The day after I arrived home from Washington D.C., I was channel suffering when I heard old sour grapes himself, Sean Hannity, telling his listeners that our country was going to fail, and that our new president was focused on keeping Americans fearful.

Unfortunately for Mr. Hannity nothing could be further from the truth, and my proof of this fact comes from the people I met and observed while attending the inauguration of our nation’s 44th president, Barack Obama.

From the moment I walked into Salt Lake International Airport it was obvious that excitement was in the air, especially from those passengers, who were like me, on their way to the inauguration. Before boarding the red-eye to Atlanta I ran into Utah’s First Lady, Mary Kaye Huntsman, and her daughter Abby who works in D.C.

Even the First Lady seemed excited to participate in what she called a “significant historical event” for our country, and she was very gracious and easy to talk with.

I didn’t sleep much on that flight and figured I would get a little shuteye on my flight from Atlanta to D.C., but that wouldn’t be the case because I met Linh Nguyen, a PhD who lives in Virginia, who I talked with during the entire flight.

When I told Linh I was flying “stand by” she became concerned that I would have a difficult time flying home so she offered to put me up at her home if things didn’t work out. And this is just the first example of the friendly attitude I discovered from everyone I met during my adventure.

When I arrived in D.C., I quickly met up with my friend Ben McAdams and it didn’t take long for us to leave our hotel to go exploring.

Once again, everywhere we went we met people who wanted to be helpful, and who wanted to know our names and where we were from.

Later that night I realized that I had not had any real sleep for 48 hours, and although I was tired, I still accepted Ben’s invitation to dinner where we met a group of ladies who have been lifelong friends at the next table. During our discussion these ladies told us a story from when they were teenagers during the early 1960s.

They explained how they walked to “The Wash-A-Matic” in Texas to wash their clothes, but once they arrived they were told that they couldn’t use the machines. After listening to their conversation I was humbled to realize how far we have come.

On Sunday I attended the “We Are One” concert at the mall where I lost my friends. At first I became a bit anxious, that is until I realized that everyone there was a friend. Everyone I approached was gracious and helpful.

On Tuesday I stood as a participant to history when I watched Barack Obama take the oath to become our Nation’s 44th president.

For me, this was a humbling experience that I cannot put into words, but let me say this, it wasn’t fear that ruled the day, it was hope, and I was proud to stand with 1.8 million Americans who understood that if this election proved anything it was that anything is possible when we embrace hope, and work together.

Party lines - Inauguration — history in the making
by Todd Weiler, Utah Republican Vice Chair
Attending last week’s inauguration was something I will never forget. Kudos to Rob Miller for giving me a ticket. The evening before the big event, President Obama held a special dinner to honor John McCain. That was classy. And I dined at Bill Clinton’s favorite restaurant with Rob and 18 of his most liberal friends. So, for me, the whole inauguration had a bipartisan sort of feel to it.

It was a little strange for me to be there considering, after all, that I was for “the other guy”. When I arrived in D.C. and boarded the Metro, I couldn’t help noticing that my train ticket had Barack’s face on it. There was a noticeable buzz and excitement in the air.

Most of the people I saw at the inauguration were black. It was their day. I will always treasure the look I saw in their eyes and the expressions on their faces. It was the embodiment and fulfillment of Martin Luther King’s dream. They had waited generations for this day, and they relished every second of it. Everyone on the train was wearing Obama hats and scarves. In contrast, my suitcase is embroidered with the words, “Utah Republican Party”. No joke.

Everyone was nice to me. In fact, I still marvel at how well behaved people were. On the morning of the inauguration, it was utter chaos. Think about the Olympics times 100. Yet, people were generally courteous and respectful. Although Rob had promised me a coveted yellow ticket to the festivities, a lot of Democratic arm twisting in smoke-filled backrooms (sorry, couldn’t resist) resulted in my being downgraded to a purple ticket. No hard feelings. I was just happy to be there.

But little did I know of the disaster that was awaiting the purple and blue ticket holders. Apparently, tens of thousands more tickets were distributed than the allotted space could hold. As a result, I got more than I bargained for in trying to get through security.

