Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
"If two men agree on everything, you may be sure that one of them is doing the thinking." Lyndon B. Johnson
Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html
Jalen Rose: From the Fab Five to the Three Rs
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203413304577088270404438882.html
Jon Huntsman: Our Current Time for Choosing
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303657404576357450908758760.html
Dr. E. Fuller Torrey: A Predictable Tragedy in Arizona
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703779704576073973345594508.html
Peter Berkowitz: The Death of Conservatism Was Greatly Exaggerated
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704147804575455090270186082.html
Arnold Schwarzenegger: Public Pensions and Our Fiscal Future
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703447004575449813071709510.html
Arthur Laffer: The Soak-the-Rich Catch-22
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703977004575393882112674598.html
State governments, one of the last bastions of guaranteed pensions, are increasingly taking a page from the 401(k) plans that dominate the private sector.
Utah state Sen. Dan Liljenquist pushed his state to move toward a pension plan more similar to those used in the private sector.
Some new state workers in Michigan and Utah will soon begin to receive part of their retirement benefits from a 401(k)-type plan, after lawmakers there recently voted to adopt plans that combine a 401(k) component with a guaranteed benefit.
These hybrid plans are a cost-cutting measure for states seeking to pare back the guaranteed-retirement payments considered a bedrock benefit for government workers. The new plans shift more responsibility for funding retirement benefits to employees and, some say, could make government jobs less attractive. In down markets, the plans could mean less-generous benefits for these workers, who have sidestepped the market volatility many of their private-sector counterparts endured in recent years.
Utah and Michigan join six other states that have some form of hybrid plans for public workers. Most of those states, including Oregon and Washington, created hybrid plans within the past 15 years.
A number of other states, facing looming pension-fund liabilities, have expressed interest in hybrid plans, industry participants say. Some officials in North Carolina and Pennsylvania, for instance, are contemplating a move to a hybrid plan.
"Reality is not negotiable," says Utah state Sen. Dan Liljenquist, a Republican who was instrumental in crafting the legislation for the state's pension changes. "The fact is somebody bears the risk. Ultimately, the state is bearing more risk than it can."
Total unfunded public-pension liabilities in the U.S. increased to $457.8 billion in fiscal year 2008 from $368.5 billion in 2007, according to a June report by Standard & Poor's. States have taken various measures to bridge that funding gap, including scaling back cost-of-living adjustments, increasing monthly contributions from employees toward their pensions or extending the retirement age. Often the changes only affect new hires.
Governments trying to rein in pension costs hope these hybrid plans can represent a middle ground. Since they maintain a defined-benefit plan for workers, the hybrid plans can help lawmakers skirt the political backlash that could accompany any threat to a pension, while they move some of the investment risk to employees.
Though not a booming trend, "hybrids are being looked at now more than ever before," said Cathie Eitelberg, senior vice president and public-sector practice leader at the Segal Co., whose clients include government pension funds.
In Utah, most current employees are in a pension where the state in 2010 contributes 16% of an employee's monthly income. Workers do not contribute. Faced with rising contribution rates, lawmakers voted to have new workers as of July 1, 2011 choose to enroll in a defined-contribution plan—like a 401(k)—or a hybrid plan.
In the hybrid plan, workers can invest in a 401(k)-type fund. State and employee contributions to the defined-benefit portion of the hybrid plan fluctuate based on the financing of the pension fund. The state contribution is capped at 10% across both parts of the plan.
In Michigan, new school employees as of July 1 contribute 2% of monthly income to a 401(k)-type fund, with state employers matching up to 1% of pay. Employees are automatically enrolled in the fund but can choose to opt out or choose to contribute more.
There is still a defined-benefit component, but it will cost the state less: Public employers will contribute on average 2.5% of an employee's monthly income toward retirement, down from an average base of 4%. There is no longer a cost-of-living adjustment in retirement.
Retirement officials hope that most new employees will contribute to the 401(k)-type fund to try to maximize their retirement benefits by taking advantage of the employer match, said Phil Stoddard, director of Michigan's Office of Retirement Services.
"We hope to create a culture of savings" with the defined-contribution component, Mr. Stoddard said. The 401(k) component becomes portable, which he said can make the benefit plan attractive for younger workers who are unlikely to remain in one job for 30 years, Mr. Stoddard said.
Some workers aren't enthralled. "It's less benefit overall because of the variability of that 401(k) component," said Doug Pratt, director of communications for the Michigan Education Association, a union representing 130,000 school employees.
