May 18, 2013

You are here: Home / Archives for Salt Lake Tribune

A Special Counsel to Investigate Swallow?

March 14, 2013 by 1 Comment

Utah Legislature set to move authority for a special counsel to LG

Utah CapitolWith the last day of the Utah Legislative Session upon us, Utah’s representatives are set to finally take action to directly investigate the allegation against Utah Attorney General John Swallow.

In Senate Bill 289, introduced by Senator Pete Knudson, the legislature would grant authority to the Lieutenant Governor to appoint special counsel to investigate elections offenses if the Attorney General has a conflict of interest in a complaint.   Under section 4 of the bill, the authority granted to the Lieutenant Governor would be retroactive to March 1, 2013 and would include the complaint filed by Crystal Young-Otterstrom and Maryann Martindale of Alliance for a Better Utah, a left leaning activist group.

Normally, complaints would go directly to the Attorney General’s office and while the Lieutenant Governor’s office has not yet completed its review of the complaint, addressing the conflict in the law during the session is prudent.

“We have no indication from the lieutenant governor about where the complaint is in the process,” said House Speaker Becky Lockhart to the Salt Lake Tribune. “All we know is he approached us and mentioned this complication in the statute that we were unaware of.”

Up to Speed on Swallow

Swallow

The Salt Lake Tribune sums up the complaint that led to this change:

The complaint includes an allegation that Swallow attempted to conceal his interest in P-Solutions and payments from Richard Rawle, the late founder of the payday lender Check City.

When Swallow filed to run for office on March 9, 2012, he did not list several companies in which he was an officer at the time. He filed an amended return on March 15, the same day he took his name off of several companies, transferring his interests to his wife.

That includes P-Solutions, a company that received $23,500 from Rawle for consulting work on a Nevada limestone quarry, part of a planned cement project.

The money Swallow was paid came from funds St. George business owner Jeremy Johnson paid to Rawle. Swallow had put Johnson in touch with Rawle, Swallow and Rawle insist, to hire lobbyists to help him avoid a Federal Trade Commission lawsuit. Johnson said he and Rawle arranged to pay Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., $600,000, which Johnson has called a bribe.

Reid has denied any knowledge of Johnson’s case.

Swallow’s conduct is the subject of a federal investigation and prompted calls for ethics reform in the Legislature. Democrats have also asked the governor to appoint a special investigator to determine if Swallow violated any state laws.

This is not the first time that Swallow has run afoul of the law, though it is the first time a federal investigation has been announced. You can learn more about Swallow’s colored past here, here, and here. They include accounts of Swallow offering access to his office in return for donations, fluffing claims about his involvement in Obamacare litigation, and alleged investigation by the FBI for interference in municipal contracting.

 

Related articles

 

Filed Under: Department of Justice, Questionable Laws and Lawmakers, Utah Legislature Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Why didn’t Shurtleff tell voters what he knew about Swallow before the election?

February 14, 2013 by 4 Comments

220px-Mark_ShurtleffIn the days before the general election in 2012, Mark Shurtleff was putting out fires around town. His protege, John Swallow, was on track to win the election against Democrat Dee Smith, as Shurtleff and Swallow had long-planned, but cracks were appearing in the otherwise flawless campaign strategy. Shurtleff, his legacy on the line in the successful transfer to his protegé, was busy meeting with indicted businessmen, the feds, and Swallow himself.

As Shurtleff later described, he was “upset” by the allegations, enough so that he took them to the U.S. Attorney and the FBI.  Was Swallow promising protection from prosecution in return for campaign contributions? Was Swallow embroiled in a scheme to bribe Nevada Senator Harry Reid?

The more information that trickles out, the more questions seem to be raised. This week, in addition to more accusations against Swallow, Shurtleff admitted on Monday said that he knew as early as October, but somehow failed to tell the public, the press, or even to suggest to Swallow that he should pull out of the race.

When and what did Shurtleff know? Who did he tell?

