With 38 new members of the Montana House of Representatives reporting for work in January, it's hard to keep up.
Thirty-eight special.
Gad. That's almost a 40 percent turnover. Just exactly what the term limits bunch wanted.
The GOP selected Scott Sales to lead it. Again.
As Speaker of the House, in terms of quotable material, Sales was unquestionably overshadowed by Mike Lang, the GOP Majority Leader in 2007. We need to know more about what Scott Sales has said, I thought.
With my rather modest Internet skills, here is what came back:
boxer: Scott Sales
Global ID 70504
sex male
birth date 1974-12-08
division light heavyweight
nationality United States
residence Richland, Washington, United States
birth place San Jose, CA, USA
US ID WA042537
won 1 (KO 1) + lost 10 (KO 10) + drawn 0 = 11
rounds boxed 15 : KO% 9.09
And, all along, I thought he retired from a high-tech occupation.
Sales was born in 1974? Hmmmm. Oh well.
Turns out that he's been moonlighting as a light heavy.
Not all that successful. Lost by knock-out, 91 percent of the time.
Wait a minute. Scott can't live in Richland, Washington and serve in Helena.
Oh. There it is. Montana's Scott Sales really is a fighter.
Just after his leadership victory a couple of weeks ago, referring to 2007 session, he said, "Voters knew what we stood for and affirmed what we did."
That gives Republicans the chance to continue to advocate their positions for limited government, lower taxes, family values and personal responsibility, Sales said.
"I think they wanted some balance." He emphasized the need for Republicans to start planning for their next election and told them of a 2010 legislative campaign fundraiser Wednesday night at the Montana Club.
Speaking on November 12, 2008, he concluded his remarks by saying, "The 2010 election begins today."
Now doggone it, Scott.
I thought there was near universal agreement that campaign seasons are already too long. That's a right cross.The 2010 election is on November 2. That 721 days away! [Actually, only 704 counting today.] 704 days of heavy body blows.
The "(v)oters knew what we stood for and affirmed what we did." The "what" he referred to evidently includes family values and personal responsibility.
In 2007, GOP Reps. Scott Boggio, Elsie Artnzen and Harry Clock collectively showed us what personal responsibility was all about one dark March evening. Harry loaned Scott his car. The plates on Harry's car, it seems, were expired. Scott was pulled over and blew a BAC of 0.14. Elsie was helping to navigate at the time. In the true spirit of limited government, there was no need to go to an expensive government program. Rep. Jack Ross, a House GOP member blew BAC of 0.18 of his own in 2006, was available for counseling. And, as a member of the Yellowstone County DUI Task Force, Elsie was able to secure pamphlets decrying the ways of those who imbibe the spirits and then take to the open road. Call in the cut man.
The voters wanted some balance? In 2007, several GOP House members attempted to work with D's to solve the budget impasse. Most of those who "helped" were subsequently tagged as socialists by the fringe-right of the GOP. Three of these moderates, Carol Lambert, Bruce Malcolm and John Ward, lost their primaries earlier this year to right wing ideologues. In January, each will be replaced by a Republican with fringe right credentials. What the voters want and what they get are two very different things. Jab..
Earlier this month, the GOP actually did hold its own in the House. It had 50 seats in 2007. (Remember: Rick Jore belongs to the Constitutional Party.) It has 50 seats in 2009. No arguing that the GOP will move substantially to the right. Balance? Don’t think so. Hook.
On the subject of balance, Sales seems to be borrowing heavily from Tevye [Chaim Topol]. “And how do we keep our balance? That I can tell you in one word: tradition. Because of our tradition, we have kept our balance for many, many years. Without tradition our lives would be as shaky as a fiddler on the roof." Break!
Recently, Sales summarized his concerns about Bob Bergren, the Speaker-designee, breaking tradition if he names committee chairs and assignments for the 2009 Legislature: "Montana has a distinguished tradition.” Feint.
Despite his conservative leanings, Scott Sales would appear to be the last member of the Legislature to concern himself with tradition. Must be watching too much of that damned movie channel and cluttering up his mind with crazy ideas. Or, did he forget his protective head-gear? Uppercut.
"In the clearing stands a boxer, and a fighter by his trade
And he carries the reminders of every glove that laid him down or cut him
'Til he cried out in his anger and his shame
I am leaving, I am leaving, but the fighter still remains."
Tough to get up off the canvass when you're knocked out 91 percent of the time.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Winning Ugly
When the 2009 Legislature convenes on Monday, January 5, 2009, fourteen new members of the Montana Senate will be sworn in. 7 Democrats and 7 Republicans.
Seven new Republican faces and what they stand for include:
1. Ryan Zinke (Whitefish) http://zinkeforsenate.com/
2. Bruce Tutvedt (Kalispell) http://brucetutvedt.com/
3. Greg Hinkle (Thompson Falls) http://www.campaignsitebuilder.com/templates/displayfiles/tmpl69.asp?SiteID=2317&PageID=42960&Trial=false
4. Rick Ripley (Wolf Creek) http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008810060311
5. John Brenden (Scobey) http://brendenforsenate.com/
6. Taylor Brown (Billings) http://www.votetaylorbrown.com/about_taylor.html
7. Debby Barrett (Dillon).
Four have no legislative experience of any kind. Brenden served briefly to fill out the term of Sen. Dennis Nathe, who died in office. Barret and Ripley move over from the House.
Nice people. The kind you would want to have as neighbors.
So far, everything seems fairly benign.
So, just exactly what do these folks want to do?
Permanent property tax relief. Eliminate the business equipment tax. Reduce state spending and the size of state government.
Streamline permitting for natural resources and projects. Stop frivolous lawsuits against industrial-strength projects.
Dig more coal. Drill more oil. In other words, “extract more of our natural resources. But, we’ll be careful doing it. Trust us. And, we’ll make certain Montanans benefit. Really.”
Really?
How?
With an equal number of Republicans and Democrats in the House, the Senate will have additional leverage if it chooses to wield it.
