I want to thank our co-chairs Mark and Jeff; to my dear friend, the guy who always has my back, Vice President Biden.  (Applause.)  All the members of Congress –- Joe deserves a hand –- all the members of Congress and my Cabinet who are here today; all the distinguished guests who’ve traveled a long way to be part of this.  I’m not going to be as funny as Eric — (laughter) — but I’m grateful that he shared his message with us.  Michelle and I feel truly blessed to be here.

This is my third year coming to this prayer breakfast as President.  As Jeff mentioned, before that, I came as senator.  I have to say, it’s easier coming as President.  (Laughter.)  I don’t have to get here quite as early.  But it’s always been an opportunity that I’ve cherished.  And it’s a chance to step back for a moment, for us to come together as brothers and sisters and seek God’s face together.  At a time when it’s easy to lose ourselves in the rush and clamor of our own lives, or get caught up in the noise and rancor that too often passes as politics today, these moments of prayer slow us down.  They humble us.  They remind us that no matter how much responsibility we have, how fancy our titles, how much power we think we hold, we are imperfect vessels.  We can all benefit from turning to our Creator, listening to Him.  Avoiding phony religiosity, listening to Him.

This is especially important right now, when we’re facing some big challenges as a nation.  Our economy is making progress as we recover from the worst crisis in three generations, but far too many families are still struggling to find work or make the mortgage, pay for college, or, in some cases, even buy food.  Our men and women in uniform have made us safer and more secure, and we were eternally grateful to them, but war and suffering and hardship still remain in too many corners of the globe.  And a lot of those men and women who we celebrate on Veterans Day and Memorial Day come back and find that, when it comes to finding a job or getting the kind of care that they need, we’re not always there the way we need to be.

It’s absolutely true that meeting these challenges requires sound decision-making, requires smart policies.  We know that part of living in a pluralistic society means that our personal religious beliefs alone can’t dictate our response to every challenge we face.

But in my moments of prayer, I’m reminded that faith and values play an enormous role in motivating us to solve some of our most urgent problems, in keeping us going when we suffer setbacks, and opening our minds and our hearts to the needs of others.

We can’t leave our values at the door.  If we leave our values at the door, we abandon much of the moral glue that has held our nation together for centuries, and allowed us to become somewhat more perfect a union.  Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, Jane Addams, Martin Luther King, Jr., Dorothy Day, Abraham Heschel — the majority of great reformers in American history did their work not just because it was sound policy, or they had done good analysis, or understood how to exercise good politics, but because their faith and their values dictated it, and called for bold action — sometimes in the face of indifference, sometimes in the face of resistance.

This is no different today for millions of Americans, and it’s certainly not for me.

I wake up each morning and I say a brief prayer, and I spend a little time in scripture and devotion.  And from time to time, friends of mine, some of who are here today, friends like Joel Hunter or T.D. Jakes, will come by the Oval Office or they’ll call on the phone or they’ll send me a email, and we’ll pray together, and they’ll pray for me and my family, and for our country.

But I don’t stop there.  I’d be remiss if I stopped there; if my values were limited to personal moments of prayer or private conversations with pastors or friends.  So instead, I must try — imperfectly, but I must try — to make sure those values motivate me as one leader of this great nation.

And so when I talk about our financial institutions playing by the same rules as folks on Main Street, when I talk about making sure insurance companies aren’t discriminating against those who are already sick, or making sure that unscrupulous lenders aren’t taking advantage of the most vulnerable among us, I do so because I genuinely believe it will make the economy stronger for everybody.  But I also do it because I know that far too many neighbors in our country have been hurt and treated unfairly over the last few years, and I believe in God’s command to “love thy neighbor as thyself.”  I know the version of that Golden Rule is found in every major religion and every set of beliefs -– from Hinduism to Islam to Judaism to the writings of Plato.

And when I talk about shared responsibility, it’s because I genuinely believe that in a time when many folks are struggling, at a time when we have enormous deficits, it’s hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income, or young people with student loans, or middle-class families who can barely pay the bills to shoulder the burden alone.  And I think to myself, if I’m willing to give something up as somebody who’s been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that’s going to make economic sense.

But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that “for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.”  It mirrors the Islamic belief that those who’ve been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, or the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration for others.

When I talk about giving every American a fair shot at opportunity, it’s because I believe that when a young person can afford a college education, or someone who’s been unemployed suddenly has a chance to retrain for a job and regain that sense of dignity and pride, and contributing to the community as well as supporting their families — that helps us all prosper.

It means maybe that research lab on the cusp of a lifesaving discovery, or the company looking for skilled workers is going to do a little bit better, and we’ll all do better as a consequence.  It makes economic sense.  But part of that belief comes from my faith in the idea that I am my brother’s keeper and I am my sister’s keeper; that as a country, we rise and fall together.  I’m not an island.  I’m not alone in my success.  I succeed because others succeed with me.

And when I decide to stand up for foreign aid, or prevent atrocities in places like Uganda, or take on issues like human trafficking, it’s not just about strengthening alliances, or promoting democratic values, or projecting American leadership around the world, although it does all those things and it will make us safer and more secure.  It’s also about the biblical call to care for the least of these –- for the poor; for those at the margins of our society.

To answer the responsibility we’re given in Proverbs to “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.”  And for others, it may reflect the Jewish belief that the highest form of charity is to do our part to help others stand on their own.

Treating others as you want to be treated.  Requiring much from those who have been given so much.  Living by the principle that we are our brother’s keeper.  Caring for the poor and those in need.  These values are old.  They can be found in many denominations and many faiths, among many believers and among many non-believers.  And they are values that have always made this country great — when we live up to them; when we don’t just give lip service to them; when we don’t just talk about them one day a year.  And they’re the ones that have defined my own faith journey.

And today, with as many challenges as we face, these are the values I believe we’re going to have to return to in the hopes that God will buttress our efforts.

Now, we can earnestly seek to see these values lived out in our politics and our policies, and we can earnestly disagree on the best way to achieve these values.  In the words of C.S. Lewis, “Christianity has not, and does not profess to have a detailed political program.  It is meant for all men at all times, and the particular program which suited one place or time would not suit another.”

Our goal should not be to declare our policies as biblical.  It is God who is infallible, not us.  Michelle reminds me of this often.  (Laughter.)  So instead, it is our hope that people of goodwill can pursue their values and common ground and the common good as best they know how, with respect for each other.  And I have to say that sometimes we talk about respect, but we don’t act with respect towards each other during the course of these debates.

But each and every day, for many in this room, the biblical injunctions are not just words, they are also deeds.  Every single day, in different ways, so many of you are living out your faith in service to others.

Just last month, it was inspiring to see thousands of young Christians filling the Georgia Dome at the Passion Conference, to worship the God who sets the captives free and work to end modern slavery.  Since we’ve expanded and strengthened the White House faith-based initiative, we’ve partnered with Catholic Charities to help Americans who are struggling with poverty; worked with organizations like World Vision and American Jewish World Service and Islamic Relief to bring hope to those suffering around the world.

Colleges across the country have answered our Interfaith Campus Challenge, and students are joined together across religious lines in service to others.  From promoting responsible fatherhood to strengthening adoption, from helping people find jobs to serving our veterans, we’re linking arms with faith-based groups all across the country.

I think we all understand that these values cannot truly find voice in our politics and our policies unless they find a place in our hearts.  The Bible teaches us to “be doers of the word and not merely hearers.”  We’re required to have a living, breathing, active faith in our own lives.  And each of us is called on to give something of ourselves for the betterment of others — and to live the truth of our faith not just with words, but with deeds.

So even as we join the great debates of our age — how we best put people back to work, how we ensure opportunity for every child, the role of government in protecting this extraordinary planet that God has made for us, how we lessen the occasions of war — even as we debate these great issues, we must be reminded of the difference that we can make each day in our small interactions, in our personal lives.

As a loving husband, or a supportive parent, or a good neighbor, or a helpful colleague — in each of these roles, we help bring His kingdom to Earth.  And as important as government policy may be in shaping our world, we are reminded that it’s the cumulative acts of kindness and courage and charity and love, it’s the respect we show each other and the generosity that we share with each other that in our everyday lives will somehow sustain us during these challenging times.  John tells us that, “If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?  Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.”