I stood in a line that did not move for two hours. The crowd grew tighter. I heard sirens, and an ambulance inched forward. After it passed, people pushed forward into the empty space.

I began to fear that a riot would break out. Many of the people gave up and went home. Some of them were crying. It became so tight I had difficulty reaching into my own pockets. At one point, I was forced to hold my arms over my head.

Eventually I made my way out of the melee and accessed security on a different street. Once inside, security informed me that the purple section was “closed” because it was “full” Yet there were thousands of people behind me.

I wandered around the back sections and witnessed people climbing trees and standing on top of the portable toilets to try to get a better view.

All told, I am glad I went. I witnessed history being made and will tell my grandchildren about it someday.

Video Courtesy of KSL.com

Check out our cool scarfs!

On Jan. 26, 2009, the Utah Legislature will convene. My assignment: list the top three best and three worst bills I expect to be passed during this session.

Unfortunately that is a secret you can’t be told.

According to legislative lawyers, there are roughly 770 bill files that have been opened. Most are not public at this time. Legislators keep them “protected” until they are ready to tell us.

The bills that will most likely be considered during the first 10 days are the approximately 95 bills that were passed in 2008 during the interim sessions. Most, but not all of these bills, are available for public view. I encourage you to look at the legislative web site to see them.

Additionally, there is no doubt that the bill with the greatest effect on our communities will be the budget bills.

Due to lower tax revenues there simply isn’t any money for new projects. Instead of focusing on healthcare reform and improving mathematics education, which are high legislative priorities, we may find Utah legislators more interested in changing policy that has no, or a low, fiscal note. Beware the legal challenges that this endeavor to save money will produce.

We are already seeing heightened attention to liquor, abortion, tobacco, gambling, property tax, immigration, domestic partnerships, ethics and campaign reform. Many of these issues are likely to be dealt with poorly because they were not truly on most legislators’ priority lists until this last election cycle and, quite frankly, haven’t been worked through in the appropriate manner.

Whether you’re interested in the budget or policy, 2009 is shaping up to be a year of disappointment for moderate voters.

In the base budget they are debating cuts to every department across the board of 15 percent. Cuts to education, healthcare, and programs like “Meals on Wheels” will be most harmful. If you’re a young person in public school it is my hope that Utah legislators realize that you will only go through this stage of life once, and I plead with Utah’s lawmakers to not tell senior citizens, “We’ll be happy to feed you two years from now when we have more revenue.”

It may be inconvenient for us now, but putting off capital improvements on state buildings and roads is a leadership decision that should be made. The same isn’t true with bills that affect a child’s developmental stage, healthcare for those who have a current illness, or seniors who benefit from a warm meal.

There may even be hope for those capital projects getting done sooner rather than later. It appears that the incoming Obama administration wants to help states with this because they understand that it is the most reasonable area for budget cuts during an economic downturn.

One bill I am very optimistic about is Rep. Lynn Hemingway’s (D-Millcreek) bill to help new educators with housing. Although it has been dismissed over the last two sessions it is a step in the right direction and should find support from both Democrats and Republicans, especially in areas like St. George where housing is simply not affordable for those who are teaching our children.

The fact is before we pass judgment on the best and worst we need to watch the legislative process. It is through this process that poor and mediocre bills can take flight and where great bills can be cannibalized.

Whatever happens this year, it is my hope that our lawmakers are pragmatic and truly focus on being helpful regarding the issues that affect all of us. Lawmakers have a tough road ahead, one which I don’t envy.

Jan 13, 2009

In his final briefing from the White House, President George W. Bush
said yesterday that legislative bodies are historically risk adverse.
But I don’t think he was referring to Utah.

The we, the Utah
Legislature will convene for its annual 45-day session. Some of the top
issues this go ‘round will include the budget, ethics, healthcare
reform, alcohol, abortion, gay rights, and immigration reform.

With
a slowing economy and growing deficits, the budget will prove to be a
difficult battle. Instead of transportation and education lobbies
fighting for extra dollars, they may be squaring off over cutbacks.

