The Salt Lake Tribune

August 18, 2010 06:07AM

An offer of $140 million in federal money for education and health care is not being met with gratitude by Utah legislative leaders.

Far from it.

Instead, Utah’s Republican leaders are apoplectic that Congress provided the money — aimed at keeping teachers in the classroom and helping with the health care burden of low-income residents — and frustrated that any attempt to reject it may be fruitless.

“I’m truly astonished,” House Speaker David Clark, R-Santa Clara, said Tuesday. “Congress has unequivocally carried out the constitutional responsibilities of this state and this Legislature. … [Congress said] ‘The Utah Constitution doesn’t matter. We’re doing an end-run around this, and we’re going to decide how the money is going to be spent.’ ”

Astonishment! The Republicans are wailing at Obama for not fixing quickly enough the economy they ruined. When he takes action, they cry ‘No.” They block the very solutions necessary because they would rather have the country fail than Obama succeed. We are in a mess, a diabolical mess.

No decision has been made on whether Utah will seek the funds. Legislative leaders are meeting this morning with Gov. Gary Herbert, who has about three weeks to request the funds, to discuss the state’s approach.

But even if state leaders decide not to request the funds, the law allows the U.S. Secretary of Education to go around the Legislature and governor and give the money directly to other entities within the state.

“We are so tired and it’s one thing to receive money, but when it is in this fashion, where you’re told what to do and how to do it, it becomes a states’ rights issue,” said Senate Majority Leader Scott Jenkins, R-Plain City. “How many more rights do you want the federal government to take away from you?”

John Nixon, director of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, said the governor hasn’t decided whether to request the federal dollars, and won’t until he meets with legislative leaders.

But, he said, the money consists of stimulus dollars that were allocated for other purposes and then redirected in the new bill, so it won’t increase the federal debt.

Clark challenges that, citing line after line in the bill where programs, many of which are in the Defense Department, are being reduced to fund the bill.

The funds could help alleviate some of the budget pressures the Legislature and governor will face.

Budget analysts were already warning of a $50 million budget shortfall that could grow to as much as $150 million, in large part because of weak individual income tax collections, which fund education.

Herbert said in a statement last week that he’s committed to reducing class sizes in Utah and, “This may provide an opportunity where we can do something meaningful to address that challenge.” Utah had the highest student-teacher ratio in the nation, as of fall 2007.

According to federal guidance released Friday, if governors don’t apply for the money by Sept. 9, the funds could be “significantly delayed.”

Utah could get $101 million for schools. School districts would be expected to spend the money this school year but could technically continue using it through September of 2012.

They could use the money for compensation, benefits and support services to retain current employees, rehire past employees and/or hire new ones.

The money could only be used for school-level employees such as teachers, principals, assistant principals, academic coaches, classroom aides, secretaries, custodians, bus drivers and others, and it could be used for salaries, performance bonuses, health insurance and retirement benefits, among other items.

The White House has estimated the money could add or save 1,800 jobs. State officials, though, have said it could fund about 1,600 jobs.

That infusion could translate to a boost of about $168 in basic per student funding, known as the weighted pupil unit, said Todd Hauber, state associate superintendent.

The additional $30 million to $40 million would go toward the federal portion of Medicaid and foster care programs. Local entities that participate in the Medicaid program could receive additional funds.

The exact amount is unknown, since it depends partially on how many people are participating in the program. Those numbers are still being solidified.

Senate President Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, said he believes the full Legislature will have to vote on whether to take the money. He said state leaders are working to learn more about the money before deciding what to do.

He said, at this point, he thinks the money would likely have about a 75 to 85 percent chance of being approved by the Legislature. He said he’s in favor of taking the money partly to help prevent teacher layoffs and furloughs and to strengthen Utah’s overall financial picture in this downturn.

“There are reasons it should be done, I think,” Waddoups said.

Jenkins said some conservative senators are suggesting Utah needs to draw the line and say no to the federal money on principle, but Congress has made that an unattractive option.

“They’re saying, ‘This is your money and you’re going to take it whether you want to or not,” he said. “You look at that and say, ‘Wow, even if we wanted to let that go, we couldn’t,’ and that’s a huge debate in this.”

Clark said Tuesday the state doesn’t have many good alternatives. Ultimately, he said, the only thing the Legislature can do to fulfill its budget-making duty is to step up quickly, take the money and spend it as it sees fit.

That means one of the topics of discussion between the Legislature and Herbert will be whether to convene a legislative special session to deal with the federal funds.

—

Federal dollars/states’ rights

An infusion of $140 million federal dollars to Utah Education and Medicaid might help the state’s bottom line, but it has state lawmakers steaming over what they see as an encroachment on states’ rights and the responsibility of the Utah Legislature. Gov. Gary Herbert meets with leading lawmakers today to discuss their next step.