In every session, the Senate has the upper hand, primarily because it has the final word on the budget, the only action the Legislature is charged to perform under the constitution.
In devising plans to eliminate the business equipment tax altogether [either all at once or by phasing it out], there are several questions that should be asked:
1. Will the Legislature offset the loss of $80.0 million in property tax revenues for school districts, county governments and the University System with state monies?
2. If the answer is yes, will it (a) reduce general spending by that amount [and where?] or (b) simply reduce the projected $250.0 million general fund surplus in the executive budget by the same amount?
3. If the answer is no, how will school districts and county governments in particular cope with the loss of revenues?
4. In eliminating the business equipment tax, will the Legislature be forced to also eliminate or reduce the same type of property taxes paid by centrally assessed taxpayers? If the answer is yes, add another $100.0 million to the price tag.
The state seems be emerging from an extended period (1993 through 2003) where the Legislature systematically underfunded schools. Since 2005, the Legislature has attempted to respond to the deficiencies identified in the so-called 'Sherlock decision.' If actions by the Legislature result in a massive loss of revenue from property taxes paid previously by businesses to schools, will the state be setting itself up for additional litigation? Or weakening its position in ongoing litigation?
As Ross Perot would say, "OK. Now here's the deal." During the hey day of property tax cuts in 1997 and 1999, the burden of property taxes was shifted from large corporations and businesses onto small businesses and homeowners. Depending on how the proposals for the 2009 session are structured, schools will shorted revenues or property taxes paid by homeowners and small businesses will increase.
If the sponsors choose to spend state money to offset the revenue losses, state spending could actually increase above the levels proposed by the executive.
Should be fun to watch the debate.
And, yes. The Governor can always veto bills of these types.
Trying to determine who has the upper hand should make for good theater.
Seven new Republican faces and what they stand for include:
1. Ryan Zinke (Whitefish) http://zinkeforsenate.com/
2. Bruce Tutvedt (Kalispell) http://brucetutvedt.com/
3. Greg Hinkle (Thompson Falls) http://www.campaignsitebuilder.com/templates/displayfiles/tmpl69.asp?SiteID=2317&PageID=42960&Trial=false
4. Rick Ripley (Wolf Creek) http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008810060311
5. John Brenden (Scobey) http://brendenforsenate.com/
6. Taylor Brown (Billings) http://www.votetaylorbrown.com/about_taylor.html
7. Debby Barrett (Dillon).
Four have no legislative experience of any kind. Brenden served briefly to fill out the term of Sen. Dennis Nathe, who died in office. Barret and Ripley move over from the House.
Nice people. The kind you would want to have as neighbors.
So far, everything seems fairly benign.
So, just exactly what do these folks want to do?
Permanent property tax relief. Eliminate the business equipment tax. Reduce state spending and the size of state government.
Streamline permitting for natural resources and projects. Stop frivolous lawsuits against industrial-strength projects.
Dig more coal. Drill more oil. In other words, “extract more of our natural resources. But, we’ll be careful doing it. Trust us. And, we’ll make certain Montanans benefit. Really.”
Really?
How?
With an equal number of Republicans and Democrats in the House, the Senate will have additional leverage if it chooses to wield it.
In every session, the Senate has the upper hand, primarily because it has the final word on the budget, the only action the Legislature is charged to perform under the constitution.
In devising plans to eliminate the business equipment tax altogether [either all at once or by phasing it out], there are several questions that should be asked:
1. Will the Legislature offset the loss of $80.0 million in property tax revenues for school districts, county governments and the University System with state monies?
2. If the answer is yes, will it (a) reduce general spending by that amount [and where?] or (b) simply reduce the projected $250.0 million general fund surplus in the executive budget by the same amount?
3. If the answer is no, how will school districts and county governments in particular cope with the loss of revenues?
4. In eliminating the business equipment tax, will the Legislature be forced to also eliminate or reduce the same type of property taxes paid by centrally assessed taxpayers? If the answer is yes, add another $100.0 million to the price tag.
The state seems be emerging from an extended period (1993 through 2003) where the Legislature systematically underfunded schools. Since 2005, the Legislature has attempted to respond to the deficiencies identified in the so-called 'Sherlock decision.' If actions by the Legislature result in a massive loss of revenue from property taxes paid previously by businesses to schools, will the state be setting itself up for additional litigation? Or weakening its position in ongoing litigation?
As Ross Perot would say, "OK. Now here's the deal." During the hey day of property tax cuts in 1997 and 1999, the burden of property taxes was shifted from large corporations and businesses onto small businesses and homeowners. Depending on how the proposals for the 2009 session are structured, schools will shorted revenues or property taxes paid by homeowners and small businesses will increase.
If the sponsors choose to spend state money to offset the revenue losses, state spending could actually increase above the levels proposed by the executive.
Should be fun to watch the debate.
And, yes. The Governor can always veto bills of these types.
Trying to determine who has the upper hand should make for good theater.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Hold that Thought
In addition to the two flagship institutions in Bozeman and Missoula, counting the other units in Havre, Dillon, Billings and Butte, community colleges, colleges of technology and tribal colleges, Montana has a large number of units of higher education.
Some say too many.
Never mind that.
There is a proposal pending before the Board of Regents to add yet another unit, this one in Ravalli County. The Board is set to make a recommendation in early December regarding the advisability of creating another community college to the next legislative session.
If ultimately approved by the 2009 Legislature, Bitterroot Valley Community College would begin operations shortly after the approval.
Last week in Missoula, the Regents had a full-blown presentation and discussion about the proposal. Despite the fact those shepherding the idea did an abysmal job of providing data essential to justify the thing, Bitterrootters flocked to demonstrate their support.
http://mus.edu/board/meetings/2008/Nov08/OCHEanalysisBVCC.pdf
To their credit, by hammer and tongs, the faithful obtained the signatures needed to place the question on the ballot and then won narrow approval in May, 2007.