According to Swallow, Shurtleff never asked him to pull out of the race, despite a report that Shurtleff said he would speak to Swallow about it.

In a January 11, 2013 article, the Salt Lake Tribune reported that Jeremy Johnson met with then Utah Attorney General Shurtleff on October 30, 2012.  The general election was just days away, and Swallow was leading in the polls.

The two (Shurtleff and Johnson) met the next day outside a Salt Lake City Gateway condo, where Johnson was staying, Johnson said. He told Shurtleff about Swallow’s deal and that the information would come out soon. He urged Shurtleff to press Swallow to drop out. Shurtleff said it was unlikely Swallow would quit at that late date, according to Johnson, but Shurtleff agreed to speak to Swallow about the allegations.

Swallow said Shurtleff didn’t talk to him about getting out of the race.

SwallowSwallow told the Salt Lake Tribune that he had never discussed getting out of the race with Shurtleff.

Tribune: Did you have a meeting with Jeremy at the end of October where he encouraged you to drop out of the attorney general’s race? If so, where was it? What was the nature and outcome of the meeting? Did Mark discuss the issue with you? Did you consider dropping out?

Swallow: No, I did not have a meeting with Mr. Johnson in October or November. Mark Shurtleff has never discussed my dropping out of the race with me and I never considered dropping out of the race. In April or May, I believe, I had a conversation with Jeremy where he may have suggested I drop out of the race. I thought the remark was ridiculous and did not give it any consideration.

Reading the Swallow’s words carefully, it seems clear that he knew that Shurtleff had met with Johnson and likely the substance of their conversation, but that Shurtleff had not discussed the possibility that Swallow would pull out of the race for his behavior.

Meanwhile, Shurtleff was having other conversations, including with feds at the US Attorney’s office. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, Shurtleff said that

“Obviously, I’m very upset by [the allegations against Swallow]. I was upset enough to go down and talk to the U.S. attorney and the FBI on a couple of occasions,” Shurtleff said in an interview. “This is my friend, my chief deputy. Am I [feeling] somewhat guilty? Am I betraying him? But I felt that the proper authorities needed to know.”

Given the proximity to the general election, one cannot help but wonder if the “proper authorities” should have included the voters of Utah. If Shurtleff was “upset,” why not let the public know? Surely his duty as an officer of the court requires that he put the judging authority–in this case the public–on notice that a candidate for public office was then, or would be soon, under investigation by the FBI for corruption.

 

Game Changing Information

That Shurtleff knew about Swallow’s accusers before the election and told no one but the feds and Swallow is no small act of subterfuge. At least one public official–Speaker of the Utah House of Representatives Becky Lockhart–told the Salt Lake Tribune that knowing would have changed her vote.

House Speaker Becky Lockhart, R-Provo, said the more information about candidates, the better equipped voters are to make a decision, and she wishes the information involving Swallow would have been known before the election. If it had been known, she said, it could have made a difference in her vote.

“Attorney General Shurt­leff is going to have to answer those questions,” she said, “and he’s going to be accountable for those actions and why or why not he didn’t disclose that.”

Will Shurtleff be held accountable? Time only will show. On Monday, Shurtleff expressed hope that the investigation would wrap up soon so that people could move on. Given the extent of the charges and that more accusers continue to come forward, that seems less and less likely.  At best, it seems almost like wishful thinking.

Bagley cartoon Attorney General Spoiler Alert The Salt Lake Tribune

Related articles
Filed Under: Questionable Laws and Lawmakers Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Where is the investigation John Swallow requested?

January 24, 2013 by 3 Comments

Swallow

It’s been almost two weeks since a Salt Lake Tribune’s article showed connections between indicted businessman Jeremy Johnson and Utah’s new Attorney General John Swallow.  Despite calls for an investigation from almost everyone–including Swallow himself–we have yet to see one.