The Salt Lake Tribune

August 18, 2010 10:41AM

Federal regulators may well have the authority after all to decide how a Utah magnesium plant manages its hazardous waste, under a Denver appeals court’s ruling released Tuesday.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals threw out an Oct. 17, 2007, decision by U.S. District Judge Dee Benson that US Magnesium in Tooele County is exempted from the nation’s cradle-to-grave hazardous waste law, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

In short, the appeals court said the Environmental Protection Agency can update its “tentative” interpretation of a regulation into a final one without additional public input. It ordered Benson to reconsider the case.

Is it any wonder we are in an environmental quagmire. Action began on this issue in 2001. The  case was eventually decided by Judge Benson in 2007. Three years later the Appeals Court overturns the decision and orders Benson to reconsider the case, thus it is still unresolved. This is a near total failure of the court system. All this delay has been worth millions to Mag Corp and to New York businessman Ira Rennert, and the public be damned.The corporate polluters are benefited by the slow moving court system and the earth and its inhabitants suffer irreparable damage.

The delay in this decision is far more devastating than the long and tedious process of the death penalty. This needs fixed, and who will fix it? Nobody. This is a horrible condemnation of our justice system.

“Even under the case law US Magnesium asks us to follow, the agency is at liberty to adopt without notice and comment a reasonable interpretation of that ambiguous regulation,” said the opinion written by Judge Neil M. Gorsuch and joined by the two other judges on the appeals panel.

Although neither side has said what it will do next, it is possible the ruling will finally settle the two-decade-old question about the EPA’s ability to enforce the hazardous waste law at the magnesium plant, about 45 miles west of Salt Lake City on the southwest shore of the Great Salt Lake.

Said Andrew Lensink, an attorney handling the case for the EPA: “We’ve just gotten the opinion, and we’re considering our options now.”

Francis M. Wikstrom, an attorney for US Magnesium, echoed that comment, noting that the company’s attorneys will decide their next move after studying the opinion.

US Magnesium, owned by controversial New York businessman Ira L. Rennert, has been fighting RCRA oversight ever since Congress directed the EPA to clarify the “Bevill Amendment” that excluded some mining waste from the federal law.

At the time, the former owner of the company suggested RCRA should not be applied to “[p]rocess wastewater from primary magnesium production” using the Utah facility’s process.

The idea behind the Bevill Amendment was that mining companies shouldn’t face government oversight for “very large volumes” of waste that posed “relatively low” hazard. The EPA gave tentative approval in 1991 for the wording.

But, soon after, the Utah Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste began wrangling with the company over five waste byproducts and insisted they were not covered under the Bevill exclusion. By early 2001, the EPA had taken up the fight and filed suit.

One of the waste streams at issue is anode dust created after magnesium chloride is extracted from the lake and processed into magnesium and magnesium alloy often used as a metal strengthener. The dust contains dangerous byproducts, such as dioxins, hexachlorobenzene and polychlorinated biphenyls, which should be carefully handled and disposed of, the EPA contends.

And, while the EPA has used this lawsuit to address its concern about managing hazardous wastes under the federal law, it also has taken action against US Magnesium under the Superfund emergency cleanup law to address toxic waste already contaminating the site. The company is fighting the Superfund designation in the Washington, D.C., Circuit Court of Appeals.

fahys@sltrib.com

The Salt Lake Tribune

August 18, 2010 06:07AM

As a new school year begins, health experts at the University of Utah warned parents Tuesday to keep energy drinks out of their kids’ backpacks.

“How much should the pediatric population drink? None,” said Howard Kadish, chief of pediatric emergency medicine at the U.

Caffeine-charged drinks such as Red Bull, Rockstar, Full Throttle and Who’s Your Daddy have flooded convenience and grocery stores in recent years. The beverages may contain the equivalent of two or three cups of coffee. Among teenagers, they’ve become go-to drinks for parties and late-night studying.

Young people are especially vulnerable to the harmful side effects of caffeine, said Barbara Crouch, a pharmacologist and director of the Utah Poison Control Center. Those who guzzle energy drinks can experience anxiety, heart palpitations, restlessness, sleeplessness, nausea, vomiting and — in extreme cases — heart arrhythmias and seizures.

It’s not a new issue. In 2009, researchers from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine published a paper in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence that called for more accurate labeling of energy drinks to reflect their caffeine content. The researchers also suggested federal regulators should consider restrictions on advertising and the “aggressive” marketing to inexperienced users, primarily young males.

But so far, the caffeine content of energy drinks remains unregulated.

Peter Taillac, a physician at the University Hospital’s emergency room, said he has seen a rise in the number of patients treated for caffeine overdose.

Last week, a young man in his mid 20s came into the University Hospital emergency room because he thought he was having a heart attack.

“He had been drinking 7 or 8 energy drinks a day,” Taillac said.

Many energy drinks aren’t clearly labeled with caffeine content because some sources of caffeine may be natural ingredients such as guarana and green tea, Crouch said.