Mark read a letter from Billy Graham, and it took me back to one of the great honors of my life, which was visiting Reverend Graham at his mountaintop retreat in North Carolina, when I was on vacation with my family at a hotel not far away.

And I can still remember winding up the path up a mountain to his home.  Ninety-one years old at the time, facing various health challenges, he welcomed me as he would welcome a family member or a close friend.  This man who had prayed great prayers that inspired a nation, this man who seemed larger than life, greeted me and was as kind and as gentle as could be.

And we had a wonderful conversation.  Before I left, Reverend Graham started praying for me, as he had prayed for so many Presidents before me.  And when he finished praying, I felt the urge to pray for him.  I didn’t really know what to say.  What do you pray for when it comes to the man who has prayed for so many?  But like that verse in Romans, the Holy Spirit interceded when I didn’t know quite what to say.

And so I prayed — briefly, but I prayed from the heart.  I don’t have the intellectual capacity or the lung capacity of some of my great preacher friends here that have prayed for a long time.  (Laughter.)  But I prayed.  And we ended with an embrace and a warm goodbye.

And I thought about that moment all the way down the mountain, and I’ve thought about it in the many days since.  Because I thought about my own spiritual journey –- growing up in a household that wasn’t particularly religious; going through my own period of doubt and confusion; finding Christ when I wasn’t even looking for him so many years ago; possessing so many shortcomings that have been overcome by the simple grace of God.  And the fact that I would ever be on top of a mountain, saying a prayer for Billy Graham –- a man whose faith had changed the world and that had sustained him through triumphs and tragedies, and movements and milestones –- that simple fact humbled me to my core.

I have fallen on my knees with great regularity since that moment — asking God for guidance not just in my personal life and my Christian walk, but in the life of this nation and in the values that hold us together and keep us strong.  I know that He will guide us.  He always has, and He always will.  And I pray his richest blessings on each of you in the days ahead.

Thank you very much.  (Applause.)

Published: February 8, 2011 05:51PM.

China’s central bank raised interest rates for the second time in just over a month in a bid to ease high inflation and guide blistering economic growth to a sustainable level.

The People’s Bank of China announced Tuesday on its website that the benchmark 1-year deposit rate would rise by a quarter percentage point, to 3 percent, and the 1-year lending rate would increase by the same amount, to 6.06 percent. The increases are effective Wednesday.

Its previous rate hike came on Christmas Day, when the bank raised both benchmark rates by a quarter point. China’s leaders have sought to cool surging inflation that could pose a threat to political stability.

Rising prices are especially sensitive in a country where poor families can spend up to half their incomes on food. Higher incomes have helped to offset price hikes, but inflation undercuts economic gains that help support the ruling Communist Party’s claim to power.

Tuesday’s announcement, which is the third rate hike since October, dragged European stock markets lower. Asian markets were already closed. U.S. investors took the action in stride, as the Dow Jones industrial average closed higher for the seventh consecutive day Tuesday. That’s the longest series of gains for the index since July. Many large investors worry that slower Chinese growth could affect the United States, Australia and other economies by cutting demand for their exports of iron ore, machinery and other goods.

Inflation in China jumped to a 28-month high of 5.1 percent in November before moderating in December, but it has worried leaders who fear that a sharp rise in living costs could trigger unrest. Inflation has been sticking well above the government’s target of 3 percent.

China’s battle with inflation marks a sharp contrast with the United States, Europe and Japan, where growth has been muted in the aftermath of the financial crisis.

China’s rapid rebound from the global recession saw its economy, the world’s second largest, growing at a double-digit rate — a blistering expansion that slowed by the end of last year.

Analysts expect growth to slow further this year from 2010’s expansion of 10.3 percent as Beijing clamps down on credit and tries to prevent inflation, which has been largely confined to food and property, from spreading to other areas.

By Doug Robinson

Deseret News

Published: Tuesday, Feb. 8, 2011 12:49 a.m. MST

Memo to state legislators: Butt out.

Stay out of high school sports.

Find something else to meddle with.

Oh, wait, we’re supposed to tone down the rhetoric.

Butt out … pa-lease.

Remember the little drama that began last summer when the state Legislature, led by Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, wanted to turn the high school transfer rule on its head by having NO RULES WHATSOEVER? A kid could transfer anytime, anywhere. He could play three different sports for three different schools in one school year.

That was a doozie, wasn’t it? Which is why legislators went back to work on the bill and modified it. The hope was that common sense would prevail, and they’d forget the whole business when the Legislature reconvened last month.

No such luck.

The Legislature has come back with another dopey proposal called Senate Bill 53, this time with a new starting quarterback, Mark Madsen, R-Eagle Mountain.

Now they’re proposing that students — and by this we mean “athletes” — have a certain time frame in which they can transfer. Between Dec. 1 and June 30 of each school year, students can request a transfer to another school. Which means student-athletes (or, in this case, “athlete-students”) could play for four high schools in four years.

I’ve been a high school track coach for 20 years, and I can’t think of a worse proposal for high school sports, period. I believe most coaches would agree.

The Utah High School Activities Association — remember them, the experts who are paid to do this sort of thing? — are also unhappy about it, and you would be, too, if you care about a level playing field. I do.

This is the sort of maneuver that UHSAA officials expect from stage parents, not their own legislators. They’re supposed to be on the same team.

Last June, the UHSAA’s board of trustees passed a rule, effective Sept. 1, that students could attend any high school upon first entry, but after that they would lose one year of athletic eligibility if they transfer (with the usual exception for hardship cases). It formalized the way the transfer rule had been working for years anyway, since it was nearly impossible to stop kids from choosing an out-of-boundary school upon initial entry under the open enrollment law.

Now, four months after the rule took effect, the Legislature has thrown down a challenge to the rule by coming up with its own proposal, and one that is naive at best.

Ever notice that politicians like to get involved in athletic matters? They like to think they can remedy the college bowl system and the high school transfer problem and the IOC and steroids in pro sports. If you were keeping a record of their swings and misses, they’d have a batting average of about .000.

That doesn’t stop them from swinging. In their minds, they are Barry Bonds on ‘roids and every pitched ball looks like a watermelon.

Fortunately, they have time to meddle in the sports world because, let’s face it, everything else is going so well. Immigration is sailing along smoothly, the deficit is under control, the health care debate is solved, the economy is soaring, everyone has jobs. So they turn their deft touch to sports.

Don’t you wish they wouldn’t?

Well, the legislators’ rationale for meddling with the transfer rule is to give complete control of a student’s school choices to parents. Unfortunately, we live on planet Earth and we deal with human beings and, although parental-control is a nice theory, it doesn’t work well for sports. Ever seen a little league dad? A stage mom? It’s not a pretty picture. Parents do most of the lying and deceit that the UHSAA deals with regularly.

Look, sports is different than, say, art class or a special academic program. There isn’t a sport at any level, from little league to pros, that doesn’t restrict player movement. It fosters competitive balance. A transfer-free-for-all might be good for a handful of elite kids, but not for the greater good, not for everyone’s kids. Without restrictions, the strong teams get stronger, the weak teams get weaker; dynasties form. Instead of giving many teams a chance to contend for a region or state title — and thus producing a better experience for more students and athletes — only a handful enjoy that experience. It turns the high school athletic system into a platform for elite athletes.

The transfer free-for-all has other ramifications. Every time a coach scolds or corrects or benches a player, the player can simply go to another school and run from problems and challenges instead of dealing with them.

The UHSAA board of trustees is made of 28 members who were elected to those positions. They represent every area of the state. They have been delegated to oversee extracurricular activities for high schools, and they’ve been doing it for 84 years. They know a lot more about their business than legislators. Know what the vote was on the UHSAA’s latest transfer rule: 116-6. It wasn’t even close.

“They represent the feelings of our schools out there,” says UHSAA director Rob Cuff.

Kids can transfer freely for academic reasons, but if they want to play sports, that’s another matter. Colorado tried suspending its transfer rule and it was a disaster; now the state has transfer restrictions in place.

“All states have restrictions,” says Cuff. If SB53 passes, Cuff notes, “This would be one of the most lax (rules), if not the most lax in the country.”