The reduced benefits mean "we're going to lose some good people" who will find the benefits package less attractive, he said. But a hybrid plan is "certainly a better alternative than ditching pensions all together."
The vast majority of public sector employees have a defined-benefit plan-79% in 2008, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a nonprofit research institute in Washington. In comparison, 33% of private-sector employees were enrolled in a pension plan in the same period.
Eighteen percent of state workers had a defined-contribution plan in 2008, compared with 55% of private-sector workers enrolled in a defined-contribution plan.
The heightened interest in hybrid plans doesn't appear to foreshadow a swift change toward defined-contribution plans. Though defined-contribution plans are often on legislative agendas, they rarely have been adopted in the public sector, says Ron Snell, director of the state-services division for the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Only Alaska and the District of Columbia have mandatory defined-contribution plans for all workers, according to a June report by Mr. Snell.
Allan Meltzer: Why Obamanomics Has Failed
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704629804575325233508651458.html
McGurn: The Obama Speech We're Waiting For
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704895204575320922399530274.html
Andy Kessler: The iPhone, Net Neutrality and the FCC
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703303904575293021509968904.html
Storming the School Barricades
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704635204575242123324855474.html
Earmarks Forever
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703862704575099832389494288.html
The Continuing Climate Meltdown
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703630404575053781465774008.html
Rich Karlgaard: Apple to the Rescue?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029350404353026.html
Paul D. Ryan: A GOP Road Map for America's Future
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703808904575025080017959478.html
Nigel Lawson: Time for a Climate Change Plan B
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107604574607793378860698.html
Patrick Michaels: How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html
Rupert Murdoch: Journalism and Freedom
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107104574570191223415268.html
Interview with Meb Keflezighi: Running Man
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704204304574545691839032268.html
Betsy McCaughey: What the Pelosi Health Care Bill Really Says
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704795604574519671055918380.html
The No-Cost Path to Cheaper Health Care
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704013004574517961189341646.html
Charles Gasparino: Three Decades of Subsidized Risk
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703363704574503404180541392.html
Jenkins: The Meaning of Nummi
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574457242497429898.html
| Figure 1: Recessions and U.S. Job Losses-A Historical Perspective 1945-Present | ||||||
Recession | Number of Months | Peak Employment | Month Peak Employment Obtained | Number of Jobs Lost During Downturn | Lost Jobs as a Percent of Total Jobs | Number of Months to Return to Pre-Recession Employment |
Feb-Oct 1945 | 9 | 41,903,000 | Feb-45 | 3,305,000 | 7.9% | 9 (Jul-46) |
Nov 48-Oct 1949 | 12 | 45,194,000 | Nov-48 | 2,244,000 | 5.0% | 9 (Jul-50) |
Jul 53-May 1954* | 11 | 50,536,000 | Jul-53 | 1,571,000 | 3.1% | 13 (Jun-55) |
Aug 57-April 1958 | 9 | 53,128,000 | Aug-57 | 2,102,000 | 4.0% | 12 (Apr-59) |
Apr 60-Feb 1961 | 11 | 54,812,000 | Apr-60 | 1,256,000 | 2.3% | 10 (Dec-61) |
Dec 69-Nov 1970 | 12 | 71,453,000 | Mar-70 | 1,044,000 | 1.5% | 10 (Sep-71) |
Nov 73-Mar 1975* | 17 | 78,634,000 | Jul-74 | 2,115,000 | 2.7% | 11 (Feb-76) |
Jan 80-Jul 1980 | 7 | 90,991,000 | Mar-80 | 1,159,000 | 1.3% | 6 (Jan-81) |
Jul 81-Nov 1982* | 17 | 91,594,000 | Jul-81 | 2,838,000 | 3.1% | 11 (Nov-83) |
Jul 90-Mar 1991* | 9 | 109,775,000 | Jul-90 | 1,579,000 | 1.4% | 23 (Feb-93) |
Mar 01-Nov 2001* | 9 | 132,500,000 | Mar-01 | 2,678,000 | 2.0% | 39 (Feb-05) |
Dec 07-Present | 14 | 138,152,000 | Dec-07 | 3,572,000 | 2.6% | TBD |
Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Series (CES), Seasonally Adjusted Data and National Bureau of Economic & Business Research, Business Cycle Dating Committee | ||||||
| *Jobs in these recessions hit their low point after the recession was official declared over. For most, this low point was within a few months. The 2001 recession is the exception--jobs did not reach the trough until August 2003, when total nonfarm jobs reached a low of 129,882,000. | ||||||
As the chart shows, the current recession is now one of the longest since 1945—exceeded only by the downturns of 1973 and 1981. The current jobs losses are not nearly as severe as those experienced during five previous recessions, when measured as a percent of total jobs.