And consumers sometimes confuse these beverages with Gatorade-type sports drinks, which do not contain stimulants and aid re-hydration after physical activity. Athletes should not to turn to energy drinks to recharge, she said, because caffeine is a diuretic.

“Schools should definitely not have energy drinks on campus,” Crouch added.

Energy drinks are not expressly banned in Utah’s public schools, but they are “not prevalent,” said Charlene Allert, the State Office of Education’s assistant director of child nutrition programs.

The state’s recommended guidelines for school vending machines include a prohibition on all caffeinated beverages.

Granite School District, Utah’s largest, favors non-carbonated and juice drinks in school vending machines, said spokesman Ben Horsley. The district does not allow energy drinks to be sold in schools.

“Vast amounts of sugar and caffeine in beverages didn’t seem like a healthy choice in an educational environment,” Horsley said.

But many kids are buying the drinks outside of school, Crouch said. Marketing of these drinks, she noted, often links their enjoyment to psychosocial drugs and risk-taking behaviors.

There’s even one on the market called “Cocaine,” added Kadish. “How can that not be a concern?”

rwinters@sltrib.com

—

Wait — how much caffeine is in there?

Although energy drinks often contain other additives, the amount of caffeine varies wildly among products. Some contain as much caffeine as a dozen sodas. Here is a listing of milligrams of caffeine per ounce in a few drinks. For more drinks, see Page A4.

By Kathy Stephenson

The Salt Lake Tribune

August 17, 2010 07:05PM

Two decades ago, the only place to buy a bottle of olive oil was a Greek or Italian specialty market.

Today, bottles of this healthy oil are sold everywhere, from local grocery stores to big-box warehouses. Each year, U.S. consumers spend $700 million on olive oil.

But with more choices has come an array of marketing terms such as “extra-virgin,” “cold-pressed,” “light” and “unfiltered.” Taken together, these labels can seem confusing and inconsistent, as in the past the product hasn’t been regulated by the federal government.

Why would we post an article on olive oil? This article is not only about olive oil, but also about the important role that government plays in labeling of food products. It is a prime example of what happens without government supervision.

Currently none of us know the true quality of olive oil. For years I’ve been buying ‘extra virgin’ because the nutritionists have indicated there is an important difference. Now I discover that ‘extra virgin’ may not be what it claims to be, and one thing is for sure, we cannot depend on the integrity of free enterprise corporations. That is the Law of the Jungle that so around here pray to every day.

From now we will all know to look for the USDA rating label before buying an olive oil.

For the average consumer, it can be difficult to figure out what these terms actually mean, as well as why one bottle of 100 percent extra-virgin olive costs $6, while another costs $20 or more.

The confusion could be ending soon, as the U.S. Department of Agriculture recently adopted a new set of standards. Companies are encouraged to adopt the USDA’s definitions to help consumers differentiate the best oils from the cheap imposters. The federal agency adopted the new regulations in April, and plans to start enforcing the standards in October, about the time olive trees are ready to harvest and pressing begins.

“These new standards are a step forward and closely align with international standards,” said Dan Flynn, executive director of the Olive Center at the University of California Davis. “The thing to keep in mind is that the USDA standards are voluntary. Those producers that have a USDA seal on their label will need to abide by the standards.”

Flynn isn’t sure how many companies will abide by the standards, but consumers should start looking and demanding the seal when shopping, much as they do with the green-and-white organic label found on certified organic products.

Extra-virgin olive oil is considered the premium in the category, as it has low acidity and contains the highest level of healthful fats and antioxidants. It also costs more.

The new regulations come just in time, as last month Flynn and researchers at the Olive Center reported that more than two-thirds of the common brands of extra-virgin olive found in California grocery stores weren’t actually what the label claimed.

Researchers tested 5 California brands and 14 popular imports, all labeled “100 percent extra-virgin olive oil.” The olive oils, which included the popular Bertolli and Pompeian brands, were purchased from Ralph’s, Safeway, Whole Foods markets and Wal-Mart.

Samples were put through blind tests for taste and smell, then subjected to a battery of chemical tests designed to uncover old or refined oils.

The results: 69 percent of the imported oil sampled and one of the 10 California-produced samples failed to meet acceptable standards. The samples failed for a variety of reasons, including exposure to heat and light, adulteration with cheaper oils, the use ofdamaged or overripe olives, processing flaws and improper storage.

Some organizations have criticized the report, saying the sample size was too small and it didn’t take into account details such as the date of collection, “best before date” labels and package types.

A few weeks after the report was issued, a group of California chefs, restaurants and cooking enthusiasts filed a complaint in Orange County Superior Court accusing several companies of diluting olive oil with cheaper alternatives while still branding it “extra-virgin.” The group is seeking an injunction to prevent the distribution of the questionable oil. They also want millions of dollars in restitution for “fraudulently obtained profits.”