Ethics
reform is long over due, and I hope there will be some meaningful
progress this year. The media has been harassing the Legislature for
years, and now the public is calling for changes. The new leadership
seems committed to getting a bill passed. No matter what is
accomplished, however, the critics will likely say it is too little and
too late.

Although Gov. Huntsman is looking to relax some of
the restrictions on Utah’s peculiar liquor laws, conservatives in the
state House may have other plans. Speaker David Clark sent a strong
message last week that he is planning to modify the law to prohibit
restaurants like Chili’s from displaying or mixing drinks in areas
potentially visible by minors.

Senator Sheldon Killpack and
others have spent a good part of the year brainstorming ways to improve
our health care. The rising cost of health care ought to be a top
priority this year as it has the potential to undercut any meaningful
economic reform.

Although this year was shaping up to set the
stage for another abortion battle, the latest report is that it will be
postponed. Last time the Legislature took on abortion, it cost the
taxpayers millions and resulted in a loss.

Gay rights advocates
are bound and determined to challenge the LDS Church’s position on
Proposition 8. Watch for some serious fireworks over gay rights in this
year’s session.

Last year, the Legislature passed Senate Bill
81, which was a comprehensive immigration bill. Look for some attempts
this year to clarify and tighten up some of the broad measures enacted.

In addition, the Legislature will likely consider bills
addressing mortgage licensing, reemployment, securities regulation,
technical education, high school mathematics, performance-based teacher
compensation, school funding sources, carbon reduction, electric energy
fuel sources, campaign finance, election law changes, tobacco tax,
international gambling, the harboring of runaway minors in homeless
shelters, cell phone pornography, gang violence, sex offender
treatment, rainwater collection, water rights amendments, affordable
housing, utility connections and corridors, income and property taxes,
air quality, REAL ID, transportation funding, and motion picture
incentives.

For those of you who think the legislators have an easy job, you may want to reconsider your opinion.

Session of Change?

Two poli-bloggers anticipate the 2009 Utah Legislative Session.

by Brian Staker

As we are about to turn the corner on a new year, the State Legislature is setting up its tentative agenda for key issues to address during the 2009 General Session, and a desire for change in some key issues mirrors the mood in the country as a whole. As usually is the case, a number of these issues are likely to affect those doing business in the state.

Rob Miller, vice chair of the Utah Democratic Party, writes the blog Utahamicus.com. Lyall Swim, director of operations of conservative public policy think-tank The Sutherland Institute, blogs at Politicalcivility.com. Here, they share some of their wishes for the coming legislative season.

To read the entire article you will need to register with Utah CEO, a magazine that is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED by The Utah Amicus.

Much thanks to Donald Dunn!

This week’s question from the Clipper springs from the ACLU’s concern that Farmington City is making an effort to avoid building affordable housing to keep out apartment renters and people with low incomes. The Clipper asks, “ Do cities have the right to restrict the types of homes being built in an effort to create or maintain a quality of life that its residents desire? Or are they obligated to create affordable housing so that younger and less affluent families can live there”

This is a difficult question to answer due to the fact that there are both pros and cons to both sides of this argument. After speaking to a local city council member I can see that a community truly benefits from developing a master plan that accommodates the realities and needs of that community.

Research does show that low income housing can and does increase crime in most situations. This means hiring more police officers and other increased costs.

Another aspect that Farmington residents might be concerned with is how will developing affordable housing (low income housing) affect their property values?

Let me admit here that I am in no way an expert on this topic. I have however lived in several different communities located on the Wasatch Front throughout my life and it’s from that experience that I am basing my opinions on.

It is my guess that most of the people who would utilize affordable housing in Farmington are those who are either tied to that community socially or economically. Many years ago while I was an administrator of a senior community I witnessed six seniors who had to leave that community during a three month period due to the ever-rising cost of their healthcare needs. Not only were these seniors my friends, but they were also hardworking middle-class Utahns who were losing, through no fault of their own, the American Dream. One of those residents took her own life because she didn’t want to burden her children economically. When I told this story to a co-worker to explain one of the key reasons I became involved in Utah politics he said, “so you’re involved because of social issues”, but I always felt that this is an economic issue that could affect any of us in the future. You may not realize it now, but affordable housing may just be a godsend for someone you love.

