PARTY LINES with Utah Democrat Rob Miller: What does the TCU-Boise State match up say about the BCS?

Because of my Grandpa Clarke, I love college football. Grandpa Clarke would often drive from Tooele to our home just above the Villa Theater in Salt Lake to pick me up for a Saturday BYU game. Those were the days of Coach LaVell Edwards, when the forward pass was king and the “Hail Mary” became a legend in Utah.

Because of my love for football I chose to attend BYU. I wish I could say I wanted a top-notch education, but the truth is I fell in love with BYU because of Coach Edwards and quarterbacks like Gifford Nielson, Marc Wilson, Jim McMahon and Steve Young who were all first team All-Americans.

A year later I transferred to the University of Utah. Although I was a BYU football fan, I was happy to be at the “U” because of Coach Jerry Pimm and great players like Jeff Jonas, Danny Vranes, Jeff Judkins, Buster Matheney, and Tom Chambers.

Eventually, I would realize there was more to college than a football or basketball game, but unlike most people who cheer adamantly for one school or the other I have become a fan of both schools’ athletic programs, have cheered for both, and sometimes just one, depending on the team and the events surrounding those teams during a specific year. But cheering for those teams and following sports as a die-hard fan has taken a major back seat to raising my family, “The Great Recession” and my political activism.

I have one thought when it comes to the BCS decision to pit Boise State against TCU. I hope you won’t take offense, but take the “C” out of BCS and there’s my feelings on the BCS’s blatant manipulation to protect their teams from possible losses to non-BCS opponents.

I have to admit that until the Clipper asked this question I had not even given BCS policies much thought, unlike Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff who believes the Justice Department should join in a lawsuit claiming that the Bowl Championship Series could potentially be violating the Sherman Anti-trust Act which requires fairness because the BCS showers successful top market schools with money year after year as a result of their performance.

And, he is not alone.

In December 2008, Idaho Representative Mike Simpson joined Utah Rep. Jim Matheson in sending a letter to then President-elect Obama asking him to have the Department of Justice investigate the BCS system — and just this last Monday AG Shurtleff told KSL Radio that it was his intent to speak about this issue personally with President Obama at a holiday reception at the White House.

“I am really going to try and talk college football,” Shurtleff told KSL.

“This isn’t just about bragging rights to say we’re number one truly. It’s about money,” said Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff in an interview last January.

Like President Obama who said, “I think a football playoff makes sense.” I feel a playoff series would benefit college football, but for me it isn’t about money. It’s about the American Dream where the underdog can rise up against all odds and show its heart — win or lose.

After all, isn’t that the story of America?

PARTY LINES with Republican Todd Weiler: What does the TCU-Boise State match up say about the BCS?

I have to give it up this week to Rep. Jim Matheson. He really captured the moment in his reaction to the BCS’s decision to pit TCU against Boise State on New Year’s Day. “I don’t know if we should call it the Fiesta Bowl or the Kids’ Table Bowl, because I think these two upstarts were put at the kids’ table to play their own game,” he said. Matheson is right on.

The BCS is based on the false premise that the best team in the nation will invariably emerge from one of eight elite conferences. All other conferences are inferior and therefore incapable of producing a national champion. Over time, the BCS has been bullied into allowing undefeated teams from the lesser, unworthy conferences to play in one of the four most-profitable bowl games (if they meet certain criteria). While the BCS made the correct, and historic, decision to invite two non-BCS teams to go bowling this season, it subsequently cheapened the experience for both of them in an attempt to protect its own. TCU could have beaten Texas, Cincinnati and maybe even Florida. That was a risk the BCS committee was not willing to take. So it punted.

When Utah, Boise State and Hawaii got invited to play with the big boys after their undefeated regular seasons in prior years, they actually got into the game. And the team from the BCS-blessed conference lost three out of four times. Utah won twice. BSU pulled off a miracle overtime win. But Hawaii got exposed as the proverbial over-ranked team who hadn’t really played anyone.