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.

Words Matter: How Media Can Build Civility or Destroy It

The media can, as we know, promote fear, hatred, and extremism. Can it also lead us to greater civility and more productive debate?

by Sarah van Gelder and Brooke Jarvis

“Just as media outlets have been used to create a pervasive sense of fear, they have also been used to convince people that conflict is inevitable. This leaves media consumers resigned to the notion that conflict will happen.”

Those words [1] could have been used to describe an increasingly hostile and provocative media [2] in the United States. In fact, they were written to describe the use of the media to incite Hutus to slaughter their Tutsi neighbors in Rwanda, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths [3].

After Jared Loughner opened fire at a political event for Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tuscon, Arizona, attention quickly focused on the role that divisive and aggressive media may have played in his actions. Pima Country Sheriff Clarence Dupnik lamented “the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government.”

Members of the media were quick to defend themselves. Any discussion of possible political motives, the editors of the National Review wrote, constitute a “vile attempt to tar the opposition with the crimes of a lunatic so as to render illegitimate the views of about half of America.”

The reasons for Loughner’s actions are still unclear, and evidence suggests that he is mentally ill. We can’t know at this point what role media provocation may have played in his decision. Indeed, his actions raise as many questions about our policies on gun ownership and mental illness as they do about our political climate.

Words matter! That’s why we write! That’s why there are advertising agencies! That’s why there is a Rush Limbaugh, a Sean Hannity, and a Glen Beck.

Now, suddenly when the use and tone of some words are coming under scrutiny for the damage they can do, those who are the most inciteful are running from their words and claiming they have no influence, and even claiming to be victims, such as Sarah Palin.

We are passionate believers in free speech, but we are also passionate in judging people by the things they say. Words tell us a great deal about each of us, and words have consequences. One of the consequences of irresponsible language should be a loss of respect, a loss of public support, and a clear and resounding repudiation of such language.

We have a very divisive political culture that has reached fever pitch. Our observation is perhaps onesided–but it is this: the right has been throwing outrageous attacks against our President who has remained calm and unruffled and understanding through it all, and his supporters from the left have repudiated the attacks with vitriolic language of its own.

There is certainly a difference between those who initiate the attacks (the right) and those who respond in kind (the left). President Obama has remarkably stayed above the fray and has been one of the few adults in the room for two years. His patience has been remarkable, so remarkable that he lost support from his supporters for not defending himself more aggressively in their view.

There is also a significant difference in whether the topic stays on the issues of the day or declines into ad hominen attacks. Our conversations about issues should be the pros and cons of the subject matter, not about denigrating the individual expressing his view. The focus should stay on the debate subject, not the debaters.

Conversations between those with opposing viewpoints are happening rarely nowadays. Conservatives listen only to conservatives and liberals listen only to liberals. The reason is because neither side has been able to stay on the subject without demeaning one another and so friendships are lost and conversations are stopped. Liberals get nowhere when only talking with other liberals, and likewise for conservatives—and so no progress is made. No discussions concluded. To avoid making enemies we’ve all given up rational discussion and our conversations have deteriorated into two people standing side by side and discussing the weather, and that isn’t even a safe subject because it is just too damn close to climate change, which could just set off another fuse.

At the very least, though, this should be a moment to reflect on the role that media can play in directing the political dialogue in this country. It can, as we know, promote fear, hatred, and extremism. Can it also lead us to greater civility and more productive debate?

Violence and the media

Sadly, the Arizona shooting is only the latest evidence that words do have consequences. [4]

On July 18, Byron Williams was approached by California state police for driving erratically on Interstate 580. A firefight ensued-remarkably, all survived-and Williams later admitted he had been on his way to attack the ACLU and the non-profit Tides Foundation. Why Tides? According to Media Matters [5], Fox News commentator Glenn Beck had verbally attacked the Tides Foundation 29 times in the 18 months before the attempted shooting.

After then-vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin accused presidential candidate Barack Obama of “palling around with terrorists,” the Secret Service reported [6] a dramatic increase in threats against Obama.

There are many more stories [7] of threats and vandalism directed at private citizens and public officials, and the links to the violent rhetoric from right-wing media personalities and politicians is chilling. One Texas man, who called the office of Senator Debbie Stabenow and threatened “We’ll get you … like we did RFK; like we did MLK,” told [8] FBI officers he was worried the government would take Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh off the air as a result of the “Fairness Doctrine.”

Another way

The media can choose to provoke the least stable, most trigger-happy sectors of the population. Or it can choose to strengthen democracy, civility, and the rule of law. When the former Yugoslavia was erupting in ethnic cleansing and massacres, Macedonia’s ethnically diverse population remained at peace. South Africa made the transition from Apartheid to majority rule largely without violence. In these and other places, media that highlighted the humanity of all involved played a role, according to [9] the U.S.-based Search for Common Ground.

Instead of simply repeating the anger and allegations of each side-which may have the effect of deepening the conflict or inciting violence-journalists are in a unique position to uncover the causes of conflict and discover opportunities for finding common ground. The Conflict Resolution Network advises [10] journalists to:

• Focus on the root causes of problems, not just positions or back-and-forth arguments.
• Ask questions that get people thinking about solutions and common ground: “What would be possible if this problem were fixed?” “What would it take to solve this problem?” “What is it that you do want?” “What would satisfy you?”
• Avoid simplistic divisions between good and bad. Don’t encourage or sensationalize personal attacks.
• Report areas of agreement as well as disagreement.
• Think of emotions as symptoms that point to where the real problems are. What clashes of values, needs, or scarce resources are causing an emotional response?

Disagreement over policy is part of a healthy democracy, and conflict is human. But whipping up fear and hatred, demonizing those with conflicting opinions, using violent language, playing on the insecurity and distrust that so easily arise during difficult times-these are irresponsible and wrong. Especially when the media is capable of so much more.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License

Sarah van Gelder and Brooke Jarvis wrote this article for YES! Magazine [11], a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas with practical actions. Sarah is the executive editor and Brooke is the web editor of YES! Magazine.

Foreclosures Exceed 1 Million Last Year, Expected to Grow in 2011

by Vicki Needham

Foreclosures are expected to peak while prices bottom out in 2011 as the nation’s housing crisis trudges into its fifth year.

Lenders repossessed more than 1 million homes in 2010, and foreclosures could rise by 20 percent this year. (photo by Flickr user BasicGov)

Lenders repossessed more than 1 million homes in 2010, up 14 percent from the previous year and the most since 2005, according to a report released Thursday by RealtyTrac, a California-based company that tracks the foreclosure market.

“We will peak in foreclosures and probably bottom out in pricing, and that’s what we need to do in order to begin the recovery,” Rick Sharga, RealtyTrac’s senior vice president, said in an interview at Bloomberg headquarters in New York. “But it’s probably not going to feel good in the process.”

Foreclosures could rise by 20 percent this year while prices will likely drop by 5 percent as the market begins to make a turn toward recovery, Sharga said.

Housing market analysts expect it will take a minimum of two years for the market begin recovering and possibly as many as five years before the recovery roots. Foreclosures are expected to remain high as homeowners contend with stubborn unemployment, tougher standards to get a loan and said.

The slowdown during the last couple of months of they year is likely the result of major lenders halting foreclosures while they reviewed their processes and problems with robo-signers, those who signed off on paperwork without closely reviewing documents.

Upward of 250,000 foreclosure filings were delayed at the end of the year because of investigation into bank practices, according to RealtyTrac.

Attorneys general in all 50 states are investigating problems with the process. Firms including JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp. and Ally Financial Inc. halted some repossessions as they reviewed their procedures.

Most banks have restarted the process, which could create a spike of foreclosures during the first three months of 2011, according to the report.

About 3 million homes have been repossessed since the housing boom ended in 2006, and that could rise to about 6 million by 2013, according to Sharga.

About 5 million borrowers are at least two months behind on their mortgages and more will miss payments as they struggle with job losses and loans worth more than their home’s value, industry analysts forecast.

Price drops will force more borrowers under water on their mortgages with about 20 percent already owing more than their homes are worth.

Five states — California, Florida, Arizona, Illinois and Michigan — accounted for 51 percent of the filing total.