Yes, sir, they said, Ravalli County taxpayers were prepared to pay a new property tax for a community college.
Oh, yeah?
On November 4, 2008, a mere sixteen days before the Regents meeting, Ravalli County voters resoundingly voted against the 6-mill property tax levy for the University System. Mind you, the vote was whether to continue an existing property tax levy to support the University System. The voters have approved the levy every 10 years since 1948.
11,366 voted ‘no.’
9,342, or 45 percent of those voting, said ‘yes.’
[Statewide the levy approved by nearly 57 percent of those voting.]
Paradoxical? I’d say so.
Then, there's the matter of paying for this new initiative.
State funding for higher education will be tight next session. Just under half of the community colleges’ funding comes from the state If a fourth community college is approved, the pie, which is barely sufficient when currently cut three ways to support the existing community colleges, is likely to be cut into four pieces.
That is unless the Ravalli County delegation works and then actually votes to provide the needed additional funding.
Stoker, Lake, MacLaren, Hawk, Laible and Shockley. Most of these folks, like their constituents believe that the only good government is one that is shrinking.
Not exactly an all-star line-up when it comes to supporting higher ed funding.
The balance of the funding for community colleges comes from tuition and property taxes, above and beyond the 6-mill levy mentioned above.
Facts are stubborn things. K-12 school district property tax levies in Ravalli County are far more likely to fail than they pass.
Just how long do the supporters believe voters will tax themselves for the community college? And, when they decide not to, then what?
So, those of you in Ravalli County are saying: We won't vote to support the University System. We will send legislators to oppose funding for the System and, in the process, weaken the existing institutions. We may not provide our share of the funding for our college.
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable proposition to me.
Some say too many.
Never mind that.
There is a proposal pending before the Board of Regents to add yet another unit, this one in Ravalli County. The Board is set to make a recommendation in early December regarding the advisability of creating another community college to the next legislative session.
If ultimately approved by the 2009 Legislature, Bitterroot Valley Community College would begin operations shortly after the approval.
Last week in Missoula, the Regents had a full-blown presentation and discussion about the proposal. Despite the fact those shepherding the idea did an abysmal job of providing data essential to justify the thing, Bitterrootters flocked to demonstrate their support.
http://mus.edu/board/meetings/2008/Nov08/OCHEanalysisBVCC.pdf
To their credit, by hammer and tongs, the faithful obtained the signatures needed to place the question on the ballot and then won narrow approval in May, 2007.
Yes, sir, they said, Ravalli County taxpayers were prepared to pay a new property tax for a community college.
Oh, yeah?
On November 4, 2008, a mere sixteen days before the Regents meeting, Ravalli County voters resoundingly voted against the 6-mill property tax levy for the University System. Mind you, the vote was whether to continue an existing property tax levy to support the University System. The voters have approved the levy every 10 years since 1948.
11,366 voted ‘no.’
9,342, or 45 percent of those voting, said ‘yes.’
[Statewide the levy approved by nearly 57 percent of those voting.]
Paradoxical? I’d say so.
Then, there's the matter of paying for this new initiative.
State funding for higher education will be tight next session. Just under half of the community colleges’ funding comes from the state If a fourth community college is approved, the pie, which is barely sufficient when currently cut three ways to support the existing community colleges, is likely to be cut into four pieces.
That is unless the Ravalli County delegation works and then actually votes to provide the needed additional funding.
Stoker, Lake, MacLaren, Hawk, Laible and Shockley. Most of these folks, like their constituents believe that the only good government is one that is shrinking.
Not exactly an all-star line-up when it comes to supporting higher ed funding.
The balance of the funding for community colleges comes from tuition and property taxes, above and beyond the 6-mill levy mentioned above.
Facts are stubborn things. K-12 school district property tax levies in Ravalli County are far more likely to fail than they pass.
Just how long do the supporters believe voters will tax themselves for the community college? And, when they decide not to, then what?
So, those of you in Ravalli County are saying: We won't vote to support the University System. We will send legislators to oppose funding for the System and, in the process, weaken the existing institutions. We may not provide our share of the funding for our college.
Sounds like a perfectly reasonable proposition to me.
Good Work if You Can Get It
Verizon Wireless evidently is a good place to work.
The lucky ones end up in television commercials.
The rest? Well, they work in buildings in complexes scattered around the country, doing whatever they do to make certain their subscribers have cell service no matter what the locale.
Some, I guess, peruse their customers accounts.
A few with authorization and others without it.
Barack Obama’s account drew particular interest.
In a statement (issued on November 20, 2008), Verizon Wireless President and CEO Lowell McAdam apologized to Obama and disclosed the breach, saying: "a number of Verizon Wireless employees have, without authorization, accessed and viewed President-elect Barack Obama's personal cell phone account."
He said the account has been inactive for several months and Obama had been using a simple voice flip-phone without email capabilities.
"All employees who have accessed the account _ whether authorized or not _ have been put on immediate leave, with pay," McAdam said. "Employees with legitimate business needs for access will be returned to their positions, while employees who have accessed the account improperly and without legitimate business justification will face appropriate disciplinary action."
The next day an unspecified number of employees were fired
Two observations:
1. The initial punishment for this transgression? McAdam was so outraged that he put the employees in question “on immediate leave, with pay.” So, what does one need to do at Verizon to be fired? In recent months, hundreds of thousands of breadwinners have been put on something called indefinite leave (lay-off) without pay simply for doing their jobs in companies that could not afford them anymore. Each of them could have used time off with pay.
2. When the terminations were announced, the company said it had launched an internal investigation as to whether Obama’s records had only been shared among employees or whether the information had been compromised outside of the company. Now, that’s reassuring. It’s OK to internally share the phone records of the soon-to-be most powerful person in the world?
Oh, and in case you are wondering, Verizon “alerted the appropriate federal law enforcement agencies.” That would be the U.S. Department of Justice, that rock-solid impartial enforcer of laws. The same U.S. Department of Justice that fired politically recalcitrant U.S. Attorneys and screened applicants for internships based on their political preferences.
