UTA no more of my money please!

This was an article fro the Salt lake tribune.

The Utah Transit Authority, now in the midst of a campaign to improve transparency and build public trust, is moving its board committee meetings behind closed doors.

UTA recently announced reforms intended to bolster public confidence, including inviting more public comment and making all final decisions in open meetings of the full board. The announcement contained no mention of plans to close committee meetings, where UTA officials generally have worked through issues to the point that final approval by the full board usually occurs without debate.

The Salt Lake Tribune discovered the policy shift Tuesday when it asked the agency why it had not sent or posted agendas for committee meetings previously scheduled for Wednesday. UTA spokesman Remi Barron emailed the explanation that because of recent reforms to move any final decisions from committees to the full board, "the previous committee meetings will now become informal work sessions and are not required to be open meetings.

• 
  

  Study: Don't Drink Diet Soda During Pregnancy
• 
  

  U.S. attorney general says bathroom law "state-sponsored discrimination"
• 
  

  Last remaining circus elephants go into retirement
• 
  

  Fugitive of Nearly 50 Years Finally Captured
• 
  

  Budweiser replaced with America
• 
  

  1 killed, 3 wounded in 'apparently Islamist' attack in Germany
• 
  

  Study: Don't Drink Diet Soda During Pregnancy
• 
  

  U.S. attorney general says bathroom law "state-sponsored discrimination"
• 
  

  Last remaining circus elephants go into retirement
• 
  

  Fugitive of Nearly 50 Years Finally Cap
• Budweiser rep"When you want to make the public think that you are pulling a fast one, UTA knows how to hit a home run," complained George Chapman, a board member of the UTRU, who often attends UTA committee meetings.

He also had called UTA, wondering why it had not posted agendas for Wednesday's committee meetings. He said UTA officials never returned his calls, and he learned of the policy change from The Tribune. 

Christopher Stout, president of UTRU, said the transit agency's committee meetings "should remain open to the public" because they are necessary for his group and others "to understand what the agency is planning."

He commended reforms to meetings of the full board. But, he said, "Closing other meetings doesn't allow for a true transparent process. UTRU is greatly disappointed that UTA has chosen to exclude the public from planning meetings."

Before 2010, UTA conducted its committee meetings behind closed doors, contending then that Utah's open-meetings law did not require them to be open if a quorum of the full board was not present. 

As The Salt Lake Tribune was contesting that reading of the law in 2010, UTA's then-new Board Chairman Greg Hughes — now speaker of the Utah House — decided to open them, although UTA asserted then that it was doing so voluntarily, not because it was required by law.

"It's going to create greater public confidence," Hughes said at the time. Since then, UTA has publicly posted agendas and minutes of the meetings, and allowed the public to attend. 

Hughes, who is no longer on the board, declined to comment Tuesday.

Hunt, an expert in open-meetings law, said UTA is incorrect in its assertion that the committees are no longer public meetings because no final votes will be taken there.

"Advisory bodies are subject to the Open Meetings Act. It's right in the definition of what constitutes a public body," he said. UTA has had four committees: finance and operations, planning and development, stakeholder (to work with groups affected by UTA) and an executive committee.

If a committee "has been delegated authority to make recommendations, then it is a public body under the Public Meetings Act," Hunt said.

"The rationale is fairly straightforward," he added. "The public deserves to hear the full discussion and debate on issues of public import and not just the vote on those issues once they reach the full board." 

The attorney has handled many cases in this area.

"We've dealt with this in a lot of contexts before: school boards, city councils. And the attorney general's office, in fact, in previous administrations … took the same view, that advisory bodies are subject to the Open Meetings Act. So I hope they [UTA Board members] reconsider

Oh Canada,

Our neighbors to the north are in an epic battle against fire. Watch this harrowing security footage of a house that was lost to the fire. Fortunately now one was home. The family evacuated just a short time before the fire reached their house.

Oh Say can you see?

Is Apple the new IBM?

Fewer people are flocking to apple these days. I wonder if Apple has lost its edge, or out of vision losing it? Have they lost sight on what made them great?

When apple came in to prominence it was because of cutting edge professional programs, such as Final Cut, Aperture and such. Now days these robust programs are obsolete and becoming extinct. Final Cut used to compete with Avid. In fact it nearly put the editing giant into annals of history. Editors flocked to the program and loved the workability and tools it brought in a package that was affordable. Another innovative program was aperture, no longer available. It was a venture into professional photography. When apple introduced Final Cut pro, most editors including myself flocked to it. Thinking it would continue to lead and expand its lead on the competition. Oh how I wish that were true. It still is a good program but instead of setting itself apart from other editing software, it dumbed down the system and made it more like them. A program like adobe premiere suddenly became a viable alternative.
Come on apple you are better than that..... or at least you used to be..

BHM

Wow great footage

Switzerland prepares to guard borders......Wake up USA

Switzerland has announced it is considering stationing a tank battalion at its southern border with Italy, after news that Austria is ready to completely shut down the Brenner Pass between Italy and Austria.