Something else I have learned from traveling the state and listening to local leaders is that communities like St. George and Park City have a real problem accommodating affordable housing for their labor pool. The big problem for the St. George area is how do we find teachers when we don’t have homes that they can afford?

There is also another aspect that Farmington residents should consider. Many of the people who move to Farmington do so because they like the fact that Farmington is a bedroom community. However, one of the biggest revenue producers for Farmington is Lagoon, an amusement park that is patronized by people of all economic situations. Does Farmington want to say, “You are welcome to spend here, but we really don’t want you living here.”

In closing I would have to admit that there is no easy solution, and that balance should be a key objective here. I also believe that God loves us all, and is it too much to ask that all of his children have a decent roof over their heads?

Merry Christmas!

Party lines - Can cities restrict type of homes built?
by Todd Weiler

Cities are legally obligated to provide affordable housing within the community. Utah law defines “affordable housing” to mean housing occupied or reserved for occupancy by households with a gross household income equal to or less than 80 percent of the median gross income of the community for households of the same size.

The debate over housing is certainly difficult, because it is easy to want people to have nice homes. Arguing against it breeds suspicion of racism and classism. The issue is also complicated due to the unintended consequences of subsidized housing and its powerful lobbying force.

Those who advocate against affordable housing will point out that low income housing also places a burden on police, social services, schools and reduces property values. And overburdening a city with low income neighborhoods eventually drains the very social systems designed to support the poor.

There are several state and federal laws that limit the authority of local government in terms of land use regulation. For example, cities are limited in their ability to regulate residential care facilities and group homes located within a residential neighborhood. These laws are intended to integrate group living arrangements throughout a community and prohibit discrimination. Group homes, individuals recovering from alcoholic or substance abuse.

An important and much criticized legal decision on exclusionary zoning practices is the case of Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel, 336 A.2d 713 (1975). The decision held that a zoning ordinance operated to exclude the poor, young, old and minorities, and was, therefore, invalid under the state constitution. The city was ordered to redraft its ordinance to permit a fair share of housing opportunities for low and moderate income households in developing communities.

After a decade, it became apparent that the elimination of regulatory barriers to lower income housing was not sufficient to stimulate the construction of new housing. So in 1983, the court issued the Mount Laurel II decision, which imposed the requirement that cities take affirmative measures to provide lower income housing.

Cities are now considered to have the affirmative obligation to use government subsidies and zoning incentives to assure that a fair share of lower income housing is built. Cities are expected to relax the enforcement of some restrictions in exchange for the agreement that a developer will include a number of lower income units.

The Mount Laurel case succeeded because the court decided that all zoning to be undertaken was for the community’s general welfare. Each city is therefore obliged to provide a realistic opportunity for the construction of its fair share of housing for people with all levels of income.

Farmington’s problem right now is that its planning commission chair stated publicly last fall that “the only thing Farmington hates more than renters is poor people.”

Even if the statement was made in jest, it was a stupid thing to say. And now the world is watching to see if it is true.

by Rob Miller
11.04.08 - 06:14 pm
I believe that the 2008 presidential election will go down in history as the most historic and important, political movement to occur during my lifetime. Who would have thought in 2004 that in 2008 we would see a woman, an African American, and a Latter-day Saint come so close to winning the highest office in the nation? Utah had unprecedented visits from both Republican and Democratic presidential candidates during this election, and fund raising for those candidates in Utah was at an all- time high. I also need to mention that 2008 was the year that a woman candidate received over 18 million votes in her quest for the Democratic nomination, but in the end, it will be Barack Obama’s story that shines when he is elected our next President.

Because Governor Huntsman and Democratic and Republican party leaders fought for a presidential primary, Utahns became a stop off for Democratic Candidates, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, and Barack Obama. Even candidate Hillary Clinton was scheduled to visit, but due to a last minute change in plans Senator Clinton had to instead send her husband, former president Bill Clinton, to the University of Utah in November 2007. Having these Democratic leaders come to Utah was a real boost for Utah Democrats, and I believe proved that national Democrats do care about Utah. Possibly the most significant presidential candidate visit occurred on August 5, 2007, when Barack Obama stopped off at a parking lot in Kimball junction and met over 1,000 excited Utahns on his way to a fundraiser. It’s my belief that this last-minute event helped Obama win the Utah primary.