Georgia, Texas, Ohio, Nevada and New Jersey rounded out the top 10 for foreclosures, according to RealtyTrac.

Published: January 10, 2011 05:18PM

Washington • Federal regulators on Monday charged the co-founder of a New York hedge fund and three other individuals with insider trading, the latest action in what the government has called the biggest insider-trading case in U.S. history.

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced it filed a civil lawsuit against hedge fund Trivium Capital Management, its co-founder Robert Feinblatt and analyst Jeffrey Yokuty.The SEC also filed charges against Sunil Bhalla, a former senior executive of tech company Polycom, and Shammara Hussain, a former employee at a consulting firm that did work for Google. The agency said Bhalla and Hussain provided confidential information that enabled Fein-blatt and Yokuty to make $15 million from trading on the information.

So far, the SEC has filed civil charges against 27 people and hedge funds in a wide-ranging probe of the Galleon group of hedge funds and its founder. The government says Galleon funds made about$69 million in illegal profits. Raj Rajaratnam, the one-time billionaire founder of the Galleon funds, has pleaded not guilty. Federal authorities have arrested 23 people on criminal charges in the case; 14 have pleaded guilty.

The SEC alleged in its suit that Feinblatt and Yokuty traded using confidential information they received from Roomy Khan, a Florida investor who pleaded guilty in 2009 to conspiracy and securities fraud in the Galleon case. Khan has been cooperating in the investigation.

The SEC said that Bhalla gave Khan inside information on Polycom’s fourth-quarter earnings in 2005, and that Khan traded on the information and gave it to others, including Feinblatt and Yokuty. The SEC also alleged that Hussain gave Khan confidential information about Google’s second-quarter earnings in 2007.

The Associated Press

Published: January 4, 2011 09:19PM

Dallas • A Texas man declared innocent Tuesday after 30 years in prison had at least two chances to make parole and be set free — if only he would admit he was a sex offender.

But Cornelius Dupree Jr. refused to do so, doggedly maintaining his innocence in a 1979 rape and robbery, in the process serving more time for a crime he didn’t commit than any other Texas inmate exonerated by DNA evidence.

“Whatever your truth is, you have to stick with it,” Dupree, 51, said Tuesday, minutes after a Dallas judge overturned his conviction.

Here is a man of honor. Such a shame that our justice system failed him. Race was not mentioned in the story, but he is probably black.  Thank goodness for the Innocence Project and the development of DNA evidence.

Nationally, only two others exonerated by DNA evidence spent more time in prison, according to the Innocence Project, a New York legal center that specializes in wrongful conviction cases and represented Dupree. James Bain was wrongly imprisoned for 35 years in Florida, and Lawrence McKinney spent more than 31 years in a Tennessee prison.

Dupree was sentenced to 75 years in prison in 1980 for the rape and robbery of a 26-year-old Dallas woman a year earlier. He was released in July on mandatory supervision, and lived under house arrest until October. About a week after his release, DNA test results came back proving his innocence in the sexual assault.

A day after his release, Dupree married his fiancée, Selma. The couple met two decades ago while he was in prison.

His exoneration hearing was delayed until Tuesday while authorities retested the DNA and made sure it was a match to the victim. Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins supported Dupree’s innocence claim.

Looking fit and trim in a dark suit, Dupree stood through most of the short hearing, until state district Judge Don Adams told him, “You’re free to go.” One of Dupree’s lawyers, Innocence Project Co-Director Barry Scheck, called it “a glorious day.”

“It’s a joy to be free again,” Dupree said.

The New York Times

Published: January 1, 2011 09:15PM

Washington • As the Federal Reserve debates whether to scale back, continue or expand its $600 billion effort to nurse the economic recovery, four men will have a newly prominent role in influencing the central bank’s path.

One is an economist who fears that the Fed’s easy-money policies could lead to manias like the housing bubble that burst in 2007. Another is a Texas Democrat who served in the Clinton White House, but is wary of the Fed’s aggressive efforts to combat unemployment.

The purpose of the $600 billion in treasury bonds authorized by the Fed late last year was to stimulate the economy that was still in free fall. There was one dissenting vote. It is unlikely that the new board members are going to change the balance of thinking, especially since the lone nay vote is no longer on the board.

It’s good to have new insight and it will make for a healthy discussion, but it’s unlikely to change the Fed’s current course.

Interestingly, this article was printed in the Salt Lake Tribune and the comment section attached with the story attracted zero comments. It was one of the most important stories of the day, but the illiterate American public knows zippo about economics.

However, knowing nothing about a topic usually doesn’t reduce the number of comments.

A third is a precocious economist who graduated from Princeton at 19. And the fourth is the only one who agreed wholeheartedly with the Fed’s chairman, Ben Bernanke, that the economy was at risk of falling into a dangerous cycle of deflation last summer and that an additional monetary boost was needed.

The four men are presidents of regional Fed banks, and under an arcane system that dates to the Depression, they will become voting members in 2011 on the Federal Open Market Committee, which gathers eight times a year around a 27-foot mahogany table to influence the supply of credit in the economy.

While Bernanke remains the dominant voice on which route the Fed takes, the change in voting composition is likely to give the committee a somewhat more hawkish cast. This could amplify anxieties about unforeseen effects of Bernanke’s policies and potentially contribute to the increasingly politicized atmosphere surrounding the Fed.

Since the Fed embarked last month on a second round of quantitative easing — a strategy of buying government securities to hold down mortgage and other long-term interest rates — it has faced an outpouring of criticism from foreign central banks and conservative Republicans.

One of them, Rep. Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, who is in line to become chairman of the House Budget Committee, said he thought that dissenters within the Fed would influence whether Bernanke “throttles back, or keeps going,” with the bond-buying plan.

“We’re playing with fire, flirting with disaster,” Ryan said of the plan, which he believes could jeopardize the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency and touch off future inflation.

Most economists think the Fed is unlikely to drastically alter its policy direction, though some of the new members could nudge policy toward more restraint and less activism. Two of the four new voters are viewed as hawkish on inflation, meaning that they tend to be more worried about unleashing future inflation than they are about reducing unemployment in the short run.

Of the four new voting members, the one drawing the most attention is Charles I. Plosser, 62, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia since 2006.

Plosser, who formerly taught at the University of Rochester, argued in a speech at the libertarian Cato Institute last month that monetary policy “went off track” a few years ago, an acknowledgment of the criticism that the Fed kept interest rates too low from 2003 to 2005, contributing to the housing bubble.

“I’d like the recovery to be faster, but I’m not sure monetary policy can do much about that,” he said in an interview.

Plosser said that he has thought all along that the economic slowdown over the summer was temporary and that he “wasn’t a big fan” of Bernanke’s asset-purchase plan. He wants the Fed to move back toward normal policy.

“If we wait too long, and the economy really begins to pick up and we are too late in reacting, we could end up behind the curve and we could end up with more instability,” he said.

Most economists expect Plosser to dissent, possibly repeatedly, in 2011, inheriting a role played by Thomas M. Hoenig, president of the Kansas City Fed, who was the lone dissenter eight times this year but does not have a vote next year.

Richard W. Fisher, president of the Dallas Fed since 2005, is another potential dissenter. A former investment banker, he was the Democratic nominee for the Senate in 1994, but lost to Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Republican. He was a deputy U.S. trade representative during President Bill Clinton’s second term.

Compared with most Democratic politicians, Fisher, 61, is wary of the Fed’s latest moves. “The remedy for what ails the economy is, in my view, in the hands of the fiscal and regulatory authorities, not the Fed,” he said in a speech last month.

Narayana R. Kocherlakota, 47, the Princeton graduate, who became president of the Minneapolis Fed last year, will be voting for the first time. He has been more measured about quantitative easing. In a speech last month, he called it “a move in the right direction” but said the ultimate effects were “likely to be relatively modest.”

The fourth new voting member, Charles L. Evans, 52, has led the Chicago Fed since 2007. Unlike the other three, he is associated with the camp of so-called doves within the Fed, who are worried about chronic, long-term joblessness and think the recovery is still quite fragile.