Fortunately for McAdam, the Department’s phone number was on speed dial. For years, you see, Verizon had shared its customers’ files with the Department without a warrant. No fumbling around with that bulky telephone directory.
All right. So, perhaps Obama is at least partially to blame. After all, last summer he voted to afford telecommunications industry, including Verizon, with retroactive immunity for their illegal snooping and illegal wiretaps. And, when McCain and Palin called him a terrorist, millions of Americans took them seriously, right?
So, is it possible the CSR’s with the GED’s who peeked may have thought that they were just been doing their patriotic duty for GW?
And, McAdam? The man whom Verizon paid over $18.0 million in 2007? And, who helped lobby for immunity for snooping?
He’s still got a job.
The lucky ones end up in television commercials.
The rest? Well, they work in buildings in complexes scattered around the country, doing whatever they do to make certain their subscribers have cell service no matter what the locale.
Some, I guess, peruse their customers accounts.
A few with authorization and others without it.
Barack Obama’s account drew particular interest.
In a statement (issued on November 20, 2008), Verizon Wireless President and CEO Lowell McAdam apologized to Obama and disclosed the breach, saying: "a number of Verizon Wireless employees have, without authorization, accessed and viewed President-elect Barack Obama's personal cell phone account."
He said the account has been inactive for several months and Obama had been using a simple voice flip-phone without email capabilities.
"All employees who have accessed the account _ whether authorized or not _ have been put on immediate leave, with pay," McAdam said. "Employees with legitimate business needs for access will be returned to their positions, while employees who have accessed the account improperly and without legitimate business justification will face appropriate disciplinary action."
The next day an unspecified number of employees were fired
Two observations:
1. The initial punishment for this transgression? McAdam was so outraged that he put the employees in question “on immediate leave, with pay.” So, what does one need to do at Verizon to be fired? In recent months, hundreds of thousands of breadwinners have been put on something called indefinite leave (lay-off) without pay simply for doing their jobs in companies that could not afford them anymore. Each of them could have used time off with pay.
2. When the terminations were announced, the company said it had launched an internal investigation as to whether Obama’s records had only been shared among employees or whether the information had been compromised outside of the company. Now, that’s reassuring. It’s OK to internally share the phone records of the soon-to-be most powerful person in the world?
Oh, and in case you are wondering, Verizon “alerted the appropriate federal law enforcement agencies.” That would be the U.S. Department of Justice, that rock-solid impartial enforcer of laws. The same U.S. Department of Justice that fired politically recalcitrant U.S. Attorneys and screened applicants for internships based on their political preferences.
Fortunately for McAdam, the Department’s phone number was on speed dial. For years, you see, Verizon had shared its customers’ files with the Department without a warrant. No fumbling around with that bulky telephone directory.
All right. So, perhaps Obama is at least partially to blame. After all, last summer he voted to afford telecommunications industry, including Verizon, with retroactive immunity for their illegal snooping and illegal wiretaps. And, when McCain and Palin called him a terrorist, millions of Americans took them seriously, right?
So, is it possible the CSR’s with the GED’s who peeked may have thought that they were just been doing their patriotic duty for GW?
And, McAdam? The man whom Verizon paid over $18.0 million in 2007? And, who helped lobby for immunity for snooping?
He’s still got a job.
Friday, November 21, 2008
And, That's the Way It Is
There are only 40 State Senate districts in California—fewer than Congressional Districts, making them some of the largest districts in the nation. With 36 million or more Californians, each Senator represents about 900,000 folks.
By way of comparison, in Montana, a state of 955,000 souls, each of our 50 Senators represents just over 19,000 Montanans on average.
Each member of the Treasure State Senate wields the same power theoretically as his or her counterpart in the Golden State.
That’s a sobering thought.
By way of comparison, in Montana, a state of 955,000 souls, each of our 50 Senators represents just over 19,000 Montanans on average.
Each member of the Treasure State Senate wields the same power theoretically as his or her counterpart in the Golden State.
That’s a sobering thought.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Don't Fence Me In
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
Gosh, that sounds pretty open-ended to me. But, then again, real first Americans didn’t erect it. Immigrants did.
And, now, we, a nation of immigrants, are building a fence between the United States and Mexico. A long fence, 2,000 miles. A big one. An expensive one. [And, just think: It can be electrified for as little as $362.0 million!]
Instead of debating and agreeing upon an immigration policy and setting realistic immigration limits, we want a fence to keep outsiders where they are, out. Fiscal conservatives, who are most often social conservatives, support the thing. No matter what the cost.
You hear the damnest things on the street.
Those who don’t like to spend tax dollars also don’t want no foreigners comin’ into our country unless they’re white Europeans. You know, the ones who look like us. And, now don’t you be going too far into Eastern Europe, because that’s where a lot of, well, you know, Muslims live. But, boy, them Croats and Serbs can sure play ball.
Oh, where have we recently invaded a country, those fleeing the melee we have unleashed must be bad. Don’t let ‘em. Yah never know.
OK immigrants
1. Anyone who looks to be of white Anglo-Saxon stock, although in times past we have taken a dim of Catholics, Irish and Germans. Right now, they’re OK.
2. Those wanting to come to the US from the Asian Subcontinent and the Pacific Rim are usually OK. Evidently their religions, Hindus, Buddhists and Shinto, is of no concern - - - they’re just smarter than the dickens. Computer geeks and forensic pathologists. [Oh, yeah. There was that Pearl Harbor thing and our internment camps . . .]
3. Chinese, although we’re getting’ nervous. We have a big debt. These folks could become the heavies when Beijing calls in the loans.
Not OK immigrants
1. Everyone else.
After all, the 19 hijackers of Middle Eastern descent who flew the planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon entered country legally and look at what happened.
Anyone from the western hemisphere who resides south of El Paso, Brownsville, San Diego.
They’re coming in hoards to take our jobs.