The shady practices frustrate retailers such as Steven Rosenberg, owner of Salt Lake City’s Liberty Heights Fresh, who imports dozens of olive oils from around the world and gets to know the growers and producers of the products he sells.

“It’s pretty simple: you get what you pay for,” he said. “When supermarkets’ only appeal is low price, something is going to give. And what is going to give is the integrity of the product.”

The hardest part for many consumers to understand is that buying a good olive oil doesn’t require paying a lot of money, Rosenberg said.

“You can buy a great bottle of olive oil for $12 to $15,” he said, adding: “No one should eat bad olive oil and no one should sell bad olive oil.”

kathys@sltrib.com

—

‘Extra-virgin’ olive oil know-how

Here are six ways consumers can ensure they are getting their money’s worth when buying extra-virgin olive oil:

Check the label • It should say “extra-virgin” olive oil, with a harvest or milling date within the last 12 months.

Check the bottle • Olive oil should come in a dark bottle to cut down on light exposure. Light dramatically shortens shelf life. Be on the lookout for dust or other signs that the bottle has been sitting on the shelf too long.

Look for a seal • If you’re buying an extra-virgin olive oil from California, look for a COOC seal. This ensures the olive oil is extra virgin, grown in California, and comes from the most recent harvest. The seal also means it has passed certain chemical analysis and taste tests. When the new USDA regulations take effect, there will also be a similar national seal.

Know your retailer • Buy from retailers who know producers, growers and importers. These experts also know how to care properly for oil. Specialty retailers also allow you to sample before you buy.

Buying online • When buying online, check for the harvest date, and always buy from the most recent harvest. Ask before you complete your purchase.

Storage • Keep extra-virgin olive oil away from light, air and heat. Use it as quickly as possible after opening.

Source • The California Olive Oil Council

—

Know your olive oil

Not all olive oils are created equal. Here are some commonly found marketing terms that consumers should understand:

Extra-virgin olive oil • Oil from the first cold pressing of olives without refining. It contains 1 percent acidity and is considered the finest and fruitiest of olive oils. It’s also the most expensive.

Virgin olive oil • This oil, which also is from the first pressing, has a slightly higher acidity level, between 1 and 3 percent. While it’s not refined, it has a milder taste than extra-virgin olive oil.

Olive oil • A blend of lower-quality virgin olive oil, which goes through a refining process that creates a light-colored and flavored oil.

Light or mild • A variation of olive oil that’s highly refined, with the “light” referring to the taste and color. It has the same amount of calories and fat as other olive oils.

Blend • Added to virgin olive oil is a less expensive vegetable oil, such as canola. This product is less expensive than pure olive oil.

Cold-pressed • The process that uses pressure — not heat — to extract the oil from the ripe olives. It produces olive oil with a low acidity.

Source • The Food Lover’s Companion and www.oliveoilsource.com.

(This is a blog by Glen Warchol of the Salt Lake Tribune)

The Salt Lake Tribune

August 13, 2010 12:49PM
Utah’s journalism and political communities have been buzzing the last couple weeks with rumors of an impending implosion of the Deseret News. Let me concisely repeat the rumors:

• In the next few weeks, a significant part of the DNews staff will be laid off.

• What remains will leave the Deseret News building in the heart of downtown to be resettled with KSL in the Triad Center.

• The DNews will no longer publish daily, but three days or so a week (it would, of course, continue to exist online with Mormon Times).

The staff at the DNews is so utterly demoralized and terrified that it is impossible to get any of this nailed down on the record. As one DNewser told a Trib colleague: “the stink of fear” permeates the newsroom.

Salt Lake City Weekly’s Josh Loftin, a former DNews editor and reporter, tries to make sense of the weak signal coming from inside the monolith of Mormon Media under new strongman Mark Willes.

Despite the recent de-evolution of the 150-year-old DNews under Editor Joe Cannon (photo above) and Willes from the “Christian Science Monitor of the West” to a LDS faith-promoting publication with a purged political staff, it still remained a player in Utah’s media, particularly in state government coverage.
Newspapers, including The Tribune, have struggled the last few years with declining revenues following the online information revolution, but the DNews also has been buffeted by pressures to publish news with a positive slant and to advance the LDS religion. Such goals are, of course, an anathema to good journalism.

The funny thing is that everyone in the business thought the DNews would outlast the Tribune because of its iconic position in LDS Church history. But all it took was a couple of suits with a management theory.
Full disclosure: Hard to believe, but I was a reporter at the DNews in the 1980s.

By TONY SEMERAD

The Salt Lake Tribune

August 14, 2010 10:26PM

The amount of federal stimulus cash pumped into Utah by the controversial American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has now surpassed the $3 billion mark in spending and as much as another $1.5 billion in tax cuts.