This year, Texas (from the pitiful Big 12 Conference) hasn’t beaten a team ranked in the Top 20 all season. And when it played Nebraska, ranked 22, the Longhorns came up short when the clock ran out of time. After convincing the officials to turn back time a second or two, Texas kicked a game-winning field goal to win 13-12. And the reward for playing its worst game at the end of the season? That’s right, the Longhorns secured a slot in the national championship game.

Unlike a year ago when the Horned Frogs muffed what would have been a game-winning field goal as time ran out, TCU decidedly beat Utah and every other team it played this year. But the BCS cannot withstand another embarrassing shellacking like Utah put on the Crimson Tide. So TCU got cheated.

The current BCS system is, dare I say it, un-American. It reeks of big money, back-room deals by the good old boys. But politicians need to do more than offer witty sound bites. Talk is cheap. Although Obama threatened to “throw his weight around” to get a playoff, a year later things appear to have gotten worse – not better. I have no doubt that the BCS will ultimately be brought down. The only remaining questions are: When? How? And by whom?

Bob Van Velkinburgh responds to Todd Weiler's position on climate change

The following a response to Republican Todd Weiler's Davis County Clipper column titled, Is rising disbelief over global warming alarming or good?, was submitted by Davis County Democrat, Bob Van Velkinburgh. 

I know Todd Weiler and he is a pretty good country lawyer, but he is no scientist. Todd's article in the Davis Clipper, November 5, approaches the subject of global warming in a lawyer-like way. Quoting reputable journals and magazines is supposed to give credence to his argument that there is no such thing as global warming. Measuring temperature changes sixty years ago to support his idea of global cooling ignores the advancements in climatology technology. We cannot ignore the clearly evident changes we see in receding glaciers all over the world, the breaking up of the Antarctic ice shelf, and the dying coral reefs which are caused by increased acidity of our oceans (due to absorption of carbon dioxide). In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported that the panel, consisting of hundreds of scientists and reviewers, "asserts with near certainty-more than 90 percent confidence-that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities have been the main causes of warming in the past half century."

If nine out of ten doctors told you that you have cancer, are you going to believe that the one doctor who said you don't have cancer is right? Thus, if over 90 percent of the scientists polled confirm global warming and that it is caused by human activity, who are you going to believe? While Todd is entitled to his opinion, he is not entitled to his own facts. So Todd, don't quit your day job.

Bob Van Velkinburgh

Davis County Clipper: Party lines - Property tax changes, more harm than good?

Property tax changes, more harm than good?
By Rob Miller, Utah Democratic Vice Chair

Death and taxes are two things that we can count on. We may well ask are the new assessments and taxes in Davis County helpful or harmful? Taxpayers basically fall into four groups: 1. Older citizens on fixed incomes. 2. Middle aged citizens still very much in the work place. 3. Young property owners just starting out. 4. Commercial/Industrial and business property.

All taxpayers have the following common denominators: 1. Is my property worth what the assessor says it is? 2. Is the rate my property being taxed at justified by the government service I’m receiving? 3. As Davis County government currently exists, is a one-party system sensitive to public well being regarding taxation?

The answer to question 1 is no. Last year my property tax assessment claimed that my home was worth $378,000, while the lender who refinanced my home had it assessed for $269,000. Your property and my property is not worth what the assessor says it is and this is brought out by verifiable sales comparison data, also the fact that protested evaluations have received a reduction of sorts across the board.

The rate at which properties are taxed is set by the County Commissioners. With the current change in evaluation one might ask is county government providing additional services or a higher level of services that are currently in place? The answer to that question is also no. Ninety percent of Davis County now exists within the boundaries of corporate cities. As the county shrinks and cities expand one could make the conclusion that county services are being picked up by the cities. This should mandate a reduction rather than an increase in county taxes. This particular condition creates unnecessary and costly duplication in certain areas. For all the rhetoric we have heard about efforts to determine our property values there isn’t much being said about consolidating city/county services to eliminate overlap and duplication. A critical look should be taken regarding cost vs. benefit in many areas of county government.