Accusing Swallow of offering to bribe US Senator Harry Reid, Johnson provided emails, photos, financial records and a transcript of secretly recorded conversation between Swallow and Johnson in April 2012. In an email response to the Tribune, Swallow denied Johnson’s accusations and called for an investigation by the US Attorney for Utah, David Barlow.

“I deny that I have ever participated in a scheme to bribe a member of Congress,” Swallow wrote. “I expect no special treatment. I do not hold myself or anyone else above the law. … I urge your office to look into these allegations and I pledge my full support and cooperation.”

Calling for an investigation is a good move. It also followed my recommendation earlier that day.

At the time, the Barlow’s office said they would respond to the letter, but would not release that response. If Swallow has received that response, he hasn’t released it, either.

Which leads to the question: will there be an investigation into the allegations? Or will the Utah Attorney General’s office continue to operate under a cloud of scandal?

It’s not the first time Swallow’s been tied to unethical behavior, as I have indicated in previous posts. In addition to Swallow’s history in headlines there, Swallow has had problems keeping his campaigns on the right side of the law. In 2007, Swallow’s campaign was found by the Federal Election Commission to have violated federal law for failing to disclose donations received.  At the time, Swallow’s campaign wasn’t the only one investigated. Similar to now, it was Swallow’s donors that were investigated and that led to the finding that Swallow’s campaign had broken the law. You can find out more by search on the FEC’s website.

With a history of troubling behavior relative to his financial backers, Swallow should be a high priority for the appropriate investigative body. In addition to Swallow’s call for an investigation, Utah Democrats have also called for an investigation, seeking it from  US Attorney General Eric Holder.

Enid Mickelson, who did not agree that Holder would be an appropriate party to launch such an investigation, did agree there should be an investigation.

“It’s necessary for the public trust that there be an independent investigation. If John Swallow hasn’t done anything wrong, it’s an opportunity for him to clear his name,” she said. “The other issue is, I think, that we are lacking in ethics laws and the campaign finance laws we have in this state.”

In a somewhat more delayed response to the allegations against Swallow, Utah GOP chair Thomas Wright called for a series of reforms to address gaps in Utah’s ethics laws because “It’s clear that, while some actions might not have been against the law, some, at a minimum, were mistakes for a state employee and a candidate for attorney general[.]”

Wright’s proposal includes disclosure of all meetings involving public officials, a limit on campaign contributions, a ban on gifts and the creation of an independent commission to hear ethics complaints against state officials. While citizens may file complaints against legislators, currently no mechanism exists under state law  for making similar complaints against state officers, such as the governor, auditor, treasurer or attorney general.

It’s a gap in Utah’s ethics laws that is causing more than a little trouble. Not only has it allowed Swallow to make “mistakes” that skirt the line of what is ethical, it also has provided no mechanism for recourse when such behavior is found. As a result, Utah’s attorney general begins his term in office under a cloud on his integrity. If Swallow acted appropriately, or at least legally, the citizens of Utah deserve to know. Or, as has been summarized elsewhere, Utahns deserve to know their attorney general is not a crook.

Which brings us back to the beginning. Where is the investigation?

 

APROPOS: If nothing else, this whole affair has burnished the credentials of the Salt Lake Tribune’s journalists, especially Robert Gehrke and Tom Harvey. Despite a general knowledge among Utah’s political insiders about the events, persons, and issues that have surrounded Swallow from before his election to the Utah Attorney General’s office, Gehrke and the Tribune alone have provided any amount of sunlight into the affair. It’s unfortunate that no one with any kind of responsibility to Utah’s voters has stepped forward to lead or call for an investigation.

Related articles

 

Filed Under: News Round Up, Questionable Laws and Lawmakers Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Where there’s smoke: a brief history of John Swallow in headlines

January 17, 2013 by 10 Comments

John Swallow has a habit of making newspaper headlines, but for all the wrong reasons. If it’s true that where there is smoke there’s usually fire, then the headlines that have followed Swallow’s career indicate a lot of fire. Only time will tell how much or if it will catch up to Swallow this time around.