Spending alone — on education, business and student loans, road and infrastructure construction, energy projects, and expansion of existing social welfare programs like jobless assistance and food stamps — has pushed Utah’s benefit from the stimulus to $1,110 per resident, according to data newly compiled by the nonprofit investigative journalism website ProPublica.org.

That puts Utah slightly below the national per capita average of $1,170.

But the Utah stimulus figure is much higher than $3 billion. Almost $1.5 billion more in tax cuts — not part of spending data — has been reaching Utah pocketbooks since 2009, through the stimulus bill’s changes in payroll withholding brackets and relief from the alternative minimum tax for middle-class taxpayers.

So, with a financial boost that large — one likely to be more even than the $3.7 billion the bill originally targeted for Utah — what do taxpayers have to show for the money?

A lot, it turns out.

This is great news—but Republicans will twist it into bad news.Through the eyes of a Republican Obama can do nothing right. Whatever he is doing is wrong. If the stimulus is helping the economy then we are ruining the economy with deficit spending. If the stimulus isn’t working then blame Obama. Whatever the situation — the Party of No can turn it upside down.

“Whenever you get that amount of money infused into the state, it has to have a certain amount of benefit,’’ said John Nixon, budget director for Gov. Gary Herbert, who has helped shape two state budgets since stimulus cash starting flowing in February 2009.

Stimulus-funded transportation projects, in particular, have had a significant impact on the state, said one leading Republican — but not enough to assuage GOP criticism that the $780 billion-plus stimulus package was overspending that contributed to the national debt.

“The amount was too large,’’ said Utah Senate President Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville. “But I still believe some parts of the stimulus have been beneficial and achieved their goals.’’

The main effect of the hallmark spending bill may be the hardest to measure: the extent to which it kept the downturn from becoming worse. Officials can’t point to exactly how far the economy might have fallen otherwise, but most say they are sure the stimulus helped.

Coming as it did against a backdrop of seizing credit and collapsing markets, “you have to assume that it has had a major impact in keeping the overall economy going,’’ said Mark Knold, senior economist with the Utah Department of Workforce Services. “You can easily make the argument that the economy would have slid more without the stimulus.’’

The bill put at least $681 million into Utah for immediate help to residents hit by the recession, in the form of extended unemployment benefits, food stamps and increased funds for Medicaid, the state-managed health care program for low-income residents.

In addition to helping recipients, subsidizing their spending power has broader benefits in keeping the economy afloat, Knold said. “We’ve avoided the Hoovervilles that way,’’ the state economist said, referring to shantytowns built by the destitute during the Great Depression.

Payments from two major pieces of the stimulus — a so-called State Fiscal Stabilization Fund that targeted public schools and an infusion of cash for Medicaid — came soon after the controversial bill passed.

Utah officials used the money to plug state budget holes, and it freed up cash to bond for a series of road projects, invest in technology research and fund energy-development tax credits and incentives to new home buyers, Nixon said.

“We did do some real stimulative and creative stuff with our funds,’’ he said. “For one thing, we know that transportation projects are some of the most stimulative projects out there.’’

Between federal and state construction projects, stimulus dollars are behind major Interstate 15 and light-rail improvements; a new school in the Jordan School District; a 120-bed veterans home in Ogden; a refurbished chapel at Hill Air Force Base; a 10,000 square-foot, fully furnished Bureau of Land Management office building in Millard County; and a fire station in Cedar City.

The cash also has fueled a $70 million surge in work on the Central Utah Project, further exploiting Utah’s share of the Colorado River with a new pipeline through Spanish Fork Canyon. And stimulus money is paying to remove 2 million tons of Atlas uranium tailings from the banks of the Colorado near Moab — a project delayed for years before the stimulus passed.

The cash has paid for hundreds of smaller public-facility upgrades, from the resurfacing of roads, range maintenance, trail overhauls, updates to drinking and waste-water systems, and a wide array of energy efficiency and infrastructure work on city, county and state buildings.

Just how many jobs this may have generated, or job losses it prevented, is an open question.

The Obama administration estimated in 2009 that the stimulus bill would add 32,000 in Utah, part of 3.5 million jobs projected to be created by the package nationwide, focused on schools and construction.

Yet the construction sector in Utah has sustained one of the largest job losses in the state’s economy during the intervening 18 months, while at the same time, classic “bricks and mortar’’ examples of stimulus-funded construction have abounded across the state.

On the private sector side, the stimulus delivered loans totaling over $288 million to more than 2,000 Utah businesses, nearly all through the Small Business Administration. And this probably created jobs and boosted the economy more quickly than other stimulus spending, one federal official said.

“These are existing businesses looking to expand and build more jobs,’’ said Dan Hannaher, SBA regional administrator. The government-subsidized loans, he said, are “an extremely good return on investment for the taxpayers. There is no doubt of the impact this is having on the economy.’’

The average SBA stimulus loan in Utah has been about $171,000, according to data through June 2010.