All of these folks are human beings. You think we are suffering because of the current recession and ailing financial markets? Walk a mile in these human beings shoes if you dare.
They are desparate.
The majority are unskilled and the ones, who are skilled, should be screened sufficiently in the hiring process to detect them. But, no. Businesses prey on these workers, in far too many cases, knowing employing them at a fraction of what they would pay a gringo, if a gringo would be interested in the job. And, costly benefits? Schmenifits.
Any idea as to how much $4.00 (US) a day means in Honduras? Guatemala?
They clean swimming pools and tend to the yards for bloated executives bailing out of Lehman Brothers. They make up beds. They work in the sweltering heat picking our food and cleaning up after us. And, then they disappear, for the night, fearful their dream will snatched away.
And, here all along, I thought we didn’t like fences and walls. After all, the “communies” built the Berlin Wall and fenced off eastern Europe ostensibly to keep western Europe from invading. Ronald Reagan told Gorbachev to tear down the wall and the eastern Europeans (white in color, of course) did just that.
In a effort to save money on labor, we’ve given the world of the “good life” through free trade agreements. Until we send them more, they’re just aren’t enough to go around. And, so they come.
American workers, mostly white-collar, are seemingly caught in the midst of paradoxical thinking of the American business community. It argues that guest worker programs will keep jobs here and save jobs from being offshored. In reality, those programs are used to transfer knowledge and jobs overseas. The business community suggests, on the one hand, that outsourcing is good, and, then, on the other, uses the threat of outsourcing to effect immigration policy.
Seems like the faster we legally let them in, the faster we lose jobs to other countries.
What really is a tragedy is that we did not erect “fences” around ill-conceived free trade policies and treaties that resulted in the outsourcing and offshoring of hundreds of thousands of jobs that American workers actually wanted.
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
Gosh, that sounds pretty open-ended to me. But, then again, real first Americans didn’t erect it. Immigrants did.
And, now, we, a nation of immigrants, are building a fence between the United States and Mexico. A long fence, 2,000 miles. A big one. An expensive one. [And, just think: It can be electrified for as little as $362.0 million!]
Instead of debating and agreeing upon an immigration policy and setting realistic immigration limits, we want a fence to keep outsiders where they are, out. Fiscal conservatives, who are most often social conservatives, support the thing. No matter what the cost.
You hear the damnest things on the street.
Those who don’t like to spend tax dollars also don’t want no foreigners comin’ into our country unless they’re white Europeans. You know, the ones who look like us. And, now don’t you be going too far into Eastern Europe, because that’s where a lot of, well, you know, Muslims live. But, boy, them Croats and Serbs can sure play ball.
Oh, where have we recently invaded a country, those fleeing the melee we have unleashed must be bad. Don’t let ‘em. Yah never know.
OK immigrants
1. Anyone who looks to be of white Anglo-Saxon stock, although in times past we have taken a dim of Catholics, Irish and Germans. Right now, they’re OK.
2. Those wanting to come to the US from the Asian Subcontinent and the Pacific Rim are usually OK. Evidently their religions, Hindus, Buddhists and Shinto, is of no concern - - - they’re just smarter than the dickens. Computer geeks and forensic pathologists. [Oh, yeah. There was that Pearl Harbor thing and our internment camps . . .]
3. Chinese, although we’re getting’ nervous. We have a big debt. These folks could become the heavies when Beijing calls in the loans.
Not OK immigrants
1. Everyone else.
After all, the 19 hijackers of Middle Eastern descent who flew the planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon entered country legally and look at what happened.
Anyone from the western hemisphere who resides south of El Paso, Brownsville, San Diego.
They’re coming in hoards to take our jobs.
All of these folks are human beings. You think we are suffering because of the current recession and ailing financial markets? Walk a mile in these human beings shoes if you dare.
They are desparate.
The majority are unskilled and the ones, who are skilled, should be screened sufficiently in the hiring process to detect them. But, no. Businesses prey on these workers, in far too many cases, knowing employing them at a fraction of what they would pay a gringo, if a gringo would be interested in the job. And, costly benefits? Schmenifits.
Any idea as to how much $4.00 (US) a day means in Honduras? Guatemala?
They clean swimming pools and tend to the yards for bloated executives bailing out of Lehman Brothers. They make up beds. They work in the sweltering heat picking our food and cleaning up after us. And, then they disappear, for the night, fearful their dream will snatched away.
And, here all along, I thought we didn’t like fences and walls. After all, the “communies” built the Berlin Wall and fenced off eastern Europe ostensibly to keep western Europe from invading. Ronald Reagan told Gorbachev to tear down the wall and the eastern Europeans (white in color, of course) did just that.
In a effort to save money on labor, we’ve given the world of the “good life” through free trade agreements. Until we send them more, they’re just aren’t enough to go around. And, so they come.
American workers, mostly white-collar, are seemingly caught in the midst of paradoxical thinking of the American business community. It argues that guest worker programs will keep jobs here and save jobs from being offshored. In reality, those programs are used to transfer knowledge and jobs overseas. The business community suggests, on the one hand, that outsourcing is good, and, then, on the other, uses the threat of outsourcing to effect immigration policy.
Seems like the faster we legally let them in, the faster we lose jobs to other countries.
What really is a tragedy is that we did not erect “fences” around ill-conceived free trade policies and treaties that resulted in the outsourcing and offshoring of hundreds of thousands of jobs that American workers actually wanted.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Tuesday's Election: Win. Win.
With Max Baucus and Brian Schweitzer leading the way with blow-out wins, Democrats running in Montana for statewide offices did very well on Tuesday, capturing statewide office except its Congressional seat. That comes next.
Precisely why Democrats did not fare better in legislative races is a matter of great debate and hand-wringing.
On balance, that was really the only bad news. After all, Obama consistently polled within the statistical margin of error. Disappointing? Sure. But, Sarah is still governor of Alaska. That’s the best news coming out of Tuesday.
Elections elsewhere yielded more, although less visible, victories for Montana, although it will take time to translate into tangible "wins."