With calls for his resignation already circulating—the Daily Herald in Utah County called for Swallow to step down on Sunday and the Salt Lake Tribune and the St. George Spectrum followed—maybe it’s time to talk a walk down memory lane and recall that this isn’t his first time running afoul of the appearance of ethical behavior.

“SWALLOW DENIES ETHICS BREACHES”

Elected to serve in the state legislature for the first time in 1995, Swallow served three terms in the state legislature before stepping down in 2002 to run for Congress. Over the next two election cycles, Swallow challenged Jim Matheson to represent Utah’s Second Congressional District, falling short each time. It was during this time that Swallow was hit by accusations of questionable ethics.

With the election fast approaching and the Swallow campaign hoping to look good for national Republicans, Swallow found his campaign short on cash.

“That wouldn’t look good,” said Dave Hansen, former campaign manager for Orrin Hatch, was at the time working as Swallow’s campaign manager. “So John said he could loan the campaign $90,000, which would look good on the report’s cash-on-hand, and when the October campaign contributions started coming in, the campaign would repay that. And that’s exactly what we did. That money was never meant for the campaign and actually wasn’t spent on the campaign. To be honest, it was just to make the report look good.”

It’s not atypical for candidates to do this kind of thing, but the question that was left outstanding was: Where did Swallow get the money? While Rob Bishop borrowed money from a credit union during the same cycle to keep the campaign moving, Swallow allegedly sold artwork that he never reported owning in previous financial reports.

“It was all within my immediate family,” said Swallow. “And all legal and above board.”

With the source questionable, and the amount much higher than what Swallow had reported as his own personal assets just six months before, the headline in the Deseret News was glaring: SWALLOW DENIES ETHICS BREACHES. Swallow was later cleared of breaking the law when he admitted selling some paintings, cashing out checking and savings accounts, including an individual retirement account, to make the loans to his campaign.

With just a little bit of political sleight of hand, Swallow leveraged his assets to hide the state of his campaign until after the election.

Tricky, but, at least according to the FEC, legal.

 

SWALLOW EXAGGERATED HIS ROLE IN THE OBAMACARE LAWSUIT

During the run up to the Republican primary in 2012, Swallow painted himself at the forefront of the Obama Care lawsuit…or at least, his mailers did. In reality, the most Swallow did for the case was listen in on a few conference calls and attend oral arguments in a seat that he probably paid someone to stand in line for. Then, he took a taxpayer funded trip to DC to watch other lawyers argue the case and called home to his state to campaign on their coattails.

[…]Swallow was there…along with four hundred others, including attorneys from twenty-six states who were also on the lawsuit and observing the oral arguments that day.  Other than that, I could not find anything to indicate a more active role in the case. Other lawyers argued, other lawyers filed the briefs, and other lawyers responded to the judges questions.

Other than that, the most prominent mention that Swallow received was for a campaign call he made to 55,000 Utahns during his taxpayer funded trip to D.C. And Swallow did not appear happy about that mention.

“I have a right when I’m not working to do whatever I want to do,” Swallow said. “I have a right to campaign. I have a right to decide if I want to make something an official call or something to promote my candidacy.”  Truly the words of someone intensely focused on fighting Obamacare.

 

“MAILER ALLEGES UTAH AG CANDIDATE WAS INVESTIGATED BY FEDS”

Meanwhile, news surfaced that Swallow had been interviewed by the FBI in connection with a bid scandal helped start in Salt Lake County.  According to the article:

The flier, coming two weeks before Swallow’s June 26 GOP primary against attorney Sean Reyes, raises the issue of a contract dispute involving Salt Lake County and California-based Worldwide Environmental Products, which sought to provide emissions-testing equipment to garages in the county.

Awarding the three-year, $12 million contract turned into a bitter fight. Worldwide alleged the bid was rigged, and the attorney general’s office and, eventually, the FBI and U.S. attorney’s office became involved, according to interviews and records obtained by The Salt Lake Tribune.