Evans has advocated price-level targeting, a strategy that would allow inflation to run slightly above the desired level in the future to make up for inflation’s being too low today. But in an October speech, he conceded that the proposal would be “a hard pill to swallow” for an institution whose credibility rested on its successes at taming high inflation in the early 1980s.

The Federal Open Market Committee comprises the Fed’s seven-member board of governors in Washington, including Bernanke; the president of the New York Fed, who is a permanent member; and four members drawn from the heads of the 11 other banks, who share votes through a rotation.

“It’s true that voting members get more attention in the press, but whether people are voting or nonvoting members, everyone has an equal voice at the table and an equal part in the discussions,” said Randall S. Kroszner, a former Fed governor and a professor at the Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago. “It’s a consensus-based organization.”

For now, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and other major forecasters expect the Fed will carry out its plan to buy $600 billion in securities — neither scaling back the program early, nor extending it past June. But Bernanke has left his options open, and the committee is likely to wait until the spring before deciding.

Lyle E. Gramley, a former Fed governor who advises the Potomac Research Group, an economic research firm, said he thought the new members would introduce “slightly more uncertainty,” but predicted that the ultimate effect would be limited.

“The chairman has a strong voice in the outcome of the meeting, and there is a tradition that not too many people are going to dissent at any one time,” he said.

The Associated Press

Published: January 4, 2011 09:19PM

San Diego • A war memorial cross in a San Diego public park is unconstitutional because it conveys a message of government endorsement of religion, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday in a two-decade-old case.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the unanimous decision in the dispute over the 29-foot cross, which was dedicated in 1954 in honor of Korean War veterans.

The court said modifications could be made to make it constitutional, but it didn’t specify what those changes would be.

“In no way is this decision meant to undermine the importance of honoring our veterans,” the three judges said in their ruling. “Indeed, there are countless ways that we can and should honor them, but without the imprimatur of state-endorsed religion.”

Federal courts are reviewing several cases of crosses on public lands being challenged as unconstitutional, including a cross erected on a remote Mojave Desert outcropping to honor American war dead. Tuesday’s ruling could influence future cases involving the separation of church and state.

U.S. Justice Department spokesman Wyn Hornbuckle said the federal government, which is defending the cross, was studying Tuesday’s ruling and had no comment.

Gina Coburn, spokeswoman for the San Diego’s city attorney’s office, which was once a defendant in the case, said the cross will have to be removed from Mount Soledad unless the federal government appeals and sends it back to a full panel of 9th Circuit judges or the Supreme Court agrees to rule on it.

The Alliance Defense Fund, an Arizona-based Christian legal group, called Tuesday’s decision an insult to troops.

“The memory of those who sacrificed their lives for our freedom shouldn’t be dishonored because the ACLU finds a small number of people who are merely offended,” said Joe Infranco, the group’s senior counsel.

The ruling is the latest in a series of court decisions that have deemed the Mount Soledad cross unconstitutional because it stands on public property.

The legal fight began in 1989 when atheist Philip Paulson sued the city of San Diego over the cross. Paulson, a Vietnam War veteran, contended that the cross excludes veterans who aren’t Christian. A Jewish war veterans group has also been a plaintiff in the case along with the ACLU.

Updated: January 3, 2011 12:00AM

How many of the past generation’s wars would have been launched if we had known that each conflict would last for half a century or more?

Just about all of them, apparently, even though that is rarely the way the choice is presented to us.

In just about every armed conflict since World War II, and not a few before that, the decision to launch a war was predicated on the idea that it would be quick and decisive. Or, as in the case of Vietnam, the war sort of crept up on us without a formal beginning or end.

Either way, the idea of a cheap war was a lie. The costs go on and on, in the lives of those who lost loved ones, in the pain of those who returned less whole than when they left, and in the depleted treasuries of the nations that are honor-bound to care for, in Mr. Lincoln’s words, those who have borne the burden.

Two factors are now conspiring to weigh Americans down with horrendous costs left over from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. One is the skyrocketing expenses of providing treatment for the physical and emotional wounds suffered by those who fight. Thanks to advanced battlefield care and improved armor, many soldiers survive injuries that would have been fatal in conflicts past, but that now leave our valiant countrymen with missing limbs, severe head trauma or other injuries that may leave them with life-long disabilities.

The other is the fact that, under both this administration and the previous one, under Congresses controlled by both parties, the financial cost of our wars has been kicked down the road by a leadership and a citizenry that have been willing to go to war as long as the cost is hidden from most of us.

With the war in Afghanistan already under way and the war in Iraq about to begin, Congress approved President Bush’s giant tax cuts. A more honest accounting would have required us to either raise taxes to pay for the wars, or admit that we are not willing to pay the cost and so don’t start them.

The cost is a lot more than the price tag for raising, equipping and transporting our armed forces to the theater of battle. It’s the long-term medical, psychological and disability care, the rehabilitation, the lost wages and missed economic opportunities. Independent experts now put the cost of the war in Iraq at anywhere from $4 trillion to $6 trillion. That’s not counting the cost of the Afghan war, and the trillions more in interest on the additional national debt.

In this supposed democracy, the responsibility for going to war, and paying for it, is held in common. We should consider the total cost of any war before we allow ourselves to be led into one.

Los Angeles Times

Published: January 7, 2011 08:52AM

There are writers whose books are stacked on my nightstand: G.K. Chesterton, Samuel Johnson, Thomas Babington Macaulay — writers whom I spend half an hour with before nodding off. They are master prose stylists whose command and fluency of English are the pleasure of reading them, even if the subjects, people and times they write about are unfamiliar and distant to our contemporary minds.

Now I can add to that nightstand stack the recently published boxed set of the Library of America edition of H.L. Mencken’s Prejudices series, which comprises the six volumes published between 1919 and 1927. Reading one or two of Menken’s reviews and essays is the kind of thing that you want to take, like a restorative, before bedtime, to counter the ill writing and easy thinking that daily pass before our eyes.

The Prejudices series is a compilation of reworked reviews and essays that Mencken originally wrote for literary journals and newspapers that contain his unexpurgated opinions about American writers, culture and society. Each volume contains between 30 and 40 essays and reviews ranging over literature, art, politics, philosophy, religion and science. He was a newspaper columnist in the fullest sense: No topic or subject was out of reach (and perhaps some should have been. Mencken considered himself the foremost authority on Nietzsche outside Germany; suffice it to say there are not many Nietzsche scholars urging their students to consult Mencken).

Mencken’s opinions of his literary brethren and America were largely, as we say today, “negative.” This is the writer, after all, who used a bullhorn to rail against the insularity and smug primitiveness of American culture, the writer who gave us the term “Bible Belt” to label the religious South and the now-forgotten gem “boobosisie” to describe the always-upwardly striving middle-class “Babbitts” that were emerging in the early 20th century as an economic market and political force.

Indeed, when it comes to cutting down just about any saint of American literature with his type keys, be it Robert Frost or Ralph Waldo Emerson, Mencken is the father of the modern literary exercise known as the “hatchet job.”

Consider: In an essay on American poets, he rhetorically asks, “Frost?” And then chops, “A standard New England poet, with a few changes in phraseology, and the substitution of sour resignationism for sweet resignationism. Whittier without the whiskers.” A few chapters later, in a dismissal of Emerson, Mencken derides his enthusiasts as a “cult … [that] has been an affectation from the start. Not many of the chautauqua orator, vassarized old maids and other such bogus intelligentsia who drive themselves to it have any intelligible understanding of the Transcendentalism at the heart of it.”

Henry Louis Mencken, who died in 1956, is one of those writers more remembered than read — in part because, with the exception of his continually revised masterwork of lexography, The American Language, most of his books have been long out of print. It took me nearly a dozen years of rummaging through used-book stores in numerous states to find all six of the original Prejudices volumes. Now the Library of America edition brings these works back to life.

It’s only baffling that it took 31 years and 207 volumes for the Library of America to publish Mencken. No doubt Mencken himself would have something to say about that, especially since Frost and Emerson have long been under the Library’s imprimatur.

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.”

By Kirsten Stewart

The Salt Lake Tribune
Updated: January 1, 2011 12:18AM

A legislative probe that found evidence of waste and abuse in Medicaid may sharpen the resolve of lawmakers who have vowed to take a scalpel to the low-income health program’s budget.