AMERICANS today spend almost as much on bandwidth — the capacity to move information — as we do on energy. A family of four likely spends several hundred dollars a month on cellphones, cable television and Internet connections, which is about what we spend on gas and heating oil.
Just as the industrial revolution depended on oil and other energy sources, the information revolution is fueled by bandwidth. If we aren’t careful, we’re going to repeat the history of the oil industry by creating a bandwidth cartel.
Like energy, bandwidth is an essential economic input. You can’t run an engine without gas, or a cellphone without bandwidth. Both are also resources controlled by a tight group of producers, whether oil companies and Middle Eastern nations or communications companies like AT&T, Comcast and Vodafone. That’s why, as with energy, we need to develop alternative sources of bandwidth.
Wired connections to the home — cable and telephone lines — are the major way that Americans move information. In the United States and in most of the world, a monopoly or duopoly controls the pipes that supply homes with information. These companies, primarily phone and cable companies, have a natural interest in controlling supply to maintain price levels and extract maximum profit from their investments — similar to how OPEC sets production quotas to guarantee high prices.
But just as with oil, there are alternatives. Amsterdam and some cities in Utah have deployed their own fiber to carry bandwidth as a public utility. A future possibility is to buy your own fiber, the way you might buy a solar panel for your home.
Encouraging competition is another path, though not an easy one: most of the much-hyped competitors from earlier this decade, like businesses that would provide broadband Internet over power lines, are dead or moribund. But alternatives are important. Relying on monopoly producers for the transmission of information is a dangerous path.
After physical wires, the other major way to move information is through the airwaves, a natural resource with enormous potential. But that potential is untapped because of a false scarcity created by bad government policy.
Our current approach is a command and control system dating from the 1920s. The federal government dictates exactly what licensees of the airwaves may do with their part of the spectrum. These Soviet-style rules create waste that is worthy of Brezhnev.
Many “owners” of spectrum either hardly use the stuff or use it in highly inefficient ways. At any given moment, more than 90 percent of the nation’s airwaves are empty.
The solution is to relax the overregulation of the airwaves and allow use of the wasted spaces. Anyone, so long as he or she complies with a few basic rules to avoid interference, could try to build a better Wi-Fi and become a broadband billionaire. These wireless entrepreneurs could one day liberate us from wires, cables and rising prices.
Such technologies would not work perfectly right away, but over time clever entrepreneurs would find a way, if we gave them the chance. The Federal Communications Commission promised this kind of reform nearly a decade ago, but it continues to drag its heels.
In an information economy, the supply and price of bandwidth matters, in the way that oil prices matter: not just for gas stations, but for the whole economy.
And that’s why there is a pressing need to explore all alternative supplies of bandwidth before it is too late. Americans are as addicted to bandwidth as they are to oil. The first step is facing the problem.
Tim Wu is a professor at Columbia Law School and the co-author of “Who Controls the Internet?”

Happy Holidays!
7 min 7 sec - Dec 23, 2006
Description: We hope you are having a great holiday season.

This is a Forbes Article that I find useful when considering the expansion of the County Convention Center.
The Answer Is Always Yes
Victoria Murphy, 02.28.05
In my humble opinion, putting more taxpayer dollars into the money losing convention center is a bad idea. Convention Centers don't make money for anyone but the local hotels around them. If the Davis Center expands, it will soon have to compete with larger venues like the Salt Palace and South Towne Convention Center--which means bigger losses.Dear Editor Evenson,
I would like to respectfully offer a different opinion than the one presented in your Sunday editorial titled Cities finding getting wired pricey, passé.
I thought it ironic that you mentioned Nobel Economist Milton Friedman. Mr. Friedman taught that competition and choice was good for consumers and for the economy. One of the goals of the UTOPIA project is to provide a network platform for increased competition and choice for residential and business consumers. I suggest that Mr. Friedman would also agree that the municipal open infrastructure model is both economically and technically more efficient than the monopolistic infrastructure models of our current telecommunications infrastructure that the lobbyists in
Modern economists teach that competition lowers prices and improves quality. Thousands of Utahans in UTOPIA cities have benefited from competition as Comcast & Qwest have lowered their rates significantly in response to UTOPIA service providers coming to their neighborhood. Thousands of households are now getting more services and saving hundreds of dollars a year in real money as service providers compete for their business.