[…]

The target of the investigation is unclear. The FBI and U.S. attorney’s office would not comment.

Swallow denied that he was under investigation with a veritable tornado of robodials, mailers, and emails. But he was one of only three people interviewed or subpoenaed by the FBI in the matter. No one in Salt Lake County was interviewed in the investigation, which I find a little odd, since it was Salt Lake County’s bid process that was supposedly under investigation.

At the time I noted that “if the FBI had investigated Swallow for corruption, it would be a game changer. Who wants an Attorney General who is corrupt?”

To top it off, then Attorney General Mark Shurtleff went to bat for Swallow, accusing Swallow’s Republican opponent of illegally issuing the mailer. The next day, Shurtleff walked the accusation back when he realized that his accusation were likely defamatory and false.

But it was too late, the robodial had gone out, smearing Swallow’s opponent with outlandish exaggerations that didn’t stand on fact or law.

Meanwhile, I could not find anyone who actually saw the mailer. I was left to wonder if it had actually been issued to more than a few households, as well as who the real source of the mailer had been. It provided an excuse to attack Swallow’s opponent, but wasn’t really seen by many voters.

 

“AG Candidate Talks Of Taking Over Consumer Protection”

Then the City Weekly found evidence that Swallow was promising a quid pro quo for campaign donations.  In light of the allegations coming to light in recent weeks and a federal suit against many of Swallow’s donors filed this week, the City Weekly discovery is even more revealing, even if it didn’t stick to Swallow at the time. It sounded like a promise of quid pro quo.  You support my campaign, and I’ll protect you from enforcement.

[A]ccording to a tape-recorded conversation he had with the owner of a telemarketing sales floor, [John Swallow] has another plan he’s been less vocal about—taking the agency that investigates consumer protection complaints away from the jurisdiction of the Governor’s Office and putting it under the control of the Attorney General’s Office.

“Now, this is kind of confidential, but when I’m the attorney general, I will try to restructure it so Consumer Protection is under the AG [office] and the attorney general has more authority over those investigations. In fact—complete authority over that,” Swallow is heard telling telemarketing-business owner Aaron Christner in an April 7 phone conversation.

Keep in mind that Swallow was making this statement to a member of an industry that has collectively donated $82,284 to his campaign. At least, that’s as much as was apparent then.

 

“Indicted businessman: Utah A.G. tied to alleged scheme”

And then there was this one, just last week.  With the family bible still warm where he placed his hand to be sworn in as attorney general of Utah, Swallow was in headlines again, this time for allegations that he participated in a scheme to help a Utah businessman avoid investigation by the feds by bribing Senator Harry Reid.

Embattled St. George businessman Jeremy Johnson says new Utah Attorney General John Swallow helped broker a deal in 2010 in which Johnson believed he was to pay Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid $600,000 to make a federal investigation into Johnson’s company go away.

But when the federal government filed a lawsuit Johnson thought he had paid to quash, he demanded Swallow return some of the $250,000 initial payment. Then, just days before the Nov. 6 election, Johnson engaged in a frenetic but unsuccessful effort to get Swallow to drop out of the race, saying information about what Johnson called a “bribe” would come out and force the Republican’s resignation if he became attorney general.

The Salt Lake Tribune has an excellent article that provides a timeline of the scandal. As I mentioned earlier, the Daily Herald has called for Swallow’s resignation.

The allegations against Swallow have sufficient legs, even now before every detail has been uncovered, to justify his immediate resignation. His reputation is now seriously tainted, and that is an impossible thing to overcome for an attorney general.

Emails and secret recordings put Swallow in the thick of a possible bribery conspiracy. While Swallow denies doing anything technically illegal (which may or may not be true), it is clear that there is a substantial appearance of wrongdoing. That appearance alone is sufficient to cause any gentleman or statesman, let alone a state’s chief law enforcement officer, to step down for the good of the people.