Do we believe that, as Davis County residents, we should be happy to pay a certain percentage of what our properties are worth, justified only by higher costs in surrounding counties? Last year taxes in substantial areas of the county nearly doubled. When a public outcry ensued the county’s response was, “We’ve made a mistake so here’s your rebate.” This year many of your statements show another increase above last year’s and a whopping increase above the slight rebate received. What kind of trickery is this?

Our third and final issue is the crux of the entire dilemma. One-party rule in Davis County has not served us well. Our founding fathers realized the need for checks and balances. In Davis County we have not had checks and balances since 1994. Over the past 13 years Davis County officials have thrust egregious tax increases upon the public. The dereliction and outright incompetence promoted by one-party government clearly exemplified by the mishandling of property values has driven four commissioners from office, and still one-party rule persists.

Please join with me in the voting booth this November to bring responsibility and balance back to county government. Davis County voters have the power to make the needed change.

Property tax changes, more harm than good?
By Wade Farraway, Davis County Rep.Vice Chair

I can see why Todd Weiler asked me to fill in while he conveniently left on his vacation; this week’s question is a tough one. Anytime the way property taxes are assessed is changed there will be winners and losers. In this latest change no one in Davis County Government is to blame, in that it came about because of HB 54 Property Tax Assessment Revisions sponsored by representative Wayne Harper. HB 54 in a nutshell requires that counties of the first and second class use a computer assisted mass appraisal system to conduct their annual update of property values. The bill’s aim was to provide for a “uniform and equal treatment of parcels of real property throughout the county” every year.

HB 54 was hotly contested and had three substitutes before the final product passed the Utah Senate and House without a nay vote in its final form. This bi-partisan bill, when it passed and was signed into law by the Governor, became the obligation of the counties in its implementation.

This being the first year that the new tax assessment tool is in use, it is difficult to determine whether or not it helps or hurts the county. The goal was of course to bring fairness and equality into the property tax system by treating like properties the same. The problem here is that identical twins are rare and so are identical properties.

There are more than 90,000 parcels of real estate located in Davis County with an approximate worth of $8 billion that need to be evaluated annually. This Herculean task currently falls upon the County Assessor James B. Ivie who must somehow evaluate and assess a value to every parcel every year in a fair and equal way. This is not an easy task. Currently, these property taxes go to the Davis School District, State Basic School levy, Davis County, Davis jail bond, County library, water companies, sewer districts and Mosquito abatement to name a few. Obviously these are important entities that need public monies to function.

When it comes to taxes the Republican Party position in the Utah State Republican Platform is: We accept the necessity for limited taxation in order for government to perform and administer those services which meet essential public needs. However, we recognize that the power to tax is also the power to control, and believe that the best way to control government is to strictly control the amount of taxes imposed on the people.

We encourage further simplification of tax systems, the elimination of the estate tax, and broad-based rate reduction where possible.

The Davis County Commission – all Republicans – reduced the tax rate this past year as a good example of proper tax stewardship. Whereas we all know that the Democrats have not met a tax they haven’t liked.

Davis County Clipper: Did Obama’s world tour change the race?

Party Lines - Did Obama’s world tour change the race?
Clipper 29.JUL.08
By Rob Miller, Utah Democratic Vice Chair

Future President Barack Obama’s “World Tour” has not only been worthwhile, it has helped present a new direction for both America and our allies. Unilateralism has been relegated to the dust bin of history and Obama had the opportunity to offer a vision of a future built on cooperation that recognizes the reality that we are all part of a global economy with a common interest in tackling extremism, climate change, and nuclear proliferation, just to name a few.