With a combination of wins and losses, there will be a dramatic shake-up in the seniority in the United States Senate, a place where seniority means everything. Because both Max and Jon are both D’s, Montana stands to win, a lot.
Under Senate rules, seniority means everything: the more seniority, the more power. But, being a member of the majority party is advantageous. Most significantly, senators are given preferential treatment for committee assignments based on seniority.
As of this writing, Max ranks 10th overall in seniority. Those ahead of our senior senator include Ted Kennedy, Ted Stevens, Joe Biden, and Pete Domenici. You’ve probably noticed: Their names have been in the news lately.
At worst, Max will move up two slots (Biden – elected VP; Domenici – retired). A Stevens loss, Max is 7th. [The Stevens-Begich race has not been called. If Stevens happens to win, depending on how the Senate deals with Ted’s felony conviction, Max could also move up.] Obviously, all Americans will watch Senator Kennedy’s recovery with great concern.
Jon Tester, moves up even more. OK. So, he was 100th after his 2006 win over Conrad and had no where to go but up. Right now, our junior senator ranks 98th.
These more senior senators have retired or have been defeated: John Warner; Larry Craig; Wayne Allard; Gordon Smith; Chuck Hagel; John Sununu; Liddy Dole. The farmer from Big Sandy moves up at least seven spots. #91.
Additionally, Barack Obama won an important election in his own right. Depending on the person appointed to fill this seat, the organic agriculturalist could move up another notch.
Norm Coleman’s race will be recounted. He currently stands at 77th overall. Lose and the former President of the Montana Senate moves up one spot.
It is likely that Saxby Chambliss (#71) will be forced into a run-off election in Georgia in December. Depending on the outcome of that race, Mr. Flat-top could move up one more place.
Best case: 88.
Couple this with names that have been rumored in conjunction with positions in the Obama administration and Jon Tester could rank in the mid-80’s.
Ok. So?
Max’s position as chair of the Senate Finance Committee benefits Montana immensely. In terms of seniority, he's just about maxed out. But, his committee can literally touch any legislation it chooses.
With Robert Byrd’s announced retirement as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, combined with a larger number of D’s who will serve on the committee because of a larger Senate majority, improves the chances of Tester winning a coveted seat.
Here again, Senators, who serve on the Committee and who leave to assume positions with the incoming administration, create even more opportunities. Members of the Committee who either retired or were defeated on Tuesday (or who may not return for other reasons) include: Stevens; Domenici; Craig; Allard.
During a campaign visit to Montana on Tester's behalf in 2006, Harry Reid sort of "promised" Montana that, if elected, Jon would serve on the Committee.
So far, that hasn't happened.
Be interesting to see how this plays out, after all Tester made campaign appearances on behalf of candidates in many of the states where D's picked up Senate seats.
Regardless, by turning back the McCain bunch and thanks to the electoral misfortunes and ineptitude of R's across the country, Montana won in ways it has not yet begun to appreciate.
Precisely why Democrats did not fare better in legislative races is a matter of great debate and hand-wringing.
On balance, that was really the only bad news. After all, Obama consistently polled within the statistical margin of error. Disappointing? Sure. But, Sarah is still governor of Alaska. That’s the best news coming out of Tuesday.
Elections elsewhere yielded more, although less visible, victories for Montana, although it will take time to translate into tangible "wins."
With a combination of wins and losses, there will be a dramatic shake-up in the seniority in the United States Senate, a place where seniority means everything. Because both Max and Jon are both D’s, Montana stands to win, a lot.
Under Senate rules, seniority means everything: the more seniority, the more power. But, being a member of the majority party is advantageous. Most significantly, senators are given preferential treatment for committee assignments based on seniority.
As of this writing, Max ranks 10th overall in seniority. Those ahead of our senior senator include Ted Kennedy, Ted Stevens, Joe Biden, and Pete Domenici. You’ve probably noticed: Their names have been in the news lately.
At worst, Max will move up two slots (Biden – elected VP; Domenici – retired). A Stevens loss, Max is 7th. [The Stevens-Begich race has not been called. If Stevens happens to win, depending on how the Senate deals with Ted’s felony conviction, Max could also move up.] Obviously, all Americans will watch Senator Kennedy’s recovery with great concern.
Jon Tester, moves up even more. OK. So, he was 100th after his 2006 win over Conrad and had no where to go but up. Right now, our junior senator ranks 98th.
These more senior senators have retired or have been defeated: John Warner; Larry Craig; Wayne Allard; Gordon Smith; Chuck Hagel; John Sununu; Liddy Dole. The farmer from Big Sandy moves up at least seven spots. #91.
Additionally, Barack Obama won an important election in his own right. Depending on the person appointed to fill this seat, the organic agriculturalist could move up another notch.
Norm Coleman’s race will be recounted. He currently stands at 77th overall. Lose and the former President of the Montana Senate moves up one spot.
It is likely that Saxby Chambliss (#71) will be forced into a run-off election in Georgia in December. Depending on the outcome of that race, Mr. Flat-top could move up one more place.
Best case: 88.
Couple this with names that have been rumored in conjunction with positions in the Obama administration and Jon Tester could rank in the mid-80’s.
Ok. So?
Max’s position as chair of the Senate Finance Committee benefits Montana immensely. In terms of seniority, he's just about maxed out. But, his committee can literally touch any legislation it chooses.
With Robert Byrd’s announced retirement as chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, combined with a larger number of D’s who will serve on the committee because of a larger Senate majority, improves the chances of Tester winning a coveted seat.
Here again, Senators, who serve on the Committee and who leave to assume positions with the incoming administration, create even more opportunities. Members of the Committee who either retired or were defeated on Tuesday (or who may not return for other reasons) include: Stevens; Domenici; Craig; Allard.
During a campaign visit to Montana on Tester's behalf in 2006, Harry Reid sort of "promised" Montana that, if elected, Jon would serve on the Committee.
So far, that hasn't happened.