In a matter of just hours, Europe’s migrant crisis has escalated following the unexpected announcement Wednesday night by Austria’s Defense Minister Hans Peter Doskozil that his country is prepared to close its border if Italy does not get its migrant problem under control.

After Italy sharply criticized the Austrian plan, Switzerland has declared it is considering posting tanks to secure its own border with Italy. “We expect a significant increase in the number of refugees this summer. If Austria now closes off the Brenner Pass, Switzerland will become the only gateway to Northern Europe. Before that, we have to protect ourselves,” said Norman Gobbi, the security director of the Swiss Canton of Ticino.

The region has some 2,000 soldiers of the Swiss Tank Battalion at the ready, and they have been asked to postpone vacations in order to be available as needs may arise. As other migrant routes become more restricted or close altogether, Italy is becoming increasingly the path of choice for migrants coming both from the south and from the east. Heading north through Italy, if Austria no longer becomes an option, “many will then travel to Switzerland,” Gobbi said.

According to Gobbi, in the past week 169 refugees have crossed the border between Italy and Switzerland illegally. “The refugees mainly take routes outside of the official border crossings. We must prepare ourselves for a possible migrant onslaught,” said the security director.

During the first part of this year Italy has taken in 50 percent more refugees than during the same period in 2015, and the Italian government is forecasting the total number of migrants this year to be double that of last year. “This will not be without consequences for Switzerland,” said Gobbi.

“We have to go on the offensive,” said Austria’s Defense Minister Wednesday night, referring to tightened border controls.

By all accounts, Switzerland agrees.

Death and taxes...should be death to taxes I say

The history of taxation in American has a long and infamous history. Since the imposition of the very first tax — The Navigation Tax of 1651 — taxes have been wildly unpopular in America. When the Constitution was written and ratified, the only taxes allowed were to pay the debt and provide for the common defense and general welfare. At times, taxation was implemented during wars to fund the government and the war effort, with no intention of becoming permanent. However, since 1913, the United States of America has adhered to a communist plank second only to the abolition of all private property: a progressive or graduated income tax. What purpose does an income tax serve? In our four-part series on taxes, we’ll explore its history in America and how a tax once promised to never climb above seven percent has, at times, ballooned to 77 percent at the hands of an out-of-control government. Taxes Part I: How Income Tax Began When the Constitution was written and ratified, the only taxes allowed by America’s founding document were to pay the debt and provide for the common defense and general welfare. “Welfare” meant the general well-being of the people, not government handouts to people who didn’t work for a living. During the War of 1812, Congress imposed America’s first sales tax. But even then, just on gold, silverware and jewelry. Amazingly, in 1817, several years after the war of 1812 had been won, Congress ended all internal taxation on Americans, including sales tax, relying solely on tariffs on imported goods to fund the government. It wasn’t until the Civil War of 1862, in order to pay for the increasingly high cost of the war that the United States Congress adopted America’s first income tax — three percent for wage earners between $600 and $10,000, and higher for those making over $10,000. Sales and excise taxes were imposed, as well as the nation’s first inheritance tax. The Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Office was created and granted the power to levy and collect taxes, a power the Constitution had given solely to the United States Congress. In 1872, with the Civil War long over, Congress eliminated the income tax. Then came the era of progressivism.

After progressive Democrat Woodrow Wilson was elected president in 1912, the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax permanent in 1913. The amendment gave Congress the legal authority to tax income — of both individuals and corporations. Advocates promised the highest tax rate would never climb above seven percent, but just two years later, it was already at 15 percent. With the onslaught of World War I, the federal government made the case that tax rates must be raised to finance the war effort. In 1916, the top rate leapt from 15 to 67 percent, and the next year to 77 percent. Two constitutional presidents — Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge — fought and succeeded in cutting spending by 50 percent and lowering income tax rates. By 1925, the tax rate had been slashed from 77 percent to 25 percent. Throughout our nation’s history, the wealthy have been punished with egregious taxes, but nothing could compare to the unbelievable burden placed on the most successful Americans in 1944, when the federal government raised the top tax rate to 94 percent of every dollar earned over $200,000. It’s difficult to believe that any American would find it right and moral for a government to confiscate all but six to 10 percent of a person’s income. The highest rate fell from 70 to 50 percent in 1981 and then to 28 percent in 1986. It should be noticed that the second plank of the Communist Manifesto, right after the abolition of all private property, is a progressive or graduated income tax. The United States of America has adhered to that communist plank since 1913. The nation that first instituted communism — Russia — abandoned the progressive or graduated income tax in 1998 for a flat tax of 13 percent, growing the country’s revenue by 28 percent.

 Source: http://www.glennbeck.com/2016/04/11/taxes-part-i-how-income-tax-began/?utm_source=glennbeck&utm_medium=contentcopy_link