But the chief problem uncovered by auditors — clinics overcharging for their services — isn’t limited to Utah. “Upcoding” is one of the most common types of health care fraud, but the amount of money that can be recovered from any single provider is small, says an attorney who helps states pursue fraud claims in court.

And it’s difficult to prove, which is why states tend to focus more on investigating fraud with potential for bigger payback, said Tim McCormack, a lawyer at Phillips & Cohen in San Francisco.

There needs to be full time government auditors watching this program like a hawk all year long. An occasional audit will not cut it. It needs to be an ongoing audit day after day after day. There are just too many ways with too many hands in the pot with enormous economic incentives for providers and vendors to unfairly take advantage of the taxpayer and the patient. The taxpayer and patient need protection and the providers and vendors need the temptations to cheat removed.

Clarity in the pricing of each of the procedures is essential and that’s not easily accomplished, but when there is doubt the taxpayer and the patient will lose every time.

“As a general rule, they go where they can get more bang for the buck or where patients are at risk for harm,” he said.

The difficulty of assessing possible upcoding is illustrated by the 10 providers flagged by the Utah legislative auditor general for submitting high numbers of high-dollar claims in 2009.

These providers submitted a level-five charge — $89 — for basic office visits, the highest amount allowed, 37 to 125 times more frequently than the state average, the probe showed.

Auditors examined individual claims at only two of the clinics; none of the 10 is accused of fraud.

The audit report doesn’t identify providers; The Salt Lake Tribune obtained the names through a records request. Most are quite large providers or cater disproportionately to Medicaid patients.

“We’re probably 10 times larger than most clinics. That alone probably skews us,” said Scott Barlow, chief executive officer of the Central Utah Medical Clinic, which spans 47 offices and 130 physicians.

Michael D. Whiting, a primary care doctor in American Fork who is sixth on the list, said “about 45 percent of our patients are on Medicaid.”

Also, some of the clinics, such as the pediatric cardiology and hematology units at the University of Utah, see patients with complex medical problems that often warrant high-cost claims.

“We see a high volume of these patients, because we’re the only place for services like these in the state, actually in the surrounding states,” said Ed Clark, pediatric chairman at the U. and director of Primary Medical Children’s Center.

True, upcoding is “exceedingly” hard to pin down, McCormack said.

“There are very complicated and sophisticated guidelines for how you bill things. It’s not just how much time did you spend, but how detailed was the exam and how many bodily systems were involved,” he said. “You really have to go into each patient’s chart and see what happened and what was billed. Did they do what they said they did, and was it medically necessary?”

Auditors scrutinized only a sample of level-five claims from two health centers on the list: the Salt Lake Health Clinic of Utah, owned and operated by the Utah Department of Health, which oversees Medicaid; and a private clinic run by Exodus Healthcare.

Few of the examined claims could be substantiated at the level billed — only 1 percent of those filed by the Salt Lake clinic and 12 percent of those from Exodus.

Whether the upcoding was intentional, a mistake or the fault of sloppy charting is hard to say.

The state-owned clinic has no financial incentive to overcharge, said Utah Health Director David Sundwall, who was surprised and embarrassed to learn he, too, had miscoded claims. Sundwall volunteers his services as a physician free of charge and, even with the overbilling, the clinic ran a deficit last year that was backfilled with state and federal funds.

For private clinics, the motive is clear. Bill $89 for a $16 office visit, and you’re $73 ahead.

It’s a practice often rationalized by doctors who lose money or break even on Medicaid patients due to the program’s low reimbursement rates, said McCormack. It’s also often overlooked by states, which are legally obligated to ensure there are enough providers willing to accept Medicaid patients, he said.

Brian Zehnder, medical director at Exodus Healthcare, acknowledges most providers can do a better job at making sure the medical record adequately reflects the thoroughness of treatment delivered.

But he stands by his physicians, whose claims were recently reviewed by an outside firm at the company’s request. The firm found “excellence in coding and documentation,” Zehnder said.

Exodus isn’t getting rich off Medicaid, Zehnder said. “The economy has been very difficult on everyone. We’re working just as hard as everyone else to make ends meet and serve the needs of the community with honesty, integrity and good business principles,” he said.

State health officials have pledged to continue ongoing efforts to beef up surveillance of Medicaid. But lawmakers question whether the agency can, or should, police itself.

Even anti-regulation conservatives such as Rep. David Clark, R-Santa Clara, support creation of an independent Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to more closely scrutinize Medicaid claims.

“I look at some of these things and try to figure out, ‘Is it really fraud, waste and abuse?’ … What is the level of incompetence?” said Clark, whose term as House speaker expires in January.

Advocates for the poor support the idea, too. But they want any money recouped to be spent restoring dental and vision care and other benefits lost to recession-era budget cuts.

“Please don’t take out your frustration on the beneficiaries,” pleads Judi Hilman, executive director at the Utah Health Policy Project.

McCormack, meanwhile, says an OIG alone won’t solve the problem. OIGs work best, he said, when pared with qui tam, or whistle-blower, protections that allow individuals to file private litigation against fraudulent health providers under the False Claims Act.

Sen. Ben McAdams, D-Salt Lake City, agrees and is sponsoring legislation to reward whistle-blowers.

“It’s hard for investigators to work without tips or a road map for unraveling fraud,” McAdams said.

kstewart@sltrib.com

—

Pricey medicine

The state-owned Salt Lake Health Clinic may have overcharged Utah’s Medicaid program, submitting 718 “level five” claims of $89 for basic office visits last year, the highest amount allowed. The state average for level-five claims was 5.7.

Other clinics also filed large numbers of high-dollar claims, a legislative probe found:

Salt Lake Health Clinic of Utah • 718

Exodus Healthcare Network • 539

Pediatric Cardiology, University of Utah • 339

U. Pediatric Hematology • 329

Intermountain Healthcare’s McKay Medical Clinic • 274

Primary care physician Michael D. Whiting • 267

Children with Special Health Care Needs program • 253

Intermountain’s Memorial Clinic • 252

Intermountain’s LDS Hospital Physicians Billing • 238

Central Utah Medical Clinic • 213

Source • Utah Legislative Auditor General, December 2010 Performance Audit of Utah Medicaid Cost Control

The Associated Press

Published: November 26, 2010 04:24PM

New York • An insider trading case last year that federal authorities said was the biggest ever is providing a recipe for another case that may be even bigger.

The current case is largely an extension of work that led to the arrest of Galleon Group founder Raj Rajaratnam in October 2009. The Galleon investigation marked the first time federal authorities used wiretaps in an insider trading probe.

Wiretaps led to the first arrest in the latest case. Don Ching Trang Chu, a consulting firm executive, was arrested earlier this week for allegedly providing private information about a company’s corporate earnings to a hedge fund.

The FBI also searched the offices of three hedge funds and subpoenaed some of Wall Street’s most influential firms, including Denver-based Janus Capital Group and SAC Capital.

The Galleon case has resulted in 23 arrests and 14 guilty pleas. Many of those arrested are cooperating in the latest investigation.

The cases represent an offensive by U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara against white-collar crime in the securities industry. One aim of the current case: unearthing those who helped match employees at public companies with large-scale traders hoping to profit from information that wasn’t available to the public.

Authorities have said little about the current investigation. But a study of Bharara’s comments over the past year show how it has progressed.

Bharara said when he announced the arrests in the Galleon case last year, the use of wiretaps marked a turning point in investigations of insider trading. Wall Street insiders, he said, will be forced to wonder if every conversation is recorded.

“When sophisticated business people begin to adopt the methods of common criminals, we have no choice but to treat them as such,” he said.

By last month, Preet said insider trading is “rampant and may even be on the rise.”

Now, at least two defendants in the initial probe seem headed for trial. Rajaratnam, a former billionaire and the richest Sri Lankan-born person in the world, and Danielle Chiesi, a former consultant at New Castle Funds, have pleaded not guilty to charges of securities fraud.

Rajaratnam is a Wall Street analyst who built Galleon into a high-flying hedge fund that specialized in trading stock of technology companies.