Throughout this tour, Senator Obama has been able to express the values the world remembers America for. By acknowledging that we have sometimes stumbled, the Obama administration has shown its commitment to a path that does not include torture and violations of the Geneva Convention will not be tolerated. Obama does not offer excuses, rather he gives people around the world a chance to remember why they love our great nation.

In the spirit of JFK and Ronald Reagan, Obama was able to articulate our common love for freedom and appreciation for the rule of law essential to liberty; he is thus laying the foundation for a renewal in relations with other countries that have been sorely lacking over the past 7 1/2 years. Simply said, Senator Obama has not only been able to define what “Change” means to Americans, he has been able to define “Change” to the world. His reception in Berlin reaffirms that the world is not only listening, but is also embracing, a movement that will undoubtedly put our country and its allies back on the right track.

Proof that this positive vision is taking hold can be seen in a recent Gallup Poll Daily conducted from July 24-26 that shows that Barack Obama now leads John McCain among national registered voters by a 49 percent to 40 percent margin which makes sense given John McCain’s repeated references to Czechoslovakia — a country that has not existed since 1993, and let’s not forget McCain’s statement that Afghanistan borders Iraq when in fact it does not.

Our country is at a political crossroads and as a Davis County Democrat who became involved in politics due to the current state of affairs caused by one-Party domination locally, and the failed policies of the current national administration, I can whole heartedly say that I am delighted to endorse and sustain Barack Obama’s candidacy.

Although Barack Obama is running on the Democratic ticket it is my opinion that his leadership represents an opportunity for all Americans. His message transcends party affiliation and that’s why I don’t see Barack Obama simply as the “Democratic” candidate, but as our “American” candidate whose message of “Change” will undoubtedly put our nation back on track both locally and abroad.


Party Lines - Did Obama’s world tour change the race?
Clipper 29.JUL.08
by Todd Weiler, Utah Republican Vice Chair

When I heard Donnie Osmond belt out “Puppy Love” in the Conference Center over the weekend, I was reminded of the media’s man-crush on the junior senator from Illinois. When McCain visited the Middle East a few months ago, the media hardly took notice. Yawn. But when Obama’s foot touched ground in Iraq, the news anchors were live on the scene. As though Neil Armstrong had just landed on the moon or something.

Not surprisingly, the Europeans simply adore the most liberal senator in Washington. Especially the French, who have embraced his cut and run strategy for Iraq. After all, no one knows more about surrendering than the French. Let’s face it, if the election was to be held in Europe, McCain wouldn’t stand a chance. (They didn’t like Reagan either.) But back at home, Barack is slipping in the polls — he is in a statistical dead heat with McCain.

Don’t get me wrong. I readily admit that Barack looked good on the road. He attracted a crowd in Berlin that was reminiscent of Kennedy. Americans saw Obama meeting with world leaders, which obviously made him look more presidential. Since many Americans (like me) view Obama as inexperienced, he needs to convince the electorate that he is capable of leading the free world.

So if the trip went “very well” (Barack’s words, not mine), then why is he losing support? Like all rock stars, Obama looks good on a stage. But what happens when the lights go down?

Obama’s ego trip exposed a serious weakness: pride. Take the troop surge in Iraq. Obama voted against it last year. He said it was a big mistake, and would only lead to bigger problems in Iraq. But he was wrong. Anyone with a pulse can see that the surge has worked, and in a big way. So what does Obama say when he visited Iraq? He said if he had it all to do over again he would still vote against the surge. Wow. What kind of president will he be if he cannot admit when he has made a mistake?

Pride and inexperience are not Barack’s only problems. Voters are beginning to realize that Obama is big on rhetoric but little on substance. In other words, he is an empty suit.

And then there’s his politics. As the campaign intensifies over the next couple of months, America is going to realize that Obama is the most liberal candidate ever nominated for president, far more liberal than Kerry or Gore.

They will discover that when Obama says he wants “change”, he means he wants us to become more like the French. And that isn’t going to sit so well with middle America.