publicly owned, and put most stream beds crossing private lands off-limits unless anglers have a landowner’s permission.

Hundreds of residents called the Governor’s Office and sent e-mails, weighing in on the controversial legislation before it was passed.

The coalition’s lawsuit argues that since the state constitution guarantees public access to rivers and streams and limits the Legislature’s power to counter Utah Supreme Court decisions, the act is unconstitutional.

The act abandons a “fundamental principle of Utah law and prohibits public access to hundreds of miles of rivers and streams in Utah, many of which have benefited from publicly funded habitat restoration, stream bank restoration and other projects, and effectively gives riparian landowners exclusive rights to access and … to sell that exclusive access to the highest bidder,” the coalition writes in a press release.

The act is also unlawful by allowing property owners to prevent public access and law enforcement to penalize people using the state’s waterways, the lawsuit states.

Since the act went into effect, various members of the coalition have been chased off riverbanks, harassed by agents of riverside landowners and cited by law enforcement, the lawsuit states.

It specifically mentions incidents involving Victory Ranch, a Wasatch County development along the Provo River, and riverfront property owned by Silver Creek-Robert Larsen Investors. Both companies are defendants in the lawsuit.

The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources and Wasatch County Sheriff Todd Bonner, who have cited or warned coalition members for trespassing, also are defendants.

The lawsuit asks that:

• public ownership of the state’s waterways be returned to the citizens of Utah.

• stream and river access be restored to the public.

• property owners be forbidden from impeding access to waterways.

• law enforcement stop penalizing those who use rivers and streams.

Rep. Mel Brown doubts the Legislature will make any changes on the act this upcoming session. He said the 2008 Supreme Court decision was not based on constitutionality but on statutes. “They file a suit, so be it,” Brown said. “The Supreme Court in Utah needs to rule on it constitutionally and maybe this will force that. But in the meantime we are not going to let people just think they have the right to abuse private property without cause.”

Sen. Dennis Stowell could not comment specifically on the suit because he had not read it. But he did say that going to court is a poor way to solve the problem because “it’s expensive for everybody and you never know what will come out of it.”

“It’s much better if we can sit down and talk and find some common areas that we can work on,” he said.

Stowell is co-chair, along with Brown, of the Utah Waterways Task Force, which he said is working to get more of the private areas of the streams open to anglers without violating the private property owner’s rights.

Ted Wilson, the governor’s senior adviser on the environment, said Herbert asked him to bring both sides together to avoid the courtroom. Wilson hopes the task force will be able to create a workable compromise on access.

There should be no compromising. The public should have reasonable access to its own rivers and streams.

“It’s a little disappointing to me that the anglers have gone ahead [with a lawsuit],” he said.

Sen. Ben McAdams, also a member of the task force, said he was interested in reviewing the suit. He voted against the act, saying from a policy perspective he wasn’t sure it accurately struck the proper balance between the rights of property owners and those of the public.

“It’s something that the Legislature should look at and look to accommodate the public’s right to access the streams,” he said.

In September, Division of Wildlife Resources Director Jim Karpowitz told the task force a federal grant would help pay landowners for access to rivers and streams by anglers. But, he said, by 2013, the state would need to charge a fee to those wanting access.

The task force has scheduled its last public meeting for 11 a.m. Thursday at the Capitol.

The Associated Press

Published: November 12, 2010 07:27PM

Seattle • The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is getting ready to do some matchmaking on a global scale.

The world’s largest charitable foundation is bringing together bankers, government officials, regulators, telecommunications companies and community organizers from around the world next week to cut some deals to benefit the poor.

The Global Savings Forum, set for Tuesday and Wednesday in Seattle, includes the usual conference fodder: speeches by dignitaries like Melinda Gates, who is expected to make a major grant announcement; and by Princess Maxima of the Netherlands, the United Nations’ special advocate for inclusive finance for development.

But the conference’s main focus will be getting people talking in small groups, to share ideas and technology and maybe cut a few business deals across borders, said Bob Christen, director for the foundation’s financial services for the poor program.

“What we’re mostly doing is putting a vision out there,” Christen said. He added the $200 million in grants the foundation has made to help set up new programs to encourage and facilitate savings is secondary to its advocacy work to help poor people around the world make financial plans for the future, to save for everything from fertilizer to school fees and uniforms.

The foundation focuses its efforts on encouraging savings rather than micro-credit in Africa, Latin America and Asia because they believe that’s the approach most likely to help the 2.5 billion people around the world who live on about $2 a day take control of their own futures.

How do these small farmers and merchants have anything to save? Savings for them is very different from the savings accounts Americans open in their local bank, Christen explains.

Savings to the small farmer or businesswoman means putting away the 50 cents she has left over after providing for her family’s immediate needs on a given day so it doesn’t end up being spend on nonessentials.

The mechanics of savings in the developing world is also quite different. People in Kenya, for example, use their cell phones to transfer money into and out of their accounts by stopping by the booth of another local merchant to make the transaction. These local “bankers” are the same people who sell cell phone minutes.