From long, sad experience, we know that initial reports of this nature virtually always reveal the tip of an iceberg. Public officials caught in shady dealings always deny and deny and deny. And then with each successive public revelation they tend to get squeezed out of office.

Please spare us the pain, Mr. Swallow, and get out now. You can’t be trusted.

I tend to agree, though this is no surprise to people who have read this blog before. I do not trust John Swallow, and he has a history of walking the fine line, if not over that line, between what is ethical and what is not.

Is there more to come out? Almost certainly so. Where there is smoke, there is usually fire, and Swallow’s career—more focused on raising money by promising protection than on actually practicing law—has been shrouded by a lot of smoke. Who knows who else will be hit as the plot thickens around the Attorney General.

Until the smoke clears, though, it’ll be hard to see how bad the fire is and how much damage it has done to Utah and the reputation of the Attorney General’s office.

Related articles
Filed Under: Questionable Laws and Lawmakers Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Tale of Two Governments

November 25, 2012 by 3 Comments

Two articles Wednesday morning caught my eye, both in the Salt Lake Tribune.

The first said state tax revenues were higher: “Big boost: State revenue projections triple for coming year” said the headline.

After showing signs of life during the summer, Utah’s economic recovery appears to have picked up steam and the governor and lawmakers are now projecting $300 million in revenue growth for the coming fiscal year.

While legislative leaders are only cautiously optimistic, warning that there are still a lot considerations that could dig into the revenue projections, not to mention the still as yet unforeseen effects of the fiscal cliff on revenues – depending on whether Washington lawmakers avoid it–and the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (aka “Obamacare”) on spending. Already, there are reports that the state may have to cut back on state employees hours to avoid fines Obamacare fines that would cost the state as much as $40 million a year.

Under the Affordable Care Act, if the state doesn’t offer health care to anyone working over 30 hours, it could be penalized $2,000 for each of those workers, Chet Loftis, director of the state’s Public Employees Health Plan told legislators Tuesday.

The real effect remains to be seen, though, and in the meantime legislators were cautiously reviewing the  $300 million revenue growth projections with an eye to filling gaps in the state budget.

Meanwhile, another story was being told in Salt Lake County. The headline? “Republican councilmen willing to consider tax hike.” 

In comparison with the higher revenue projections at the state due to increased income taxes and sales taxes–a sign of growth–Salt Lake County is facing a budget shortfall in spite of a growing economy. The outgoing mayor of Salt Lake County, Democrat Peter Corroon, has proposed a 17.5% property tax increase.

It’s a contrast that is impossible to miss: one government faces growth and another is struggling to compensate for spending beyond its ability to afford. And the solution that the County looks to is a permanent tax increase, the “most odious of all taxes” as one friend put it, a property tax on the most important single thing that people own–their home.  While a person can easily choose how much they spend, or don’t spend, to assure that they can live within their means, a home owner can hardly do anything about a property tax but pay it–if they can afford it. It’s unfair, it’s painful, and lawmakers should think twice before adding to a property tax instead of finding a way to either cut the County budget or do better with what they have.

Unfortunately, the entire message coming out of the Salt Lake County buildings seems to be just the opposite. When candidate Mark Crockett, flanked by former Senator Bob Bennett, suggested that there were ways to improve the jail system to keep people from becoming repeat offenders, rather than embrace or examine the ideas, Democrat Jim Winder went into full partisan mode to attack and defend his department, claiming that Crockett’s ideas would release criminals on to the streets.

That’s called a scare tactic, folks, and it’s bad for our governing.

Apparently, though, it’s a good way to drive a tax increase. Even the most odious of all taxes, the property tax.

 

Filed Under: Utah Legislature Tagged With: , , , , , , ,

Crockett pulling ahead of well-funded McAdams in SLCo Mayor race

October 2, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Mark Crockett, left, and Ben McAdams, right, debate recently before the ULCT. Photo by the Salt Lake Tribune.