Fifty-seven Utah businesses — ranging from medical clinics, technology groups, and legal and architectural firms to restaurants and retail and service companies — have gotten stimulus loans of more than $1 million, and nine companies got $2 million or more.

The stimulus helped Robert Adams, a registered nurse at Midtown Manor Care Center in Salt Lake City, to buy the facility from its previous owners last year. And since he took over the long-term care center, its occupancy rate has climbed and so have revenues.

By cutting in half the down payment Adams needed to buy the 82-bed nursing home, the SBA’s $2 million loan “was absolutely a deal-maker for me. It made it all happen.’’

Adams has added four positions to his staff of 76 nurses, physical therapists and support staff since taking over. And if revenues continue upward, he said he hopes to expand with purchases of other nursing homes.

In terms of retooling Utah’s labor force, the stimulus has helped thousands of Utahns seek new job skills, with more than $165 million going to PELL grants for disadvantaged students attending the state’s colleges, universities and a host of for-profit technical and trade schools.

Both state and federal policymakers are betting heavily on research and innovation in their quest to turn the economy around.

At least $91 million of Utah’s stimulus is going to research projects, with topics such as medical advances, information technology, clean fuels, the environment, material and structural engineering, and genetics. These grants, primarily through the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy, have gone to all of Utah’s major colleges and universities — with the University of Utah far in the lead — as well as a host of private companies.

However this may pay off with research breakthroughs, there are more immediate economic benefits as well.

“Faculty members are hiring staff and spending money on services and supplies, mostly from Utah,’’ Tom Parks, a neurobiologist and vice president of U. research, wrote recently in a glowing news release about the U. grant cash. “Most of the money is spent locally.’’

tsemerad@sltrib.com

]]> http://www.wattscookinblog.com/2010/08/utah-benefits-big-time-from-stimulus-money-tax-cuts/feed/ 0 http://www.wattscookinblog.com/2010/08/mayor-bloombergs-speech-supporting-mosque-near-ground-zero/ http://www.wattscookinblog.com/2010/08/mayor-bloombergs-speech-supporting-mosque-near-ground-zero/#comments Sun, 15 Aug 2010 04:23:16 +0000 Joe Watts http://www.wattscookinblog.com/?p=3233 Here is the full text of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s speech following a vote that clears most major hurdles for the construction of a planned mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero:

by Mayor Michael Bloomberg

“We have come here to Governors Island to stand where the earliest settlers first set foot in New Amsterdam, and where the seeds of religious tolerance were first planted. We’ve come here to see the inspiring symbol of liberty that, more than 250 years later, would greet millions of immigrants in the harbor, and we come here to state as strongly as ever – this is the freest City in the world. That’s what makes New York special and different and strong.

Score one for Mayor Bloomberg. On second thought—score TEN!

This speech was eloquent, fair, scholarly, and open minded. It was in the moderate,  inclusive and forthright style of Barack Obama. That these grand words of peace and brotherhood came from the mouth of a Republican is, in this day and age, almost beyond belief. The Republican Party, which has become the party of bigotry, will be disowning the mayor when they read or hear these remarks.

Hats off to Mayor Bloomberg. He got it right! It should go a long way in toning down the vitriolic rhetoric coming from the so-called Christian patriots who don’t have a clue about the rule of law and the constitution.

“Our doors are open to everyone – everyone with a dream and a willingness to work hard and play by the rules. New York City was built by immigrants, and it is sustained by immigrants – by people from more than a hundred different countries speaking more than two hundred different languages and professing every faith. And whether your parents were born here, or you came yesterday, you are a New Yorker.

“We may not always agree with every one of our neighbors. That’s life and it’s part of living in such a diverse and dense city. But we also recognize that part of being a New Yorker is living with your neighbors in mutual respect and tolerance. It was exactly that spirit of openness and acceptance that was attacked on 9/11.
“On that day, 3,000 people were killed because some murderous fanatics didn’t want us to enjoy the freedom to profess our own faiths, to speak our own minds, to follow our own dreams and to live our own lives.  ”Of all our precious freedoms, the most important may be the freedom to worship as we wish. And it is a freedom that, even here in a City that is rooted in Dutch tolerance, was hard-won over many years. In the mid-1650s, the small Jewish community living in Lower Manhattan petitioned Dutch Governor Peter Stuyvesant for the right to build a synagogue – and they were turned down.

“In 1657, when Stuyvesant also prohibited Quakers from holding meetings, a group of non-Quakers in Queens signed the Flushing Remonstrance, a petition in defense of the right of Quakers and others to freely practice their religion. It was perhaps the first formal, political petition for religious freedom in the American colonies – and the organizer was thrown in jail and then banished from New Amsterdam.

“In the 1700s, even as religious freedom took hold in America, Catholics in New York were effectively prohibited from practicing their religion – and priests could be arrested. Largely as a result, the first Catholic parish in New York City was not established until the 1780’s – St. Peter’s on Barclay Street, which still stands just one block north of the World Trade Center site and one block south of the proposed mosque and community center.