Be interesting to see how this plays out, after all Tester made campaign appearances on behalf of candidates in many of the states where D's picked up Senate seats.
Regardless, by turning back the McCain bunch and thanks to the electoral misfortunes and ineptitude of R's across the country, Montana won in ways it has not yet begun to appreciate.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Out of Sight!
With all of the good news Montanans are expecting to come out of today’s election, there is one blemish. One that has avoided scrutiny for far too long because of a type of political Clearisil.
Montana is cursed by having only one seat in the United States House of Representatives. Mind you, one is bad enough. But when the incumbent is a low-life of the highest order, one is doubly bad.
Denny, the snarly, quarrelsome one.
Has he done anything to help working families and blue-collar Montanans? Reduce the number of American and Montanans without health insurance? Stop the senseless wars? Even conceded climate change?
Nope. Denny, you see, he has been pretty much in bed with the Bush crowd, a loyal spear-carrier, ready at any moment ready to spring to the defense of GW.
He and George assumed their respective offices at the same time, you know.
Regular cutie pies.
To be fair, Denny has crossed George two times within the past year.
After pontificating about the ‘socialized medicine’ nature of the Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP), he reversed course and voted to reauthorize it. But, that was only after being deluged by phone calls by thousands of Montanans.
And, he voted against the administration’s $700.0+ billion financial bailout several weeks ago. Heck, even his Democratic ‘opponent,’ John Driscoll, commended him and said he would vote for Denny because of that vote. One vote. Never mind the thousands of other lousy votes he has cast during his career.
You’ve had cover long enough, Denny.
Our lone Congressional seat is up for election all by itself only once every twelve years. The last time was in 1998. The next time is 2010.
Denny has never been one to shun the spotlight mind you. Why, he was front and center last summer during the House GOP dog-and-pony show energy escapade (Theme: We support drilling anywhere and promise it will bring gas prices down. Cross our hearts.), despite being present for a mere fraction of the forgettable proceeding.
But, he has managed to run for election initially and then re-election four times without our undivided attention.
Think about it.
In 2000, the marquee race was Burns – Schweitzer. To her everlasting credit, Nancy Keenan ran a hell of a race, but lost.
In 2002, it was Baucus – Taylor. [Name Denny’s Democratic opponent.]
In 2004, it was Schweitzer – Brown (Bob) for the open seat vacated by the ever-so-popular Judy Martz. [Name Denny’s Democratic opponent.]
In 2006, the Burns – Tester donny-brook. [Quick. Name Denny’s opponent.]
In 2008, you can double down: Baucus – Kelleher and Schweitzer Brown (Roy). While neither race is competitive, after winning the June primary, John Driscoll has waged a stand-on-some misguided perception that he can change–the-process-if-he-loses-badly-enough, lose-at-all-costs campaign. Besides we are preoccupied with the fear that Tim Fox could actually win the AG's race.
Enjoy it while you can, Denny. It’s about to end.
Chances are that even with a more viable opponent, he would have won this time anyway. [Although, it will be interesting to see what percentage of the vote Driscoll pulls.]
So, what will Denny have in the bank after this election? $500,000?
Plenty, I am sure. Enough to form the basis of a formidable war chest to cake walk though the 2010 election.
And, then 2012, what is it, Denny? Take on Jon Tester or to come back home and serve as Governor, the same office you so graciously refused to ascend to when Stan Stephens had a melt-down in 1992?
Yes, you did quite a job a Racicot’s lieutenant - - - behind the scenes: Magellan health care fiasco (that one faded away and out of the public’s consciousness, didn’t it?); electricity de-regulation; dismantling of tax laws and environmental regulation.
Oh, yeah, we remember what a prick you were during the 1980’s when you served in the Legislature and how you magically transformed into 'Mr. Mom' in the 2000 Congressional election.
You’ve flown under the radar long enough – we’ve heard nary a word from you. You and your awful record of 'service' deserve all of the publicity we can give it.
The chorus will be, "We'll make you spend it all, Denny!"
The only good news for the next two years? You and your failed caucus leadership will be buried by an even larger Democratic majority in the House.
Out of sight, but not out of mind.
Montana is cursed by having only one seat in the United States House of Representatives. Mind you, one is bad enough. But when the incumbent is a low-life of the highest order, one is doubly bad.
Denny, the snarly, quarrelsome one.
Has he done anything to help working families and blue-collar Montanans? Reduce the number of American and Montanans without health insurance? Stop the senseless wars? Even conceded climate change?
Nope. Denny, you see, he has been pretty much in bed with the Bush crowd, a loyal spear-carrier, ready at any moment ready to spring to the defense of GW.
He and George assumed their respective offices at the same time, you know.
Regular cutie pies.
To be fair, Denny has crossed George two times within the past year.
After pontificating about the ‘socialized medicine’ nature of the Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP), he reversed course and voted to reauthorize it. But, that was only after being deluged by phone calls by thousands of Montanans.
And, he voted against the administration’s $700.0+ billion financial bailout several weeks ago. Heck, even his Democratic ‘opponent,’ John Driscoll, commended him and said he would vote for Denny because of that vote. One vote. Never mind the thousands of other lousy votes he has cast during his career.
You’ve had cover long enough, Denny.
Our lone Congressional seat is up for election all by itself only once every twelve years. The last time was in 1998. The next time is 2010.
Denny has never been one to shun the spotlight mind you. Why, he was front and center last summer during the House GOP dog-and-pony show energy escapade (Theme: We support drilling anywhere and promise it will bring gas prices down. Cross our hearts.), despite being present for a mere fraction of the forgettable proceeding.
But, he has managed to run for election initially and then re-election four times without our undivided attention.
Think about it.
In 2000, the marquee race was Burns – Schweitzer. To her everlasting credit, Nancy Keenan ran a hell of a race, but lost.
In 2002, it was Baucus – Taylor. [Name Denny’s Democratic opponent.]
In 2004, it was Schweitzer – Brown (Bob) for the open seat vacated by the ever-so-popular Judy Martz. [Name Denny’s Democratic opponent.]