Authorities say he built a web of industry contacts who provided him with inside information that allowed Galleon to earn millions of dollars in profits. Rajaratnam has said through his lawyers that his trades were all based on public information.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear an appeal in the biggest employment discrimination case in the nation’s history, one claiming that Wal-Mart Stores had discriminated against hundreds of thousands of women in pay and promotion. The lawsuit seeks back pay that could amount to billions of dollars.

The question is not whether there was discrimination but rather whether the claims by the individual employees may be combined as a class action. The court’s decision on that issue will almost certainly affect all sorts of class-action suits, including ones asserting antitrust, securities and product liability.

This case will be interesting to observe. We have two women on the Supreme Court and seven men. Most of the men pray to the same God the Walton’s pray to—the anti-government God of Lais sez Faire.

If nothing else, many pending class actions will slow or stop while litigants and courts await the decision in the case. Arguments in the case are likely to be heard this spring, with a decision expected by the end of June.

Wal-Mart, which says its policies expressly bar discrimination and promote diversity, said the women in the potential class action — who worked in 3,400 stores in 170 job classifications — could not possibly have enough in common to make class-action treatment appropriate.

“We are pleased that the Supreme Court has granted review in this important case,” a Wal-Mart statement said. “The current confusion in class-action law is harmful for everyone — employers, employees, businesses of all types and sizes and the civil justice system. These are exceedingly important issues that reach far beyond this particular case.”

There has been no ruling yet on the plaintiffs’ claims that they were discriminated against, and the ground rules for how those claims will be heard have not yet been determined. Resolution of the merits of the plaintiffs’ case will now await a decision about whether it may go forward as a class action.

In their brief urging the justices to deny review, the plaintiffs said Wal-Mart’s objection to class-action treatment boiled down to the enormous size of the class. But size is “legally irrelevant,” the brief said.

“The class is large because Wal-Mart is the nation’s largest employer,” the brief said, “and manages its operations and employment practices in a highly uniform and centralized manner.”

Brad Seligman, the main lawyer for the plaintiffs, said Monday that plaintiffs welcomed the court’s review of the limited issue and were confident that the justices would rule in their favor.

“Wal-Mart has thrown up an extraordinarily broad number of issues, many of which, if the court seriously entertained, could very severely undermine many civil rights class actions,” Mr. Seligman said.

In April, an 11-member panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, ruled by a 6-to-5 vote that the class action could go forward.

Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, writing for the majority, said the company’s policies and treatment of women were similar enough that a single lawsuit was both efficient and appropriate. He added that the six women who represent the class, four of whom have left Wal-Mart, had claims typical of the other plaintiffs.

The size of the proposed class was not an obstacle, Judge Susan P. Graber wrote in a concurrence.

“If the employer had 500 female employees, I doubt that any of my colleagues would question the certification of such a class,” Judge Graber wrote. “Certification does not become an abuse of discretion merely because the class has 500,000 members.”

That drew a sharp dissent from Chief Judge Alex Kozinski. “Maybe there’d be no difference between 500 employees and 500,000 employees if they all had similar jobs, worked at the same half-billion-square-foot store and were supervised by the same managers,” he wrote.

“But the half-million members of the majority’s approved class held a multitude of jobs, at different levels of Wal-Mart’s hierarchy, for variable lengths of time, in 3,400 stores, sprinkled across 50 states, with a kaleidoscope of supervisors (male and female).”

“They have little in common but their sex and this lawsuit,” Judge Kozinski concluded.

In a second dissent, Judge Sandra S. Ikuta said that allowing the case to go forward as a class action would prevent Wal-Mart from presenting tailored defenses to individual claims.

In their briefs in the case, Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, No. 10-277, the two sides cited the work of the court’s newest justices to the court.

Wal-Mart twice relied on an influential unsigned law review note that Justice Elena Kagan wrote as a student at Harvard Law School on class certification in employment discrimination suits.

The plaintiffs responded by noting that Justice Sonia Sotomayor had voted to certify an even larger class action in an antitrust case involving eight million merchants when she was a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in New York. Wal-Mart was a plaintiff in that class action.

Judge Sotomayor acknowledged that the very fact of class certification provided the plaintiffs with “leverage in settlement negotiations.”

“While the sheer size of the class in this case may enhance this effect,” she added, “this alone cannot defeat an otherwise proper certification.”

The Salt Lake Tribune

Published: December 9, 2010 09:38PM

Utah has offered online retailer Overstock.com an incentive worth as much as $1.1 million to expand its software-engineering department in Provo. That means 150 new workers would be added over the next 10 years.

The company immediately accepted the incentive offer, approved Thursday by the Governor’s Office of Economic Development board.

This $1.1M welfare gift to Overstock.com is a thing of beauty. All parties involved hate big government and especially government handouts. Welfare for the poor—absolutely not! Welfare for Corporate America—-well, that isn’t welfare.

The money is payable over 10 years as a tax credit and is contingent upon the addition of as many as 150 full-time workers earning an average of more than $51,000 annually.

As part of the expansion, Overstock.com said it will open a new office in Provo and double the company’s software engineering staff.

The Cottonwood Heights-based company said 100 of the 150 new full time positions will be filled over the next year.

“The new jobs … will significantly add to Utah’s vibrant Software and IT [information technology] development industrial cluster, said Spencer Eccles, executive director of the Governor’s Office of Economic Development.

Overstock.com was founded in 1999 and employs about 1,500 people in the state

lesley@sltrib.com

—

Overstock is hiring

Software developers who know Java can apply for a position with Overstock at www.overstock.com/javajobs

—

Another incentive approved  Thursday

Utah offered Czarnowski Display Service Inc. an incentive worth as much as $187,300 to expand in St. George.

The trade show exhibit company plans to add 50 full-time workers over seven years in southern Utah.

The company is set to receive $137,000 in the form of a tax credit and $50,000 in cash over the seven-year period if it meets the hiring requirements.

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

By Kim Murphy, Los Angeles Times

December 25, 2010

Forget billboard battles over the existence of God — holiday advertising proposed for next week on Seattle buses zeroed in on the mother of all arguments, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Reacting to an international outcry, King County executive Dow Constantine cancelled both the original proposed bus billboards and a retaliatory response. “Israeli War Crimes — Your Tax Dollars at Work,” was set against a backdrop of bombed-out buildings and dazed civilians in the Gaza Strip. The proposed response decried “Palestinian war crimes” and featured an Israeli bus in flames.

This is an inevitable problem when permitting advertising on government property as a source of revenue. It is not appropriate for the government to be in the role of censoring advertisements, and it may even be inappropriate to be selling advertising space in the first place. These are difficult questions, but once Seattle opened the buses for advertising it also opened itself up to controversy.

The question boils down to the legal issue of free speech: are the ads like yelling ‘Fire’ in a crowded theatre?

“The escalation of this issue from one of 12 local bus placards to a widespread and often vitriolic international debate introduces new and significant security concerns that compel reassessment,” Constantine said.

Officials said they were putting an interim halt on all new noncommercial advertising on King County buses. They specifically rejected ads from both camps on the Israeli-Palestinian debate.

The announcement brought expressions of relief Friday from Jewish organizations, which had flooded King County offices with e-mails, letters and calls.

But the sponsor of the Israel “war crimes” advertisements, the Seattle Mideast Awareness Campaign, accused the county of quashing free speech on a legitimate issue of U.S. foreign policy in the face of one-sided political pressure.

“The county gave in to bullying. Opponents who want information about Israeli war crimes silenced mounted a campaign to silence us. That seems outrageous to us,” said Edward Mast, a Seattle playwright and pro-Palestinian activist.

Mast is a spokesman for the “Stop30billion” group, which collected $3,000 in donations for the ads. The “30 billion” refers to the amount of aid in U.S. dollars that the group calculates has gone to the Israeli military over the last decade.

The ad campaign was intended to mark the second anniversary of Israel’s assault on Gaza in December 2008, which was aimed at quashing rocket attacks in Israeli civilian areas. The militant Palestinian group Hamas was responsible for many of the attacks, which between 2001 and 2009 killed at least 28 Israelis and injured several hundred more.

More than 1,100 Palestinians, mostly civilians, died in Israel’s three-week assault on Gaza.