Another high point that helped Obama win over Utah Democrats was a decision that proved that he was a man of great judgment, consideration, and understanding. On Jan. 27, 2008, Latter-day Saints lost our beloved prophet, President Gordon B. Hinckley.

By some coincidence President Hinckley’s funeral was scheduled on the same day that Senator Barack Obama was again scheduled to visit Utah. As Utah Democratic party leaders debated what should be done about this situation, we received a call from Barack Obama’s campaign stating that Senator Obama had spoken with President Monson and that he was canceling his visit out of respect for funeral services for President Hinckley. He would instead send his wife Michelle the next Monday, and it was at that event that I saw the new faces that would become the future of our Utah Democratic Party.

If there was any high points that stand out for me, it was being at Invesco stadium in Denver with over 85,000 others to hear our nominee have an honest conversation with all Americans about the future we can aspire for, and I was also touched by general Colin Powell’s endorsement of Obama that many have said is the best analysis of the presidential election to date.

I love Utah, and it may be that most Utahns will vote for John McCain, but when it is all said and done it is my prayer that we will all support our next president by putting away our partisan blinders and holding up a man who has beaten all the odds and proved that he is indeed ready to lead our country.

Party lines - What were highs, lows of 2008 campaign?
by Todd Weiler
11.04.08 - 06:11 pm
The high points of both presidential campaigns came during the party conventions. Both Obama and McCain accomplished their main goals during their conventions. Obama reviewed enthusiastic endorsements and supportive speeches from the Clintons and was able to shore up his support among the Democratic base (Clinton supporters in particular) who were badly divided after a contentious primary. Similarly, McCain was able to assure the Republican base that the conservative agenda would not be forgotten in his presidency.

The more conservative elements of the party had been hesitant to embrace McCain due to his prior stances on immigration reform and campaign finance laws.

Another high point for McCain came during an unscripted moment at a recent rally. An older woman stood up to ask a question with a microphone. During her comments she condemned Obama for being an “Arab’ and a ‘Muslim.” McCain promptly shut her down and defended Obama for being a good person, but one whom he disagreed with on ideological grounds.

Another high point for McCain was his decision to not make Obama’s former pastor a central focus of his campaign.

Although he may have scored some political points (as Hillary Clinton clearly did), he was not willing to divide the country with the hateful and racists diatribes of Jeremiah Wright. It was McCain’s way of putting his “country first”.

As for low points, both campaigns should be scolded for their negative and misleading ads. Period. I personally subscribe to the belief that a candidate’s job is to share their vision for the future, not to tear down their opponent. Here is one example: Obama ran a misleading immigration piece against McCain in New Mexico. Despite the fact that McCain has clearly been a champion for comprehensive immigration reform, which included a path to citizenship, Obama’s ad painted him as an immigration hardliner that was only concerned with building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico. On the other hand, I was particularly unimpressed with McCain’s commercial about Obama’s celebrity that showed both Britney Spears and Paris Hilton.

Both camps took their opponents’ words out of context to try to score some points. McCain wasted almost a week on Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” comment. But Obama’s frequent references to McCain wanting to leave our troops in Iraq for 100 years were equally disingenuous.

The true low point of the campaign was media bias. On one hand, Fox News is clearly in the tank for the Republicans, although they at least go through the motions of trying to present both sides.

CNN, MSNBC, and all of the other networks jumped on the Obama bandwagon and rode it through November. (MSNBC was by far the worst.) McCain’s treatment by the hosts of “The View” was particularly appalling.

We all know that the media leans left, but at least they used to “pretend” they were neutral. This year, they stopped pretending. And it was simply disgusting to watch.

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

Utah Democratic Vice Chair, Rob Miller
Welcoming Address
Utah State Democratic Convention 2008

Click here to view ABC 4’s video.
Click here to find the location of your local Democratic caucus.