What if They Had a Cattle Show and a Candidate Forum Broke Out?

I just attended another “candidate forum.” Lots of them right now. More often than not, the candidates outnumber the spectators or guests.

If you haven’t, you should go to one. Or more.

Too many questions and too little time.

The questions are loaded - - - in most cases, there is a “right” answer and a “wrong” answer.

This is strictly the case for candidate forums sponsored by human services and aging and disabilities advocacy groups.

Most candidates show up. It’s always interesting to speculate why some R's do not. Are they sick? Stuck in traffic? Forgetful? Not supportive of the sponsoring group and its goals?

In an way, I admire those who choose not to show up because they do not support the group, its mission and its members. Without a note from home with an excuse, their silence says it all.
Perhaps this displays remarkable integrity.

In another way, their absence appalls me - - - it underscores an utter disregard for trying to understand the challenges and misery that significant numbers of our less-fortunate neighbors must face.

Regardless, the experienced Republicans who do show up are often "for" everything. “Yes, sir, I’ll vote to support funding everything you want” is usually the attitude. This is especially true of candidates that have run previously and lost. ["Ill say anything to get elected."]

A careful examination of the R’s posture while awaiting a turn at the microphone reveals something I call the “GOP squirm.” While stretching or wiggling, they glance blankly at the spectators, as if to say, "Please don't lead me off to slaughter." You can panic in their eyes - - - instinctively they abhor government. The question is: “How do I make my answer sound like ‘yes,’ when deep down inside I know the answer is ‘no’? You know they want to blurt out and say, "We're mad as hell and we're not taking it any more!"

In this regard, first-time GOP candidates are the most fun to watch, particularly the ideologues. They simply don’t know any better and answer without regard to consequences. At times the answer doesn't fit the question. No matter. They answer like somehow the managed to scale down from the Mount with tablets containing the written word.

Like we haven’t heard it all before.

First-timers and perennial unsuccessful candidates don’t shy aware from declaring that they want to chop the budget, lower taxes and unshackle businesses from the burden of regulation.

Unfortunately, in increasing numbers these ideologues actually win. Fortunately, in more cases, they do not.

And, for those R’s who want to sound like ‘yes’, they haven’t the slightest idea what they’re talking about or committing to support. Admittedly, only a fraction, perhaps as few as 10, of the 150 members of the Legislature actually understand the appropriations process, let alone the content of the primary appropriations bill.

In many cases, this not only true of the newbies. Incumbent R’s with lousy voting records on human services issues oftentimes say ‘yes’ and then provide the qualifiers in a condescending manner. “We never have enough money." "You have no idea how tough it is." "Walk a mile in my shoes.” Their electoral success resides in their ability to avoid sounding like a Republican.

At times, R candidates (new ones and incumbents alike) with less panache, articulate the correct “yes” answer and, then, hand out their campaign literature which is rife with statements to lower taxes [usually called “tax relief”], ax government spending [“bloated bureaucracy”] and encourage families to take care of their own ["reduce the role of/ interference of government in our lives"].

Incumbent R’s know all too well that the Republican caucuses takes dim view of spending, particularly on “social programs.” Betraying their spoken words, deep down inside these R’s know they will buckle under the pressure from the caucus to cut “fat” from the budget, cuts that always disproportionately fall onto the human services budget.

Those who heard the promises in candidate forums are long gone and the words forgotten.

But, for those who do remember, this is how politics gets its bad name.


Montana, like the rest of the United States, does not have a health care system. What we have is a mess. With 140,000 fellow Montanans roaming about without any type of health insurance, we have a disaster. And, it is getting worse every day, literally.

Unlike wine, health care does does improve with age.

The market place alone won’t fix the mess.

The profile of the Montana population is one that is rapidly growing older, sicker and disabled.

This is compounded by a shrinking population of younger workers in the prime of their lives to work and pay taxes to support services for the older, sicker and disabled..

The primary source of funding for health care is our Uncle. You know, the one in DC.

Federal payments, like Medicaid, Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP), foster care and child care, are on the decline in an absolute sense [after all, funding those wars put pressure on domestic spending] or the state most pony up more state money to secure federal funds. In other words, for every federal dollar, the state must provide a specified match in state monies.

The feds have complex formulas to determine how much each state may receive. Depending on how you look at it, the competition for funds is a race to the bottom.

Medicaid payments to states for health care are made on the basis of how poor [or wealthy] State A is compared to its 49 counterparts based on per capita income. The weaker a state’s per capita income is compared to the other states, the larger the payment and the lower the matching rate. So, for states like Montana whose economic performance have improved in recent years, we stand to lose federal money because the economic fortunes of other states have declined at the same time. This means, we may have to spend more state dollars to receive the same number of federal bucks.

The best line of new GOP candidates is the one about not accepting “a single dime from the federal government.” Without federal money, Montana would have no meaningful health care of any kind, especially in rural areas. We literally could not afford to take care of our own.

The wars, coupled with an improvement in our economy in a comparative sense, means we will receive millions of fewer “dimes” for health care.

So, the question is? Will the Republicans have the political fortitude during the 2009 legislative session to support backfilling the lost federal monies with state tax dollars?

My advice is to vote for the D.

After all, it’s better to be safe than sorry.

Just ask the Republican candidates who don’t show up at the cattle show.