Ronald Leibsohn, chairman of the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, said Jewish organizations were not opposed to discussing U.S. aid to Israel. But, he said, they were leery of plastering potentially inflammatory ads prominently on buses in a city that has seen anti-Semitic violence and vandalism.

In July 2006, a gunman targeted Seattle’s Jewish Federation. Naveed Afzal Haq shot six women, killing one of them, while shouting: “I’m a Muslim American! I’m angry at Israel!” Haq was convicted and sentenced to life in prison without parole.

This year, one day before Judaism’s holiest day, Yom Kippur, swastikas appeared on Northwest Yeshiva High School.

“Our concern has to be based on the incidence of violence and threats that have existed in the last few years in Seattle,” Leibsohn said.

“The sponsors of the ads said they intended to stimulate active conversation, but we think it was meant more to stimulate a hatred or certainly anger toward Israel,” he said. “That was not the proper venue for this kind of debate, which we are open to having, but not on the sides of buses.”

Leibsohn said the federation also opposed the “Palestinian war crimes” counter-advertising campaign proposed by the David Horowitz Freedom Center and the American Freedom Defense Initiative.

“They were highly inflammatory also,” he said. “It had just snowboarded into a very dangerous situation of shots being traded across the bow.”

Similar, but milder, campaigns against U.S aid to Israel have been launched this year in other cities, including Albuquerque, Chicago and San Francisco, campaign officials said.

Constantine, the King County executive, said officials feared the billboards could lead to disruption of transit service.

“I have consulted with federal and local law enforcement authorities who have expressed concern, in the context of this international debate, that our public transportation system could be vulnerable to disruption,” he said in a statement.

“Given the dramatic escalation of debate in the past few days over these proposed ads, and the submission of inflammatory response ads, there is now an unacceptable risk of harm to or disruption of service to our customers should these ads run.”

kim.murphy@latimes.com

Deseret News

Published: Friday, Dec. 24, 2010 5:45 p.m. MST

The NFL should consider contraction.

Not fewer teams; fewer pounds.

Let’s face it, the NFL needs to go on a diet. Send the players to Jenny Craig, sign them up for fat camp or Jillian Michaels, eliminate seconds at the training table, get serious about drug penalties — do whatever it takes.

Look, this sounds like a wacko idea, and it will never be seriously considered by the league because it makes way too much sense, but the NFL should adopt weight limits for players. Put them on a scale before each game, like boxers and wrestlers. With the much-publicized health problems of overweight NFL players, combined with the recent outbreak of explosive collisions and injuries, why not?

Doug Robinson has a great idea here. Now that it is openly on the table it could well happen. Support for this idea could pick up steam very fast. Limiting offensive and defensive linemen to 275 pounds would open the game up. Instead of 10 players standing and hugging one another in a mass at the center of the field it would bring a return to the fine art of blocking and tackling and return quickness to the game instead of power. Running backs would actually have options instead of just to ‘bounce to the outside.’

Way to go Doug Robinson. Good idea. We’re all for it.

The players are too big and many of them too fat. It exposes them to health risks on the field and off. It’s time to end the NFL’s version of the arms race — everyone getting bigger so they can compete with everyone else who is getting bigger.

In 2006, the Palm Beach Post studied the size of NFL players by compiling data from NFL rosters beginning in 1920 (a total of nearly 40,000 players). The newspaper reported, “From 1920 to 1984, there were never more than eight players in any season who weighed 300 pounds or more. This year, there were 570 players who weighed 300 or more listed on 2006 NFL training camp rosters, nearly 20 percent of all players.”

The Associated Press reported the increase in 300-pound NFL players: one in 1970, three in 1980, 94 in 1990, 301 in 2000 and 394 in 2009.

Look at the roster of the 1967 Green Bay Packers, winners of the first Super Bowl. Their biggest player weighed 260 pounds. Now look at the roster for the 2009 New Orleans Saints, winners of the last Super Bowl. They had 11 players who weighed between 294 and 343 pounds.

This trend toward battleship-size players has been emulated in the college and high school ranks. BYU’s roster includes 14 players who top 300 pounds, with several more who are one Big Mac away from joining the club.

Where will it end? Some players are already approaching 400 pounds. Next stop: 500?

The increase in size far outstrips the increase for the general population. That’s because, for the most part, it is manufactured weight. Players intentionally pack on the weight with supplements and meals that consist of 6,000 or 8,000 calories, and, yes, steroids and human growth hormone.

“The question they have to ask is, ‘How big is big enough and when do we stop getting bigger and think more about getting stronger and healthier and better?’” Michele Macedonio, nutritionist for the Cincinnati Bengals, told AP.

By bulking up, players are risking their health and a few years of their lives for fame, money and the thrill of playing the game. A study conducted by Dr. Stephen Baron for the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, found that linemen had a 52 percent greater risk of dying from heart disease than the general population.

The results of a 2006 Scripps Howard study of 3,850 pro football players who have died in the last century revealed the following: One of every 69 players born since 1955 is dead; 22 percent of them died of heart disease; 77 percent of those who died of heart diseases qualified as obese, even during their playing days; only 10 percent of deceased players born from 1905 through 1914 were obese while active players.

“Clearly, these big, fat guys are having coronaries,” Charles Yesalis, a Penn State professor of health policy and sport science, told ESPN.

University of North Carolina endocrinologist Joyce Harper published the results of a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association that revealed 56 percent of NFL players were obese according to their body-mass indexes — the government weight standard for height and weight. Some believe the BMI is inaccurate for athletes because it doesn’t take into account muscle mass, which weighs more than fat. Yesalis refutes that notion.

“When you get that big — regardless of whether your body is muscle or fat — your heart is stressed,” he says.

Besides, according to AP, Macedonio cited one study that showed a sampling of university offensive lineman averaged 27.4 percent body fat.

Another study revealed that the average life span of NFL players who play for five or more years is 55 (52 for linemen). They lose one to three years of their life expectancy for every year they play in the league.

The bottom line: Players are getting bigger and unhealthier. The average weight in the NFL has grown by 10 percent since 1985 with an average of 248 pounds; the heaviest position, offensive tackle, went from 281 pounds 25 years ago to 318 pounds.

“Is it good for guys to be that big? Of course not,” said Yesalis. “I fully support a weight limit of 275 pounds. It would reduce injuries and have a positive effect on the short- and long-term health of these men.”

A league-mandated 275-pound weight limit would not be any more unfair to those who weigh too much than it is for those players who get turned away because they don’t weigh enough. The weight limit would affect linemen almost exclusively — the players who are at the greatest risk for heart disease, diabetes and stroke, according to Mark Shilstone, the director of health and fitness for the Ochsner Clinic Foundation who has evaluated the condition of more than 300 NFL players. “(Linemen) are the walking dead,” Shilstone told USA Today. “They just don’t know it.”

The supersizing of NFL players has almost certainly contributed to another problem: Injuries. Today’s players are not only bigger, but they are faster than ever. Do the physics — bigger and faster players means harder collisions. Many of the most publicized collisions are occurring in the secondary, but 14 quarterbacks have been sidelined this season, several with concussions, because they were crushed by behemoth linemen. From a practical point of view, can the league afford to have so many players at its marquee position on the sidelines?

The other part of the weight-gain phenomenon the NFL must address more seriously is the use of steroids and human growth hormone. The league likes to boast of its testing procedures and its suspensions. It is na?e to point to drug testing and the relatively few failed tests as proof that steroids aren’t much of a problem in the NFL. This has been stated repeatedly, but it’s worth noting again that Olympic sprinter Marion Jones managed to pass every drug test she took (160) and then confessed to using steroids.

Does anyone find it strange that the NFL — whose athletes who have the most to gain by becoming bigger and stronger — has relatively few drug suspensions, while track and cycling continue to churn them out? Stranger still is the league’s weak penalty for drug use. The World Anti-Doping Agency and the IAFF — the governing body for track and field — suspend first-time offenders for 2-4 years second-time offenders for life. The NFL suspends first-time offenders for four games, which makes steroid use worth the risk, since the penalty is weak and there is little chance of being caught anyway.

The league will dispute that contention, but one thing is certain: The NFL has a Size-XXXX problem.

e-mail: drob@desnews.com