“This morning, the City’s Landmark Preservation Commission unanimously voted not to extend landmark status to the building on Park Place where the mosque and community center are planned. The decision was based solely on the fact that there was little architectural significance to the building. But with or without landmark designation, there is nothing in the law that would prevent the owners from opening a mosque within the existing building. The simple fact is this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship.

“The government has no right whatsoever to deny that right – and if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question – should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here. This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions, or favor one over another.

“The World Trade Center Site will forever hold a special place in our City, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves – and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans – if we said ‘no’ to a mosque in Lower Manhattan.

“Let us not forget that Muslims were among those murdered on 9/11 and that our Muslim neighbors grieved with us as New Yorkers and as Americans. We would betray our values – and play into our enemies’ hands – if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else. In fact, to cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists – and we should not stand for that.

“For that reason, I believe that this is an important test of the separation of church and state as we may see in our lifetime – as important a test – and it is critically important that we get it right.

“On September 11, 2001, thousands of first responders heroically rushed to the scene and saved tens of thousands of lives. More than 400 of those first responders did not make it out alive. In rushing into those burning buildings, not one of them asked ‘What God do you pray to?’ ‘What beliefs do you hold?’

“The attack was an act of war – and our first responders defended not only our City but also our country and our Constitution. We do not honor their lives by denying the very Constitutional rights they died protecting. We honor their lives by defending those rights – and the freedoms that the terrorists attacked.

“Of course, it is fair to ask the organizers of the mosque to show some special sensitivity to the situation – and in fact, their plan envisions reaching beyond their walls and building an interfaith community. By doing so, it is my hope that the mosque will help to bring our City even closer together and help repudiate the false and repugnant idea that the attacks of 9/11 were in any way consistent with Islam. Muslims are as much a part of our City and our country as the people of any faith and they are as welcome to worship in Lower Manhattan as any other group. In fact, they have been worshipping at the site for the better part of a year, as is their right.

“The local community board in Lower Manhattan voted overwhelming to support the proposal and if it moves forward, I expect the community center and mosque will add to the life and vitality of the neighborhood and the entire City.

“Political controversies come and go, but our values and our traditions endure – and there is no neighborhood in this City that is off limits to God’s love and mercy, as the religious leaders here with us today can attest.”

Rice declared on her Facebook account:

“For those who care, and I understand if you don’t:  Today I quit being a Christian. I’m out. I remain committed to Christ as always, but not to being a Christian or to being part of Christianity. It’s simply impossible for me to belong to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I’ve tried. I’ve failed. I’m an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else.

“I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. I refuse to be anti-Democrat. I refuse to be anti-secular humanism. I refuse to be anti-science. I refuse to be anti-life. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen.”

As expected, pro and con comments are appearing all over the internet. On Watts Cookin Blpg we have posted a column by Leonard Pitts on the subject. We will post others as well as comments.

By Joseph M. Dougherty and Elizabeth Stuart

Deseret News

Published: Wednesday, Aug. 11, 2010 12:12 a.m. MDT

WASHINGTON — With President Barack Obama’s signature on the $26 billion stimulus bill for education and Medicaid on Tuesday, Utah stands to nab about $101 million for education for fiscal 2011.

Though that number is just 1 percent of the $10 billion allocated for education funding nationwide, it could save the jobs of 1,400 to 1,500 teachers in Utah, according to state estimates, and up to 1,800 teachers, according to federal estimates.

Republicans are opposed to this good news. It boggles the mind! They would rather give a tax cut to the rich than keep our kids in teachers. Such distorted values!

Both the U.S. House and Senate passed the bill this month, with the House’s vote taking place Tuesday afternoon before a copy of the bill was taken up Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House.

The votes in both houses happened nearly along party lines, with the Democrats supporting the bill as a way to save teacher jobs that were in danger of being lost due to declining local tax revenue.

Democrats on Tuesday said the nation could descend into another deep recession if states don’t get help.

But Republicans, who tended to vote against the bill, said education funding is typically a state issue and the federal government doesn’t have $26 billion to spend.

The Congressional Budget Office says the measure will add to the federal budget deficit over the next five years but will reduce the deficit over 10 years through cuts to military spending, the federal food stamp program and tax increases to certain corporations.

The Utah State Office of Education would likely distribute the money equally among districts and charter schools by boosting per-student funding approximately $168, said state school Superintendent Larry Shumway.

The Utah State Office of Education did not join others across the country in lobbying for the bill, Shumway said, because “we don’t believe the federal government really has $26 billion to spend right now.” Nonetheless, he added, “We could absolutely use the money.”

If Utah does not apply for its share of the federal stimulus, Shumway said, the $101 million will be divvied out elsewhere.

Despite welcoming 25,000 new students over the past two years, the Utah public school system has taken a $200 million cut. Every school district in the state has had to raise class sizes, Shumway said.