The Deseret News still seems to be under the impression that UTOPIA is only about high speed internet. Internet access is just one of the many applications on the network. Currently, along with thousands of users enjoying high speed internet, UTOPIA services providers are providing Voice (phone) and Video (TV) services to satisfied customers.
Your comments about wireless internet are what motivated me to write you. By profession, I am an RF engineer and have spent the last decade designing mobile, fixed and wi-fi wireless networks for a living. I currently manage the Wireless Consulting Practice for Cisco Systems, a company which sells hundreds of millions of dollars of wireless infrastructure and services to large businesses, service providers and many of the cities mentioned in your article.
Wireless technology is becoming cheaper and more ubiquitous every year. Wireless provides mobility--the ability to communicate using the same device in many places. But as a wireless network designer, I have to plan ahead, because each wireless base station or wireless access point eventually connects to the WIRED infrastructure, which must be able to support the increased traffic from wireless applications. Just as freeways and collector roads must be built to support rapid residential growth, we must have a strong wired infrastructure to support the kind of wireless services that will be coming in the next few years.
The growing trend of Municipal Wireless networks is real and is expanding rapidly -- but Municipal Wireless networks also have some real limitations. Despite the recent media hype, just because Google is mentioned in the same article as a planned wireless network, the laws of physics do not change. Radio channels are crowded, interference is common, and scalability is a challenge. Municipal wireless hotspots are not yet reliable for high quality voice and definitely not yet capable of streaming high quality HDTV into every home.
Your editorial infers that communities must choose either wireless or fiber as their choice for next generation infrastructure. I see “fiber to the home” and wireless deployments as complementary in most cases. Consumers will not choose mobility over bandwidth -- they will choose both. They will want high quality video conferencing at work, HDTV on the big screen at home, AND mobile internet when they walk out the door. The key is to build infrastructure that will enable whatever applications come to the market--regardless of the bandwidth demand. As wireless applications grow, so does the demand on the wired infrastructure.
If you remember back two years ago at this time, Qwest tried to scare us all into believing that Wi-Max was going to make fiber deployments obsolete. Since that time, Qwest has yet to deploy Wi-Max, but they have quietly been deploying fiber to the home in new developments where they can guarantee there will be no competition from other service providers.
About three years ago, I read in the Deseret Morning News about the ridiculous idea of a group of cities trying to band together to build a fiber optic network. I thought to myself -- this is a recipe for disaster. The government messes up everything -- how could Government ever build or operate effectively something as complicated as a modern optical network?
Instead of taking the DesNews opinion as fact, I decided to investigate further myself. I found that while it was easy to criticize the idea at a high level, when I dug deeper and studied the project in detail, the concepts and design had merit. I went from a vocal critic of UTOPIA to a cautious supporter and now serve on the Board of UTOPIA in an effort to do my part to try help UTOPIA execute correctly and make this project a success.
Our federal regulatory environment has discouraged the market from investment in telecommunications infrastructure, especially in underserved areas. As local leaders and citizens, we have the choice to continue to complain about
The jury is still out on the financial success of the UTOPIA project, so let's not call the case before all the facts are known.
Are there risks with the UTOPIA project? Absolutely yes! Are the risks worth taking? Absolutely yes!
I would gladly accept an invitation to meet with you or the Deseret News Editorial Board to provide an update on the exciting progress of the UTOPIA project , or an invitation to write a guest editorial.
Respectfully,
UTOPIA Board of Directors
I spent many years trying to get off the farm....but now I propose that Centerville offer "gardenless citizens" a chance to return to our farming roots. Just south of City Hall, there is more than a 1/2 acre of vacant cultivated land, that will not be utilized by the City for a few years. This could be divided into small lots (say 15x40?) and those citizens who don't have thier own vegtable gardens in their backyard. A small fee ($15?) would cover the cost of the water for the summer. State lawmakers working around 17th AmendmentSay what? Surely they mean working within the 17th amendment, or at worst cleverly manipulating it? Nope. As sketchy State Senator Howard Stephenson explains:
"The 17th Amendment was a huge mistake," Stephenson said Monday, the day he introduced what he calls "a soft repeal" of the 1914 amendment to the U.S. Constitution that called for popular election of the U.S. Senate.Maybe someone should explain to our dear friend, who was elected by a majority of a small locality, how a constitutional amendment works.