In 2006, the Burns – Tester donny-brook. [Quick. Name Denny’s opponent.]
In 2008, you can double down: Baucus – Kelleher and Schweitzer Brown (Roy). While neither race is competitive, after winning the June primary, John Driscoll has waged a stand-on-some misguided perception that he can change–the-process-if-he-loses-badly-enough, lose-at-all-costs campaign. Besides we are preoccupied with the fear that Tim Fox could actually win the AG's race.
Enjoy it while you can, Denny. It’s about to end.
Chances are that even with a more viable opponent, he would have won this time anyway. [Although, it will be interesting to see what percentage of the vote Driscoll pulls.]
So, what will Denny have in the bank after this election? $500,000?
Plenty, I am sure. Enough to form the basis of a formidable war chest to cake walk though the 2010 election.
And, then 2012, what is it, Denny? Take on Jon Tester or to come back home and serve as Governor, the same office you so graciously refused to ascend to when Stan Stephens had a melt-down in 1992?
Yes, you did quite a job a Racicot’s lieutenant - - - behind the scenes: Magellan health care fiasco (that one faded away and out of the public’s consciousness, didn’t it?); electricity de-regulation; dismantling of tax laws and environmental regulation.
Oh, yeah, we remember what a prick you were during the 1980’s when you served in the Legislature and how you magically transformed into 'Mr. Mom' in the 2000 Congressional election.
You’ve flown under the radar long enough – we’ve heard nary a word from you. You and your awful record of 'service' deserve all of the publicity we can give it.
The chorus will be, "We'll make you spend it all, Denny!"
The only good news for the next two years? You and your failed caucus leadership will be buried by an even larger Democratic majority in the House.
Out of sight, but not out of mind.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Trvial Pursuit
U.S. Election Will Cost $5.3 Billion, Center for Responsive Politics Predicts
Published by Communications on October 22, 2008 10:20 PM | Permalink
2008 contests for White House and Congress add up to the most expensive
U.S. election in history
WASHINGTON -- The 2008 election for president and Congress is not only one of the most closely watched U.S. elections in years; it's also the most expensive in history. The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics estimates that more than $5.3 billion will go toward financing the federal contests upcoming on Nov. 4.
The presidential race alone will cost nearly $2.4 billion, the Center predicts. Already the candidates alone have raised more than $1.5 billion since the election cycle's start in January 2007. This is the first time that candidates for the White House have raised and spent more than $1 billion, and this year's total is on track to nearly double candidate fundraising in 2004 and triple 2000.
Weeks before Election Day, the 2008 cycle has already surpassed $4.5 billion, $300 million more than the $4.2 billion that had been raised by the conclusion of the 2004 cycle. The overall estimated cost of the 2008 election would represent a 27 percent increase over the 2004 cycle. Looking at each party's growth, however, Democrats will have collected 52 percent more money for their congressional and presidential efforts by the end of this election cycle, compared to four years ago. Republican fundraising growth, however, has been a meager 2 percent since '04.
"This election will blow through historic records on a number of counts," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. "We've marveled for years at the cost of elections, especially during presidential cycles, but this one is the first to cross the $5 billion mark. At the same time, it's encouraging to see more Americans than ever participating and offsetting the traditional dominance of special interests and wealthy donors who might be expecting payback. The only payback the small donor is expecting is a victory on Election Day. And that's healthier for our democracy."
The Center, which operates the award-winning website OpenSecrets.org and has been tracking the money financing federal elections since the 1980s, based its prediction of the 2008 election's overall cost on fundraising reported to the Federal Election Commission as of Oct. 21 by all candidates for federal office, political party committees and federally focused 527 committees. This conservative estimate also includes independent expenditures on advertising and get-out-the-vote efforts by outside political action committees to support and oppose candidates, and it includes public funding for presidential candidates and estimated fundraising by the host committees of the major parties' summer nominating conventions.
Published by Communications on October 22, 2008 10:20 PM | Permalink
2008 contests for White House and Congress add up to the most expensive
U.S. election in history
WASHINGTON -- The 2008 election for president and Congress is not only one of the most closely watched U.S. elections in years; it's also the most expensive in history. The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics estimates that more than $5.3 billion will go toward financing the federal contests upcoming on Nov. 4.
The presidential race alone will cost nearly $2.4 billion, the Center predicts. Already the candidates alone have raised more than $1.5 billion since the election cycle's start in January 2007. This is the first time that candidates for the White House have raised and spent more than $1 billion, and this year's total is on track to nearly double candidate fundraising in 2004 and triple 2000.
Weeks before Election Day, the 2008 cycle has already surpassed $4.5 billion, $300 million more than the $4.2 billion that had been raised by the conclusion of the 2004 cycle. The overall estimated cost of the 2008 election would represent a 27 percent increase over the 2004 cycle. Looking at each party's growth, however, Democrats will have collected 52 percent more money for their congressional and presidential efforts by the end of this election cycle, compared to four years ago. Republican fundraising growth, however, has been a meager 2 percent since '04.
"This election will blow through historic records on a number of counts," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics. "We've marveled for years at the cost of elections, especially during presidential cycles, but this one is the first to cross the $5 billion mark. At the same time, it's encouraging to see more Americans than ever participating and offsetting the traditional dominance of special interests and wealthy donors who might be expecting payback. The only payback the small donor is expecting is a victory on Election Day. And that's healthier for our democracy."
The Center, which operates the award-winning website OpenSecrets.org and has been tracking the money financing federal elections since the 1980s, based its prediction of the 2008 election's overall cost on fundraising reported to the Federal Election Commission as of Oct. 21 by all candidates for federal office, political party committees and federally focused 527 committees. This conservative estimate also includes independent expenditures on advertising and get-out-the-vote efforts by outside political action committees to support and oppose candidates, and it includes public funding for presidential candidates and estimated fundraising by the host committees of the major parties' summer nominating conventions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)