If you didn’t catch it, Mark Crockett is polling ahead of Ben McAdams in the Salt Lake County race for mayor.

That’s a big deal. McAdams, with a large money advantage, has outspent Crockett by almost two to one.

The Deseret News/KSL poll, conducted by Dan Jones and Associates, puts Crockett at 40 percent and McAdams at 37 percent. With a margin of error of 5 percent, the race is too close to call.

However, the polling also found that McAdams has higher name identification that Crockett, if only by a bit. With greater name identification, McAdams should be leading, not trailing.

He has, after all, spent over $500,000 on consulting, billboards, television advertising, and, yes, a large bus. That’s nearly twice as much as Crockett, who had to also fight an expensive primary battle. McAdams, on the other hand, has been able to focus all of his funding on the general election.

For some reason, Salt Lake County residents just aren’t buying what McAdams is selling.

Despite billboards that tout his being “different,” McAdams was rated  as the most liberal state senator by the Salt Lake Tribune in 2011 and the third most liberal state senator by Utah Data Points Adam Brown. The year before wasn’t any better. Quite the contrary.

In 2010 (McAdams’ first year in the legislature), he ranked as the second most liberal member of the senate. That’s #2 out of 29 total senators, and #2 out of the 8 Democrats in the Senate.

In 2011, he ranked as the #3 most liberal member of the senate, and #3 out of 7 Democrats.

Is that different? Nope. That’s just a typical Democratic record.

Related articles
Filed Under: Elections Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Financially, we’re not better off, says the US Census. Especially young workers.

September 12, 2012 by Leave a Comment

According to data in the US Census released today, most Americans are not better off financially after Barack Obama’s first term as President of the United States. Whether this will translate at the polls in November remains to be seen.

The median household income for families dropped 1.7 percent from 2010 to 2011 to $62,273. That’s 8.1 percent lower than in 2007, the year before a collapse in the housing market led to what has been the longest recession in a generation. According to the report, income rates among all race groups have not recovered from highs experienced previous to the 2001 recession caused by the collapse of the dot-com bubble.

Hardest hit by the slow growth are families led by women, with 31.2 percent of families with a female householder living under the poverty line while only 16.1 of families with a male householder living in poverty. Nationwide 46.2 million people, or 1 in 6 Americans, remain in poverty, the highest in the half century that records have been kept and at 15 percent at about the same rate as it was in 1993.

The effect of the recession has been felt in Utah, as well, despite weathering the recession better than most states.

“We compare favorably to other states,” said Utah state demographer Juliette Tennert in an article in the Salt Lake Tribune. “But compared to our history, our poverty rate is up.” Tennert noted that while Utah had lost 80,000 jobs since the beginning of the recession, 60,000 of those have returned.

However, warns Pam Perlich a senior research economist at the University of Utah, those jobs have not all been at the same wages as those lost.

“There have been tremendous job losses, and many of the new jobs that are being created are not at as high of a wage level as the jobs that were lost,” Perlich told the Salt Lake Tribune. “It’s more than a recession, it’s an economic restructuring.”

In a blog post, the White House noted there is more work to be done.

“While we have made progress digging our way out of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, too many families are still struggling and Congress must act on the policies President Obama has put forward to strengthen the middle class and those trying to get into it,” the White House post said.

How America’s continuing economic struggle will play out politically remains to be seen. After a slight bump in the polls after the Democratic National Convention, Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney are polling neck and neck.

With 53 percent of 18-24 year olds living back at home with their parents, it should come as no surprise that support among the young for Obama has fallen. Young voters between ages 18 and 29 have been among the groups hit hardest by the recession, with 12.7 percent unemployed and nearly a third underemployed. Support for Obama in this group has fallen from 49 percent to just 41%, a blow to a group that was important to the President’s 2008 win.

Related articles
Filed Under: The Economy Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,
«Older Posts