“This funding would allow us to hire back some of those teachers,” he said.

Todd Hauber, associate superintendent of business services at the State Office of Education, said the bill wasn’t designed in response to Utah’s situation.

“You’ve got some states that are really hurting in education. Instead of losing the teachers, they’d like to hold onto them for another year,” he said. “Utah’s problem is we’ve had such enrollment growth. We’re not hiring as many teachers as we would if economic times were better. Some districts are cutting back on teachers — yes — but the bigger issue is we can’t hire as many teachers as we need.”

Utah’s four Republicans in Congress voted against the bill.

“This legislation unfairly distributes funding to irresponsible states that have made poor budgetary decisions and short changes states like Utah that have been consistent in the prioritization of spending,” said Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah.

But Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, who voted for the bill, said the measure will help Utah children who are about to return to school.

“This keeps 1,800 Utah teachers in their classrooms, rather than sending them on to the unemployment line,” Matheson said. “The legislation is paid for, and it does not add to the deficit.”

Deseret News

Published: Tuesday, Aug. 10, 2010 12:15 a.m. MDT

Proponents of gay marriage have managed to frame the issue as one of equal treatment under the law, often asking opponents to demonstrate how the marriage of two men or two women could cause harm to anyone else’s heterosexual marriage.

This is an entirely wrong and misleading framework and question. The more relevant question ought to be why governments have an interest in sanctioning marriages at all.

This editorial, The Deseret News, and the LDS Church are willfully skirting the issues that faced the court in a continuing attempt to rationalize their opposition to same-sex marriage.

Repeat the same old saw enough times, and offer enough smokescreens, and it’s amazing how many brain waves can be shut down.

The issue is a constitutional issue of equal protection under the law. The courts have continually told opponents of same-sex marriage that it is unconstitutional to deny homosexuals equal protection under the law. In America we don’t hold elections to determine our right to equal protection. In order to deny equal protection to anyone we would have to change the constitution. Proposition 8 was a blatant unconstitutional effort to deny equal protection of the laws to gays and lesbians. The courts have ruled on this subject time and again and still the opponents haven’t gotten the message. It is not just Justice Vaughn Walker. It began in 1993 when the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to deny equal protection under the law to gays and lesbians. Judges are bound by the law to uphold equal protection of the laws.  Judges have never had a compelling reason to deny equal protection of the law to gays and lesbians. Bigotry simply isn’t a compelling reason and it is the basis of all the arguments offered in opposition to same-sex marriage. Opponents just can’t muster up any other defense and while bigotry can cut it at the ballot box, it can’t cut it in the courts.

The answer to that one is clear. Because of their concern for the general welfare, governments have a compelling interest in sanctioning behaviors designed to perpetuate order and progress. With that in mind, they have an interest in sanctioning the only kind of sexual relations best designed to lead to healthy children being raised in a way that gives them the greatest chance for success as adults. That is through the marriage of one man and one woman.

The fact that some married people can’t have children is irrelevant. The fact that many marriages break up or that some children of marriages are abused does not change the argument. People are inherently flawed. There also are extraordinary citizens who were raised in single-parent or nontraditional homes. But the man-woman marriage template remains the best chance for children and the only type of relationship the state ought to have an interest in sanctioning. Governments typically don’t sanction every man-woman union, either. First cousins, for example, often are forbidden to marry, again because of the possible effects on children such a union might produce.

Most Americans, it seems, understand all this. Certainly, most Californians did when they passed Proposition 8. So did voters in 30 other states, most recently Maine. Same-sex marriage has lost every time it has been put to a vote in this country. Even state legislatures in some typically liberal states, such as New York, have defeated the idea.

But now Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco has overturned that vote. He not only bought into the popular, but false, framework for marriage as a civil right absent any thought to history, nature or centuries of both secular and religious tradition — he declared that “gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage.” To get there, he used tortured legal reasoning that cited the gradual move toward equality of the sexes as a basis for determining that there is no difference between the sexes.

Along the way, he managed to cast those in favor of Proposition 8, including the majority of California voters, as irrational people who base their feelings on moral and religious views, which he sweeps aside as an immaterial basis for a law.

To the contrary, the benefits of heterosexual marriage are rational and time-tested. The effects of gay marriage are unknown. Governments have no interest in sanctioning or solemnizing the love people may have for one another. They do, however, have a great interest in sanctioning a time-tested institution that is best for the raising of children.

That does not mean gay people should be denied equal rights. Indeed, they deserve equal rights in everything from housing to employment, probate and medical care. Marriage, however, should remain within its traditional bounds.

Judge Walker’s decision was wrong. The Constitution is silent on the subject of marriage, and the civil rights argument is irrational. Marriage is a state issue, and Californians have settled it at the ballot box. We hope the judges who hear this case on appeal can see this and overturn the ruling.